Able D ete mate wen copie, Fes 
ms hiimehtennee 
kate oal 


aerensiensacn ne ‘ tsi } 

a3 = SONY meas dion « é 3 
ere onan me ele Bates «R-non grgae pat 

‘eta he = | 7 

inmioanieeae ft 

mcieratnary tan ss 


Mees tea 7 
VN 
1 fe. 


nal ad ek 2 
: ss “yr tae GAe 
hate Wert} pe eg 


nae 
ae pom 


maven pictewengsctenges str 
nahin dim tet - z 
me 











tu RAN 
od a NUIDACT A DOM 


; Cie Ava 
Vy 





4 


t 
yi 
f 


qe 


-— 


SEE Oe 


OU Arte 
is eh 
spines (3 








1 

q 
~ 

; 

} 

) 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2022 with funding from 
Princeton Theological Seminary Library 


httos://archive.org/details/newstandardbibleOOjaco_0 





A NEW STANDARD 
BIBLE DICTIONARY 


» 


= 





A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


DESIGNED AS A COMPREHENSIVE HELP TO THE STUDY OF THE 
SCRIPTURES, THEIR LANGUAGES, LITERARY PROBLEMS, 
HISTORY, BIOGRAPHY, MANNERS AND CUSTOMS, 






AND THEIR RELIGIOUS TEACHINGS Ko OF HINGED 
NOV20 Ree 
%, 
EDITED BY SOL 0gIGAL eS 


MELANCTHON W. JACOBUS, D.D. 


DEAN, AND HOSMER PROFESSOR OF THE NEW TESTAMENT EXEGESIS AND CRITICISM, IN HARTFORD 
THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


EDWARD E. NOURSE, D.D. 


PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY, AND INSTRUCTOR IN NEW TESTAMENT CANONICITY AND 
TEXTUAL CRITICISM, IN HARTFORD THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 


AND 


ANDREW C. ZENOS, D.D. 


DEAN, AND PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. IN McCORMICK THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, CHICAGO 


IN ASSOCIATION WITH AMERICAN, BRITISH, 
AND GERMAN SCHOLARS 


COMPLETELY REVISED AND ENLARGED 


EMBELLISHED WITH MANY ILLUSTRATIONS, PLANS, AND MAPS 





FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY 
NEW YORK AND LONDON 
1926 


CopyricutT, 1925, By 
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY 


All rights of translation reserved 


[Printed in the United States of America] 
Published November, 1925 


KEY TO INITIALS OF CONTRIBUTORS | 


The initials to which an * is affixed are those of contributors to the First Edition who have died, but 
whose articles have been retained in part, tho revised and brought up to date by the contributor whose 
initials follow those of the original writer. 


Psa tet «3.» 


eeeee 





Alexander Converse Purdy, Ph.D., 
Professor of Practical Theology, 
Hartford Theological Seminary, Hart- 
ford, Conn. 


.... Andrew C. Zenos, M.A., D.D., LL.D., 


Dean and Professor of Biblical The- 
ology in McCormick Theological 
Seminary, Chicago, Il. 


Alfred E. Garvie, M.A., D.D., 
Principal, Hackney and New College 
(Divinity School, University of Lon- 
don), Hampstead, England. 


Arthur L. Gillett, D.D., 
Professor of Philosophy of Religion, 
Hartford Theological Seminary, Hart- 
ford, Conn. , 

Alexander Souter, D. Litt., D.D., 
Regius Professor of Humanity, Uni- 
versity of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scot- 
land. 


Augustus Stiles Carrier, D.D., 

Late Professor of Hebrew and Cog- 
nate Languages, McCormick Theo- 
logical Seminary, Chicago, Ill. 
Arthur Samuel Peake, M.A., D.D., 
Rylands Professor of Biblical Exe- 
gesis, Victoria University, Manches- 
ter, and Tutor in Hartley Primitive 
Methodist College, Manchester, Eng. 


Archibald Thomas Robertson, M.A., 
Pie DD: LL... 

Professor of New Testament Inter- 
pretation, Southern Baptist Theo- 
logical Seminary, Louisville, Ky. 
Charles Harold Dodd, M.A., 
Professor of New Testament and 
Greek Exegesis, Mansfield College, 
Oxford, England. 


.C. H. Hawes, A.M., 


Assistant Director of Museum of 
Fine Arts, Boston, Mass. 


.. Charles Snow Thayer, Ph.D., 


Librarian of Hartford Theological 
Seminary, Hartford, Conn. 


Duncan B. Macdonald, M.A., D.D., 
Professor of Semitic Languages, Hart- 
ford Theological Seminary, Hartford, 
Conn. 


.Elbert Clarence Lane, B.D., D.D., 


Associate Professor of Hebrew and 
Greek, and Instructor in Old Testa- 
ment, Hartford Theological Semi- 
nary, Hartford, Conn. 


see eee 


E. von D..... 


Go Gewese 


GaAliiP st. 


H. A. A. K... 


Cove eoe 


Edward E. Nourse, S.T.B., D.D., 
Professor of Biblical Theology in 
Hartford Theological Seminary, Hart- 
ford, Conn. 


Edwin Knox Mitchell, D.D., 
Professor of Greco-Roman and East- 
ern Church History, Hartford Theo- 
logical Seminary, Hartford, Conn. 


Ernst von Dobschiitz, D. Theol., 
Professor of New Testament Exegesis, 
University of Halle, Germany. 


George B. Gray, M.A., Hon. D.D., 
Late Professor of Hebrew and Old 
Testament Exegesis, Mansfield Col- 
lege, Oxford, England. 


George E. Post, M.D., F.L.S., 
Late Professor in the Syrian Protes- 
tant College, Beirut, Syria. 


George L. Robinson, Ph.D., D.D., 
Professor of Old Testament Litera- 
ture and Exegesis, McCormick Theo- 
logical Seminary, Chicago, IIl. 


.. George Milligan, D.D., 


Regius Professor of Divinity and 
Biblical Criticism, Glasgow Univer- 
sity, Glasgow, Scotland. 


George Simpson Duncan, 

Professor of Biblical Criticism, St. 
Mary’s College, University of St 
Andrews. Scotland. 


Harry Angus Alexander Kennedy, 
D. Sc., D.D., 

Professor of New Testament Lan- 
guage, Literature, and Theology, 
New College, Edmburgh, Scotland. 


Hermann Guthe, D.D., 
Professor of Theology, University of 
Leipzig, Germany. 

Henry G. Dorman, M.D., 
Professor of Gynecology, and Dean 
of the Medical Department, The 
American University, Beirut, Syria. 


.... Hugh Ross Mackintosh, M.A., D.Phil., 


D.D., 
Professor of Systematic Theology, 
New College, Edinburgh, Scotiand. 


Ira Maurice Price,”"Ph.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Semitic Languages and 
Literature, University of Chicago, 
Chicago, III. 


KEY TO INITIALS OF CONTRIBUTORS 





LP sake Coe ees ieee Oe iu tine bee" Se eee ea 


Te Beis cee James A. Kelso, Ph.D., D.D., 
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testa- 
ment Literature, Western Theolo- 
gical Seminary, Allegheny, Pa. 

J. D.*....... James Denney, D.D., 

Late Professor of New ‘Testament 
Language, Literature, and Theology, 
United Free Church College, Glas- 
gow, Scotland. 

ARE ORN GB John Edgar McFadyen, M.A., D.D., 
Professor of Old Testament Lan- 
guage, Literature, and Theology, 
United Free Church College, Glasgow, 
Scotland. - 

J. F. McC. .. James F. McCurdy, Ph.D., LL.D., 
Professor of Oriental Literature, 
University College, Toronto, Canada. 


J. H. R...... James Hardy Ropes, A.B., D.D., 
Bussey Professor of New Testament 
Criticism and Interpretation, and 
Dexter Lecturer on Biblical Litera- 
ture, Harvard University, Cam- 
bridge, Mass. 

J. M........James Moffatt, D.D., D.Litt. Hon. 
M.A. (Oxford), 
Professor of Church History, United 
Free Church College, Glasgow, Scot. 


J. M. P.S...J. M. Powis Smith, Ph.D., 
Professor of Semitic Languages and 
Literatures, University of Chicago, 
Chicago, Ill. 

1 Ci es ats John Moore Trout, Ph.D., 
Pastor of the Central Congregational 
Church, Chelsea, Mass. 


J. R. S. S.*.. John R. S. Sterrett, Ph.D., LL.D., 
Late Professor of Greek, Cornell 
University, Ithaca, N. Y. 


Peo oukhs. das 3's James Stevenson Riggs, D.D., 
Taylor, Seymour, and Ivison Pro- 
fessor of Biblical Criticism, Auburn 
Theological Seminary, Auburn, N. Y. 


J. V. B......J. Vernon Bartlet, M.A., D.D., 
Professor of Church History, Mans- 
field College, Oxford, England. 


bol Bet ear Kirsopp Lake, M.A., 
Winn Professor of Ecclesiastical His- 
tory, Harvard University, Cambridge, 
Mass. 

L. Bebe Lewis Bayles Paton, Ph.D., D.D., 
Nettleton Professor of Old Testament 
Exegesis and Criticism, Instructor in 
Assyrian and Cognate Languages, 
Hartford Theological Seminary, Hart- 
ford, Conn. 

GLa Ver Lewis Gaston Leary, Ph.D., 
Pastor of Huguenot Memorial Church, 
Pelham Manor, New York. 

M. W. J.....Melancthon W. Jacobus, D.D., 
Dean, and Professor of New Testa- 
ment Literature and Criticism, Hart- 
ford Theological Seminary, Hartford, 
Conn, 


SeAy ees ts 


Ses vis 


Ovid R. Sellers, Ph.D., 
Professor of Hebrew and Old Testa- 
ment Exegesis, McCormick Theolo- 
gical Seminary, Chicago, III. 


Sir Robert A. Falconer, D.D., 
Principal of Toronto University, To- 
ronto, Canada. 


Robert Henry Pfeiffer, S.T.M., Ph.D., 
Assistant Professor of Biblical .and 
Cognate Languages, Boston Uni- 
versity School of Theology, Boston, 
Mass. 


...Robert William Rogers, Ph.D., D.D., 


Litt.D., LL.D., 

Professor of Hebrew and Old Testa- 
ment Exegesis, Drew Theological 
Seminary, Madison, N. J. 


.Samuel Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., 


Professor of New Testament and His- 
torical Theology, St. Andrew’s Col- 
lege, Sydney, New South Wales. 


.Samuel Dickey, M.A., 


Sometime Professor of New Testa- 
ment Literature and Exegesis, Mc- 
Cormick Theological Seminary, Chi- 
cago, Ill. 

Shailer Mathews, D.D., 

Professor of Systematic Theology, 
and Dean of the Divinity School, 
University of Chicago, Chicago, Ill. 


S. R. D.*....Samuel R. Driver, D.D., Hon. D.Litt., 


Wie Se sera 


Late Regius Professor of Hebrew, and 
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 
England. 


...Wm. D. Mackenzie, D.D., LL.D., 


President of Hartford Seminary 
Foundation, and Riley Professor of 
Christian Theology, Hartford Theo- 
logical Seminary, Hartford, Conn. 
W. G. Jordan, D. D., 

Professor of Hebrew and Old Testa- 


ment Exegesis, Queen’s University, 
Kingston, Canada. 


.. William H. Worrell, Ph.D., 


Associate Professor of Semitics, Col- 
lege of Literature, Science and the 
Arts, University of Michigan, Ann 
Arbor, Mich. 


.. Wilhelm Nowack, Ph.D., 


Professor of Old Testament Exegesis 
in the Theological Faculty, Univers- 
ity of Leipzig, Germany. 


Wm. Sanday, D.D., LL.D,, D.Sc., 
Late Lady Margaret Professor of 
Divinity, and Canon of Christ 
Church, Oxford, England. 

Waldo S. Pratt, Mus.D., 

Professor of Ecclesiastical Music and 


Hymnology, Hartford Theological 
Seminary, Hartford, Conn. 


PREFACE 


N 1909 there was published by the Funk & Waanatits Company ‘A Standard 
Bible Dictionary,” under the same editorship as controls the present book. The purpose 
of that publication was that students of the Bible might have in readily usable form 
an adequate presentation of the facts regarding the contents of the Bible, based on 
thorough scholarship and also animated with loyalty to the essential truth of the Gospel. 
The success of that venture was both immediate and continued. And as the time 
drew near when the edition was about exhausted, the question arose, not as to the need 
of a second edition—since that was obvious, but as to its character and contents. 

It was, of course, evident that in the years which had passed since the first printing, 
the advance in the criticism and the knowledge of the Bible had been such as to demand 
a revision of the original articles which would bring them abreast of present scholarship. 
It was also believed that the addition of several general articles on selected subjects 
would add to the completeness of the Dictionary’s service to those Bible students whose 
interests were its chief concern. 

It was consequently decided that the entire work should be reset, thus giving to 
the revisers of the original articles as well as to the writers of new articles such freedom 
as would insure the best results. 

With a practically new book thus assured, a group of scholars were invited to revise, 
or rewrite if that seemed preferable, those articles whose authors had died in the inter- 
vening period, or found it impossible to undertake the revision of their own work. The 
preparation of the new articles was in each case entrusted to scholars who, in the judg- 
ment of the Editors, were eminently fitted for the service they were asked to render. 

Naturally, wherever it was possible, the revision of articles that were to be retained 
was entrusted to the original authors, altho cases were not infrequent where there 
was collaboration. 

The general result of these readjustments has been that the staff of contributors 
to the Second Edition is materially larger than was that of its predecessor. 

The problem confronting the Editors in this New Edition of the Dictionary is the 
same as that with which they were faced when they undertook the preparation of the 
Original Work. To solve it there must be an understanding of the material with which 
the Dictionary has to deal, an appreciation of the constituency to which it is to minister, 
and an intelligent comprehension of the critical position to which its purpose commits it. 

The material with which an English Bible Dictionary has to deal is, necessarily, 
the contents of the English Bible. The English Bible, however, is simply a version, and 
behind its English terminology are the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek originals. As a 
consequence, the Dictionary, while it reproduces the words and phrases of the English 
Bible in its titles, must treat them primarily with reference to the Hebrew, Aramaic, 
or Greek terms which underlie them. In brief, its task must include the explication of 
a terminology drawn in the first place from the English Bible, but not from the point of 
view of English philology or etymology, but from the point of view of the underlying 
terminology of the originals. 

The constituency had in view in such a Dictionary is much wider than the class 
of scholars who are continually engaged in Bible study, are familiar with Hebrew and 
Greek, and have a first-hand acquaintance with the field of modern Biblical research. 
It is made up of the educated ministry, who, while possessed of Biblical scholarship, 

| Vii 


vill PREFACE 
alts lhe SMa a UM Nol es As Sea 11K ea nr tr REE BINT a bd ah er oe cae de 


have not always the leisure to enter into a discursive presentation of critical research; 
besides this, it includes the Sunday-school teachers and workers, who in most cases 
have not had the benefit of a scholarly education in Bible study and yet desire and 
appreciate all that Biblical scholarship can give them of its results; and, finally, it includes 
the intelligent laymen interested in Bible study, but not acquainted with Hebrew, or 
in many cases with Greek. For this widely extended circle of interested Bible students 
the Dictionary, to be of service, must avoid being too scholastic in its general character. 
It must be accurate in its presentation of facts, but not so technical as not to be easily 
understood; it should be up to date in its information, but not so discursive as to burden 
its pages with the pendantry of undigested facts. What it gives should be given in such 
a form as not to repel the busy man and woman of to-day, but to help them in their — 
understanding of the Bible, which they wish to read intelligently and to study with a 
view to the best results for themselves and others. 

The critical position to which such a Dictionary is necessarily committed must be 
one of acceptance of the proved facts of modern scholarship, of open-mindedness toward 
its still-debated problems, and of conservation of the fundamental truths of the Chris- 
tianity proclaimed and established in the message and mission of Jesus Christ. The 
constituency to which the Dictionary appeals is not to be helped by an apologetic method 
that ignores what a reverent critical scholarship has brought to light regarding the Book 
of the Christian religion; nor is it to be served by a radical spirit so enamored of novelty 
and opposed to tradition that it would seek to establish a new religion on the ruins of 
the historical facts of Christianity. It can be ministered to only by a clear, charitable, 
uncontroversial presentation of the results which a century and a half of earnest, con- 
scientious, painstaking, self-denying study of the Bible has secured, to the end that all 
students and readers of the Book may be led into its more intelligent understanding 
and its more spiritual use. 

The problem remaining the same, the Editors found themselves guided in the prepa- 
ration of the present work essentially by the same principles as before. 

(1) The text of the American Standard Edition of the Revised Bible has been made 
the standard English text of the Biblical citations and references. At the same time, it is 
evident that, the Dictionary being intended for English readers in general, this text could 
not be adhered to exclusive of any reference to that of the English Revision which 
occupies in British countries relatively the same position as that held by the American 
Revision in this country; much less could there be an ignoring of the Authorized Version 
of 1611, which in all English-speaking countries still maintains, and is certain to continue 
to maintain for some time to come, a position of great respect and considerable use. In 
fact, in so far as the Dictionary concerns the English Bible as a version of its original 
languages, it must, while adopting a standard English text, have constant reference to 
such varieties of interpretation as the English versions actually in use present. 

(2) The Concordance to the English Bible has been made the basis of the list of titles. 
At this point the Editors were confronted with a serious difficulty; for there is as yet no 
adequate concordance to the American Revised text. The nearest approach to any such 
work is the elaborate Concordance of James Strong, 8.T.D., LL.D., which indicates the 
passages in the Authorized Version where changes were made in the Revision of 1881, 
and which shows these changes in a comparative table, but contains no concordance of 
them. The recent concordance to the American Revised Version, by Dr. M. C. Hazard 
(Nelson, 1922), is not arranged according to the Hebrew and Greek originals and therefore, 
while actually serviceable to a degree, was of less value than was hoped for in the work 
of checking up the references in the Dictionary. While every effort has been made to 


PREFACE ix 





make the list of terms complete and to verify all references, it is more than likely that 
some terms in the American Revision have been inadvertently omitted. Apart from this, 
however, it is obvious that this basal relation of the concordance to the list of titles 
does not mean that all the words in the concordance have been given a place in the list 
of titles. The purpose of the Dictionary is not to record the contents of the Bible, but 
to give such information regarding them as may be of service to Bible readers and students. 
Furthermore, it is clear that not all the contents of the Bible which call for such treatment 
belong legitimately to a Bible Dictionary; for, again, the purpose of such a Dictionary is 
not to do the work of an English lexicon or grammar. There are not a few obsolete 
English words and phrases—especially in the Authorized Version—which are subjects 
of interesting study in our own language, but are without significance as regards the 
original text of the Bible. These can safely be omitted, and both the space and the 
dignity of the Dictionary be conserved. Still further, there are words and phrases which 
so obviously have little or no significance in the study of the Bible, that there would be 
no real service rendered the student or the reader in considering them. The Dictionary 
is not intended to do the work of the general English commentary any more than of the 
general English lexicon. With these exceptions, however, the effort has been to include 
in the list of titles every term in the American Revision. 

(a) This being the working list, it will be found as a matter of fact that its larger part 
consists of names of persons and places. These resolve themselves into two classes, the 
more important and the less important. As to the latter class, it has been impossible in 
many cases to do more than record the Bible statements, there being nothing known 
beyond them. But even in doing this the endeavor has been to place these statements in 
the critical connections to which they belong, the purpose of the Dictionary being not 
simply to gather Bible references, but to present results of scholarship wherever they 
have been secured. As to the former class, the endeavor has been to treat them not only 
in regard to the facts of the Bible record, but also and more especially in regard to the 
relation which they sustain to the progress of the history and the development of the 
religion contained in and connected with the Bible. This, the Editors believe, will be 
conspicuously evident in the most important articles in this class—such as those on 
Assyria, Babylonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Palestine on the one hand, and those on 
Moses, David, Elijah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist, James, Peter, John, and Paul on the 
other. It will be found at its best in what has been written of the One Supreme Person- 
ality in all religion. 

(hb) Closely connected with these person and place articles and necessitated by the 
historical method employed in their treatment will be found a class of articles presenting 
in larger compass the general subjects of the History of Israel, The Religion of Israel, 
Israel’s Social Development, Semitic Religion, Greek and Roman Religions, Ethnography 
and Ethnology, and the results of Excavation and Exploration, with a specific discussion 
of the politico-religious parties of the New Testament times, and the Religious Thought 
and Life and Institutions of the Jewish People. 

(c) Conversely, in the direction of the details of the people’s civic and domestic life, 
the reader of the Dictionary will find articles on such subjects as Crimes and Punishments, 
Law and Legal Practise, Family and Family Law, Marriage and Divorce, Money, Trade 
and Commerce, Agriculture, Artizan Life, Disease and Medicine, Dress and Ornaments, 
Burial and Mourning Customs. 

(d) It is impossible, however, in any study of the Bible to dissociate the history 
and life of the people from the literature in which the history has been recorded and the 
life has found expression. Necessarily, therefore, the plan of the Dictionary has included 


x PREFACE 





a discussion of the origin, composition, and characteristics of the Bible writings, together 
with those of the Apocrypha and of the more important writings in the apocalpytic 
literature. In the treatment of these writings the Editors have been influenced by a 
consideration of the readers for whom the Dictionary is intended, and have sought, 
consequently, not so much to enter into the details of the critical problems involved as 
rather, along with a plain statement of the critical facts which scholarly investigation 
has brought to light, to unfold the significance of the writings in their connection with 
the history which they record and the teachings which they present. This will account 
for the space devoted to the analysis of the contents of the respective books and for the 
treatment in many of them of their theological position. With a treatment of the Biblical 
books naturally is connected a treatment of the languages in which they were written, 
of the text in which they have been preserved, and of their collection into the canons 
of the Old and New Testaments. 

(ec) From such a treatment of the Biblical literature it follows that there must be. 
some specific presentation of the religious teachings of the Bible as a whole. The plan 
of the Dictionary confessedly did not permit it to enter the field of systematic theology; 
but equally, it did not admit of its ignoring the Biblical basis on which this science is 
founded—the point in fact at which the Bible is perhaps most profoundly searched and 
studied. The Editors, consequently determined upon including articles which presented 
the teachings of the Scriptures on such fundamental doctrines as Faith, Repentance, 
Atonement, Sin, Forgiveness, Grace, such presupposed doctrinal facts as God, such 
doctrinal inferences as Predestination, and such general fields of doctrinal thought as 
Eschatology. The specific religious teaching characteristic of the individual books and 
of the leading personalities of the Bible has also been given as thorough a treatment as 
the space of the Dictionary permitted. 

In all these varied directions it has been the endeavor of the Editors to maintain, 
the purpose of the Dictionary to present to the readers and students of the Bible the 
results of a reverent scholarship, committed to the accepted facts of criticism, open- 
minded to its unsettled problems, and thoroughly loyal to the basal truths of an evan- 
gelical Christianity. 

While this Second Edition has thus preserved, in the problem presented to it and in 
the principles followed in the solution of the same, the position taken in the original work, 
nevertheless it will be found by those who use it to be a book different in many important 
respects from its predecessor. 

(1) Naturally, mention should be made first of the revision of the original articles 
referred to above. Since the publication of the First Edition progress in the reverent 
study of the Bible has continued steadily and searchingly, with the consequent modifying 
or confirming of the earlier views as new facts have been brought to light. It is this 
progress of scholarship that has been the first concern in the revising of the articles of 
the First Edition in order that the readers of this Edition may be served to-day, as they 
were by the former book, with the facts of the Bible as now understood. This revision 
has in some cases meant the complete rewriting of articles, particularly where the revision 
was entrusted to some one other than the original contributor. Different views often 
obtain with different writers, and the fullest freedom consistent with adequate scholar- 
ship has been granted to the revisers as was granted to the original writers. However, 
where new writers have been asked to revise the work of others, they have been selected 
because of their sympathy with the general position of the original authors. 

It has also been the constant aim, in the present work, to restrict the contents 
of the revised articles more narrowly to their connection with the Bible. For example, 


PREFACE xi 





since the World War the Near East has undergone a great transformation, but with all 
this the Bible has nothing to do; and historical or geographical articles in a Bible Diction- 
ary cannot be expected to deal with modern history or geography. This restriction has 
resulted in the elimination of some material which was, relatively at least, extraneous 
to the treatment of the subjects as primarily Biblical. 

Furthermore, it has been thought wise to omit many references to theories or views 
so old, or discussions so long outworn, as to be of no service or interest to students 
of to-day. From the bibliographies attached to articles many old titles have been omitted 
to give place for attention to be called to the more recent literature. It is certain that this 
emphasis upon present-day thinking will add freshness to the Dictionary and materially 
increase its value to those who go to it in their Bible study. 

This revision has been in every way a thorough one. It has covered every title, even 
the smallest, and in such a way as to make the book practically a new work. It has, of 
course, been possible to use without change considerable material in the First Edition, 
especially the registering of the occurrence and Biblical usage of proper names and 
technical terms. It was found also that there was little call for change in the treatment 
of many titles, which, though the subject of more or less discussion during these last 
fifteen years, were dealt with so thoroughly in the original work as to need only slight 
alteration in order to bring them up to date. 

(2) Mention has been made already of the fact that the present book contains a 
number of new articles on important subjects which, it is believed, greatly enhances its 
value as a Bible Dictionary. Of these new articles special attention may be called to 
_ the two that are placed at the threshold of the Dictionary on The Approach to the 
Bible, by the two distinguished scholars whose initials are attached. Itis felt that a careful 
reading of these two articles will serve to clear away much of the unfortunate misunder- 
standing of the Bible that is so wide-spread and interferes so greatly with the true 
appreciation of its nature and how to study it. The article on Excavation and Explor- 
ation gives the reader a clear and concise view of what archeological researck is and what 
it has accomplished toward a better understanding of the Bible. The articles on the 
History of Israel, the Religion of Israel, and the Social Development of Israel form 
together an almost complete account of the life of God’s ancient people. The new articles 
on the Gospels and on the Synoptic Problem serve very materially to complete the 
Dictionary’s presentation of New Testament subjects and problems. 

The enlargement of the Dictionary’s scope through these and other added articles 
is obvious; we believe the competency of the scholarship which has produced them will 
be as evident. 

It will be perhaps not too much to say that the Editors have discovered in their 
experience with the re-editing of such a publication as a Dictionary of the Bible that 
the second task was even more difficult than the first. 

In their original effort the very newness of the undertaking gave them an enthusiasm 
that was born of the adventure upon which they were entering. But, in spite of such 
success as may have attended their work, the criticisms it invited, the mistakes it 
involved, the consciousness it brought to them of unattained ideals, made them realize 
that when again they set their hands to the task, they must make good where they had 
fallen short and, at least, give evidence of what experience and maturing conviction 
had enabled them to accomplish in the direction of a better book. 

They are under no illusion as to the perfection even of this second effort; but they 
believe that if unremitting labor and unceasing care can add anything to experience and 
thought, they have made appreciable progress toward their ideal. 


xi PREFACE 





It is difficult to measure the help to the editorial work which has come from the 
sympathetic interest of the contributors to the undertaking. The Editors desire that their 
appreciation of the assistance which has thus been rendered them shall not be underesti- 
mated. They would alsc acknowledge the courtesy of the PALESTINE EXPLORATION 
Funp and the Eayptian ExpLoraTIoN Funp and of the Harvarp UNIvERsiTy Press 
in permitting the use of cuts which have appeared in their publications. 

The Editors renew their obligations to the friends named in the Preface to the First 
Edition, two of whom, Professors StERRET and ANANIKIAN, have passed to their reward. 
The assistance of Dr. THAYER and his associates of the Case Mrmortiau Lisprary has 
been as kindly and unsparing in forwarding the work on this Edition as it was with its 
predecessor. Of others whose aid in one way or another has been greatly appreciated; 
mention should be made of Rev. Joun RAMAKER, for assisting in working out certain 
details in the initial stages of the work, of Mrs. WiLLARp Jounson for her careful at- 
tention to records and statistics, of Prof. Etpert C. Lanes, of the Hartford Theo- 
logical Seminary, for his invaluable aid in the matter of the pointing, accentuation and 
transliteration of the Hebrew and Greek terms, of Miss HELEN Nourss for her transcrip- 
tion of certain maps and plans and of Mr. JosrerH Saron, of the New York office, for 
his painstaking work in proof-correction. The kindly interest and sympathetic coopera- 
tion in the whole undertaking on the part of Dr. Franx H. VizeTetity, Managing 
Editor of the “New Standard Dictionary of the English Language,” is most gratefully 
acknowledged by the Editors. 


M. W. Jacosus 
EK. E. Nourse 
A. C. ZENos 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


N. B.—In the following list subjects likely to be sought for under various headings are repeated under 
each heading. Cross-references in this list are to other items in the list, not to articles in the Dic- 



































tionary. 
PAGE 
RMN TT IE ETI VOUT GS 101-05 SMe ete ana ae tan td OR a LIND oe Weld Weed wield hess alattl wien oY male be facing 28 
RBCS LENT ALIN ESTO ZO COMO! ui eee rr oe Nels, «Yet he Ae es evade lacie GPewebatac ashlsotacie oo 0 ole w ble o's lttbbalececns 590 
SE PECTIC ALOR GA CAOLC, SLALOM Le etn ae teeth cle yale, UAE uses kd slice dha bk dee ids sie one ct cee one wads 590 
Papuanots, mpecunens of Karly Hebrew and Aramaic... ij.0. 6 see soe ee leew speeccvcccesucvbeta 39 
tere SiH LE VO) LJOIMCNS) IDE EASLEY AICSUING o:5 v6 bal evs piss alice sp 43 s sles dlacidelea edie css sdecen@ae 41 
Perret elnnie OF, diy) NeDES, Crraund-Puan OF CHEE Oe. igre! bers cacy Sed atl s olvlareiglartisleic’s se asdaueced 892 
Seer eE PIRES LESSON LTTT CO TTS POR a ee ic Pee bic bas fe W's ohare Ala ae a FL MWe wie ws ake Ldeeels 191 
DIMES MIN plcsl ANGmepro ved WOLDS) 2 sie as sic wdik ee oie ph iaetole bo Ce duh eth icles civise sees 505 
Cass SLT UA eRe So a URE Aas RRO Por cetaeet cade en Ra nci polle Se  RA 505 
SRE NSET tee ME, hd Oe nem Dg) ONS gM eee NS sch Shed Lv id fidelia ARIS Sel in.'o 00d lo: Wage eopl EWER bias Hin sue 805 
EGE LOLV A) ATI ANIGUES oe er aac ees wy thas he aot g tall Ae CUE alork Sua.e ug HD ice oe! Uiie.s 6 814-815 
I EITIUEICM NY OP HG BINS ISOLRCUC | nn Vegi. Nance as Goes ela he sie toes oH be Micatopes os ole COMMS cele so 4 facing 817 
EE UAT ee NUR UL ey oo LARS or i ee RIPE ie thay eet a pe a Gt sla ad eee Waiheke else ose « 192 
Sea PEC TICS ART CCL SERIE ELULAT 8 pei oy a atile oc odld f Stsk oS eihiees ed db) oats oe: dite dia! « Oe aka ne ehew/a sini @iece bt 48 
EITM UES DCCILOCTISLON otic. eh crete ov oe «ole 6 Woo. ite Uakd ie ee A wai ol » "0 6) Seek oa a BHATIA iv oa Aloleie pti 39 
INE TIME REL ETE OTR NRE gL eye fie ct) pees he 5 cdg Ve are Teg RR ko SS Sine 6 ooh Mlle hele wekeida & thy. s 940 
erent SEC AGRICULTURAL LMPIAGMENTS:\. «6 so co cb ctvir obit disle cease sjnceceeedaatanieed facing 28 
(PTET Wed) TAR aa RS ST hi a eC oR ar facing 798 
cok oe PERRI Bt SA ial 2A A tA eA PR Aine ee RR PA og facing 68 
SRE LICE SOC LITTER De Sk ey te valet 1 aot oe Neo eed te re eh he be dre ea Ae ree ce hole aie lena’ 12 
ee cay RINSE VOC myManta Ree a, Tatas nie ame ee en yk cic lahk p's oa o's Give tegaes ose, She bo Aa eter slovels » 71 
Asse back-sagadie for: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL, 34 25.6.--¢scccucscclasiopecssvecsivoaes facing 798 
Pero emI Lary cAnGard, with thor lmage Of the GOd. 02 }a sss. ssa c ees sbceveuwnlecntaaceeaderbenns 93 
Asshurbanipal and Sennacherib, Map of Nineveh, as Rebuilt by............... cece cece eee eeeees 622 
BEsuiTonroal a relace, Archers in: Battle Scene {roms che sik ac asics oe 4 em ed wee ois chcleisie Sarn bina e bis 940 
en RTE TEAR COT AAI Rat crcin hha Po erate oS a dye Fo hla joel ches lg a's Rin” soe Oia oe RE VO wy ed c ohele OL ae tances whe 79 
Peet ST EPATSpOr line OlORSA LLB eri nas Tate cia te eas We d.o OO CCN aaa ate Sie a cue dd gid Shells 855 
SOM CE SREC EC LIDCR Ge ete eee AOMey oe Pe iee as PO eee ak GM Re oto Ak) ofc: Kosta bya" eial eves Wine ohede, cat shee wal eos 822 
Bee re Leelee SSO WITT OV DOL Oly e .e ahcas hat a Moiel « octet Sis eae © og gd allele Ploin's a oils mice vec eoete 821 
eae, PETS RS, VOL RIAT NIG ves ey OG een RE 2 ve a mgs a EA RD A 822 
eet eie: Seen) GRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS). vss cs +s fcc sj Bic cl crcinlee let Gales elegieccl’yscsiaie cee facing 28 
Se MET TIN CEC CET ASN Son cee cre whe ie hee elias aie a niet ata Weis Cae We See oe che toe teresa hose wile eidieeiaclwais 820 
a aa A Se Ee as 0 A ee SO ald eh le hetero NA Nag ly GeO ear 917 
Dpalyione. lan or.as Restored by Nebuchadregzar. 4.8.06 eee acne swe cas ee ceee sense facing 88 
Nb GP, ING UO a ae Ss Ae ee ie aa Laide Se neta Seon eee Le facing 89 
ee TE aOTOL ENO CTOCS AN 2 Cae oe ele alec eke eet eia sh te ais el- intel o shake, <aUhlg oie stale'ih oso ela leo 64,4 9s 827 
Se OECCHIOA VY OTIC) Sarl yay ties Grok sila Ve ROG ER ESN Rig Ol Les se aN se is Sele dew Seyi 294 
Spa eT UBIO A INSTRUMENTS. cst oie so bs clots bb op File cle wislsw'ele viele ealp got ccegeeees facing 600 
Bakereuven pnowme the Dough Against the Oven Wall, ..4. 2... oe ee a ce ce cee wenn 271 
TS A MEIOR Y CR ONT LOGTABHCH yd cee iis FSU Diol te ha a eres at's Cte A Sota a ey hel Be sere a Oye 272 
poeermmwminetne: Loaves On Red-Hot Stoness..)...4 be tenis e tes mice baldwin ee cake dee teens 272 
Shak She NUE we LUE e fila MAS tale Riatel ds nibs ois diac alo, 8 oe eee dee 895 
Basket tor Carrying Marth: see HousrHoLD Urensiis, TH)... 6. ic eee ese facing 273 
—— for Fruit or Vegetables: see HousrHoLp UTENSILS, IT........... 0... cee ce ee eee facing 273 
—— Large, with Handle: see HousreHoLp UTENSILS, IT......... 0... eee cc ee eee tenes facing 273 
— Small, for Flour: see HousEHoLD UTENSILS, I..... 0... ec ee ee eee ene facing 272 
with Handle: see HousEHOLD UTENSILS, IT..... 5. cee ect e te eee eee e noes facing 273 
Bellows: sco’ HOUSEBOLD UTUNSIDS, IT. 5. fo leis nae Spa site telase tis tie sya oe eile nee eae a we facing 273 
Pee eemny aruusaty Callies, Within teagt al aaiers ia! iwies. n/a cosa jo ein ds oa ring t/a dm miele oo vie pga e|miaeimnce oe bree) wing Siam 191 
Pitta stait SCC LOUSHHOLD UTHNBILS, Lis sols fe ale soe iyehele coe miele vce ve seecieesis@receeceenie facing 272 
Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser, The..... Rr A ee ae idols: n rein evade’ pi siecle Merete ss bees hice 380-381 
MRI TRIE CIE Ace. oes 2. Cee MNT U's oie’ «(5 6's win Sov-viiate toate 'e a ioce oo Sis o4 gh osiei wai eisle'e dime sme itammme 190 
Booth or Lodge in a Vineyard, A Modern.............. cc cece cect erence eee e ee ee er eeereereceees 114 
Bottle or Water-Skins and Other Skin Utensils........... 000 c ccc ec cece ener er eeererec eae facing 114 
Bowl, Dough: see HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS, I.......... 0. cece cece ccc r ec ee tense eeeneseeneeenes facing 272 


xiv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 














PAGE 

Breastplate of the High Priest, Diagram Showing Arrangement of Stones...........0seeeeeee eevee 867 
Bridle: see ARTICLES USED ‘INVURAVIEUNIs ias site a eal c.els vive isis clale os sisteleb s Wisketp Giese = stele SE facing 798 
Bronze Coin of Alexander Janmseus. i) ioc cies Selec slcle a esl «(o/b od alee sip ele eigie OWRa lyr p00: wialave’ Riga a annem 590 
_—— (of Alexander Jannzus), Mite of the New Testament............cceccececcccscssscvvece 592 
ome Of ‘Pontius Pilates hail cdiads ols oo 'elle kb dae b Ne > ple ob Seip opto o ciateg’s Bee mints lule'e u/alet ie amynnny nanan 591 
Broom: see HOUSEHOLD, UTBNSILB ALT Vs Wee Uaik Gctele oe N'> wisi crea ecetelals MRR OREE A ats /alo bv ne facing 273 
Bull, Assyrian Slave-Labor. Transporting a? Colossal... 0... e+ coin gas s oe oe sletaletticl<'sigis'e's op cena 855 
Byblus, Coin from, with a Temple and Symbol of Astarte;..............e esp heeene os oe ells » salman 821 
Cesar, Tiberitg  enarinis Of.sis'\s oie 0 siege O ceth tes ie ad's o.d)t.0 sivie!o 60's (0 plele 9) Mann RIMES (let lees tetas 591 
Carebaréea, PIA Ol witk ov oie w vlsle's 0.6.6 cc ccs ibinte Galea Gia db clbig bw b vlese's.o le's bic 6 4:0, e eine etna Olea oan a 120 
Camel’s Pack-Saddle: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL. ).. 050). vee ccc cele cee cence sss ce ean facing 798 
——— Saddle ‘Bag: see Anricims USED IN "TRAVEL. . in. vc. be delyeie sce 6 mo oo st teeeeein oe nly eee facing 798 
Cart, Ox,'as seen'in’ Palestine, To-dayin. sv. bck cc Wicvslosiese © eiejetelele cls eo © slot patentee any ote tiene aman 125 
Carthage,) Basalt Hamman Of). ) esi. foliew elvis she hate lies nw ee te dhe ile el ae 3 os 0 0rd RNIN ete err 820 
Cedars of Lebanon, One of the Few Remaining Groves of the...... 0.0.20... ee cceeeeceee cece facing 124 
Central Portion ‘of ‘Palestine, Map (TIL) of} ie sir ec. ccs a. oaigie ae c's b WN ila setae ce facing 660 
Ceremony, Sacrificial..... lame saw ne Sse Sine WL he Sete pie ier esac cielo eAhe a ples ou leis ele er nee ainas nan 165 
Chariot, Hittite War-..... a ibiatelala\e's:s 0%. ¢ 0 erosele ett tuie loys chee aeeh ote d Gelalel aie alte tah 'w "was \e yaaa gine sarin 65 
Chest‘for Clothes: see HoussHoLD UTmnsins, IL... oes Cues os sa iathin s eee sale ds va iehn eeam facing 273 
Clay Figure of Astarte......... Ae Bie cin Uldu cel ite bare re ahheNe Niche oe lace me eM ie rae ais tae a en een 822 
Serre oreo WITH  LIOVG. eis'elbit eg blew wie oie cigs ais o elen la fel mieieicteie lara ols ow inodelole eneletale)e.e\s/0 are ain eam eae on 822 
Coffes-Mill: (see HousEHOLD:; UTENSILS, ITP 3 on, icteinieina stirs Weigle «oes ohce Vals gate pean facing 273 
Coin from Byblus, with the Temple and Symbol (Cone) of Astarte.........00eceee cece ee ceee eens 821 
ame OF ‘Alexander Janneus,’ BLONZE. s 2. oc-6 « s'ee vcs sle'ealdans chelviciste ale Pistade Wiehe lo: dtete aie c+ Gleteiet a Eareane aaa 590 
—— (of Alexander Jannzus), Bronze, Mite of the New Testament. ........... 0c. eee eeeeceee veces 592 
ammenOF TLCTO 1, Coppers sess sence ahi cieis sine s a o/cb 'e srele eieiniers tale migseta io States oVatete ratare tat ain cea nee 38 
eros OF JONT ELYTCANUS. « . . 'cja cine caeelec's)a yee d'e.6 os att eInLe Ale ae oom: ein telete win peeteind be ik) ree 38 
Of Pontius Pilate, Bronze. oss e'hc ss civie so aicleic'etceele & cepiets ln ee 'd.m'e’sicietele ba ylteleteles tall te taatnatananaana 591 
@oms of Darius Hystaspes, Goldogaieic sce oe Sica nin Sake aie eieotg aoe eigre nb ielcdce gi sant incre Cates aan 589 
Colossal Bull, ‘Transportation by Assyrian Slave-Labor. 3).0. 0.5.0.4. 0 000s claws ce ccwwcwuiees seeing 855 
Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain to the Pool of Siloam, Course of Underground..............+6- 428 
Copper Coin of Herod I...... wij ase tah sepia ats olny 6 fafe oe auure lets icaion Seat oterg te a Chel na irenmane eC Peer Hof. 38 
amorm Kotla? see HOUSEHOLD UTmnsins, [1s 2:3). 0c nico sos so oles a's whee ee teeanaa doo ele reuaseiereiaiea facing 273 
Course of Underground Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain to the Pool of Siloam..............+++. 428 
Court of the Tabernacle, fo... Si cde eine cee e'eleco ee biclete sine ately cdc »leidraleieiese bictele a mish alee: aa aman 880 
@ourts; Plan of Herod’s Temple and. .729.'.0's ods cleo weiccs cls sete ec er as tier ks oe eee ooh Ae 899 
Cover, Wicker, for Dough-Bowl: see HOUSEHOLD UTENSIIS, I......... 0c cece ee cceeceeceeces facing 272 
Crooks, 'Types'of Shepherds’. 0% 25 0.0.06 0 + oo oon oe ein Ur ece wlplene ce eraiaiellovetarat akan ol oleie ot tie aiettrtet tin aa 839 
Cross-Section (E and W) of the Site of Jerusalem, Showing Elevations..............ceeeeceeeccees 424 
-—— (N. and S.) Showing Comparative Heights of Different Parts of Jerusalem.............+. 424 
Cyprus, Amulets Collected-iniis. sce feiss Pols Calan osha ae ea ee be eal bl ole at aati ete 191 
~~ Model of a Phenician Temple at Idalion...: 3.1... 2s ses se scien sein ome «creleluistaisiotale snag tte 394 
~— Pillars from...... RO ISSIIAE HOD ACh io tom Blokerstio’: Sec celebs dicleot« helt eh hater nanr ame 825 
Dance tATGunn A ACTED LL TCOs!. 64 oc'sintce Gelorsisalce Vainne teen ¢ ele od vob b.0 he c.cle selec caesar mies 165 
Darics (Gold Coins of Darius Hystaspes)...... ae aco(b een wisn i Colaredetibue a tole mtnata sl oaeana ae SPER PATS 589 
Darius Hystaspes, Gold Coins of.,..... eae RAT 7 TE a SER Oke PRGA, we Sioa 589 
David’s Capital, Old Wall of —Ophel............ a 's.elojaln's vie oe dteduscieta a Biciobce a net Cana e ee eas facing 429 
Denariis of Piberius Casares 6l'ss es eisic aoe alae. sievlg ie nicla alatorecnitaitea ci dtete c lache tate piercala cr onan 591 
Dervish’s Tambourine: see MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. ......c..ccececcccccceccecccescceterces facing 600 
Dibon Site Ok, tiers pack vee oo Shiv bse 0 cleo oo elses se 6 a lL tern ulnes Riloans Aree De I Bose 1 Ser Aare nk ee 181 
Dolmens (Primitive Alfars) in Eastern Palestine. o... 6062/66 ds coe cece ons cess sit uso cure seein 41 
Dough-Bow]: ‘see HovsmHoOLp UTENSITS, 1 5.)5 5 sic eWieieie Ui e'y o's o's. ornle Wits ad (soho s, ote ee facing 272 
Drum, ‘Hand: see MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. «<< 'ccis\c a. # + afelee's eye's wlosle-e om slave vie 010 6.6 bien oh en facing 600 
—- Kettle: see Musica INSTRUMENTS.........cccceccccccvecessecve Ja.¢ 0.0: 0\0, oisie.e 6 fe facing 600 
Dung-Catcher: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, ......-20ccecccccvcccveees ei hegre ¢ eig » ble e:8 ICU ee 
Early Babylonian Map, of the World. oc. e\ccis aisicn ss cals cece q0.00' elie 00,00 ole'a engin tein nna . 294 
Egypt, Map Of: Siamese soins cielo Sie a tRP eo isa alanine ale boCho'e tae a auele iv ae welalenake eer ys facing 200 
—=—, Semitic Traders Bringing ‘Their Wares nto s. 0.60). ws oc on) © ee see oe ne 66 ot niente 377 
Elevations, Cross-Section (E. and W.) of the Site of Jerusalem Showing... ..........00ceeeee ee weeee 424 
Bphesus, Ruins of ‘Theater in Foreground. «<2... cle o0.- stud a we nis sos the ularehe lle ad een eas facing 216 


Exodus; Probabla:Route of the, os sine sama teaasmelemedisis sie eee «os 4 0.0 00 ale.) elute Saba DERM sheen ee . 378 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS XV 





























PAGE 
PAB SCHL Hr LOMAOLY DADC ANC CODIO Seite soe che Wedbl oe cle w oles niece's a's ale sand oe tee Ate 4 883 
MMU Ca ITee ETE OE: LOE A CED TMO, OF Lc Ra a ikl Bote wind nce dss «ie bch anise ae tice boty cue eeeue ees 896 
Peet mage SeVARTMOURS USED IN LRAVILay.. .)stsisorcc'etearern’s oleate alasicis o'ele'sleislacdhale se ols dlelcleedete facing 798 
NRT RAR OTE LIDIN GIG EIDE © oa Aarne F clcle ch Pov en ai ch atda raved dlaleletite aieteolsg a SRS Meee oe I ae ee 191 
Pater ror elormerisoe ARTICLES Usp INGERAVEL. 20.6 20 obais feed hove cca ec bewledccwccccveede facing 798 
MP NC UEICAL, LNBTRUMUNT Siu’ pop etriste'sls clk Cale lt List ov aes Meee cs kOe Vilowoashe oee facing 600 
PEM IMEL CATAL VISTOUL Sy. fakes wioneee as Cte alae tetaeT AD Nee elald ye Marea's atl hue Ud tele hel. Pao 153 
Mepureiove. G00 LLOUSHHOLD. UTHNSIDS U.iiiicic. ci <:cieje(hetare slclcleteldielvaedu at cvscdecetcuececes facing 272 
MMM MVOUALCAL ANATRU MEINTAS siatslsi Gers aid «3 ieietal t's abel lela sel alelels'c's'cheletetetabdlialateia'elevee ‘aleve s a es facing 600 
MRR IOUT Ce) OC LULL R Savers ea Parco oe He DAN iy Stel oS cuardi o/c Aulaheu Aer eal oles lous es ded eectet deus 192 
Fork, Two-Pronged: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS.......... 2. cece cec cece ceccceecececees facing 28 
~—— Winnowing, Five-Pronged: see AGRICULTURAL [MPLEMENTS.............0.000eeeceeeeee facing 28 
SE IICIEPSTIC OND LICL IN! VW LTR aMm ETE Wiad Pe ey VA hated ec: OU HAY ahi Bo celeb e ld os ae vccwea dels 30 
Fountain, Virgin’s, Course of Underground Conduit from the, to the Pool of Siloam................ 428 
Front Elevation of the House of the Forest of Lebanon.............. 0.200 cc cece ec eccceccsececues 512 
SPEC AT CMNOMON SL ON OM ALCL MUROC sy 4.0) heal calsie'a's Daley Chie aid e's e's sels Voth delle ee dee cdcw Sues 893 
Galilee, Sea or...........00 A Oana meige Upre eines kid Wee iiarit seat 0 il eR eg kp She a 282 
Se CEREALS Vrn th Ti nn dee aise Siete ais nila ale cutters rc cicte wee ys Atutla a) sled ciate’ o.ha eld Percelohale's. o's 0 le 'e'me 922 
Gentiles, Tablet Notifying Them Not to Enter the Court of Israel................. ee He che cca 897 
Geography, Map of Hebrew...... Aa Ta Ce sei ih eel, 6 OL AR it) 1 eb be Da A En 2 facing 293 
SM REIETSO LS AVY OMMATLS ries cate oe a mh he elate eictahete sin Te a Gre a ats bn ee dd em Mee ois) cioete eee 191 
ee Pe TICLES USED IIN  L RAVE. a cde c clsice «3s cls rhc on js citiapiecee Ke ee dis eelelstiine solaa aes facing 798 
PEA CHICUUTURAL LMPLE MENTS. iae dees sb a8 calt sosgistite Ow sie dledia dase’: selceeeitetedeess facing 28 
MEM Pe ATARI ILODFOSe ti Lea tlOLL Os, Galea So's oko (aie sraey sante ey aeivore © 06 seuinie b etgin tale ales alee a qace 826 
Goddess Emerging from, or Growing Out of, a Sacred Tree............ cc cece cee cece te eee e cece 821 
RISE TUT IAR LL UALR ATION VER air ate vere thick Wiurelts aie Unie tee sev ait Me's Ss. « e'clp sitierielaee Gste aiecelayaice de de « 589 
eas VIASAT TS FE LTC byes mutA RS Bb ae eR i et CAR Ol A 590 
a orld Batty Cosa apse albet: Bs og 01rd AAT tele GU A ge a A a 192 
Goshen,’ Cand of, Showing. Probable Route of the Exodus, 0...) . 20.6... eee e ec etc cece ee seees 378 
SORTA TSE E At RTS ie ects Stns Fale ean eae Re SDI a a ATG Bic oleca'e so Sha bistare Ga Gicrd ti a alefa,e aiese facing 29 
eee ATE A LOURMHOLD) CTINAILS,. Late ay oto os Wied ed hehalalas a kin, 6.2) aiacs ct daria tales dog's, e's ev facing 272 
iarati-sleve: See AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. 2.06)... sc ese sce cs ers scesdaeecpanescce ses facing 28 
EE TEA TEAL TT LUH TS WLLL LYVOMIEIP ca gee hie ae Cetra see thee a’ ole araelcle Giga abcess cave Uie's wiecelacale gt « 580 
ieeinder lan O1tue. couse of the Forest of Lebanons oo. isai sje oss el helelae e siele nls pw elec veka edeue pace 512 
SET CEPA OR LOO TISONL IAL ETI IE gehen hea ils Pale aisle cults Gecate haa etul field SAP eM cne Clale Soa ee MAGig ale ob beh % oe 892 
Paattioes GIDC. OMA NOM ALLL DEDESi nowt tA um mE ruINe. kes eRe il Ephig SPN Cle t,o dale el edie 892 

Groves of the Cedars of Lebanon, One of the Few Remaining.................. 0. cece ee eeees facing 124 
iarowinor woe City of Jerusalem; Map Showing the. .i.).)e. nec. oe de la ce cece cease siede facing 425 
Csnv tine see A.GRICULTURAT LMPLIMENTS, \sce5-ssiecse sc ce ceed escceeesedseedasescoees facing 28 
PaO eer) OF MIMON AVACCADCUS sos s;c had cece Saiste sia N ace cPile es Gudiicecsidvwecceseteeses 38 
eee ES CEES RAS Nts VE MEAS Ay ON) hn RON ER Uhetl edt Uk HARES Grate tala We wn iGceted eee ae 820 
ICN eter tats os Sige! Ong a a's oa hie tito Rae Se ae CANE Saha n dela tte este Sais sielee nd Seas 37 
Pe eC ONISICAL, INSTRUMENTS, 16 ioc dal cra v ds dubs ele cele nd'scucceasbisedosscecene facing 600 
Hand-Mill for Grinding Flour: see HouSEHOLD UTENSILS, I...........2 00. ce cece eee eee tenes facing 272 
ee I CE a TNS a IGT et NM esis an hai AM ch bie eat baste aha @ ciel elele Sacrtje.e oie 79 
EE a ATTUEL Aad cne UNS ay Sha Pf ae og atta ATO Paver ahe utes Gia Ai eile a boo perso & A'O Pele oo een ee 191 
Hebrew, waryeand Aramaic Alphabets, Specimens Of... 1.0.20 2... es wee dene ccc ae cee eee snees 39 
EE TIT sete et AL eo aha YR. wl GW ASG odie eek v's whee wees « facing 293 
IIT Se SPE a AEs ea eta ae Tite oe wiyh Rta wie. o ela the wile Gopal e's dnl aise 6 ays ote SRG 922 
Hebron, Interior of the Mosque at, The Monuments to the Patriarchs................++++++5- 534-535 
Heights of Different Parts of Jerusalem, Cross-Section (N. and 8.) Showing Comparative............ 424 
ENE UREN Ser Re aPC Lae i he Lee ko Ree at ila els wie a ecsld welele ajnledbie ele alslg 638 
EONS! Gc PTS) EN iy et 2a Raa On Ie 899 
High Priest, Diagram Showing Arrangement of Stones on Breastplate of. ...........+s0.e ee seeeees 867 
PEmenv At CODSTION,  2~ a0 oe Lae Grid ees ky ae a ie ket) RR ea a fe PE tg do Jip 65 
Holy Land, Ezekiel’s Ideal of the Distribution of the People of the...........-.. sees cece ee eee eeee 883 
TRE eee WBICAT, INSTRUMENT Maran es oy wile dale bealela sc cee peu enna k cman endear maaedamalans facing 600 
Horse, Breast Ornament for: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL.........00 ee cece ee eter erences facing 798 
Fetter for: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL... .......cccecc cece eee e etree ee ee er eneeees facing 798 
Head Ornament for: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL. ...... 00 esse cece cree eee tt ee eenes facing 798 


House of the Forest of Lebanon—Front Elevation. ..........sseescccccccccesesssssessessecesens 512 


XVI LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 







































































PAGE 

House. of the. Forest of Lebanon—Ground-Plan of the.) /2 0 ¢ os. 5085's 0's bo ei siee «o's ese sla tne ese 512 
Household Utensila; (loos spre O88 as tsk CVn os 8 HCE bis ory ois bales ha'p eo Se oe facing 272 
Hotsehold Uténsils, Tre iret sees ote tate ce ge cle chain's bilalig ox oie Ss ete: hy ny en facing 273 
Hyrcanus, Coin of Jobin 2/0.) 2a ers tee cle ay wore 2 ibce SAM bs & are o'cbode ts © ove e aiets canoer: bie ta en 38 
Hystaspes,: Gold’ Coins ‘of Darius. Bscriui's «ce h babe ies o's vidisla 9s p'e = 0 cle wisue oidbedialiel» alel site btn 589 
Image of ‘the God) Asshur, ‘Military Standard withthe... ......2......6 58 de ects meleealc oe es een 93 
Implements, 'Agrigultaraliy Worcs 3), cyt cies ook tat boc: hie o/h. weve ecevale o. 02/0 es loye pe ane ee oD facing 28 
Inscription, Mesha: Whines), 24:and 25) co. oe ex ole oll ecm ee co ccsnc ele de 0» Oke hu enc atn we Un 2 36 
The SUGRP Ene ow cc woe lap e etereeta eles aisle sce ss lees oon osha ss 6/n oor at ene Ree ee ee ee 36 
Instrumentaypeyasical, (oc es. wine oo WM eh ae leiclele oak’ e soos velele We. oa e hve mos Oot a ee facing 600 
Interior of the Mosque at Hebron, The Monuments to the Patriarchs...................-.44-. 534-535 
Jacoh’s Well (hectional : View) 2.0 3'e cio oc oie sc cc he nies ciate s lintole clans ycevele!s <b oRAC Mma a. late of iee nena meas 408 
MOHEIOE 5. yeisiscs saterelatelela d pielGs dic audis wl elwlasdlalie c'el fs died sARioie A): de tee Manetett a at a 408 

Janneeus, Alexander, Bronze Goin OF; <6 gi, 5. osc a 6 28 oe ala ble le o's 0 elec lerse AEN + a ede del Re vale Te fe ee ae 590 
JarsHandles Hound in Palestine,’ Seals On. ii cc % sie isie\e ss ic 0.4 0) ote lorie la Sila ig he fee eins ae Oe 814-815 
JebusitesCrty Wall of Old: —Ophel oer: we. cereliee sos 5 divin laid din sel whalel ehegele «ost Pate antennae facing 429 
Jerusalem, Cross-Section (N. and 8.), Showing Comparative Heights of Different Parts of........... 424 
Cross-Section (E. and W.), Showing Elevations of the Site of.......... 02... cece cece ee ecees 424 
——= Map Showing -the Growth of the City. oi... 00...¢ Sajeleye «alent + sind = ale eleiesad sw a0 ery a facing 425 
— Outline Map Showing Topography of, and Vicinity............... cece cece cece ee stace facing 426 
TOT SCODUS 400s ial Sante aries a vo 10's coin cu 0 oh eta chal overa Tent ce a Meiniea! Cte ne te tn kaa ee facing 428 
Jewish am’s Horn:,.see MUoUsiCan INSTRUMENTS. . ...).). ccs lse cos dit Saapee nies nurle tik een ne facing 600 
Wola yrcanus,: Coin OL..% seater testes oc e'o 0.60 «5.0 6s Tete lat ls ool oie chate nes Neciinn acre en tet eel 38 
Kefr Bir'im; Galilee, Front.-Elevation of the Synagog at..0.2220... 1. . 12s cee) anveie ke 871 
Ruins of a Galilean Synagog at...) SU OES sie eters ase o ole oslo Rg steps tee ee ee 871 

Synagog at; Grounds blaniotss 1. oc... s 2 asiceie sige w eine occcuele WR Seer eee eee 870 
Kettle,;Copper, see HoussooupiUrensins, IT. he cal ese eo fs hae Miocaiene hie eva facing 273 
Kettle-Drum >see; MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS... 0.0/0.5 fae cies doe decls Hed dues dupe a tata ee facing 600 
Key and lock: 'sée/HoOUsSHHOLD) UTHNSIES, ID... oii. 2 ese sce se ae eieidce eh eee nne en ene facing 273 
Key-of a Palestinian Peasant’s House, with Lock. ooo... ic. oes eelec aie dso clesia thus phere nen 364 
Knife, Pruning: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. .........ccceccecccecccssceces oats acetate facing 28 
Team ps, "ANCIENE Sais OA oss e ea lalerete tats aris wey lea eilalbic steiste ots ebay Sie quale aint clot (0a .etth th en 505 
Land of Goshen, Showing the Probable Route of the Exodus................cc cece cccececececeees 378 
Taverns Baise witht, - og Git eens ekersdeete « o%s. ose ena Reese! «a olde abe ale teh Strela aor s Sencar 895 
Lebanon} House‘of the Forest of, Front Elevation.....0... 6000.0. deb eens ee be cede nee Sennen 512 
House ‘of: the ‘Forest of,:Ground=Plan. 50 oi. oe ee ia wale sin eae ee ee 512 

One of the Few Remaining Groves of the Cedars of........... 0.000 cece cccccccccceeses facing 124 

DA PATIGZAN --EOLLETY esac ou misislcettittece o/c;+ Sie csclayece/eraje dics ee. ayeterule las ete aes ae facing 68 
Lalybsetm Sicily, Stele from, /yPo Rises o'«, «ie o's nln calc son See iel ale op ehalerere oaBeahune el Aik sits ie eee ane 820 
Tock'and; Key :/see Housmnoup Urensiis; Tt. s.ct oie i oR ee ee ee facing 273 
ofa Palestinian Peéasant’s Houses oo... 0. oie eg olere ole on! col olelate| do 4 eke Deere eater a 864 

VIED KEY SH! i0/schaln ins oleic) ote'e.o1s sl elsiwlaie eels) gialsln lai c isis slate! cat etaterel siells Mesh Nk tgh Siaiee tet: kt a 364 
TOCUSEL PI TRE Oe ona eels eretalelalele'sletale nls ois iale't blelelplarsis, J a:8h ele Sd tee iete es fe 518 
(with, Extended! Wings) 225i. is siefisle'gta ete aie coda oe dela ole wicle bo a 0 o.sclale uy a cine taNe teats nn 518 
Lodge’in @ Vineyard, A Modern’) Booth ors iris 0. 4.) 2 ieslon bl Saye wal aw’ lal eloty eitaate pale edie 114 
Tite: sees USIGAR INSTRUMENTS. 12/.55 5 s10\ len alcfnlelavsie hie! ufeleiatoraferete la ote/erabelg « duete aimee ayant enna facing 600 
Lyre? see VL OSICAL INSTR UROGNTS! Nl. ole tecopieisinre 00st ob sibie tieieel ol scowiala'e + d0 dein ae Stee Sse a ane facing 600 
Maccabeus,. Simon, Half-Shekel (Copper). of . is. occ 00h clio de cle sabe: a wlslelee cia go ea allele od eiets aie ann 38 
Silver Shekel Of le. ie oe Meal as ecg Rt Ge photos ces lg tua\uce @ aoa take Cale ar ee eon 37 

Mallet: see: Housenonp- Urmnsine, Tera oie. 8! as recce iw ace vin ale wb ave Ge. a ice eltanalel facing 273 
Mandolin:..see Musical: INSTRUMENTS. Jue a ese wien enw ON db bine bow cee « ho ee ee facing 600 
Mandrake y(6/ hopper peru or en rata ode a dig Pe yaa satel tay Mal aay oo} o hw Whale calves te er 667 
Map. of Ancient Semitic) World. My is Sie 0). 180. te otalecialercsiaie wiki whale 'yiaco sic’ Gini eee !. facing 817 
Of; Babylonian gs tcie eg ic Beier cole eee aoe cel dace) dos shel e psiol hon sPas op) 0 didi ok slang oust ct an mannan facing 89 

of Central Portion of Palestine (TID) 2. oni oe occ cg clipe cen wks la ky, oul eel eee eee facing 660 

OF Bhary pt iirc oe rakes cote in ele patos Rte MT Lebo Pusher cok pes afioti ick nilmbo dn} sian! at = Paice eta ea facing 200 

of Hebrew Gedgraphy 2 ).coc:on wictide bie aiela fete eats fied wigs slo eae st wie 4s a ota prdist se facing 293 

of Jerusalem; Showing the Growthyof the City... oc). ia. s%.. «sin wlela'e aitie’e o's slain een ae eal facing 425 

of ‘Modern Palestine i430 .6 nice he eo «tte hight dea ibidosta (o's 0'4'sbal sett ene facing 678 





of Nineveh, as Rebuilt by Sennacherib and Asshurbanipal.............ccccccncececeeeeceees 622 















































LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS XvVli 
PAGE 
SR ORerT CLO LE OLIN OL EHICSUMOHL V Sypris «01 hes isle doyle Pain vs vs.3 ce vhs ch aetatie ld Caleee facing 676 
SPO LI Capea e G3 fmm EG spt ai Paty o ssiwis, cig P's oe 6 dura vied Cenike Pah between 650-651 
PASTEL VEC eae 3). ce PR ee Umer nN eae Dik ak tae i facing 688 
ee ee PE NCT TT TEION OF F AIGSLINGRCLE) V2 12). sacl atc led levSie sd ab ke Bia tele od a bw de Oaleels olunlhc ly eae facing 654 
REET TICANV CIT ICME ISH. VOTE ee range rite ae Fein a heheh a /d Vir ghe veers ies dibie Updo’ sale a Ridlciceetnt eee eee 294 
Showing Topography of Jerusalem and Vicinity, Outline.............. 0... cc cece eee eees facing 426 
enteric en LEGUIEL .°. 4 ePmreee i aN ivin det vids ic set esiote le AGN S's QRies b.0'c SiS a ‘bw de oa cedke cater onie 153 
Spm IPIRTIOCiertn)CLi1g Ite) Oy Vite pe tye ede acs nis ote cos opts 4 < J Swiss iio diay ve ockeeube ane 580 
RPE TSU IU TPO INC 24 ATIC LO) ey ee els) ee A Gintt sieje oS doty nd <a ob bees o's who deleuivichiacgelauten 36 
SRI SITEOIS DSCC +)’. ; «Ca MNeRMMEE Mey eda. Lees, cleo engh Ua V9.6 “wi eiece Cl OHS aleve ce che shakes bg bol Perel 300 
Plate’for Baking Bread: see HOUSEHOLD UTENSIES,)I. 2... ce. cece ee ce cee cee facing 272 
Pultarvyntendara withthe Image ofthe God Asshur.i: 0)... le ce wl eceemevss cece 
Rall eiooiice-..86e HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS, Tess aM ee te ec cee ee dddb cece se we ees facing 273 
Hand-, for Grinding Flour: see HovsrHoip ‘peoagenee TA ee seek ate tee ES gid ike facing 272 
, Women Ceara VLG: iar merMee eI RE es eB ek Te A. ahs caunie, leds ted aoe) oa wars Dos GE 580 
Mirror met eEveKarty OTH. Canes CR cee WEE TR Ree REA CoP CON OC os sn ee abe ORES ong. 5 Ua wreleaue os 300 
Mite of the New Testament, Bronze Coin (of Alexander Janneeus)................ 000 ec cece cee eees 592 
SEINE CIAN’ LOMpG AEM OaUON CV DIUSst faces oo hie eis Susie shila chard a 5.0 b cle ue oltihidew wes ad sides 894 
REA eL eed) 7X SNE PC PoP tee he eet ete, Serbs ge G aah gin w A's wavdl ode ile hii's o elgierb oles 190 
emer OOtlOr: HOUPC N/A VINGYVATG, Au’. o. sok yc fe) Gels sebeledieleielcslso ev ot PONS Aer ee rl a Ae eg 114 
I LIIIC TM NU NSO ryt tr De yA) ce tts) cathe te Nel ONC eos, PEAR ola Ne a'ol «nal ier ed wiBPaRE Ton pene eee fa 678 
Pool of Siloam, Showing the Mouth of the Underground Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain.... 428 
RN ne Mylo RT ee CRY IY 9S va. Lng SPU ESTE rd ERC bey bs w avg ‘a ola cc doh ele eb aos, ace bmw! « 190 
Monuments to the Patriarchs, Interior of the Mosque at Hebron..................0.0..0 0000. 534-535 
Mortar for Grinding Coffee: see HousEHOLD UTENSILS, IT.............. 0.0. eee eee ee ee facing 273 
Mosque at Hebron, Interior, The Monuments to the Patriarchs............... 0.00 cece cece eee 534-535 
Ho a” Re SITE ue Siar U0 tc, Sia) I BI 7 SRN a aR aA el A a O 408 
Musical Instruments............. PRG ee ee oles Guetta als iin Ca Udi oct ea cide ah dees, oct facing 600 
PEI LIOTI ACCA SIR GIONGE Rear tar iets es iab sss cca cae ole hares son oo attle wed Geb ese. 72 
Meanmhonvireszar Lian of babylon; as hestored Dy... . i icc cbs says bh sacle éibeeetoesboucs facing 88 
Cnet tee eine fe, Cee aya ee ft EMMA eae SR, MM A SS oe; 192 
TURES MOL ae Peel ci is a ce eae ete eit emer ter cee Sa) etic; Sod Lame Mae Ban TD § Pwayales « 816 
Eo TEENS Bie et eg ia a rte ean fet Sa RR Se gre SS A ON 6 HS 621 
Nineveh, Map of, as Rebuilt by Sennacherib and Asshurbanipal................ 2.0. .e ee ee eee eee 622 
Meme oeE orion of aiestine, Wiap (LV )iOLand occ. ter dead oe Ws ok a whe eee Meh e alles ealn facing 676 
Ue GM OTE LECT ACA CL WILD ht he sie coca acs aid Oe sie sele vs gtk A Ate oly Rid weg RES TARE OE CE ahiwell Pole a 191 
MUPEMS MEAN ESOI ME NOVICK Ts iis $9 sieleis'e'ce sive «e's TEN Ea aioe se hea Sat cae oh Rael. ee 380-381 
I DPSS I nS gic ie! co seat ce ce ef eR IMTS BE the, oie sie dines ECE HPs oom ajas 6 a BIS Sie oe 632 
RMR ECHOLS TANICL BOA DIU e's «e's Go cris FT a ore hae atk nso aid a plas BE UAep Mas au ledith ges facing 429 
RIESE OMG LY OAs <1 4 oo 3 boc oven. os 01s ae) See per gates 0 Lis wea Myo a OD ollie e's ....facing 429 
Outline Map, Showing Topography of Jerusalem and Vicinity..................0. cece ee ee eee facing 426 
eRe eee ATS AKAN SAU) NCCE - VIC Ws. vivo at cites Gree ote a SSP dw oo Lima's Bisel Wola e Haida BM gporiele 272 
Paieresmlowme the Dough Against the Oven: Wall. 2: jo... fee cscs wc knnes Pda le baa ee ode 271 
— PER EGON VES OD (ELOGTABDES. hit) uty ah es ee bid be i date eid ip daw htt ettare 3 ws 272 
—- eee 1 02.VOS Ol MOC-10t, SCONES. We. o iice sales) vie hs idWics Selsicte este Withee ad's ob wels aii 272 
ee ee OUSEMOLD UTENSILS, Lo. yi e ce ces wcll v sve me atacctencdccecvabecns facing 272 
MALICE HOLD 'LTENSILA, L. «i222 54s fs Liaiceaticits Dslelnlale bisleoselaleistere Slitsisle ele Wisiele eos facing 272 
ee ETI TCO SIAN OY LOUAYG'.\. o's cc ess st home t mI ek ccs atm cena banees corsa reeset 125 
Pack-Saddle for Asses and Camels: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL............-00 eee eee eres facing 798 
ea NT Nt PR MRM se sere TN, cosets le ts aie oath hs cas fous sbatyicieue ls is.0 ele cig ih ocd) ele ots between 650-651 
eee OMA eT ESPTIOII Co's 52s 5 sa ole tle Sos ie et ha Gin kiln we na arele vale oepiele ball facing 660 
ES AMY te Soe ea a cies trate SA a Ar Sire wc cele arene ans ndajay naisiek facing 678 
RN fr COR OPE IGT CELIO 205 grea tiers vin Ser te os od ard ns a i's ehcp lbiewid bie BP es Ce pee eis. facing 676 
MERTENS COPS ET PIETY irs yee tee ee Die dite sl o/c eRe! a « etace; wcstelele! «vie sub aielpia'ginipi= Als facing 654 
eeOTY JOT) Lt ATi oman arin Ay aire cece te chard ola e' 44 <2 ot SV le leo bialoiahelesieie «Meme > 814-815 
epee MEat a TPEaA TIT 3S, AA TECION) Ure eeetee emt tg oie state a in ane he A Sal's giatei plc's a/aie © olale bie tielle’ > wi éle spa@ wie le «lala 505 
Pannier for Water-Bottles: see ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL...........-0 cee cee cere reer reeeees facing 798 
RTI oe. y LY te Oe Tee ENT ee Seats Pcie yk yhoo ge oe ale!eis)ald eles 0 3% gid o'sie Wiebe ho gael 667 
Patriarchs, The Monuments to the, Interior of the Mosque at Hebron............---+++eseees 534-535 
Se TE TE Ol sc. AA eRe eo cig oa olan wdc s ons e shige ee oe emee oo taheas facing 688 
People of the Holy Land, Ezekiel’s Ideal of the Distribution of the... ..........e eee ee ee cree neces 883 


Person Worshiping Before thie Macreds Procwee te ates reise he ce owe vices ee tdenialee’s pag v.caip spies e's 


XViii LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 



























































PAGE 
Pharaoh with the Crown: of Upper.and LoweriEgypt.% 0.05 oie ease disses ole wie'e ae ge ee amas ns 701 
Phenician ‘Temple'at: Idalion Cy prusic': s Cer Heo ele ere oe a nv os So Ce cies os en 894 
Pillar, Anointing of a Sacred Stoney sss vines hes coe be gb icles a\ew'e oo bee alele Mimi «oie ely 3 etd 48 
Pillars: from Oy prugy sc 7u:5 oes peti sedate eee Mlle Gare, HAN A dia Ne cue! wrelalnit AMEN dhe, os 5 pe nr 825 
Pithom; Store City of, andilts: Vicinity ov. ic uiia. sah ee skies ce old ole, a+ sete eels pele kt aaa 715 
Plan of Babylon 'as' Restored by Nebuchadreggar:. 3). 02005 6... 5... ements omtaaieeles & was ee ae facing 88 
of Cpsarearniin, cw kiaie les. epee te MES in rots Miers atid alls S\ sue oo 2 6 ae naar as RRL, on en 120 
of Herod's Temple and'Courtsy 0.2 Weaeakee ve se: PI rf ode 899 
Of "Hoyal Buildings ye conics Bee Sheren Shel Gs! S322 5. wie) hse ale) s's oleae an rr 891 
Plate, Metal, for Baking Bread: see HouseHOLD UTENSILS, I......:......5¢ccecccsevecdouns facing 272 
Plow:\seo;A GRICDLTURAL IMPLEMENTS?!" Gaisce ec eve veces cslee vs oe ats aon eis facing 28 
ANd OxPOAd eM yTIAN vos ccd ce We cath aite hee lho cules oie’ sc  b'v.0 oie she een at nen ee er 717 
Polished ‘Metals Mirror wOfi.s bps phos wie tebe ate aes oid sole Bie des Sie eo c's 6 Sonne 300 
Pontius PilateBronze Coin Of; hes he la. see te ee a road slo Sele cleo bce 00s ROMEO gn 591 
Pool of Siloam, Course of Underground Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain to the................. 428 
Pot for Hot- Water: see HouspHoOLp UTENSIL, LE. enc) ls enc eke. le Retention ane emnra facing 273 
for Making ‘Coffee: isee;HoussHotp Urmnsius, Il. foie.) i... eran eee facing 273 
PotterysyArtazan tite, fee ae otters Scie dee ie meets feos ie ieal'e les glesciune'’e.o o\ocg) ORS eure ener facing 68 
Anclent-Seals on J&P Andles) i seeded oe cele ccs eb Seis ea wulesie ) ee ade eeine in ne ann 814-815 
Pounder, Washing-: see HOUSHHOLD. UTENSIDS, TDs .)o5 oo. ws oe os coc co 30s we 5 ele alpha sige nenamanenG facing 273 
Preexilic Seals on Jar Handles Found in Palestine. .............0 0. cc cece cence ene s stp bales 814-815 
Vue NR O10 CE ORE PMA Melon 2 Sais op dd ge aed one Atle het OS ARE 632 
Procession’ of: the Gods in! Babylonia: 25.5. cals. fs ticles Sac wis ole ss ca be sete Cd oleic le ke CU 827 
Priming-Ax:) see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS)... 05s ce eke ce dee cle vcleecucga cee eel ghaaene facing 28 
«Knife: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. foe iise.c eco c sce ees c cde cee ace ose el nataennenans facing 28 
Ram’s' Horn, Jewish: ‘see MusicaL INSTRUMENTS. 6660... 0... ee we we toe 6 one ote et ene facing 600 
Rea OMe GATE S28 ca cyins bs et REPEAL Ae sedi ene ate etic care ce ve tie 6! ai Sip ak di ota tace- us 20 Cee enc facing 29 
Representation of a Procession of the Gods in Babylonia... oo... 2 J... . sds so 0h we cowie ne een 827 
OLAVOACTE | LTCO.:. . o viaw wicks Mian tieiatticis apace’ cst lec crate e -Siath. hel bie visis, Sise’ sre atthe wale hea dhorepaate aaah Ate en 821 
onthe Sun-God Shamash iis reg en ea peatdie: char's: sia + sleidie ¢ ¢ oitic clara ene amelie 826 
LET OST Story sasake > 's tocytre tage acres 5: ccs tele ta aera naeai a tals Ta. sh 5th tik aad tind ak alana Oe nee 191 
Road eetional (View: of Romans si scr ciw were we weap wie le ale eles s Cade ead aloha alge cesta eat ae 943 
Roman Senate-house and Colonnades, Ruins of old.—Samaria.............. 00. c cece cece eeeveeees 804 
Route of the’ Exodus,’ Probable. i sco aictek © ce eovete tious e either isvetece boule tae Pacie’ ceckcle:salh Gate a ier 378 
PROP SB ULGIN GS ELAM OF. iccce Slee a yp alah e  lares clue Wigs STRROMIRE eee (arches ae qlell cient chy at) al Ree he eh cee 
Rums of Ephesus-—Theaterinsthe, Foreground? <i nce os cc's wie cle his hie sl > «Gi c.6, wae bees ees ee facing 216 
— of old Roman Senate-house and Colonnades.—Samaria........ 00... ce cece ee ee cece eee eeeeee 804 
Sacred Stone Pillar, sAnointing of) Joop cos 2. Sea ae elk avs cele olen eae a Tica rite eee ad beet ae 48 
dree; Goddess Emerging froma. 4.426 208 ee os ees bce 4s toed alee nile em ae ae 821 
—- Person; Worshiping Befores ..scieo0 Se bod ites tensed: ie Sine ak wire ce ae ns Bestest 821 
Representation OF. 255 sis, lfc seek code wi al okehs & slalig ellen se gece con. wtp ee trun the etetehe at pit aa ne 821 
Sacrificial Ceremony. ois icia/sisic olsls arcie scsiateteteMPete sQeue le ‘eh o @ficlalase el acliebsly ool pbaietllare ote © aiken tet ait eke 165 
pacddie:isee ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL: oy ole 5.08.2 c.. Seen im sis'le s blere a a chee Glee ae eee facing 798 
Saddie-Basc; see ARTICLES USED IN ‘TRAVEL. § s/iis cles «pleas oalevels s vases dupe ale eustel ty adel ee facing 798 
SAIMATIA, VATICIOTIG a4 foe cid ars told iol n eheda ince, sien e Cobhveteverie ol Sov sale wid alle elo nt elalal oRUstS len evi et RENAE aang 805 
Ruins of Old Roman Senate-house and Colonnades......... 04.0040... os ewieae tele sla aes 5 ee 804 
LEG OL egeiate ote ile acho los eh eclineas hee WW ale RteRes citrate: Shay ac SuuNGUG A scat owee ARMLES. Bt tenes co an 804 
Samaritan erp tse tass on che ccadeew vies heltasior cee ei cnet Ole Pete le eke ta lesa ote act a! clatntehty at ae Raye ten ante ee rr 40 
Sandals® Various Forms Of. i245 cic'ebon 5 esis ieteiein ls ois, Beata lei oS OMe ss c's Mialh fee ela eels ld coe et he 190 
Scopus, Jerusalem sro 1 as soins Riv a iktgics bates ow ite els mw eiminige es culled wie alc eisediate > owt gn facing 428 
Script( Samarrbans . ccc As iss aresescsckeestarap ech chy sale couaiadawiks\ aol ciade.dco ayaelgBl Geta WTA sRoRyS tee tenn 
Sea Of Galilee sic O7ss wisiekracclocacetete: ori (cavicece caer ies teat Mtcuace ein aoa saste Repasidechavastarecehs.« 2, legs) aesQrtnn 282 
Seal of Hananiah, Son of Azariaby cc. oie ele silk sie lese oe jeiete oss Sieleis's s Go so oe ce en 37 
of Nethaniah, Son of Obadiah gags eco s ede las 5 ole bares sce vv ae ele ew clea afce 2 een 816 
of Shemaiah; Soni Gf Azariah ys eis Oise debe adh sweety es ass. ce ie oseeian 37 
Seals on Jar Handles Found:in Palestine, Preexilic...0 3. 0...2..0 0c. ees ews vee Oh 814-815 
Section, Natural, at’ Ashkelon 2. 23 o. cites cs siete oso ae btae slob occ outa ele 4b ole tate 72 
Section of the Underground Conduit at the Virgin’s Fountain..................0.-+eeeuneeeeseeen 427 
Seed Sowing, Tube for: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS............ 0. cece ce cececcveveeeees facing 28 
Semitic Traders, Bringing Their Wares into Heypt. 0... gin... ss os cece « wine eho annem ae 377 
World, Map of ‘Ancient, .. pocrewerr as clomea ids seleccks siobe cs La ele eee tar een facing 811 
Senate-House and Colonnades, Ruins of old Roman.—Samaria..........ceeeerceeces ty igs ate rene 804 


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS xix 
























































PAGE 

Sennacherib and Asshurbanipal, Map of Nineveh, as Rebuilt by............ 00... ccc eee e eee eee eeee 622 
IRRMTEMBENET< (FES) ESEEIMIL | QUUSIC CL ae pt cy inte a tesdas Gracd so cs 9 Jade din bin: chadet a "ole g Were die BLA IaS Ot 380-381 
Shamash, Sun-God, Entering Through the Eastern Gate of Heaven.................ccccececscvees 826 
REE OGTR ARETON GLI SST OU ery atnlg £4 minleld ere)tiaca\e, o'e < sibcais os acces sete ob damn bc alk s sa eieetea ow adie 826 
SMNMRTISENA CAVE LE ITU VATU LIS. occ sche ce eeeRe sib fe as his wield in tacalc diatal a aleve wise a e.s capone ocd cle. oS cereale herd 839 
SE ETT REPIVEL IG TIRIVE HEC UGS,” 1) VODcars et Slo fo) etait s ule tec Alate ae a. 6°8 seo woe elu e-ghe Sabewakhe d daa oleh eile 6 37 
RE UPR ODET LOE 1INON . MACCADG Us aac, bs ace ¢ viclsis tage aide, occu cies avanca'thaledle Bigledlh sare ofa thin ware dimes 38 
eNeTPIS MED cMDILICLIIN.,", iecta, Ce OE ha woes She ais dNieie o- s.5:s.0'0)0'a/a 6,04 pig Su ealaie's sae oiee Veteiels 590 
MEM UM or Lie «sesch Ce a LM Rea ieh lake, wo disis als abe ecajetsase's cis de ee God vlakitio’s siala u's weld cpdiere the 37 
NEI PGK LY DCS OF oo cee te erae ee Rie Tee ine ater area nial 8 sire Sagi scat AR Meg es cs os tice seen 839 
UE RSE OI ITY cS 5g og ets eee ta atejt ol tM Khe as v's steless eos eclag coe tal sigioces ise va lieldche ale 190 
EIRP ITLANY INITIO WING | HOLKA ATUL S ale pci ace Sita al atgye oid es clove. c/scaie)e. sf tuh.'s ale wR oie erain's dala'g se digrece 30 
Winnowing: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS...... Pe oactemricnase: sta 's Sale chink Va Co oMMM EER ohaty ohe'S "oh ke facing 28 
COTA GRIT ULTURAL LMPTIMIIN TEC fed gc lareld sid cloueld bias clabeiaie aisles bas cele vineeele's ov se eelads facing 28 
SEM OO, FOUR HOLD UI SMNBIIM A Moe ih ein 5 ore k tin kd s's's «leiaieimialee's 60 nhs cued dv atwsie'ale a wetele’s facing 272 
Pn ecOG A GRICULT URALMAMPELNMENTS: als ssi.cie'ds ge sientenn See vajeds wewledenaevsasiceeet facing 28 
RTD Veet cet 1300 oe Seem te rey eee Se ACTS He ode ernraln's'y Sonia yim seats bis ae, Fins oer 0 doe ace ocd,s eid) shel oles, 6 191 
RN RA LSU RCN ED ree 8 rer seme ne aa an Getto Seal el soba se Rhee SEE Seale! elds aie ouerc deel eje chasafe ee 36 
Pool of, Course of Underground Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain to the................+6. 28 
Ie er ASLO ESLTIESTY IV) ACS oh Ree oc eh eis ck Finer l ale (ow alee oI aco F's Ca ce slave! chi Bol elulole’d stare 37 
RCE SEIT rO ROL COD PEL), OLS ais % vie oc w cists raid Miers blaigia’s aise, s\< a%eeaiely @ ctolisle s sig'e s seca 38 
OS OLUINED AUN 95 DGG cas pty RASH BOM A aS RE EE Gaba #218 Mag RA a me A a 37 

ME REPIDC SET ee ae teres ons en te eae clans) oc a ta tans a phe ate dG weal s bre ois ae Oe Blelniarh Gaewee seg 71 
PAL ISOM ce ere ea Le Ae Se Ld 2h CNY OUI Cae a'delh Gale ee ile ised aces 181 

Site of Jerusalem, Cross-Section (EH. and W.) Showing Elevations of the....................2-e0 00s 424 
Ta er eet er cette hd te aE te MHD ree MAN: Sidi da,)a yd a. pists Sach wha,la ddate los @ Bie S/b aly ate 804 
PueInmeeneiis.,bOtGe OF Water-okins and Other... 2. isa acne alec's eee el els cece ede cb dbs we nore facing 114 
Sledge, Threshing: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS, ......... 00.0 sc cece cree eeceees Daytona facing 28 
REECE Freee ATCC T CLG eee a iy ssh dl cok Chet ey Ae A TPO be, 5) thal Af ga Aliovelavshace acta pievale'e miele sian s 29 
OMT LET) D Li TROY ALUN Oia elt ako Wi winie e's aoe aiet vithe Sueiid dekh As wiste d min o's Zale nleis dipaiele semen 891 
Remeee oMiple (Alter nce), shront VieW OL. 5.. coc dese e clavels mitts Sas claw dec uiteclasistedces see ctiees 893 
Front Elevation, Showing Probable Construction of the Side Chambers.................. 893 

Perse EATING MO Aa aN sete dake AT se adie oe cue Rigie i ete a a A gia eee RG Give off apehliria gs. « 892 

SRP ETPE Ee etINe Vit I): (LU OL. bi Wh ae ate eee el a hire so cape ins Sones kd biden vem while aubieee digyern Wanc's cle atsreis facing 654. 
Specimens of Early Hebrew and Aramaic Alphabets. ............ 0... cece cece sec e cece eet e ec eeees 39 
tay. Sep RTICLER ORD INU URAVED hike so cilan eicioid ee ds clehe «OS qalaiede Gala 6 alae dled facing 798 
Pnteeihn thee minccwor tie Cron ASsnur, MILtAry. 26 cosas stels 4 aAlcle S40 ciclo aiine Gide Pek ce se deca 93 
Pn ran ere an (el LO’ TOA L's sic oie sa a oratale ces Sieh aks and, als ielela evince lb elated 2 Ae ee ce 590 
ee RR MIP ED ESPNS SICILY aioe Oo atate Bis ot oPal ocr ela cVedscalcke Sos tel oieke's be bien sisi ei vicisje ein divin a ciah e'sle slows «ten 820 
META DRMM TMSTI ADC A sNCTOC ore se. ciciisctai eles cic oe ole e teak here eo, wie Cold eek aun a Rich o whee Wists aia tua a o's 48 
TEAMED UOU TONSILS L Lees odie a o.s 6 hin cne siaicic elem ob steals Cs eee Fictsele seb be aie aele eles facing 273 
SE IIIEME AKIRSTATICLEORVIEINILY 7s «store efits tc fats hess ners wn eee aes eve HE'S bln a sh diehnla pls og o'e'e lee. 715 
Sun-God Shamash Entering Through the Eastern Gate of Heaven............cccccccccsscccevvees 826 
Speen SNAMIAG shepresentation Of. the, os..5. 6 te cee ee wes ss tice cece cece cscs cecces Peleeatee s 826 
Synagog at Kefr Bir‘im, Galilee, Front Elevation, Partially Restored. .............escecscceescecs 871 
a Se PE TOUT ee ATHY re oss athe takes is cater ete Nee les eicles og Gals alviees bc Dee gece arte TAL 
nena MUSEATULA US ICELE DIP IIT) cst als(sisis cla.sicdin sip aise sie claieie 0,0 iute'vin ahwiels 4 vec sSecdvedesslee 871 
Syrian Plow and Ox-goad......... Bale aay nn 8 seta tth het ae aia ke OP el | Pe ea a 717 
ESRI te torch gar ao & oics «Pied vinlicis's ale Geis sss eicele (eles vepectescnrusrees 880 
Tablet, Warning Gentiles Not to Enter the Court of Israel......... 2. cece cece ence cccccsccerceees 897 
Tabin, or Small Oven, Used in Baking (Under View)...........--scccecccscccesscessevecesccers 272 
ee Na rehash Ae SL otig! Gg (alo gis, eisai an tan 9.0\¥.00:e sie ble slale sweps scene es nese soctaieeis 665 
Tambourine, Dervish’s: see MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS. ......ccceccoccceccccsccvccvcceeeesers facing 600 
Pmerarese rel COUELS GE Aly OL PLOTOO S.cy cis kein ses cie bo ce eesieis ccc ole bes cawine voce soetedesveenacy 899 
Temple and Symbol of Astarte, Coin from Byblus Showing. ............¢2cee eee ee ec eeereceeeeces 821 
— at Idalion, Cyprus, Model of a Phenician................ ce cece ce ee cree ence et ee eeaeseeenes 894 
p= OLeAMON At Lhebes,.GrounG-Plan Of... ..cscc secs ccces ces cccsscccecccccccecesenccseroneess 892 
—— of Hzekiel’s Vision, Ground-Plan of. ..........cccccccsc secs sr acccncecnceccensssscececccocs 896 
of Solomon (After Stade), Front View ofs.........cccccsccccccccccccecssnsocccssessesese- 893 
REMCATOUTOSE LAN Of tGs ces mee aly heise + oi Wain sqelaie She asic soe elsitm a wle see gasses cals bee gin wile 892 
—— Showing Probable Construction of the Side Chambers, Front Elevation of................ 893 
IRE bela ain, oh oh Ge CR NTRS oe De? Gig adc eo a Wiles bene @ a ore dane ee ai wie Selee qmines 665 


Matradrachm, -Pyrian Shekel oF: ....2ssscteossnccecertecnsveceerrearccssasretsesvecsereesesin 590 


XX LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 


























PAGE 
Theater in Foreground, Ruins of) Wphesual (5 fo igvs celebs eouls  dcle's\s's «Sie Migiolals a vis = es olelaiem facing 216 
Thebes, Ground-Plan of the Temple of Amon at... .. 2.0.02... cecccc screens ceccrnecsevensescoucs 892 
Threshing-Sledge: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. .........0 cece cece ee eeedeccecectveceeee facing 28 
(Under Side)i iin pases ten Carcaiee ce aeiele's wela « ou Meats oof Sul 0 ie PRemMERDLOR. oe lai s (sea aan am 

Tiamat,. Marduk's' Bight withies oy ce aa a ae eal Sake) «eo ew ches Die be ls een Legler o) ele|e oleae anna 153 
Tiberius' Cesan,. Denarius of) is ieee es cua Aa ces Rebels slabs coy gies obese e:'o'e klele PAM Esa lass lol -«  opetiee aa 591 
Too-Rings, Foot with: Anklet andr Parson Veta cs ce Cake 6 cing sc 4 ics + as lo oes a RP TUMEROLOS: Ste labeled green 192 
Tower of Babee ts oo ric colk leer Oe cle tebe Cath gaia die alee: so 0 aaa o 00) gehen) tira 'ae ite, eran 917 
Traders, Semitic, Bringing Their. Wares into, Maynt, . 8.0. 6 ood. es ela ern unr ere bele ell els « of neaans 377 
Transportation of a Colossal Bull by Assyrian Slave-Labor. ............ cece cee c cece eter ee ec rcees 855 
Travel, Asticlas Used in. Sec war wets dat da deen tae cease ee eyed yee olan gin ae ann ee facing 798 
Tray and Standssee Anvictms Usnn Bik ERAVEE Ve 6 os occ caine coqevchaielon eg MMMM Ci ey ita facing 798 
Free, Dance Aroind's Sanred: occ eahic en eit wine hs Gels <0 0d aiglelle swidle die'a + a Sule UII piste) ae gaa aa 165 
Tube for Sowing Seed: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. .......e cece cece cece cece eee ceeeeers facing 28 
Types of Shepherds’ Crooks...... Waray, aie win ks SRMESIG Grable eece din gaia Ais g Ohke' eo 8 er UCR mn isnt me te oan ea 839 
Peran mhekelor Lotradrachen i s'< ne esa vent carey UN UN TY ot AAT Cea e.y ooo UM Cnne yl tale elie Risa 590 
Underground Conduit from the Virgin’s Fountain to the Pool of Siloam, Course of................. 428 
Utensils, Household, I.......... Cia el Din Danaea We alate ute Gaal gle elgg aa) ile: staan eal tala facing 272 
REUSED, yrunc end ei Uta te Ce vate Peete ens CET EEN Tee PEP ETERS facing 273 

——., Skin, Bottle or Water—Skins and Other........ Sarena cia tethTatalePeaaia eset sed St del erate gta aaa facing 114 
Vineyard, A..Modern Booth or Godge ins. oc abicecateceectcccacccccacseddeuds: (ca canine ae 114 
Virgin’s Fountain, Course of Underground Conduit from the, to the Pool of Siloam................. 428 
Wall of Old Jebusite City.—Ophel....... cas o's Gh Cetaatain be alle h GLa A cco Te acAtoeal CTI: ee a facing 429 
, Old, of David’s Capital—Ophel.......... eee PE AO AL iA hee ea T'S facing 429 
War, Ghariot, Hittite: : 2s 5 ce dake ve eae Wag he ate Ma Canton oe ieuie rice nce nr ae nn ray owly elke eae 65 
Warning Tablet Notifying Gentiles Not to Enter the Court of Israel..............26 cece eceeceees 897 
Washing-Pounder: see. HousEHoLp Urmnsins, IDs. cocci. 5 bd ce de teins tclen swiss nue aide oan facing 273 
Water-Bottle; see Anticums USED IN TRAVEDex 60.4 cas feo ets ties ce esc ose lea mialels ae nea facing 798 
Water-Skinsy Bottle or) and Other Skin’ Utensils). 3. so. « 60/0040 0 ana ois 0 ole cles a atuleta sananay ane facing 114 
Well: Jacob’s (Sectional. View). 0... si sc usw ete ccs suv ehletls Guls cn dnle we g's u-Ggtelsimiaht iiss etn tan 408 
MOUtH VOL JAG hss 2's asda cies Cob ee ROL ACC DCO © hoa neta a san PPR ee 408 
Wicker Cover for Dough-Bowl: see HoUSEHOLD UTENSILS............0cececcccvcscececevees facing 272 
Winnowing-Fork, Five-Pronged: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. ........- +e cecececececceces facing 28 
Winnowing, Forks and Shovel: Used iin. . 2, 6. cece oie 5 0.0 dwells role ales lau ble puePie eee) saan 30 
Winnowing-Shovel: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS. .........0cccccceccccccsccccccecsceess facing 28 
Woman's Girdle with Belle... 600 5s eco 0 bs ve cen tee Osa © pee 4 0 wel clele ole v0 renee aan 191 
Wonien: Grinding Meal ‘witha: Millke acs ceca tes cc cw ce wea a ccs e oe sha ue cane) ena ine lene 580 
World, Marly Babylonian Map of:thew. 00. o.0.5 ec on cc cc acacia oe claccle w/cltie ot calanecann  nte=nn aan 294 
Map of Ancient: Semitic, 2 is d5o iss sviele os s/a's,cs'e bie wlesce ws weiniere Mee onal eins etna facing 817 
mens Map Of Pauling. icv gs o's € b a.sja'g 0'ic slotele one tale © lurelele oie: sholevonslets he atehciatet oie tai ete aan naane facing 688 
Yoke for Threshing-Animals: see AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS............- 3 Tis See eee facing 28 
Zither: see MustcaL INSTRUMENTS........-.200. hate ck cate alate ee o clele’ es ete w ston 1a en eee mae facing 600 


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 


(Self-evident abbreviations, particularly those used in the bibliographies, are not included here.) 


&, *,8,>,°, AB DE HLP, ete.—Symbols by which the 
various N T Gr. MSS. of the uncial type are designated. The 
* signifies the first hand or writer of the MS.; the superior 
letters (*, >, °, ete.) indicate later revisers or correctors. 
See New TESTAMENT TEXT. 


AJA : 
AJSL 
AJT . 


Am.PEFSt. . 


AOF - 

ARV 3 - 

ARVMg: | /< 

Asc. Mos. * 

AVi. 

AVmg., RVmg. 
BDB 


Bell. Jud. or BJ. . 


Bib. Sacr. 


Bib. Theol. Lex. 


dh ty a0. « 
BRP oi is 
Bul ASOR 
ome tout) 
CH. 


Ch. Quar. Rev. 
Chron. Pasch. 


CIG or CIG*. 
CIL. : , 
CIS or CISem. 
Cod. Ham. 
(07-7) Mie! US op eae 
Cont. Ap. . 
COT . - 
“ D . ° 
DB ., ' 3 
DCB : r 
DCG % : 
EB . Z 
EBrit Lage 
Einl. e 
Ep., Epp. a ° 


American Journal of Archaeology. 
American Journal of Semitic Literature. 
American Journal of Theology. 


American Palestine Exploration Fund, 
Statement. 


Josephus, Antiquities. 


Hugo Winckler, Altorientalische 
schungen. 


American Standard Revised Version. 
American Revised Version, margin. 
Ascension of Moses. 

Authorized Version (i.¢e., King James’s 
Version of 1611). 
Authorized Version, 
Version, margin. 


For- 


margin. Revised 


Same as Ozf. Heb. Lez. (see below). 
Josephus, Jewish War (with Rome). 
Bibliotheca Sacra. 


Cremer, Biblico-theological Lexi-on of the 
New Testament. 


Josephus, Jewish War (with Rome). 
Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine. 


Bulletin of the American Society of Ori- 
ental Research. 


Byzantinische Zeitung. 


Code of Hammurabi. 

Church Quarterly Review. 

Chronicon Paschale, 

Corpus Inscriptionum Grecarum. 
Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. 
Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum. 
Code of Hammurabi. 

Codex or Codices Veteris Testamentt. 
Josephus, Against Apion. 


Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and 
the O T, Eng. transl. by Whitehouse. 


Deuteronomy (in its original form, or the 
code in Dt). Also, in a few instances D 
is the symbol for the N T Manuscript 
Codex Bezae (5th or 6th Cent.). 


Smith’s or Hastings’ Dictionary of the 
Bible. 


Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography. 
Hastings, Dictionary of Christ and the 
Gospels. 


The Elohist Document; see HExAaTEUCH. 
Encyclopedia Biblica. 

Encyclopedia Britannica, 9th ed. 
Einleitung. 

Epistle, Epistles. 


ERV 
ERVmg. 


Ee ‘ 
Kih. En. . 
EV or EVV 


Expos. . ‘ 


GAP . 
Lid Fo ee 


Heb. . 
Hebr. Arch. 
HGHL 


HGP 


Hist. Nat. or HN , 


HJP 


Hor. Heb. 


H.P.M.orHPM . 


ADS ie cites 


HTK 


IGSicil. . 


Int. Crit. Com. or 
ICC 


Jae ee 


Jee Mae k's 
JBL or JBLE 


JE. : 
ERIRP): 
JHS 
Jos. . 


Kethibh . 


XXi 


English (or British) Revised Version of 
1881. 


English (or British) Revised Version of 
1881, margin. 


Expository Times. 
Ethiopic Enoch, 


English Versions of the Bible (AV, ERV, 
and ARV). 


Expositor. 


F. Buhl, Geographie des alten Palistina. 


KE. Schiirer, Geschichte des Jiidischen 
Volkes, 3d ed. (4 = 4th ed.) 


Greek, 
B. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel. 


Holiness Code; 
§ 23. 


Drege Dictionary of the Bible (4 vol. 

ed.). 

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica. 

Hebrew. 

Hebraische Archdologie. 

G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the 
Holy Land. 

Same as HGHL. 

Pliny, Historia Naturalis (Natural His- 
tory). 


Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in 
the Time of Jesus Christ, Eng. transl. 
of GJV, 2d ed. 

J. Lightfoot, Hore Hebraice. 


McCurdy, History, Prophecy and the 
Monuments. 

Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the 
Books of Samuel, 2nd ed. (1913). 

Burney, Notes on the Heb. Text of the 
Books of Kings (1903). 


see art. HexaTEUCH, 


Inscriptiones Grace Siciliane. 
Iniernational Critical Commentary. 


The Jahvistic Document; see Hexa- 


TEUCH. 
Jehovah. 


Journal of Biblical Literature and Eze- 
gesis. 


Jewish Encyclopedia. 

See art. HexaTeucn, § 29. 
Journal of Hellenistic Studies. 
Josephus. 

Antiquities. 

Jewish War. 

Against Apion. 


Life. ; 
Jewish Quarterly Review. 


Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. 
Journal of Theological Studies. 


Schrader, Die Keilinschrifien und das 
Alte Testament, 3d ed. ; 


The ordinary Hebrew text of the O T 


as written. 


XXxii 


LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 





LOT eae 


LTMorLTJM . 


Dips eee te 
NEG Ares ale 
NT eulyt 
NTGr. . i 


On, Onom. or Onom. 
Sacr. 


OFT ee 
Oxf. Heb. Lez. 


P . ° 
Pal. . 3 
POE: 

PEF 5 : 
PEFQ, PEFQS, 
or PEFSt. . 

PRE: 


Proleg. . é 


Qeri or Qeré 
RE. 
RV. 5 5 


RVmg. a e e 


Driver, Introduction to the Literature of 
the O T, 6th or later edd. 


Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the 
Messiah, 


The Septuagint Version of the O T. 
Neue Kirchliche Zeitung. 

New Testament. 

Novum Testamentum Grecum. 


Eusebius, Onomasticon (also Jerome's 
ed. of the same). 


Old Testament. 


Oxford Hebrew Lexicon, by Briggs, Brown 
& Driver. 


Priest’s Code 
§§ 21 ff. 


Robinson, Biblical Researches in Pales- 
line. 


Same as P. 
Palestine Exploration Fund. 


see art. HeErxaTEucH: 


Palestine Ezploration Fund Quarterly 
Statement, 


Realencyklopddie fiir protestantische The- 
ologie und Kirche, 3d ed. 


Prolegomena, 


The Hebrew text of the O T as it should 
be read according to the Massoretic 
scholars. 


Realencyklopddie. (Same as PRE?.) 


Revised Version. (Generally, the Ameri- 
can Revised Version is intended by 
this abbreviation.) 


Revised Version, margin. 


SDOT lee E 
Sib. Or. . : 
Slav. En. 3 
SWP : 
Syr. . ‘ 


TLZ . 
TR . . * 
ver. ; 
Vit. e 
ae ; 
vs. . : 
Vulg. 

WH 

WZKM. . 
ZATW 
ZDMG 

ZDPV 

ZNTW . ; 
ZW ives 


Sacred Books of the O T (The Polychrome 
Bible.) 


Sibylline Oracles. 

Slavonic Enoch. 

Survey of Western Palestine. 
Syriac Version. 


Targum. 
Theologische Literaturzeitung. 


Textus Receptus (of the N T). (See 
New Tsst. Text, § 2.) 


verse. 
Josephus, Life. 
verses. 

versus, 


Vulgate (Jerome’s ed. 
Bible, 390-405 a.p.). 


of the Latin 


Westcott and Hort’s ed. of the N T in 
Greek. 


Wiener Zeitschrift fiir die Kunde des 
Morgenlandes. 


Zeitschrift fiir die alttestamentliche Wis- 
senschaft. 


Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenldnd- 
ischen Gesellschaft. 


Zeitschrift des 
Vereins. 


Deutschen Paldstina- 


Zeitschrift fiir neutestamentliche Wissen- 
schaft. 


Zeitschrift fiir wissenschaftliche Theologie, 


HELPFUL HINTS FOR THE GUIDANCE 
OF THE READER 


Sections: The larger articles will be found to be divided into sections numbered consecutively, no matter how large the 
article may be or how it may be divided otherwise. This is done to facilitate easy cross-reference. Wherever any reference is 
made to these longer articles, the number of the section is given, so that it may be turned to and found instantly. When the 
section to which reference is made is a long one and the term referred to itis treated only there, this term is printed in heavy- 
faced type. In this way it is believed the value of the Dictionary as a ready-reference book will be greatly enhanced. For 
example, the term KEY is not discussed by itself, but is referred to HOUSE, § 6 (1), where it is found printed in heavy-faced 


type and its Biblical usage is explained. 


Proper Names: In the case of proper names, thewmeanings have been given wherever they are known or can be ascertained 
with a fair degree of probability. Ina great manyyases this is not possible, and consequently no meanings have been assigned. 


Transliteration: In the transliteration of the Hebrew the aim has been to enable the English reader, who may be unfamiliar 
with Hebrew, to understand, as easily as possible, how the Hebrew words should be pronounced, and also to avoid the unnecessary 
printing of large numbers of Hebrew words. The system used is slightly different from that in general use, a few modifications hav- 
ing been made for the sake of greater simplicity. In particular, the older transliteration (as in the Englishman’s Concordance) 
of ¥ by ts has been retained, although the almost universal usage today is to represent ¥ by $. 


In regard to the vowels, no distinction has been made between the natural-long and tone-long, both alike being marked as 
long by a — over the vowel letter. The hafephs are indicated by an inverted caret, thus, 4, 8,6, Vowels with no mark are short. 


The indistinct shewas are indicated by small superior letters, nearly always ¢ or °. 


The following table indicates how the vowels are to be pronounced; 


a— 4 long, as in father, -z ashort, asinfat, -— 4 very short 
eNO es TOIT ttn DECY, wah OPAC Nttangh inet, act O (Sy 
We Of aot eaten LAVIN, eet Liew htc DIN, 
for —-5 “* “ * tone, ao OE EO Meret ee DOG has 1Oyacwe 1 en 
P ORD So ere 5 saute, =u a Canute 


-|  2# 


— #, &, °, merely a breathing—not a full vowel sound. 


In pronouncing a transliterated Hebrew word the following general rules will be of service; 


There are as many syllables as there are vowels, and every syllable must begin with a consonant (N=’ and y=‘ are con- 
sonants). 

As a rule, a consonant with the vowel following forms a syllable. 

Wher two consonants, or a double one, occur between two vowels, the first consonant unites with the preceding vowel to 
form or complete a syllable, while the second consonant takes the vowel following it. A final consonant belongs with the sylla- 
ble of the vowel preceding it. 

Hebrew words are, as a rule, accented on the last syllable, but if both vowels of the last two syllables are short the accent will 

. generally be placed on the syllable next before the last. 


The transliteration of the Hebrew consonants is exhibited in the following table. The letters 5, 3, 3, 9, BD, M, have 
each two sounds, a hard and a soft. When pointed with a daghesh, e.g., 4, these letters have a hard sound; when without 
a daghesh, a soft sound. With the exception of }, these two sounds are easily represented in English by b and bh (= »), d and 
dh, k and kh, p and ph, t and th. Altho gh does not well respresent the sound of undagheshed }, it has seemed best to make the 


same distinction in regard to this letter, 


L 


XXIV HELPFUL HINTS FOR THE GUIDANCE OF THE READER 





Hebrew words are transliterated according to the following table: 


HEBREW 


N=’ 
3=b, J=bh (i.e., v) 
i=g, J=gh 
“T=d, T=dh (t.e., th as 
in the) 
m=h 
l=w 


[Pj 
ane 


~ 


ae ig 9 es Os aN 
ll 


=] 
=m 
=n 
8 


(emphatic s) 
* (a guttural, 
gasping sound) 


w 
] 
Me 


Tez 
M=h (t.e., a gut- 
tural h) 
O=+ (palatal t) 
= 
J=k, 5, ]=kh (like a 
Scotch ch) 


KU 
uu 
co 


S. 
I 





ABBREVIATIONS OF NAMES OF THE BOOKS OF THE BIBLE AND OF THE 
O T APOCRYPHA 


1. BOOKS OF THE O T 


CEN Cy CARER pa ae Genesis TE Che iseesce II Chronicles NBD nisin Fab chibi ecnr Daniel 

PER kts ais o's: Exodus DOA de nies te nate ee Ezra Hos soMceecers Hosea 

vers eer. ce esc Leviticus Neh it Sacdanee Nehemiah SL rote eters see eres Joel 

INU ateVeiel ss _s¢++Numbers Hate, Aeterna Esther Ame sds dence Amos 

1 Ba op SAA ae Pan ..- -Deuteronomy JOD. ce eee Job Oberon eae Obadiah 

A OB aes aicteicdsatace Joshua DS seen ence Psalms VOD oe fatnete ote Jonah 

eee alotere’s Judges Pri eee ee Proverbs Mic: se. vue Micah 

TRAD hey Sere eae” Ruth Boe eat esa Ecclesiastes Nahi aiice ¢etaee Nahum. 
LO ee iec a) dageree I Samuel Dong un see Song of Solomon Habstsees eee Habakkuk 
TUS sees keepers II Samuel Tai es aie eon Isaiah Zep, ss scecewts Zephaniah | 
y Rid CL He I Kings JOP ee ae Jeremiah Haggis etic Haggai 
Dire ny cme II Kings Davi sssk ace Lamentations LOG Lee mee oat Zechariah | 
DASH eee en e's I Chronicles Bike te. aoe Ezekiel Males! occa cee Malachi 


2. BOOKS OF THE N T 


IV Gott eieters svete Matthew Bphe saree Ephesians Hexivat taeee Hebrews 
IK Seer eieretn see Mark Pheer oe Philippians DHSS, TOCA ee James 
Likstakiessh oe cee Luke LO) Rix ida ads Colossians LP er aieeee I Peter 

Abr byselsnrc serrate John bBo tne I Thessalonians bP LIE Pa Le II Peter 
ING Iie Worcieteiehenakes The Acts bd Bi elena oh Alo II Thessalonians Fodnee shad see I John 

RO sk tie cterntereiete Romans 1 iS Oe erate Sale Ai oe I Timothy EX nace II John 
TCOGs at areas I Corinthians DG el ty By eA II Timothy PETIA aon Os ces III John 
TDCos sero II Corinthians Tits aoe Peta dee Titus : JUG). cueinaee se Jude 
Galigacic ste Galatians Phra couse Philemon Rey. i o5.ccce pee Revelation 


: 


T Hai ecw ieee I Esdras thea he hoe ace ot Judith Ad: Estic ava Additions to Esther 
TEs tits donk II Esdras TEC cs see ais s Song of the Three Wiss sc hoe eee Wisdom 

PURE cote sah ete Sirach,or Ecclesiasticus Children Pr; Mans saeen Prayer of Manasses 
DADS 5 oes ie Baruch Bison te gies lest = Susanna I Mac. ee I Maccabces 


Ors at Sree eae OULE Bel..... «..+.-Bel and the Dragon IDWMaat, svsacee II Maccebees 





A NEW STANDARD 
BIBLE DICTIONARY 





THE APPROACH TO THE BIBLE 
1. THE APPROACH TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. 


I. Tue Lirerary APPROACH. 


N He 11 the OT is regarded by implication as a‘word of God.’ In it‘God has spoken.’ 
He spoke, however, ‘by divers portions and in divers manners,’ because He spoke 
through men, who necessarily varied in their circumstances, character, and capacities. 
The O T is therefore a word of man, or of men, as surely as it is a word of God, and it is 
best to begin by approaching it thus. This is the literary, as distinguished from the re- 
ligious, approach. For whatever else the Spirit of God did or did not do, it assuredly did 
not suppress the individuality of the men whom it used. 

Many kinds of literature and many points of view are represented in the O T. The 
historical and legal portions (cf. Lv) are in prose; Ps, Pr, Job, Song, Lam, and 
most of the Prophets, are in poetry. This obvious but important distinction often affects 
interpretation. For example, the miracle which men used to see in Jos 10 12 f. disappears 
the moment we remember that the incident is related in a book of poetry (10 13) and must 
therefore be treated according to the canons of poetry and not of bald annalistic prose. 
The prose portions (Gn—Est) are historical in form, but their contents stretch far back 
into periods for which there is nothing like contemporary evidence. Hence we have to 
remember that for the period, say, between Abraham and Moses, we are dealing with 
tradition, which nevertheless may doubtless have a real historical kernel, while the period 
before Abraham (Gn 1-11) is practically prehistoric, and what we have in those earlier 
chapters of Gn is not a record of historical fact, but rather the Hebrew answer to the 
problems raised by the universe and by human life—whence came the world, man, woman, 
sin, sorrow, pain, death, etc.? Thusin O T prose there is myth, legend, tradition, as well as 
annals, tales, biography and history. An even greater variety characterizes the poetry. 
There are war-ballads (Ex 15, Jg 5), dirges for the dead (II S 1 19-27), love poetry (Song), 
gnomic poetry (Pr), dramatic (Job), lyric (many of the Ps), ecstatic (Is 21), hortatory 
(everywhere in the prophets): the Psalms alone exhibit a wide variety of style and theme 
—processional songs (24), hymns for pilgrims (120-134), songs whose theme is nature 
(8, 104), history (78, 105 f.), worship (84), the riddle of life (49, 73), etc. 

The outlook and personalities of the writers are refreshingly diverse. The grim Amos 
with his passion for justice—how unlike his younger contemporary Hosea with his appeal 
for love (6 6)! Or could any contrast be greater than that between the glowing exuber- 
ance, alike in message and style, of Deutero-Isaiah (Is 40-55) and the meager jejune prose 
of Haggai; or between Jeremiah who cared less than nothing for ritual and Ezekiel to 
whom it was almost the all in all? The O T becomes a book of fascinating interest when we 
begin to appreciate the differences, sometimes important, sometimes unimportant, be- 
tween its various writers. Job, for example, is in essence a protest against the prevailing 
doctrine of O T (cf. Dt, Ezk, Pr, Chr) that men receive in this world exactly what they 
deserve. Isaiah announces that Jerusalem will be divinely protected (37 35), Micah that 
it will be destroyed (3 12). The attitude to foreigners is sometimes friendly to the point 
of generosity, as in Ruth and Jonah; sometimes it is aggressively and fanatically hostile, 
as in Esther. Ecclesiastes denies the contemporary Hebrew faith in four fundamental 
points: (a) that the world is good (Gn 1 31); (b) the law of retribution (Ezk 18 4); (c) im- 
mortality (Ps 73 24; Dn 12 2); (d) the Messianic hope—the thing that hath been is that 
which shall be (Ec 1 9), and the world, which is bad now, will never be any better. 

The most pervasive and fundamental contrast, however, is that between the prophet 
and the priest. Amos at the beginning and Malachi at the end of the prophetic succession 
are diametrically opposed—Amos maintaining that J”1 demands not sacrifice and 
offerings but righteousness only (5 24f.), and Malachi declaring that the people have 


1 This is the symbol commonly used to designate the proper name Yahweh, or, as it is spelled in the 
AmRYV, Jehovah, the covenant name of the God of Israel. 


3 


‘The Approach tothe OT A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 4 


ee Ts ass 


robbed God and brought His vengeance upon themselves by withholding the tithes and 
presenting blemished and inadequate offerings (1 14 3 8-12). Jeremiah is the champion 
of a religion of the spirit, asserting that J” had given no command concerning sacrifice 
(7 22) and that in the glorious future the law that would regulate human life would be 
the law written on the heart (81 33); Ezekiel, on the other hand, his younger contempor- 
ary, sees that future regulated by an elaborate ceremonial system (chs. 40-48), and believes 
that such a system alone can guarantee the presence of J” (48 35). The development 
of religious history and thought in the O T is, at least in part, a struggle between these 
two conceptions, and it is most instructive to watch the great protagonists of those ideas 
in their conflict with one another—a conflict most vividly epitomized in the clash between 
Amos and Amaziah in Am ch. 7. 

By the literary approach we are brought face to face with the vivid personalities of 


the writers—their experiences, problems, temperaments, idiosyncrasies. The O T is not - 


a quarry out of which texts may be dug in proof or support of doctrines; it is the literary 
reflection of experience, and we have not begun to enter into its real meaning or power 
until, by sympathetic imagination, we have passed through and beyond the words inte 
the souls of its writers whose experiences those words record. This is conspicuously true 
of the Psalms, which can only be adequately interpreted through an imaginative sympathy 
which reconstructs, so far as is possible, the original situation within and without the soul 
of the Psalmists; but it is scarcely less true of the historical and prophetical books. Be- 
hind these books, too, are men with a living faith which interprets for them God’s ways 
in history, and His demands upon men and nations. A literary study of this kind is, or 
should be, a real communion of souls. 


Il. Tue Historicat APPROACH. 


Iris of profound significance that nearly all the prophetical books begin with a chron- 
ological statement relative to the period during which the prophecies were delivered 
(cf. Am, Hos, Is, Mic, Jer, Ezk, Hag, Zec). This implies that only within these periods 
are their messages fully intelligible, and this simple fact imposes upon the student of 
prophecy the obligation to acquaint himself as fully as possible with the social and politi- 
cal facts of the times in which the prophets lived. Certain isolated passages may lend 
themselves to edification without a knowledge of those times, but without some such 
knowledge the bulk of prophecy is as good as unintelligible. When one prophet begins 
his message with ‘Comfort ye my people’ (Is 40 1), or another with ‘O Jehovah, how 
long shall I cry and Thou wilt not hear?’ (Hab 1 2), we must, in order to understand it, 
be able to visualize the public sorrow which called for comfort, or the oppression which 
seemed to imply that J” was indifferent. The prophecies were addressed primarily 
to Israel or Judah, not to us; to the 8th, 7th, 6th, or 5th century B. C., not to the 20th 
century A. D. Often the necessary knowledge is but very scantily supplied by the historical 
books of the O T itself (Kings, Ezr, Neh), and we have to draw heavily upon the records 
of Assyria, Babylon, and other extraneous sources; but from the prophets themselves we 
derive our fullest information about the social and religious conditions of the people they 
addressed (cf. Am 6 4-6; Hos 4 11-14; Jer 2 27 f., etc.). When this is understood, it will be 
seen how idle and inept is the attempt to interpret individual isolated passages, and more 
particularly the so called Messianic prophecies, as predictions of events in the life of 
Jesus or of other events hundreds of years later still. A promise like that of Dt 18 15 or 
of the child to be born in Is 7 14 finds its true and primary meaning in relation to the gen- 
eration in which it was uttered. This is the historical approach, and it delivers us from 
much fantastic and inconclusive interpretation. From such interpretation the book of 
Daniel has long suffered. But when we learn that it was issued in the second century in 
the midst of the great Maccabean struggle, not to enlighten later generations about the 
end of the world, but to comfort and sustain faithful Hebrews in their desperate struggle 
with heathendom, and to assure them of the ultimate triumph of the Kingdom of God, we 
begin to understand something of its amazing insight, faith, and power. 

But every book of the O T, and not the prophets alone, can best be understood in the 
light of the contemporary situation. Why does Chronicles, for example, when traversing 
the same ground as Kings, so persistently emphasize ritual, as is very evident from a 
comparison of their respective accounts of the reigns of Hezekiah (II K 18, II Ch 29-31) 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY The Approach to the O T 


a 





or Josiah (II K 23 21-23, II Ch 35 1-19)? Simply because the ritual interest was predomi- 
nant, as it is in Ezra, in the century, whether 4th or 3rd, B.c., when the book was com- 
posed. Whatever be its historical value for the times it describes, it is of great and un- 
questionable value as a reflection of the type of piety prevalent in the postexilic com- 
munity. So the book of Job, with its passionate protest against the traditional theodicy, 
and Ecclesiastes, with its melancholy verdict upon the futility of life, are best appreciated 
when seen in relation to the popular doctrines which they challenge, and against the back- 
ground of a world filled with the misery of upheavals (Job 12 17-21) and oppressions 
(Ee 316,41). Perhaps poetry—the Psalter, e.g.—has least to gain from a discovery of 
the historical background, tho, could we recover that completely, many things would be 
luminous that now are dark. 

The principle that literature is always a witness to the period which gives it birth is 
also true of the early historical books—of the sections, for example, in Gn dealing 
with patriarchal times. In ch. 22 Abraham prepares to sacrifice his son in obedience to 
a call which he believes to be divine; in ch. 28 Jacob erects as a sacred pillar at Bethel 
the stone on which he had slept and had his heavenly vision. These traditions go back 
to so hoary an antiquity that we can never know how much historical truth they may 
ultimately contain. But to remember that the passages were written in the 9th or 8th 
century B.c., when Bethel was a very popular and celebrated sanctuary (Am 5 5, 7 13) 
and the practise of child sacrifice, altho not prevalent, was occasional (II K 16 3), is to 
hold in our hands the key that unlocks their contemporary significance. Gn ch. 28 gratifies 
the Bethel worshipers and glorifies the sanctuary by tracing it back to their great and 
ancient father Jacob, while ch. 22 is a sermon, in narrative form, against child sacrifice, 
a prophetic protest of the same sort as, and only perhaps a few years earlier than, the 
protest in Mic 67. Prophet and historian alike were working for the same end, the puri- 
fication of contemporary religion. 

The full appreciation of the sequence of O T history and the development of Hebrew 
thought is only possible on the basis of such a rearrangement of O T material as has been 
wonbythe patient toil of generations of critical scholars. To begin with Gn ch.1 or to regard 
the book of Lv as a witness to the mind of Moses would be to vitiate our conception of 
the sequence and development, as these belong to the latest and postexilic stratum of the 
historical books. In view of the composite nature of these books it is not easy to say 
where a beginning might be most wisely made—possibly with the book of Judges, where 
social and religious life is, so to speak, in the raw. In any case the student should make 
use of some of the many helps to the appreciation of the literary sources and the chrono- 
logical understanding of the O T. Of these the most elaborate is Prof. C. F. Kent’s 
Student’s Old Testament, Logically and Chronologically Arranged and Translated, and one of 
the simplest Prof. I. G. Matthews’ Old Testament Life and Literature, where the syn- 
chronisms of the History and the Literature are tabulated in parallel columns. 


Ill. Tue Critica APPROACH. 


CRITICISM is inevitable. The problems with which it deals are created by the 
facts, such facts, e. g., as discrepancies and contradictions. Without some explanation 
or solution of these the intellect remains unsatisfied, and it is no mark of reverence to ignore 
or deny them. Let us single out some of the more salient and significant. According to 
Ex 3 13-16 and 6 3 the name of J” was unknown before the time of Moses. It is he 
who first proclaims it. But according to Gn 4 26 it is already known to the earliest genera- 
‘tions of the world. The perplexity occasioned by this contradiction diminishes when 
we discover that in accounts, which look like duplicates, of the same event, for example, 
Abraham’s denial of Sarah, the name of the deity is in the one J” (Gn 12 10-20), in 
the other Elohim, 7. e., God (Gn ch. 20). In other words there appear to be two literary 
sources, distinguished by different views of the origin of the name J”; and this 
conclusion, verified in numberless other ways, has thrown a flood of light upon the com- 
position of the Pentateuch and upon early historical writing among the Hebrews. Or 
take again the quite incidental word of Gn 207 that Abraham is ‘a prophet,’ and com- 
pare it with the statement in IS 9 9 that the man who in Samuel’s day began to be called 
prophet had formerly been known as seer. The inevitable inference from the latter pas- 


The ApproachtotheOT A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 6 





sage is that the prophet in the former is an anachronism, and that Gn ch. 20 can not have 
been written before the time of Samuel, is indeed in all probability considerably later, and 
belongs to the time when the prophet had become an important figure—a valuable clue 
being thus furnished to the date of the document in which it stands. 

Consider, again, the divergence in the two conceptions of the monarchy implicit in 
the story of its origin. One of the sources regards it as aiblessing and a gift of J’; 
the first king is anointed by divine commission ‘to be prince over My people Israel, and 
he shall save My people out of the hands of the Philistines’ (I S 9 16); the other regards 
the popular request for a king as a rejection of J”, and the monarchy as destined to 
prove a vexation, if not a curse (IS 87, 11#.). Is it unreasonable to regard this second 
source as the later reflection of an unhappy experience of monarchy, a criticism of the 
kind we have in Hos 8 4, 18 11? But by far the most flagrant divergence of all is that 
between Samuel and Kings on the one hand and Chronicles on the other. From the latter 
everything is omitted that would tell against the great David, while chapter after chapter 
is devoted to a description of the elaborate preparations he is said to have made for the 
building of the Temple and the organization of its officers (I Ch chs. 22—29); and minor 
discrepancies between the booksabound. The divergencies become very intelligible when 
we remember the late date of the Chronicler and the ritual and theological motives by 
which his presentation of the history is governed. 

The most momentous contradiction in the O T occurs in connection with the origin 
of the Hebrew sacrificial system. Amos (5 25), still more explicitly Jeremiah (7 22) and 
by implication Micah (6 6-8), maintain that J” had given no commandment con- 
cerning sacrifice. His demand was for a moraliservice. But how is it possible to reconcile 
this with the book of Leviticus which, almost from end to end, is an elaborate regulation 
of the sacrificial and other ritual, prescribed and issued by Moses at the command and 
with the authority of J” Himself? Criticism resolves this contradiction by putting 
the law, as expressed in Lv and the cognate sections of the Pentateuch, later than the 
prophets. The true chronological order is not the law and the prophets, but the prophets 
and the law; and this is one of the most vital and illuminating discoveries of criticism. 

The prophetical books present problems of another kind. The historical implications 
of one section may be so utterly inconsistent with those of another within the same book 
that the only possible conclusion is that they come from different periods. Why is it now 
universally believed that Is chs. 40-55 was written, not by Isaiah, but by an anonymous 
exilic prophet a century and a half after Isaiah was in his grave? Simply because the 
background is indisputably Babylonian,—it is Babylon’s gods that are mocked (46 1) and 
her empire that is doomed (ch. 47). But most decisive of all is the definite mention of 
Cyrus as the agent of J”’s purpose (44 28, 451); he is not predicted, he is already 
on the field of history, sweeping victoriously across it (412 1.). This simple fact obliges 
us to find for the prophecy a date within the period 549 B. c. when the Median empire 
fell before him and 538 B. c., when he captured Babylon. 

The aim of all true criticism is constructive, and its broad result is to make it abund- 
antly clear that revelation was progressive. In detail it has shown that, apart from Dt., 
three documents are represented in the Pentateuch—two preexilic and prophetic (known 
as J and E) and one postexilic and priestly (P); that Dt was published in 621 B. c. in 
the reign of Josiah (II K 22 f.) and written perhaps only a few decades before; that the 
material of Judges—Kings was redacted so as to drive home Dt’s lesson of the ruinous 
foily of idolatry; that in the literature (cf. P, Chron.) as in the life (cf. Ezra) of the post- 
exilic age, priestly interests predominated. This predominance has left its mark deep on 
Ot bane and, perhaps to an undue extent, has determined some types of Christian 
thought. 


IV. Tue Rewuicious APPROACH. ' 


TuE OT is, first and last, relzgious literature. It is the religion that has preserved the 
literature; and to fail to take account of the religion that created and lives in it, or to forget 
that a religious literature demands a religious approach, is to commit even a scientific blun- 
der of the first magnitude. The O T is a real unity: the variety dealt with in The Literary 
Approach is held together by the idea of God. ‘In the beginning God,’ and all the way 
through to the end. Every book of it is a testimony to its writer’s grasp of God and faith 


7 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY fhe Approach to the O T 


in Him. The historians reveal Him as the Controller of history, through even the mys- 
terious places of which His purpose runs: prophets plead with their fellows to return 
to Him in whose name they speak and to whose service they are called, interpreting His 
will for them as a demand for a deeper purity, justice and compassion in their relations 
with one another. The psalmists pour out their passionate hearts before Him. Always 
He is there, a Presence as real and almost as palpable as that of the men who speak for 
Him or to Him. Their peculiar intimacy with God is seen in its intensest form in the 
three prophets who have described the strange experience in which their call to service 
came (Is 6, Jer 1, Ezk 1), but to all the writers—we may well believe—God, altho appre- 
hended less vividly, was the great Reality. 

It is always a religious purpose that inspires their writing. They never write for effect, 
or merely to convey information: they write to justify the ways or expound the will of 
God to men, to express their own faith and to inspire others with a faith like their own. 
This purpose, which is implicit throughout all the historical narrative, is sometimes 
powerfully and elaborately suggested, if not directly expressed—notably in Jg 2 11-23, 
before the historian launches on the story of the early struggles in Palestine, and in IT K 
17 7-23, when he has just brought to its melancholy conclusion the story of the fall of the 
northern kingdom. Altho couched in the form of narrative, these passages have all the 
ring of asermon. They look like a quiet exposition of the ways of God with Israel; they 
are in reality a passionate exhortation to the readers to remember the God whose inexor- 
able laws control history and to avoid the sins of the fathers. Less immediately obvious 
but equally certain is the religious purpose underlying the glorious descriptions of 
the omnipotent majesty and wisdom of God revealed in the wonder of His universe, 
such, e. g., as we find in Is 40 or in Job 38 f. They are not mere descriptions, they are in- 
stinct with a religious purpose: they are designed, the one to comfort a despondent and 
disconsolate people by reminding them of the infinite power of the God who they think 
has forsaken or forgotten them (Is 40 27), the other to answer the doubts of God’s justice 
that had risen in the heart of a tortured man, by pointing to the wisdom and love at the 
heart of the universe (Job 38 26, 39). To one who understands that Daniel was written 
at the time when Antiochus Epiphanes was making his implacable assault upon the 
Jewish religion and its adherents, the purpose of the book is transparently to encourage 
and strengthen the faithful in their resistance to heathen demands, and to inspire them 
with the assurance that the kingdoms of this world, based upon brute force, would in the 
end be succeeded by the humane kingdom of God (Dn ch.7). It is this passionate convic- 
tion of God and His purpose, this persuasion of His presence in the individual life and in 
history, this delight in His law and His love, that binds the multifarious books of the 
O T into so singularly impressive a unity. Without some real affinity of spirit with those 
ancient men of God it is impossible to enter into the innermost heart of that wonderful 
literature, for at the heart of it is God. _ 


JoHN E. McFapyeEn. 


2. THE APPROACH TO THE NEW TESTAMENT, 


EARLY a hundred years ago Thomas Carlyle wrote a letter upon religion to John 
Stuart Mill, exhorting his friend to study the Bible. ‘I advise you,’ he said, ‘to 
persevere in reading the Bible (in seeing it, through all distances and disguises).’ The 
distance between us and the Bible is great; it is probably about 1800 years since the latest 
of the N T books was composed. But this is a minor difficulty; an ancient classic reaches 
across centuries to those who appreciate it. The real distance between us and the Bible 
is moral. What prevents, for example, the N T from being understood, what makes it 
seem often a foreign book to us, is not so much its Oriental shape and color as that we are 
out of touch and sympathy with its religious spirit. Only those who are prepared to be 
receptive, can enter into its meaning and message. This does not imply that we are called 
upon to believe exactly as men in the first century believed about the world and nature; their 
mental environment and outlook has long passed, and the more we recover it by 
antiquarian study, the more do we realize that it would be unreal for us to put ourselves 
back into their attitude of mind toward miracles, for example. What is essential is the 
faculty of entering into the religious faith which took this form at this period. And this 
faculty is aided by the fact that the faith has never ceased to live and move within this 
world, assuming various forms, but always true somehow and somewhere to its funda- 
mental principles. To belong to the Christian church or fellowship is to possess a certain 
clew to the understanding of the N T, such as no outsider, with the best of intentions in 
the world, can secure. The N T was written by and for members of the Christian Church. 
It is literature of a community. The Church has sometimes misunderstood it, sometimes 
neglected it for long, and sometimes depreciated it. Nevertheless the ethos of the Church 
is the atmosphere of the N T, and, however acute and earnest outsiders like Carlyle and 
Mill may be, however much the interpretation of the N T owes to scholars and thinkers 
who have seen and illustrated some of its truths vividly from a detached position, the 
best focus for observing it lies in the Christian community, where life depends for its mean- 
ing upon a living Lord. | 


I. THe ProsieM INVOLVED IN THE LANGUAGE, TEXT, AND 
CANONICITY OF THE N T Books. 


Tus does not imply, however, that pious feeling and devout aims can afford to do 
without technical scholarship. To overcome the [distances and disguises of the N T, 
historical imagination is required—that 1s, imagination as the vision of realities. The real- 
ities in question come before us in a collection of small books written in a foreign lan- 
guage and in an Oriental country, centuries ago. This collection has been translated 
into various languages, and it has passed through all the vicissitudes of a literary work 
exposed to the successive phases of circulation and editing which apply to any similar 
collection of books. The first concern of a reader is to know what exactly it means, or 
rather what exactly it meant. For this purpose investigation has to call upon the dif- 
ferent methods of historical and literary inquiry, with the best available resources of 
pure scholarship. By their help, and by their help alone, the disguises that hide the N T 
or, at any rate, that obscure it can be removed, till it stands out clear and commanding. 
The first (a) problem is the language. Here the study of the N T is simpler than the 
study of the Old. While a small part of the latter is in Aramaic, the N T is all in one lan- 
guage, the Hellenistic Greek which formed the medium of intercourse throughout the 
Roman Empire at the period of its composition. The exact study of this language, of its 
vocabulary and grammar, has been transformed within the last half century.1 We are 
now in a position to judge with fair accuracy how far the new religion created a language 
of its own, how far it stamped new meanings on old terms, and how far it simply carried 
on its inheritance in this respect. There are variations of style in the writers; some are 
highly cultured, like Luke and the writer of Hebrews, and one at least, the author of 
Second Peter, tends to be florid. But the general level of the N T Greek is that of a 


1 See article GREEK LANGUAGE. 
8 


9 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY The Approach to the N T 





language popular, flexible, and effective. How far it reflects its Semitic soil, is not yet 
clear. Most of its writers thought in Semitic; some translated Semitic sources. The 
outstanding problems to-day in this connection are those of the Fourth Gospel and the 
Acts of the Apostles, perhaps also of the book of Revelation. But the epistles were origi- 
nally written in Greek; there is no probability that any one of them represents a transla- 
tion. And even in the case of those books which may be held to represent a Greek version, 
in whole or part, of some Hebrew or Aramaic source, the general sense is not often 
rendered ambiguous, altho here and there the discovery of the Semitic original may re- 
veal a fresh accent or new meaning. Substantially, the religious message of the N T may 
be made out in all its outlines from the existing Greek text. And (6b) the text of the N T 
is in a far better state of preservation than the text of the O T. On the large majority 
of controverted readings there is a fair consensus of authorities for some one reading, 
whereas in many places of the O T the original text can only be guessed at. The huge mass 
of variants which swell a critical edition of the N T may seem formidable, but they are 
often merely secondary. Now and then early errors have crept into the text, but in the 
main it may be argued that these do not affect the cardinal facts and truths enshrined 
in the book. The problems of the text have been largely reset and elucidated during 
the past hundred years. They still form a delicate branch of research, but criticism has 
answered more questions than it has left open in this department, and there is a large 
measure of agreement upon the essential text. With any good modern edition of the 
Greek text in his hands, supplemented by an adequate modern English version, the 
reader need have little hesitation in believing that he is as near as can be, or need be, to 
the position of those who first read these documents in their original form. (c) Another 
point at which the problem of the N T is simpler than that of the O T, is in the question 
of the Canon. While all the books in the N T were written within a hundred years after 
the crucifixion of Jesus, it took several centuries before the Church finaliy fixed the 
Canon, that is, the list of the books which were to be regarded as inspired. Some were 
once read which were afterward ejected; others were left out or admitted with hesitation, 
which eventually won their foothold inside the collection. But once the N T Canon was 
fixed, as it was by the end of the fourth century, the uncanonical or apocryphal books, 
which had once competed for a place, were dropped. They were widely read still. 
Some of them helped to develop superstitions which entered into medieval theology, and 
many influenced medieval art and legend. But, apart from this, they were never ranked 
near the N T, whereas several books of the later Judaism clung to the O T Canon and, 
if not regarded as equal in doctrinal value, were read as edifying. Hence, there is a dif- 
ference between the Reformed Church and the Roman Church on the precise limits 
of the O T Canon, whereas, whatever be the differences between these churches, there 
is none upon the exact number of the original books in the N T. The N T Canon has no 
penumbra as the O:T Canon has, no fringe of deuterocanonical documents like the 
books of Ecclesiasticus and the Maccabees. 


Il Tur PrRosBLteEM INVOLVED IN THE RELATION OF THE N T AND THE FAITH . 
IT EXPRESSES TO THE O T AND ITs FAITH. 


TuEsE differences, however, only serve to bring out the unity and continuity be- 
tween the O T and the N T. The N T reflects a final phase in the revelation of God to 
His People. The primitive Christians were intensely conscious of the new, supreme 
revelation which had been made in Jesus Christ, but they claimed as their inheritance the 
traditions of Israel; their belief was that God had now fulfilled the ancient promises and 
realized His age-long purpose. The O T, with all its hopes and history, was theirs, under- 
stood for the first time in the light of Jesus Christ. This. was fundamental to Chris- 
tianity. But it raised difficulties for the Church, as it still raises difficulties. Some, like 
Marcion, stressed the new revelation in Christ so sharply that they repudiated the 
OT. It was to them not simply the record of an earlier and inferior stage in God’s revela- 
tion, but an incompatible entity, from which the new and true religion of Jesus Christ 
must shake itself clear. Against this exaggeration the main body of the Church, by a 
proper instinct, protested. Guided, as we may believe, by the Spirit of God, the Church 
held to the O T. But not always forright reasons, nor always along right lines. Historical 


‘The Approach tothe NT A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 10% 





criticism was hardly in existence, and as a rule the only way of conserving the O T was 
to allegorize it. As a witness to. monotheism, as a moral code, and as a proof of God’s 
past dealings in history with His People or Church, it was thus preserved. But, once 
historical criticism asserted itself, the relation of the O T to the New became at once 
clearer and more difficult to define. In our own day, the argument from prophecy has 
been reset, for example. It is no longer possible to expect a literal fulfilment of some 
O T prophecies about the rehabilitation of Israel as a Messianic community ruling the 
world from Jerusalem, or to treat the Messianic anticipations of the O T as literally 
fulfilled in Jesus. What appeals to us is rather the religious experience and ideals of the 
O T, and in the N T we recognize that the primitive Church read its O T under the limita- 
tions of a time-view which we can no longer fully share. Their belief that God’s purpose 
and plan of redemption culminated in Jesus Christ, we share heartily. But not always 
for their reasons and not always by their arguments. We too recognize in the O T. 
history an essential preparation for the N T, but not an allegorical or obscure anticipa- 
tion of its truths. We see in the O T differences of level which were generally hidden 
from the eyes of the early Christians, and even as we penetrate to its unity of revealing 
purpose we estimate its contents more carefully and critically. Instead of a mechanical 
uniformity between the two Testaments, we note a historical development of revelation, 
which makes the connection between the two organic and vital. All this involves special 
problems, such as the determination of the text of the O T used by the writers of the New, 
their conception of O T inspiration and authority, and their use of special O T books. 
But the outcome of these discussions is to recapture the permanent relation between 
the two and to restate it in terms of modern historical research. 


Ill. Tur Propiuems RAISED BY THE CRITICAL STUDY OF THE N T ItsEnr. 


THIS opens up in turn the problems raised by the criticism of the N T itself. No 
religion ever survives in any healthy form if it allows itself to fall below the level of 
contemporary intelligence in any age. This does not mean that religion is bound to accept 
the dicta or dogmas of contemporary science, either in philosophy or in history. These 
have their vogue, and yield to others, or suffer modification as research proceeds. But 
it does mean that religion can not afford to ignore or to defy the methods of the purest 
and most exacting research as applied to its sacred books. What it ought to do is to 
welcome and employ these fearlessly, conscious that its message has nothing to lose and 
everything to gain from a fair examination at the hands of critical methods, and that the 
ordeal will only serve to bring out the fundamental truths at stake. To permit criticism 
only so far as it bears out some preconceived dogmatic conclusions, or to deny criticism 
any rights at all in this region, is as futile as to maintain airily that real faith and histori- 
cal criticism move on quite different planes and that the inner evidence of faith may 
dispense with any proof that the gospels, for example, are historically reliable. Some 
critical methods and conclusions would idealize Jesus into a symbol. It is idle to pretend 
that the acceptance of such theories would not impair the security of Christian truth. The 
Christian revelation has been made in and through history, and no mystical or idealistic 
reconstruction can survive apart from the historical reality to which the N T in its own 
way witnesses. But it is imperative that the record of the revelation be tested, thoroughly, 
fairly, and persistently. This is a commonplace which requires wisdom and courage 
to practise, especially in the study of the N T. 

The controlling principle is to realize what the N T really is. As its very name indi- 
cates, it is a collection of books held together by one religious conviction. ‘Testament? 
is the equivalent of ‘covenant,’ which means a gracious purpose of God for His People, 
a purpose entering into history. In Jesus Christ God created a new relationship between 
man and Himself, an inward, spiritual fellowship, which superseded the older ‘covenant’ 
in the days of Israel, and which was never to be superseded. The People of God were to 
be now not one nation but a church or fellowship drawn from all nations; the basis of the 
‘covenant’ was to be faith on the part of men, faith elicited by the revelation of God 
in Christ. In earlier days, after some deliverance, the People would say: ‘Lo, this is 
our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the Lord; we have waited for 
him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation’ (Is 25 9). So, the primitive Church 


11 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY The Approach to the N T 


at the advent of Jesus, said, ‘This is our God, the Lord.’ One of the notes that thrill 
through the N T is a note of relief: ‘At last!’ People felt that a long-expected revela- 
tion had been made, which indeed transcended all expectations. The realization of God’s 
gracious purpose in the person of Jesus Christ was the answer to many a hope and the 
fulfilment of many a promise and prediction. The redeeming power of God, in forgive- 
ness and fellowship, was at last operative fully through Jesus Christ, whose place in 
history was decisive, marking the action of God as a God of love moving freely within 
the history of His People. The N T books are the record of this experience. They were 
written in the first flush of this supreme revelation, and they eventually acquired their 
common title on account of their religious content. Modern criticism has emphasized 
the variety of outlook in the different books; it has revealed a growth of thought and 
experience, and it has made clear the fact that none of the books was consciously written 
for a place in the N T, since in that age no one dreamt of any ‘New Testament,’ the 
Bible of the Church being the O T. But all this stress upon various types and phases 
has also revealed the fact that there is a natural coherence in the N T. Independent and 
divergent as the individual writers may be, they witness to an underlying unity of in- 
terest and aim. They are not of equal importance; no one, for example, would claim 
that the Epistle of Jude is as vital as the Gospel of John, or that the Second Epistle of 
Peter is on the same religious level as the Epistle to the Romans, or that the Second 
and Third Epistles of John mean as much as the Synoptic gospels. Neither are they 
always in unison; the divergences in the four Gospels show a varying attitude to cer- 
tain facts and features in the tradition about Jesus. Nevertheless the books of the N T 
are not in the collection by accident. We might almost say that ‘they gravitated toward 
each other in the course of the first century of the Church’s life, and imposed their unity 
on the Christian mind. That they are at one in some essential respects is obvious. They 
have at least unity of subject: they are all concerned with Jesus Christ, and with the 
manifestation of God’s redeeming love to men in Him’ (Denney, The Death of Christ, 
Chi). This is the focus from which we may estimate the N T as a whole. It witnesses 
to a historical revelation of God, culminating in Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ as divine. 
The most common expression for this belief in Christ is that He was ‘the Son of God,’ 
a Semitic expression which requires careful study. What it involves, for the birth of Jesus, 
for His miracles, and for His resurrection, is one of the central problems set by the 
study of the N T. But it is indubitable that the writers were convinced that He was 
in some sense the ‘Son of God,’ in a sense indeed in which no other being was or could 
be. One of the acutest problems is to determine, in this connection, how far such a con- 
sciousness was present to the mind of Jesus Himself. It has been argued that the N T 
really contains two religions, a religion of Jesus and a religion about Jesus; in other words, 
that Paul and the early Church made a redemptive religion out of the simple, ethical 
gospel preached by Jesus. The weight of evidence rather tends in the opposite direction. 
There was in Jesus Christ, when He was on earth, a consciousness of God which involved 
the faith afterward held by the early Church. Explain it as we may, there is a vital 
continuity between Jesus and Paul, between our Lord’s life and the subsequent faith 
of this Church. Apart from a redemptive, unique element in the person of Jesus, the 
development of the apostolic Church and its theology is inexplicable. It is not unfair to 
hold that the critical study of the N T, as it does justice to the idiosyncrasies of the in- 
dividual writers and to the differences of outlook which characterize their minds, suc- 
ceeds in bringing out with newemphasis the fundamental religious unity and interest of 
their belief in Jesus Christ. 


IV. Tue ProBLem INVOLVED IN THE Fact THAT THE N T Writines BELONG, AS TO 
THEIR DATE, TO A PARTICULAR AGE WITH ITS OWN SPECIAL CHARACTER. 


Tue revelation in Jesus Christ, which produced the N T, or rather which produced 
the Christian Church in which and for which the N T books were written, was made at 
a certain age, and its record bears water-marks of its origin. The outlook upon the 
universe, the psychology, the conception of history, and the attitude toward social 
problems, which are reflected in the N T, are no longer ours. There are elements 
in its message which are not permanent. Also, there are questions upon which it 


The Approach tothe NT A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 12 | 


nen A CE NL LD 


throws no light; it is not a text-book for ecclesiastical or for ethical practise, and 
one of the responsibilities laid upon the Church in every generation is to recover its 
principles and ideals, without attempting to make it a code. One extreme position 
is to assert the literal validity of every word in it as inspired and authoritative. ‘The 
opposite extreme is to manipulate it in order to suit the prejudices of the age—a tendency 
which Mr. William de Morgan, the English novelist, satirically describes in his sketch 
of a Positivist solicitor (in Joseph Vance), who ‘was an example of a Christian who had 
endeavored to strain off the teachings of Jesus the Nazarene from the scum and the 
dregs of the world and the churches, and had never been able to decide on the mesh of 
his strainer.’ Now, the mesh of the strainer is not constant. But a mesh there must be, 
and a mesh which does not allow the fundamental reality of the divine Sonship of Jesus 
to slip through as an accretion. The study of the N T, which is to be religious and criti- 
cal, must be alive at all points to the historical and literary environment of the first cen- 
tury A. D. This is the beginning of wisdom in its interpretation, and much real progress 
has been made in this direction. We may say that the problems of literary origin and 
structure have been placed in a fairly clear light, even tho they are not yet solved. 
The outstanding questions to-day relate to (a) the original language of the Gospels, in- 
cluding the Fourth Gospel, and (6) the relation of Paul’s theology to contemporary 
cults in the sphere of pagan religion. The former is important, as it suggests the possibility 
that here and there the passage of the tradition from Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek may 
have altered the sense of a saying. But, upon the whole, it is not likely that investiga- 
tions in this field will affect materially the main outlines of early Christian belief. And, 
so far as questions of a literary nature are concerned, they are mostly secondary. Whether 
or not Paul wrote Ephesians or the Pastoral Epistles, whether Peter wrote First Peter, 
or the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, are matters which, altho profoundly interesting, 
do not essentially alter the religious message of these documents. The determining issue 
is the primary conviction about the significance of Jesus Christ, and the main interest 
to-day is to evaluate the forms in which this was conveyed to the first generation of 
Christians. The N T is dominated by the impression of the redeeming realities of the 
Gospel. Jesus Christ’s person and work are the supreme subject and object of all the 
N T books, and it is by the standards of this revelation that they are ultimately to be 
weighed. These standards are not to be picked up by a superficial reading even of the 
Gospels. For the Gospels themselves witness to a variety and a development in their inter- 
pretation, and they present the difficult problem, for example, of determining how far 
the eschatological horizon affects the outlook of Jesus as well as of the Early Church 
upon duty. But, for the honest and fruitful study of the N T, which seeks to be free from 
bondage to literalism and traditionalism, and at the same time to recognize the moral 
and spiritual authority of the N T asa religious classic, the following points may be noted: 
(a) As literature of revelation, that is, as literature which conveys the immediate im- 
pression of God’s revelation in the life of Jesus Christ, the N T possesses the twofold 
quality of being intelligible to the age for which it was written and also of containing 
more than the original recipients could understand; it is meant for more than its first 
audience. Had the literature failed to express the significance of the revelation to the 
first century readers, it would have missed its aim. On the other hand, it was not under- 
stood absolutely and purely by that age; its meaning and message were not exhausted 
in the contemporary life of the Church. For revelation is a continuous process of God’s 
Spirit, and, while the N T is an indispensable record of the revelation in Christ, it is 
capable of fresh reinterpretation by the Church under the guidance of the Spirit. Over 
and again the life of Christianity has been revived by fresh contact with the N T, after 
conventional traditions of the Church have dulled the meaning of its sacred books. 
The N T is the record of a supreme religious experience and also of the interpretations of 
that experience. The latter are often couched in temporary and transitional forms, which 
lie open to historical criticism; but the religious experience does not depend necessarily 
upon the interpretations. The living Spirit of God maintains the life of the Christian 
fellowship, which penetrates again and again to the reality of the creative force of the 
revelation in Jesus Christ. (b) This record of the Christian revelation is more than a 
mere record; through it similar religious experience is generated, that is, religious 
experience similar to that of the first Christians. It is true to speak of ‘the sacrament 


13 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY _ The Approach to the N T 





of the Bible,’ or; more specifically, of the ‘sacrament of the New Testament,’ for it 
has always had sacramental value for the Church, by putting its readers into direct 
touch with the presence of God, and thereby acting as a means of grace. The N T is not 
shut up in the first century. Historical study finds it there, rooted in its soil and breath- 
ing its air. But the more thoroughly this study is carried on, the more does the N T enable 
readers of a later generation to have a direct and personal experience of the revelation 
which it enshrines. It is in this sense that we may even call the N T ‘the Word of God.’ 
Not only does it contain God’s word, that is, the revelation of His saving mind and pur- 
pose in Jesus Christ, but, as Rothe observes (Zur Dogmaitzk, p. 155), it is such an original 
record ‘as is itself an integral element in the revelation which it records,’ charged with 
vitalizing power—not in any mechanical sense, as if the mere letter operated like a medie- 
val sacrament, but in the contact between the living God and the living faith of His Peo- 
ple who seek to know and do His will. For (c) the revelation with which the N T is 
charged is not a fixed deposit of dogma, supernaturally conveyed, but a Life generated by 
the Spirit of Jesus Christ. This Life implies no doubt certain truths or doctrines, which 
have to be retained and from time to time restated. But they are only tenable in and 
through participation in the Life itself. What enforces them is not any dogma of Church- 
tradition, not any arbitrary hypothesis of verbal infallibility, but the authority with 
which life speaks to life. When Erasmus broke through the tradition of the medieval 
Church and dared to present the N T, in as pure and direct a form as he knew, to the 
people of his day, he declared that this was the end and object of all N T scholarship 
and study, to allow Jesus Christ to become more visible. The pages of the N T, he wrote, 
‘will give you Christ Himself, talking, healing, dying, rising, the whole Christ in a word; 
they will give Him to you in an intimacy so close that He would be less visible to you if 
He stood before your eyes.’ This realization of Jesus is the end of all N T study, just 
because it is the object of the N T itself. It demands more than a merely emotional 
or devotional attitude on the one hand, and on the other hand an approach which is 
wider than that which technical scholarship provides. For truth requires all our facul- 
ties, if we are to grasp it, and the larger the truth, the wider the demand upon intelli- 
gence and emotion. The revelation of God in the Life and Spirit of the Lord Jesus Christ, 
which is enshrined in the N T, requires a personal verification from all who claim to 
accept it, a verification involving mental as well as moral honesty, humility, candor, 
perseverance, and a readiness to give up prejudices; most of all, perhaps, it requires a 
disposition to admit that the truth of this revelation is larger than any one age can 
grasp. Many, who are free from either animosity or indifference toward the N T, would 
find their appreciation of its meaning redoubled, were they to open their minds to the 
fact that this is the literature of a Life which disturbs whatever is lifeless and which 
remains more or less a secret to the self-conceit which is the besetting temptation of all 
mental research. It is through such disguises and distances, as we saw above, that the 
genuine student must pass, if he is to touch the Life which alone gives meaning to the 


Lirerature: A selected list of standard books is provided in B. W. Bacon’s The Making of the New Testa- 
ment (Home University Library). From subsequent literature on the subject the following may be selected: G. 
H. Gilbert, The Interpretation of the Bible (New York, 1908); A. S. Peake, The Bible, its Origin, Significance and 
Abiding Worth; E. Griffith-Jones in Peake’s One Volume Commentary on the Bible (1919); F. C. Conybeare, History 
of New Testament Criticism (London, 1910); A. Nairne, The Faith of the New Testament (London, 1920); S. H. 
Mellone, The New Testament and Modern Life (London, 1921); J. Moffatt, The Approach to the New Testament 
(London, 1921); E. F. Scott, The New Testament Today (New York, 1921); G. W. Wade, New Testament History 
(London, 1922); J. H. Snowden, The Making and Meaning of the New Testament (New York, 1923). 


JAMES MOFFATT © 


KEY TO PRONUNCIATION 


The pronunciation given immediately after the titles, when these are Hebrew proper names, is that 
preferred by Funk & Waanatts New Standard Deion a of the English Language. A comparison of 
this pronunciation with the transliteration of these names will show the difference between the modern 
English pronunciation of such names and the Hebrew pronunciation. 


Throughout this book the Revised Scientific Alphabet, devised by the American Philological Associa- 
tion, the Modern Language Association of America, and the National Education Association by joint action 
in Committee, and used to indicate pronunciation in the New Standard Dictionary of the English Language 
has been employed for the same purpose. Its essential principle is that one symbol only is used for each 
sound, no matter what letters or combinations of letters are used in spelling to indicate that cound. For 
examples of these combinations, see below. Where two pronunciations are given the first i is preferred. The 
pronunciations of simple title-words have been omitted as unnecessary. 


The basic principle of the alphabet used to indicate pronunciation—namely, the use of the fundamental 
vowels and their original Roman values—has been used to indicate pronunciation in dictionaries for more 
than fifty years. This principle was adopted by the United States Geographic Board, the Royal Geograph- 
ical Society of England and the other learned bodies named above. 


In its treatment of pronunciation, this dictionary aims to reflect the best usage of the English-speaking 
world, but it should be remembered that the English-speaking world is now so vast in extent and the varia- 
tions of perfectly respectable utterance so numerous, that no authority can be final and no treatment of 
pronunciation exhaustive. 


a as in artistic, cartoon. k as in kin, cat, back, ache, pique, quit. 

a as in art, cart, alms, father. g as in go, dog, egg, ghost, guard. 

a as in add, fat, man, lap, baffle. 4) as In sing, long, ringing, link. 

a as in air, fare, pear, heir, there. th as in thin, bath, faith, ether, Luther. 

a as in ask, chant, dance, fast. th as in this, with, breathe, rather, either. 

e as in get, bell, says, leopard, said, dead, Ss as in so, house, this, missing, cent, scene, 
bury, added. psychology. 

é as in prey, wait, fame, great, neighbor. Z as in zest, lazy, buzz, was, houses. 

i as in hit, tin, miss, cyst, physic. éh as in chin, rich, church, watch. 

i as in police, mete, greet, sea. hw(wh)as in what, where, which, who, why. 

re) as in obey, window, photo. j as in jet, gin, gist, judge, pigeon. 

) as in go, note, glory, blow, soul, goat, sh asin ship, dish, issue, nation, ocean, 
beau. function, machine. 

° as in not, odd, what, was. 3 as in azure, seizure, leisure, vision. 

6 as in or, north, all, haul, walk, door. a as in about, final, sofa, over, separate, 

u as in full, push, could, stood. mystery,’guttural, martyrdom (always 

it as in rule, true, food, who, lose. unstressed). 

U as in but, under, son, other. 1 as in habit, senate, surfeit, biscuit, min’- 

o as in burn, cur, earn, whirl, myrrh. ute, menace, average, privilege, valley, 

al as in aisle, pine, sign, light, type, height. Sunday, cities, renew (always un-~ 

au as in sauerkraut, out, now. stressed). 

iu as in duration, futility. H as in loch (Scotch), ach, mich (German). 

it as in feud, tube, pupil, beauty. ii as in Liibeck (German), Dumas French). 

ei as in ot], coin, boy, oyster, loyal. | n as in bon (French), 


14 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE 
DICTIONARY 


AARON, ar’an (]778, ’ahdrdn): Son of Amram and 
Jochebed, descendant of Levi through Kohath, and 
three years older than his brother Moses (Ex 6 16 ff.; 
Nu 38 39). 

1. The Historical Aspect. The Biblical represen- 
tation of his character is negative and shadowy as 
compared with that of Moses. A clue to the seem- 
ingly contradictory delineations of A. is found in the 
documentary analysis (see Hmexarrucn). (a) The 
account of E. EH, with the point of view of N. Israel, 
where the tribe of Levi had no vested rights (cf. I K 
12 31), does not represent A. as a sacrosanct priest. 
He comes to meet Moses (Ex. 4 14), supports him in 
war (Ex 17 12) and jurisprudence (Ex 24 14). He 
yields to the people and makes the calf (Ex ch. 32), 
and with Miriam mutinies against Moses (Nu ch. 
12). He is present at the sacrificial covenant meal 
between Israel and the Kenites (Ex 18 12). The ac- 
count of his death in Dt 10 6 (from E) is different 
from that in Nu 20 22 #. (P). According to Dt it oc- 
curred at Moserah, seven stations from Mt. Hor 
(cf. Nu 33 30 ff.), in the early months of the wandering 
because of the sin of the golden calf. In E Joshua, 
instead of A., serves in the Tent (Ex 33 11). 

(b) The account of J. J records only the covenant 
meal on Sinai (Ex 241, 2, 9-11) and the vague charge 
that Aaron ‘let the people loose’ (Ex 32 25). Aaron 
seems to be an afterthought in J’s plague narrative 
(ef. Ex 8 25). In both J and P Moses is the vicegerent 
of deity and Aaron is Moses’ prophet (Ex 4 16, J; 
dehy 

(c) The view of the Law of Holiness and of 
Ezekiel. In Lv chs. 17-26 A. appears only in redac- 
tional passages connecting the Law of Holiness with 
its present context. In Ezk chs. 40-48 Zadok, not 
A., is the eponym of the priestly line (44 15, etc.). 

(d) View of P. The Priestly Document (see Hrxa- 
TEUCH § 27) seeks te place A. more nearly on a parity 
with Moses. He is joint-performer with M. of the 
wonders done before Pharoah. Naturally P. could 
not deny the real leadership of M. which was so 
firmly fixed in tradition. But as P. viewed the 
priestly-sacrificial system as the supreme element of 
the revelation at Sinai it was natural that he should 
consider A, the first high priest, as but little inferior 
to Moses. 

2. The Official Aspect. In Ex chs. 25-30 and 35-40, 
and in Ly and Nu Aaron’s name occurs frequently, 
evidently to impress upon the people the importance 
of the priesthood (cf. the usage in Ezk). What was 
done to and for Aaron was what should be done with 


A 


any high priest. The ceremonial enduement pre- 
scribed in Ex chs. 28, 29 and Lv ch. 8 is a manual for 
the sanctuary ritual. That A. was Moses’ brother 
and that he was the ancestor of a priestly family may 
rest on valid tradition, but we must recognize that 
the prominence of his name in Ex and Nu reveals 
the necessity felt for prescriptive rights for the later 
‘Aaronic’ priesthood. See PrresrHoop. 
A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. 


AARONITES. Only in AV of 1 Ch 12 27, 27 17; ef. 


. RV and Prissruoop, §§ 6-9. 


AARON’S ROD. In two places in P. particular 
reference is made to Aaron’s rod (i.e., staff). In the 
first (Ex 7 9-12, 19 f., 85, etc.) it is Aaron’s (not Moses’, 
as in HE. at Ex 4 17 and 14 16) rod with which the 
miracles and plagues are wrought before Pharaoh. In 
the second (Nuch. 17) A.’s rod, representing the tribe 
of Levi, alone of the thirteen rods left in the Taber- 
nacle overnight buds, blossoms, and bears fruit. This 
story was intended to teach and prove the Divine 
choice of Levi as the priestly tribe. It perhaps indi- 
cates that the exclusive claims of the Levites were 
once challenged and so understood the basis of the 
story may date back into the preexilic age (see 
PriestHoopD, § 4, end). The older tradition said 
that this rod was laid up before the Ark (Nu 1710, cf. 
1K 89). Later it was said to have been within the 
Ark (He 9 4). HE. E. N. 


AB, ab: The fifth month of the Jewish year. 
See Time, §3. For the syllable ‘Ab’ in proper names 
see ABI. 

ABADDON, a-bad’n (j!7238, ’dbhaddén), only in 
Rev 9 11 as the Hebrew original of Apollyon, ‘De- 
stroyer’. In the OT, however, A. is not a person, but 
simply the process of decay, destruction or loss (Job 
26 6, 28 22, 3112; Pr 1511; Ps 88 11; also Wis 18 22, 25). 
By synecdoche the word is made the name of Sheol; 
by personification acts are attributed to Sheol, thus 
arises the later identification of A., with an angel of 
destruction (Apollyon,q.v.). See also Escuaro.oery, 
§ 18. A. C. Z. 

ABAGTHA, a-bag’fhe (SDIAN8, ’dbhaghtha’): A 
chamberlain who served in the presence of Ahasue- 
rus. See CHAMBERLAINS, THE SEVEN. 


ABANAH, ab’e-na (7338, ’dbhanah, Abana AV; 
see II K 512): A cold swift stream rising in Mt. Anti- 
Lebanon. Breaking out into the plain a few miles W. 
of Damascus, it divides into seven streams whose 
waters irrigate the plain and supply the city. It 


Abarim 
Abimelech 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 16 





loses itself in the swampy Meadow Lakes 20 m. E. of 
Damascus on the edge of the desert. Its right name 
was probably Amana (RV mg.). The modern name 
is Barada. See also DAMascwus. HK. E. N. 

ABARIM, ab’a-rim (8°73, ‘abharim), ‘those-on- 
the-other-side’: The name of the mountain range in 
NW. part of Moab. (The term, however, according 
to G. A. Smith (HG HL. p. 548; EB. I 4) is applica- 
ble to the whole E. Jordan range.) Mt. Nebo is the 
best-known summit, and Abarim is used by metony- 
my for Nebo (Nu 27 12; Dt 32 49). In Jer 22 20 (‘pas- 
sages’ AV) Abarim is a more exact synonym of 
Bashan. The Heb. text of Ezk 39 11 also contains the 
word Abarim, but it is more literally translated ‘they 
that pass by.’ A. C, Z. 

ABBA, ab’a (’AGG4=8 98): Aramaic for ‘Father,’ 
transliterated into Greek and thence into English. 
It occurs three times in the NT (Mk 14 36; Ro 8 15; 
Gal 46). From the fact that it is invariably followed 
by the explanatory addition ‘father’ it has been 
argued that it had come to be regarded as one of the 
proper names of God. For this there is no direct 
evidence. More probably it was used as a familiar 
liturgical expression, which Jesus and Paul adopted 
with particular emphasis on its essential content, de- 
veloping into rich suggestiveness. A. C. Z. 

ABDA, ab’da (N72¥, ‘abhda’), ‘servant (of J’’?)’: 
1. The father of Adoniram, Solomon’s tribute-master 
(1K 46). 2. The son of Shammua (Neh 11 17, called 
Obadiah in I Ch 9 16). 

ABDEEL, ab’d1-el (287Aay, ‘abhd’ él), ‘servant of 
God’: The father of Shelemiah (Jer 36 28). 

ABDI, ab’dai (12Y, ‘abhdi), ‘servant (of J’’)’: 
1. The father of Kishi or Kish (I Ch 6 44; II Ch 
2912, or Kushaiah in I Ch 1517). 2. One of the ‘sons of 
Elam’ (Ezr 10 26). 

ABDIEL, ab’di-el (?8"12Y, ‘abhdi’al), ‘servant of 
God’: A Gadite (I Ch 5 15). 

ABDON, ab’den (]172¥, ‘abhdén), ‘servant’: 
I. 1. One of the minor judges of Israel, son of Hillel 
(Jg 12 13, 15). See also Bepan. 2. A son of Shashak 
(I Ch 8 23). 3. A son of Jeiel, father of Gibeon (I Ch 
8 30, 9 36). 4. A son of Micah (II Ch 34 20, called 
Achbor in II K 22 12). 

Il. A Levitical city in Asher (Jos 21 30; 1 Ch 6 74) 
called Ebron (Hebron AV) in Jos 19 28. Map IV,E6. 

ABEDNEGO, a-bed’ni-g6 (13) 12Y, ‘abhédh neghd), 
from Abed- Nebo, ‘servant of Nebo’: The Babylonian 
name of Azariah, one of Daniel’s three companions 
(Dan 17, 2 49, etc.). 

ABEL, é’bel (227, hebhel), formerly thought to 
mean ‘breath’, later translated ‘son’, possibly ‘leader 
of a herd’: Adam’s second son, a shepherd, murdered 
by Cain (Gn ch. 4). Why the sacrifice of A. was 
more pleasing to J” than Cain’s is not stated; the 
implication may be that Cain’s bloodless offering, 
like that of the agricultural Canaanites to their 
Baals, displeased J’, who [preferred pastoral life. 
In the N T A. is pictured as a martyr for right- 
eousness (Mt 23 35; He 11 4; I Jn 312). In He 12 24 
the blood of Jesus, which meant salvation, is said 
to speak better than that of A., which cried only for 
vengeance (Gn 4 10). O. R. S. 


ABEL, é’bel (723%, ’abhél), ‘meadow’ (II S 20 
14-18): 1. See A. of Bera-Maacan. 2. According to 
the Heb. text of 1S 6 18, followed by AV, the name 
of a locality near Beth-shemesh. The LXX. reads 
instead ‘stone,’ which is followed by RV. 

E. E. N. 

ABELCHERAMIM, é”bel-ker’a-mim (9°22 #8 
’abhél kerdémim, A.-Keramim AV), ‘meadow of vine- 
yards’: A locality in Ammon (Jg 1133), probably near 
Rabbah of Ammon (later called Philadelphia). Map 
III, K 5. A. 8S. C.*—O. R. 8. 

ABEL-MAIM, é’’bel-mé’im (9°) “8, ’abhél mayim) 
‘meadow of waters’: A variant, or text-corruption, 
for Abel-beth-maacah (II Ch 16 4). 


ABEL-MEHOLAH, @”bel-mi-ho’la (7bIND os, 


’Gbhél meholah), ‘meadow of dancing’: A city with its 
surrounding district possibly on the headland lying 
just N. of the lower course of the Wdady Farah (Map 
III, D 3), the ordinary identification (Map III, H 3) 
being improbable. It was Elisha’s residence (I K 
19 16). The ‘lip’ of A. (Jg 7 22) has been identified as 
modern el Mahruk near the junction of Waédy Farah 
with the Jordan. Oe Ss: 

ABEL-MIZRAIM, @bel-miz’ra-im (O8°717%5 /S 
’abhél mitsrayim), ‘meadow of Egypt’: The stopping- 
place of Jacob’s funeral cortége (Gn 5011). Probably 
’Gbhél is a mistake for ’ébhel (Pay) and the meaning 
of the name is ‘Egyptians’ lament’. On the location, 
see ATAD. A. 8S. C.*—O. R. S. 

ABEL OF BETH-MAACAH, é’bel ov befh-mé’a-ke 
or ka (19¥H0 3 Pay, ’abhél béth hamma‘akhah) 
‘Abel of Beth-Maacah’: A fortified city in N. Pales- 
tine, probably modern Adil el Kamh (White Abel), 
W. of Dan; the stronghold of Sheba’s insurrection 
(II S 20 14-22). In II S 20 14 we should read ‘Abel of 
Beth-Maacah’, as in v. 15, altho here and in II K 
15 29 LXX. takes Abel and Beth-Maacah as two 
different places. It was besieged by Ben-hadad 
(I K 15 20) and Tiglath-Pileser ITI (II K 15 29). 
Map IV, E4. See Bera-MAAcAH. OnKe Ss: 

ABEL-SHITTIM, ébel-shit’im ((°O80 “S, ’abhal 
hashshittim), ‘acacia-meadow’: A locality in the low- 
lands of Moab (Nu 83 49; cf. Mic 65). Map ITI, H 5. 

ABEZ, é’bez. See Esnz. 

ABI, @’bi (28, ’Gbh7), ‘father’: Compound per- 
sonal names in which ‘Abi’ (often shortened to ‘Ab’) 
forms the first element are of two general classes: 

(a) In which the second part is a noun, generally 
the name of a deity; (6) in which it is an adjective or 
a verb. In cases under (a) Abi is generally the predi- 
cate, as Abi-jah, 7.e., ‘Jah (=Jehovah) is father.’ In 
cases under (b) it is the subject, as Abinadab, 7.e., 
‘the father (=God) gives.’ The ‘i’ of Abi is probably 
not the pronominal suffix ‘my,’ but an old ending 
serving merely as a connective. The syllable ‘ab’ at 
the end of a proper name has the same significance; 
e.g. Eliab is the same as Abiel (each means ‘God is 
father’), Joab is the same as Abijah (each means 
‘J’” is father). The number and variety of these 
compounds in which ‘Ab’ or ‘Abi’ means the divine 
father show that the conception of God as father 
goes back to very early times in Israel. At first the 
idea may have been of a physical fatherhood, or of 


OO — 


17 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Abarim 
Abimelech 





deity as the father of the tribe or people as a whole. 
Later it was refined into something more individual 
and spiritual. See G. B. Gray, Heb. Prop. Names, 
pp. 22-34 and 75-86). E. EB. N. 


ABI, é’bai (in IIT K 18 2). Shortened from Abijah. 
See ABisauH, 7. | 

ABIA, a-bai’a, ABIAH, a-bai’d. See Apryaug. 

ABIALBON, é’’bi-al’ben (ia2v7AaN, abhi ‘albhén): 
One of David’s heroes (IIS 23 31, Abiel in I Ch 11 32). 

ABIASAPH, a-bai’sa-saf. See EBIASAPH. 

ABIATHAR, o-bai’a-fhir (OIA8, ’ebhyathar), 
‘father of abundance’: A son of Ahimelech, priest at 
Nob. When Saul massacred Ahimelech and his 
household for harboring the fugitive David (I S 
22 11-20), A. escaped and joined David at Keilah, 
reporting to him what Saul had done. As he also 
brought the ephod with him, David appointed him 
to be the priest of his company, and consulted J” 
through him (I$ 307). Thenceforward Abiathar re- 
mained with David, and, when the latter became 
king, was associated in the priesthood with Zadok 
(IIS 15 24, 20 25). He survived David, and by Solo- 
mon was deposed and banished to Anathoth for 
abetting and assisting in Adonijah’s plot to wrest 
the kingdom from him (I K 17, 19, 25, 2 22, 26, 27). 

A. C. Z. 

ABIB, é’bib (2°38, ’abhibh): The ‘earing’ month 
of the old Hebrew year. See Tima, § 3. 

ABIDA, a-bai’da (VTA, ’dbhidhad‘, Abidah AV), 
‘the father (God) knows’: The ancestral head of a 
clan of Midian (Gn 25 4; I Ch 1 33). 


ABIDAN, ab’i-dan (]T3¥, ’dbhidhdn), ‘the father 
(God) is judge’: A prince of Benjamin (Nu i 1, 2 22, 
7 60, 65, 10 24). 

ABIEL, é’bi-el (28°28, ’abhi’él), ‘the father is 
God’: 1. Grandfather of Saul and Abner (I S 91, 
1451). 2. One of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 32, Abialbon 
in II § 23 31). 

ABIEZER, é@”bi-i’zar (YAS, ’dbhi‘ezer), ‘the 
father (God) is help’: 1. The clan of Abiezrites of Ma- 
nasseh, to which Gideon belonged (Jg 611 ff., 8 2, 32), 
reckoned genealogically to Machir through Gilead 
(Jos 17 2; I Ch 718; Nu 26 30, where the form is Iezer, 
Tezerite [Jeezer, Jeezerite AV]). 2. An Anathothite, 
one of David’s heroes (II S 23 27; I Ch 11 28, 27 12). 

K. E. N. 

ABIEZRITE, 6’’bi-ez’rait. See ABrEzErR, § 1. 


ABIGAIL, ab‘i-gél (7°P28, ‘dbhighayil) ‘father 
(God?) is rejoicing’: 1. The wife of Nabal, later of 
David (I S 25 3, 42), mother of Chileab (or Daniel, 
ICh31), David’s second son (IIS 33). 2. David’s 
sister, the wife of Jether and mother of Amasa (I Ch 
2 16); in II S 17 25 called Abigal the daughter of 
Nahash, but ‘daughter of Nahash’ is probably a gloss 
from ver. 27. A. S. C.*—O. R. S. 

ABIHAIL, ab’1-he'il (7728, ’dbhthayil), ‘the 
father (God) is strength’: 1. The father of Zuriel 
(Nu 3 35). 2. The wife of Abishur (I Ch 2 29). 3. A 
Gadite (I Ch 514). 4. Niece of David, and mother-in- 
law of Rehoboam (II Ch 11 18). 5. The father of 
Esther (Est 2 15, 9 29). 


ABIHU, a-bai‘hidi (NITAN, ’dbhthw’), ‘the father is 
He’: Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu are mentioned to- 
gether as summoned to come up to Mt. Sinai with 
Moses (Ex 24 10., 9; but the || 19 24 mentions Aaron 
only). In P Abihu and Nadab are sons of Aaron (Ex 
6 23; Nu 3 2, etc.), later made priests (Ex 281) but 
afterwards slain for offering ‘strange’ fire (Lev 101f.; 
Nu 3 4, 26 61; I Ch 24 2). E. E. N. 

ABIHUD, a-bai’hid (T7738, ’dbhihudh), ‘the 
father (God) is glory’: A son of Bela (I Ch 8 3). 

ABIJAH, a-bai’ja (MAS, WNAR, 'abhiyyah, ’dbhiy- 
yGhi), ‘J’’ is my father’: 1. King of Judah, the son of 
Rehoboam, and Maacah, the daughter of Absalom. 
In I K 14 31, 151 ff., the name is spelled Abijam (an 
error). During his reign of three years he waged 
continual war with Jeroboam. The story in I K pro- 
duces the impression of a prolonged campaign, while 
the Chronicler [in his characteristic way (see CHRON- 
ICLES, Books or, § 4)] records only a single decisive 
battle (II Ch ch. 12). With 400,000 troops he met Jero- 
boam with 800,000 at Mt. Zemaraim. He upbraided 
Jeroboam and Israel for rebellion against the Davidie 
dynasty, for apostasy, and the expulsion of the priests 
and Levites. Caught at a disadvantage, the men of 
Judah prayed to Jehovah, who granted them a signal 
victory. Huis character was not exemplary, for he 
walked in the sins of his father, and his heart was not 
perfect with Jehovah. 2. A son of Jeroboam I. He 
died in fulfilment of Ahijah’s prediction (I K 141 #.). 
3. A son of Samuel (1S 8 2, Abiah AV). 4. The an- 
cestral head of the eighth course of priests, to which 
Zacharias, the father of John the Baptist, belonged 
(Lk 15 [Abia AV]; I Ch 24 10, 26 20; Neh 107, 12 4). 
5. A son of Becher (1 Ch 78, Abiah AV). 6. The wife 
of Hezron (I Ch 2 24, Abiah AV). 7. The wife of 
Ahaz and mother of Hezekiah (II Ch 29 1). 

JVALUBS 

ABIJAM, a-bai’jam. See Anrisag, 1. 

ABILENE, ab’’1-li’ni (AG:tAnya, ’ABetAnvn, WH.): 
The tetrarchy of Lysanias (Lk 3 1) in the Anti-Leb- 
anon. Abila. 18 Roman m. NW. of Damascus on the 
Abanah River, was its chief city, and has been iden- 
tified with the ruins at Suk Wddy Baradd. Josephus 
(Ant. XX, 71) speaks of a tetrarchy of Lysanias, and 
in XIX, 51 of ‘Abila of Lysanias.’ See Lysantas. 

OssrT; 

ABIMAEL, o-bim’s-el (P8238, ’abhima’él), ‘the 
father is God’: One of the descendants of Joktan 
(Gn 10 28). See ErHnoaraPHy AND ErHnowoey, §$ 
13. 

ABIMELECH, 0-bim’1-lek (122°2%, ’dbhimelekh), 
‘my father is Melech (Molech)’: 1. A Philistine king 
of Gerar, a locality near Gaza. Struck by the beauty 
of Sarah, and being deceived by Abraham as to her 
true relationship, he took her to wife. Obedient to 
a warning from God in a dream, he returned Sarah to 
her husband with costly gifts, at the same time 
pleading hisintegrity and upbraiding Abraham for his 
deception (Gn 201-18, E.). Later, their quarrel over the 
possession of a well was finally settled by the making 
of a covenant at Beer-Sheba (Gn 21 22-34, J and E). 
A similar story combining both incidents is related of 
Abimelech and Isaac (Gn 26 7-11, 26-33, J). Critical 
scholarship looks upon these accounts as doublets. 


Abinadab 
Abronah 





2. A son of Gideon by a woman of Shechem. He 
made the first attempt to found a monarchy in Is- 
rael. The Shechemites made him king after he had 
murdered all of Gideon’s sons but Jotham. His reign 
of three years ended in a revolt. Abimelech took 
Shechem, and burned it with its citadel and temple. 
Later, at the siege of the citadel at Thebez, his skull 


was fractured by a millstone thrown from the wall by 


a woman. His armor-bearer thrust him through at 
his own request (Jg 8 31, ch. 9). 

3. A Philistine king (Ps 34: ttle—probably an 
error for Achish, cf. IS 2110). On the error in I Ch 
18 16 see AHIMELECH, § 1 J. A. K. 


ABINADAB, o0-bin’a-dab (AWWA, 'dbhinaddhabh), 
‘my father is generous’: 1. A man of Kiriath-Jearim, 
to whose house the Ark was brought from Beth- 
Shemesh (IS 71), where it remained until David car- 
ried it to Jerusalem (IIS 63f.;1 Ch 137). 2. The 
second son of Jesse (I S 16 8), who followed Saul 
against the Philistines (IS 1713; I Ch 213). 3. Ason 
of Saul, perhaps also called Ishvi (IS 14 49), slain by 
the Philistines in the great battle of Mt. Gilboa (IS 
31 2; I Ch 8 33, 9 390, 10 2). 4. See Ben-ABINADAB. 

CS. ds 

ABINOAM, o-bin’o-am (OVI AS, ’dbhind‘am), ‘the 
father (God) is pleasantness’: Father of Barak (Jg 
4 6, 12, 5 1, 12). 

ABIRAM, oa-bai‘ram (O7A8, ’dbhirdm), ‘the 
father is the High One’: 1. A Reubenite (Nu 161 ff., 
etc.). See Daruan. 2. Eldest son of Hiel of Bethel 
(I K 16 34). See also H1Et. 

ABISHAG, ab/’1-Shag 2W’38, ’dbhishagh): A young 
Shunammite woman, nurse of David in his old age 
(I K 13,15). Adonijah’s request for her after David’s 
death led to his execution (I K 2 17 f.). 

ABISHAI, a-bi’shai ("W’38, ’dbhishay; in Ch "W38, 
"abhshay): One of the ruthless sons of Zeruiah. He 
was Joab’s elder brother, chief of staff during David’s 
outlaw period and the leader of the Thirty (I S 26 
6 ff.; II S 23 18 #.). His great exploits were the 
slaughter of 300 Philistines, the rescue of David from 
Ishbi-benob (II § 21 17), and the subjugation of 


Edom (I Ch 18 12, but cf. IIS 813). Without the cal- | 


culating ferocity of Joab, he is consistently por- 
trayed as the inciter of David to acts of fierce 
reprisal (IS 268; IIS 169). He disappears from his- 
tory shortly after Absalom’s rebellion. 
A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. 
ABISHALOM, 2a-bish’sa-lem. See ABsatom. 
ABISHUA, oa-bish’u-2 (YIW'AN, 'dbhishiia‘), ‘the 
father (God) is noble?’: 1. A priest, son of Phinehas 


(I Ch 6 4£., 50; Ezr 75). 2. The ancestor of a Benja- 


mite clan (I Ch 8 4). | 
ABISHUR, o0-bish’Gr (WAN, ’dbhishir), ‘the 
father (God) is a wall’: A son of Shammai (I Ch 
2 28 f.). 
ABITAL, ab’i-tal (9°28, ’abhital), ‘the father 
(God) is dew’: A wife of David (II S 3 4; I Ch3 3). 


ABITUB, ab’1-tob (2WAN, ’abhitabh), ‘the father 


aN is good’: A son of Shaharaim by Hushim (I Ch 
11). 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 18 


ABIUD, a-bai’od (A@r0d8): A son of Zerubbabel 
(only in Mt 1 13). 


ABJECTS (9°), ‘smitten ones’ Ps 3515): The RV 
margin ‘smiters’ 02) gives better sense, but is incor- 
rect. Some would read 8°72) ‘strangers’ (impious 
Israelites). The Hebrew term occurs only here and 
is of uncertain meaning. E. E. N. 


ABNER, ab’nar (1238, ’abhnér; or, as in TS 14 50, 
“VAR, ’dbhinér), ‘the (divine?) father is a lamp’: Son 
of Ner the brother of Kish the father of King Saul. 
SoIS 14 50f. The text of I Ch 8 33, 9 39 is probably 
faulty (cf. 9 36). Abner seems to have been the leader 
of Saul’s adherents (I 8 17 57, 20 25, 26 5, 14, 15). At - 
Saul’s death he espoused the cause of Ishbosheth 
(Eshbaal), Saul’s son. After his defeat at Gibeon he 
was pursued by Asahel, whom he slew, thus starting 
the feud with Joab and Abishai, Asahel’s brothers 
(IIS 28 f.). When Ishbosheth accused A. of miscon- 
duct with Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, A. entered nego-~ 
tiations with David. After A. had gone Joab called 
him back to Hebron and there murdered him. David 


| mourned publicly the death of A. and later had the 


head of the murdered Ishbosheth buried in his grave 
(WIS36#.,412). InI K 25f., David is represented as 
having assumed the duty of blood revenge, which 
was carried out by Solomon. OURS: 


ABOMINATION renders Heb. terms as follows: 
(1) t0’ébhah, broadly that which gives offense either 
to God or to men, possibly because of inherent repul- 
siveness (e.g., Gn 46 34; Lv 18 22), or a violation of 
established customs (e.g., Pr 6 16, 111). (2) shiqqiits, 
that which is hated as a religious offense. The term 
is frequently applied in contempt of the idols of the 
heathen (I K 11 5; Jer 13 27, etc.). (8) shegets, 1.e., 
‘taboo,’ used only in Lv 11 10-42. (4) piggdl, sacrificial 
flesh which has become stale and hence loathsome 
and unfit for food (Lv 718, etc.). In general, these 
terms, especially the first, are used for any object 
which J” abhors because it is opposed to His law of 
righteousness or to the ritual He prescribes for 
His worship. (The Greek term [used in LXX.] 
Bdékuyua is generic, and means approximately the — 
same as the English ‘abomination.’) A.C. 


ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION (Td 63é- 
Avypa tHS éenudcews) only in Dn (9 27, 11 31, 12 11; 
‘that maketh desolate,’ AV; ‘astonisheth,’ AVmg.) 
and in the ‘Apocalypse of Jesus’ (Mt 2415; Mk 1814). 


| The latter, however, is a direct reference to the 


former. The original in Dn may mean ‘the abomina- 
tion that desolates’ or ‘the abomination that appalls’ 
(cf. Oxf. Heb. Lex. s.v. 0%). The term, moreover, 
which is translated ‘abomination’ (shigqqits) strictly 
means ‘image of a false god’ (cf. I K 115; II K 2313). 
What the author of Dn had in mind was the setting 
up in the Temple of a heathen idol, the presence of 
which there struck the devout Israelite dumb with 
amazement and at the same time profaned the sacred 
precincts, and was the signal of a terrible distress. 
This distress is conceived of as laying waste the 
country (éefquwors, ‘desolation,’ Dn 9 26; Lk 21 21). 
The conception of Dn seems to have created an 
apocalyptic figure about which is centered all 
enmity against the true God and His will. The figure 


19 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Abinadab 
Abronah 





is used under different names in subsequent apoca- 
lyptic compositions. It is probable that the ‘Man of 
Sin’ in jthe ‘Little Apocalypse’ (II Th 2 1-12) is one 
of these. The fact that Jesus points to the appear- 
ance of this figure as a sign by which His followers 
should recognize the definite beginning of the final 
stage of the Messianic era has led many persons to 
identify the abomination of desolation with some 
historic person, event, or thing, e.g. the Roman army 
(B. Weiss), desecration by zealots (Bleek and Al- 
ford), astatute of Caligula, the Roman standard with 
the figure of the eagle, etc. But such identifications 
are futile, inasmuch as apocalyptic figures are em- 
bodiments of ideas whose concrete appearance in the 
form of historical facts or personages is not neces- 
sarily bound to individuals, but occurs with every 
realization of the idea. The abomination of desola- 
tion is actualized whenever its conception as above 
defined becomes an objective fact. A. C. Z. 


ABRAHAM, @’bra-ham (017738, ’abhraham): The 
meaning and derivation of the word are uncertain. 
For Abram (0°38, 2.e., Abiram [?]), ef. analogies 
in Abimelech, etc. Abé-ramw occurs on contract- 
tablets prior to Hammurabi (c. 21008.c.) andtheform 
Aba-raham occurs in A.’s time. ‘Father is a lofty one’ 
(or ‘exalted father’) is a probable translation. Abra- 
ham is perhaps an amplified form, and 917) an other- 
wise unused variant of 539 (Ozf. Heb. Lex.), altho a 
connection with 817), love, is possible (Int. Stand. 
Bib. Enc.). ‘Father of a multitude’ (Gn 17 5) is a 
word-play between O7 and i077, 


A. holds a prominent place in the thought of both 
the O T and the N T. His name occurs repeatedly in 
the formulas of inheritance (Dt 18; II K 13 23), and 
in the assertion of the continuity of the religion (Ex 
3 15; I K 18 36). By the prophets he is seldom men- 
tioned, perhaps never in a preexilic passage, but 
this is hardly significant, considering the clear na- 
tional consciousness. The prophets assume his 
personality; he is God’s ‘friend’ (Is 41 8; cf. IZ Ch 
20 7); he was ‘one’ (Is 51 2; Ezk 33 24; possibly Mal 
215); Abraham and Sarah are progenitors (Is 51 2; cf. 
also Is 29 22, 63 16; Jer 33 26; Mic 7 20). The N T 
recognizes A. as a race-father (Mt 39; Jn 8 33, 37, 39), 
but it is more deeply conscious of his profound sig- 
nificance as a hero of faith (He 11 8-11), his intimacy 
with God (Jn 8 56), and his spiritual fatherhood (Lk 
16 22; Ro 4 11 ff.). 

The present form of the narrative in Gn is due 
to the writer’s desire to picture an ideal figure, em- 
bodying supreme religious conceptions. The follow- 
ing is the analysis: (1) Gn chs. 12-14, A.’s character 
and greatness. (2) Gn 15 1-22 19, the trials through 
- which character was achieved. (3) Gn 23 1-258, the 
final acts of a well-rounded life. The thought of the 
covenant is ever dominant, but first is shown how 
exalted the hero was. He marches across the ancient 
world from the Euphrates to the Nile, his possess- 
ions increase in Canaan, he is able to overthrow 
the army of a world-conqueror. 

The offering of Isaac, the crowning test of his 
faith, taught positively the need of a consummate 
sacrifice for the final ratification of the covenant, and 
negatively, that J’’ did not desire human sacrifice. 


The site could hardly have been the Temple-mount, 
because (1) Jerusalem seems to have been already 
occupied (Gn 14 18) and (2) is much less than three 
days’ journey (Gn 22 4) from Beer-sheba. 

While some maintain the absolute historicity of 
the entire Abrahamic narrative, others treat it as a 
myth, personalized tribal history, or the outgrowth 
of religious reflection. For A.’s actual existence, the 
persistent national tradition is a witness. On the 
other hand, the narrative is so artistic as to indicate 
idealization. The minute particularizations (e.g., 
Gnch.18) seem hardly consistent with literal history, 
and we should distinguish between the present form 
and the original substratum. Probably under the 
name of A. are preserved traditions of great tribal 
movements which began in Arabia, followed the 
Euphrates, crossed to Haran, and ended for the time 
in Canaan. The leader may well have been named 
Abraham, but the clan was originally the concrete 
reality. While his name nowhere occurs as a clan 
title, on an inscription of Shishak the ‘field of 
Abram’ is mentioned (PEHFQ, Jan., 1905, p. 7); cf. 
‘field of Moab’ (Nu 21 20). For a theory of the two 
names Abram and Abraham, see Paton, arly 
History of Syria and Palestine, pp. 25-46. 

It is now the general consensus that the names of 
the four kings (Gn ch. 14) are historical, but all have 
not been identified with certainty. Gunkel argues for 
the historicity of Melchizedek also. The forms, how- 
ever, of the Elamite and Babylonian names have 
suffered much in transmission. The synchronism 
with Hammurabi (Amraphel) postulates a date 
earlier than was formerly assigned to A. (But see 
AMRAPHEL.) The chapter forms the fitting conclu- 
sion to the picture of Abraham’s greatness. 
LivTERATURE: Comm. on Genesis, by Delitzsch, Gunkel, Driver, 

Skinner, Ryle; Kittel, Hist. of the Hebrews, especially the 5th- 

6th German Ed. (1922); Kent, Beginnings of Heb. History; 

Orr, Problem of the O T; Clay, Orig. of Bib. Trad., Empire of 


the Amorites; Cambridge Anc. History, Vols. I and II. 
A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8. 


ABRAHAM’S BOSOM. See Escuatouoey, § 38. 
ABRAM. See ABRAHAM. 


ABRECH, @’brek (112%, ’abhrékh): The Hebrew 
original of ‘bow the knee’ in Gn 41 43. The meaning 
of the term is uncertain. The Greek and Old Latin 
versions translated ‘herald’ and made it the subject 
of ‘cried before him.’ The Targums and Syriac 
translated ‘father and ruler.’ Only Aquila among the 
ancient translators conjectured that the word was 
derived from Heb. baérakh, ‘bend the knee,’ from 
which comes the translation of the Vulgate and 
EVV. This is now universally rejected as impossible. 
Friedrich Delitzsch and Sayce have suggested that 
this is the Babylonian word abarakku, the title of a 
high official; but, in spite of the Tell-el-Amarna 
letters, we should hardly expect an Egyptian officer 
to receive a Babylonian title. Numerous Egyptian 
etymologies of the term have been suggested, the 
best of which is that of Spiegelberg, who thinks that 
it represents Egypt. ’b r-k, ‘Thy heart to thee,’ a cry 
of attention. Ba Bee: 

ABRONAK, a-brd’na (7972Y, ‘abhrénah, Ebronah 
AV): A station on the wilderness journey (Nu 33 
34f.). Site unknown. 


Absalom 
Acts of the Apostles 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 20 





ABSALOM, ab’so-lom (BI¥Y3%, ’aébhshalom, Abi- 
shalom in I K 15 2, 10), ‘the (divine?) father is peace,’ 
perhaps so named as a good omen of David’s growing 
power: David’s third son, born at Hebron of Maacah, 
daughter of Talmai, king of Geshur (II 8 3 3). His 
character is delineated consistently throughout as 
fierce, revengeful, and treacherous. Evidently he 
inherited his traits from his mother’s wild mountain 
ancestry. His first outbreak follows Amnon’s outrage 
of Tamar (II S ch. 13), and self-exiled, he appears to 
wait in Geshur a vindication of his act. Joab’s ruse 
to bring him back (II S ch. 14) seems to embody an 
attempt to secure the abrogation of the right of 
private blood-revenge. Absalom’s recall was, there- 
fore, equivalent to a legal enactment on the subject 
(II S 1411). But his confinement thereafter to his 
own quarters was an affront which his untamed spirit 
could not brook, and which precipitated the insur- 
rection wherein he perished (II S$ 18 14). The narra- 
tive (II S chs. 138-19) is intended to show how the 
folly of each of the presumptive heirs to the throne 
wrought their ruin and thus cleared the path for the 
youthful Solomon. Abijam (I K 15 2; but cf. II 
Ch. 13 2) and Asa (I K 15 10) were Absalom’s 
descendants through his daughter Maacah. 

A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8S. 


ABYSS (&@vcc0s), ‘a place of great depth’: The 
word occurs frequently in the LXX. as the transla- 
tion of the Hebrew t*hém, ‘deep’. It is found in the 
Grk. of the Book of Enoch 21 7, etc., and in magical 
papyri. In Enoch it refers to the place of fiery pun- 
ishment. In the N T it is the name of Hades, the 
place of the dead (Ro 107; Lk 8 31; Rev 91, 2, 11, 
178, 201, 3. In AV of Rev, it is always rendered ‘the 
bottomless pit’). See also EscuatroLtoay, § 48. 

A. C. Z. 


ACACIA. See Patestine, § 21. 


ACCAD, ak’ad (128, ’akkadh): One of the four 
cities which, according to Gn 1010, were the starting- 
point of the dominion of Nimrod in Babylonia. In 
the inscriptions the same word-form usually desig- 
nates not a city but the division of the country lying 
N. of the district about Babylon. The form Agade, 
however, is written as the name of a very ancient 
city, also in N. Babylonia, and supreme over the 
whole country about 2800 B.C. This is doubtless the 
same name as Accad, the g of Sumerian being regu- 
larly represented in proper names by k (c) in Semitic 
Babylonian. 

Accad was the chief center of the Semites in 
Babylonia, hence their language, which resembled 
Hebrew, was known as Accadian. Sumer, or S. 
Babylonia, remained in the hands of the primitive 
non-Semitic inhabitants, who for this reason are 
known as Sumerians, and their language as Sumerian. 
Down to Assyrian times Accad and Sumer continued 
to be the names of N. and S. Babylonia respec- 
tively. 02, 2B oP: 

ACCO, ak’o (13¥, ‘akkd, Accho AV; in Acts 217 
called Ptolemais; Arabic, ‘akka): A Canaanite city in 
the territory ‘of the tribe of Asher (Jg 1 31), whose in- 
habitants were not driven out by Israel. Fortified 
and situated on the seacoast at the N. end of the 
Bay of Acre, and on the main road along the coast, 


it was important for controlling the roads inland to 
the fertile plain of Esdraelon and to lower Galilee. 
From the earliest times down to the Crusades its 
possession was considered of great strategic value, 
altho politically it was inferior to Tyre and Sidon. 
(See Panusrine, § 4.) At the close of the 3d cent. 
B. C. its name was changed to Ptolemais. Map IV, 
B 6. C.S0n8, 


ACCURSED: The RV translation of mop (Dt 
21 23) and y) 2?) (Is 65 20), from the root qélal, mean- 
ing ‘to esteem lightly.’ The AV has ‘accursed’ in 
most O T passages, where the RV has ‘devoted’ or 
‘devoted thing.’ In the place of the AV ‘accursed’ 
the RV in N T reads ‘anathema,’ the transliteration 
of the Greek word. See ANATHEMA; DEvoTED; and 
CURSE. Crs. TT. 


ACCUSATION. See SuPERSCRIPTION. 
ACELDAMA. See AKELDAMA. 


ACHATA, a-ké’ya (’Axata): In Homer the country 
inhabited by the Achzans, that is, all Greece. In 
the classical period only a narrow strip of coastland 
along the 8. of the Gulf of Corinth. The Romans 
(after 27 B.c.) adopted the Homeric usage, and their 
Provincia Achaia (capital, Corinth) included all 
Greece along with Thessaly, Acarnania, A®tolia, 
Eubcea, and the Cyclades. This is N T usage, e.g. 
‘Gallio, Proconsul of Achaia’ (Ac 18 12; cf. also 
18 27; Ro 15 26, etc.). J. R. 8. 8.4—J. M. T. 


ACHAICUS, a-ké’i-kus (Ayaixéds): Mentioned in 
I Co 16 17 with Stephanos (q.v.) and Fortunatus 
(q.v.). From the exhortation in ver. 16 we infer that 
A. and the others mentioned occupied some im- 
portant position in the Corinthian Church. They 
brought communications from Corinth and may 
have been the bearers of the present I Co to Paul in 
Ephesus (see Zahn, Int. N. T. Vol. I p. 268, n. 8.) 
Their attitude of friendliness relieved Paul’s anxiety 
(ver. 18) particularly in view of the shortcomings 
of the church (ver. 17b). a as, aed 

ACHAN, é’kan (129, ‘akhan, called Achar, I Ch 
27): A member of the tribe of Judah, who appro- 
priated treasure from the spoils of Jericho, thus vio- 
lating the law of the ban (herem) (see Cursz, § 2), 
according to which spoils of war were sacred to 
J’’.. This sin brought defeat on Israel at Ai. By 
lot Joshua discovered Achan to be the offender. 
In the valley of Achor he and his family were stoned 
to death, while all his property was burned (Jos 
7 1-26). J. A. K. 

ACHAZ, (‘Axas, Mt 19,'Gr. for M$). See Anaz, 1. 

ACHBOR, ak’bér (7122Y, ‘akhbér), ‘mouse’: 1. 
The father of Baal-hanan, a king of Edom (Gn 36 
38 f.; I Ch 1 49). 2. An official under Josiah and 
Jehoiakim (II K 22 12-14 [but cf. II Ch 34 20]; Jer 26 
22° 36'12). mas 

ACHIM, é’kim (Ayely.): An ancestor of Joseph 
(Mt 1 14). 


ACHISH, @’kish (W’28, ’Gkhish): The Philistine 
king of Gath who befriended David (I S 21 10 #.) 
and later gave him Ziklag. He demanded David’s 
aid against Saul, but yielded to the objections of the 
Philistine princes (IS chs. 27-29). He was still king 


21 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Absalom 
Acts of the Apostles 





at Solomon’s accession, according toI K 2 39, but this 
creates a difficulty in view of David’s conquest of 
Gath (II § 81; ef. I Ch 181), and of the lapse of time 
involved. E. E. N. 


ACHMETHA, ak’mi-fho (SONS, ’ahmetha’): A 
royal city in Media where the roll was found con- 
taining a copy of Cyrus’ decree permitting the return 
of the Jews (Ezr 6 2). The word is the Aramaic 
equivalent of the Pers. Hagmatana or Ecbatana, as 
the Greeks spelled it. The site of the city mentioned 
in Ezra is somewhat uncertain, but Ecbatana, now 
called Hamadan, used by the Persian kings as a 
summer residence, was probably the city meant in 
Ezr 6 2and To 65. See A. V. W. Jackson, Persia, 
Past and Present (1906), pp. 144-174. EH. E.N. 

ACHOR, é’kér, VALLEY OF (1129 PdDY, ‘eémeq 
‘akhor), ‘valley of trouble’: The valley near Jericho 
where Achan was stoned (Jos 7 24-26). Identification 
with the Wddy-el- Kelt is unsatisfactory. Jos 157 
implies a more southern, Is 65 10 a more spacious 


valley. Hos 2 15 plays on the meaning of the term. 
E. E. N. 
ACHSAH, ak’sa (192Y, ‘akhsah, Achsa AV), ‘an- 
klet’: A daughter of Caleb (perhaps in reality a clan) 
given to Othniel for conquering Kiriath-sepher. 


The springs mentioned lay a few miles north of Debir 
(Jos 15 16 #.; Jg 112 #.; I Ch 2 49). E. E. N. 


ACHSHAPH, ak’shaf (1¥28, ’akhsha@ph), ‘sor- 
cery’: Atownon the border of Asher (Jos 19 25) whose 
king was confederate with Jabin of Hazor against 
Joshua (Jos 111, 12 20). Site uncertain, as possibly 
there were two towns of the same name. 

E. E. N. 

ACHZIB, ak’zib (27I28, ’akhzibh), ‘winter tor- 
rent’ (?): 1. One of the 22 towns of the tribe of 
Asher (Jos 19 29) on the seacoast 8. of Tyre; the in- 
habitants were not driven out by Israel (Jg 1 31). 
Map IV, B 5. 2. A town in the Shephelah of Judah, 
mentioned with Keilah and Mareshah (Jos 15 44), 
with Mareshah and Adullam (Mic 1 14); the same as 
Cozeba (I Ch 4 22) and Chezib (Gn 88 5). Map II, 
D1. Gi Sa TL; 


ACRE. See Wetcuts anp Mrasurgss, §2. 


ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, THE: 1. Introduc- 
tory. The book of Acts is unique. Without it any 
consecutive knowledge of the Apostolic Age could 
not be attained, even with the aid of the Pauline 
letters. With it as background, all other data fall 
into order and unity in a way which speaks loudly 
for its historic worth. As, then, our hopes of con- 
structing a sure picture of primitive Christianity 
depend largely on Ac, it is essential to form a correct 
idea as to its historicity. How far does it satisfy 
modern requirements? One thing must be borne in 
mind: its author, alone of N T writers, claims to 
write history (xaOeEj>s yekvat), and to have satisfied 
the conditions of accurate inquiry (xa0dc . 

dxetBGs) necessary to give the reader a sense of se- 
curity (tva émyv@o ... thy dopkAetav) touching 
the matters of Christian faith (tév xexAneogoer- 
wévwy év Quiv cozypdétwyv). Such is the claim of the 
preface (Lk 11-4) to his work in two parts, of which 
Ac is the second. It was meant as serious history, 


occasioned too by the consciousness that existing 
narratives dealing with the same class of facts were 
not satisfactory in this very respect, as a basis of ra- 
tional historic assurance. 


But, it will be said, there is history and history. 
We need to know how far Ac is an objective record 
of objective facts. As to the objectivity of its 
author’s attitude, Ramsay is probably right in 
claiming for Ac a place among histories of the first 
rank, in which nothing is allowed consciously to 
deflect the historian from stating things as they 
really occurred. Only this does not mean the dead, 
superficial fidelity of a photograph, giving no guid- 
ance to the beholder by light and relief. Our author 
gives an interpretation of the story, particularly of 
its religious meaning, in order to aid one seeking in 
his own day for religious truth, so far as this can find 
expression in history. But this need not make him 
inaccurate, or ready to suppress facts material to the 
line of exposition selected, in keeping with the total 
effect of all known to the writer, altho much can not 
be brought in for reasons of space and perspective. 
Whether all that reached him as ‘facts,’ or even all 
that he recorded as himself an eye-witness, were 
really objective facts—at least as we should inter- 
pret them to-day—is another question. This can 
not here be discussed, save as regards the probability 
that our author was himself really witness of a large 
number of them—and these often, as Harnack points 
out, of the same ‘supernatural’ order as those which 
he records on the evidence of others. Approach, 
however, to all such problems lies through a con- 
sideration of the general drift of Ac, and of its verisi- 
militude or otherwise. The question of its Scope will 
lead on to those of its Sources, Aims, Occasion and 
Provenance, Date, and Authorship. The final test 
here, as in all history, will be coherence in our 
theory as the simplest way of unifying an immense 
complex of phenomena, literary and psychological. 


2. Scope and Plan. Ac sets forth in orderly se- 
quence (xafeEjs) how the Divine Society constituted 
by the Gospel spread, in ever-widening circles, from 
its native home in Jerusalem even unto Rome, the dis- 
tant capital of the world. This appears from the 
commission (1 8) given at the final interview between 
Jesus and those who as ‘witnesses’ were to continue 
His ministry, and who, as so commissioned, were 
‘apostles’ in the wider sense, as distinct from the 
Twelve (see 1 6, 14f., 21; Lk 24 33 ff., and I Co 157, tote 
&mostéAots macy). We gather that their horizon was 
still confined to a Messianic Kingdom for Israel (1 6); 
and, in fact, down to ch. 15 we find traced, with a 
care implying a very primitive standpoint (for a.p. 
70 effaced such shades of distinction), the gradual 
steps by which they accepted the logic of Divine 
facts, even when running counter to preconceived 
theory, in the annulling of Jewish restrictions upon 
membership in God’s Kingdom. The one secret of 
this triumph of the Divine over human limitations— 
as of all those triumphs which constitute the moral of 
the book and its high argument—lay in the power 
of the Holy Spirit upon and through the Lord’s wit- 
nesses. This is surely true to life. Here, too, lay the 
continuity between our author’s two books: the same 
Spirit qualified the Master and His disciples (Lk 4 14, 


Acts of the Apostles 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


22 





24 49; Ac 11£., 8, 2 33, cf. 167, ‘the spirit of Jesus’) 
both to do and endure; for the pathway of ‘glory 
through suffering’ was God’s counsel for both (Lk 
24 26, 46; Ac 14 22, cf. 5 41). The traditional Jewish 
forms of thought touching the mode of the King- 
dom’s consummation within the generation then 
living (Lk 21 32, cf. 9 27; Ac 1 11, 3 20 £.), and the 
natural assumption that Jewish forms of worship and 
ritual still held good, did not suddenly fall away. 
The Gospel did not ‘destroy’ save through being seen 
to ‘fulfil.’ These things simply faded away in the 
growing light which spread from the new luminary of 
the spiritual world; and the subjective power to ap- 
propriate all in Him turned on the Messianic gift, the 
‘Spirit of the Lord’ in new form and fulness, which 
constituted the New Israel out of the Old in spite of 
its wonted stiff-necked resistance to the Holy Spirit 
(7 51). Israel was then a ‘crooked generation,’ 
from which ‘salvation’ was needful (2 40, 4 12, cf. 
13 26-41). 
Accordingly, the Messianic outpouring of the Spirit 
at Pentecost holds the same determinative place in 
Ac as the coming of the Holy Spirit to Jesus Himself 
in the Gospel, as unfolded in the discourse in the 
synagog at Nazareth (Lk 3 21f., 414-30). The Anointed 
himself becomes the Anointer of God’s new People 
(2 33), through whom He continues ‘to do and teach’ 
(1 1, 8) on earth; and the living link between them is 
that ‘holy Spirit’ wherewith it is His prerogative to 
baptize His own (1 5, 2 4, 33, 38, 10 44-47). The 
parallel is all the closer in that in both cases rejection 
by Judaism follows, because the conditions of the 
Kingdom are presented as purely spiritual, so that 
birth confers nothing but prior opportunity. Thus 
Ac depicts, first, the Divine power and spirituality 
of life manifest in the nucleus of the coming King- 
dom, the new and true Congregation (Ecclesia) of 
God’s People; while Judaism passes self-judgment 
upon itself, step by step, by hardness of heart to the 
Spirit’s appeal (chs. 3-5). Anon we are shown a 
certain differentiation within the Ecclesia itself, 
between the less and the more progressive types— 
those strictly ‘Hebrews,’ and those in fuller sym- 
pathy with Israel’s wider heritage owing to exper- 
ience of the Greek world, the ‘Hellenists.’ The 
spokesman of the latter is Stephen, whose speech 
before the official representatives of Judaism indi- 
cates the principles at issue, and foreshadows the 
line of development for the Ecclesia. Then the shak- 
ing of persecution (chs. 6, 7) providentially spreads 
the true seed beyond Jerusalem, in various soils 
more and more remote from those heretofore held fit 
for the reception of God’s word. Thus the Samari- 
tans respond to Philip the Evangelist, and are 
solemnly adjudged by God worthy of the Messianic 
gift, through the agency of Peter and John—most 
authoritative of ‘apostles’: an imperfect proselyte (a 
eunuch) is by special Divine action admitted, less 
publicly, through Philip: there follow proofs of 
God’s hand with His new Ecclesia, in the conversion 
and early ministry of Saul, the leader of the recent 
persecution, and next in typical incidents taken from 
Peter’s missionary work in Judea; and then the 
latter is led to sanction the admission of a group of 
proselytes—in sheer deference to God’s manifest will 


in the gift of the Spirit. This case is made the more 
significant by being challenged at Jerusalem and 
successfully vindicated by Peter, on the ground that 
God had acted and could not be gainsaid. Thus ‘to 
the Gentiles had God given repentance unto life’ 
(11 18). 

This occurred at Cesarea, just beyond the borders 
of the Holy Land of Judea proper (1219), and might 
not have been tolerated nearer to Jerusalem. Fur- 
ther it affected but few in the first instance, and was 
probably not expected to extend very far numeri- 
cally. But in both respects God was already on the 
way to transcend Jewish-Christian thought even 
more signally. Yet here too progress was gradual, 
and no sharp breach was actually caused with the 
Palestinian Ecclesia. This, so far, had conceived of 
itself as ‘the Ecclesia,’ made up of ‘the saints’ proper 
(9 13, 32, 41; 26 10; also I Co 161; Ro 15 25), while non- 
Jewish adherents were Messianic proselytes on the 
skirts of Israel (as with orthodox Judaism). Such a 
conception would be helped by the sense that all was 
still provisional. ‘The Lord was at hand,’ and He 
would perfect allin His Ecclesia. But the conception 
was menaced as soon as membership in the Ecclesia 
extended far beyond Palestine, and included large 
masses of persons hitherto assumed to be exceptions 
by special Divine bounty. This is what happened 
at Antioch, which therefore is treated as the second 
home of the Gospel, and then as the starting-point of 
the Gentile Mission proper. According to the con- 
trast demanded by 11 19 f., the ‘great number’ who 
there hastened to believe were ‘Greeks’ (not ‘Hel- 
lenists’ and therefore Jews of a kind, cf. 61). So great 
a change in relative proportions would in itself war- 
rant the sending of some one to examine and report; 
and appropriately Barnabas, himself a ‘Hellenist,’ 
or Jew of Greek culture, born among Gentiles in 
Cyprus (4 36), like some of the preachers, was 
chosen, not Peter and John (as for Samaria). 


The extension to Antioch, standing midway 
between the Jewish and Greek spheres, was a mo- 
mentous step; and there, significantly, the disciples 
of Jesus first obtained the name distinguishing them 
from Jews proper, ‘Christians.’ There too begins the 
association of Saul with Barnabas, which marks the 
next stage of advance—still without loss of touch 
with the old center, Judea (11 27-30). But before 
leaving the fortunes of the Gospel in its first home, 
we are shown how attempts to harm it ever turned, 


' by God’s grace, to the confusion of its foes (ch. 12): 


then, with a verse reestablishing sequence with ch. 
11, we pass on to the beginnings of the rea Gentile 
mission, with its base at Antioch. 


And now Saul—who at the psychological moment 
(13 9) is given his Gentile name, Paul—comes out in 
his true réle as the main agent of the Divine counsel 
in the wider destiny of the Gospel, as surely as Peter 
had been the pioneer in its more restricted field. The 
‘turning to the Gentiles’ is narrated very emphati- 
cally in 13 46-48; while the moral of the whole mission 
is pointed in 14 27, ‘how that He (God) had opened a 
door of faith unto the Gentiles.’ It was seemingly 
the news of this great extension of Gentile Chris- 


- tianity on principle that drove the more reactionary 


wing of the Jerusalem church (now including Phari- 


23 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Acts of the Apostles 





sees, 155) to action in Antioch, where it was felt that 
the issue had to be fought out (see 8 below, and 
GALATIANS, § 3). With the Jerusalem Concordat, 
which settled it for the time, 7.e. as it arose in 
Antioch and its province, Syria-Cilicia, where the 
Jewish element side by side with the Gentile was 
large, the story, as so far told, reaches its natural 
conclusion (15 35). Hitherto it has been treated in 
the main from the Jewish standpoint, from which the 
conditions of intercourse in the Ecclesia between Jew 
and Gentile set forth in 15 20, 29, seemed to be mini- 
mum concessions (taita tz éxdvayxes) to unity on 
the part of the latter (see 8 below). Hereafter, how- 
ever, the horizon widens enormously; new interests 
and conditions arise; the old platform becomes too 
narrow in practise, where Gentiles more and more 
outnumber Jewish converts in typically Gentile 
regions. Antioch and its associations are largely left 
behind; and the history gathers round the career of 
the Apostle of the Gentiles, whose personal commis- 
sion determines his conduct in regions to which, in 
his judgment, the Jerusalem compact was inap- 
plicable. 

3. Sources of Acts. At this point the sources of 
the narrative in Ac demand notice. The subject has 


been much discussed and is still far from settled . 


(see Foakes-Jackson and Lake, The Beginnings of 
Christianity, II, pp. 121-175). As regards what pre- 
cedes, it is clear that something more than oral 
tradition must lie behind our Ac; for both in the 
forms of thought and phrasing and in matters of 
pure style chs. 1-12 and 15 are more Jewish-Chris- 
tian than can be due merely to the author of Ac asa 
whole. Many scholars distinguish at least two 
written sources, one Judean, the other Antiochene, in 
origin, as of primary interest. But really there is 
very little serious linguistic difference between the 
various sections of Ac 1-15 (op. cit. p. 128), a fact to 
which C. C. Torrey’s recent theory (untenable as it 
seems itself to be) strongly testifies, when he con- 
tends that ‘Ac chs. 1-15 is the careful . . . transla- 
tion . . . of an Aramaic document.’ Linguistically, 
then, the use of one Hellentistic source embodying oral 
Aramaic traditions would account for the bulk of the 
first half of Ac; but some of its contents require a less 
obvious explanation. No theory, indeed, at present 
commands general assent. Yet a method combining 
the study of form and content in a living way pro- 
mises ere long a real solution of the problem. 

The best approach is through the author’s own hints in his 
Preface to his continuous work in two books (Lk 1!~4). ‘Inas- 
much as a number of persons have essayed to draw up an 
account of the assured facts of our religion, on the basis of the 
traditions passed on to us by the original eye-witnesses who 
became also ministers of the Message; it seemed good to me, 
too, as one who had traced all the story, from its very start, 
with care, to write it for you in order, most excellent Theophilus, 
so as to let you know, as touching what you have been taught, 
the certain truth.’ This surely suggests special personal con- 
tact with those who were in a position to give him virtually 
eye-witness information, as his main advantage over others; 
and this would hold good in proportion as the story comes 
nearer to his own day. That is, he virtually passes on what he 
had received, and as he had received it, from selected and trust- 
worthy informants. Part of this tradition, perhaps the greater 
part, some ‘minister of the message’ may have already written 
down himself or, more probably, dictated to our author at his 
request as he sought to ‘trace the course’ of things ‘from the 
first.’ Such a consecutive written source seems to underlie 
alike the special elerment in the Lucan Gospel and the account 


in Ac of the early Jerusalem and Judean activity of the apostolic 
circle of ‘witnesses,’ esp. Peter and John (ef. Lk 22 7); and its 
real author may well have been Philip ‘the Evangelist’ or 
Preacher of the Gospel (Ac 21 8), whom Luke met at Caesarea. 
But further, Luke had probably taken down from his lips, or 
from those of others, detached notes of other incidents; and 
these he would have at hand as supplemental material for his 
continuous narrative, when later on he thought of writing it to 
meet the needs of the time. This he did on the basis of the 
primary written source (in more or less connected form) just 
mentioned, supplementing it as he was thus able, and carrying 
on the story of the Church’s origin and growth yet further. 
When the primary source ended, as it probably did where ‘the 
Word’ finally goes beyond Judea, it was already overlapping 
with his own personal knowledge of the Antiochene stage 
(11 19-80, 12 %-13 8, 14 26-15) and of the developments starting 
afresh therefrom (chs. 13-14 and 16 ff.). 

For the early Judean days (ch. 1-5) Luke’s other impressions 
derived, e.g., from informants in Antioch (cf. 131) and Ephesus, 
ran parallel in part with matter in his chief Cesarean (or Philip) 
source. They seem also to have included an account of the Day 
of Pentecost which, as current at a distance of place and time, 
contained a mistaken view (25: 6b-11) of the ‘speaking with other 
(different) tongues’ (2 4), as if this meant foreign languages; 
whereas both the scoffing remark in v. 13 and Peter’s reply there- 
to, as also the references to this spiritual phenomenon in 10 47, 
11 45f., imply that it was a special ecstatic form of emotional 
utterance (see I1Co14). Intheuse of his written materials, in- 
cluding the more consecutive Cesarean source—to which Luke 
adheres closely in the Gospel (even when it differs from Mark’s 
narrative), and so probably in Ac also—our author naturally 
adapts the wording, particularly at the beginning and end of 
each section, to the needs of the new setting as meant for “Theo- 
philus.’ Similar dovetailing of Palestinian with Antiochene 
materials recurs in what follows chs. 1-5, where the ‘Hellenists’ 
—more liberal or Grecizing Jews—come on the scene, first in 
6 18 40 (Stephen and Philip) and later in 11 19-80 (Antioch), 
while in between come the conversion and early ministry of 
Saul (9 1-80), preparatory to the latter or Antiochene events. 
Attached to 6 1-8 4 are some Palestinian episodes (8 5°), where 
Philip, the Hellenist colleague of Stephen, appears as an actor 
(and probable informant, cf. ‘Peter and John’ in 8 % with 3 1, 
4 13,19), Similarly in 9 82-11 18 we have a long Petrine section— 
probably from the main Czsarean written source—on which fol- 
lows the first Antiochene episode (11 196). The sections on 
Herod as persecutor (12 1-19, perhaps gathered from Mark, see 
12 f.) and the Divine judgment on him (12 20-23) bring the story 
back to Cesarea. 

Finally Luke’s Cesarean memorandum, which included in its 
interests the extension of the Gospel beyond Judaism, seems to 
have gone on (after 11 *) to describe the climax of that process 
in the Concordat between Jerusalem and Antioch (cf. Ac 
15 1-33), The intervening matter seems to come from other 
sources. The story of Peter’s imprisonment by Herod and his 
escape points (12 13, the maid’s name, Rhoda) to Mark as its 
ultimate witness; while chs. 13 and 14 suggest, alike in their 
subject-matter and their vivid detail, the eye-witness of the 
latter part of Acts (in 14 2 we get even a ‘we’ passage), who 
was probably Luke himself, the author of Ac as a whole. 


The above suggestions may be summed up roughly 
as follows: (1) Luke’s main or continuous written 
source (largely Cesarean tradition), as in the Gospel; 
covering broadly 1-11 26, 12 1-24, 151-33. (2) De- 
tached episodes in Luke’s note book and memory, 
mainly obtained at Antioch; e.g. 2 5, 6b-11, 11 25-30, 
12-14, 15 35. The author’s editorial hand through- 
out has to be allowed for in various ways, especially 
in (2). 

For the latter part of Ac all is due to Luke’s 
memory or notes, as the case may be; nor is the 
absence of ‘we’ any sure disproof of his presence, as 
its occasional occurrence may have merely a psycho- 
logical or emotional significance. 


4. Aims. The motifs underlying the narrative, 
and causing selection from a larger mass of materials, 
are varied. The central one, the universal spirit of 
Hebrew religion, and its Divine origin—in spite of 
Jewish blindness and hardness of heart, now as in 


Acts of the Apostles 
Adah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 24 





former days (cf. Stephen’s Speech)—persists from 
first to last, with its climax at Rome (28 17-28). 
But with it blends more and more another idea, its 
counterpart, viz., the witness borne by the attitude 
of typical representatives of the Gentile world, the 
Roman Empire in the widest sense, that the hostility 
of actual Judaism was vexatious and groundless. 
Further, so far as Judaism might try to crush its 
rival by suggesting that it was an element of disorder 
and even of disloyalty in the Empire, the early 
history of the Christian Church and its relations to 
the Roman State, and its law and order, refuted the 
charges. Such troubles as had arisen were in fact 
due to Jewish jealousy. All these lines of thought 
meet in Paul himself, and in his attitude, whether to 
his national religion or to Roman citizenship. To 
both he was essentially loyal. This explains the long 
and at first sight unduly prolix story of Paul’s last 
visit to Jerusalem and its issues, particularly the 
repeated speeches of defense. Paul, indeed, was the 
embodied apologia of the Church in the Roman 
Empire, over against all its traducers (cf. Von Soden, 
Early Christian Literature [1906], pp. 230 ff.). 

The occasion of Ac, then, like that of all N T 
writings, is practical. It is determined by pressing 
religious needs, not by abstract or scientific interests. 
It is an apology for the religion of Jesus, addressed 
primarily to men of faith, yet a faith distressed both 
by bitter opposition and by some perplexities of 
thought, not as yet quite at home with the deeper 
ideas of the new religion—as one of power shown 
through suffering, not through prosperity (the no- 
tion of ancient religion generally). But while pri- 
marily meant for actual faith, Luke’s writings, per- 
haps alone in the N T, look also to potential faith 
outside, in ‘men of good-will’ who need only to know 
the facts in all the impressiveness of their true order 
—so that their real meaning jumps to the eye—in 
order to believe in the ‘Kingdom of God.’ 

5. Provenance. Where, then, was such a work 
likely to arise? Internal evidence suggests that the 
region in which its first readers were most interested 
was the Roman province of Asia (note references to 
Paul’s abortive wish to visit it and Bithynia in 16 6f.), 
where the concrete narrative becomes most detailed 
and the topography most minute (18 24-211; contrast 
the verses given to the last visit to Greece, 20 2-5). 

Note in particular the forecast (20 26-36) of future 
dangers at Ephesus. Observe too the allusiveness 
of the reference to ‘the School of Tyrannus’ (‘a 
certain’ was soon added to soften it) in 19 9, as tho 
self-explanatory for ‘Theophilus’ and his circle (cf. 
the abrupt reference to ‘Alexander’ in 19 33); also the 
triviality of the itinerary in 20 13-15, save for those 
familiar with the coast between Troas and Ephesus. 

Here reference may be made to some of the most striking of 
the readings in Codex Bezx, etc. A whole series of them betray 
special acquaintance with Asia Minor (Ramsay); and these are 
among the oldest of the so called ‘Western’ or 6 text. But they 
are never more than intelligent glosses, showing that Ac was 
read with more than usual interest in the region (cf. the 6 gloss 
in 11 28 due to local interest in Antioch). 

Finally, consider the correspondence between this 
environment and the motifs of Ac, as already de- 
scribed: the numbers and influence of the Jews in 
Asia (referred to in 21 27, 24 19 as prime causes of 


Paul’s arrest); the bitterness of their hostility to the 


Christians in the later Apostolic age (Rev 29 f.); the 
interest for this region of the modus vivendi of Ac 
15 20, 29, in the light especially of Rev 2 6, 14f., 20; and 
the problem of the true relations of Judaism and 
Christianity there as late as Ignatius’ day. These 
things constitute strong cumulative evidence for 
Asia, and Ephesus in particular, as the original home 
of Ac. Dr. B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, has 
recently argued for Rome as the home of Luke’s 
Gospel and Ac. But he has not discussed Ephesus, 
especially as to Ac; and the above evidence for it 
seem stronger than any he adduces for Rome. 

6. Date. If this be granted, it will add also to our 
evidence for date, in so far as the tone of Ac is 
optimistic touching Rome’s attitude to Christians, 
apart from Jewish envy and slander. It assumes that 
Rome may continue its old policy of treating Chris- 
tianity as a form, the most legitimate form, of 
Israel’s religion, and as sharing its status as a religio 
licitta. When exactly the course of events in Asia, 
the center of fanatical Czsar-worship, rendered 
such hopes untenable, it is hard to say; but rela- 
tively early, we may be sure, apart even from the 
evidence of Rev, the date of which is itself an open 
question. Harnack thinks a date about 80 A. D. 
most probable: the present writer inclines to a date 
earlier in the Vespasian era, as better suiting the 
words of the Gospel (21 32, cf. 9 26 f.) touching the 
fulfilment of ‘all things’ before the passing of the 
original generation of Christ’s hearers. The ex- 
periences of the era of the siege and fall of Jerusalem 
seem clearly implied in the wording of Luke 21; but 
the ‘times of the Gentiles’ have yet to run out (21 
24, 28). Still ‘redemption draweth nigh,’ and some of 
Christ’s generation will see it. 


The argument for a date about 100 a.p. derived from parailels 
with Josephus’ Aniiquities is quite ‘in the air’ (Harnack, op. 
cit., p. 18). It does not account for the divergences in the case 
either of Theudas (5 %, e.g., the number 400)—whatever be 
made of the account in Ac—or of Herod (12 2° ff-). On the other 
hand, it is unsafe to argue, as has been done afresh quite recent- 
ly, from the point at which Ac ends (61-62 a.p.). For (1) the 
author’s own reiteration of Paul’s words at Miletus (20 25. %) to 
the effect that he would not again visit his Asian churches, con- 
tains the hint that his course was nearly run (see TimorHy and 
Tirus, ErrsTues To); (2) the narrative has reached its natural 
climax when the Gospel is preached by Paulin Rome. Paulus 
Romez apex Evangelit. Nothing of equal significance could be 
added. The heroic age, in which the Divine power working in 
Christ’s witnesses was most manifest, was already well-nigh 
over. 


7. Authorship. Finally, a date between 75 and 
80 a.D. best suits the most probable theory as to 
authorship, viz., that the whole work, as distinct 
from a supposed Travel-diary—cropping out here 
and there between chs. 16 and 28—comes from Luke, 
‘the beloved physician,’ companion and helper in the 
Gospel to Paul, who is the hero of the book’s most 
moving sections (see “The Case for the Tradition,’ in 
Beg. of Christianity, II, pp. 265-297). Harnack has 
accepted and restated in Luke the Physician the ar- 
guments used by scientific defenders of the tradi- | 
tional authorship,! such as Hobart in The Medical 


1This is supported, for Luke’s Gospel, by very early and 
wide-spread evidence, going back as far as Marcion (c. 140 a.p.). 
Such is natural, if Harnack be right in saying that a work witha 
Prolog must from the first have had its author’s name in the 
title. Evidence of the use of Acis probable (so Holtzmann) in 
Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp of Smyrna, c. 115 a.D., and 
perhaps even earlier in Clement of Rome (xviii, 1, cf. Ac 13%), 


25 A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Sopra mesuee 


ah 





Language of St. Luke (1882), and Sir J. C. Hawkins 
in Hore Synoptice (1899), as regards the stylistic 
unity of Ac generally (see J Th S. XXIV, p. 361 ff. 
for a recent vindication of this argument). At pres- 
ent, then, as far as linguistic evidence goes, this view 
may be said to hold the field. The weakness of the 
counter view, which assigns Ac to about 100 a.p. 
(see ‘The Case against the Tradition,’ op. cit., pp. 
298-348), is seen in the paradox to which it is driven, 
in order to account for certain Hellenistic features 
in the warp and woof of the book, that its final 
author was a ‘Hellenistic Jew’ (so Wendt and B. W. 
Bacon). The form of the preface to both works, and 
their whole feeling when dealing with Greco-Roman 
matters (cf. Ramsay), make this most unlikely. 
Luke, however, altho born a Gentile (whether Syrian 
or Greek in race), would naturally have much of the 
Hellenist in his training—he may have been a Jewish 
proselyte to begin with—which suits the complex 
conditions of the problem, both of styleand thought, 
completely. Early tradition touching him is well 
summed up in the Monarchian Prolog to Luke’s 
Gospel: ‘Luke, a Syrian by race, an Antiochene,? by 
profession a physician, . . . departed this life at 
the age of seventy-four, in Bithynia.’ The latter 
statements, in no way suspicious in themselves, 
agree well in all respects with the foregoing theory. 


8. Relation to the Pauline Letters. One confirmation 
of Luke’s authorship lies in the apparent non-use of the Pauline 
letters, which any one save a companion of Paul’s would eagerly 
study for data. Particularly striking is the case as regards the 
Epistle to the Galatians, which runs parallel to much in Ac, 
and the absence of exact harmony with which is by some made 
a prime reason for denying Lucan authorship. As this case is 
crucial for the historicity of Ac, we must deal with it some- 
what fully, instead of trying to discuss minor problems of like 
order, 

Some still regard Ac 15 and Gal 2 10 as both historically 
trustworthy versions of the same incident, in spite of their 
marked differences. Such differences are, e.g., (1) their osten- 
sible occasion; (2) the privacy implied in Gal ® (where it was 
important for the purpose of Paul’s argument to emphasize the 
public vindication of his own Gospel, if it had then occurred); 
(3) the practical conditions laid down for keeping the two 
separate missions in sufficient touch with each other—as to 
which Paul’s language in Gal 2, ‘only,’ ete., formally excludes 
any other terms than those he specifies; (4) the clear implica- 
tion both of Paul’s logic (which does not leave him free to pass 
over any visit between Gal 1 4 and 2! without explanation) and 
of the statement that he remained still unknown by face to the 
churches of Judea (1 22 1-), to the effect that no visit to Jerusalem 
fell between those in Gal 1 % and 21, whereas Ac 11 27 ff- records 
a relief visit to Judea after Gal 118; (5) the contrast between the 
attitude of Peter, and yet more of Barnabas (after his Gentile 
experiences in Ac chs. 13-14), in Gal 2 ff-, with what we should 
gather of them in Ac ch. 15 (esp. %-%). Those who see their way 
through these differences must be allowed to take their own 
course; but they can not fairly cite Lightfoot’s authority since 
the ‘South-Galatian’ theory, which makes Paul in Galatians 
address a totally different body of readers from that contem- 
plated by him, has become so widely accepted, even by de- 
fenders of Ac ch. 15=Gal 2 1-10, This changes the whole perspec- 
tive. In particular it makes the natural assumption that Paul 
is defending the independent authority of his Gospel as proved 
prior to his ‘begetting’ his readers by its agency—an assump- 
tion involved by Lightfoot’s ‘North-Galatian’ theory—tell 
heavily against Ac ch. 15=Gal 2 119 on the current theory. 

Turning, then, to those who agree in regarding the forego- 
ing historical equation impossible, we have two types of the- 


2Note.the intimate knowledge of the Antiochene Church 
shown in Ac 11 %, 13 1, cf. 6 5 fin. 

8At best, Paul’s account could apply only to a private con- 
ference at the time of Ac ch. 15, but not there recorded; while 
yet Paul lays all the stress on it (but see GALATIANS, § 3). 


ory. The one frankly denies any real historicity to Ac 15, 
and in most cases performs a critical operation on its organic 
unity, separating the conditions contemplated in 15 ™. 29, cf. 
21 %, from the narrative as a whole, and relegating them to 
some later occasion, real or supposed. This leaves Ac thor- 
oughly discredited, and its Lucan authorship out of the question. 
Here Harnack’s present position is untenable. as Schirer 
pressed home in the 7'LZ (1906, cols. 406 f.). He must unify his 
literary and histurical results somehow. The other theory 
challenges the traditional dogma that Ac ch. 15 must be meant to 
refer to the same visit as Gal 2 !~0, and sets about finding an 
earlier stage in the story of the Gospel’s extension in Ac with 
which it may be correlated. Thus there is no reason why a@ 
private conference should not have taken place between the 
Antiochene and Jerusalem leaders touching their respective 
missions’—with a view to anticipate public difficulties such as 
@ Paul would readily foresee (cf. Gal 2 2)—prior to the emer- 
gence of public occasion‘ for the deputation of Ac 15 2 (‘and 
certain others’). Distinguite tempora. As yet the problem was 
not one present to the rank and file at all, only to Paul himself 
in the first instance—leading him up ‘by revelation,’ to make 
sure of the ‘pillar’ apostles. On this occasion these devout fol- 
lowers of the finger of God (cf. Ac 11 1”, and later 15 8 12-1”) 
felt the unity of the Divine working visible in both types of 
mission, and simply requested that Paul should see to it that 
he and his converts ‘should remember the poor,’ in keeping 
with the best traditions of Jewish piety (cf. Acts 2 “ ff.)\—a 
principle for which Paul was himself already zealous. It is 
just here that the second theory divides into alternative forms. 
Ramsay, followed by V. Weber and others, sees in the wording 
of Gal 2 10 a reference to Paul’s being in Jerusalem for the very 
purpose of showing the Antiochene mindfulness of the poor 
saints in Judea (Ac 11 ©). But the present writer considers 
this identification exegetically forced, and views that Relief 
visit rather as an early proof® of Paul’s zeal for the principle 
agreed on in Gal 210, It is simplest and best to assume, as we 
are free to do—since the account in Ac isso far from professing 
to be a complete narrative—that the visit of Gal 2 1 is an 
otherwise unrecorded visit (perhaps due to the ‘revelation’ of 
II Cor 12 1+, cf. Gal 2 2), preparing the way privately for that 
other and public concordat which was occasioned by overt con- 
troversy in Antioch some years later (but see GALATIANS, § 3). 
Thus there is no necessary clash between Ac 15 and Gal 2 1700; 
and, with similar allowance for different perspective, we may 
say the same for Ac 9 and Gal 1 16-21, touching Paul’s move- 
ments in the first years after his conversion. 


Lirerature: The full literature on Ac will be found in 
Knowling’s Comm. in the Ezpositor’s Greek Test. (1900), 
C. Clemen, Paulus (1904), i. 162-330, Moffatt’s Introd. to the 
Lit. of the N. T. (1911 and later), and Goguel, Introd. on N T, 
III (Paris, 1922), which is perhaps the best recent critical 
comm. (reviewed in Rev. d’ Histoire et de Philos. relig. (Strass- 
bourg), for Sept.-Oct., 1922). 


Commentaries: Smaller; Bartlet (Century Bible, 1901), 
Lanchester (Camb. Bible), Menzies (in Peake’s Comm. on the 
Bible, 1919), Blunt (1922): on the Greek Text; Page (1886). 
Larger; Rackham (Westminster Comm., 1901), Knowling 
(Expo. Gk. Text, 1900). Special Studies: Ramsay, St. Paul 
the Traveller (1896), Pauline and Other Studies (1906); Har- 
nack, The Acts of the Apostles (1909); Foakes-Jackson and 
Lake, The Beginnings of Christianity, II (1920-22); Streeter, 
The Four Gospels (1924), ch. xviii. Jay oD. 


ADADAH, ad’a-da (WW T¥, ‘adh‘Gdhah): A town 


on the S. border of Judah (Jos 15 22). Probably the 
Aroer (q.v.) of I'S 30 28. 


ADAH, é’da (‘11¥, ‘adhah), ‘beauty’: 1. A wife of 
Lamech (Gn 4 19 #f.). 2. The Hittite wife of Esau 
(Gn 36 2 ff.). 





4I see no such occasion in Gal 24f- There is no suggestion 
such as Paul’s readers could be expected to follow, that the 
‘false brethren’ were ‘brought in’ at Antioch, rather than at the 
private conference in Jerusalem mentioned just before. 

8See Expositor (Oct., 1899), p. 268: cf. O. Holtzmann in 
ZNTW (1905), pp. 102 ff.: ‘But then the journey to the Apos- 
tolic conference and the first Collection-journey fall in the 
period immediately after Ac 11 **; one must assume that both 
journeys followed one another quickly, as Gal 2 1° leta one 


suppose.” 


Adaiah 


Adria A NEW 


STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


26 


tl Leet i ne NR htt 


ADAIAH, a-dé’ya or -ya (TY, ‘ddhdyah), ‘J’ has 
adorned’: 1. The maternal grandfather of King 
Josiah, of Bozkath in the Shephelah of Judah (II K 
221). 2. A Levite of the sons of the Kohathites 
(I Ch 6 41). 3. A Benjamite of the family of Shimei 
(Shema ver. 13), (I Ch 8 21) of Jerusalem. 4. A priest 
dwelling in Jerusalem (I Ch 912). 5. The father of 
Maaseiah (II Ch 231, here spelled #7778). 6. A man 
of the family of Bani of the postexilic Jewish com- 
munity who had married a foreign wife (Er 10 29). 
7, Another of same family and guilty of same offense 
(Ezr 10 39). 8. A descendant of Perez, son of Judah 
(Neh 115). 9. A priest, son of Jeroham, in the post- 
exilic list of the inhabitants of Jerusalem; probably 
the same as 4 (Neh 11 12). CUS ET: 


ADALIA, ad’o-lai’a (82218, ‘ddhalya’): One of 
Haman’s ten sons (Est 9 8). 

ADAM, ad’am ®'78, ’ddhdm, from root O18, ‘to 
build,’ ‘produce’?): I. According to the creation 
story of Genesis the name of the first man of the race. 
The Hebrew word used without the article is the 
name of the first man (Gn 4 25, 51, 3-5; I Ch 11; 
also Gn 2 20, 3 17, 21?); with the article, it should be 
translated ‘the man,’ as it is in most instances in 
RV, where AV has ‘Adam.’ It is used as the name 
of the first man where it is necessary to distinguish 
him from his descendants. In the N T the Greek 
transliteration ’Addy. is used as the name of the first 
man (Jude ver. 14), who is looked upon as the father 
of the whole human race, so closely connected with 
all men that he involved all in his acts (Ro 5 14a; I 
Co 15 45a; 1 Ti, 2134.). In Ro 514b (512f.), I Co 15 22 
Paul brings out the historical connection of Adam 
with humanity, in representing him as being the 
author of sin and death for all by his one act of diso- 
bedience; in this he is a type—tho by contrast in 
result—-of Christ, who by His one act of obedience is 
the conqueror of sin and death. In I Co 15 45 Paul 
_ seems to go from the influence exerted historically to 
nature, 7.e., to the relation in which they stand to 
humanity; Adam the first sensuous, earthly man, 
Christ the second and last, the ‘pein and heav- 
enly man. 

II. The name of a city in the J Seah, valley, near 
the mouth of the Jabbok, where the waters were 
dammed up when Joshua led Israel into Canaan 
(Jos 316). Map III, H 4. GESait. 


ADAM, THE BOOKS OF: This general title is 
given to a number of apocryphal and apocalyptic 
productions (by Christian hands on the basis of 
Jewish originals), embodying semi-religious ro- 
mances in which Adam and Eve figured as the chief 
characters and the story of Gn ch. 3 is supplemented 
and embellished by legendary or mythical accretions. 
The exact titles and contents of these documents 
can not be definitely identified at this stage of the 
investigation. It appears most probable, however, 
that the Adam literature is traceable to two original 
Jewish works, viz., (1) The Apocalypse of Adam 
(called by some The Testament of Adam and The 
Penitence of Adam) and (2) The Life of Adam and 
Eve (Latin, Vita Adae et Evae, or The Narrative of 
the Citizenship of Adam and Eve, ed. Tischendorf, 
1867). The data are scattered over a large number 


| lifted up his spear.’ 


of patristic writings. But see M. R. James, The Lost 
Apocrypha of the O. T., (1920), p. 8; also Charles, 
Apocr. and Pseudep. of the O. T., vol. II, (1918). 

Av On, 
*adhaimah): A city of 
The identification, Map IV, 


ADAMAH, ad’a-ma (778, 
Naphtali (Jos 19 36). 
G 7, is uncertain. 

ADAMANT. See Stonszs, Precious, § 3. 

ADAMI-NEKEB, ad’a-mai-nek’eb (APRi7 “DTS, 
‘adhami hannegebh): A town on the NW. border of 
Naphtali (Jos 19 33). Its site is uncertain. 

ADAR. See Tims, §3, and Appar II. 

ADBEEL, ad’bi-el (ANATE, ’adhb’él): A ‘son’ of 
Ishmael (Gn 25 13; I Ch 1 29). 
Idiba’il near Egypt is mentioned in the Assyrian 
inscriptions. 

ADDAN, ad’dan (118, ’addén): The Babylonian 
home of certain exiles who were unable to prove their 
genealogy (Ezr 2 59). Called Addon in Neh 7 61 ff. 
Site unknown. 

ADDAR, ad’dar (718, 
Benjamite clan (I Ch 8 3). Cf. Ard in Gn 46 21; Nu 
26 40. II. A town on the S. border of Judah, site 
unknown (Jos 15 3 Adar, AV). In Nu 384 4 it is com- 
bined with Hezron into Hazar-Addar. HE. HE. N. 


ADDER. See Pauesting, § 26. 

ADDI, ad’dai (’Addet): An ancestor of Christ (Lk 
3 28). 

ADDON. See ApDAN. 

ADER. See Epmr. 

ADIEL, @’di-el (2812, ‘ddh7’l): 1. A Simeonite 
chieftain (I Ch 4 36-40). 2. A priest (I Ch 9 12). 
3. Father of Azmaveth (I Ch 27 25). 

ADIN, é’din (1"1¥, ‘ddhin): The ancestral head of 
a large postexilic family (Kzr 2 15, 8 6; Neh 7 20, 
10 16). 

ADINA, a-dai’na (821Y, ‘ddhind’), ‘delightful’: 
A Reubenite chieftain in David’s army (I Ch 11 42). 

ADINO, a-dai’no (7 1Y, ‘ddhind): II S 23 8 reads 
‘Adino the Eznite’ as a second name of David’s 
mightiest hero. The text is doubtless corrupt; the 
true reading is perhaps preserved in I Ch 11 11 ‘he 
EH. E. N. 

ADITHAIM, ad’i-fhé’im (8°0"12, ‘ddhithayim): 
A city of Judah in the Shephelah (Jos 15 36). Site 
unknown. 

ADJURE. See Oatu. 

ADLAI, ad'lé-ai (27Y 
phat (I Ch 27 29). 

ADMAGH, ad’ma (2°18, ’adhmdh): One of the 
cities near the Dead Sea that rebelled against 
Chedorlaomer (Gn 10 19, 14 2, 8). A. with Zeboim 
was destroyed (Hos 11 8), according to Dt 29 22 at 
the same time with Sodom and Gomorrah. Nothing 
is known of its site. EK. E. N. 

ADMATHA. See Princes, THE SEVEN. 

ADNA, ad’na (837¥, ‘adhna’), ‘pleasure’: 1. One 


of the ‘sons of Pahath-moab’ (Ezr 10 30). 2. A priest 
(Neh 12 15). 


, ‘adhlay): Father of Sha- 


An Arabian tribe > 


’addadr): I. Ancestor of a 


~ 


27 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Adaiah 
Adria 





ADNAH, ad’na (77279, ‘adhnah): 1. A Manassite 
who deserted Saul for David (I Ch 12 20). 2. A 
captain under Jehoshaphat (II Ch 17 14). 

ADONIBEZEK, 0a-dd’nai-bi’zek (P!3°218, ‘ddho- 
ni-bhezeq), ‘lord of Bezek’: A Canaaniteking defeated 
by Judah and Simeon at Bezek. He escaped, but was 
pursued, captured, and mutilated. He died after- 
ward in Jerusalem (Jg 1 5-7). Ae OZ. 


ADONIJAH, ad’o-nai’ja (T2718, ’ddhdniyyah), 
‘my Lord is J’”: 1. The fourth son of David. His 
mother was Haggith (II S 3 4). Near the close of 
David’s reign he assumed royal state, hoping to 
become his father’s successor. Joab and Abiathar 
were his active supporters. He made a feast at the 
Stone of Zoheleth, near Jerusalem, and invited all 
the king’s sons and nobility, except Solomon and his 
partizans, Benaiah, Zadok, and Nathan. Here he 
disclosed his plot for seizing the throne. At this 
critical juncture Nathan advised Bath-sheba to 
remind David of his promise to appoint Solomon as 
his successor. David acted with characteristic 
energy, commanding Solomon to ride on his own 
mule to Gihon, there to be anointed by Zadok and 
proclaimed king under the protection of the body- 
guard. A. and his guests heard the acclamations of 
the populace, and Jonathan, the son of Abiathar, 
informed them of the coronation. A. took refuge at 
the altar, but Solomon graciously pardoned him. 
Later, he preferred a request to Solomon through 
Bath-sheba for Abishag, David’s concubine. As the 
harem of a king belonged to his successor, Solomon 
rightly considered this an act of treason, and had 
him put to death (I K chs. 1 and 2). 2. A Levite (II 
Ch 17 8). 3. Ancestral head of a family of Levites 
(Neh 10 16) called Adonikam (q.v.) in Ezr 2 13, ete. 

JuAS Ks: 

ADONIKAM, ad”o-nai’‘kom (OP'708, ’ddhdni- 
gam), ‘the Lord is risen up’: Ancestor of a large post- 
exilic family (Ezr 213, 813; Neh 718). Called Adoni- 
jah in Neh 10 16. 

ADONIRAM, ad’o-nai’ram (O 728,’ ddhdniram), 
‘the Lord is high’ (abbreviated (?) into Adoram and 
Hadoram): Overseer of the men forced to work on 
public works under David and Solomon (II S 20 24; 
I K 46, 514). He was stoned to death in N. Israel 
(I K 12 18; II Ch 1018). EK. E. N. 


ADONIS, PLANTINGS OF. The ERV meg. at Is 
17 10 for ‘pleasant plants’ in AV and ARV. If the 
Hebrew word na‘dmdanim is a proper name, the 
equivalent of the more usual Tammuz, the Greek 
Adonis, the reference is to the so called ‘baskets of 
Adonis’ 7.e., baskets or pots planted with quick- 
growing plants which, subjected to a forced growth 
for eight days, symbolized the life-giving power of 
Adonis. Isaiah implies that this form of nature-wor- 
ship was practised in N. Israel. He emphasized the 
weakness inherent in such forced growth as indica- 
tive of the lack of any real power or help in these 
strange deities and their cults. Cf. The New Cen- 
tury Bible or The Cambridge Bible on Is 17 10. See 
also TAMMUZ. EK. E. N. 


ADONIZEDEK, 0-d6’nai-zi’dek (PI¥°Y8, ’dd- 
héni tsedheg), ‘lord of righteousness’: King of 


Jerusalem when Joshua conquered Ai; he entered 
into a league with four other Canaanite kings to 
fight against the inhabitants of Gibeon, which had 
made peace with Israel. He was defeated and put 
to death by hanging (Jos 101, 3, 26). Perhaps the 
same as Adoni-bezek (Jg 1 5). (ree Ls 


ADOPTION (vioGecte: A legal term appropriated 
by theology. Its Biblical usage is limited to the 
Pauline epistles (Ro 8 15, 23, 9 4; Gal 4.5; Eph 1 5). 
Here it signifies the act by which the privileges of a 
child of God are conferred upon the believer in Jesus 
Christ. In the Roman judicial system a place was 
made for a formal act of adoption. In Israelite his- 
tory cases of adoption also occur. Esther was adopt- 
ed by Mordecai (Est 27, cf. also the cases of Moses, 
Ex 29, and of Genubath, I K 11 20). But no formal 
act is mentioned. According to the Roman law, on 
the other hand, the person to be adopted was pub- 
licly sold to the prospective parent before witnesses, 
and thenceforth became a member of the latter’s 
family, exactly as if he had been born into it. 

The Apostle’s use of the Roman legal term is 
designed to show that the redeemed saint not only is 
changed inwardly but also secures the privileges of a 
child of God. But it may be that the act is the im- 
portant thing in the Apostle’s mind; in such a case 
adoption is a separate and distinct stage of redemp- 
tion. A. C. Z. 


ADORAIM, ad"o-ré’im (O28, ’ddhdrayim): A 
city of Judah fortified by Rehoboam, about 6 m. W. 
of Hebron (II Ch 11 9). Map II, E 2. 

ADORAM. See ADONIRAM. 

ADRAMMELECH, oa-dram‘-lek (122718, ’édh- 
rammelekh): 1. One of the gods of Sepharvaim 
(II K 17 31), or Sippar in Assyria, possibly Adar 
(Adrammelech = Adar-King); but a god Adar is un- 
known in the Assyrian pantheon. 2. One of the two 
sons of Sennacherib, who murdered their father on 
his return from the unsuccessful campaign against 
Jerusalem (Is 37 38; II K 19 37; in the latter passage, 
however, the word ‘son’ does not occur). 

A. C. Z. 


ADRAMYTTIUM, ad”ra-mit’i-om (Ateapictoy 
and ’Adspaudctov): A city of Mysia in the Roman 
province of Asia, situated at the head of the 
Gulf of Adramyttium and at the base of Mt. Ida. 
There is no authentic record of its foundation, but it 
was reputed to have been founded by Adramys, 
brother of Croesus. It may have been originally an 
Athenian settlement. Under the Romansit attained 
the rank of a metropolis and was the seat of an 
Assize (conventus juridicus). The modern village of 
Edremid stands some miles inland in the center of 
an olive and vineyard district, and exports raisins, 
olive-oil, and timber from Mt. Ida. In Ac 27 2 
reference is made to ‘a ship of Adramyttium.’ 


ADRIA, @’dri-a (Ac 27 27), Gr. ’Adplac, Lat. 
Hadria, Hadriaticum mare: The name may have 
been derived from the town of Adria, or Atria, near 
the mouth of the Po, and was ordinarily applied to 
the gulf between Italy and Illyria. But geographers 
contemporary with the N T extended it to include 


Adriel 
Agriculture 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





not only the Ionian Gulf, but also the section of sea 
between Crete and Sicily. Strabo, e.g. (§ 123), says 
that the older name was used for ‘part of what is 
now called Adrias’ under which he includes the 
Ionian Gulf and the Sicilian Sea. Ptolemy dis- 
tinguishes the Adriatic Sea from the Adriatic Gulf, 
and Pausanias applies the name to the sea between 
Sicily, Malta, and Crete. Lukeconforms to this later 
usage—possibly, as Ramsay suggests, following the 
sailor’s nomenclature—in using the term ‘the Adria’ 
for the sea in which Paul’s company drifted west- 
ward for fourteen days. R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


ADRIEL, é’dri-el (Oey, ‘adhrvél) ‘God is my 
helper’(?): A Meholathite who married Saul’s 
daughter Merab, already promised to David (IS 
1819). His five sons were given up to the Gibeonites 
(II S 21 8 [Michal here by mistake for Merab)). 

E. E. N. 

ADULLAM, o-dol’am (0?7Y, ‘édhullam): The 
ancient tradition concerning Adullam (Gn ch. 38) is 
to the effect that in early times clans or families of 
Judah consolidated with Canaanitish clans (Adul- 
lamites) near Adullam. The statement in Jos 12 15 
that the city and its king were conquered by Joshua 
is late and conflicts with the earlier accounts of the 
conquest. From the notices in Jos 15 35; Mic 1 15; 
Neh 11 30, its general location is made certain (Map 
II, E 2).. David frequently used its stronghold or 
citadel as his headquarters (I S 221; II S 2313, where 
the true reading is ‘stronghold,’ not ‘cave’; cf. ver. 14 
and 517). Rehoboam strengthened its fortifications 
(II Ch 11 7). It was reoccupied by Jews early in 
postexilic times (Neh 11 30). (See G. A. Smith, 
AHGHL, p. 229.) E. E. N. 

ADULTERY. See Marriace anv Divorce, § 4. 

ADUMMIM, a-dum’/im, THE ASCENT OF 
(MOT 12YD, ma‘dlzh ’ddhummim, thus named, 
perhaps, on account of the red-colored stone in the 
pass): It lay on the road most traveled between 
Jerusalem and Jericho, and on the boundary-line be- 
tween Judah and Benjamin (Jos 157, 1817). Ona 
height NE. of the pass was the Chastel Rouge of the 
Crusaders. Map II, G1. Gis Ra Be 


ADVERSARY: In the O T the term most often 
used to designate opponent in general (tsar); but in 
I § 1 6 this signifies the rival wife. In Nu 22 22; 
1S 294,118 19 22;1K 54, 1114, 23, 25, it is the trans- 
lation of the noun and in Ps 71 13, 109 20, 29 of the 
verb from the root ]0 (‘satan’), meaning to ‘accuse’ 
or ‘oppose.’ In Job 31 35 it means an opponent in a 
case at law. In the N T it often designates the gen- 
eral idea of opponent, but in Mt 5 25; Lk 12 58, 18 3; 
I P 58, that of legal opponent. Siders tip dk 

ADVOCATE (xap&xAntos), t.¢., ‘pleader’ or ‘in- 
tercessor,’ applied to Jesus explicitly only inI Jn 21, 
but cf. Jn 14 16; Ro 8 34; Heb 7 23. See also Hoty 
SPIRIT. 

AENEAS, i-né’as (Alvéac, Eneas AV): A paralytic 
at Lydda healed by Peter (Ac 9 33-34). 

ZENON, i’nen (Alvay, ‘springs’): A place near 
Salim (Jn 3 23). Neither site is certainly identified. 
According to Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. 245, 91; 
134, 25) Ainon was eight Roman miles S. of Béth- 


shean (Scythopolis). But Conder’s identification 
(Tent Work, Vol. I, p. 57 f.) with the springs be- 
tween Salim (Map III, F 3) and’ Aindn in the Wddy 
Far’ah (Map III, G 8) is more probable. 
J.-M. T. 

AGABUS, ag’a-bus ("AyeGoc): A Christian pro- 
phet (Ac 11 27 £.) who came down from Jerusalem to 
Antioch and predicted ‘a great famine over all the 
world’ (probably the famine in the reign of Claudius 
c. 46-48 a.p.). In the diary source Ac 2110 f. A. ap- 
pears in Cesarea and predicts Paul’s arrest and 
deliverance to the Gentiles (see CuurcH LirEz AND 


ORGANIZATION, § 6; also Propuet, § 14.). 
BP. Bares be 


AGAG, é’gag (US, ’dghagh): King of an Amale- 


kite tribe. Samuel commissioned Saul utterly to ex- 
terminate the tribe with their king, because of past 
hostility to Israel (cf. Ex 178-16), thus putting Agag 
under the ban (herem). See Cursz, § 2. But Saul 
saved the king and also much booty. Samuel, highly 
displeased at this disobedience, carried out the 
Divine commission by hewing Agag topieces (IS ch. 
15). In Nu 247read Og or Gog for Agag. J. A. K. 

AGAGITE. See Haman. 

AGAR. See Haaar. 

AGATE. See Srongs, Precious, §§ 2 and 3. 


AGE, AGES. See Escuatrotoey, § 27; and Apo- 
CALYpPTIC LITERATURE, § 1 (6). 


AGED. See Wispom, WISE Men, $1. 
AGEE, é’gi (S28, ’Gghé@’): A Hararite, father of 
Shammah (II § 23 11). 


AGRICULTURE: 1. Israelites Originally not 
Agriculturists. The Israelites first learned agricul- 
ture in Palestine. According to the patriarchal 
legends their ancestors were essentially nomadic, 
and became agriculturists only incidentally, as in 
the course of their wanderings they came upon land 
adapted to farming purposes (Gn 26 12, 377; cf. 3014). 
Gn 4 20, with its peculiar appreciation of the nomadic 
life, is not the only thing which reminds us of the 
fact that the Israelites were once nomads; the 
Rechabites also, who tried to retain artificially the 
old conditions which had long since disappeared, 
bear witness to the fact that the nomadic life was for 
them the genuine Israelitic life (Jer 35 7). See 
Nomaopic Lire. 

2. Transition to Agriculture After the Conquest. 
The nomadic situation, however, changed after 
Israel had settled in the W. Jordan country. Here 
the conditions demanded that they take up a settled 
life the chief employment of which was farming—an 
art they learned from the Canaanites; for Canaan 
had been a well-cultivated country long before 
Israel settled there. The lowlands especially had 
from very ancient times been tilled, tho the cultiva- 
tion of the hillsides was also old, in spite of the fact 
that the house of Joseph are bidden to clear the hill- 
tops of their forests (Jos 17 15-18). The importance 
which agriculture had for Israel from the very begin- 
ning of its settlement in Canaan is seen not only in 
the close connection in which agriculture and religion 
stood in the earliest times, but also in the fact that 
it is the background for all the legislation of Israel— 


“ 
‘ 


a 


(Aivulddesy [BOLsO[OOYL, PLOJJIBVH{ UL UOTJoo[ [OD UO}JV_ UOSTABC BIANG 94} Wo) 


“xe-sSulunid “yysaysy °ST ‘1loYo}eo-suNp ‘vyNY gS 
“‘paens wae ‘pypynjy *ST “S[VULLUL-SULYSoIY} AOJ VYOL ‘yO LT “LT “QAOIS-ULBIS “QDQUNYD *L 
‘ojyluy-sutunad ‘wpysurjypy "FL “OP YOIS “poluryy “OT ‘pooS SUIMOS OJ 9qny ‘yng 


‘OLOIS “olurypy “Eg *peos ‘spssayy °6 ‘JPAOYS-SULMOUTIM ‘aysnfuryy * 


‘YAOF-SULMOUUIM poSuoid-vay AApapnyy “fF 


G 


“YLOF posuoid-oM} ‘upiyig “E 


‘ISP9[S-dULYSIIY} “SYLp-pe YUNT °S 
li 


“mold ‘ayyry 
SLNOWAHIdWNI IVYOLINODINDV 


Sn i Se inapecarioe 





NIVUN ONIGVAY 











209 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Adriel 
Agriculture 





even the oldest. After the tribe had by’ conquest 
secured a place of habitation for itself, every family 
probably received a certain piece of land, which was 
marked off definitely, generally by stones, the re- 
moval of which was subjected to curse (Hos 5 10; 
Dt 1914, 2717; Pr 22 28). The land was measured ac- 
cording to ‘acres, literally ‘yokes,’ tsemedh: 7.e., the 
unit of measurement was as much ground as one 
yoke of oxen could plow in a day (IS 1414; Is 5 10), 
as it is to-day 
with the fellahin, 
whose measure is 
the feddan (t.e., 
literally, ‘yoke of 
oxen’). According 
to Lev 27 16, land § 
was also appraised 
at times by the 
quantity of seed 
used in sowing 
(cf. I K 18 32). 

3. The Soil. In 


Es. 
‘ (EL, 


Dt 1110f., as an Bees ee 
SS ae or 


rst) 


especial advan- 
tage over against 
Egypt, the point 
is emphasized that 
Israel is not com- 
pelled to irrigate 
the land, but that Jehovah pours out upon it rain 
and dew; as in other ways the brooks, springs, and 
lakes were esteemed for their importance with ref- 
erence to fertility (Dt 87). There must have been, 
therefore, in early times, as to-day, very little irri- 
gated land. 

Thorough manuring of the soil was unknown. In 
II K 9 37; Jer 9 22, 16 4, reference is made merely to 
the excrement of animals, especially of the oxen 
and asses used in plowing, which lay upon the fields; 
and such passages as Dt 2313 f.; I K 1410; cf. Ex 29 
14, show the practise of thorough fertilization to have 
been most unlikely. Moreover, manure was dried 
and often used as fuel (Ezk 415). This custom is still 
prevalent among the fellahin of Palestine (cf. 
ZDPV, IX, 29). Instead of manure the people em- 
ployed for fertilization straw and stubble, which like 
thorns and thistles were burned (cf. Ex 157; Is 5 24, 
47 14). Of significance for the fertility of the land is 
the regulation in Ex 23 10 f. that farms, vineyards, and 
olive orchards were to lie fallow in the seventh year. 
This hardly indicates that there was a fixed fallow- 
ing year for the whole country—a requirement which 
could not have been carried out in the earlier days 
except with the greatest hardship to the people—but 
each field had its own definite fallowing year, as was 
formerly the custom in Germany. 


4. Tillage. In the tilling of the soil it was neces- 
sary to wait till autumn, when the early rains, mdreh 
—termed early because the old civil year began in 
autumn—softened the ground which had grown dry 
and hard as stone in the summer sun. As the soil 
to-day in certain localities is worked with the mat- 
tock (q.v.), so it was perhaps, here and there, in 
early times (I S 13 20; Is 7 25); but the ordinary way 
was to use the plow (q.v.); and very likely the prac- 








A Threshing-Sledge, Showing Under-Side. 


tise then, as now in Judea, was not to plow till after 
the sowing. The sower scatters the seed rather 
thinly over the fields, and it is then through the 
plowing turned under and covered to a depth of 
about three to four inches. Furrows (Job 39 10; Ps 
65 10; I S 14 14) can not be understood of a deep 
trench as in Western agriculture. The plow does not 
do much more than break up the surface of the 
ground; so that it is not sufficiently freed of weeds. 
For example, in 
the fertile plain of 
Philistia there are 
weed-roots as 
thick as _ one’s 
finger, spreading 
out a yardormore 
in all directions, 
and at a depth 
that can not be 
reached by the 
plow. The ox was 
<= <S=; generally used to 
= —=—=—Z,_ draw the plow, the 

=<; ass also being 
probably used on 
lighter soil. The 
prohibition in Dt 
22 10 leads to the 
conclusion that at 
one time both were yoked together. A single plow- 
ing did not suffice for fallow land. Upon the first 
plowing in winter there followed a second in the 
spring, and a third in summer; indeed, the careful 
farmer plowed in the late summer a fourth time; cf. 
Wetzstein in Delitzsch’s Isaiah?, 389f. Whether 
harrowing was known in early times is a question. 
Perhaps the word which is generally so translated 
(17%) means rather a sort of plowing (cf. Hos 10 11; 
Is 28 24). For leveling off the fields (Is 28 25) a box 
with open front is used to-day in Palestine (2DPV, 
TX, 38). 

5. Seeding. It is likely that the difference between 
winter and summer seeds was recognized, as it is 
to-day. The former consist of wheat and barley, the 
latter of millet, sesame, melons, cucumbers, etc. 
Seeding could not be begun until the early rains had 
set in, which come toward the end of October, at first 
intermittently and generally at night. Barley was 
sown first, followed by the wheat. Seed was usually 
sown with the hand (Mt 18 3-8); the more valuable 
varieties, such as barley, wheat, and spelt, were at 
times laid in the furrow by a sower who followed 
behind the plowman, as is still done to-day, and 
then plowed in, to protect them from the large ants 
of which there are great numbers in Syria and 
Palestine, and which are fond of carrying off the 
grain into their holes (ZDPV, IX, 30, note). It was 
perhaps also done to keep the seed from drying up, 
since a period of from four to five weeks of dryness 
sometimes elapses after the sowing (2DPV, IX, 
20): 

The summer grain was sown at the end of January 
and in February. The later rain, malqésh, which falls 
in March and at the beginning of April, was of great 
importance for the ripening of the grain. If it failed, 


Agriculture 
Ahaziah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 30 





or if it came too late, or if it was too scanty, the grain 
did not mature properly. Another enemy of agricul- 
ture was the hot east or southeast wind (qaddhim, 
Arab. chamsin), which scorched, shadaph, the ears 
(Gn 416; ), so that they turned yellow, shiddaphén, 
yeragon (Dt 28 22; Am49;I K 837). Thecrops were 
frequently destroyed by grasshoppers also (Am 7 2; 
Jl 14), and at times by hail (Ps 78 47; Hag 217). If 
the harvest-time were near, those crops which were 
especially valuable were protected by watchmen 
(Jer 417); but it was permitted one who was hungry 
to pick ears in passing by (ef. Dt 23 25; Mt 121). 
On the general subject of this paragraph see 
PALESTINE, §§16-23. 


6. Harvesting. The harvest, gaistr, began in April 
with the cutting of the barley, at which time lentils 
and fitches were also ripe. Two or three weeks later 
followed the harvest of wheat and spelt; but of 
course the harvest-time varied according to the 
climatic conditions of each region. In the hot low- 
lands about Jericho the barley harvest began near 
the first of April; on the coast it was eight and in the 
mountains fourteen days later. The grain harvest 
generally lasted about seven weeks, from Passover to 
Pentecost. The grain was reaped with the sickle, 
hermésh, maggdl, asis still done (Dt 16 9). The reaper, 
qotsér, grasped a number of stalks with one hand 
(Is 17 5; Ps 129 7) and with the other cut them off 
some distance from the ground. The grain that had 
been cut remained lying in swaths, ‘amir, behind the 


reaper, and was bound by the _ sheaf-binder, | 


m’asséph (Jer 9 22) into sheaves, ’dlumméh (Gn 37 
7), ‘Omer (Lv 23 10, etc.; Gn 37 7), which were 
gathered into shocks, gadhish (Ex 226). In Lv 199, 
23 22, every one is forbidden, in the interests of the 
poor, to harvest his field to its limits. The laborers 
refresh themselves, while harvesting, with roasted 
kernels of grain, qgali, and bread dipped in a sour 
drink, hémets (Ru 2 14). 

7. Threshing and Storing. The grain was gener- 
ally threshed, dish (I Ch 21 20), or hadbhat (Jg 611), in 
the open air, however, which was possible inasmuch 
as the harvest-time is free from rain (I S 12 16 ff.). 
During threshing-time the harvest men spent the 
night, as is still the custom, upon the threshing- 
floor, in order to guard it (Ru 3 6; Robinson, Pal. 
II, p. 446). The threshing-floors, géren, were either 


permanent locations on mountains or hills or else’ 


placed, if possible, upon a somewhat elevated spot. 
There were different modes of threshing: cattle 
were driven over the sheaves, which were piled 
knee-deep in layers upon the floor, until they had 
trodden out the kernels of grain with their hoofs 
and reduced the straw to chaff, in which operation 
the ox was not to be muzzled (Dt 25 4; cf. I Co 99; 
I Ti 518); or the threshing-sledge, méragh, méragh 
harits, or hariits (cetBoXoy, tribulum of the ancients), 
was used (Am 1 3; Is 28 27; II S 24 22). This sledge 
was made very likely, as to-day, of wooden planks 
joined together, in the under-side of which were set 
stones or knives (now called naurag, cf. ZDPV, IX, 
41). In addition there was the threshing-wagon, 
‘aghalah, ‘cart wheel’ (Is 28 27 #f.), which consisted of 
several rollers running parallel, each of which was 
provided with three or four iron disks, so arranged 


that the disks of one roller extended into the spaces 
left by the others (cf. ZDPV, IX, 44). After thresh- 
ing the chaff, mdts, was separated from the kernels of 
grain, bar, by winnowing, zarah, t.e., by throwing the 
chaff and grain into the air, with a fork, mizreh (Is 
30 24), sometimes furnished with two but generally 
with several curved prongs. This was done toward 
evening and at night (Ru 3 2); for the sea wind blows 
from four o’clock in the afternoon till half an hour 
before sunset, and carries away the light chaff. The 
kernels were then sifted with a sieve (Am 99), and 
thrown together into larger heaps by means of the - 
winnowing-shovel, rahath (Is 30 24). In the earlier 
period there were no barns, strictly speaking; the 
stores of grain were stowed away in pits resembling ~ 

cisterns, which were care- 
fully covered up, as is still 
done at the present time 
in Palestine (Jer 41 8). In 
later times storehouses 
seem to have been in use 
(II Ch 32 28; Pr 3 10; Jer 
50 26; Jl 117). 

8. Variety of Yield. The 
yield varies greatly. On 
soil which has been fer- 
tilized, and which is ad- 
vantageously located, un- 
der favorable conditions 
wheat may yield thirty- 
fold and barley a hundred- 
fold (cf. Mt 13 8). On 
unfertilized land, in the 
plain of Esdraelon, wheat 
does not yield at the most 
more than tenfold and, on the average, seven to 
eight fold; barley at most not more than tenfold and, 
on the average, sixfold. In the mountains of Judah 
wheat yields twofold, barley threefold. See further 
Foon; IsraEt, SoctaL DEvELOPMENT oF, §§20-28; 
IsRAEL, RELIGION oF, § 9; and VINES AND VINTAGE. 
Literature: Cf. Anderlind, Ackerbau und Viehzucht in Syrien 

und besonders in Paldstina, in ZDPV, IX, 1 ff.; Hermann 

Vogelstein, Die Landwirtschaft in Paldstina zur Zeit der Mish- 

nah, I Getreidebau (1894); H. Fischer, Wirtschaftsgeographie 

von Syrien, ZDPV, XLII, 1 ff.; A Ruppin, Syrien als Wirth- 
schafisgebiet (1917); Eng. transl. Syria: An Economic Survey 

(1918); K. Baedeker, Syria and Palestine (1912); British 

Admiralty, Geographical Section, Handbook of Syria (1921); 


H. C. Luke and E. Keith-Roach, Handbook of Palestine, 
(1922). W. N. —L. B. P. 


. . . . 





Forks and Shovel Used in 
Winnowing. 


AGRIPPA, a-grip’a. See Heron, § 8. 

AGUE, BURNING. See Diszrasm anp MeEptr- 
CINE, § 4 (1). 

AGUR, é’gor (138, ’Gghar): The reputed author of 
the whole or part of Pr ch. 30. Nothing is known of 
his personality, but the similarity of Pr 301-6 to parts 
of Job favors the conjecture that hammassd’ (‘the 
oracle,’ ver. 1) is the name of a region S. of Judah. 
Its unique literary character makes it reasonable to 
attribute the entire chapter to Agur. 

A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. 

AH, 4, AHI, @hai (F868, Gh, ’éh7), ‘brother’ 
or ‘my brother’: In compound personal names ‘Ah’ 
or ‘Ahi’ may refer (1) to the deity as ‘brother,’ or (2) 
to the common human relationship. Names of class 


31 A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Agriculture 
Ahaziah 





(1) are very common, e.g., Ahijah, ‘Jah (Jehovah) is 
brother.’ Examples of (2) are much more rare and 
of more obscure meaning, eg., Ahab (=‘father’s 
brother’?). See Asi, and cf. G. B. Gray, Heb. Proper 
Names, pp. 34-41, 75-86. E. E. N. 


AHAB, é’hab (A818, ’ah’dbh), ‘father’s brother’: 
1. The second king of the Omri dynasty and early 
Israel’s most conspicuous and potent ruler (876-855 
B.c.). Two alliances give special interest to his reign: 
his own marriage to the Phoenician princess Jezebel, 
and that of their daughter Athaliah to Jehoram of 
Judah. Through the former he gained the support 
of the richest trading people of antiquity, and by the 
latter the old schism of the Hebrew people seemed 
in tHe way of being healed. Altho this hope was 
doomed to disappointment, Israel and Judah were 
joined by close bonds for over a century. 

But the Phoenician alliance brought with it the 
cult of the Tyrian Baal, which Jezebel zealously 
promoted. The names of Ahab’s children—Ahaziah, 
Jehoram, Athaliah—indicate indeed the strength of 
the J” religion, but the growing syncretism aroused 
Elijah and the other prophets of J’, who accom- 
plished the downfall of the Omri dynasty (II K ch. 
9). The gross disregard of personal rights shown in 
the seizure of Naboth’s vineyard (I K ch. 21) was 
undoubtedly a potent element in this downfall. 

Two important synchronisms meet us in this 
period: (1) The Moabite Stone, lines 6 and 7, refers 
to Ahab, and suggests that even in his reign Moab 
began struggles for independence, which culminated 
under Jehoram (see Mrswa). (2) Ahab ascended the 
throne as the vassal of Damascus (I K 20 4), but at 
the battle of Aphek he threw off the yoke and a 
three years’ peace followed (I K 221). In this period 
occurred the invasion of Shalmaneser III., who re- 
cords that Ahabbu of Sirla (Israel) appeared with 
2,000 chariots and 10,000 soldiers at Karkar, 854 
B.c., and together with the allied Syrian kings 
sufiered a crushing defeat. The battle must have 
been indecisive, however; for it was not followed up, 
and Ahab’s military establishment gave him con- 
fidence to seek to wrest Ramoth-gilead from Damas- 
cus, in which enterprise he perished (I K ch. 22). A.’s 
political sagacity was greater than that of the 
prophets, who rebuked him for sparing Ben-hadad 
(I K 20 31-43). The alliance with Damascus enabled 
Israel to keep out the Assyrian invader. Twelve 
years later, after the prophets had broken up the 
coalition, Shalmaneser exacted tribute from Israel. 
(See Olmstead, Hist. of Assyr., pp. 132-139). 

2. A prophet, denounced by Jeremiah (Jer 29 21£.). 

A. 8. C.*+—O. R. S. 

AHARAH. See AHIRAM. 


AHARHEL, oa-har’hel (27108, ’dharhal): The 
ancestor of certain families of Judah (I Ch 4). 

AHASAI. See Anzat. 

AHASBAI, a-has’bai (3908, ’dhasbay): 
father of Eliphalet (II S 23 34; ef. I Ch 235). 

AHASUERUS, o-haz”yu-i’rus. See Estruer, § 1, 
and Dartus, § 2. 

AHAVA, a-hé’va (S178, ’ahdwa’): A town or dis- 
trict (still unidentified) in Babylonia used to desig- 


The 


nate a river (or canal); also the name of the river, on 

the banks of which Ezra gathered the Jews prepara- 

tory to their return to Jerusalem (Ezr 8 15, 21, 31). 
ath Le 

AHAZ, @haz (M8, ’ahdz), ‘He (i.e, J’’) has 
seized’: 1. Son of Jotham and king of Judah, c. 736- 
721 B.c. See CHRonoLoGy or O T. 

Tiglath-pileser IIT. (746-728) received tribute from 
Ahaz (called Jauhazi, 7.e., Joahaz) in 734 B.c. (cf. 
II K 167). In 732 B.c. he deposed and slew Pekah 
and thus broke up the Syro-Ephraimitic alliance (ef, 
IT K 15 37, 165). Damascus fell, Rezin was slain, and 
Tiglath-pileser held a great levee as ‘King of kings’ 


in the captured city, at which Ahaz was present (ac- 


cording to II K 1610). 

At Damascus Ahaz saw a great altar and ordered 
Urijah to construct one like it. W. R. Smith (Rel. 
Sem.” p. 487) considers this a great permanent altar- 
hearth, whose ritual, described at length in II K 16 
13 ff., was thereafter dominant. Olmstead (Hist. of 
Assyr., pp. 196-199) thinks A. had offered his son to 
J” to escape the danger from Syria and Damascus 
(II K 16 3; II Ch 28 3). When it seemed that deliv- 
erance came not from J’’, but from Assyria he intro- 
duced Assyrian gods, which he felt had proved 
mightier than his own. 

Some of the most striking sections of Isaiah belong 
to this period. Children and babes are their rulers, 
he declares, in a fierce invective against the tur- 
bulence of the state (Is 3 4). The Syro-Ephraimitic 
invasion called forth the Immanuel prophecy (Is 
7 1-97), a declaration that God’s purpose to be with 
His people was invincible (see IMMANUEL). Ahaz’s 
weak, short-sighted policy can be largely accounted 
for by his youth and inability to cope with the deep- 
seated corruptions of his predecessors’ régimes. 

2. A descendant of Saul (I Ch 8 35 £., 9 41 £.). 
A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. 


AHAZIAH, é@”ha-zai’a (WON, ’dhazyah), ‘J’’ hath 
grasped’: 1. King of Israel c. 853-852), son of Ahab 
and Jezebel. His character was on a level with that 
of his parents. He was a devotee of Baal and also fol- 
lowed in the sin of Jeroboam. During his reign Moab 
rebelled, and probably became independent. Mesha 
says: ‘But I saw my pleasure upon him, and on his 
house, and Israel perished with an everlasting de- 
struction’ (Mesha inscription, ]. 7. See Musa). 
Seriously injured by falling through a latticework, he 
sent to Ekron to inquire of Baal-zebub. Elijah met 
his messengers and bade them return with the pre- 
diction of the king’s death (see also Exisan). He 
made a commercial alliance with Jehoshaphat for the 
purpose of sending ships to Tarshish. The vessels 
were destroyed, and the enterprise came to naught 
(I K 22 51-53; II K 1 1-18; II Ch 20 35-37). 

2. King of Judah c. 841-840), son of Jehoram of 
Judah, and grandson of Ahab through his mother, 
Athaliah.. The Chronicler speaks of him as the 
youngest son, as the Arabians had slain all the others 
(II Ch 221, called Azariah in ver. 6). As an ally, he 
went to war with Jehoram against the Syrians at 
Ramoth-gilead. At Jehoram’s assassination by Jehu, 
he was severely wounded, but made his escape to 
Megiddo, where he died (II K 8 25-29; 9 16-23, 27). 

J. A. K. 


Ahban 
Alamoth 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 32 


AHBAN, @’ban (1378, ’ahban): A son of Abishur 
by Abihail (I Ch 2 29). 

AHER, é’har (108, ’ahér): A Benjamite (I Ch 7 12; 
text obscure, see AHIRAM). 

AHI, é’hai (M8, ’dhi), contraction for Ahijah: 
1. A Gadite (I Ch 515). 2. An Asherite (I Ch 7 34). 
Also see AH. 

AHIAH. See Ansan. 

AHIAM, oa-hai’am (O8'N8, 'dh7’am), ‘mother’s 
brother’ (?), cf. Ahab, ‘father’s brother’: One of 
David’s heroes (II § 23 33: I Ch 11 35). 

AHIAN, a-hai’an (8, ’ahydn), ‘cousin’: A 
Manassite, son of Shemida (I Ch 7 19). Possibly the 
name of a town. 

AHIEZER (é”hai-i’zer (UY'TS, 'dhi‘ezer), ‘the 
brother (God) is help’: 1. A prince of Dan (Nu 1 12, 
2 25, etc.). 2. A Benjamite, chieftain of a body of 
archers who deserted Saul for David (I Ch 12 3). 

AHIHUD, oa-hai’hud (THTNS [and TWN], *chi- 
hiidh), ‘the brother (God) is praise’: 1. A prince of 
Asher (Nu 34 27). 2. A name occurring in the gene- 
alogy of Benjamin (I Ch 87, text obscure). 

AHIJAH, o-hai’ja (MAS, ’dhiyyah),‘J” is brother’: 
1. A prophet of Shiloh, who incited Jeroboam to head 
the revolt of N. Israel against the house of David 
(I K 11 26 #.), but afterward condemned him for his 
disloyalty to J’’ and foretold the ruin of his house (I 
K ch. 14). The story of Ahijah’s dealings with Jero- 
boam in the LXX. varies considerably from that of 
the Massoretic Hebrew text reproduced in our Eng. 
version. The reason assigned for A.’s opposition to 
Solomon by the author of I K savors too much of the 
viewpoint of the editor-author himself to be taken as 
strictly accurate. Solomon’s lavish expenditures, 
the heavy burdens he laid on the people, his innova- 
tions and his efforts to make the new sanctuary at 
Jerusalem the chief sanctuary of the kingdom prob- 
ably stirred the aged prophet of Shiloh in N. Israel 
to resentment against what he considered disloyalty 
to the best traditions of the past. And it was this 
same devoted loyalty to the ancient tradition and 
custom that led him to oppose Jeroboam’s innova- 
tion of setting up the calf-images as a mode of wor- 
ship of J’. 2. See AHIMELECH, 1. 3. Father of King 
Baasha (I K 15 27). 4. A son of Shisha (I K 4 3, 
Ahiah AV). 5. Ason of Jerahmeel (I Ch 2 25). 6. One 
who helped Gera to carry away captives (I Ch 8 7, 
Ahiah AV). 7. A Pelonite; one of David’s valiant 
men (I Ch 11 36). 8. According to the Heb. text a 
Levite, caretaker of the sanctuary treasures under 
David (I Ch 26 20), but, according to LXX., instead 
of ‘Ahijah,’ we should read ‘their brethren.’ 9. One 
of the signers of the covenant (Neh 10 26). 

K. E.N. 

AHIKAM, o-hai‘kam (OP'N8, ’dhiqdm), ‘the 
brother (God) riseth up’: One of the officials Josiah 
delegated to consult Huldah (II K 2214 #.). He wasa 
friend and protector of Jeremiah (Jer 26 24 ff.). His 
son Gedaliah was governor after the fall of Jerusalem 
(Jer 39 14). E. E. N. 


AHILUD, a-hai’lod (T9°NY, *éhiladh), ‘a brother 
is born’: 1. The father of David’s recorder, Jehosha- 


phat (II S 8 16, 20 24; 1 K 43; I Ch 1815). 2. The 
father of Baana, one of the victualers of Solomon’s 
household (I K 4 12). 

AHIMAAZ, a-him’/a-az (PYO°'N8, ’Ghima‘ats), ‘my 
brother is wrath’: 1. A son of Zadok, David’s priest. 
In David’s flight from Jerusalem, A. and Jonathan 
were sent back to act as spies and couriers. A., with 
his companion, was despatched by Hushai to warn 
David. Eluding their pursuers, they reached David 
and delivered the message which enabled the king to 
escape. After the battle with Absalom, A. desired to 
bear the tidings to David. At first Joab refused, and 
sent a Cushite. A. finally secured permission, outran 
the Cushite, and delivered his message first (II S chs. 
15, 17, 18). 2. The father of Saul’s wife, Ahinoam (I 
S14 60). 3. A prefect and son-in-law of Solomon 
(I K 415). J. A. K. 

AHIMAN, oa-hai’men (12°18, ’adhiman), ‘my bro- 
ther is a gift’: 1. One of the three sons of Anak at 
Hebron, offspring of the Nephilim, and of such gi- 
gantic stature that they terrified the spies (Nu 13 
22 f.). They were conquered by Caleb (Jg 1 10, 20; 
Jos 1513 #.). Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai were most 
probably clan names. There may be a mythological 
touch in the reference to the Nephilim. 2. A Levite 
porter ‘at the king’s gate eastward,’ who returned 
from Babylon (I Ch 9 17). J. A, K, 

AHIMELECH, a-him’:-lek (122°, ’dhtmelekh), 
‘the (divine) king is brother’: 1. A priest descended 
from Eli through Ahitub (IS 229, cf. 143; I Ch 243). 
His son Abiathar was priest under David (I S 22 20, 
etc.). After the defeat of Israel by the Philistines 
(LS ch. 4) the priestly house of Eli removed with the 
Tabernacle from Shiloh to Nob. A. was the head of 
this establishment in the days of Saul and was slain 
by Saul for assisting David (IS ch. 21 f.). In Mk 2 26 
Abiathar is a mistake for Ahimelech. In II § 817, 
I Ch 1816 and 24 6 read ‘Abiathar son of Ahimelech,’ 
in 24 3, 31, ‘Abiathar’ for ‘Ahimelech.’ Ahijah in 
IS 14 3 is probably to be identified with Ahimelech. 
See also PrrestHooD, § 2 (a). 2. A Hittite in David’s 
service (I S 26 6). E. E. N. 

AHIMOTH, o-hai’meth (NDS, ’c¢himéth): A son 
of Elkanah, a Levite (I Ch 6 25). (In ver. 35 and 
II Ch 29 12 called Mahath.) 

AHINADAB, a-hin’s-dab (27208, ’dhinaddhabh), 
‘the brother (God) is generous’: A prefect under 
Solomon (I K 4 14). 

AHINOAM, G”hin’o-am (O92, ’éhind‘am), ‘the 
brother (God) is pleasantness’: 1. The wife of Saul 
(IS 1450). 2. A woman of Jezreel (in Judah, ef. Jos 
15 56), wife of David and mother of Amnon, his 
eldest son (IS 25 43, 27 3, 305; ITS 22,32;1 Ch31). 

AHIO, a-hai’o (M8, ’ahyd): 1. A son of Abinadab 
(IS 63f.). 2. The head of a Benjamite family 
(I Ch 814). 3. A Benjamite of Gibeon ‘I Ch 8 31, 
9 37). 

AHIRA, a-hai’ra (YVOS, ’dhira‘): A prince of 
Naphtali (Nu 115, 2 29, ete.). The name 1s of peculiar 
formation. The syllable ‘ra’ may be a scribal error 
for ‘ram’ (see AHIRAM), or it may preserve the 
Egyptian ‘Ra’ and the word be a relic of the period of 
Egyptian supremacy. E. E. N. 


83 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ahban 
Alamoth 


a a 


AHIRAM, oa-hai’ram (O78, ’dhirém), ‘the 
brother (God) is high’: Ancestral head of the Ahira- 
mites, a clan of Benjamin (Nu 26 38; Ehi in Gn 46 21; 
Aharah in I Ch 81; also cf. Aher, I Ch 7 12). 


AHISAMACH, 2-his’a-mak (19?°N8, ’ahisamakh) 
‘the brother (God) sustains’: A Danite, father of 
Oholiab (Ex 31 6, 35 34, 38 23). 


AHISHAHAR, o-hish’a-har (17¥'M®, ’éhishahar), 
‘the brother (God) is dawn’: The head of a Benja- 
mite family (I Ch 7 10). 

AHISHAR, a-hai’shar ("Y°T8, ’dhishadr): The 
overseer of Solomon’s household (I K 4 6). 


AHITHOPHEL, e-hith’o-fel (22'NN, ’ahiths- 
phel), ‘brother is foolishness’ (?): Accounted the 
wisest man in Israel (II S 16 23), a counselor of 
David, possibly the grandfather of Bath-sheba 
(II S 23 34, cf. 11 3). He was a co-conspirator with 
Absalom (II § 15 12, etc.), but when his advice was 
rejected he committed suicide, for which his name 
has perhaps been stamped with the opprobrious 
epithet 2BA, téphel, ‘foolishness.’ 

A. §. C.*—O. R. S. 

AHITUB, a-hai’tub (A10'NS, 'dhitéibh), ‘the 
brother (God) is goodness’: 1. A priest, descended 
from Eli, and the father of Ahimelech (IS 14 3, 229). 
2. The father of David’s priest Zadok (II §S 8 17; 
I Ch 67#., 1816; Ezr 7 2). 3. A priest descended from 
Zadok (I Ch 611#.). 4. A priest, ruler of the Temple 
in postexilic days (I Ch 9 11; Neh 11 11). 


AHLAB, @lab (22%, ’ahlabh): A Canaanitetown 
in Asher. Site unknown (Jg 1 31). 


AHLAI, @’lai (2%, ’ahlay): 1. A child of She- 
shan (I Ch 2 31, cf. ver. 34). 2. The father of Zabad 
(1 Ch il 41). 

AHOAH, a-hi’a (TINS, ’dhdah): The head of the 
Ahohites, a Benjamite family (I Ch 8 4) to which 
Zalmon (II S 23 28, Mai in I Ch 11 29) and Dodo, or 
Doda, (I Ch 11 12, 27 4) belonged. 


AHOLAH, AHOLIAB, AHOLIBAH, AHOLI- 
BAMAH. See Onouag, etc. 

AHUMAI, 0-hii’mai (P3N8, ’ 
of a family of Judah (I Ch 4 2). 

AHUZZAM, a-hii’zam (8708, ’dhuzzdm, Ahuzam 
AV), ‘possession’ (?): A son of Ashur (I Ch 48). 


AHUZZATH, a-hoz’ath (NIN8, ’dhuzzath), ‘pos- 
session’: The ‘friend’ (z.e., ‘adviser’) of Abimelech, 
king of Gerar (Gn 26 26). 

AHZAT, @’zai (INS, ’ahzay, Ahasai AV): A priest 
(Neh 11 13); possibly =Jahzerah (I Ch 9 12). 

AI, ai (2, ‘ay, in Hebrew always with the article; 
Jos 7 2.; Ezr 2 28; [LXX., Pat]): An ancient royal 
city of the Canaanites, situated ‘beside Bethaven on 
the E. side of Bethel’ (Jos 7 2; Gn 128), destroyed by 
Joshua (Jos 8 28); best identified with certain obscure 
ruins just S. of the modern Dér Diwan (Map III, 
F 5). Hai (Gn 128, 13 3, AV), Aija (Neh 11 31), and 
Aiath (Is 10 28) are but variant forms of the same 
name. The Ai of Jer 49 3 was probably a city, not yet 
identified, E. of the Jordan. G. L. R. 


ahtimay): The head 


AIAH, é’ya (8, ’ayydah), ‘falcon’: 1. An Edomite 
tribe (Gn 36 24; I Ch 1 40, Ajah AV). 2. The father 
of Rizpah (II S 37, 21 8-11). 

AIATH, é’yath, AIJA, e-ai’ja. See Ar. 

AIJALON, ai’jo-lon (1!728, ’ayyalon, Ajalon AV), 
‘hart’: 1. A broad valley NW. of Jerusalem leading 
down to the seacoast plain (Jos 1012). Map III, E5. 
2. A town in this valley (Jos 19 42, 21 24; Jg 1 35; 
IS 14 31; I Ch 6 69, 813; II Ch 11 10, 28 18) mentioned 
in the Amarna letters as Ailuna. ‘Now called Yalo. 
Map III, E 5. 3. A town in Zebulun, site unknown 
(Jg 12 12). 

AIJELETH HASH-SHAHAR, ai-jéleth hash- 
shé’har. See Music, § 6. 

AIN, @in (]'¥, ‘ayin), ‘spring’: 1. A place on NE. 
panier of Canaan, near Riblah (Nu 3411). Robinson 
identifies it with ‘the sources of the Orontes River, 
but this may be too far N. 2. A place in the Negeb of 
Judah (Jos 15 32), assigned to Simeon (Jos 197) and 
apparently the same as the Levitical city (Jos 21 16). 
Should perhaps be read with Rimmon (Jos 15 32) as 


one word. See En-RimMon. CaS T. 
AKAN, é’kan. See JAAKAN. 
AKELDAMA, a-kel’da-ma (’AxedAdapcéy, Acel- 


dama AV): The Greek transliterates an Aramaic 
word meaning ‘field of sleep’ (cf. xotzythproy, ceme- 
tery), and is given as the name of a piece of land 
that Judas purchased with the blood-money paid to 
him for the betrayal of Jesus and upon which he 
committed suicide (Ac 119). In Mt 277f., it is said 
that the high priests and elders purchased the field 
with the money returned by the remorse-stricken 
Judas, and that the field was used for the burial of 
strangers, and called ‘the field of blood.’ The place 
is identified with the modern Hakk-ed-Dumm, 
S. of the Pool of Siloam, on a level spot, half-way up 
the hill. The RV reading is based upon the assump- 
tion that the ‘Akeldamach’ of the Greek text is a mis- 
take for ’AxeAtau4, the transliteration of 827 ?P0, 
‘field of blood.’ A. C. Z. 


AKKUB, ak’kub (S31P¥, ‘aqqabh): 1. A descendant 
of David (I Ch 8 24). 2. The head of a postexilic 
family (I Ch 917=Ezr 2 42; perhaps = Neh7 45, 11 19, 
12 25). 3. The head of a postexilic family of Nethi- 
nim (Ezr 2 45). 4. One of the Levites who helped to 
expound the law read by Ezra to the people (Neh 
8 7). CSek 

AKRABBIM, ak-rab’‘im (9°3P¥, ‘agrabbim), 
‘scorpions’: The ‘Ascent of the Scorpions’ which led 
up from the region about the S. end of the Dead 
Sea to the highland of S. Judah (Nu 34 4; Jos 15 3, 
Maaleh-akrabbim AV). The exact location is un- 
certain, see Map II, F 5. 


ALABASTER (origin of word unknown): Mineral 
carbonate of lime. A white stone much used in 
antiquity to ornament buildings and for vases and 
small bottles for holding precious ointment (Lk 7 37; 
Mk 14 3=Mt 267). EK. E.N. 

ALAMETH, al’a-mefh. See ALEemetH, I, 2. 

ALAMMELECH, a-lam’i-lek. See ALLAMELECH. 

ALAMOTH, al’a-moth. See Psaums, § 3 (4). 


Alarm 
Almond 





ALARM. See Warrarg, § 4. 


ALCIMUS, al’si-mus ("AAxtuwoc, probably the 
Greek form of Eliakim; Josephus, however, calls him 
"T&éxtwoc, the Greek equivalent of Jakim): A leader of 
the Hellenistic party, and opponent of Judas Mac- 
cabseus, c. 162 B.c. (I Mac 7 5). He was appointed 
high priest by Demetrius I., and a Syrian army under 
Bacchides was sent to Judea to put him in power 
and take vengeance on Judas. Because A. was of the 
‘seed of Aaron’ (I Mac 7 14) he was accepted by the 
scrupulous ASsIDmANS (q.v.), but a treacherous 
murder of sixty of them in one day caused a deep re- 
vulsion of feeling, and after Bacchides returned to 
Syria, Alcimus was unable to maintain himself as 
high priest (I Mac 7 21) and appealed to Demetrius 
for aid. Judas defeated the first army sent under 
Nicanor, and Alcimus fled. But a second large 
Syrian force (I Mac 91) vanquished Judas at Eleasa 
(161 B.c.). A. now came to full power and a deter- 
mined policy of Hellenizing the land was carried out. 
While taking down the dividing wall in the Temple, 
in order to blot out the distinction between Jew and 
Gentile, he was stricken with paralysis and died, 
B.c. 160 (I Mac 95 4 f.). Such is the account in 
I Mac. Both Josephus (Ant. XII., 97, 10 1-6; XX., 
10) and II Mac (143 &.) disagree with I Mac on some 
important details. IT Mac says Alcimus had held the 
office of high priest at some time previous to his 
appointment by Demetrius. Josephus says he was 
appointed by Antiochus V. Most scholars prefer to 
follow I Mac. J.S. R—E. E. N. 


ALEMETH, al’1-meth (NR2Y, ‘alemeth): I. 1. A 
descendant of Jonathan (I Ch 8 36, 9 42). 2. A de- 
scendant of Becher, the Benjamite (I Ch 7 8, 
Alameth AV). II. A town in Benjamin. See ALLE- 
METH. 


ALEXANDER, al’egz-an’der (Gr., ‘defender of 
men’): 1. Alexander the Great. Alexander III., 
called ‘the Great,’ was born at Pella (Macedonia) 
in 356 B.c., and died in Babylon in 323 s.c. Brief 
as was his career, it was one of the most brilliant of 
ancient history, not simply because of the irresistible 
power of his military genius, but also because of the 
policy which he followed in reference to his con- 
quests, of bringing to them the riches and stimulus 
of Greek culture. With him Hellenism virtually 
began. Our interest in him in this brief article is 
concerned entirely with his contact with the Jews. 

The battle of Issus (333 8.c.), in which he defeated 
Darius ITI., made him master of Asia. Soon there- 
after he went to Syria. Damascus, Sidon, Tyre, and 
Gaza fell, one after another, before his victorious 
forces. Josephus’ remarkable story (Ant. XI. 8 3), of 
Alexander‘s visit to Jerusalem to punish the Jews for 
refusing submission and how, met by a procession of 
priests, his attitude changed so that he adored the 
name of God on the breastplate of the high priest, 
and entering Jerusalem, offered sacrifice, and gave 
the Jews the favors which they asked is not consid- 
ered reliable, as no such account is found in the 
Greek historians who are our sources for Alexander’s 
career (see Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und 
Makedonischen Staaten, I, p. 837). It is improbable 
that A. visited Jerusalem. Palestine was made a 


A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 34 


province of Coele-syria. It may well be that A. was 
favorably disposed toward the Jews, giving them 
large privileges in Alexandria (Josephus, Cont. Ap. 
II. 4, B. J. Il. 187) and that many enrolled them- 
selves in his army. He is expressly mentioned in I 
Mace 1 1-7, and 6 2, and cryptically referred to in Dn 
77, 23, 85 ff., 21,113. See G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, 
vol. II., ch. XV. 

2. Alexander Balas (bé’las) figures in Jewish his- 
tory in the time of Jonathan Maccabeus. He was 
a man of obscure origin who palmed himself off as 
the son of Antiochus Epiphanes and laid claim to the 
Syrian throne occupied by Demetrius I. His re- 
markable likeness to Antiochus V., son of Antiochus 





Epiphanes, led many to believe in him, and he was ~ 


supported in his pretensions by Ptolemy VI. of 
Egypt, Attalus II. of Pergamum, and Ariarathes V. 
of Cappadocia; also by the Romans (Polyb. XX XIII. 
14, 16). Both of the rivals, Demetrius and A., bid for 
the support of Jonathan (153 B.c.), who gave his 
allegiance to the latter and received in return high 
honors, and the title of ‘the high priest of thy nation, 
and friend of the king’ (I Mac 10 18-50). After his 
victory over Demetrius I., A. married Cleopatra, 
daughter of Ptolemy VI. and seemed to be firmly 
established on the throne of Syria. But he proved, 
however, totally unfit for the high position which he 
had gained and after varying fortunes during five 
years (150-145 B.c.) he incurred the enmity of 
Ptolemy, who gave his aid to Demetrius II. son of 
Demetrius I. A. was defeated in battle and fled to 
Arabia, where he was slain (I Mac 11 1-19). 

3. Alexander, the son of Simon of Cyrene and 
brother of Rufus (Mk 15 21). 

4. Alexander, one of the kindred of the high 
priest (Ac 46). Nothing further regarding him is 
known. Ly 

5. Alexander of Ephesus, who was ‘brought out 
of the multitude’ by the Jews, to make a defense 
for them (Ac 19 33). The purpose of this was most 
likely to save the Jews from being mixed up with the 
Christians in the vengeance of the people. He may 
or may not have been the same as A. the copper- 
smith. 

6. Alexander the coppersmith (yadxeltc), of 
whom it is said in II Ti 4 14 that he did Paul ‘much 
evil.’ 

7. Alexander, an early Christian, ‘who made 
shipwreck concerning the faith,’ and whom Paul 
‘delivered unto Satan’ (I Ti 1 19f.). Attempts have 
been made to identify 5, 6, and 7, but identification 
is simply a matter of conjecture. 

J.S. R.—E. E. N. 


ALEXANDRIA, al’’egz-an’dri-a: A city of Egypt, 
situated 14 m. W. of the Canopic mouth of the Nile, 
founded by Alexander the Great 332 B.c. It lay ona 
strip of land 2 m. wide, with Lake Mareotis on its 
southern side, and the sea on the northern! Running 
out from the mainland to an island 1 m. distant 
(Pharos Island) was the Heptastadium, an artificial 
mole. On either side of this were two spacious 
harbors. A canal joined Lake Mareotis with the 
Canopic branch of the Nile. The city, which was 
regularly and beautifully built, was divided into 


five districts. The Jews, who occupied the north- - 


ee 


35 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Alarm 
Almond 





eastern section, were granted large privileges. Owing 
to lack of information it is impossible to trace the 
development of the city, but under the early Ptole- 
mies it became a noted center of commerce, learning, 
and civic splendor. Its famous museum and library 
were promotive of research, and made A. foremost in 
science. In this Hellenistic center Judaism and 
Greek culture came into very close contact and here 
the first endeavors were made to adjust the O T to 
Greek conceptions; it was here that the Septuagint 
translation of the O T was made; it was here that 
the allegorical interpretation of the Scriptures, of 
which Philo (c. 20 B.c.-40 a.p.) was the most distin- 
guished exponent, was developed—all because of the 
close touch of Judaism and Hellenism. In the Roman 
period A. was second only to Rome in importance. 
A. is not mentioned in the N T, except in the phrase 
‘of Alexandria’ (a proper adjective in the Grk. 
original). Cf. Ac 69, 18 24, 27 6, 2811. Tradition tells 
us that Mark went to Egypt and established 
churches in the famous capital. J.S. R.—E. E. N. 


ALEXANDRIA TROAS or TROAS, trd’as (’AXe§- 
k&vdpeta 4 Tewks or Tewks): The chief city of the 
Troad district on the NW. coast of Mysia, in Rom. 
province of Asia. Antigonus founded it as an en- 
largement of the older Sigia and gave it the name of 
Antigonia Troas. About 300 B.c. it was much en- 
larged by Lysimachus and renamed Alexandria 
Troas. Under Augustus it was constituted a Colonia. 
Later emperors embellished the city and added 
greatly toitsimportance. In Byzantine times it was 
the seat of a bishopic. The extensive ruins have 
suffered from being used as a quarry. Many of its 
marble columns have gone into the construction of 
the Yeni Valideh Jami mosque in Constantinople. 
Among the extant ruins are those of the city wall, 
the temple, theater and baths, and an aqueduct. It 
was probably at Troas that Paul first met Luke, 
Ac 168. For other references in connection with 
Paul’s missionary career see Ac 20 5 #.; II Cor 212; 
II Tim 4 13. S. A. 

ALGUM-TREE: The almug-tree. See Patzs- 
TINE, § 21. 

ALIAH, G-lai’a (7%, ‘alyah): A ‘duke,’ probably 
a clan, of Edom (I Ch 1 51). Alvah in Gn 36 40. 

ALIAN, al’i-an (R2Y, ‘alyan): A Seirite clan (I Ch 
140). Alvan in Gn 36 23. 

ALIEN. See GEnriLes. 

ALLAMMELECH, al-lam’i-lek or dl’’leam-mé’lek 
ferdeys ’allammelekh, Alammelech AV): A place in 
Asher (Jos 19 26). See Map IV, B 7. 

ALLEGORY: The description of one thing under 

‘the forms of another. Essentially, an allegory is an 
extended metaphor. In the original text of the Bible 
the word does not occur as a substantive. The verb 
derived from it is used in Gal 4 24 and may mean that 
the affair allegorized was intended as such, or that 
the interpreter is at liberty to see in it a meaning 
different from that on the surface. As the object of 
the Apostle in the passage in question is practical and 
homiletical rather than doctrinal and pedagogical, it 
is probable that he used the word to designate the 
process of appropriating to a specific use by allego- 


4 


rizing what was originally intended in a different 
sense. The allegorical method of interpretation was 
common in Alexandria among the followers of Philo, 
and without committing himself to its underlying 
principles the Apostle could use it in illustrating and 
enforcing Gospel truth by O T utterances. Other 
instances of similar allegorizing by Paul are the use 
of Dt 25 4in I Co 99 referring to the muzzling of the 
ox employed in threshing; of Ex 176, Nu 20 u, Ps 
78 15 in I Co 10 4 referring to the rock, and of Ex 
34, 33, 35 in II Co 313. More akin to the typological 
use are the references in the Epistle to the Hebrews 
to O T passages regarding Melchizedek and other 


‘matters. As a class these may be called allegories 


read into the O T. 

Allegories designed to be such at the start are kin- 
dred to parables (q.v.) and metaphors. It is impos- 
sible to draw the line sharply between these similar 
and allied figures of speech (cf. Trench on Parables). 
Nathan’s story to David (II S 12 1-14) may be con- 
strued either as a parable or as an allegory. The 
figures of the Vine (Jn 15 1-8), of the Bread of Life 
(Jn 6 32-42), and other kindred narratives are more 
clearly allegories. A. C, Z. 


ALLELUIA, al’i-lu’ya. See HALLELUJAH. 


ALLEMETH, al’1-meth (ney, ‘allemeth, Alemeth 
AV): A Levitical city in Benjamin (I Ch 660). Called 
Almon in Jos 21 18, Map II, F 1. 


ALLON, al’on (1i?8, ’allon), ‘oak’: I. A prince of 
the tribe of Simeon (I Ch 4 37). II. A city in Kadesh 
Naphtali (Jos 19 33 AV), translated ‘oak’ in RV. 

CREAT: 


ALLON BACUTH, al’’on bak’ oth, ’alldn bakhith, 
‘oak of weeping’: A place near Beth-el where De- 
borah, Rebekah’s nurse, was buried (Gn 35 8). 


ALMIGHTY. See Gop. 


ALMODAD, al-m6’dad: See ErHNoGRAPHY AND 
Erunooey, § 18. 


ALMON, al’men: See ALLEMETH. 


ALMON-DIBLATHAIM, al’’moen-dib”la-thé’im 
(MONZA NO2Y, ‘almon dibhlathayemah): One of 
Israel’s encampments in Moab, between Dibon and 
the mountains of Abarim (Nu 33 46). Beth-dibla- 
thaim (Jer 48 22, and Mesha-stone, line 30) may be 
the same place. K. E. N. 


ALMOND, Gm’ond (PY, shagédh [from “P%, ‘to 
keep watch,’ or ‘to be alert’], so called from its early 
blossoming, as if watching for the spring; cf. the 
play on the name in Jer 1 11): The almond, a native 
of W. Asia, was well known in Palestine and was a 
delicacy much esteemed in other countries, such as 
Egypt, to which it was exported from 8. Palestine 
(Gn 43 11). The almond blossom was imitated in the 
making of the golden candlestick (Ex 25 33 f., 
37 19 ff.), each of the bowls being shaped like its 
calyx (so Dillmann). In Ec 12 5 the words ‘the 
almond-tree shall blossom’ seem to be, on the whole, 
the correct rendering. The white (really pink-white) 
blossoms are made the symbol of the white hair of 
the aged man. See also PALESTINE, §§ 21 and 23; 
Foop anp Foop UrTsnsiss, § 5. E. E. N. 


‘ Aims, Almsgiving 


‘Alphabet A NEW STANDARD 





ALMS, ALMSGIVING. In the EVV this is an 
exclusively N T word, being found only in Mt, Lk, 
and Ac. As an English word, the term is derived 
from the Greek through the Latin (éAcqnuosdyn, ele- 
émosyné, Old Eng. aelmese, almes), and is a singular 
noun with a plural appearance. The essential ele- 
ment of its meaning is that of gratuity bestowed as 
an expression of compassion as in the presence of 


*, 


Pe eT 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 36 


ALMUG-TREE. See Pauesrinp, § 21. 


ALOES, al’6z, LIGN-ALOES: The rendering of 
two Heb. words niday, ’ahaloth (Ps 45 8; Song 4 14) 
and O28, ’dhalim (Nu 24 6; Pr 717) and of the Gr. 
&A6y (Jn 19 39). In all but one (Nu 24 6) of these 
reff. a perfume (or fragrant wood) is meant, and in 
none is the common bitter aloes intended. The two 


Ywerfe AVC HAASE INE A IP SIF AS ITA 


DSI. TIP? . ONO. OND. WIN | Aaa. Wa. WS. OD 


Lines 24 AND 25 of THE Mesua Inscription. (For translation see Musa.) 


God. The feeling at the root of the conception is one 
which finds much encouragement in the laws and 
institutions of the O T (cf. the law on gleaning, Dt 24 
19-22). There is, however, a twofold development of 
the thought in the O T. While on the one side the 
Mosaic legislation looks upon compassion toward the 
needy as a feeling to be cherished by the Israelite 
in his ideal conduct, the prophets on the other side 
present the case in the light of a rendering to the 
needy of rights which they might justly claim. Out 
of the interaction of these two sides of the develop- 
ment, there arose in the intertestamental age the 
idea of righteousness secured through almsgiving. 
Especially were charitable deeds thought to be effi- 
cacious in annulling the guilt of sin (Sir 3 14, 30, 16 14) 
and securing divine favor in time of danger or dis- 


9529 AAV ATA ATAA= 1 

nua week ITF oq Ce we py A 4 

ww 1GEl 7 rin a ar a MEAL y 404. pe 4 

aca 
Ce 

IN OFT IAN EI AY BAT 


Tas 
ages Gh 
eas fesenls 


Heb. words probably refer to the same thing, viz., 
the ‘eaglewood’ of commerce, an aromatic wood 
native to SH. Asia and well known to ancient traders. 
When burned it yields a fragrant odor. Most 
scholars consider that the text of Nu 24 6 is corrupt, 
for it does not seem likely that a tree native to far- 
off India could be spoken of by Balaam so familiarly 
(tho Post, in HDB, contends that it may once 
have flourished in the tropical Jordan valley and 
thinks that Song 4 14 supports this view). Dillmann 
would emend to ‘palms,’ Cheyne and others to 
‘poplars.’ EK. E. N. 

ALOTH, é/loth. See BraLoru. 

ALPHA AND OMEGA, al’fa, o-mi’ga (tb "AAga 
xat to "Q): The self-designation of God (Rev 1 8, 
21 6) and of Christ (22 13, cf. 117,28), and evidently 


AY QIA 


Ww pean tye asp 
TVA sega 


3A =A Aw 4. CVVA ASM ALAA gH & 


In square Hebrew characters the inscription reads: 


BinancPi eat 
7 oar. ox. 


1) aD i aia aa eerao NT) sa 
mb. nos. wow. mya. ay. Ok. oN. yn 
whys 10D | Smee taeriey aero, 


Os. 


>. 7Ma. by. yma. wo. mpd. WN. OAXNN. 197. map: 


INID). TON. FON). ONNDD. ADIN. 
[DIAXNT. WN. 


bs. RIN. 1D. DDN 
by. 95.72). 77. 0ON. 


Tue Srroam Inscription, See JERUSALEM, § 34. : 


tress (To 14 10, 11; Sir 29 12, 40 24). The treatment 
of the subject by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount 
(Mt 6 1-4) is characteristic. He does not denounce 
almsgiving as futile in the search for right standing 
with God, but attempts to plant it upon the right 
motive of love to the heavenly Father. A. C. Z. 


based on such passages as Is 41 4,44 6, 48 12;°Ps 90 2. 
The same formula is found in rabbinical literature, 
using the first and last letters of the Heb. alphabet. 
It means ‘the Eternal One,’ being in OT an attribute 
of J’’, the source and end of existence, with whom the 
writer of Revelation associates Christ in divine life- 


37 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Alms, Almsgiving 
Alphabet 





giving power. In early Christian literature (Tert. 
Clem. Alex.) it denotes Christ as the fountain and 
consummation of all things, and is common in 
Christian art as a monogram for the eternal Divine 
Son. R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


ALPHABET: The hieroglyphic signs of Egypt 
and the cuneiform characters of Babylonia had been 
used in writing for centuries before the alphabet was 
invented. It is first found in use among North Sem- 
itic peoples, and altho it may not have originated 
with them, it was developed by a Semitic people, and 
became the source from which almost all systems of 
alphabets can be derived. Petrie (The Formation of 
the Alphabet, 1912) would modify somewhat this 
view that all alphabets come from an original 
Phoenician alphabet by deriving the latter and all 
others from a ‘very widespread body of signs—or 
signary—in more or less general use’ by a process of 
selection. From the Tell el-Amarna letters, discov- 
ered in 1887-88 and dating from about 1400 B.c., it 
is evident that the Babylonian characters and 
language were then in usein Canaan. By 1000B.c., 
however, they had been displaced by Semitic alpha- 
bets and languages, which had developed with the 
growth of the more or less independent national life 
of the various Semitic peoples. In each people both 
alphabet and language, altho having an origin in 
common with that of all the others, became changed 
and thus adapted to its individual needs. 

1. Date of Alphabet. The material for the study 
of the development of the Semitic alphabet is found 
in a few inscriptions, principally on stones, seals, and 
coins. Perhaps the earliest inscription is that on a 
bronze bowl of Pheenician origin. It is dedicated to 
Baal-Lebanon by a servant of Hiram, King of the 
Sidonians, and may date from about 1000 B.c. From 
the middle of the 9th cent. comes the inscription of 
Mesha, King of Moab, called the Mesha Stone (see 
illustration). An early Hebrew inscription was found 
in the Siloam tunnel, built prob- 
ably by Hezekiah, and therefore 
dating from the end of the 8th 
cent. (see illustration), but even 
earlier may be an inscription on 
a small tablet, found by R. A.S. 
Macalister at Gezer in 1908. It 
seems to be some kind of agri- 
cultural calendar cut in lime- 
stone perhaps by a simple peas- 
ant. Lidzbarski, G. B. Gray, and 
others (PHFQ, 1909) ascribe it 
to a date not much later than the 
Mesha Stone. To these may be added inscriptions 
on seals from the 4th to the 1st cent. (see illustra- 
tions), and on coins from the Maccabzan era and 
later (see illustrations). The important Aramaic 
inscriptions are from Zinjirli in N. Syria (8th cent.), 
Nerab, SE. of Aleppo (7th cent.) and others (8th to 
3d cent. B.c.) (see cols. 6, 7, 8 of Plate). Comparison 
reveals a common origin, and also a period of 
development in the individual alphabets covering 
several centuries, which were, however, slight. The 
earliest forms of the Greek {alphabet, especially 
where the writing is from right to left as is the 
case with the Semitic alphabet, show that these 





Seal of Hananiah, 
Son of Azariah. 
The Hebrew inscrip- 
tion reads: 

Wary ya wand = 
to Hanany&ahii ben 
‘Azaryaht. 


also were derived from the same source. It is 
therefore evident that the original alphabet must 
have come into use some centuries earlier than the 
dates of the inscriptions cited, certainly by 1200 B.c. 

2. Origin of Alphabet. At- ; 
tempts have repeatedly been 
made to find the source of the 
Semitic letters in the Egyptian 
or Babylonian characters. J. 
Halévy (Revue sémitique, 1896, 
pp. 47-65; 1901, pp. 356-370) de- 
rives the forms directly from 
the monumental hieroglyphs; 
whereas E. de Rougé (Mémoire 
sur Vorigine égyptienne de Val- 
phabet phénicien 1874) obtains 
them from the early hieratic characters through 
a cursive development of the hieroglyphs. Isaac 
Taylor (The Alphabet, Vol. I) accepts this view. 
On the other hand, W. Deecke (Z DMG, xxxi. 102 ff.) 
and Hommel (Gesch. Babyloniens u. Assyriens, p. 
50 ff.) contend that the forms of the Semitic alphabet 
were derived from certain cuneiform characters. 
Fr. Delitzsch (Die Entstehung des dltesten Schrift-Sys- 
tems, p. 221 ff.), however, contents himself with the 
attempt to prove only a free dependence of the 
Semitic letters on the Babylonian writing. H. 
Schafer (“Die Vokalosigkeit des phénizischen 
Alphabets,” in Zeitschrift fiir d. dgyptische Sprache, 





Seal of Shemaiah, 
Son of Azariah. 
The Hebrew inscrip- 
tion reads: ’ 
pay ja wrynws 
=to Shema‘y&hii ben 
‘Azaryahi. 





: B. 
Silver Shekel of Simon Maccabzeus. 


> 


The Hebrew inscription reads: 
A. beep b pw = Shekel of Israel. 
B. mvp o> pi}? = Jerusalem the Holy. 


Above the cup is the letter F (8), 7.e., the numeral one— 
probably indicating the first year of Simon’s reign. 


LII, 1915, 95 f.) ascribes an Egyptian origin to the 
Phcenician alphabet as both Egyptian picture-writing 
and Semitic writing using the alphabet lack vowels, 
whereas all other forms of writing found it necessary 
to provide vowels. The lack of vowels would not be 
felt by one accustomed to picture-writing in which 
the grammatical form must be determined from the 
context by the reader. A. H. Gardiner (‘The 
Egyptian origin of the Semitic Alphabet,” in Journal 
of Egyptian Arch., III, 1916, 1 f.) also urges in favor 
of Egyptian influence the alphabetic and non- 
vocalic character of Semitic writing. Whereas the 
Babylonian and Mediterranean (Cypriote) scripts 
were syllabic and non-alphabetic, ‘the Egyptian 
hieroglyphic system eschews vowels and comprises a 
full alphabet of consonants besides biliteral and 
triliteral signs.’ Gardiner also points out the 
affinities of the curious Sinai script with Egyptian 
writing, and giving the Sinai script an early date 
makes it the progenitor of the Phceenician. J. H. 


Alphabet A NEW STANDARD 


Breasted (The physical processes of writing in the 
early Orient and their relation to the origin of the 
alphabet, in AJSL, XXXII, 1916, 2380 f., [see also 
his History of Ancient Egypt, 1908, p. 337]) bases an 
argument in favor of the Egyptian origin of the 
alphabet on the fact that the ‘pen-ink-and-paper’ 
method of writing, introduced into Asia from Egypt, 
was spreading in the very region where the alphabet 
was appearing and coming into common use, and 





A. B. 
Half-Shekel (Copper) of Simon Maccabeeus. 


The Hebrew inscription reads: 
A. °XM YAN niw=Fourth year: One-half (shekel). 


B. | nosd —or the freedom (independence) of Zion. 


this system of writing was the only one which pos- 
sessed an alphabet and was written without vowels. 
Neither system can as yet be proved to be the direct 
source of all the letters of the Semitic alphabet. 
Petrie (op. cit.) finds beginnings of an alphabet in 
signs which in his opinion pre-date pictographic 
writing, and Evans (Scripta Minoa, 1909) empha- 
sizes the influence of Crete through the Philistines 
on Pheenician civilization and claims that the alpha- 
bet was largely dependent upon Cretan sources. 
Evans and also F. Melian Stawell (AJA, 1924, 
120 f.) allow for Babylonian and Egyptian influences 
in the choice of the letters and their forms. The 
Egyptian influence was felt directly in the civiliza- 
tion of Crete, and some of its signs depend upon 
Egyptian sources. The acrophonetic element of the 
later Egyptian characters, however, may have sug- 
gested the alphabet to its inventor, for a letter is 
represented in its earliest form by the picture of the 
object, the name of which begins with the letter 
represented. 





The inscription reads: John the High Priest and the Council 
of the Jews. 


3. Names and Origin of Individual Letters. At 
present it is impossible to give the etymological 
explanation of all signs used in the Semitic alphabet, 
but several are certain: among them are the following 
(consult Plate): 3 (a) ‘ox-head,’ Heb. ’eleph; 3 (b) 
‘house,’ Heb. bayith; 5 (1) ‘ox-goad,’ malmadh 
(Lidzbarski, Ephemeris, Vol. I, p. 263, gives, as the 
name of 5, a Hebrew word beginning with 9, prefixed 
to a stem which begins with 5; in use this initial pn 
was dropped); » (m) ‘water,’ mayim; y (i) ‘eye,’ 
‘ayin; B (p) ‘mouth,’ peh; » (r) ‘head,’ 7’dsh; v (s, sh) 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 38 


‘row of teeth,’ shén; nm (t) ‘sign,’ t@w. Néldeke 
(Beitrége zur sem. Sprachwissenschaft, 1904, pp. 124- 
186) and Lidzbarski (Ephemeris, Vol. II, Heft 2, 
1906) have published interesting contributions on 
this point. A study of the Greek names, which evi- 
dently were derived from the original Semitic forms, 
may assist in this investigation. Stawell (op. cit. 
123 f.) suggests that the names of the letters which 
have no Semitic meaning are derived from Cretan 
(Greek) prototypes, and that possibly the names of 
other letters are more closely connected with Cretan 
words than with Semitic. The Aramaic form of the 
names of the Hebrew alphabet may point to an 
Aramaic origin of the alphabet. It is almost certain 
that a few names were given after the original sig- 
nificance of the character had been forgotten and 
without the use of the principle of acrophony, 
further than that the name should begin with the 
letter designated. Perhaps certain letters were 
developed out of other letters, as e.g., nh from 7, D 
from t, » from n, the last-named by enclosing the 
original form, a cross, in a circle. There is, however, 
no evidence to prove that the North Semitic alpha- 
bet ever had less than the 22 characters used in the 
inscriptions. All the letters were originally conso- 
nants, but », 7, 1, and § came to represent vowels in 
Hebrew. The Greek alphabet used some of its forms 





Copper Coin of Herod I. 
The Greek inscription: BactAéws ‘Hewddou (of King Herod). 


for vowels and added three new signs. The phonetic 
demands of the South Semitic peoples led to the pro- 
duction of many additional forms, some at least 
derived from older characters. 

4. Order of Letters. The names of the letters show 
that the characters were derived from parts of the 
human body, from animals, and things with which 
people had most to do. The arrangement of these 
letters in the alphabet may have been due in part 
to the tendency to place together things related, 
e.g., >=hand, 5=bent hand, y =eye, 5=mouth, and 
to other mnemonic motives. Luckenbill (‘Possible 
Babylonian Contributions to the So-called Phenician 
Alphabet,” in AJSL, XXXTV, 1919-20, 27 f.) bases 
the order of the letters in part on the order in Syl- 
labary A of Babylonian signs. Petrie (op. cit.) as- 
cribes the order to a system whereby the letters of 
the alphabet were grouped according to their nature 
in columns on a sort of hornbook in the order of 
vowels, labials, gutturals, and dentals, the liquids 
being placed on a possible handle. Then in reading 
across the columns the order of the letters in the 
alphabet would be given. We know the order of the 
Hebrew alphabet from that of the Greek, from the 
numerical value of each letter, and also from the 
initial letters of the verses in the alphabetic Psalms 
(111, 112, 119; Pr. 3110 #., and La 1). 





39 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Alphabet 


5. Alphabet Used by the Specimens or Earty Hesrew AND ARAMAIC ALPHABETS, 
Hebrews. Apart from the | ao : 
origin of the Semitic alpha- 
bet, the changes in the al- 
phabet used bythe Hebrews § Seals, 
are of especial interest. The * 1700 B.c. | " Mat a 
letters of the Siloam alpha- | or ab, Sina een. | a 
bet (Plate, col. 4) show a Ee 
tendency to a more cursive . 
character than is found in ; 
the Mesha Stone (col. 2); 1 % Ve 
but the letters on the seals 
(col. 8) and coins (col. 5) 
retain essentially the forms 
of the Siloam inscription. 
The older Hebrew forms 
were used on the Maccabe- 
an coins, perhaps to em- 
phasize the feeling of na- 
tional independence. 


6. Samaritan Writing. The 
Samaritans continued to use 
a form of the old Hebrew 
alphabet which shows its 
close relation to the origi- 
nal, and proves that until 
the separation of the Jews 
and Samaritans (about 400 
B.c.) the older form had 
maintained itself. The ac- 
companying illustration re- 
produces a few lines of a 
Samaritan MS. (Dt 1 44-46) 
of the Pentateuch, written 
in 1219 a.p., but retaining 
essentially the forms used 
by the earlier Samaritans. 
In certain respects the Sa- 
maritan writing is more 
cursive, while at the same 
time the characters are 
more ornamental, as in a 
codex. 


7. Hebrew Square Char- 
acters. The Aramaic al- 
phabet was undergoing a 
development to the north 
and east of Palestine (see 
Plate, cols. 6, 7, 8), and out 
of it developed the square 
letters characteristic of the 
Hebrew alphabet, best 
known to us from its use in 
the MSS. of the OT. It 
‘was not a development 
within the Hebrew alpha- 
bet; but was used by that 
people, as they had adopted 
the earlier Aramaic forms, 
familiar to them from their 
residence in Babylon. The 
Aramaic writing did not at 
once displace the old He- 
brew alphabet, but both 
were in use, the Aramaic 


apd) 
AA 
Fee 
FANIA 


ye ok DO oe DO aH Sp A Ne = ee Ney ee nue. 


ts 
1% 
Lie 
ie 
a 
iy 
ae 
x 
P 
B 
v 
3) 
i 





mphauet 
Altar 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 40 





characters finally securing the preference in copies 
of the books of the O T. Strack (PRE, Vol. 17) 
gives as explanation for this that the Aramaic 
characters were considered holy, the Hebrew pro- 
fane. At the time of Christ we have evidence (Mt 
518) that this square alphabet was in use, for ” is 
the smallest letter. The changes in the forms of the 
letters were largely due to the attempt to obtain 
cursive forms, which were as simple as possible and 
could be made without removing the pen, and also 
to the similar effort to join the letters of words. This 
form of writing gave two forms for five letters: 
final forms, 7, *, ], 0, 7; and forms for use before 
other letters of a word, 9; and by bending the per- 
pendicularlines to 
the left, x, D, 3, 

>. In other let- & bs AY) SSN AG 
ters, and in a sim- 
ilar way, horizon- 


tal bars have ay v~ 'D 


arisen out of the 
vertical lines of 9% B BUA < yrs 
the primitive 

forms, cf. 3, D, as “ % > O98 
well as 5, 3, BD, ¥; 

of column 1. By R % B, a9 ay oJ 
the opening of the Lb 

upper portion of 7 Bey AY 
closed loops, and 7S pe) 
the straightening 
of zigzags of ear- 
lier forms, the 
upper bars of a, 
Ele tide > aawae ees) ol 
are obtained. In 
order to avoid the confusion of characters in other 
letters the vertical lines were left, cf. > and 7. The 
form y results from the opening of the upper part 
of the original circle, and extending the right-hand 
line toward a following letter. The square Hebrew 
characters were obtained by isolating each letter 
from all others in a word, and retaining the form 
thus resulting. This alphabet, with slight modifica- 
tions, has been used in all O T manuscripts, the oldest 
of which dates from the end of the 9th cent. a.p. 


LITERATURE: Books cited in text, also Lidzbarski, Handbuch der 
nordsemitischen Epigraphik, 2 vols., 1896-98; JE, Voll: 
I. Taylor, in HDB: A. A. Bevan, article Writing, in EB, and 
the bibliographies in the foregoing; C. F. Burney, Judges 
(1918), pp. 253-263. Cisar: 


vane ad 


ALPHUS, al’-fi-us or al-fi’-us (Adoaioc, WH 
‘AXgatoc): 1. The father of the second James in the 
apostolic lists (Mk 318; Mt 103; Lk 615; Ac1i3). A 
has been identified with Clopas, husband of Mary, 
mentioned in Jn 19 25 but apparently without 
sufficient linguistic warrant (see Zahn, Forsch. VI, 
p. 343, and compare Dimant in Hastings, DCG, 
vol. 1, p. 45-2). Eusebius (H#, III, 11, 2) quotes 
Hegesippus to the effect that Clopas was a brother 
of Joseph, thus making James the son of A. a cousin 
of Jesus. But in view of the uncertain identification 
of A. and Clopas no great weight can be given to this 
statement (see BRETHREN OF THE LorD). 2. The 
father of Levi (Matthew), (in Mk 214, according to 
most MSS., but D reads ‘James’ instead of ‘Levi’). 

J. M. T. 


SASIRS IIE, DORR! 


cape -ne 4 8 
Arps] core 
Wy Woy 


The Samaritan Script. 
(Dt 1 44-46a) 


ALTAR: 1. The Primitive Semitic Altar. The 
term ‘altar’ is the usual rendering of the Heb. miz- 
béah and the Gr. OBuctactherov, both of which mean 
‘place of sacrifice,’ z.e., the place where the sacrificial 
victim is slain or offered, or both, the primary idea 
of the root of both terms being that of slaying. The 
ancient legislation (Ex 20 24) requiring that altars 
should be of earth, or, if not, of unhewn stone only, 
seems to indicate that the primitive altar often con- 
sisted simply of a heap of earth. In any case, there 
can be no doubt that the earliest altars +ere of the 
most simple type. The sacred stone (the matstsébhah, 
‘pillar’), also, was essentially an altar, in the sense of 
being a place where some recognition of the presence 


of deity could be 
bk &), op oe made (by smear- 
GG AIST AP 


ing with oil, cf. 

Gn 28 18, or blood, 
TE SA Ay 
aay Ly 


cf. I S 14 31-35). 
This early narra- 
tive in I 8 14 31 ft. 
is instructive as 
to the intimate re- 
lation between the 
sacred stone and 
bag’ the altar. Saul, 
horrified by the 
ae news that the 
people were slay- 
ing the captured 
animals and eat- 
ing them ‘with 
the blood’ — i.e., 
without a proper 
sacrificial disposal 
of the blood—had a large stone placed before him to 
which the people were ordered to bring their animals 
for slaughter. This stone was both a sacred stone, 
set up in commemoration of Jehovah’s deliverance of 
His people, and an altar—a mizbéah, ‘sacrifice- (7.e., 
slaughter-) place.’ The main idea regarding the 
sacred st sne was that it either was actually the abode 
of deity or indicaved the near-by presence of deity 
(cf. Gn 28 16-18). The main idea regarding an altar 
was that it was the place of sacrifice (7.e., slaughter, 
since originally every slaughter was a sacrifice) as 
its Heb. name mizbéah indicates. These two ideas 
are brought together in the most ancient O T legis- 
lation regarding altars (Ex 20 24 f.). Wherever J” 
‘recorded’ Fis name was a legitimate place for an 
altar; that is, wherever J’’ manifested His presence, 
as by a theophany, by a dream, by giving victory to 
His people, etc. Such conceptions betray themselves 
in all that is said of altars in the patriarchal stories in 
Gn and in the stories in Jg and IS. In all these a 
comparatively simple state of society is presup- 
posed, and all usages are correspondingly simple. 
Every Canaanite high place had its altar, and as 
the main function of the altar was to furnish a place 
for the proper disposition of the blood, remains of 
such high-place altars generally show a number of 
cup-like depressions on the top with one or more 
drains to collect and carry off the blood (see the 
reports of excavations at Gezer in PEFQ, 1902-06). 
The heap of earth, or pile of stones, or even a large 


% SAA! 


{ single stone, was also used as the fire-hearth (cf. 





41 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ezk 43 15) where the victim (whole or in part) was 
burned, as was the case with the great majority of 
animal sacrifices in the O T. For illustrations of 
ancient Hebrew rock-altars see H. B. Greene in 
Bib. World, May, 1897, and see also G. L. Robin- 
son’s account of the Edomite high place of Petra, 
ibid., Jan., 1901. 

The Kingdom period with its development of city 
life and the establishment of royal sanctuaries (e.g., 
at Jerusalem, Beth-el, and Samaria), with their 
temples and more elaborate cultus, brought about a 
corresponding development of the altar probably 
with more or less extensive adoption of foreign types 
(Phoenician, Assyrian, etc.). In some Canaanite 


Western Side 





Alphabet 
Altar 


ently because it was customary for more elaborate 
altars to have such. The original significance of 
these is not known. W. R. Smith (Rel. Sem., p. 
436) thinks that they were a survival of the practise 
of actually placing the head (with the horns) of the 
sacrificial victim on the altar and leaving them there 
to hang votive offerings, etc.,on. The horns appear 
to have been thought the most sacred part of an 
altar (cf. Ex 2912; Lev 1618; I K 150). The altar was 
doubtless provided with drains, ete., but of these 
nothing is said. Its location was ‘before Jehovah’ 
(II K 16 14), 2.e., directly E. of the porch of the 


Temple. 


In Solomon’s Temple there was another ‘altar,’ 


Northern and Southern Longside 


Pat 





SiN 


DoLMENS (PrimiITIVE ALTARS) IN EASTERN PALESTINE. 


cities altars of elaborate form were in use before the 
Conquest. One such was found at Taanach by 
Professor Sellin (July, 1902), with ornamented cor- 
ners and faces, with horns, a cup for sacrifices, etc. 
(see PEFQ, Oct., 1902). 

2. The Altars of the Temple and Tabernacle. The 
detailed information regarding altars in the O T 
concerns mainly those of the Tabernacle and the 
temples of Solomon and of Ezekiel’s vision. For his 
Temple Solomon discarded David’s altar and had a 
new bronze altar constructed. It is probable that 
this altar was erected on the site of David’s sacrifice 
on the occasion mentioned in II S 24 16-25 (cf. I Ch 
22 1; II Ch 8 1), the place supposed now to be 
covered by the famous Dome of the Rock (see 
JERUSALEM, §§ 4, 25). The description of this altar 
has been omitted in I K, ch. 7 (altho reminiscences oc- 
cur in 8 64 and 9 25). According to IT Ch 41, it was 20 
cubits in length and breadth with a height of 10 
cubits. Its general shape was probably like that of 
the altar of Ezekiel’s vision (Ezk 43 13-17). It ‘rose 
in terraces, contracting by means of two inlets 
[ledges] toward the top.’ The altar Ch is describing 
may be, however, the altar Ahaz had constructed, 
after the pattern of an altar he saw at Damascus 
(II K 16 10 #.), which displaced the smaller bronze 
altar of Solomon. Ahaz’ altar was in use, probably, 

until the destruction of the Temple in 586 B.c. By 
some Ezekiel’s (ideal) altar is taken as an exact repro- 
duction of Solomon’s but the figures given in Ezk 
seem to make a structure 18 cubits square by 12 
cubits high, instead of 20 cubits and 10 cubits (see 
Davidson’s Com. on Ezk in Camb. Bible). The altar 
was ascended by a flight of steps on its east side. Its 
faces were probably ornamented with figures of 
various kinds. Little is said of its structure in detail. 
The material is said to have been brass (bronze). 
Whether this refers to the whole or only to its cover- 
ing or plating is not known. It had horns, appar- 


that of the showbread (I K 6 20) made of cedar, over- 
laid with gold. This is called a ‘table’ in Ezk 
(41 22). Something similar to this has been found 
portrayed on the Assyr. monuments. (See the cut 
in Benzinger, Ist ed., p. 387). In K, Ch, and Ezk 
there is no specific mention of an altar of incense. 
When the exiles returned, one of their first acts 
was to build an altar (Ezr 3 3) probably of unhewn 
stones (cf. I Mac 4 47) in stricter accord with the old 
law of Ex 20 25 than the altars of Solomon, Ahaz, or 
Ezekiel had been. This altar was in use as the altar 
of the Second Temple until it was desecrated by the 
command of Antiochus Epiphanes (I Mac 1 54). 
When the Jews regained possession of Jerusalem 
they carefully pulled down the desecrated altar, laid 
away its stone and built a new one, also of unhewn 
stone (I Mac 4 44-47). It is thus seen that Ezekiel’s 
plan of a magnificent altar was not followed, altho it 
is probable that the altar of Herod’s Temple, in which 
everything was on a much more elaborate scale than 
before, conformed more nearly to Hzekiel’s plan. 
The description of the Tabernacle in Ex, chs. 25-31 
and 35-40, largely of postexilic date, states ideals 
rather than facts. It combines the conceptions of 
Ezekiel with the actual practises of the postexilic 
Temple in one ideal presentation. According to this 
description the Tabernacle had three altars: (1) ‘The 
altar,’ z.e., the altar of burnt offerings, a small porta- 
ble structure, hollow, of wood overlaid with bronze, 5 
cubits square and 3 cubits high. It was furnished 
with horns and with a bronze grating or network, per- 
haps intended for carrying away the blood, rather 
than for the ashes (Ex 271-8). (2) The table for the 
showbread (Ex 25 23-30). (3) The altar of incense 
(Ex 30 1 ff.). The account of this last seems to belong 
to a secondary stratum of the narrative in Ex, chs. 
25-31 and, since even Ezekiel says nothing about such 
an altar, was probably added at a later time in the 
postexilic period after the altar of incense had been 


Al-Tashheth 
Ammon 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 42 





added to the furniture of the Second Temple. When 
that was no one can say, except that it took place 
before the Maccabeean period (cf. I Mac 4 49). Of the 
altars of Herod’s reconstructed temple little is 
definitely known. See also TEMPLE; TABERNACLE; 
and SACRIFICE. 

LirpraturRE: Benzinger, Heb. Archdologie (1894, 2d Ed. 1907), 


pp. 378 ff.; Nowack, Heb. Archdologie (1894), II, pp. 75-85; 
Addis in EB: Kittel, Studien zur Heb. Becheloaies ( a 


AL-TASHHETH, al-tash’heth (Al-taschith, al- 
tas’kith, AV). See Music anp Musicau Insrrvu- 
MENTS, § 6. 


ALUSH, é’lush (ordas ’alish): An encampment of 
Israel (Nu 33 13 f.). Site unknown. 


ALVAH, al’va; ALVAN, 
ALIAN. 


AMAD, é'mad (1Y?¥, ‘am‘adh): A town of. Asher 
(Jos 19 26). Site uncertain. 


AMAL, é'mal (?%¥, ‘amal): A son of Helem, an 
Asherite (I Ch 7 35). 


AMALEK, am/a-lek (P22, ‘amaléq): The grand- 
son of Esau (Gn 3612), whose nomad descendants are 
described in Nu 24 20 as ‘the first of the nations,’ 7.e., 
the most powerful. The reference in Gn 147 to ‘all 
the country of the Amalekites’ as smitten by Che- 
dorlaomer and his allies does not necessarily carry 
them back in history to the days of Abraham, but 
rather defines their locality in the time of the author. 
They are not alluded to in the ‘Table of Nations’ 
(Gn 10). Geographically, they occupied the desert 
region S. of Canaan, extending from Beersheba 
beyond Kadesh-barnea far into the peninsula of 
Sinai and probably also into northern Arabia. They 
withstood the Israelites, when the latter under 
Moses migrated from Goshen to the Promised Land, 
attacking them in the rear (Dt 25 17-19). At Rephi- 
dim, in the wilderness of Sinai, they were defeated by 
Joshua (Ex 17 8-16). When the spies returned they 
reported that the Amalekites dwelt ‘in the land of 
the South’ (Nu 13 29). Not long after this they are 
spoken of as occupying ‘the valley,’ presumably the 
valley S. of the Dead Sea (Nu 14 25). Altho 
powerful at the time of Israel’s exodus, they must 
have become somewhat reduced through the seces- 
sion of the Kenites (cf. 1S 156). In the time of the 
Judges, however, they seem to have possessed a 
foothold in Ephraim (Jg 514, according to the present 
[uncertain] text) and to have continued their ma- 
rauding expeditions (Jg 6 3). They were among the 
inveterate enemies of Israel (Ex 17 14-16; Ps 83 7). 

Saul was commissioned to exterminate them 
utterly, but he spared Agag, their king (IS 15). In 
David’s day Amalekite robbers made a raid upon 
Ziklag and took it, but they were overtaken by 
David and so completely decimated that they seem 
never to have recovered (I S 30). In Hezekiah’s 
reign ‘the remnant of the Amalekites that escaped’ 
were smitten by the Simeonites, who dispossessed 
them of Mount Seir (I Ch 4 43). No trustworthy 
data concerning them are to be found outside the 
O T. Neither Assyrian nor Egyptian records allude 
to them. G. L. R. 


al’van; See ALIAH, 


AMAM, @’mam (528, ’dmdam): A city of S. Judah 
(Jos 15 26). Site unknown. 

AMANA, G-mda’nG@ (228, ’dm&néh): The south- 
ern portion, probably, of the Anti-Lebanon mountain 
range (Song 4 8). 


AMARIAH, am”s-rai’a (MP8, ’amaryah), ‘J” 
hath promised’: 1. A son of Meraioth and grand- 
father of Zadok (I Ch 67£.; Ezr 7 3), 2. The ancestral 
head of one of the subdivisions of the Kohathite 
Levites (I Ch 23 19; cf. 24 23). 3. Chief priest in Je- 
rusalem under Jehoshaphat (I Ch6 11; IT Ch 1911). 
4. A Levite assistant to Kore, the porter at the 
east gate who was over the free-will offerings of 
God, in the time of Hezekiah (II Ch 81 14 f.). 5. 
Ancestor of Zephaniah, possibly son of Hezekiah 
King of Judah (Zeph 11). 6. A man of Judah, one of 
those who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10 42). 
7. One of the priests that sealed the covenant of 
Nehemiah’s time (Neh 10 3). 8. A Judahite who 
dwelt in Jerusalem (Neh 11 4). 9. One of the priests 
of Zerubbabel’s band which returned from Babylon 
(Neh 12 2, 13). J. Ay K: 


AMASA, am’a-sa (SY2Y ‘dmasa’): 1. A son of 
Jether and David’s sister Abigail (I Ch 217). He 
deserted David for Absalom who appointed him 
captain of his forces (II 8S 17 25), After David’s 
victory he gave A. the place held by his cousin 
Joab (ir S 19 13 ff.), probably in order to allay disaf- 
fection in Judah. Very soon after this A. was 
assassinated by Joab (II S 20 4-12; I K 25, 32). 2. An 
Ephraimite (II Ch 28 12). E. E. N. 


AMASAI, e-mas’ai (¥)2, ‘dmdsay): 1. A Koha- 
thite Levite (I Ch 6 25, 35; II Ch 2912). 2. One of 
David's captains (I Ch 12 16-18, perhaps the same as 
Amasa, 1). 3. A priest (I Ch 15 24). 


AMASHSAI, a-magh’sai (2Y2Y, ‘dmashsay, 
Amashai AV): A priest (Neh 11 13), called Maasai 
(I Ch 9 12). 

AMASIAH, am-a-sai’a (0DY, ‘dmasydh), ‘J’ 
bears’: One of Jehoshaphat’s captains (II Ch 17 16). 


AMAZIAH, am’a-zai’a (RYOS, ’dmatsyaha), ‘J” 
strengthens’: 1. Son of Joash and king of Judah, 
c. 798-790 B.c. Altho he executed his father’s mur- 
derers he refused to follow custom and spared their 
children. This action was looked upon as a prece- 
dent and was probably the origin of the law as for- 
mulated in Dt 24 16. Having reduced Edom once 
more to subjection to Judah, he rashly engaged in 
war with Jehoash of Israel, but was utterly defeated. 
Jerusalem was captured, its walls partly demolished, 
while A. retained his throne only through paying a 
heavy indemnity and giving hostages. Judah was 
thus reduced practically to the condition of subjec- 
tion to Israel. After this, disaffection showed itself 
and, like his father, A. was murdered by con- 
spirators (II K 12 21, 13 12, 14 1-22;IT Ch ch. 25). A. is 
said to have reigned twenty-nine years (II K 14 2). 
This is probably a mistake and he actually reigned 
but nine years. See Otp Trst. CoronooGy (table). 
2. Priest of Beth-el, ‘the royal sanctuary,’ under 
Jeroboam II., who attempted to prevent Amos from 
prophesying in Israel (Am 7 10 ff.). 3. One of the 


43 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Al-Tasbheth 
Ammon 





descendants of Merari (I Ch 4 34). 4. A Levite 
(I Ch 6 45). E. E. N. 


AMBASSADOR: In O T the equivalent of (1) 
mélits (II Ch 32 31). Properly, ‘interpreter’ (cf. Gn 
42 23; Is 43 27 [RVmg.]; Job 33 23). (2) mal’akh (II 
Ch 35 21; Is 30 4, 337; Ezk 17 15), ‘One who has been 
sent,’ ‘a messenger.’ (8) tsir (root idea ‘to go’), 
ambassador in a technical sense (Is 18 2, also 57 9; 
Jer 49 14, ‘messenger’ AV); parallel to ‘messenger’ 
(Pr 13 17). In Jos 9 4, the Heb. form is verbal, not 
substantive. 

In N T only as a rendering of the verbal form 
moea every (II Co 5 20; Eph 6 20). SME: 

AMBER, am’bor: This word occurs in the AV of 
Ezk 1 4, 27, 8 2, as the rendering of the Heb. 2D0N, 
hashmal. The RV replaces it with the term ‘glowing 
metal,’ which is as satisfactory a rendering as can 
be suggested, since the meaning of the term is 
uncertain. K. E. N. 

AMBUSH, AMBUSHMENT. See Warrarp, § 4. 


AMEN, é’’men’ or (Mus.) G@’’men’: The transcrip- 
tion of a Hebrew word with the root idea of ‘con- 
firming,’ ‘supporting.’ It is used only as an interjec- 
tion, ‘so be it,’ ‘soit is.’ (1) In the O T: (a) Initially; 
in affirmation of a preceding statement, which the 


speaker solemnly makes his own (I K 1 36; Jer 28 6; | 


ef. Rev 7 12, 22 20). (b) Detached, as an oath (Nu 
5 22; Dt 2715; Neh 513). (c) Liturgical; at the close of 
public prayer and benediction (I Ch 16 36; Neh 8 6; 
Ps 106 48). (2) In N T: (a) In the Epistles, commonly 
a response to public or private prayer (I Co 14 16; 
Rev 514). (b) In Rev 3 14 (cf. II Co 1 20; Is 65 18; 
RVmg.) it is used as a proper name—Jesus as the 
Word affirming the truth of God’s promises. (c) In 
the Gospels its use is confined to the utterances of 
Jesus. Luke usually employs instead of it the expres- 
sions, ‘of a truth,’ ‘truly,’ or ‘I say.’ Jesus uses it 
not as an answer, but in solemn affirmation. The 
truth of His utterance must be accepted on His own 
testimony (cf. ‘Yea’ in Mt 119, 26). In John’s Gos- 
pel only the double term ‘verily, verily’ (7.e., ‘amen, 
amen’) occurs. R. A. F.—E. C, L. 

AMETHYST. See Stonss, Precious, § 2. 

AMI. émai (’8, ’ami, Amon in Neh 7 59): An- 
cestral head of a family of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 
2 57; Neh 7 59). 

AMINADAB. See AMMINADAB, 

AMITTAI, a-mit’ai (D8, ’dmitiay): The father 
of the prophet Jonah (II K 14 25; Jon 11). 

AMMAH, am’a (198, ’ammah): A hill, II S 2 24, 
near Giah in the wilderness of Gibeon, where Abner, 
supporting the claims of Ishbosheth, son of Saul, 
_ was defeated by Joab, the leader of David’s forces. 

Coss. 

AMMI-, am’mai ("2Y, ‘ammi [or 59, ‘am, when at 
the end of a word]): An element in the composition 
of proper names, which, since this word may mean 
‘kinsman,’ or ‘people,’ may refer to the divine 
Being (as chief kinsman), or to one’s relatives or 
people. For illustrations see the significance of the 
various names compounded with ‘ammi’ (or with 
the suffix ‘am’). Cf. G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew 
Proper Names, pp. 41-60 and EB, s.v. Names. 

EK. E. N. 


AMMI, am/mai (’9Y, ‘ammi), ‘my people’: The 
designation of Israel as restored to divine favor (Hos 
21, 23); the opposite of Lo-ammi, ‘not my people’ 
(19, 2 23), the symbolic name of Hosea’s third child 
which was indicative of the separation that had 
taken place between Israel and J’. E. E. N. 

AMMIEL, am’mi-el (PNDY, fammvél), ‘God is 
kinsman’: 1. One of the spies (Nu 13 12). 2. The 
father of Machir of Lo-debar (II S 9 4£., 17 27). 3. 
The father of David’s wife Bathshua (I Ch 3 5), the 
same as Eliam, father of Bath-sheba (II S 11 3). 
4. A Levite (I Ch 26 5). 

AMMIHUD, am-mai’hud (TTSY, ‘ammihtdh), 
‘kinsman is glory’: 1. The father of Elishama, prince 
of Ephraim (Nu 1 10, 2 18, etc.; I Ch 7 26). 2. A 
Simeonite (Nu 34 20). 3. A Naphtalite (Nu 34 238). 
4. A Judahite, the son of Omri (I Ch 9 4). 5. For 
IIS 13 37 see AMMIHUR. 

AMMIHOR, am/mi-hor (ViV)Y, ‘ammihir, Am- 
mihud AV): Father of Talmai, King of Geshur 
(IS 18 37). 

AMMINADAB, oa-min’s-dab (31792, ‘amminé- 
dhabh), ‘the [divine] kinsman gives’: 1. The ances- 
tral head of a family or clan of Judah (Nu 17, 2 3, 
etc.; Ru 4 19 f.; I Ch 210). 2. The name of one or 
more Levites, descendants of Kohath (I Ch 6 22 
[elsewhere called Izhar, vs. 2, 18, 38; Ex 6 18, etc.], 
1510f.). A., the father of Aaron’s wife (Ex 6 23), was 
probably a Levite. The reference to Nahshon in 
both Ex 6 23 and Nu 1 7, etc., may indicate some 
intermarriage between Levite and Judahite fam- 
ilies. E. E. N. 

AMMINADIB, oa-min’a-dib (2° 1V2¥, ‘ammind- 
dhibh): A name which occurs in the AV of Song 6 
12, but RV reads ‘my princely people.’ The Heb. 
text is obscure and difficult. E. E. N. 

AMMISHADDAI, am’mi-shad/da-ci ("1’>Y, 
‘ammishadday), ‘Shaddai is kinsman’: Father of 
Ahiezer, prince of Dan (Nu 112, etc.). 


AMMIZABAD, am-miz’a-bad (13]"2Y, ‘ammiza- 
bhddh), ‘kinsman has made a gift’: An officer, son 
of Benaiah, David’s hero (I Ch 27 8). 

AMMON, am’en (1i2Y, ‘ammén; always ¥ 723, 
‘children [sons] of Ammon,’ except in I § 11 11; Ps 
83 7). In Assyrian inscriptions bit-ammaénu: The 
termination ‘on’ (‘om’), seen also in the name of their 
chief god, Milcom, may be an Ammonite linguistic 
peculiarity, and Ammon (‘populous’) like Milcom 
(‘kingly’) a qualitative designation of the divine 
ancestor, Ben ‘Ammi (‘son of my people’) in Gn 19 
30 ff. The Ammonites may have countenanced the 
union of father and daughter, as did some other 
Eastern peoples. Dispossessing the Zamzummim 
(Dt 2 20), they settled E. of the Jordan. Their 
boundaries were indefinite; the Jordan was claimed 
as the W. border (Jg 11 13); and to the E. lay the 
uncharted desert. When Israel entered Palestine 
the A. lived around the E. end of the Jabbok (Nu 
21 24; Dt 316). Rabbah (‘Rabbah of the children of 
Ammon,’ Dt 3 11), now Ammdan, on the Jabbok, was 
the capital (see RaBBan). 

The term ‘children of Ammon’ suggests nomadic 
characteristics, and while towns are vaguely referred 


Amnon 
Ananiah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 44 





to, Rabbah is the only one named. Jg ch. 11 gives 
the first detailed account of their fortunes; Jephthah 
repudiated their claims on Gilead and drove them EH. 
of the Jabbok. When they again attempted to hu- 
miliate Israel, Saul defeated them (IS ch. 11). David 
was at first friendly to A., but because of the insult to 
his ambassadors (IIS 10 1#.), besieged and captured 
Rabbah, and discrowned Milcom (II S 12 30 mg.); 
Jotham reduced them to tribute (II Ch 27 5). Later 
we find them at times in a coalition against Babylon 
(Jer 27 3), at other times tributary. They once at- 
tacked Jerusalem (II K 24 2), and later exulted over 
her fall (Ps 837). The prophets bitterly denounced 
them (Am 1 13; Jer 491 ff.; Ezk 25 2 ff.; Zeph 2 8 £.). 
In postexilic days Tobiah the Ammonite (Neh 2 10) 
was an opponent of Nehemiah. In 164 B.c., under 
a leader, Timotheus, they were defeated by Judas 
Maccabeeus (I Mac 5 6-8). The name finally disap- 
pears in the 3d cent. a.p. 

Lirerature: Moore on JudgesinZ CC, Ryle (Cam. Bible); 

and Skinner (I C C) on Gn 19 80 ff, 
A. S. C.*—O. R. S. 

AMNON, am’nen (j228, ’amnén): 1. David's 
eldest son, slain by Absalom for violating his sister 
Tamar (II S 3 2, 131-39). 2. A descendant of Judah 
(1 Ch 4 20). 

AMOK, é'mok (P1¥, ‘améq), ‘deep’: A post- 
exilic priestly family (Neh 12 7, 20). 

AMON, é’mon (Ji98, ’amén), ‘master-workman’: 
1. King of Judah, son of Manasseh, and father of the 
godly Josiah. Of his brief reign of two years (641- 
639 B.c.) little is known. Like his father he was de- 
voted to the worship of Assyrian deities. He was 
assassinated by some of his courtiers, but the people 
took vengeance upon his assassins. Scholars con- 
nect these events with a religious struggle between 
the prophetic and reactionary parties in Judah. The 
former, having put the king to death, was not strong 
enough to maintain its position (II K 21 18 #.). 2. 
The governor of Samaria, under Ahab (I K 22 26). 
3. One of Solomon’s temple slaves whose descendants 
returned from Babylonia with Zerubbabel (Neh 
7 59). 4. An Egyptian god, originally a local deity of 
Thebes, but with the rise of that city to a position of 
preeminence as the capital, A. became the head of the 
Egyptian pantheon, the successor of the sun god Ra, 
and bore the name Amon-Ra (Jer 46 25; cf. Nah 3 8). 

bo: Sab 6%. 

AMORITE, am’o-rait (798, ’émori, always sg., 
from Bab. Amurru): The early inhabitants of 
Palestine. In the O T the name designates the non- 
Israelitish inhabitants in general, being practically 
synonymous with the Canaanites (e.g., Gn 14 7, 13, 
15 16, 48 22; Dt 3 8, 10, 4 48, 2017; Jg610; 18 714;1 K 
21 26; IT K 21 11); or mountain-dwellers as dis- 
tinguished from the Canaanites, who lived on the 
coast and in valleys (Nu 13 29); or the people of a 
Palestinian state, of which Sihon was king (Nu ch. 
21; Dt 14, 4 46; I K 419; Ps 185 11, 136 19). 

The early history of the Amorites is obscure, but 
they played a large part in the ancient development 
of the ‘Fertile Crescent’ (i.e, Tig-Euph. Valley, 
Syria, and E-Med. coast region). The Bab. Amurru 
(Sumerian Martu) is the name of (1) a city some 30 
miles N. of Beirut, (2) a territory extending from 


Palestine to Mesopotamia, (3) a god, (4) a Semitic 

people. In the 3d millenium B.c. the Amorites were 

so powerful in W. Asia that the Babylonians called 

Syria and Palestine ‘the land of the Amorites.’ They 

may have constituted a large, unified state. Near 

the close of the 3d millennium some Amorites pushed 

SE. and established in Babylonia the Ist dynasty, of 

which Hammurabi the lawgiver (by many identified 

with Amraphel of Gn 14 1) is the most prominent. 

To him a ‘king of the Amorites’ was subject and 

there seem to have been several small states ruled by 

Amorite kings. The Hittites brought an end to 

Amorite domination. During the X VIIIth Egyptian 

dynasty the Amorites were vassals to the Pharaoh, 

as shown by the Amarna Tablets. At the weakening 
of Egypt they transferred their allegiance to the 

Hittites. When the ‘Sea-people’ after crushing the 

Hittites, went through Palestine against Egypt they 

took the Amorite king with them (see PHILISTINE). 

They were defeated decisively by Rameses III of 

the XXth dynasty and the Amorite king was cap- 

tured (c. 1200 B.c.). The Amorites appear last as a 

kingdom in the defeat of Sihon by the Israelites. 

Racially the Amorites were not unified; some were 
fair and some dark. They are pictured in the 
monuments with beards and shaved upper lips. The 
Hebrews undoubtedly possessed Amorite blood 
(Ez 16 2, 45). 

LITERATURE: Int. St. Bib. Hnc.; Olmstead, Hist. of Assy- 
ria (1923); Paton, Early Hist. of Syr. and}Pal. (1901); Clay, 
Empire of the Amorites (1919); Camb. Anc. History, Vol. I. 
(1923). O. R. S. 
AMOS, é’mas (P1Y¥, ’Gmas), ‘bearer’ or ‘borne’ (by 

God?): 1. The prophet Amos, a tender of sycamores, 
and a native of Tekoa, south of Bethlehem (Am 1 
1, 7 14). That he was also a shepherd, as ndgédh is 
commonly translated, has been questioned (J BL 35, 
280). In the loneliness of his native mountains, as 
with Elijah (I K 19 12 ff.), God’s voice was more 
clearly heard and His words more perfectly under- 
stood. So he was impelled to go to Beth-el to preach 
against N. Israel his God-given message. His activ- 
ity may be dated some time about 750 B.c. He 
repudiated the name ndbhi’, prophet (7 14), but only 
because of Amaziah’s implication that he prophesied 
for gain and belonged to a venal gild (712). Yet heis 
the first of the writing prophets, the originator 
indeed of a new school of prophecy. 

The analysis of the Book of Amos, externally, is 
simple. We may distinguish four sections: I. 1 2-2 16. 
Indictment of the kindred peoples for sins against 
common humanity, culminating with Israel, who 
has broken a holier law. II. 31-614. Oracles in which 
are reiterated the folly of formalism and the futility 
of national hopes, while luxury, extravagance, and 
crime are rampant. To this belongs also 8 4-14, 
which interrupts its present context. III. 7 1-9 8a. 
Five visions of judgment with a historical appendix. 
These visions are climacteric in arrangement, altho 
the order is broken first by 7 10-17, and second by 
8 4-14. First, we have two visions of remediable evils, 
7 1-3, 4-6; then the hopeless internal perversity, 
7 7-9; and finally the impending consummation, 
8 1-3; with earthquake and extermination, 9 1-4. 
IV. 9 8b-15. Epilog. The picture of a happy future 
follows ver. 8a abruptly and differs in. phraseology, 





45 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Amnon 
Ananiah 





conception, and outlook from the rest of the proph- 
ecy. It can hardly have been the original con- 
clusion of Amos’s visions of judgment. The five 
visions seem to be the original kernel of the book, 
and with them is associated the story of Amaziah’s 
protest, and the prophet’s probable expulsion (7 12). 
The other sections, artistically elaborated as they 
are, may well have been written later by Amos and 
committed to posterity. 

Prophecy began a new era with A. Whatever his 
predecessors may have done, he first wrote for pos- 
terity the outlines of an ethical theory of the world. 
The Hebrew term 319, ‘good,’ attained with him a 
distinct moral significance (5 14; cf. ver. 6). The es- 
sence of the Law was equity and not sacrifice (5 7, 
11, 22-25, 8 4-7). The Day of Jehovah was not to be 
one of national aggrandizement but of searching 
judgment (518 ff.). Above all rises the conception of 
the God of Hosts transcendent in power, inflexible 
in justice, whose dictates are founded not upon 
arbitrary will, but upon the very constitution of the 
world (77 1.). It would, perhaps, be too much to 
say that Amos had a system. It would be inaccurate 
to characterize him as a teacher of ethical monothe- 
ism. He was one upon whom the reality of God had 
powerfully impressed itself, and to the expression of 
this, monotheism was but a corollary. If one attri- 
bute of the divine nature appealed to him with more 
intensity than another, this enabled him to present 
with startling clearness the truths that there can be 
no religion where human rights are not recognized, 
and that the claims of justice between men find their 
original counterpart in the nature of God Himself. 
In his view of the relation of man to man in society, 
Amos has not been outgrown, nor have his concep- 
tions of deity become antiquated. See IsrarL, RE- 
LIGION OF, § 18. 


2. An ancestor of Joseph (Lk 3 25). 


LiTERATURE: G. A. Smith, Book of the Twelve Prophets (1896) 
in the Expositor’s Bible; Driver, Joel and Amos? (1915) in the 
Cambridge Bible; Harper, in ICC, (1905); Hiselen, Prophetic 
Books of the O T (1923). A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. 
AMOZ, é@’moz (VI, ’amats), ‘strong’: Father of 

Isaiah (Is 11, etc.). 

AMPHIPOLIS, am-fip’o-lis: A city of Thrace, 
in a bend of the river Strymon (duol, r6Atc), and 
a post on the Via Egnatia. Under the Romans it 
was a free city and the capital of the first of the four 
districts into which Macedonia was divided. It is 
mentioned once in the N T (Ac 17 1). 

J.R.S. S.*—J. M. T. 


AMPLIATUS, am”pli-@’tus (Aurdletos, WH 
’Auxktatos, Amplias AV [am’pli-as], ’Aurrtac): A 
Christian greeted in Ro 16 8 as ‘My beloved in the 
Lord.’ The name, probably that of a slave, occurs 
in inscriptions. Cf. CIL. 5154. J. M. T. 


AMRAM, am’ram (9°)Y, ‘amraém): 1. According 
to the late priestly document, the grandson of Levi, 
through Kohath, and father of Miriam, Aaron, and 
Moses (Ex 6 18-20; Nu 26 59). His descendants were 
the Kohathite Levites called Amramites (Nu 3 27). 
2. One of the ‘sons of Bani’ who had taken strange 
wives (Ezr 10 34; cf. ver. 19). 3. See HEMDAN. 

K. E. N. 


AMRAPHEL, am’ro-fel (92728, ’amraphel): 
The king of Shinar who, with two other kings, in- 
vaded Palestine under the leadership of Chedorlao- 
mer, King of Elam (Gn 14). A. has been identified 
by many with Hammurabi, or Ammurapi, (see 
BaBYLoniA, § 15), who is known to have been king 
of Babylon and therefore of Shinar, or Babylonia 
proper, and to have thrown off the yoke of Elam 
abtou 2120 B.c. Serious difficulties in the way 
of the identification are the initial’ instead of ‘ which 
should correspond to Bab. h, also the J at the end of 
the Heb. name. Leading Babyloniologists, such as 
Ki. Meyer, Bezold, Jensen, King, Barton, doubt 
whether the two names have any connection, F. M. 
T. Bohl, ZATW, XXXVI, 65 ff., suggests that the 
name should be read Amur-apil (LXX, ’Auapo&a), 
that Shin‘ar=Shanhar, a district on the upper 
Euphrates, and that the episode belongs at the time 
of the Hittite supremacy ca. 1250 B.c. See Artocn, 
CHEDORLAOMER, TIDAL. 


Literature: G. Barton, Archaeology and the Bible, p. 294 fi.; 
J. Skinner, Genesis,1910, p. 255 ff.; A. Jirku, ZATW, XXXIX, 
152. ff. Ta BaP: 


AMULET. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § II, 2. 

AMZI, am’zai (¥ 28, ’amts7): 1. A Merarite 
Levite (I Ch 6 46). 2. A priest (Neh 11 10, 12). 

ANAB, é@’nab (32Y, ‘anabh), ‘grapes’: A town of 
Judah, eight m. SW. of Hebron (Jos 11 21, 15 50), 
Map II, D 3. 

ANAH, an’a ()¥, ‘anah): The ancestor of a Ho- 
rite clan of the same name (Gn ch. 36; I Ch 1 38-41). 
In vs. 2 and 14 read ‘Anah the son of Zibeon the 
Horite’ as is required by vs. 20, 24 ff. 

_ ANAHARATH, oa-né/ha-rath (NDS, ’dnahd- 
réth): A city of Issachar (Jos 19 19). Site uncertain. 

ANAIAH, oa-nai’a (TY, ‘andych), ‘J’ has an- 
swered’: 1. An assistant of Ezra (Neh 8 4). 2. One 
of those that sealed the covenant (Neh 10 22). 

ANAK, é’nak, ANAKIM, an’a-kim (PY, ‘adndq). 
Anak was the legendary ancestor of the gigantic 
Anakim of SW. Palestine (Nu 13 22 #.; Dt 2 10f.; Jos 
15 12 £.; Jg 1 20, etc.). The references are too vague 
to be of much historical value. See also PALESTINE, 


§ 27. E. E. N. 
ANAMIM. See ErsnoGRAPHY AND ETHNOL- 
oay, § 13. 


ANAMMELECH, oa-nam’1-lek or [G’ndm-mé’lek 
(1222Y, ‘dnammelekh): A deity worshiped by the 
inhabitants of Sepharvaim (Sippara), at times with 
humen sacrifice (II K 17 31). The text of this passage 
is somewhat uncertain and A. may be a later gloss. 
The name A. is explained by King (in FB) as equiva- 
lent to Anu-malik (‘Anu is the decider or prince’), 
Anu being the name of one of the principal Baby- 
lonian deities. See Semiric RELIGION, § 8. 

EK. E. N. 

ANAN, @/nan (139, ‘dndén): One of those that 
sealed the covenant (Neh 10 28). 

ANANI, a-né’nai or a-na’ni ("¥, ‘dndni). One 
of the sons of Elioenai (I Ch 3 24). 

ANANIAH, an’’s-nai’a (NY, ‘dnanyah): ‘J” is a 
cloud’: I. The father of Maaseiah (Neh 3 23). II. A 


Ananias 
Angel | 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 46 


ean OT  sraEsaTREIBI  ETEIIESEETSSRERIT SRSIISIC TEASED SN STAGING AE SSSSE ISSCC ATS iT 


town in Benjamin mentioned along with Nob and 
Ramah (Neh 11 32). The common identification, 
Map II, F 1, is disputed by Albright (Bul. ASOR, 
Feb., 1923) who favors Bethany, just E. of Jerusa- 
lem. E. E. N. 


ANANIAS, an’a-nai’as (‘Avaviac, Heb. 2229), 
‘J” hath been gracious’: 1. A member of the early 
Church, who attempted to enhance his reputation by 
a show of liberality. Having sold a piece of property 
he offered to the Church a part of the amount 
received, pretending that he gave the whole sum. 
Peter detected the deceit and laid bare the enormity 
of the sin to the guilty conscience of A., who is repre- 
sented as having died from the shock (Ac 51-11). 2. A 
Christian disciple living in Damascus who baptized 
Paul (Ac 9 10-18, 22 12-18). 3. The high priest before 
whom Paul was brought by Claudius Lysias (Ac 
93 i.; cf. Ac 2418.; Jos., Ant. XX, 62, etc.; BJ 
17 6, etc.). Consult Schiirer, GJ V%, Vol. I, p. 219. 

J. M. T. 

ANATH, @’noth (WY ‘anath): Father of Sham- 
gar (Jg 331, 56). Anath is well-known as the name of 
a goddess worshiped quite widely over the ancient 
Semitic world. This may indicate that Shamgar was 
not an Israelite. See SHAMGAR. EK. E. N. 


ANATHEMA, o-nath’1-mea. See Curse, § 3. 


ANATHOTH, an’o-fhoth (NIN}Y, ‘anathoth): A 
name connected with that of the Semitic goddess 
Anat, I. A city of Benjamin (Jos 21 18) where the 
priestly family to which Abiathar belonged had its 
estates (I K 2 26) and the home of two of David’s 
heroes (II S 23 27, Anethothite AV; I Ch 11 28, 12 3, 
Anathothite, Antothite AV). It was also the home 
of Jeremiah where the family had property (Jer 11, 
32 6-15). Its inhabitants once threatened the proph- 
et’s life (Jer 11 21-23). After the exile it was reoc- 
cupied by the Jews (Ezr 2 23; Neh 7 27, 11 32). Map 
TT) Bal. 

II. 1. A Benjamite, the son of Becher (I Ch 7 8). 
2. A leader of the men of Anathoth who sealed the 
covenant (Neh 7 27, 1019). E. E. N. 


ANCHOR. See Sures anp NAVIGATION, § 2. 


ANCIENT OF DAYS: The incorrect translation of 
‘attig yomin, ‘attig yomayy@ ‘an aged one.’ An 
apocalyptic name of God, first used in its Aramaic 
form in Dn (79, 13, 22). It was chosen probably not in 
order to suggest the eternity of the divine Being, 
but to show that profound veneration was due Him, 
and to assure the persecuted righteous that their 
God was incomparably superior to all others. The 
figure implies a strongly anthropomorphic concep- 
tion and was taken up by later apocalyptic usage 
(cf. Ethiopic Enoch 47 3, 48 2-6). The description of 
the Son of Man in Rev 1 14 is also probably based 
upon this figure. AZ, 


ANCIENTS. See Wispom, Wise Man, § 2; and 
ELDER. 


ANDREW (’Ayv3péac, ‘manly’): Son of John, of 
Bethsaida Julius, brother of Simon Peter, with whom 
he lived in Capernaum. He was the first called of 
the disciples of Jesus, to whom he was sent by John 
the Baptist, and became one of the inner group of 


four among the Twelve (Mk 138 3). In the lists he is 
always next before his friend and fellow-townsman 
Philip, with whom he is also associated on two im- 
portant occasions in the Fourth Gospel (Jn 6 7, 8, 
12 22). After Ac 113 he disappears from view, but 
tradition has it that he evangelized Scythia (becom- 
ing thus Russia’s patron saint) and was martyred in 
Achaia. R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


ANDRONICUS, an’’dro-nai’kus (’Avdeévixos): A 
Jew—as is apparent from the term ‘kinsman’—con- 
verted before Paul, with whom he probably shared 
imprisonment (Ro 16 7). ' He is referred to as ‘of 
note among the apostles,’ ¢.e., possibly well-known 
in the circle of the apostles, tho more probably 
‘apostle’ is here used in the wider sense of that term 
(see AposTLH, and cf. Burton ICC, Galatians, p. 
372). R. A. F.—E,. C. L. 


ANEM, é’nem. See ENGANNIM. 


ANER, @’nor (139, ‘dnér): I. An Amorite prince, 
with whom Abraham entered into covenant (Gn 
14 13, 24). Since, however, Eschol and Mamre are 
names associated with localities, it is quite likely 
that the same is the case with Aner. If so, it may be 
identical with Neir, a range of hills (or a valley) near 
Hebron. 

II. A city west of the Jordan (I Ch 6 70). Site 
unknown. A.C, Z. 


ANETHOTHITE, an’1-fheth’ait. See ANATHOTH, 
I 


ANGEL: 1. Scope. The scope of this article is 
determined principally by the English word, which 
always refers to superhuman beings. The Greek 
&yyeAos, from which angel isderived, and the Hebrew 
1820, mal’aGkh, mean ‘messenger’, without any dis- 
tinction between human or superhuman messengers 
except such as may be indicated by the context. Some 
titles practically equivalent are also noticed here. 
For other superhuman beings see the articles, 
CHERUBIM, SERAPHIM, Sons or Gop. 

2. Preexilic Period. It was natural that the He- 
brews should have thought of God as surrounded by 
a court or retinue, which accounts for the use of the 
plural pronoun in the creation narratives. The grow- 
ing idea of monotheism brought the numerous other 
spirits whose existence was assumed into subordina- 
tion to the one true God; but there is in these early 
writings a remarkable degree of restraint in speaking 
of angels. They are brought into play only when 
needed in some critical time. They bring instruction 
and encouragement from God to those for whom He 
has some special message. They are all nameless; 
they have no individuality of their own. They are 
simply God’s agents, the means by which He com- 
municates with men. It was held that man could 
not see God himself and live (Ex 33 20). Except in 
the late writings the appearances of angels are all to 
be found in the narratives of Abraham and Jacob, 
the guiding experiences of the Exodus, the stories of 
Balaam, of Gideon, and of the parents of Samson, 
the destroying angel in the time of David (II § 24), 
and in one incident in the life of Elijah (I K 195). In 
all these places the word is singular except in the 
revelation to Abraham of the fate of Sodom and 





4% A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ananias 
Angel 





Gomorrah, and the appearances to Jacob on his 
journeys. 

3. Angel of Jehovah. There are a large number of 
passages in which the ‘angel of Jehovah’, or the 
‘angel of God’, is spoken of. Is this an appearance of 
J” himself, or is the angel simply a messenger whose 
self is so lost in his message that he may properly be 
identified with the sender of the message? ‘Twice 
those who see the angel say that they have seen God 
(Gn 32 30; Jg 13 22). Certainly the writers felt that 
this angel represented God so fully that in dealing 
with him they were actually dealing with God. This 
may be said to be a fore-shadowing of the Incarna- 
tion in the sense that God was trying to reveal Him- 
self in an intelligible way. But the idea of some older 
theologians that the ‘angel of J’” is the second person 
of the Trinity in distinction from created angels has 
no basis in the O T. Except for the somewhat doubt- 
ful references in Ps 148 and Neh 96, the notion that 
angels were created does not appear until we reach 
the Book of Enoch. 


4, Postexilic Period. When the great prophets 
come on the scene they are the sole medium of com- 
munication between God and man. They receive 
their messages directly in the fellowship of spirit with 
spirit, and there is no need for angelic appearances. 
But with the exile there came a growing belief in 
the transcendence of God. He was too great and too 
far removed from earth for this personal touch with 
men, and in some of Hzekiel’s visions angels reap- 
pear, altho they are termed ‘men.’ In Zechariah 
there is a special interpreting angel different from 
the others. Thus we are introduced to the idea of 
orders and ranks which played so large a part in later 
angelology. In Dn 4 13, 17, 23, the term watcher is 
used, and in the same verses as well as Ps 89 5, 7; Job 
51, 1515; Zec 14 5, we find the term ‘holy ones’ (AV 
‘saints’). The first term is descriptive of function like 
messenger and the second descriptive of nature, as 


sharing one of the unique characteristics of deity. . 


The expressions ‘holy ones’ and ‘host’ I K 22 19; Ps 
103 21, 148 2; Is 24 21; Dn 8 10, refer to the court by 
which God is surrounded, and with these are to be 
associated the’ seraphim of Is 6 2, which are not 
angels in the ordinary sense of messengers. They 
attend upon J” and share in His counsels. They form 
that great and glorious company whose presence in 
heaven helps us to conceive of the majesty and royal 
splendor of God. 

The later angelology, both in the O T and in the 
Jewish books of the last two centuries B.c., was in- 
fluenced by the thought of the Persians in such 
matters as personality and the divisions into good 
_ and evil spirits. At first the messengers of evil had 
been represented as doing God’s will, as in I S 16 
14, 23; II S 2416; I K 2219-23. But later there arose a 
conception of a class of superhuman beings who were 
essentially evil. The first clear reference to fallen 
angels is in the Book of Enoch, chs. 6-15, a lengthy 
account which furnishes the basis of Jude 6 and II P 
24. There are some traces of a primitive Semitic 
demonology in the O T, which comes out particu- 
larly in the scapegoat ceremony, Lv ch. 16. And the 
figure of Satan (the ‘accuser’) arising first as one 
something like a ‘prosecuting attorney’ among the 


Sons of God, Job 1 6-12; Zech 8 1-5, is finally de- 
veloped into that of the leader of the hosts of evil, 
because this furnished a convenient escape from the 
idea that God was the author of all evil. Compare 
IIT § 241 with I Ch 211. See Saran. As the angels 
developed distinct personalities some of them came 
to have names, and the gods of the heathen nations 
apparently became the angelic leaders of those 
nations. Daniel speaks of Gabriel as the revealing 
angel, and he takes the same role in the first chapter 
of Luke. Michael is mentioned in Dn as the guardian 
angel of Judah, and he reappears in Jude 9 (as an 
Archangel) and Rev 127. The book of Tobit speaks 


of Raphael (12 15) as one of the seven holy angels 


which present the prayers of the saints, and the angel 
who appears to Esdras (II Es 41) is called Uriel. In 
the apocalyptic literature ‘the imagination ran riot 
on the rank, classes, and names of angels.’ In Enoch 
611 we first have winged angels. In the O T they ap- 
pear in human form, and are sometimes called men 
throughout a narrative, even tho recognized as super- 
natural visitants. On the other hand there was in 
this period a skeptical tendency with regard to even 
the existence of angels, which culminates in the 
attitude of the Sadducees in the N T. 


5. Angels in the N T. In the N T the general 
belief in angels is assumed, but it is significant that 
many extravagances of the current Jewish literature 
are set aside. Jesus is substituted for the angels as 
the intermediary between God and man. The 
Epistle to the Hebrews lays special emphasis upon 
the fact that angels are created, and that they are 
subordinate to Christ. The same thought is ex- 
pressed in Eph 1 21 and I P 8 22. They are not 
inferior deities, but fellow servants to man (Rev 19 
10, 229) and are therefore not to be worshiped. Paul 
especially rebukes angel-worship (Col 2 18) which 
was one of the errors at Colosse and became more 
widespread in later centuries (see GNOSsTICISM). 
Paul’s disparaging references to principalities, 
powers, dominions, thrones, etc., have to do with 
the speculations about various ranks of angels. The 
law was thought to have been given through the 
agency of angels (Ac 7 53; Gal 3 19; He 2 12) and this 
is one of the reasons advanced by Paul and the 
author of Hebrews for the superiority of the revela- 
tion through Christ. The thought is not definitely 
to be found in the Hebrew O T, but was probably 
developed from the LXX. of Dt 33 2 which reads, 
‘On His right hand angels with Him.’ 

There was a popular idea that each person had 
assigned to him a special guardian angel, and it is 
to this that Jesus refers in Mt 1810. In the story of 
Peter’s escape from prison (Ac 12 15) is an illustra- 
tion of the thought that when such guardian angel 
appeared on earth he took the form of the person 
guarded. The angels of the seven churches in Asia 
(Rev 1, 2, 3) have been variously explained. Some 
think that these are angels in the ordinary sense, as 
in the rest of the book, some that they are the repre- 
sentatives or bishops of the churches. It is muchmore 
likely that they are the personifications of the spir- 
itual character of each church. This falls into line 
with the popular beliefs just mentioned, and this 
conception is found in Persian thought. The 


Angle 
Antichrist 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 48 





fravashi in the Avesta is the complete spiritual coun- 

terpart of a nation or community (see HDB iv, 

991). 

LireratuRrE:. Ofthe various Bible Dictionary articles the best 
are those by G. B. Gray in HB, and A. J. Maclezn in DAC. 
See also A. C. Knudson, Religious Teachings of the OT, and 
various works on O T Theology. E. Gy TS 
ANGLE. The old Eng. rendering of the Heb. 

hakkéh, ‘hook’ in Is 19 8 and Hab 1 15. 


ANIAM. oanai’am (29°28, ’dni‘adm): A Manassite 
clan or family (I Ch 719). 

ANIM, é’nim (8°3¥, ‘anim): 
(Jos 15 50). Map II, E38. 

ANIMALS. See Paestine, §§ 24-26. 


ANISE. See Pauustine, § 23. 


ANKLETS, ANKLE-CHAINS. See Dress anp 
Ornaments, § II, 2. 

ANNA, an’a ("Avwa): An aged propnetess, aaugh- 
ter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, belonging to the 
circle of the ‘Pious’ (see Stmzon), who hailed the 
babe Jesus in the Temple as a sign of the coming 


deliverance of Jerusalem (Lk 2 36-38). 
R. A. F.—E. C. L. 
ANNAS, an’as ("Avvac; Heb. 127, ‘merciful,’ in 
Josephus “Avavos): Appointed high priest by Qui- 
rinius in 6 a.D., deposed by Valerius, 15 a.p., who 
later appointed Simon, a son of A. In 18 a.p. his 
son-in-law Caiaphas (q.v.) was appointed to the 
office (Jn 18 13; cf. Jos. Ant. XVIII 2 2). As head of 
the family A. still retained influence, which explains 
why Jesus was led first to A., probably only for an 
informal hearing, and then to the high priest (Jn 
18 13). For the same reason A. is called the high 
priest in Ac 4 6 altho the actual high priest at the 
time must have been Caiaphas, or another of A.’s 
sons, either Jonathan or Theophilus (Jos. Ant. 
XVIII, 4 3, 53). 4 Pee" Did be 


ANOINT (mdshaw, wnence ‘Messiah,’ is employed 
both literally and figuratively; xoelev [xelora, 
xetst6c], always of God’s spiritual anointing; the 
other terms [stikh, &delgetyv, etc.] are used only in the 
physical sense). 


1. Practical. The application of scented oils wus 
a common toilet operation (Ru 3 3; Ps 104 15; Pr 

dey 27 9), which was 
discontinued in 
time of mourning 
(II S 14 2; Dn 10 
3; cf. Mt 617). It 
was also‘a mark of 
welcome to an 
honored guest (Ps 
23 5; Lk 7 46; Jn 
12 3). Ointments 
were frequently 
applied as reme- 
dies for sores and 
wounds (Is 16; Lk 1034). The anointing of the dead 
(Mk 14 8; Lk 23 56) seems to have been a token of re- 
spect, rather than an embalming process (cf. Jn 11 
39). Oil was rubbed upon the leather of shields to pre- 
aS them (Is 215; ITS 1 21). See ARMs AND ARMOR, 

‘f 


A town of Judah 





Anointing of a Sacred Stone 
Pillar. 


2. Symbolical. As a sign of dedication, sometimes 
with resulting inspiration (IS 1014., 1613), oil being 
symbolic of the Divine Spirit. Jacob poured oil upon 
the pillar at Beth-el (Gn 28 18). The Tent and its 
furniture were sanctified with ‘holy anointing oil’ 
(Ex 30 22 f.). See OINTMENTS AND PrRFumss, § 1. 
Priests were consecrated by anointing (Lv 8 12, 30; 
cf. 4 3; Ps 133 2), and the early kings were thus 
designated (IS 101, 1613; ITS 1910; TT K 93.) and 
inaugurated (IIS 2 4, 53; I Ch 29 22). The king was 
‘J’’s anointed,’ and thus a sacred status was his 
which was quite different from that of other men 
(cf. e.g. 1S 269 #.). Probably the anointing in Mk 
613 and Ja 514 was a symbol of consecration prepara- 
tory to divine healing. 

3. Metaphorical. Signifying divine selection and 
enduement for some particular service. In this figur- 
ative sense, Cyrus (Is 45 1), and the prophet-pa- 
triarchs (I Ch 16 22; cf. Gn 207) were said to be 
‘anointed.’ Thus also, Israel (?) was Jehovah’s 
anointed (Hab 313; Ps 89 38; La 4 20), and Christians 
received the unction of the Holy Spirit (II Co 1 21; 
I Jn 2 20, 27). For Christ as the Anointed One (Is 61 1 
=Lk 4 18; Ac 10 38), see MussiaH, § 7. See also 
BurRIAL AND Buriat Customs, § 1. 

L. G. L.—E. C. L. 


ANT. See Pauestine, § 26. 
ANTELOPE. See Pauestine, § 24. 


ANTHOTHIJAH, an’ fho-thai’ja (™OINW, ‘an- 
thothiyyah, Antothijah AV): A Benjamite (ICh 8 24). 


ANTICHRIST, THE MAN OF SIN. 1. The 
Name Antichrist. The actual name Antichrist is first 
found in the Johannean epistles (I Jn 2 18, 22, 4 3; 
II Jn 7), but the main idea underlies St. Paul’s de- 
scription of the ‘Man of Lawlessness’ (‘Man of Sin’ 
EVV) in II Th 21-12; while, from the manner in which 
both writers refer to this mysterious figure, it is 
evident that they had in view an oral tradition 
current at the time (I Jn 4 3 ‘ye have heard,’ II Th 
2 6 ‘ye know’). Any attempt, therefore, to under- 
stand the doctrine of A. as it meets us in the 
N T must naturally begin with this tradition, so far 
as it is now possible to trace it. 

2. Possible Connection with Babylonian Myth. 
Here, according to the latest view, we are carried far 
back. Bousset, in his elaborate monograph, Der 
Antichrist (1895, Eng. transl. The Antichrist Legend, 
1896), adopting and developing the suggestion of 
Gunkel in his Schépfung und Chaos (1895), would 
have us see in the A. legend an anthropo- 
morphic transformation of the Babylonian Dragon 
Myth, according to which the monster (T%dmat), who 
had opposed the Creator at the beginning, would 
again in the last days rear its head in rebellion, only, 
however, to be finally crushed. It is impossible to 
examine here in detail the evidence adducéd in sup- 
port of this position, but it seems practically certain 
that this myth had reached Palestine, and may, 
therefore, have had a share in familiarizing the Jews 
with the idea of an arch-enemy of God, and of His 
cause. Beyond this, with the data at our disposal, 
we can hardly go at present, and we are on surer 
ground when, for the early history of this b clic, we 





i 
f 
4 


49 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Angle 
Antichrist 


LLL COLA LLL LC OL Ss tse 


turn to the evidence supplied by the Scriptures 
themselves. 


3. Antichrist in Old Testament. In the O T we 
have ample proof of a general Jewish belief in a 
fierce attack to be directed against Israel in the end 
of the days by some hostile person or power, while 
this attack is frequently so described as to supply 
later writers with their language and imagery in 
depicting the last attack of all against God’s people. 
See, e.g., Psalm 88 (89), many of whose words and 
phrases are reechoed in II Th chs. 1 and 2 (cf. Borne- 
mann, Thess. p. 356 f.), or the account of the fierce 
onslaught by Gog from the land of Magog (Hizk chs. 
38, 39; cf. Rev 207 f.). 

It is, however, in the Book of Daniel (168-165 
B.C.) that we find the real starting-point of many of 
the later descriptions of A., and especially in 
the picture that is there presented of Antiochus 
Epiphanes. No other foreign ruler was ever regarded 
by the Jews with such hatred on account both of his 
personal impieties and of his bitter persecution of 
their religion, and, accordingly, he is here portrayed 
as the very impersonation of all evil. Some of the 
traits indeed ascribed to him are of such a character 
(7 8, 11, 20, 21, 25, 11 36-45) that it has been thought the 
writer had not so much Antiochus as the future Anti- 
christ directly in view. And, altho this is not exe- 
getically possible, it is easy to understand how this 
description influenced the Apostolic writers in their 
account of the arch-enemy of God and man (ef., e.g., 
II Th 2 4 with Dn 11 36 f. and Rev 131-8 with Dn 
7 8, 20 f., 25, 8 24, 11 28, 30 and see Driver, Daniel, p. 
xevi f.). With the fall of Antiochus and the rise of 
the Maccabzan kingdom, the promise of deliverance, 
with which Daniel had comforted God’s people dur- 
ing their dark days, received its proximate fulfilment; 
but, when the nation again fell under a foreign yoke, 
the old fears were once more revived and received a 


fresh coloring from the new powers by which the 


Jewish nation now found itself opposed. 

4. In Later Writings of the Jews. In determining 
the Jewish views regarding A. during this period 
much difficulty is caused by the uncertainty regard- 
ing the exact date of some of the relative writings, 
and the possibility of their having received late- 
Christian interpolations. The following references 
however, deserve notice: 

“In the Pharisaic Psalms of Solomon (48-40 B.c.) 
Pompey, as the representative of the foreign power 
that had overthrown Zion, is described as the person- 
ification of sin (6 &uaptwAdc, 2 1), and even as the 
dragon (6 dpedxwyv, ver. 29); while in IV Ezr 5 1-6, 
which, altho belonging to the last decade of the 1st 

cent. A.D., is a characteristically Jewish work after 
an enumeration of the signs of the last times and the 
shaking of the kingdom that is after the third power 
(t.e., the power of Rome), we read of one who ‘shall 
rule, whom they that dwell upon the earth look not 
for’—a mysterious being generally identified with 
the future A. Compare also the description of the 
desctruction of the ‘last leader’ of the enemies of 
Israel in Apoc. Bar. 401 f., where again Pompey 
may be thought of. 

In none of these passages, it will be noticed, have 
we more than a God-opposing being of human origin, 


but it has recently been pointed out with great co- 
gency by Dr. Charles (The Ascension of Isaiah, pp. 
lv ff.) that, in the interval between the O T and the 
N T, a further development was given to Jewish be- 
lief in A. through the influence of the Beliar myth. 

In the O T ‘belial’ is never, strictly speaking, a 

proper name, but denotes ‘worthlessness,’ ‘wicked- 
ness, tho, from its frequent occurrences along 
with another noun in such phrases as ‘sons of Belial’ 
(Dt 13 13; Jg 19 22, etc., AV), the idea readily lent 
itself to personification, until in the later pseudepi- 
graphical literature, the title regularly appears as a 
synonym for Satan, or one of his lieutenants. 
_ Thus in the Book of Jubilees (2d cent. B.c.) we 
read, ‘Let Thy mercy, O Lord, be lifted up upon Thy 
people, . . . and let not the spirit of Beliar rule over 
them’ (1 20, ed. Charles), and similar references to 
Beliar as a Satanic spirit are frequent in the Testa- 
ments of the Twelve Patriarchs (2d cent. B.c. in part 
at least), in which see, e.g., Test. Reub. 4, 6. 

The most interesting passage, however, for our 
purpose is contained in the third book of the Sibylline 
Oracles, in a section which in the main goes back to 
the same early date, where Beliar is depicted as a 
truly Satanic being, accompanied by all the signs 
that are elsewhere ascribed to A. (see Orac. Sib. iii, 
63 ff., ed. Rzach). And with this there should also be 
compared Orac. Sib. ii, 167 f., where it is stated that 
‘Beliar will come and do many signs to men,’ tho 
here the originally Jewish origin of the passage is by 
no means so certain. 

In the same way it is impossible to lay too much 
stress in the present connection on the speculations 
of Rabbinical theology regarding the person of A. 
in view of the late date of our authorities. But we 
may accept, as in the main reflecting the views of the 
Jews about the beginning of the Christian era, the 
conception of a powerful ruler to be born of the tribe 
of Dan (cf. Gn 49 17; Dt 33 22; Jer 8 16, and see further 
Friedlander, Der Antichrist in den vorchristlichen 
aryidischen Quellen [1901] c, ix) and uniting in himself 
all enmity against God and hatred against God’s 
people, but whom the Messiah will finally slay by 
the breath of His lips (cf. Weber, Jiid. Theologie 
[1897] p. 365). ~ 


5. In Christ’s Teaching. We can at once see how 
readily this idea would lend itself to the political 
and materialistic longings of the Jews, and it is only, 
therefore, what we would expect when we find our 
Lord, true to His spiritual ideals, saying nothing by 
which these expectations might be encouraged, but 
contenting Himself with warning His hearers against 
false teachers, the ‘false Christs,’ and the ‘false 
prophets’ who would be ready ‘to lead astray, if 
possible, even the elect’? (Mt 24 24; Mk 13 22). 
Even, too, when in the same discourse He seems to 
refer to a single A., the reference is veiled under the 
mysterious figure derived from Daniel of the ‘abomi- 
nation of desolation standing (éotyxét~) where he 
ought not’? (Mk 13 14; cf. Mt 24 15); while a similar 
reticence marks His words as recorded in Jn 5 43, if 
here again, as is most probable, He has A. in view. 

Slight, however, altho these references in our 
Lord’s recorded teaching are, we can understand how 
they would direct the attention of the Apostolic 


Antichrist 
Antiochus 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 50 
/ 


cen te cS a aE NL CCAR TC EEN ANCE NELLA LLL LLL ALAA LANL LL AALAND ELD 


writers to the traditional material lying to their 
hands in their treatment of this mysterious subject, 
and, asa matter of fact, we have clear evidence of the 
use of such material in the case of at least two of 
them. 


6. In Pauline Epistles. Thus, apart from his 
direct reference to the Jewish belief in Beliar in 
II Co 6 15, Paul has given us in II Th 21-12 a very 
full description of the working of A., under 
the name of the ‘Man of Lawlessness,’ in which he 
draws freely on the language and imagery of the 
O T and on the speculations of later Judaism. The 
following are the leading features in his picture: 
(1) ‘The mystery of lawlessness’ is already at work, 
altho for the moment held in check by a restraining 
person, or power, apparently to be identified with the 
power of law or government, especially as these were 
embodied at the time in the Roman State. (2) No 
sooner, however, has this restraining power been 
removed (cf. II Es 5 4; Apoc. Bar. 39 7) than a 
general ‘apostasy’ results, finding its consummation 
in the ‘revelation’ of ‘the man of lawlessness.’ 
(3) As ‘the opposer’ he ‘exalteth himself against all 
that is called God’ (cf. Dn 11 36 £.) and actually 
‘sitteth in the temple of God, setting himself forth 
as God’—the description being again modeled on 
the Danielic account (cf. Dn 8 13, 9 27, 11 31, 12 11); 
while (4) the ‘lying wonders’ by which his working 
is distinguished are illustrated by Orac. Sib. iil, 64 f.; 
Asc. Isaiah 45. (5) And yet, powerful as this in- 
carnation of wickedness seems, the Lord Jesus at His 
parousia will ‘slay him with the breath of his mouth,’ 
the words being a quotation from Is 11 4, a passage 
which the Targum of Jonathan afterward applied 
to the destruction of Armilus, the Jewish A., and 
whose use here Paul may well have drawn from the 
Jewish tradition of his time (cf. the use of the 
same passage in Pss. Sol. 17 27, 39; II Es 13 10). 

The whole description is thus of a very composite 
character, but, at the same time, is so definite and 
detailed that it is hardly to be wondered at that 
there has been a constant endeavor to find its sug- 
gestion in some historical personage of the writer’s 
own time. But, altho the sacrilegious conduct of 
Caligula (ef. Tacit., Hist. v, 9) may have influenced 
the writer’s language in ver. 4, the real roots of the 
conception lie elsewhere, and it is rather, as we have 
seen, in the O T and in current Jewish tradition that 
its explanation is to be sought. 


7. In the Apocalypse. The same may be said, in 
part at least, of the various evil powers which meet 
us in the Johannean Apocalypse. The wild Beast of 
the Seer (Rev chs. 18-20) vividly recalls the horned 
wild Beast of Dn chs. 7 and 8, and the parallels that 
can be drawn between the language of John and of 
Paul (cf. Rev 129, 181. with II Th 29f.; Rev 1354., 
1411 with IT Th 2 4, 10 ff.; Rev 13 3 with II Th 29 f.) 
point to similar sources as lying at the roots of both. 
On the other hand, the Johannean descriptions have 
a direct connection with contemporary secular 
history which was largely wanting in the earlier 
picture. This is seen noticeably in the changed atti- 
tude toward the power of Rome. So far from this 
being regarded any longer as a restraining influence, 
it is rather the source from which evil is to spring. 


And we can understand, therefore, how the city of 
Rome and its imperial house supply John with 
many of the characteristics under which he describes 
the working of A. until, at last, he sees all the powers 
of evil culminate in the Beast of ch. 17, who, accord- 
ing to the interpretation of Bousset (adopted by 

James in HDB), is partly representative of an 

individual ‘who was and is not, etc., that is, Nero 

redivivus; partly of a polity, namely that of Rome. 

8. In Johannean Epistles. There remain only the 
references in the Johannean Epistles, in which, in 
keeping with the writer’s main object, the spiritual 
side of the conception is again predominant. Thus, 
after indicating some of the main elements in Chris- 
tian truth, John passes in I 2 18 to the conflict into 
which, at ‘a last hour,’ truth will be brought with 
falsehood, and in token of this points to the decisive 
sign by which this crisis will be known, namely, the 

‘coming’ of A.—the absence of the article in the 

original showing that the word has already come 

to be used as a technical proper name. Nor does 

‘Antichrist’ stand alone. Rather he is to be regarded 

as ‘the personification of the principle shown in dif- 

ferent Antichrists’ (Westcott, ad loc.), who, by their 
denial that ‘Jesus is the Christ,’ deny in like manner 
the revelation of God as Father (2 22) and, conse- 

quently, the true union between God and man (4 3). 
9. Present Significance of Antichrist. It is, there- 

fore, into a very different atmosphere that we are 

introduced after the strange symbolism of the Apoc- 
alypse, and the scenic representation of the Pauline 
description. And one likes to think that the last 
word of Revelation on this mysterious topic is one 
which leaves it open to every one to apply to the 
spiritual workings of evil in his own heart, and in the 
world around him, a truth which has played so large 

a part in the history of God’s people in the past, and 

which may still pass through many varying and pro- 

gressive applications before it reaches its final fulfil- 
ment in the ‘dispensation of the fulness of the times’ 

(Eph 1 10). 

Literature: In addition to the special literature referred 
to above, see articles on Antichrist by Bousset in ERE, by 
James (under the title Man of Sin) in HDB, by Ginsburg in 
JE, and by Sieffert in PRE’, and the Excursuses by Borne- 
mann and Findlay and Frame (ICC) in their Commentaries 
on the Thessalonian Epistles; see also E. Wadstein, Die 
eschatologischeIdeengruppe: Antichrist-W eltsabbat-W eltendeund 
Weltgericht (1896). The argument of the foregoing paper will 
be found more fuily stated with the text of the passages re- 
ferred to in the Additional Note on The Biblical Doctrine of 


Antichrist in the present writer’s commentary on The 
Epistles to the Thessalonians (1907) see also Charles, ICC, 


The Revelation of St. John, Vol. II pp. 76 ff (1920) and Beck- 


with, The Apocalypse of John pp. 393-411 (1919). 
G. M.—E. E. N. 


ANTIOCH, an’ti-ek (Avtiéyex). 1. Pisidian A. 
(ad Pisidiam), so distinguished from other cities of 
the same name founded by Seleucus Nicator (301- 
280 B.c.), and named in honor of his father. Inscrip- 
tions show that the surrounding population were 
Phrygian, against whom and the Pisidian mountain- 
eers it was a garrison center composed of Greek, 
Jewish and Anatolian races. On the fall of the 
Seleucid power Antioch was made a free city by the 
Romans in 189 B.c.;in 39 B.c. Antioch and the whole 
of Pisidia were given by Antony to Amyntas of 
Galatia; in 25 B.c. it was incorporated into the 


ee ee . ~~ 


a 


51 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Antichrist 
Antiochus 





province of Galatia, to which it belonged till at least 
198 a.D., if not to 295 a.p. when Diocletian consti- 
tuted the separate province of Pisidia, of which it 
became the capital. About 6 B.c. the city was made 
a Colonia Cesareia Antiocheia by Augustus. Lying 
on the borders of Phrygia and Pisidia it might be 
reckoned to either. Thus Strabo describes it as a city 
of Phrygia toward Pisidia, while the majority of 
writers speak of it as Pisidian. In Paul’s day it was 
a city of Galatia in the district of Phrygia. Here he 
inaugurated the mission to the 8S. Galatian churches 
(Ac 13 49); and among ‘the churches of Galatia’ 
(Gal 1 2) Pisidian Antioch is to be included. Cf. also 
Ac 14 19 ff., 15 36, 16 4 #., 18 23. The ruins in the 
vicinity of Yalowadj were first identified as ancient 
Antioch by Arundell (Discoveries in A. M., I, p. 
268 ff.). Antioch has furnished rich epigraphical 
material of considerable importance, for which see 
e.g. Sterrett, Epigr. Journey in A. M., p. 121 £.; 
C. I. G., Nos. 3979-81; C. I. L., III, 289 f.; Hphem. 
Epig., V, 575-80; Le Bas-Waddington, Voyage, III, 
1189 ff. 

2. Syrian -<ntioch, the most important of the 
Seleucid foundations. It was founded by Seleucus 
Nicator, 301 B.c., on the left bank of the Orontes, 
15 miles inland, with Seleuceia as its port. Subse- 
quent Seleucids and the Romans enlarged and 
adorned this city till it became the third in rank in 
the Rom. empire (after Rome and Alexandria). In 
83 B.c. it passed from the Seleucids to Tigranes of 
Armenia who remained 14 years master of Syria, 
until in 64 B.c. Pompey annexed Syria, making 
Antioch the capital. For centuries Antioch was an 
important center of commerce, education, and cul- 
ture. Its suburb, Daphne, 5 miles distant, was the 
pleasure-resort of Antioch and noted for its beauty, 
luxury, and licentiousness. The city was repeatedly 
visited by devastating earthquakes during the first 
six centuries. In 538 it was sacked by Chosroes, and 
in the next century, 637, it fell under the Arab con- 
quest from which it never recovered. The squalid 
village of Antakiyeh marks the spot of Antioch ‘the 
great’ and ‘the beautiful.’ The city occupied an 
honorable place as the mother-church of Gentile 
Christianity and the center of the missionary enter- 
prise which carried the new faith to Europe (Ac 
13 ff.). Here, too, Jesus’ followers were first called 
‘Christians’ (Ac 11 26). It was also the center of 
several church councils. S. A. 


ANTIOCHUS, an-tai’o-kus (’Avtloyos), the father 
of Seleucus I (312-281 3.c.), the founder of the 
Seleucid line of Kings of Syria. The name was borne 
by a number of Kings of the House of Seleucus of 
whom the following are of interest to the Bible 
student. 

Antiochus III, the Great, (223-187 B.c.). By 
his victory over the Egyptians at Paneas in 198 B.c. 
Palestine came under the control of Syria. A. com- 
pelled the Egyptian king (Ptolemy IV) to accept his 
_ daughter Cleopatra as the bride of the heir to the 
throne of Egypt (Ptolemy V) hoping thereby to 
make Egypt more completely subordinate to Syria. 
But in this he was disappointed for the daughter 
became pro-Egyptian. This struggle between 
Antiochus III and Ptolemy IV is told in veiled 


terms in Dn 1111-17. At first the Jews were favorable 
to the Syrian domination, but a growing party in the 
nation opposed the Greek influences furthered by the 
Syrian monarchs. A. was overwhelmingly defeated 
by the Romans in 190 B.c. losing thereby control 
over Asia Minor. He died three years later in a vain 
attempt to retrieve his fortunes in the Eastern part 
of his realm (cf. Dn 11 18-19). A. was succeeded by his 
son Seleucus Philopater (187-175), who reigned 
eleven years. Near the close of his reign a rupture 
took place in the hitherto friendly relations of the 
Jews to their Syrian sovereigns (cf. II Mac 3 1-4 6). 
A crisis came under Antiochus IV (Epiphanes), who 
succeeded his brother Seleucus in 175. He was a 
brilliant but moody mana strange combination of 
intellectual power and moral weakness. With un- 
flagging zeal he sought to Hellenize Palestine, and 
this brought on the Maccabeean revolt (see Macca- 
BEES). At the very first he decided against the high 
priest Onias III in favor of Jason, the leader of the 
Hellenizing party (I Mac 110 ff., cf. II Mac 471.). 
Disappointed bitterly in his effort to control Egypt 
(being forbidden by Rome to follow up his victory 
over the Egyptian army) and enraged at the Jews 
for their opposition to his Hellenizing policy, he 
vented his rage on Jerusalem and issued a decree 
forbidding the Jews to worship God according to 
their Law (I Mac 1 16-64; II Mac 47-7 42; ef. Dn 
11 21-35). The efforts to carry out this decree in- 
volved him in the Maccabeean war in which one 
Syrian army after another was defeated by the 
brilliant Judas Maccabeus (I Mac 3 10, 4 35). A. 
then entrusted the subjugation of Judea to the regent 
Lysias, and embarked on his disastrous expedition 
to the East on which he died (164). Dn 11 40-45 is a 
forecast of the fate of A., but is not in accord with 
the known facts. See Danin, Book oF. 

Antiochus V (Eupator) was only nine years old 
when his father died, and Lysias, the governor of the 
provinces, undertook the guardianship of the young 
boy. Together they made an expedition into Judea 
and at the battle of Bethzacharias they defeated 
Judas Maccabeeus. The outlook for the Jews was 
dark, when suddenly the war was terminated by the 
attempt of Philip, foster-brother of Antiochus IV, 
to secure the Syrian throne. Hastily concluding a 
peace, Lysias and A. hurried back to Antioch and 
suppressed Philip. In the following year (162) A. 
was betrayed into the hands of Demetrius Soter, his 
cousin, and put to death (I Macc 61-7 4). 

The next Antiochus (VI), brought as a child from 
Arabia by Tryphon, a Syrian general, as a claimant 
to the throne, was a son of Alexander Balas, a pre- 
tender to the throne who reigned 150-145. Tryphon 
was successful and A. was crowned, but the real 
power of the government was Tryphon, who used 
the young king as a tool and finally had him mur- 
dered in order to be himself made king. During all 
the rivalries and intrigues of the Syrian court up 
to this time, Jonathan Maccabeeus (q.v.) had been 
able by clever diplomacy to further the interest of 
the Jews, but he fell at last a victim to the treachery 
of Tryphon in 143 B.c. (I Mac 11 39f., 54 #., 12 39- 


13 32). 
In 138 Antiochus VII, a great-grandson of Anti- 


Antipas 
Pere Literature A NEW STANDARD 
ochus III (called Sidetes from the place of his edu- 
cation, Side in Pamphylia), drove Tryphon out and 
took the throne. To win the favor of the Jews, 
former privileges were confirmed, and further con- 
cessions granted (I Mac 15 1-9), but as soon as A. 
felt himself secure upon his throne he changed his 
attitude and demanded of Simon (Jonathan’s suc- 
cessor) the surrender of all the principal fortresses. 
On Simon’s refusal A. sent an army to enforce 
obedience. This army was so disastrously defeated 
that A. troubled Simon no further (I Mac 15 26- 
16 10). 

In the time of Hyrcanus (135) A. himself marched 
upon Jerusalem. After a long siege a satisfactory 
peace was arranged (Jos., Ant. XIII, 8 2-3). Sidetes 
fell (128) in a battle with Arsaces, King of the 
Parthians (Jos., Ant. XIII, 8 4). 

Altogether distinct from these Syrian kings is an 
Antiochus mentioned in I Mac 12 16, 14 22 as father 
of a certain Numenius, one of the ambassadors sent 
by Jonathan Maccabzeus to Rome. 

J. S. R—E. E. N. 


ANTIPAS, an’ti-pas (’Avtlelixec): 1. Herod 
Antipas, son of Herod the Great. See Heron, § 5. 
2. An early Christian martyr of Pergamum (Rev 
213): 

ANTIPATRIS, an-tip’a-tris (’Avtimatets): A city 
built (or rebuilt) by Herod the Great, and named 
after his father Antipater, on the main road from 
Cesarea to Lydda (Ac 23 31). It was held to mark 
the NW. limit of Judea. MapI, C7. See Apunx, 1. 


ANTONIA, an-td’ni-a: A strong fortress situated 
at the NW. corner of the Temple area, the ‘castle’ 
of Ac 21 34, etc. See JERUSALEM, § 38, and TrEm- 
PLE § 26. 

ANTOTHIJAH. See ANTHOTHIJAH. 

ANTOTHITE, an-tofh’ait. See Anaruortu, I. 


ANUB, @’nub (3329, ‘aniabh): A Judahite person - 


or clan (I Ch 48). 


ANVIL: The rendering of Heb. pa‘am, lit. ‘stroke,’ 
in Is 417. The Targum renders ‘mallet.’ The exact 
meaning is somewhat uncertain. See ARTIZzAN LIFE, 
§ 10. 


APE: This animal does not belong to the fauna of 
Palestine and is mentioned only in the account of 
Solomon’s riches, where it is said that his navy 
brought apes, peacocks, etc., once every three years 
(I K 10 22; If Ch9 21). The Heb. *))P, goph, rendered 
‘apes,’ apparently a loan-word from the Sanskrit 
kapt (see Oxf. Heb. Lex.), was general in meaning, 
so that it is impossible to determine what species of 
monkey was meant. The animals were probably 
purchased by Solomon’s agents in 8. Arabia, altho 
they may have been of African or Asiatic origin. 
Ancient literature (Egyptian and Assyrian inscrip- 
tions, the Amarna letters) contains references to 
apes or monkeys, showing that they were well known 
and prized as curiosities. K. E. N. 


APELLES, oa-pel’liz (’AmeAAHs) A Christian in 
Rome to whom Paul sent a greeting as ‘the ap- 


proved in Christ’ (Ro 1610). Nothing more is known 
of him. 





BIBLE DICTIONARY 52 


APHARSACHITES, APHARSATHCHITES, 2- 
far’sak-aits, af’’er-sath’kaits (8!9NR 728, ’dphar- 
sathkhadyeé’): In Ezr 49 the term signifies, according to 
some, a Class of Persian officials, a meaning that 
suits the other two passages also (5 6, 6 6), but as yet 
no satisfactory explanation has been suggested. The 
different spelling is probably due to scribal errors. 
E. E. N. 
APHARSITES, 0a-far’saits (S29 798, ’dpharsaye’): 
A term of uncertain meaning, indicating probably 


either a class of subordinate officials or the Persian 
colonists in Syria (Ezr 49). E. E. N. 


APHEK, 4a’fek (P28, ’dphéq), variant APHIK, 
a’fik. Three, probably four, cities whose identity is 
doubtful: 1. A town under Philistine control and 
used as a base in two important campaigns against 
Israel (I S 1 4, 291). The reference in Jos 12 18 is 
late and of no historical value. The site continued 
to be occupied until into the Roman period. Anti- 
patris is now thought to have been built on the same 
site where extensive views and many evidences of 
an ancient city abound (see Bul. ASOR, Oct., 1923). 
2. In the territory of Asher, never wrested from the 
Canaanites (Jos 19 30; Jg 1 31, Aphik). 3. Identified 
with Afgqa, NE. of Beirft (Jos 13 4). 4. The modern 
Fik, on a hill East of the Sea of Galilee (I K 20 26, 30; 
IT KWalaciyy G. L. R.—E. E. N. 


APHEKAH, 2-fi’ka (TPP, ’dphégah): A town of 
Judah apparently not far from Hebron (Jos 15 53). 


APHIAH, oa-fai’a (28, ’dphiah): One of the an- 
cestors of King Saul (I S 91). 

APHIK, é’fik. See APHEK. . 

APHRAH, af’ra. See Brrsa-LE-APHRAH. 

APHSES, afsiz. See Happizznz. 


APOCALYPSE, a-pec’a-lips. See REVELATION, 
Book oF. 


APOCALYPTIC LITERATURE. 1. The Nature 
of Apocalyptic Literature. The phrase designates a 
group of writings in which the mode of presentation 
is that of the apocalypse. The term apocalypse itself 
(&aroxéudes from d&roxarbrtw, ‘to uncover, unveil’) 
may mean the matter revealed, the form of the 
revelation, or the writing in which the revelation is 
recorded. It is in a sense including practically all 
these senses that it must be understood in the phrase 
Apocalyptic Literature. 

Apocalyptic Literature is a specific variety of 
prophetic composition. It differs from prophecy pure 
and simple (a) in that it clothes the divine message 
in the form of a vision or series of visions. The vision 
form was obviously the most natural to suggest itself 
if the prophet was to present his message as an 
apocalypse. Accordingly, altho there are apocalypses 
in which the vision form is not used, in general a 
prophetic message which is given in the form of a 
vision is likely to be apocalyptic. (b) More distinc- 
tive of the apocalypse is the subject matter presented 
in it. Whereas prophecy deals with the will of God 
on all sorts of interests, the apocalypse is a revela- 
tion of matters that in their nature ean not be 
reached except by disclosure from above. Such are 
the inner and hidden arrangements of the universe, 


53 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Antipas 
Apocalyptic Literature 





the method and original conditions of the creation, 
but preeminently the future of the world and the 
destinies of God’s people and of the world. (c) In 
method of presentation the apocalypse resorts to 
symbolism more freely than normal prophecy. 
Principles and ideas are clothed in the garb of the 
figures of living beings (eagles, sheep, goats, bulls, 
etc.). Some of these are composite, the characteristic 
features of various creatures being brought into a 
mixed figure, in order to express the exceptional 
nature of the forces at work. Similarly symbolical 
numbers such as 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, etc., are used for the 
same purpose. (d) The Apocalyptist’s view of the 
world is generally akin to that of the prophet; but 
whereas the latter thinks of God as working in the 
world constantly side by side with and against the 
evil forces, the apocalyptist views the world as 
largely under the control of the forces of evil and 
God as reserving his interference for the future. It 
is this that gives the apocalypses their prevailingly 
eschatological content. It is this also that brings 
into them the doctrine of the division of duration 
into ages (‘the Present Age’6 aidy oitoc, ‘the Coming 
Age,’ 6 ai@y 6 Zex6uevoc). (e) The prophet speaks for 
large variety of purposes. He aims to stir the con- 
science to a clearer appreciation of righteousness, to 
warn against the displeasure of God, to direct the 
affairs of state, to rebuke and exhort to good deeds; 
the apocalyptist generally addresses himself to the 
task of comforting and encouraging God’s people in 
distress. He therefore predicts the triumph of God 
over the evil forces, the relief of the persecuted and 
suffering saints and the glories and favors reserved 
for them in God’s plan. (f) The apocalyptist gen- 
erally chooses some ancient sage, favored of God 
with special intimacy, and makes him the central 
figure of his composition and the vehicle of the divine 
revelation. Enoch, Noah, Moses, Isaiah, Daniel 
Ezra, Baruch, are the seers, tho not necessarily 
the authors, of the most prominent apocalypses. 

Z. The Period when Apocalyptic Literature fiour- 
ished. The apocalyptic form of writing was incipient 
in the earlier prophetic groups. There are passages 
in Isaiah (chs. 24-27), and Zechariah (chs. 1-8) which 
are, generally speaking, of thistype. But Apocalyp- 
tic Literature had the most currency between 200 
B.c. and 150 to 200 a.p. During the early part of 
this period the conditions were specially adapted to 
its use as the prophetic vehicle of address. The peo- 
ple had been subjected to the domination of a 
foreign power (the Seleucid dynasty of Syria). They 
struggled manfully to regain their independence. 
They did so at last, but meantime they endured the 
stress of severe persecutions. The apocalyptic form 
of writing was adapted to convey to them encourage- 
ment in the form of great world pictures, showing 
that their oppressors were destined to collapse and 
Israel to rise into dominion under the Messiah. 
These pictures were so drawn as to be understood by 
them, but to prove unintelligible to their oppressors. 

3. The Apocalyptic Books (for details see separate 
articles on these books). 

In strict usage a list of Apocalyptic writings 
should include the Canonical Books of Daniel and 
Revelation. But altho the apocalyptic form of these 


is never questioned; and in fact, it is because of the 
technical identification of the term ‘apocalypse’ with 
the latter that the phrase ‘apocalyptic literature’ has 
developed and come into use, nevertheless it is more 
common in making up the list to place in it only the 
uncanonical writings of the type. This is due to 
the fact that the canonical apocalypses are given a 
sufficient amount of attention and study as parts of 
the Canon. 

(1) The Books of Enoch. The name of Enoch is 
attached to two books known as the Ethiopic and 
the Slavonic. Of these (a) The Ethiopic Enoch (R. 
H. Charles) consists of at least three separate 
original compositions, viz., (1) A Book of Enoch 
(=Eth. En., chs. 1-35), (2) The Book of Similitudes 
(=Eth. En., chs. 36-72), (3) A Book of Noah (= 
Fragments inserted in Eth. En., chs. 73-105). The 
dates of these documents vary from 120 B.c. to pos- 
sibly 90 B.c. The Book as extant was recovered in an 
Ethiopic version. Since then portions of it have been 
found in a Greek version. The original language was 
probably Hebrew. Its content is partly an exposi- 
tion of cosmology, partly a sketch of history. (b) 
Slavonic Enoch (‘Book of the Secrets of Enoch’) so 
called because it was first made known to modern 
scholars in a Slavonic translation (1895). The origi- 
nal language was undoubtedly Greek. It was made 
in the first half of the Ist century a.p. in Alexandria. 
Its content is like that of the preceding, partly cos- 
mological and partly eschatological. 

(2) Assumption of Moses. So called because-it 
purports to give an account of the words of Moses to 
Joshua just before his passing into the presence of 
God. It is in the form of a prediction of the events 
that were to befall the people of Israel. It was 
written in the days of Herod. 

(3) Second Esdras (Fourth Ezra) contains an 
account of seven visions seen by Ezra on the ruins of 
Jerusalem. The purpose of these visions is to reas- 
sure the Jews in their distress that they are not 
forgotten by God. Altho His ways are inscrutable, 
His favor to Israel is constant and in due time He will 
bring an era of prosperity and power. The Book 
consisted originally of chs. 3-14. To these chs. 1-2 
were prefixed as an introduction and chs. 15 and 16 
as an appendix. It is one of the Apocalyptic Books 
which in a Greek and Latin translation was incor- 
porated among and used along with the O T Apo- 
erypha from the earliest times. It was composed 
about the end of the first century a.D., probably in 
Hebrew. 

(4) The Syriac (Apocalypse) of Baruch. It is so 
much like Second Esdras that it has been called its 
‘twin.’ The resemblance extends even to the use of 
phraseology. It was written in Hebrew or Aramaic 
at the beginning of the second century A.D. . 

(5) The Greek (Apocalypse) of Baruch. Its con- 
tent is cosmological. It purports to describe a jour- 
ney of Baruch through five heavens (in the manner 
of Slavonic Enoch); first published in 1897, altho a 
short recension was known as existing in 1886; com- 
posed in Hebrew, but edited in Christian times. 

(6) The Sibylline Oracles, Book ITI. Is an imita- 
tion of the Sibylline literature of Roman and Greek 
origin. Its claim to a place among the Apocalypses 


Apocrypha 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 54 





is its portraiture of the fortunes of the Jews under 

foreign domination, ending with the downfall of the 

last of the oppressing empires, the judgment day 
and the dawn of the Messianic age. 

(7) The Psalms of Solomon (especially Pss 17 and 
18), in which the Messianic age and the Messiah him- 
self are foreshadowed. They were probably written 
before the fall of Jerusalem in 63 B.c. 

(8) Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs. A 
series of predictions put upon the lips of the twelve 
sons of Jacob and given to their respective children 
(in imitation of Gen. 49) as they themselves were 
about to die. They contain visions (Test. Lev.) and 
look forward to the coming of a Messiah. 

(9) The Ascension of Isaiah. This is undoubtedly 
a composite work, consisting of two original docu- 
ments, viz., the Martyrdom of Isaiah and the Vision 
of Isaiah. The latter only is apocalyptic in form, 
and foreshadows the coming of the Messiah. It is 
a post-Christian production. 

(10) The Book of Jubilees. The claim of this work 
to a place among the apocalypses is based on the 
name Apocalypse of Moses given it by Syncellus. Its 
content purports to have been given by angels to 
Moses on Mt. Sinai. Otherwise the book is a collec- 
tion of legends concerning the characters of Genesis, 
the history given in that book being arranged in 
cycles of 49 years each (‘jubilees’). 

LireraTouRy: Porter, The Messages of the Apocalyptic 
Writers, 1905; general discussions by Charlesin HB and HDB 
and by Zenos in DCG. The most complete edition of the 
whole of the O. T. Apocalyptic literature is that of Charles 


The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the OT. 2 Vols. 1913. 
A. C, Z.—E. E. N. 


APOCRYPHA OF O T AND N T: 1. The Term. 
The word ‘apocrypha’ (&xéxpugec, ‘hidden’) passed 
through several stages of meaning before it received 
the sense that we now give to it. At first it meant 
literally rolls which were put away, because worn 
out or containing faults in writing. They were 
thus ‘withdrawn from publicity,’ ‘hidden’ (see O T 
Canon, §§ 10, 12). Books might also become ‘hid- 
den’ because they were unfit for public reading. Such, 
é.g., was the story of Susannah. In this early use 
of the word no other discrediting of the book as to 
authorship, or teaching, was implied. A much 
wider application was given to the word by early 
ecclesiastical writers in denoting by it that which 
was mysterious, secret, esoteric. It was thus used to 
classify all such books as aimed to disclose to the 
favored few ‘the hidden things’ of nature, of the 
future, of wisdom, and of God. The Book of Enoch 
and the Assumption of Moses are illustrations of this 
kind of literature. Their contents were reputed to be 
handed down through secret tradition by the few 
from those whose names are given as their authors. 
In II Es 14 44-46 will be found an account of the 
miraculous production of seventy esoteric books of 
this kind. This meaning of the word ‘apocrypha’ was 
restricted at first to the pseudepigraphical books. The 
claims of Gnostic leaders to the possession of just 
such hidden disclosures gradually added another 
modification to the word ‘apocrypha,’ and that was 
the meaning ‘heretical,’ and this opened the way to 
the use of the word with which we are familiar, viz.: 
to mark the non-canonical books found in our 


English bibles between the O T and the N T. Cyril 
of Jerusalem was, as far as we know, the first who 
applied the name ‘apocrypha’ to the books which we 
place under this description. 

2. List of O T Apocrypha. The following list com- 
prises the books usually classed as O T Apocrypha 
(e.g., in the edition published by the Revisers in 
1896): I Esdras; II Esdras; Tobit; Judith; Rest of 
Esther; Wisdom of Solomon; Ecclesiasticus; Baruch 
(Chap. VI=Epistle of Jeremiah); Song of the Three 
Holy Children; History of Susannah; History of Bel 
and the Dragon; Prayer of Manasses; I Maccabees; 
II Maccabees. 

These works may be classified as follows: I. Works 
of a Historical Character: I Mac, II Mac, I Esdras. — 
II. Works of a Reflective Type: Wisdom of Solomon, 
Ecclesiasticus. III. Legendary Works: Tobit, Judith, 
Rest of Esther, Song of the Three Children, History 
of Susannah, History of Bel and the Dragon. IV. 
Works of a Prophetic Type: Baruch. V. Apocalyptic 
Works: II Esdras. Of all these the following were 
without doubt originally in Hebrew: I Mace, Tobit, 
Judith, and Ecclesiasticus. 

3. General Character of the Several Books. A full 
description of these various works will be found 
under the separate titles. The purpose here is to 
give only a general idea of each. J Hsdras (sometimes 
called the Third Ezra) is a revision of the canonical 
Ezra with the following changes: Ezr 4 7-24 is re- 
moved to an earlier place; ch. 3 1-5 6 interpolated; 
Neh 7 73-8 13 is added at the close. JI Esdras (also 
called Fourth Ezra). This work is composite. Chs. 
3-14 formed the original work and they contain 
seven visions given to Ezra; the work is thus apoca- 
lyptical in character. The other chapters were 
added by a later hand. The whole has come down to 
us in Latin, Syriac, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Armenian 
versions. The original language was Greek. Tobit, a 
legendary (Haggadic) narrative whose scenes are 
from the captivity, was written to lead the Jews to 
adhere strictly to the Law. The work exists in 
several versions, Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. Judith, 
a narrative of the same kind as Tobit. It recounts 
the bravery of Judith, a Hebrew widow, in delivering 
the city of Bethulia from the Assyrians under Holo- 
fernes. The Greek text is a translation of a Hebrew 
(Aramaic) original. The Rest of Esther. These addi- 
tions to the Book of Esther mention three times the 
divine name in the particulars with which they fill 
out the Bible story. This seems to be the primary 
purpose of these additions—to give distinct recogni- 
tion to God. The original language was Greek. The 
Wisdom of Solomon is a fine example of Hellenistic 
literature written by an Alexandrian Jew, and con- 
taining, besides a setting forth of the glory and value 
of Wisdom, an earnest warning against the folly of 
idolatry. Hcclesiasticus. This work is of the same 
general character as the Wisdom of Solomon. Its 
fundamental thought is Wisdom, and it seeks to give 
instruction therein by a multitude of rules for the 
regulation of life in all varieties of experience. It 
was originally written in Hebrew; a considerable 
portion of this Hebrew original has been lately 
brought to light. Baruch. The book in its preface 
(1 1-14) describes its origin, and then in three distinct 





55 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Apocrypha 





parts gives us (a) the confession of sin and prayer of 
the Jews in exile (1 15-3 8), (b) an admonition to the 
people to return to the fountain of Wisdom (38 9-4 4) 
and (c) the promise of deliverance (45-59). The first 
half of the book (1 1-3 8) was originally Hebrew; the 
latter half was Greek. The Hpistle of Jeremiah, 
added to Baruch as a sixth chapter, is a warning 
against idolatry. It purports to be a letter from the 
prophet Jeremiah to the Jews in Babylon. The Song 
of the Three Holy Children. This is one of the addi- 
tions found in the Greek text of the Book of Daniel. 
It gives the prayer of Abednego, uttered in the fiery 
furnace, and the song of the three children because 
the prayer was heard. The History of Susannah. 
This story glorifies Daniel, who saves the beautiful 
Susannah from death, to which she had been con- 
demned under false charge of adultery made by two 
elders, to save themselves when discovered by 
Susannah as they were peering at her in her bath. 
The History of Bel and the Dragon. This third addi- 
tion to Daniel (after ch. 12) is made up of two inde- 
pendent stories, both of which show the prowess of 
Daniel and at the same time set forth the worthless- 
ness of idolatry. All these additions to Daniel are 
found in the Septuagint, also in the version of Theo- 
dotion. The Prayer of Manasses. This prayer, attri- 
buted to Manesseh, King of Judah, was composed as 
a completion of II Ch 33. It is a confession of sin 
and a cry for pardon. In most MSS. it is in the ap- 
pendix to the Psalms. J Maccabees. A reliable his- 
tory of the period 175-135 B.c. It is extant in Greek. 
II Maccabees, originally written in Greek, is an 
epitome of the work of Jason of Cyrene and covers 
the period 175-160 8.c. The work is a mixture of 
history and story told for religious edification. 


4. The Position Assigned to the Apocrypha. A 
brief outline history of the position given to the O T 
Apocrypha by the Jews, the early Christian Fathers 
and the Christian Church generally will reveal their 
conception of its authority and value. It is safe to 
say that the Jews never have recognized as belonging 
to the Canon of Scriptures any other books than 
those which now constitute our O T. In Alexandria 
some of the apocryphal books were read in public, 
but even here canonical authority was not attached 
to them. They (the Jews) have always recognized a 
difference between these works and the O T (sce 
O T Canon), As for the N T the most that can be 
said is that there are interesting parallels found in 
James and Paul with Ecclesiasticus and the Book of 
Wisdom (see these titles). The Apostles held to the 
same canon as their Jewish brethren. Owing to the 
fact that in their Greek bibles the early Christian 
writers found apocryphal books joined with books 
of the Hebrew Canon, they used them, citing them 
sometimes as Scriptures. Their very connection with 
the canonical Scriptures gave them honoring con- 
sideration. So Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, 
and Origen used them. At the same time when in- 
vestigation into the matter was carried on we find 
emphasis placed upon the number 22 (24) as the 
number of books in the Hebrew Canon. A series of 
writers thus support the Jewish Canon as distinct 
from the Alexandrian—Melito of Sardis, Origen 
(despite his own habit of citing apocryphal books), 


Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, 
and Jerome. Critical judgment was at variance with 
common usage even among scholars and for a long 
time the books were cited. Eastern learned opinion 
excluded them from the Canon. In the West, Jerome 
made the most determined stand for the Hebrew 
Canon, but the common usage of the apocryphal 
books, made possible by their inclusion in the old 
Latin versions, and the inconsistent practise of the 
Fathers left the matter undecided. At the time of the 
Reformation the question was finally settled in 
different ways. The Protestant Church, following 
Luther’s lead, gave the position of inferior authority 
to the A., and from that time the word ‘apocrypha’ 
has had the meaning which Protestantism now gives 
to it. The Council of Trent (1545) made these books 
of equal authority for the Roman Catholic Church 
with those of the O T proper. Coverdale was the 
first to translate the A. from Greek into English. 
He placed them between the O T and the N T, in 
which position they have appeared in later versions. 
The English Church recognizes the A. in its lessons, 
but only for edification and not as authoritative in 
the sense that the canonical books are. The A. have 
no recognition in non-Episcopal churches. 

In refusing to receive the apocryphal books as 
canonical, Protestantism has by no means declared 
them to be of no value. On the contrary, their 
worth for certain purposes has always been recog- 
nized. To the student of the centuries just preceding 
the Incarnation, they are of deep interest as reflect- 
ing the life and thought of Judaism in one of its most 
eventful periods. 


5. The Apocrypha of the New Testament. The 
aim and general character of the N T Apocrypha 
are quite different from those of the A. added to 
the O T. The latter seek to give the history 
or reflect the thought of the period from which they 
come. The N T Apocrypha, on the other hand, are 
deliberate attempts to fill in the gaps of the N T 
story in the life of Jesus, to further heretical ideas by 
false claims of authority, and to amplify the pro- 
phecies of Jesus by revelations given the Apostles. 
Works of this description were very numerous. They 
may be classified under four heads: 

I. Gospels. These have as their object either to 
offer a narrative which shall rival the canonical 
Gospels or to add something to their story. It does 
not fall within the scope of this article to discuss the 
questions which they severally present; rather to give 
a brief, concise idea of those which were more promi- 
nent. (1) First to be noted is The Gospel according to 
the Hebrews. The fragments of this gospel have been 
brought together and discussed by Nicholson in his 
edition of it. It seems to have existed in two forms— 
the Nazarene and the Ebionite, the latter being more 
heretical. It contains additions to the canonical 
narrative and gives us some new alleged sayings of 
Jesus. 

(2) The Gospel according to the Egyptians. This 
gospel shows marked Gnostic tendencies. Frag- 
ments of it are found in Clement, Hippolytus, and 
Epiphanius. The extant fragments are in the form 
of conversations between Jesus and Salome who 
figures largely in apocryphal literature. 


Apocrypha 
Ar 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 56 


(3) The Gospel according to Peter. An important 
fragment of this gospel was discovered in 1885. In 
this work appears a strong Docetic tendency and an 
anti-Jewish feeling; it also shows acquaintance with 
all our Four Gospels. 

(4) The Protevangelium of James. The narrative 
of this well-known gospel extends from the birth of 
Mary to the slaughter of the Innocents at Bethle- 
hem. This is a good sample of a supplementary 
gospel. The stories worked into this book may have 
been in existence early in the second century, but it 
is thought that it did not reach its final form until 
the fifth century. 

(5) The Gospel of Thomas, or the Gospel of the 
Infancy. This has been preserved for us in Greek, 
Latin, and Syriac. It exhibits the life of Jesus from 
the fifth to the twelfth year and makes Him at this 
time a miracle-worker to satisfy His own whims and 
ambitions. A crude and onesided way of laying 
stress on the divinity of Jesus. These are samples of 
many attempts made to gratify curiosity by intrud- 
ing upon the silence of the Scriptures. 


» II. Among the Acts of Apostles we have The Acts — 


of Paul and Thecla which formed part of The Acts of 
Paul. It is the story of a young woman of Iconium 
who was converted by Paul and suffered much for her 
faith, but was miraculously protected. The work is 
preserved in a number of versions and dates from 
perhaps the middle of the second century. It isa 
romance inculcating continence and its rewards. 
The Acts of Thomas is one of the most important 
and interesting; it has been said that it can ‘chal- 
lenge comparison with the Pilgrim’s Progress.’ 

III. Epistles. Under this head we may mention 
the Abgarus Letters—one from the king of Edessa 
to our Lord and His answer, which are quite early— 
and the Epistles of Paul to the Laodiceans and 
Alexandrians mentioned in the Muratorian Canon. 

IV. Prominent among early apocalypses is The 
Apocalypse of Peter. A large fragment of this apoc- 
alypse was discovered in the same MSS. containing 
the Gospel of Peter (see above). It presents the Lord 
complying with the request of His disciples to show 

them their righteous brethren who had gone before 
them into the other world. To Peter He gives a 
revelation of heaven and hell, with a description of 
the terrible punishment of the lost. It was written 
probably early in the second century and exerted a 
wide influence. In the attempt to satisfy a demand 
for particulars not given us in our N T nearly all the 
Apostles were made authors of apocryphal Gospels, 
while fictitious Acts of the Apostles provided mis- 
sionary enterprise for the Twelve. These are all of 
too late a date to require attention here. It is 
needful only to say a word regarding the outcome of 
this mass of apocryphal literature. It has required 
no such careful discussion as did the Apocrypha of 
the O T to determine its place. The love of the mar- 
velous in these creations of the imagination and their 
vivid presentation of some special teaching made 
them very popular. They have been the fruitful 
source of sacred legends and ecclesiastical traditions. 
It is to these books that we must look for the origin 
of some of the dogmas of the Roman Catholic 
Church. Because they have been thus influential, 


scholarship has been deeply interested in a critical 
study of them, and much light has been thrown in 
recent years upon their origin, character, and worth. 


LireraturE: Kautzch, Die Apocrypha und Pseudepigrapha 
(1900); the elaborate work in English The Apocrypha and 
Pseudepigrapha, edited by R. H. Charles, 2 Vols. (1913). 
The first volume is devoted to the “Apocrypha Proper,” 
(see Paragraph 2 above.) “But this volume (Vol. I) differs 
from the Apocrypha Proper at once in the way of excess and 
the way of defect. III Maccabees has been added after 
II Maccabees since it is contained in many MSS of the LXX, 
and 4 Ezra has been transferred to Vol. II since it is essen- 
tially a Pseudepigraph.” See also Schirerin HJP. For 1 
Mac, Sir, and Wis see also the Comm. in the Cambridge 
Bible Series. A recent volume by Dr. A. F. Findlay may be 
cordially recommended for the study of the N T Apocrypha; 
Byways in Early Christian Literature (1923). For the text 
of the N T Apocrypha consult the editions of Tischendorf- 
and Lipsius; for the Gospel of Peter see the editions of Zahn 
and Swete. J.S. RW. G. J. 


APOLLONIA, ap’’el-l0’ni-a (’ArodAwvia): A city 
of Macedonia, on the celebrated Egnatian way, 30 
rm. W. of Amphipholis and 38 m. E. of Thessalonica 
(Acts 171). Identified by Leake with the modern 
Pollina. 


APOLLOS, a-pel’es (AroAAds, a pet form of 
*Anodrdytos [50 v.]): AJew of Alexandria and ‘a, man 
of culture’ (rather than ‘eloquent,’ RV, or ‘learned,’ 
RVmg.), who came to Ephesus in the interval 
between Paul’s first passing visit and his settlement 
there for some three years (Ac 18 24-28). His special 
type of culture was that known to us in Philo (see 
ALEXANDRIA) and the kindred Bk. of Wisdom (see 
Wispom oF Sotomon). It was in this sense, in par- 
ticular, that ‘he was mighty in the Scriptures’; and 
no doubt it was also along such lines that he ‘had 
been instructed in the way of the Lord’ (ef. 13 12 and 
ver. 26) and come to accept Jesus as the promised 
Christ, according to the witness of ‘the baptism of 
John’ as preparatory to the Messianic ‘Kingdom of 
heaven.’ Up to a certain point, then, he was able to 
teach ‘with accuracy (éxe.86s) the things touching 
Jesus,’ especially as fulfilling Messianic foreshadow- 
ings in the O T. Such a ministry his spiritual fervor 
(Céwy tH avebuact, Ss. Ro 12 11) led him to exercise 
wherever he found himself (imperf. tenses); and now, 
on arrival at Ephesus, ‘he began also to speak freely 
in the synagog.’ 

His teaching, however, lacked something which 
Paul’s co-workers, Priscilla and Aquila, noted and 
took in hand to remedy, ‘setting forth to him with 
fuller accuracy (dxetéortepov) the way of God.’ 
What the lack was can be inferred from the refer- 
ence to ‘the baptism of John’ common to 18 25 and 
the case of ‘certain disciples’ in 191-7. As with them, 
so with him, it was ignorance of the fact that ‘holy 
Spirit,’ or the Divine inspiration that was to mark 
the Messianic Age, was already available for all 
Christians, as in spiritual union with their Head, 
God’s ‘Anointed One’ (‘the Christ’). But while both 
he and they were deficient in knowledge on the 
point, he, unlike them, was not lacking in some ex- 
perience of such ‘holy Spirit’ in his own person (see 
18 25). Accordingly we do not read of Apollos being 
baptized with water, in order to ‘receive holy Spirit’ 
(19 2), but only of his being instructed in Pauline 
fashion as to the meaning and general scope of the 
new grace which he had-himself received through 


57 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Apocrypha 
Ar 





his living feith in Jesus (cf. Ac 1 5, 10 44, and see 
BaprtisM). 

Ere long A. ‘was minded to pass over into Achaia,’ 
or Southern Greece, particularly Corinth (see CorIN- 
THIANS, First Ep, §3). There he did great service 
to those who by God’s grace were already believers 
through Paul’s ministry (I Co 36), for he strenuously 
(eictévus) confuted the Jews, demonstrating in public 
by means of their scriptures ‘that the Christ was 
Jesus’ and none other (Ac 19 27f.). His Alexandrine 
culture and way of putting things caused certain ones 
to set themselves up as ‘Apollos’ men,’ over against 
‘Paul’s men’ (I Co 112). But all such rivalry was 
alien to A., who on his return to Ephesus worked in 
harmony with Paul (I Co 16 12), each according to 
the grace-gift (charisma) which made him a ‘steward 
of God’s mysteries’ (I Co 3 22-4 2, 6, 9: see also APos- 
TLE). And so they remained allies to the end; witness 
Paul’s commendation to Titus (3 13) of A., when on 
his way to some place east of Crete, probably 
Ephesus, apparently in connection with Paul’s trial 
at Rome (see Trrus, Er. To, § 2). 

If A. wrote the Ep. “To Hebrews,’ as is probable, 
we become better able to conceive his Christianity 
and its exact difference in conception from Paul’s; 
possibly even to define that great appeal (xaodxA nots) 
as sent to a Jewish Christian house-church in Ephe- 
sus, soon after Paul’s death at Rome (He 13 22-24: see 
Hesprews, Ep. ro, §§ 4-5, also Hxpositor, VIII, v. 
648 f., and Expos. Times, 1922, Nov.). J. V. B. 


APOLLYON, a-pel’i-en (AroAAtwy): The Greek 
rendering (Rev 9 11) of the Heb. Abaddon (q.v.). 
Unlike the Hebrew, which first designates a place 
(of destruction, Job 26 6, 28 22, etc.), and secondarily 
the personification of that place, the Greek word, by 
its etymology, refers solely to the destroyer. It 
thus represents a fuller development of the concep- 
tion. A. C. Z. 


APOSTLE, a-pes’l (énbotoAos, ‘a commissioned 
one’ or delegate (cf. Jn 1316, He 31], from d&mrootéA Aetv 
‘to send forth’ on a mission, the noun being used in 
Mk 6 30 relative to the verb in 67; cf. Lk 101 (of the 
seventy): A Christian title used originally, like ‘mis- 
sionary,’ ina wide sense. It was given not onlyto the 
twelve chosen ‘disciples’ of Jesus (Mt 10 1-4 and ||), 
who naturally became His chief ‘witnesses’ (Lk 
24 46-48, Ac 18), but also to others ‘all the Apostles,’ 
as distinct from ‘the Twelve’ (I Cor 15 7, 5; see Ro 
167, Andronicus and Junias; II Co 11 13 ‘false Apos- 
tles,’ cf. 5, 12 11). 

There was indeed a tendency in the primitive 
Palestinian Church to confine it to ‘the Twelve,’ as 
symbolic of ‘the twelve tribes of Israel’ (Lk 22 30; 
Re 21 14)—Judas’ place ‘in this ministry and apostle- 
ship’ being at once filled up (Ac 1 20-26). This 
limited usage is seen not only in Ac chs. 1-11 but also 
in the Letter of the Mother Church at Jerusalem and 
in its context (15 23, 2-6, 22), and evenin the “Teaching 
of the Lord through the Twelve Apostles,’ c. 75-100 
A.D. Yet here too the wider use (=an inspired mis- 
sionary) appears, as well as in Ac 14 4, 14, where 
Barnabus and Paul are so styled simply as Divinely 
sent ‘missionaries’ of God and of His Christ (I Co 
12 28; Ro 11; Gal 11, 15-17; Eph 4 11; Ac 915). The 
broad principle of their ‘apostleship’ (cf. I Co 9 5f.), 


parallel to that of the older Apostles, is laid down in 
Gal 27-9; and Paul gives it a yet wider range so as to 
cover all manifestly inspired missionaries, upon 
whose self-authenticating work (I Co 9 2 f., II Co 
12 12) the new Holy People or Church of God was 
actually founded (if ultimately on Jesus Christ him- 
self, I Co 3 11), while its upbuilding was shared by 
‘prophets’ of the N T and other inspired ‘teachers’ 
(Eph 2 20, 3 5, 411; cf. I Co 12 28). 

‘James, the Lord’s brother’ (q.v.) seems to rank 
with the original Jerusalem Apostles, not for any 
missionary work, but as a brother of ‘the Lord’ (Gal 
1 19; cf. I Co 9 5) and witness of His Resurrection 
(I Co 157). This latter qualification for apostleship 
bulked largely in the minds of early Palestinian 
Christians (Ac 1 21 f., 4 33; ef. I Co 157); and it is in 
defense of his own apostleship against certain ‘false 
apostles’ from Judea that Paul himself appeals to 
this test, along with that of work done (I Co 9 1). 
This last was no doubt a test open to abuse (see Rev 
2 2), yet it held good; and on its basis Paul seems in 
I Th 26 to associate Silvanus (and Timothy), and in 
I Co 3 22-49 Apollos, with himself as Apostles (see 
Lightfoot, Galat. 92 f.; Lindsay, The Church and the 
Ministry, 79 f.). 

In IT Co 8 23, Ph 2 25, the Greek word (apostolos) is 
used in its quite general sense, for the commissioner 
or delegate of a church. 

LirERAtuRE: Hort, The Christian Ecclesia, chs. ii. v. x.; Bur- 

ton, Galatians, (ICC) pp. 363-384. 

APOTHECARY. See OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, 
§ 2. 

APPAIM, ap’pa-im (8°38, ’appayim), ‘nostrils’ or 
‘face’: A Judahite (Jerachmeelite) person or clan 
(I Ch 2 30f.). 

APPAREL. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS. 

APPHIA, ap’fi-a (Arofz, a Phrygian name, 
CIG, 2775 b 2782): Greeted (Phm ver. 2) as ‘our 
sister.’ Since this epistle concerns one household ex- 
clusively it is probable that A. was Philemon’s wife, 
and the mother of Archippus. 8 op, ford 


APPIUS (ap’1-us), MARKET OF (’Arzioo Pépov 
Appii Forum AV): A station on the Appian Way, 43 
Rom. m. S. of Rome, at the northern terminus of the 
canal through the Pontine marshes (Ac 28 15). 


APPLE. See PALEsTIngE, § 23. 


APRON. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 1; and 
HANDKERCHIEF. 


AQUILA, ak’wi-la (’Ax6éAa¢): A Jew of Pontus, 
settled in Rome. When Claudius banished the Jews 
from that city in 49 a.p., A. with his wife, Priscilla 
(q.v.), went to Corinth, where they carried on their 
trade of tent-making (Ac 18 1-3). Either through 
earlier associations in Rome or through the in- 
fluence of Paul, who wrought with them at their 
trade A. and P. became Christians. They accom- 
panied the Apostle to Ephesus (Ac 18 18 f.), where, 
during the latter’s absence, they instructed Apollos. 
Their house in Ephesus was used as a Christian 
assembly-place (I Co 1619). They are highly praised 
in Ro 16 3 f. JM. 

AR (Y, ‘ar), ‘city’ (?): A city of Moab, in one of 
the upper valleys of the Arnon (Nu 21 15, 28; Dt 29, 


Ara A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 58 


Aram 





i8, 29; 13 151). The exact site is unknown. The same 
place is referred to in Jos 139, 16; IIS 245. 


ARA, é’ra (88, ’dra@’): A descendant of Asher 
(I Ch 7 38). 


ARAB, ar’ab or é’rab (2°78, ’drdbh): A town of 
Judah (Jos 15 52), to which Paarai the Arbite (II 8 
23 35) probably belonged. Map II, E3. 


ARAB (24%, ‘drdbh); ARABIA, ARABIANS: 1, 
Introductory. The use of these names in the O T and 
the Hebrew knowledge of the land and its people 
must be carefully distinguished. Middle and north- 
ern Arabia and the life of its populations were prac- 
tically the same for the Hebrews as they had been 
from time immemorial and are still. Its steppes, 
deserts, and oases were inhabited by nomads in the 
steppes, semi-nomads around the smaller oases, and 
settled townsfolk in the larger oases, all keeping up 
relations with the nomads. Thus, the life there, at 
the present day, gives us a sufficiently exact idea of 
their life as the Hebrews knew it. It is possible that 
desert routes may have then been practicable for 
large caravans or even armies which now can be 
traversed only by small companies. This is part of 
the gradual drying up of the country, for which see 
Elisworth Huntington’s Palestine and its Trans- 
formation. The best descriptions are in Doughty’s 
Arabia Deserta, but Hogarth’s Penetration of Arabia 
may also be used, especially for its elaborate bibliog- 
raphy of exploration. 

2. Arabia the Original Home of the Semites. Ex- 
cept for the remotest prehistoric times, it is safe to 
start with the position that Arabia was the original 
home of the Semites. From it all the Semitic peoples 
of Asia have gone out in successive waves, driven by 
an economic law. The population of Arabia is 
always on the edge of starvation, just larger than 
what the land can support. In consequence, there is 
a steady overflowing on its borders; nomads pass 
over gradually into agriculturists; Bedawtn into 
Fellahin. The picture in the prolog to Job is of a 
tribe half-way through this process. But further, 
from time to time, the pressure becomes so great that 
Arabia pours out its thousands in a conquering army 
over the neighboring lands. The early conquests of 
Islam are one case in point; those of the Hebrews are 
another; there must have been many more. 

3. The Hebrews Essentially Arabians. We have, 


then, to consider the Hebrews as an Arab clan that | 


abandoned its original nomadic life, seized rich 
lands, and turned more or less to a settled, agricul- 
tural existence. Yet this was not complete, and a 
yearning back to the nomadic ideal is always 
evident (cf. RecHasires). Nomad and farmer are a 
frequent contrast in the O T, and now one, now the 
other is given preference, according to the writer. 
A knowledge, therefore, of Arabian institutions and 
literature and of the Arab religion and mind is of the 
first importance as a guide to the genius of the 
Hebrews. All the forms of Hebrew literature, except 
the psalm, can be paralleled and illustrated from 
Arabic literature, and all the manifestations of 
Hebrew religion have kindred appearances in the 
desert. There can be best found that common 


Semitic soil of ideas and emotions from which the 
unique religion of the Hebrews rose. 

4, References to Arab Peoples in the Bible. The 
oldest views of the Hebrews on the Arab tribes are 
given in Gn 10 (cf. EranoGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, 
§ 11). 
Ishmaelites, Midianites, Kedarites (q.v.). For the 
south Arabians, now becoming important for the 
earliest history and most primitive religion, see 
SaBEAN. Only comparatively late does the name 
Arab appear. Yet the evidence is that the Arabs 
called themselves so from remote antiquity, and 
that they knew no derivation for the name. The 
Hebrews, on the other hand, connected it with the 


word ‘drabhah, a dry, sterile tract, and spoke of an ~ 


‘Arabhi, the inhabitant of such a tract, a nomad (Is 
13 20; Jer 3 2). Whether this is the true derivation of 
the name, preserved by the Hebrews, but lost by the 
Arabs, we can not tell. ‘Arabhah does not seem to 
exist in old Arabic. In Is 21 13 the title is probably 
incorrect, and in the oracle should be read, ‘in the 
steppe’ or ‘in the evening.’ In Ezk 27 21 the Arabs 
(‘drdbh, a collective) are a separate people besides 
the Kedarites; the name is not general. In Jer 25 24 
we have, ‘all the kings of the Arabs (‘drabh),’ evi- 
dently now in a broad racial sense. The same usage 
is firmly established in II Ch (9 14, 17 11, 21 16, 221, 
26 7), and the Chronicler throws it back unhistori- 
cally into earlier times, e.g., of Solomon (9 14) and 
Jehoshaphat (17 11). For him, ‘Ardabhi is clearly an 


| Arab, and he reckons them with the Philistines as 


neighboring enemies of Israel; once (21 16) also with 
the Cushites (Ethiopians). More historical is the 
similar use of the term in Neh 2 19, 41, 61. Appar- 
ently the slow appearance of Arab, as a name in the 
O T, reflects the gradual movement of Arabian 
tribes northward (which has often occurred), dis- 
placing the Ishmaelites, Midianites, etc., whom the 
Israelites had previously known. So a new general 
name for these strangers came into use. Cf. especial- 
ly Néldeke, Arabia, Arabians, in HB. ‘There are 
traces of Arabic forms in the inscription of Mesha 
(q.v.) which show that Moabite so far as it varied 
from Hebrew inclined to Arabic. In Ac 211 ‘Arabians’ 
means, probably, Nabatzans, and for Paul (Gal 1 
17, 4 25), Arabia was the country of the Nabateans 
including the Sinaitic peninsula. 
Literature: Doughty, Arabia Deserta, 2 vols., 1888, and later 
editions; Hogarth, Penetration of Arabia, 1904; Musil, Arabia 


Petrea and Kusejr ‘Amra; Néldeke, in EB; Handbook of 
Arabia, London, 1920 (British Government Publication). 
D. B. M. 


ARABAH, ar’a-ba (12°7Y, ‘drabhah): In its 
broadest sense, that portion of Palestine extending 
S. from the Sea of Galilee to the Red Sea, or more 
accurately to the Gulf of Akabah (Dt 11, 317; II K 
25 4; Jos 3 16; 11 2, 12 3), and embracing within it the 
Dead Sea, which is sometimes called the ‘sea of the 
Arabah’ (Dt 4 49). The Hebrew name is usually 
translated in the AV by ‘plain’ or ‘wilderness,’ but in 
the RV it is treated, more correctly, as a proper 
name; the article frequently accompanies it in the 
original. The modern Arabs give two names to this 
deep depression; that portion N. of the Dead Sea 
they call el-Ghér, ‘the depression,’ while that S. of 
the Dead Sea and extending to the Red Sea, they 


Later, they speak of them separately, as. 











59 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ara 
Aram 





designate as Wddy el’-Arabah (Dt 28). Both por- 
tions are intensely arid and hot. More than two- 
thirds of the whole stretch lies below the level of the 
Mediterranean Sea. The highest point is the ridge 
about opposite Petra known as er-Rishy, whose alti- 
tude above sea-level is 723 ft. (Hull). Almost the 
entire valley is bounded on both E. and W. by high 
mountains which on the average are not more than 
10 m. apart. The southern portion is included in the 
wilderness of Zin (Nu 34 3). Geologically, it is 
especially interesting because the terraces are filled 
with fossil shells which afford traces of the former 
height of the waters of the Dead Sea. Altho barren 
now, the whole valley, being composed of marl, sand, 
and gravel, might become by means of proper irriga- 
tion a veritable garden of rich productivity. See also 
CHAMPAIGN (Dt 11 30 AV). 


ARABIA, ARABIANS, see Arab. 


ARAD, @’rad (T]¥, ‘a4 ddh): I. A town in the 
Negeb or ‘South’ region, about 17 m. S. of Hebron. 
Its king fought against the Israelites when they were 
on the southern borders of Palestine (Nu 211, 33 40). 
It was afterward occupied by the Kenites (Jg 1 16; 
ef. Jos 1214). Map II, E 4. II. A name in the gen- 
ealogy of Benjamin (I Ch 8 15). 


ARAH, é’ra (M18, ’Grah), ‘traveler’: 1. One of the 
sons of Ulla, an Asherite (I Ch 7 39). 2. A clan or 
family name in the list of Ezr 25=Neh 7 10. 


ARAM, @’rem (88, ’draém): I. 1. Name. Aram, 
from which our words Aramean and Aramaic are 
derived, is the Hebrew name of a people and of a 
country usually translated ‘Syrian’ and ‘Syria’ in the 
English versions. The original, however, is retained 
as the name of an ancestor in Gn 10 22, 22 21, who is 
reckoned as one of the sons of Shem. It appears also 
as the name of the country in a few passages. ‘Aram- 
itess’ is used as equivalent to an Aramean or Syrian 
woman (I Ch 714). The adjective ‘Syrian’ (‘Syriack,’ 
AV, or ‘Aramaic,’ RVmg.) is employed to express the 
language of the Arameans (see ARAMAIC LANGUAGE). 

2. Historical Development. The Arameans were 
originally a nomadic people who found their way 
northward along the Euphrates river about the 
middle of the second millenium s. c. Their earliest 
settlements were east of the Euphrates with Haran 
as their chief city. Abraham was probably one of the 
forerunners of this migration, altho he is not specific- 
ally called an Aramean. But Isaac and Jacob are 
both sent to Paddan-aram (Gn 25 20, 28 2) to take 
wives from among their kindred. This name, used 
only in P, seems to be the exact name of the town to 
which they went, while Haran includes the entire 
district. (Kraeling, Aram and Israel, p. 24). The 
Israelites were taught to say in their ritual, ‘A wan- 
dering Aramean was my father’ (Dt 26 5, RVmg.). 
After the breaking up of the Hittite power in Syria in 
the 13th century the Arameans, while still retaining 
their territory east of the Euphrates, pushed west- 
ward and southward as far as Hamath and Damas- 
cus, which became their principal capitals west of the 
river. This was about the time that the Israelites 
were entering Palestine, but both peoples were too 
busy in establishing themselves to have much con- 


tact with each other until the time of the Hebrew 
monarchy. 

3. Influence. The Arameans were early interested 
in trade and with the increasing development of 
wealth and industry in all this section they took an 
increasing part in commerce. From the ninth cen- 
tury onward they were the chief traveling merchants 
and dealers of western Asia. In the eighth century 
they are found doing business in Babylonia and 
Assyria. Their language thus naturally became the 
medium of intercourse for the great empires and the 
lesser peoples of all this region. But the Arameans 


_were always broken up into a number of small king- 


doms, and were never strong enough to maintain 
their independence when attacked by the great pow- 
ers. In Jer 35 11 the army of Nebuchadrezzar is 
said to be made up of Chaldeans and Arameans. 

4. Political Subdivisions. (1) Mesopotamia is 
used in EVV of the O T (Gn 24 10, etc.) to translate 
’Aram-Nahdraim. It designates in a general way 
the country to the E of the middle Euphrates at least 
as far as the river Habor (The modern Khabour). 
Naharaim was formerly supposed to mean ‘the two 
rivers’; but scholars now explain it as ‘the river 
country.’ This is the region connected with the 
patriarchs in Genesis, of which Haran was the chief 
center until after the Christian era. After the 
patriarchal period we read that Balaam, the seer, 
came from ‘Aram’ (Nu 23 7; cf. 22 5), and not long 
thereafter ‘Cushan-rishathaim,’ King of Mesopota- 
mia, invaded the newly formed Hebrew community 
in Palestine (Jg 3 8 f#f.). According to II S 10 16 
‘Syrians from beyond the River’ came to the help 
of their kindred who were involved with the Ammon- 
ites in their war against David, and with them suf- 
fered defeat at his hands. 

Among the Greeks and Romans the word stood 
for the whole territory lying ‘between the rivers’ 
Euphrates and Tigris, 8. of the Masius range of 
mountains and N. of the Syro-Arabian desert proper. 
This great region, however, is not designated by 
this or any other single name in the Bible (except 
perhapsin Ac 29). Itis through the influence of the 
LXX that the term came to be used in the versions 
for the more limited area as above described instead 
of Mesopotamia in the larger sense. See the ar- 
ticles under that name in HDB, EB, and EBrit. 

(2) Syria and Syrian. ‘Syria’ in the O T translates 
’Aram except in the case of ’Aram-Nahdraim and 
may be said to comprehend all the Aramean settle- 
ments and their inhabitants W. of the Euphrates 
above described. ‘The name Syria was coextensive 
with the empire of the Seleucide, formed after the 
death of Alexander the Great, and in N T denotes 
the surviving portion of it which had its capital in 
Antioch, and Damascus as its second great city, and 
which in 65 B.c. was made a Roman province. See 
SYRIA. 

(3) Damascus was the most important of the 
Aramean cities West of the Euphrates, and after the 
time of David was for two centuries the head of a 
strong kingdom which absorbed the other cities and 
districts in Syria. For an account of the relations 
of Israel with this kingdom see DAMASCUS. 

(4) Hamath formed the boundary of Palestine 


Aram 
Aramaic Language 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 60 





and Israel to the N. (Nu 348; I K 8 65; II K 14 25; 
Ezk 47 16; Am 614). In the 10th cent. B.c. it was 
an Aramean kingdom whose ruler Tou, altho not 
joining in the league against Israel, became tribu- 
tary to David (11S 89 .; cf. 1 Ch 189). See Ha- 
MATH. 

(5) Geshur. A district lying close to Bashan (Dt 
3 14) which was not subdued by Israel (Jos 13 13), 
but at one time took possession of some Israelitic 
territory of northern Gilead (I Ch 2 23). Absalom, 
whose mother, Maacah, was the daughter of Talmat, 
King of Geshur, fled thither after the murder of Am- 
non (IIS 13 37). The reference in II S 15 8 shows it 
to have been Aramean. 

(6) Maacah was close to Geshur, E. of the Sea of 
Galilee, and equally independent of Israel (Dt 3 14; 
Jos 13 13). The Aramean origin of its people is in- 
dicated by their descent from Nahor (Gn 22 24). 
They joined the other Arameans of the neighborhood 
in assisting the Ammonites against David and shared 
in their defeat (II S 10 6-8). 

(7) Rehob or Beth-rehob, to be distinguished 
from the city of the same name W. of the Jordan 
which lay ‘toward Hamath’ (Nu 13 21). It was the 
farthest east of the small Aramean kingdoms, was 
closely connected with Zobah and sent a contingent 
to join the Ammonites in their war against David 
(II S 10 6-3). 

(8) Tob was an Aramean district, to which Jeph- 
thah fled for refuge (Jg 11 3-5). In IIS 10 6-8, 
read Ishtob as the name of the king of Maacah in- 
stead of ‘the men of Tob.’ See commentaries of 
Budde and Nowack, and Kraeling, Aram, p. 42. 

(9) Zobah, the most important of the southern 
Aramean settlements after Damascus. Already in 
the time of King Saul it was pressing upon the peo- 
ple of Gilead, as we may infer fromIS 1447, Inthe 
time of David it took the lead of the Arameans in 
endeavoring to prevent the extension of his domin- 
ion. The next year after the defeat of the Aramean 
and Ammonite allies (see above), and while Rab- 
bath-Ammon was not yet captured, Hadadezer, 
King of Zobah, sent for reenforcements and defied 
the advance of David, who, however, utterly de- 
feated the combination, cf. the total number in 
I Chr. 197. The result was the submission of all 
the Arameans of S. Syria (IIS 8 3 #.). 


LireraTuRE: Schiffer, Aramder (1911); Kraeling, Aram and 
Israel (1918). E.C..L 


II. 1. A son of Kemuel, son of Nahor (Gn 29 a1). 
See I. §1. 2. A descendant of Asher (I Ch 7 34). 3. 
For Mt 13 f. and Lk 3 33 (AV) see Ram. 


ARAMAIC LANGUAGE: 1. Where Spoken. 
The following parts of the O T are written in Ara- 
maic: Gn 31 47 (the words Y°*gar sahddhutha); Jer 
10 11; Ezr 4 8- 6 18, 7 12-26; Dn 2 4b-7 28: there are also 
several Aramaic words cited in the N T. Aramaic 
was a branch of the Semitic languages, cognate with 
Hebrew, which, in several closely allied dialects, was 
spoken formerly in the countries surrounding Pales- 
tine, and ultimately also in Palestine itself. The 
name Aramaic is given to this group of dialects be- 
cause ‘Aram’—commonly rendered in both AV and 
RV ‘Syria’ or ‘Syrians’ (II S 8 5, etc.) —was the name 
of the people, spread over different localities (as 


‘Aram of Damascus,’ ‘Aram of Zobah,’ etc., II S 
8 5, 10 8) by whom it was spoken. © 

2. Relationship with Hebrew. Looking at Ara- 
maic in general, its relationship with Hebrew is such 
that a person conversant with one can at once see 
that the other is allied; but at the same time there 
are differences: altho most of the roots and gram- 
matical forms have evidently a common origin, the 
roots (or derivatives) in use in one are often not in 
use in the other, and there are differences sometimes 
in the consonants, and frequently in the vowels. 
Thus ‘he wrote’ is, in Hebrew, kathabh, in Aramaic, 
kethabh; ‘I wrote’ is, in Heb., kathabhtt; in Aram., 
kithbéth, or (in other dialects) kethbéth or k*thabhith; 
‘he made to write’ is, in Heb., hikhttbh; in Aram., 
hakhiébh or akhtébh; ‘IT’ is, Heb., ’dnz, in Aram., 
*anad; the masc. plur. ends in Heb. in -%m, in Aram. 
in -in; Heb. 6 often corresponds to Aram. @, as Heb. 
lo’, ‘not’—Aram. la’ Heb. kéthébh, ‘writing’—Aram. 
kathébh, Heb. tbh, ‘good’—Aram. tabh; in Heb. a 
noun is made definite by the article being prefixed, as 
Oth, ‘sign,’ hd-’dth, ‘the sign,’ but in Aram. by -@’ 
affixed, as ’ath, ‘sign,’ ’atha@’, ‘the sign’ (cf.in the N T 
Abba, Beth-esda, Gabbatha, Golgotha, Tabitha, 
talitha): in certain cases, also, consonants are 
changed, thus ‘gold’ is in Heb. zadhabh, in Aram. 
dehabh; ‘three’ is in Heb. shdldsh, in Aram. tlath; 
Heb. x in certain cases corresponds to the Aram. y 
(as YS, ‘earth’ = Aram. Y738); and in certain other 
cases to Aram. » (as Y¥3, ‘he counseled’ =Aram. 
bY’); many words, again, correspond in the two 
languages, but there are some which are in common 
use in Aramaic but are rare (usually either poetical 
or late) in Heb.: thus ‘to go down’ is yaradh in Heb. 
but n@héth in Aram. (only in a few poetical passages 
in Heb.), ‘to go up’ is ‘alah in Heb., s*léq in Aram. 
(only Ps 1399 in Heb.), ‘to forsake’ is ‘azabh in Heb., 
sh*bhaqin Aram. (andsoin ‘sabhach-ihani’ Mt 27 46= 
Mk 15 34), ‘lord’ is ’G@dh6n in Heb., but maré’ in Aram. 
(cf. I Co 16 22, ‘Marana-tha,’ ‘Our Lord, come!’). 

3. Different Dialects of Aramaic. The following 
are the principal types of Aramaic known: (1) The 
Aramaic found on weights, and in short inscriptions 
attached to contract-tablets, from Nineveh, and 
afterward from Babylon, from the reign of Sargon 
(722-705 B.c.) onward. 

(2) The Aramaic of inscriptions found at 
Zinjirli and Nerab, in N. Syria near Aleppo—two 
of the former dating from the reign of Tiglath-pileser 
III (745-727 B.c.), and one being somewhat earlier. 

(3) The Aramaic spoken by settlers in Egypt, 
found chiefly on papyri of the 5th cent. B.c.; the 
oldest actual date is the 27th yr. of Darius I (=495 
B.c.). Some of those at present known are marriage- 
contracts (between Jews), containing descriptions of 
house-property, etc.; others are various business 
contracts and accounts, legal documents, political 
complaints and petitions, a translation of part of the 
Behistun Inscription, a translation of ‘words of 
Ahiqar’ from the well-known Romance of that Sage— 
all these from the Jewish colonies at Syene and Ele- 
phantine. An interesting inscription from Téma (in 
N. Arabia, about 250 m. SE. of Edom) presents the 
same type of dialect. Aramaic inscriptions—as far 
as they go, of the same type—from Cappadocia, and 





61 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Aram 
Aramaic Language 





(on coins) from Tarsus in Cilicia (c. 350 B.c.) are also 
known. 

(4) Biblical Aramaic (see below). 

(5) Nabatean inscriptions (chiefly sepulchral). 
Mainly from el-‘Old, about 80 m. 8. of 7’éma, and da- 
ting from the reign of NNN (7.e., Aretas, II Co 11 
32), 9 B.c. to 60 a.p., and onward, till the overthrow 
of the Nabatzan kingdom by Trajan, 105 a.p. These 
inscriptions have a considerable mixture of Arabic 
idioms. 

(6) Inscriptions from Palmyra, 150 m. NE of 
Damascus, in an oasis in the Syrian desert, dating 
from about the Christian era to 270 a.p. Many of 
these are inscriptions on statues erected in honor 
of different magistrates, etc.; others are votive in- 
scriptions; a particularly valuable one is a long 
tariff, regulating the tolls payable on various kinds 
of goods brought into Palmyra. 

(7) Syriac, spoken in and about Edessa, 100 m. 
NE. of Aleppo in W. Mesopotamia, the home of 
Laban, the ‘Syrian’ (Heb. the ‘Aramean’). In this 
are written the Syriac version of the Gospels com- 
monly called the Curetonian or the Sinaitic (c. 200 
a.D.), the Peshitto version of O T and N T, and an 
extensive Christian literature besides (3d cent. 
A.D. onward). 

(8) The Targums (Aramaic ‘interpretations,’ or 
paraphrases, of the O T) of Onkelos on the Penta- 
teuch, and of Jonathan on the Prophets, of Judean 
origin, but in their present form redacted in Baby- 
lonia in the 5th cent. a.p., and (according to Ndél- 
deke, tho doubted by Dalman) considerably 
tinged by the Aramaic dialect spoken by the Jews in 
Babylon. 

(9) Galilean Aramaic, preserved chiefly in the 
Aramaic parts of the Palestinian Talmud—some 
dating from as early as the 8d and 4th cent. a.p. This 
must have been the dialect spoken by Christ and the 
Apostles. 

(10) The Christian Palestinian Aramaic, spoken 
in Palestine in the 5th and 6th cent. a.p., and pre- 
served in a lectionary of the Gospels, and also in va- 
rious fragments, chiefly Biblical. 

(11) Samaritan. The Samaritan version of the 
Pentateuch, liturgies, etc., dating probably from the 
4th and following centuries after Christ. No. 10 has 
many resemblances with No. 9; and No. 11 has some 
(cf. the synopsis in Dalman Gramm.?, pp. 44-51). 

(12) Babylonian Aramaic. The Aramaic dialect 
spoken in Babylonia in the 4th to the 6th cent. a.p. 
preserved in the Babylonian Talmud. 

(13) ‘Mandaic,’ the language of the strange 
Gnostic sect of Mandzans (from Manda, ‘knowl- 
edge’ =yyvéerc), half Jewish, half heathen, living in 
lower Babylonia. Closely allied to No. 12. 

(14) The Targums on the Hagiographa, and the 
so-called ‘Jerusalem’ Targums on the Pentateuch. 
Of later date than No. 8 (c. 5th-8th cent. a.p., or 
later). The language is in the main that of No. 8 
but it exhibits some of the distinctive features of 
Nos. 9 and 10 (see Dalman Gramm .?, pp. 395 ff.). 

Of these dialects, Nos. 7, 12, 13 are generally 
grouped as Hastern Aramaic, and are distinguished 
from the others, or Western Aramaic, in particular 
by the prefix of the 3d pers. masc. impf. being n 


(in Nos. 12 and 13 also sometimes lJ) instead of y. 
The dialects all resemble one another, several of 
them have scripts, representing particular phases in 
the development of the Aramaic alphabet, peculiar 
to themselves; they differ also, to some extent, in 
vocabulary and grammatical forms. Thus, in ad- 
dition to the difference just noted, in Nos. 1, 2, 3 
the relative and demonstrative pronouns are 27, 
z¢nah, not, asin the others, di, d¢ndh: the pron. suffix of 
the 3d pers. plur. is in Nos. 2, 3, 5, and Jer 10 11 
-om, in Nos. 4 (Daniel) and 6, -dn (Ezr has both 
forms). No. 2 resembles Hebrew in certain fea- 


tures more than any of the other dialects do (e.g., 


‘to sit’ is y’shébh, not y*thébh, cf. Heb. yashabh). The 
Biblical Aramaic belongs to the West Aramaic 
group, of the type spoken in and about Palestine 
(the relative, for instance, is di, not 27, asin Babylon 
down to at least 400 8.c.): it is very similar to that of 
No. 8, tho in some respects of an earlier type; it has » 
also (in particular forms) notable affinities with Nos. 
3, 5,6. It was formerly called ‘Chaldee,’ from the 
mistaken idea that the language of Dn 2 4 ff. was that 
actually spoken by the ‘Chaldeans’ in Babylon. 
The verse Jer 10 11 has some peculiarities showing 
that its author must have spoken a particular 
Aramaic dialect (cf. Driver, LOT, p. 255; SPOS 
also occurs in Egyptian Aramaic, side by side with 
RYN), 

4. Use of Aramaic in Palestine. Aramaic was 
formerly used largely as the language of commerce 
and diplomacy, as is shown by ITI K 18 26 (701 B.c.), 
by some of the Aramaic inscriptions on coins and 
weights, and some of those from Egypt. How 
prevalent it was in the countries around Palestine 
will be apparent from the preceding enumeration 
of dialects. It is not, therefore, surprizing that it 
gradually made its influence felt upon Hebrew. 
Aramaic words appear occasionally in Heb. written 
c. 600 B.c.; in Heb. writings dating from the cap- 
tivity and later Aramaic words and constructions 
become increasingly frequent: there are many 
Aramaic words, for instance, in Job, the later 
Psalms, Jonah, Esther, the Heb. parts of Daniel; 
Aramaic words, and sometimes also Aramaic con- 
structions, are marked in Chronicles, Ezr, and Neb, 
and especially in Ec. In the end, Aramaic sup- 
planted Hebrew altogether as the popular language 
in Palestine; and so nearly all the Semitic words 
quoted in the N T are distinctively Aramaic (e.g., 
Akeldama, Maranatha, and the forms in -4 cited 
above). Of course, the old view that the Jews for- 
got their Hebrew in Babylonia, and spoke in ‘Chal- 
dee,’ when they returned to Palestine, must be en- 
tirely given up: the ‘Chaldee’ (Aramaic) of Daniel 
was not spoken in Babylonia at all; Hag., Zec. and 
other postexilic writings use Hebrew, which was 
still spoken normally in Jerusalem c. 430 B.c. (Neh 
13 24). The Hebrews, after the captivity, gradually 
acquired the use of Aramaic through intercourse 
with their neighbors in and about Palestine. 

Another error is also to be guarded against. It 
does not follow because a word, otherwise unknown 
in Heb. but common in Aramaic, occurs once or twice 
in Heb., that therefore the passages in which it 
occurs are late: some regard must be had to the 


Aramean 
Argob 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 62 





character of the word, and we must consider, for in- 
stance, whether it occurs in poetry or prose, and 
whether it is isolated or accompanied by other marks 
of a late style. Such a word may, for example, not 
have been borrowed by Heb. from Aramaic at a late 
date, but have formed part of the original stock 
common to both languages, altho in Heb. it may 
have been rare and used only in poetry. There are 
also reasons for thinking that the language of the N. 
kingdom differed dialectically from that of Judah; 


and some Aramaic forms may be due to the fact that- 


the writings in which they are found originated in 
the N. kingdom. This has been supposed to be the 
explanation of the Aramaic expressions in the Song 
of Sol.; but the trend of recent opinion has been to 
attribute them rather to a postexilic date, to which 
indeed, viewed in the aggregate, they certainly seem 


to point. 
Lirprature: Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsem. Epigra- 
phik (1898); Cooke, North-Semitic Inscriptions (1903); 


Sayce and Cowley, Aram. Papyri from Egypt (1906); Cowley, 
Aram. Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C.(1923); Cowley, Jewish 
Documents of the Time of Ezra (1919); Kautzsch, Gramm. des 
Bibl.-Aram. (1884); Dalman Gramm, des Jiidisch-Pal. Aram- 
disch (ed. 2, 1903), with full introd. on the different types of 
Jewish Aramaic; Néldeke, Manddische Gramm., 1875 (im- 
portant for its philol. notes), Syrische Gramm. (translated, 
1904), and art. Aramaic Language in HB; Levias, Gramm. of 
the Aram. of the Bab. Talmud (1900); Wright, Comparative 
Grammar of the Semitic Languages (1890). The first four of 
these books contain numerous examples of Aramaic inscrip- 
tions and papyri, illustrative of on Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6. 


D.*—D. B. M. 
ARAMEAN. See Syria, SYRIAN. 


ARAMITESS, @’ram-ai’’tes: An Aramean woman 


(I Ch 714). See Aram, § 1. 


ARAM-MAACAH, é’ram-mi@’s-ka, NAHARAIM, 
né”hs-ré/im, REHOB, ri’/heb, and ZOBAH, 26’ba: 
See ARAM, § 4. 


ARAN, é’ron (I78, ’dran, ‘wild goat’ (?): A 
Horite Clan (Gn 36 28; I Ch 1 42). 


ARARAT, ar’a-rat (O118, ’drdrat): A district lo- 
cated in E.Armenia, between Lakes Van and Urumia 
and the River Araxes. Thither the sons of Sen- 
nacherib fled after killing their father (II K 19 37; Is 
37 38; Armenia AV). In Jer 51 27 it occurs as the 
name of a ‘kingdom’ along with those of the Minni 
and Ashkenaz, all of whom, are summoned by the 
prophet to fight against Babylon. The Assyrian 
inscriptions, from the 9th cent. B.c. forward, fre- 
quently mention the land of Urartu, or Ararat. The 
altitude of this region above the level of the Medi- 
terranean Sea is between 6,000 and 7,000 ft. Jerome 
describes it as ‘a level region,’ and ‘of incredible fer- 
tility. Noah’s ark is said to have rested on ‘the 
mountains of Ararat’ (Gn 8 4); the reference being 
probably to a mountain range, rather than to any 
particular peak. In the Babylonian account of the 
Deluge also the impression is given that the moun- 
tain (range) of Nisir stopped the ship. It is barely 
possible that the double-peaked mountain, whose 
altitude is 17,260 and 13,000 ft., respectively, and 
which is situated about half-way between the Black 
and Caspian seas, may have been in the writer’s 
mind. G. L. R. 


ARAITE, ar’e-raito. See Haraniri. 





ARAUNAGH, a-ré’na (79)18, ’drawndh): The Jeb- 
usite from whom David purchased the threshing- 
floor over which the destroying angel seemed to be 
stationed (II § 24 16 #.; I Ch 21 15 ff.; ef. II Ch 31). 
Called Ornan in I Ch 2115 f. 

ARBA, Gr’bo (Y38, ’arba‘), ‘four’: Only in con- 
nection with Hebron as the ‘city of Arba.’ The 
legendary ancestor of the Anakim near Hebron (Jos 
14 15, 15 13, 21 11). See also ANAK and Hmsron. 


ARBATHITE, Gr’bath-ait (OQ7¥, ‘arbhathi): 


| A man of Beth-arabah (IIS 23 31; I Ch 11 32). 


ARBITE, Gr’bait (378, ’arbd7): A man of Arab 
(II S 23 35). See AraB (278). 

ARCHANGEL. See ANGEL, ANGELOLOGY, § 4. 

ARCHELAUS, Gr’’k1-lé’us. See Hmrop, § 4. 


ARCHEOLOGY. See ExcavaTION AND EXPLORA- 
TION; and IsraEL, SoctaL DEVELOPMENT OF. 


ARCHER. See WarrFarge, § 4. 
ARCHES. See Tremptp, § 19. 


ARCHEVITE, Gr’ki-vait, ARCHI, Gr’kai, AR- 
CHITE, Gr’kait (1218, ’arkewdyé): Only in Ezr 49 
and of uncertain meaning. Possibly a mistake in 
the text for Cuthites (cf. II K 17 24). Generally ta- 


ken as meaning people from Erech (q.v.) in Baby- 
lonia. E. BE. N. 


ARCHIPPUS, ar-kip’us ("“Apyixmroc): A member 
of the household of Philemon, possibly his son (Col. 
4 17; Phm ver. 2). Tho evidently a young man, 
he held an important office in the church of Colosse. 
Paul calls him his ‘fellow-soldier’ (Phm ver. 2; cf. 
Ph 2 25; II Ti 23). He may have shared with him 
in some arduous labor for the Gospel. 

R. A. F.—E. CLI. 


ARCHITECTURE: The practical art of building 
in Palestine was mainly evolved from a single type, 
the rectangular, flat-roofed house of stone or brick. 

The common nomadic tent of skins or stuffs 
exerted no discernible influence upon structural 
forms, and the use of wood was confined to small 
internal details or fittings. The house-type was de- 
veloped into the dwelling or domestic house, the 
palace or royal house, the temple or House of God, 
the synagog or house of religious assembly, the tower 
or fortress, the granary or storehouse, and the tomb 
or house of the dead. Aggregations of houses in 
towns were regularly encircled by protecting walls, 
having gateways for communication and towers for 
defense. A city like Jerusalem might contain spec- 
ial structures for communication, like stairways or 
bridges, and in connection with pools or reservoirs 
and in the Temple area porticos or colonades were 
built. It seems likely that in the artistic treatment 
of all these types of building there was almost noth- 
ing original to Palestine. In cases where consider- 
able elaboration may be inferred, it was doubtless 
an imitation of Phenician, Egyptian, or Greek 
styles. 

The typical house-plan was introverted, i.e., the 
exterior was normally barren, broken only by the 
gateway, while all rooms opened inward upon a 
central court. In the palaces of Jerusalem and 
Samaria there was some use of halls whose roofs 


63 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Aramean 
Argob 





were supported by columns. In these buildings 
precious materials like ivory, gold, silver, and brass 
and imported woods, like cedar, were used. To 
columns and walls color and carving were somewhat 
applied. The successive Temples were undoubtedly 
devised with an eye to beauty and impressiveness. 
But aside from very general accounts (asin I K ch. 6; 
II Ch ch. 3; Ezk chs. 40-44) and some scattered ref- 
erences to details, we have but meager data for form- 
ing an architectural conception. Remains of syna- 
gogs are found in Galilee, showing a rectangular plan, 
some bases for pillar-supports, and slight carved 
decoration of doorways. Detached tombs are 
found in some places, as a rule constructed upon 
Greek or Roman plans. (See also Crry; Hovuss; 
Patacy; TmmMpie; Synacoa; Townr; and Toms.) 
W.S. P. 

ARCTURUS. See Astronomy, § 4. 

ARD, Grd (18, ’ard): The ancestral head of a 
Benjamite clan, the Ardites (dr’daits). In Gn 46 21 
he is counted as a brother, in Nu 26 40 as a son of 
Bela. InICh8 3 the name is given as Addar. 

EK. E. N. 

ARDON, Gr’den (11778, ’ardén): ‘Son’ of Azu- 
bah, wife of Caleb (I Ch 218). Perhaps a place- or 
clan-name. K. E. N. 

ARELI, 0-ri‘lai CONT, ’ar’élt): Ancestral head 
of a Gadite family (Gn 46 16; Nu 2617). 


AREOPAGUS, é’rl- or ar’1-ep’a-gus_ ("Apetog | 


n&yos), Hill of Ares (Mars): A barren rock, 370 
ft. high, NW. of Athens under the Acropolis, from 
which it is separated by a slight elevation. Sixteen 
steps leading to the top may still be traced. On the 
NE. is a chasm which was the home of the chthonian 
Semnae (Furies). A venerable court, the Council 
of the Areopagus, existed from the earliest dates to 
which were committed certain criminal jurisdiction 
and the oversight of worship and of public morals. 
The members held office for life and were elected from 
the wealthiest and aristocratic families. It per- 
formed for the state the function of a conservative 
Upper House. During the 6th (Solon) and 5th 
centuries its powers were curtailed] but largely re- 
stored at the-close of the Peloponnesian War. By 
the Romans tne council was invested with supreme 
authority and assigned fresh powers. It continued 
in existence till about 400 a.p. Ac 17, 18, 19, 22 may 
be interpreted (1) that Paul was taken by the inter- 
ested philosophers apart from the Agora to the Hill 
of Ares to address the Athenians, or (2) that it was 
before the Council of the Areopagus in the Stoa 
Bosileios in the Agora that he appeared, either 
for a preliminary inquiry (ropodmast«) so E. Cur- 
tius ((Gesam. Abh. IT 527-43), or for the purpose 
of having his qualifications as a teacher in the Uni- 
versity examined by a court which apparently had 
the power to admit foreign lecturers (so Ramsay, 
St. Paul p. 243 ff.). Altho it is difficult to account 
for the change of scene from the Agora to the A. 
(vv. 18-19) and the selection of the hill because of 
its obvious unsuitability for the purpose, the ordi- 
nary view (1) is more probable than that of Curtius 
(for the scene is clearly not one of judicial procedure) 
modified by Ramsay. S. A. 


ARETAS, ar’1-tas (’Apétas, more properly ’Apébac¢ 
transliteration of Aram. NN 1M): The name of a 
number of the Nabatzwan kings (see Aras, § 4). 
1. A ruler (Gr. tépavos) of the Arabians c. 169 
B.c. (II Mac 5 8). 2. A king of the Arabians c. 96 
B.c. (cf. Jos. Ant. XIII, 133). 3. A. ‘the philhellene’ 
c. 85-60 B.c. (Jos. Ant. XIV 51). 4. The King men- 
tioned in II Co 11 32 in connection with the escape 
of Paul from Damascus. His original name was 
Aineas (Jos. Ant. XVI, 9 4). In the inscriptions 
and coins from his reign (cf. CIS, Pars II, Aram. 
Nos. 196-217), he is called ‘Carithath, King of the 
Nabatzans, lover of his people,’ in distinction from 
some of his predecessors who were called ‘lovers of 
the Greeks.’ His reign dates probably from about 
9 B.c. to 40 a.v. (cf. CIS, Pars II, Aram. No. 216). 
There are no Damascene coins extant bearing the 
image or inscription of Roman emperors between 34 
and 62 a.p., so that Damascus may have been ceded 
to A. during the last years of Tiberius’ reign, or, more 
probably, upon the accession of Caigula (87 a.p.). 


This would explain the statement of II Co 11 32 that 


an ethnarch, a ‘governor’ of A. guarded the city to 

prevent Paul’s escape. As A. and Herod Antipas 

were enemies, such an alliance of the former with the 

Jewish priestly party is not unlikely (Jos. Ani. 

XVIII, 51, 3). 

Literature: Consult especially Schirer’s monograph on 
the Nabatzans in his GJYV%, I, 726 f. (Beilage i MT 


ARGOB, ar’geb (2398, ’argdbh): A region in 
Bashan. According to the O T, Argob was a portion 
of the conquered territory of Og, assigned to the 
half tribe of Manasseh (Dt 3 4). In ver. 14 ‘all Ba- 
shan’ is made coextensive with ‘the region of Argob.’ 
Within it were situated ‘60 great cities with walls 
and brazen bars’ (sol K 413; ef. Dt 35). Its western 
border was the land of the Geshurites and the 
Maacathites. Dt 314 (cf. I K 413) makes these 60 
cities identical with Havvoth-jair (tent villages of 
Jair), but this is probably a gloss (cf. Driver and also 
Dillmann, ad loc.). The Targum identifies A. with 
Trachonitis (Tarkéna), the el-Leja, a region 30 m. 
S. of Damascus, and 40 m. E. of Galilee, covered 
with lava from the volcanoes of the Hauran range. 
It rises from 20 to 30 ft. above the level of the sur- 
rounding plain, and its greatest length is 22 m. with 
a maximum breadth of 14m. It contains, in a good 
state of preservation, many remains of towns, built 
of the black basaltic rock. Similar ruins are found 
in the territory to the S. and E. Archeologists are 
agreed in referring all these remains to cities of the 
Greco-Roman period, which may, however, have 
been built upon sites previously occupied by cities 
of the Mosaic age. Viewed from the plain, el-Leja 
looks like a rugged coast, and ‘the region (lit. hebhel; 
boundary-line, Dt 3 4) of Argob’ has been interpreted 
as referring to this rough stretch of rocks. Authori- 
ties are skeptical about this identification. Wetz- 
stein placed A. and the Zumleh range about 15 m. far- 
ther E.; Guthe locates it between Edrei and Nawa, 
E. of Jolan (ZDPYV, 1890, p. 237 f.). Dillmann 
fixed upon the region between Gerasa, Hdrei, and 
Ashtaroth on the W. and Jebel Hauran on the E. 
From the evidence at our disposal, it is probable 


Aridai 
Arms and Armor 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY. 64 





that G. A. Smith’s cautious statement, ‘within 
Bashan lay Argob,’ is all that is justifiable (HG HL 
p. 551). 


LirerRATURE: In addition to works referred to above: Buhl, 
Geographie des alten Paldstina; Ewing, PEFQ, 1895; De 
Vogue, Syrie Centrale; G. A. Smith, Deuteronomy (1918), p. 
47. J. A. K. 


ARIDAI, 0-rid’a-ai ('T8, ’dridhay): 
Haman (Est 9 9). 

ARIDATHA, o-rid’a-fha (SOT TR, 
A son of Haman (Est 9 8). 

ARIEH, é'ri-e (72)8i], ha-aryéh): The statement 


A son of 


(II K 15 25) isnot clear. If Arieh be a man’s name, | 


he was either one of the conspirators against Pek- 
ahiah or one of his servants who fell with him. The 
text is probably corrupt. E. E. N. 

ARIEL, @ri-el (PN, drial), lion of God’: 1. 
A Moabite (II S 23 20). 2. One of Ezra’s leading 
helpers, designated more especially teachers (Ezr 
8 16). 3. A name of Jerusalem (Is 29 1-7). The 
original text here may have read 2878 (altar) 
hearth of God.’ A. C. Z. 

ARIMATHAEA, ar’’1-moa-thi’a (Apiwabale): |The 
home of Joseph, the counselor (Mt 27 57 and ||\s). 
Probably the same as Ramathaim-zophim, or Ra- 
mah (q.v.). E. E. N. 

ARIOCH, ar’i-ek (VS, ’arydkh): 1. King of 
Ellasar who served with Amraphel under the king 
of Elam, in his campaign against Palestine (Gn 14 
1,9). Many have identified him with Warad-Sin, 
king of Larsa in 8. Babylonia, ca. 2200 8B.c., suppos- 
ing this name to be the Semitic equivalent of Hri 
(Sumerian) + Aku (Elamite), ‘Servant of the Moon’; 
but this combination is exceedingly doubtful, and it 
is now known that Warad-Sin was not a contem- 
porary of Hammurabi (Amraphel?), but that his 
brother Rim-Sin was the contemporary of Ham- 
murabi. Rim-Sin can not be interpreted as the 
equivalent of Eri-Aku, nor can it be shown that 
Ellasar is the same as Larsa. F. M. T. Bohl, 
ZATW, XXXVI, 70, suggests that Arioch is an 
Iranian name (cf. Dn. 2 14; Jdt. 1 6), and that 
Ellasar was a district of the Aryan kingdom of 
Mitanni in the thirteenth century B.c. See 
AMRAPHEL} CHEDORLAOMER; and TIDAL. 

2. The captain of the guard of Nebuchadrezzar 
(Dn 2 14f., 25). L.4Bs PR: 

ARISAI, 0-ris’a-ai ("P°8, ’drisay): One of the 
sons of Haman (Est 9 9) 

ARISTARCHUS, ar’is-tar’kus ("Aptotaeyos): One 
of Paul’s traveling companions, a Macedonian 
Christian of Thessalonica (Ac 27 2). He was at- 
tacked by the Ephesian mob (19 29), but escaped 
death, and accompanied Paul to Jerusalem (20 4) 
and probably also to Rome (27 2). Jair. 

ARISTOBULUS, ar’’1s-to-biii/lus (’Aptoté Bo0X0¢): 
1. They ‘who are of the household of Aristobu- 
lus’ are greeted by Paul in Ro 1610. This was 
perhaps the grandson of Herod the Great, who lived 
and died at Rome and was a friend of the Emperor 
Claudius. If the members of his ‘household’ be- 
came the property of the emperor, they might still 
bear the name of their former master. Among them 





were the Christians whom Paul remembers. This 
is substantially the explanation of Lightfoot. 2. 
The famous Jewish philosopher and teacher of Ptol- 
emy Philometor (181-146 B.c.) mentioned in II 
Mac 1 10). J.-S. R. 


ARK, ark (]398, drén), ‘chest? or ‘box.’ The Ark 
of the Covenant was an oblong box of acacia-wood, 


} two and one-half cubits long by one and one-half 
aridhath@ ): 


deep and wide, overlaid with gold, with a rim or 
molding around the top. ‘There were golden rings at 
each corner for the staves that were used for carry- 
ing it. Covering its lid, there was a solid gold plate, 
called the Mercy-seat, with two cherubim of gold at 
each end (Ex 25 10-22). 
ark are significant. It was termed the ‘Ark of the 
Covenant of Jehovah’ (Dt 10 8), and the ‘Ark of 
the Testimony’ (Ex 25 22), because it contained the 
two tables of stone on which were engraved the 
words constituting the basis of the covenant be- 
tween Jehovah and Israel. It led the way through 
the wilderness (Nu 10 33), at the crossing of the Jor- 
dan (Jos ch.3), and in the march around the walls of 
Jericho (Jos ch.6). Joshua tookit to Gilgal and finally 
to Shiloh (Jos 18 1), where we find it in the time of 
Samuel. It was captured in battle by the Philis- 
tines, who were forced to return it (I S 4 1-7 1). 
David removed it from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem 
(IIS ch. 6). Solomon placed it in the Temple (I K 
8 4 f.). Its subsequent history is unknown, unless 
Jer 3 16 ff. implies its presence in Jerusalem in the 
prophet’s day. Shishak may have taken it. Some 
critics interpret the tables of stone as two meteroites 
in which the divinity of Sinai resided and conse- 
quently relics of fetish worship; others regard them 
as aniconic stores used in divination. These sub- 
jective views have no support in the OT. The 
significance of the ark lay in its connection with the 
cherubim (q.v.); they were symbols of the presence 
of Jehovah, so where the ark rested there was a 
manifestation of the God of Israel. Its designations 
‘the throne of God’ (Jer 3 16 ff.), ‘His footstool’ 
(Ps 99 5), and the idea that it could not be looked 
into without danger of death (I S 6 19), all indicate 
that it symbolized the immediate presence of the God 
of Israel. To the popular mind it was a palladium 
(1S chs. 4-7). The view that the ark was the box of 
Jehovah ‘employed by the Israelitish priests as their 
professional organ of divination’ can not be said to 
have been established (W. R. Arnold, Ark and 
Ephod, 1917). Mercy-seat (Heb. Kappéreth)should 
be rendered ‘propitiatory,’ or, more literally, ‘pro- 
pitiating thing.’ Deissmann, in his luminous ar- 
ticle in EB, has proved that simple ‘covering,’ a 
favorite rendering with German writers, is wholly 
inadequate. The LXX. term (acthprov and its 
significance in the ceremonies of the Day of Atone- 
ment (Lv 16) point to it as being an instrument of 
propitiation. ; 

The full description of the ark is confined to P, 
but JE must have had its own account (a fragment 
of which we find in Dt 101 #.) which was omitted 
by R in favor of P. J. A. K. 


ARKITES, ark’aits. See EranoGrapHy AND 
Erunotoey, § 13. 


Some of the names of the ~ 





Aridai 
Arms and Armor 





65 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 
ARMAGEDDON, Gr’’ma-ged’on. See Har-Ma- 

GEDON. 

_ ARMENIA, ar-mi’ni-0. See Ararat. 


ARMLET. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, § II 2. 


ARMONI, ar-m6’nai (298, ’arméni): A son of 
Rizpah, Saul’s concubine, executed by order of David 
to satisfy the vengeance of the Gibeonites (II S 21 8). 
I. OFFENSIVE WEAPONS: 


ARMS AND ARMOR: 
1. The Spear. 
The oldest 
weapon which 
theIsraelites 
brought with 
them into Ca- 
naan from their 
nomadic life 
was the spear 
(hanith, 1S 1810 
f., javelin, AV; 
romah Jg 5 8, 
called lance 
[lancets AV] in 
I K 18 28). It 
consisted of a 
wooden shaft 
(II S 2119, 237) 
with a point of 
bronze—later of 
iron (I § 13 19), which, because of its glitter was 
called lahabh, or lehabhah (‘head,’ literally ‘flame,’ 
1 S 177) or bdrdq (‘glittering,’ literally ‘lightning,’ 
Nah 3 3). The kidhén (javelin, Jos 8 18, target, 
I S 176), which is mentioned nine times in the O T, 
signifies perhaps a smaller type of weapon, which 
probably was used mainly as a projectile, while the 
spear was essentially a thrusting weapon, and main- 
tained its importance even alongside of the sword. 
The dart, shébhet, referred to in II S 18 14, and the 
dart, massa‘, and the pointed shaft, shirydh (haber- 
geon AV), mentioned in Job 41 26, and the ‘weapon,’ 
shelah, Neh 4 17; Ii Ch 382 5, etc., are probably 
varieties of this kind of weapon. 

2. The Sword. The sword (dagger AV, Jg 3 16 
ff.), herebh (from harabh, ‘to be sharp’), most likely 
did not become Israel’s chief weapon until they had 
settled in Palestine. The blade, lahabh (Jg 3 22), 
was perhaps generally of iron (I S 13 19; Is 2 4), 
straight, at times two-edged (Jg 3 16; Pr 5 4), held 
in a sheath, ta‘ar (from ‘ardh, ‘to open out,’ hence 
that which is emptied,’ I S 17 51; II S 20 8; nadhan, 
I Ch 21 27), probably of leather—from which fact 
the terms hérig (‘to make empty,’ Ex 159; Ezk 5 2, 
12) and pathah (‘to open,’ Ezk 21 28) are often used 
for drawing the sword. It was fastened by means of 
a girdle over the coat, and probably, as in the case 
of the Assyrians, on the left side (cf. Ex 32 27;I S 
17 39, 2513). It was used both as a cutting weapon, 
‘to smite with the sword’ (II S 129; ‘to smite with 
the edge of the sword,’ Jg 21 10), and as a thrusting 
weapon, ‘to thrust through with the sword’ (I S 
31 4; ITS 2 16). 

3. The Bow. Along with the sword and spear, 
the bow, gesheth, was from early times the most used 





Hittite War Chariot, Containing Three Soldiers, One of Whom Carries the 
Small Shield. 


weapon. It was made of elastic wood (ef. II 
S 1 22), sometimes of bronze (II S 22 35). There 
were probably different sizes. The small bow was 
strung most likely with the hand (cf. II K 13 16); the 
usual way was to place the foot upon the bow (ef. 
Ps 7 12, ‘he hath bent his bow,’ lit. ‘trodden his bow,’ 
fromiddrakh, ‘to tread’ )—that is to say, one end of the 
bow was placed upon the earth and held fast with the 
foot, while the other was bent down with the hand. 
The bowstring 
was made of the 
intestines of ox- 
en or camels; 
the arrows, 
hitststm, of reed 
or light wood. 
Arrow-heads 
were at first 
probably of 
stone, later of 
bronze and 
iron. They were 
sharpened (cf. 
Is 49 2), also 
poisoned (ef. Ps 
120 4) and pro- 
vided with 
barbs (Job 6 4), 
and in time of 
siege were wound with tow and pitch, and ignited 
(cf. Ps. 713). The quiver,’ashpah (Job 39, 23, etc.), 
or él (Gn 27 3), in which the arrows were kept, 
was carried by the foot-soldier on the back, or at 
the left side; the chariot-warrior had it fastened at 
the side of the chariot. On the march the bow was 
probably carried in a leather covering, which, how- 
ever, enclosed perhaps only the middle portion of 
the bow (cf. Hab 3 9). 


4. The Sling. From earliest times the sling 
gela‘, was used by the Israelites, not only in warfare 
(II Ch 26 14; cf. Jg 20 16), but also as a weapon of the 
shepherd (I S 17 40) and of the hunter (Job 41 28), as 
was the case with the Assyrians, Egyptians, and Per- 
sians. It consisted of a leather thong, or was woven 
from rushes, or hair, or the sinews of animals. It 
was made wider in the middle than at the ends and 
contained a hollow place (kaph haqgela‘, 1S 25 29) in 
which to set the stone. The slinger grasped the 
sling by both ends and whirled it in a circle about 
his head several times, and then hurled the shot by 
letting go of one end of the sling. The missile was 
generally a smooth, rounded stone (I S 17 40; Zeo 
9 15). The Benjamites are said to have been es- 
pecially celebrated as slingers (Jg 20 16). 

5. The Battle-Ax. The maul or war-club, 
méphits (Pr 25 18), or battle-ax, mappéts (Jer 51 20), 
was of no great importance among the Israelites, 
The battle-ax referred to in the marginal reading 
of Ps 35 3 corresponds probably to the c&yaer¢ of the 
Persians (Herod. I, 214). 

6. The Chariot. The chariot, rekhebh (Jos 11 4) 
and merkabhah (Ex 15 4), with which the Israelites 
had long been acquainted through the Egyptians 
and Canaanites, was first introduced in the time of 


Arms and Armor 


Artizan Life A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 66 





Solomon. 
horses which had been captured (IIS 8 4). In the 
time of Solomon the number of chariot-horses is said 
to have been four thousand (I K 4 26; If Ch 9 24, 26). 
The chariots were probably two-wheeled and open 
behind—similar to those of the Egyptians and As- 
syrians. ‘They were most likely made of fig-wood. 
They were not provided with scythe-blades—a type 
of chariot which was first introduced by the Persians 
—but were overlaid with iron or bronze (cf. Jg 4 3). 
Probably three persons usually stood in the chariot 
—the chariot-driver, the warrior, and the shield- 
bearer, shdlish = ‘the third man’ [?]—as among the 
Assyrians, Hittites, and others; whereas among the 
Egyptians only two occupied the chariot. Accord- 
ing to I K 10 29 a chariot imported from Egypt cost, 
in the days of Solomon, 600 shekels (about $360), 
a horse 150 shekels (about $90). 


If. DrerenstvE Weapons: 7. The Shield. The 
shield was of two sizes: (a) the small shield, mdgén = 
kéonts (ILS 1 21), often called buckler, which was also 
borne by bowmen (I Ch 5 18; II Ch 14 8); (b) the 
large shield, tsinnah (IS 177) =6veéoc, the Homeric 
ckx0¢, which covered the greater part of the warrior’s 
body. We do not know the form of these shields; 
probably there were several forms—as among the 
Egyptians and Assyrians; in the Roman period the 
Jews are said to have used the oval shield. The ma- 
terial was either wood or wickerwork, covered with 
leather, or thick leather arranged in layers. The 
latter was treated with oil to make it pliable, more 
durable, and capable of resisting moisture (II 8 
1 21; Is 215). Sometimes the shields were studded 
with bosses of bronze (Job 15 26). Weare to under- 
stand the shields mentioned in I K 14 26 ff. as prob- 
ably of this sort. With such shields Rehoboam re- 
placed the gold-decorated shields of Solomon which 
had been seized by Shishak (I K 1016 ff., 14 25 f.) and 
used them in solemn processions to the House of God 
(I K 14 27f.). On the march the shield was probably 
carried, as among the Greeks, slung from the shoul- 
der by a strap, and provided with a cover, which was 
removed before battle (Is 22 6). In battle it was 
carried on the left arm. 


8. The Helmet. The helmet, gdbha‘ or kébha‘, in 
early times was used only by prominent persons, 
as kings, commanders of armies, and similar officers. 
I S 17 38 mentions helmets of bronze; among the 
Egyptians leather helmets also were used. Perhaps 
the Israelites were acquainted with helmets of this 
substantial sort—made of leather and protected 
with bronze or iron (cf. II Ch 2614). Possibly the 
round caps which are found on the Assyrian monu- 
ments most nearly resemble those of the Israelites; 
see also the representations on the temple walls at 
Karnak. 

9. The Breastplate or Coat of Mail. The cuirass, 
or breastplate, shiryén (Is 59 17; cf. Eph 6 14), was 
evidently not very common (I § 17 38 ‘coat of mail’; 
I K 22 34 ‘armor’, harness AV; Jer 46 4, 51 3 
brigandine AV. IS 175 shows acquaintance with 
a coat of mail, shiryén gasqassim, of bronze. Among 
the Assyrians, as among the Israelites, only kings 
and the principal chariot-warriors wore the long 
coats of mail reaching to the ankles or to the knees; 


Even David disabled all the chariot- | 


on the other hand, the common soldier protected the 
upper part of his body by means of bands or sleeve- 


less jackets of felt, linen, or leather. Often these 
jackets were strengthened with plates of iron, or 
studded with iron or bronze bosses. Perhaps some- 
thing of this sort is meant in II Ch 26 14, where refer- 
ence is made to the preparing of coats of mail for 
the common soldiery. 

10. Protection for the Legs. Greaves of bronze, 
mitshah, are mentioned only in the case of Goliath 
(I 8 17 6). Military boots, s°’6n, are mentioned 
only in Is 95 (cf. margin). We know nothing more 
about them. Probably neither greaves nor boots 
were widely used among the Israelites. 

LireraturE: W. F. Flinders Petrie, Jools and Weapons, Eg. 
Res. Ac’t. XXII, 1917. W.N. —L. B. P. 
ARMY. See Warrare, §§ 3-5. 
ARNAN, Gr’non (1718, ’arndn): 

scendants of David (I Ch 8 21). 
ARNI, Gr’nai (Aevet): The N T equivalent of the 

O T Ram in the genealogy of Jesus (Lk 3 33, Aram 

AV). 

ARNON, ar’nen (Ji7718, ’arnén): A river of Moab 
formed by the union of many smaller streams spoken 
of as the ‘valleys’ of the Arnon (Nu 21 14). It 
flows through a deep trench into the Dead Sea and is 
one of the three principal watercourses E. of the 
Jordan (see Map II, H. 3). It is first mentioned in 
Nu 21 13 as forming the boundary between the Mo- 
abites and the Amorites who had robbed them of 
their territory N. of the river. It was considered, 
theoretically, as marking the boundary between 
Moab and the E. Jordan possessions of Israel, but 
the Moabites were actually in possession of a large 
district N. of the Arnon. See Moas and Mzswa, 
STONE OF. K. E. N. 


AROD, 4r’ed (778, ’drddh), and Arodi (TI8, 
’drodht): The ancestral head of the Arodites, a 
clan of Gad (Gn 46 16; Nu 26 17). 

AROER, 0a-rd’ar (TYITY, ‘Grd‘ér): The name of 
three cities: 1. On the N. bank of the Arnon, the 
modern ‘Aré‘ir, built by the children of Gad (Nu 
32 34), and subsequently assigned to the tribe of 
Reuben, marking the §. boundary of Israelitic ter- 
ritory E. of the Jordan (Dt 2 36, 3 12; II K 10 33) 
(Map II, J3). 2. A city of Judah (IS 30 28), prob- 
ably the same as the modern ’Ard’ra, about 12 m. 
SE. of Beersheba, Map II, D5. Possibly the Ada- 
dah (q.v.) of Jos 15 22 is a corruption of Aroer. 3. 
E. of Rabbah in Ammon, belonging to Gad (Jos 
13 25; Jg 11 33). The allusion to ‘the cities of Aroer’ 
in Is 17 2 is both difficult and doubtful. The LXX. 
reads ‘abandoned forever.’ A reference to one of 
these cities is found in the gentilic name Aroerite 
(I Ch 11 44). G. L. R. 

ARPACHSHAD, Gr-pak’shad, ARPHAXAD, 4r- 
fax’ad. See ErHnoGrapHy AND Erunowoey, § 13. 


ARPAD, Gr’pad, ARPHAD, Gr’fad (1378, ’ar- 
padh): An important Aramean city mentioned in 
the O T always with some reference to its previous 
overthrow by Assyria (II K 18 34, 19 13=Is 36 19, 
37 13; Is 10 9; Jer 49 23). It lay about 13 m. N. of 
Aleppo and was once the capital of a prosperous 


One of the de- 





67 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Arms and Armor 
Artizan Life 





kingdom; after being several times conquered by the 
Assyrians it was finally made into an Assyrian prov- 
ince by Tiglath-pileser IIT in 740 B.c. 


ARRAY. See Warrare, § 4. 
ARROW. See Arms anp Armor, § 3. 
ARROW SNAKE. See Patzsting, § 26. 


ART: In contrast with what was true of the 
great nations on either side of them, the people of 
Palestine seem to have had but meager interest in 
the arts of design. In their pottery, their textile 
fabrics, and in some architectural fittings there are 
traces of attention to form, color, and decorative 
treatment. But the rigorous religious ban upon 
the making of ‘graven images’ (Ex 20 4) was in 
later times so interpreted as effectually to repress 
both sculpture and painting as fine arts. The only 
striking exception was the cherubim, said to have 
been used in the Tabernacle and the Temple (Ex 
25 18-20; I K 6 23-35, etc.). Altho the representation 
of plant-forms was unrestricted, yet little of it is 
recorded, and this is altogether confined to archi- 
teetural ornament. (On the art of building, see 
ARCHITECTURE and the references there; for the 
particulars regarding the building of dwellings, see 
Hovss; concerning the literary fine arts, see Music; 
and Portry.) W.S. P. 


ARTAXERXES, 4r”tag-zork’siz (NSMQVNN SK, 
’artahshast’): A name which appears in Ancient 
Persian as Artakhshatra, ‘he whose empire is per- 
fected,’ was borne by three kings of Persia. The 
one of biblical interest is the first of the name, 
Artaxerxes I surnamed Macrocheir, Longimanus, 
‘long hand,’ because his right hand was longer than 
his left (465-425 B.c.). He was a king of no mean 
power for he held together provinces of his vast em- 
pire such as Bactria and Egypt by force and post- 
poned the impending crash. During his reign there 
still remained domiciled in his Babylonian dominions 
large numbers of Jews, the descendants of those who 
did not accept the permission of Cyrus to return to 
Jerusalem in 536 B.c. Among these were two men 
of great gifts, Ezra and Nehemiah, the latter holding 
a position now difficult to define but called merely 
cup-bearer in his memoirs. In the seventh year of 
the king’s reign (458 B.c.) the former, by royal au- 
thority led fifteen hundred Babylonian Jews to their 
homeland Their difficulties were great and the 
reports received from them so discouraging that in 
445 Nehemiah sought and received permission from 
the king to go to their help. During perhaps twelve 
years he was engaged in this great task,—he upon 
political and military affairs and Ezra chiefly upon 
religious. His memoirs have captured the imagina- 
tion of mankind in the form in which they have come 
down to us. ‘The world owes no small debt of grati- 
tude to Artaxerxes I for the help he gave these two 
Jewish leaders. RW. R. 


ARTEMAS, ar’ti-mas (’Apteugs): A compan- 
ion of Paul (Tit 3 12) of whom nothing else is cer- 
tainly known. 


ARTILLERY: In AV of IS 20 40 this term means 
simply weapons, as in RV. 


ARTIZAN LIFE. 1. InGeneral. Artizan indus- 
try in Biblical Palestine was mainly concerned with 
the construction and furnishing of the house and 
with the manufacture and care of personal apparel 
and articles of adornment. Neither the O T, how- 
ever, nor the N T employs a common term to desig- 
nate all its different forms. The nearest approach 
to a group designation of the artizan industries is 
that in the words ‘trade,’ téyvq (Ac 18 3, craft AV; 
also ‘art,’ Ac 17 29) and craftsman, texvitns (Ac 19 24, 
38), and hadrash (Dt 27 15,, rendered smith in I § 13 19. 
The Hebrew term, however, includes only those 
arts which are concerned with the carving of wood 
and metal: (1) hdrash ‘és, ‘carpenter’; (2) hdrash 
n*hosheth, ‘coppersmith’; (3) hdrash barzel, ‘black- 
smith’; (4) harash ’ebhen, ‘stone-mason.’ 

I. ConstrRucTION AND EQuiPpMENT oF HovssEs: 
2. Tent-making. The antiquity of the tent as a 
shelter from unpropitious weather is beyond dis- 
pute. An ancient tradition traces 1t back to the 
very origin of the human race (Gn 4 20). It sur- 
vived to the latest Biblical generation. Paul, 
Aquila, and Priscilla were tent-makers (Ac 18 3). Just 
how the art of tent-making was practised is learned 
from data outside the Bible. In the most ancient 
times the materials used were the skins of animals 
(Ex 35 23). Later tents were constructed out of a 
special kind of cloth woven from goat’s or camel’s 
hair. The colors brown and black seem to have 
been preferred for this purpose (Song 1 5). The 
tents made in apostolic times were of Cilician cloth 
and usedin the Roman army. ‘The cloth was woven 
to the required width, stitched together and provided 
with cords and loops and spread over poles about 6 
ft. in height and securely fastened to the ground by 
tent-pins. (See Houss, I §§ 1 and 2.) 


3. Mason-work. The work of the mason (oftener 
in EV ‘builder,’ baénah, I K 5 18; Ezr 3 10; Neh 4 8) 
in Palestine was diverse according to the material 
he had to use. For very ordinary purposes (houses 
for the poor) sun-burnt brick similar to that used in 
Egypt was considered satisfactory. The frailty 
of such structures, however, and their liability to the 
vicissitudes of weather and to attack on the part of 
robbers (Mt 6 19, 7 24 f.), rendered them less desir- 
able for those who could afford better ones (Job 
4 19). Public buildings, such as the Temple, the 
royal palace, and many private houses were con- 
structed of stone. It is to those who prepared the 
stone for such structures that the name mason is 
more specifically given (hdrash ’ebhen, ‘cutter of 
stone,’ II S 5 11; called ‘engraver in stone,’ Ex 28 11; 
harash gir, I Ch 141, and gddhér, ‘maker of a wall,’ Ii 
K 1212; and hétsébh, I Ch 22 2 ‘hewer,’ asin I K 515). 
Engraving, Ex 28 11, 21, etc., is literally the ‘opening’ 
of the stone. é 

4. Mason’s Tools: Mortar. Of the implements 
used in mason-work occasional mention is made of 
the hammer (maqgebheth, I K 67), which, however, 
may be also the tool used in the quarry in cutting the 
stone from its native rock (patttsh, Is 417; Jer 23 29). 
The plumb-line (‘dndkh, Am 7 7 f.) and plummet 
(mishqéleth, II K 21 13; ’ebhen bedhil, Zec 410) were 
evidently employed in securing straight vertical lines, 
and the ‘measuring-line [rod]’ (middah, Jer 31 39; 


Artizan Life 
Arvad 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 68 





Ezk 405; Zec 21) for the laying out of ground-plans. 
The stones built into walls were held together by 
mortar (morter AV, hémer=bitumen, in Gn 11 3). 
But by mortar is meant probably also something 
more than the equivalent to modern cement, namely, 
the plaster used to smooth the interior of the walls of 
houses (Nah 3 14; Lv 14 42f.). For this purpose clay 
or lime and sand mixed with straw is known to serve 
at the present day in the construction of Oriental 
houses. (On §§ 2-4, see also Hovusz.) 


5. Carpenter. Closely associated with the mason 
in the building of houses was the carpenter (hdrash 
‘ets, ITS 5 u; IL K 22 6, téxtwy, Mt 13 55). Car- 
penters assisted in building and repairing the Tem- 
ple, I K 6 ff.; II K 12 11, 226. But the carpenter’s 
art was oftener devoted to the manufacture of the 
furniture of the house and of wooden agricultural 
implements. The range of his productions was there- 
fore very wide, including articles of the crudest 
form, benches, tables, plows, and yokes (cf. Justin 
Martyr, Dial. c. Trypho. 88) as well as the nicest 
finished carvings, inlaid work, and veneering 
(miqla‘ath, I K 6 18; pittuhé, I K 6 29). In the latter 
type of carpentry, the finer woods often formed the 
materials (cedar, fir, and olive), and opened the way 
for the development of taste and the beginnings of 
the fine arts. 


6. The Carpenter’s Tools. Besides the ax (q.v.) 
and hammer (q.v.) and measuring-line, mentioned as 
used by the mason, suitable forms of which were also 
used by the carpenter, the saw, the plane, the pen- 
cil, seredh, ‘red ocher’ RVmg. ( Oxf. He. Lex. ‘stylus,’ 
Is 44 13), and compasses are distinctly alluded to. 
In finer carpentry the Israelites were dependent not 
only in the earlier periods (I K 5 6b), but also as 
late as the date of Ezra (37) on the Phenicians for 
the best results. As far as Palestine is concerned 
no great development took place even to the latest 
day; and the work done by Joseph, the husband of 
Mary (Mt 13 55), and by Jesus (Mk 6 3), both called 
carpenters, was of the general type above described. 
The occupation did not lead to the expectation of 
a high degree of culture or intellectual training. 

7. Potter. Next in importance to wooden fur- 
niture in the house were earthen vessels (Lv 6 28, 
11 33). These were naturally numerous and of 
many kinds and imply the existence of a large in- 
dustry. Potters were numerous enough to organize 
into gilds (I Ch 4 23). The name given to the potter 
(yotsér, former,’ Jer 18 2;I Ch 423; xepauets, Mt 27 7) 
also indicates that his art was looked upon as pre- 
eminently calling into activity creative skill. Allu- 
sions are abundant to the potter’s work in its various 
phases of progress. He takes the clay furnished in 
the soil and treads it with his feet (Is 41 25; cf. also 
Wis 15 7); he kneads it with his hands like dough, 
puts it upon the wheel (Jer 18 3) and fashions out of 
it vessels according to his pleasure. Even God’s 
sovereignity is compared with the potter’s power to 
make out of the same clay some vessels unto honor 
and some unto dishonor (Jer 18 6; Ro 9 21). When 
the form of the product is satisfactory to him the 
potter fixes it permanently by firing the clay. The 
process of glazing was also evidently familiar (Pr 
26 23; Jer 19 2; Sir 38 29 ff.). 


8. The Potter’s Wheel. The chief implement of 
the potter was his wheel, or rather wheels (Jer 18 3, 
‘frames or seats, AVmg.). These were circular 
slabs of wood so arranged that they could be made 
to revolve in opposite directions. The potter con- 
trolled their motions by his feet, thus leaving his 
hands free to do the shaping of the clay, while the 
wheels were changing the face presented to him. 


9. Pottery. It is natural to suppose that such a 
necessary industry as that of the potter should have 
had a considerable history even in the simple con- 
ditions of Palestinian life. This assumption is 
borne out by the results of excavations on the site 
of the ancient Lachish (Tell-el-Hesy), under the di- 
rection of Prof. Flinders Petrie and Dr. F. J. Bliss 
in 1890-93 (cf. Petrie, Tell-el-Hesy, 1901; Bliss, 
Mounds of Many Cities, 1894). These of late have 
been enriched by other excavations at Tell-Zakarya, 
Tell-es-Safi, and Tell-ej-Judeideh, especially under 
Stewart Macalister, at Gezer (PHFQ, 1899-1906, 
and more exhaustively, The Excavations at Gezer, 
Vols. I and II, 1912). From the discoveries made 
in these places and some in Jerusalem (Bliss and 
Dickie, Hxcav. in Jerus., 1898), it appears that the 
history of pottery must be traced back to a date as 
early as the 20th (and probably earlier) cent. B.c. 
Its first stage (after the Semitic occupation of Pales- 
tine) of development has been called the Earlier 
Pre-Israelite (Amorite). Bowls and jars, which 
Petrie thinks show the influence of Libyan art, 
have been identified with this type. The second is 
the later Pre-Israelite (Phenician) and shows traces 
of Phenician influence. Its products are dated as 
between 1400 and 1000 B.c. The third stage, called 
the Jewish ((better] Israelite), includes specimens of 
productions of the years 1000 to 300. At the lat- 
ter date the art fell under the influence of Greek 
models and was assimilated to the Greco-Roman 
type. For pottery as emblematic of frailty, cf. 
Is 29 16, 30 14, 41 25; Jer 191 ff. It was into a piece 
of pottery that Jeremiah (32 14) placed a deed of 
purchase. See G. A. Barton, Archeology and the 
Bible, (1916) pp. 141-158. 


II. Merat Work: 10. Smiths. The working 
of metals is traced back to Tubal Cain (Gn 4 22). 
Among the Canaanites, it appears to have been com- 
mon in the period of the Judges (‘they had chariots 
of iron,’ Jg 119). From these the Israelites may have 
learned the elements of work in metals. The ma- 
terials most commonly used are gold, silver, copper, 
and iron (see Mrrats). Of the method of working 
the lower metals nothing is learned directly from the 
text of the O T and little from without. The term 
forger used in Gn 4 22 (‘instructor of every artificer, 
AV and RVmg., ‘whetter,’ AVmg.) is in reality too 
obscure to serve as a basis for investigation. ‘The 
manufacture of weapons of war, such as swords and 
spears made of iron, must have been early resorted 
to. In the later portion of the period of Judges it 
was one of the conditions which the victorious 
Philistines imposed upon Israel, that no blacksmith 
should be allowed to ply his trade in their territory, 
‘lest the Hebrews make them swords and spears’ 
(IS 1319). 

10(a). Coppersmith. The use of copper was prob. 





1. Zir, large water-jar. 





ARTIZAN LIFE.—PO 


7. Jarra, girl’s jar for carrying water. 


2. Hishshe kabiri, large water-jar. 8. Dérak. cooling-jar. 


3. Hishshe kabiri, large water-jar. 


4. Hishshe sghire, medium 
5. Mughtds, drinking-mug. 


9. ‘Asliye, flat drinking-flask. 
water-jar. 10. brik, drinking-jar with spout. 


11. Kidre bidantén, two-handled pot. 
6. Jarra, jar for carrying water. 12. Kidre, cooking-pot. 


13: 
14. 
Ls 
16. 
i Weg 
18. 


(From the Suvia Davison Paton Collection in Hartford Theological Seminary.) 


Kidre, cooking-pot. 
Tabakh, small brazier. 
Boshet el-haltb, milk-jug. 
Sherbe, drinking-bottle. 
Zibdiye, dish for eating. 
Boshet el-haltb, milk-jug. 











ae eee ee eo ey Ce a 


atta ee Se tS te faaee= = ee 4 ry 
* af 7 ~ ~! » , 
r oe + oy A! SE eeeeng? oan mee ot 7 ny 
- V6 ees ea Lopes « 4‘ oie ; 
: nd got z 4 fain ®. Lee Cy cod 
i oP gars t PUT ow, i joan 
| i i <n) whe = : ie, aise? 
A * bn te ee re Sark eh te -- 5 Pye 
J . a os a Lirvin debs = =) ey, \ -, a : ‘ Jags 
é ws F a : cee ee , See ; 
* ‘pte (oi 4 Site Te eee al rade SA ER eR 
: = M4 * - - —*t 4 ’ 
- ao i - - = ‘ 6 ao ie ah a ; 
: - oS n . ; od et 
Read . ae GTS oFiawie i? tT te te ace we “7, pia 
} ~ 7% -_= i ‘ a s > ++ a f <4 oo 
bednt AS Pa - , = eek re ON rie adios “tex - ui é 
: © hn ~F 3 ; 
See, 7. ee ‘ thy es Be aa as * ‘ee F ; cee oy 
< Stave oe Tg a a3} 


=* - > al .< » a e 
eae i / + ’ ~_' a - yer ee ,) “ <a 
= > . ‘5 : . 4 7 | - 4 ~ 7 "ti Cand fie an ty 4 . arnt te £i<5) ~, -e 4 “ 
| 2 , i . ‘ = ies 6 te é ¢ ' rf 


ie Le 7 (3 rf iy Pay 


- 
® 


69 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





ably developed in the Orient even earlier than that 
of iron. For all practical purposes, however, it 
was commonly used with some alloy of tin or zinc 
(brass, bronze, n*hdsheth, Job 28 2; Ezk 22 18 f.). 
Brass is enumerated with gold and silver as if re- 
garded one of the precious metals (II S 8 10; Ezr 8 27; 
‘copper’ AV, ‘yellow brass’ AVmg.); but it is not 
probable that such enumeration indicates any great 
scarcity, since copper-mines are known to have 
existed at Sinai from the 8rd dynasty of Egypt down- 
ward (Petrie, Researches in Sinai, 1906). More- 
over, the list of articles manufactured from this 
metal is long, including household utensils such as 
pots and pans and other implements necessary in the 
construction of furniture (cf. Ex 25 ff.; see TEMPLE, 
§§ 18, 19); also weapons of war such as shields, 
greaves, javelins, and helmets (IS 175 #.; II S 22 35). 
In N T times the mention of Alexander the Copper- 
smith (II Ti 414) indicates the specialization of work 
in this metal. (See also MErazs.) 


10(b). Goldsmith. Gold and silver were 
imported into Palestine by Solomon from Ophir 
(I K 9 26-28). But the art of working them 
was introduced from Phenicia. The accom- 
plished gold-smith, refiner (‘founder,’ tsdréph, 
Jg 17 4), was one who knew how to separate 
the pure metal from its alloy (Is 1 25) by melting 
the ore in the refining pot (Pr 17 3) to purify it of 
its dross (Pr 25 4, 26 23), and to fashion it into use- 
ful and ornamental articles. The various ways of 
working the precious metal are beating (‘turned 
work’ RV, Ex 2518, 31) with the hammer (hammer- 
ing), plating, overlaying (Ex 25 11, tsaphah; cf.also I K 
6 20 ff.), soldering, debheg, cf. Is 417, ‘the goldsmith 
and he that smootheth with the hammer, him that 
smiteth the anvil, saying of the soldering (‘sodering’ 
AV), it is good.’ Casting, 7.e., forming into a given 
shape by pouring into a mold the heated liquid, is 
also implied in such expressions as ‘molten image’ 
(Nu 33 52; Hos 13 2; cf. the distinction between 
‘graven image’ and ‘molten image,’ Nah 1 14; II Ch 
34 3, 4). Finally gold was beaten into very thin 
plates, which were cut into strips, or threads, and 
these again used in embroidering garments or woven 
into cloth (Ex 39 3, 28 6). (See also MrrTazs.) 


II. Orner Inpusrries: 11. Spinning. Of the 
industries which center about the manufacture of 
clothing, the first in point of order is that of spinning. 
The materials used were goat’s hair, wool, and flax; 
but the process is that familiar elsewhere in the 
world and the implement the spindle, or distaff 
(Pr 31 19). Likewise, as among other people, this 
was work usually done by women at home rather 
‘than in public shops by men (Ex 35 25 f.). 

12. Weaving. Cloth for use in making garments 
was imported from Egypt and Damascus (linen from 
the former, damask from the latter, Ezk 27 7, 18. 
Babylon too had a reputation for work of superior 
quality in this class. But Israel was not destitute 
of its home productions. The Egyptian monuments 
present the art of weaving with somewhat crude 
implements. In Palestine these must have been 
still more primitive. The shuttle is, however, 
especially mentioned (Job 7 6). The weaver’s 
beam (I 8 177; II S 21 19), to which Goliath’s spear 


Artizan Life 
Arvad 





is compared in size, was the heavy post of the frame 
to which the warp of the prospective cloth was 
fitted in. Cloth was woven in lengths suited for 
one garment, not in large pieces from which parts 
might be cut off according to need. When it is said 
that Samuel’s mother annually made him a robe it is 
meant that she wove a single piece as above de- 
scribed (IS 219). See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, § 4. 

13. Fuller’s Work. The fuller (kdbhés, II K 18 
17; Is 7 3, 36 2, yvagetdc, Mk 9 3) took charge of the 
cleaning and bleaching of cloth. He washed the 
material with a preparation of lye, beat or rubbed 
it and drieditin the sun. For this purpose he must 
own or have use of an open tract of land ‘fuller’s 
field’; cf. Is 7 3). From samples of fulling work 
found in Egyptian graves it is gathered that the art. 
was highly developed. 

14. Needlework: Embroidery. Of the sewing of 
garments or the modern tailor’s art nothing is said in 
Scripture. Sewing (é@phar) was probably limited to 
the repairing (patching) of worn-out or torn apparel 
(Ec 31; Mk 2 21) and the stitching of one piece to 
another in case more than one was to be used in 
making a garment (Ezk 13 18; Gn 37). Needlework 
(ma‘dséh régém, Ex 26 36, 27 16, etc., ‘work of the 
embroiderer’ RV; riqgmah Jg 5 30; Ps 45 14, ‘broidered 
work’ RV) is rather the working in for ornamental 
purposes of figures in colored thread or of silver and 
gold strands on a background of woven cloth. 

15. Dyeing. The art of dyeing must have been 
known in Israel; but the only clear mention of it 
has reference to the coloring of the skins of animals 
(Ex 25 5, 2614). In AV ‘dyed attire’ (Ezk 23 15) is a 
mistranslation for ‘flowing turban’ (so RV). The 
‘dyed garments’ of the conquering hero in Is 631 are 
more literally his clothes steeped red in the blood of 
the foes he had slain (so RVmg. ‘crimsoned’). 

16. Tanning. The production of leather from the 
hides of animals was certainly a common industry in 
O T times, but the only leather articles explicitly 
mentioned are girdles (II K 1 8; cf. also Mt 3 4). To 
these sandals and thongs must be added (Mk 69; Ac 
128). Inthe N T the employment appears distinctly 
in the well-known but unique case of ‘Simona tanner’ 
(Ac 9 43, 10 6). 

LITERATURE: Delitzsch, Jewish Artisan Life, etc. (Eng. 
transl. 1883); S. Meyer, Arbeit u. Handwerk im Talmud 

(1878); Benzinger, Hebr. Arch, 2nd Ed. 1907, pp. 145 ff.; No- 


wack, Hebr. Arch. (1894) I, 239 ff., 251 ff., 265 ff.; Grant, 
The People of Palestine (1921) Ch. VL Gy Z. 


ARTS, MAGICAL: Ac 19 19, Curious AV. See 
Maaic anp Divination, § 9. 

ARUBBOTH, o-riib’both (NAS, ’drubbath): One 
of Solomon’s provision districts, probably including 
much of W. Judah (I K 4 10). 


ARUMAH, oa-ri’ma (728 ’Griimah): 
near Shechem (Jg 9 41). Map III, F 4. 
ARVAD, Gr’vad (7)78, ’arwaddh): A Phenician 
city built on an island in the Med. 125 m. N. of Tyre 
(modern Ruwdd. The inhabitants (Arvadites, Gn 10 
18) are desribed in Ezk 27 8, 11 as skilful seamen as 
well as good soldiers. The city was in existence as 
late as the Maccabean age (Aradus, I Mac 15 23). 
A. C. Z. 


A town 


Arza 
Ashkelon 





ARZA, Gr’za (S$78, ’artsa’): Palace-overseer of 
Elah, King of Israeli (I K 169). Possibly an accom- 
plice in the murder of the king which took place in 
his house. HE. EK. N. 

ASA, é’sa (NOS ’asa’) ‘healer’: 1. Third king of 
Judah (c. 917-876 B.c.), son of Maacah and brother 
of Abijah. His reforming energy was great, and by 
bringing sacred articles from other shrines to Jeru- 
salem (I K 15 15) he enhanced the Temple’s preemi- 
nence. Fearing Baasha’s blockade (I K 1517 f.), he 
purchased Aramean aid, thereby incurring prophetic 
censure (II Ch 16 7), and bequeathing to his suc- 
cessors a heritage of war. His defensive works were 
long remembered (Jer 41 9). The account of the 
invasion of Zerah (q.v.), the Ethiopian (II Ch 14 
9-15), is of doubtful historical value. The Chronicler 
may imply a resort to the Black Art in A.’s final ill- 
ness (II Ch 1612). 2. A son of Elkanah (see I Ch 
9 16). A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8S. 

ASAHEL, as’a-hel (287YY ‘dsa’él), ‘God does’: 
1. A son of Zeruiah, David’s sister (1 Ch 2 18). 
With his brothers Joab and Abishai he was among 
the earliest and most valiant of David’s follow- 
ers (II S 23 24; I Ch 11 26). A. was especially re- 
nowned for his fleetness (II S 2 18). The statement 
in I Ch 27 7 that he was the ‘fourth captain for 
the fourth month’ in David’s army is a mistake, 
since A. was slain by Abner before David had organ- 
ized his larger army. The death of A. at the hands 
of Abner (II S 2 18-23) was an act of self-defense on 
Abner’s part, but was nevertheless avenged later by 
Joab (IIS 3 27-30). 2. A Levite under Jehoshaphat 
(II Ch 178). 3. A Levite under Hezekiah (II Ch 
3113). 4. Father of Jonathan (Ezr 1015). 

EK. E. N. 

ASATIAH, a-sé’ya (YY, ‘dsaiyah): J” has made 
(or done)’: 1. A trusted servant of King Josiah 
(Asahiah AV, II K 22 12, 14=II Ch 34 22). 2. A Le- 
vite (I Ch 6 30, also 156 and 11?). 3. The ancestral 
head of a branch of the Simeonites (I Ch 4 36-43). 
4. A Shilonite (I Ch 9 5=Maaseiah, Neh 11 5?). 

ASAPH, é’saf: A Levite repeatedly named by the 
later historians (Ezr 2 41, 3 10; Neh 7 44, 11 17, 22, 
12 35, 46; I Ch 6 39, 9 15, 15 17, 19, 16 5, 7, 37, 25 1, 2, 6, 
9 (261?); IT Ch 5 12, 2014, 29 13, 30, 35 15) as originally 
one of the leaders of the Temple psalmody and the 
founder of a family or gild of singers. His name 
appears in the captions of twelve Psalms (50, 73-83). 
It is not clear what relation this shadowy personage 
bears to the other Asaphs named (under Hezekiah, 
II K 18, 18, 37; Is 36 3, 22, and after the Exile, Neh 
28). The word (")98, ’asaph) means ‘collector’ and 
may be a title. See Psaums; and Music. 

W.S. P. 

ASAREL, as’a-rel (OSDY, ’dsar’él, Asareel AV, 
a-se’ri-el): An individual or clan (probably Caleb- 
ite) of Judah (I Ch 4 18). 

ASARELAH, as’e-ri‘la. See ASHARAELAH. 

ASCALON. See AsHKEton. 

ASCENT: A word applied’ to a natural ascent 
as from a valley to a hill or mountain (e.g., Nu 34 4; 
Jos 10 10; II S 15 30, etc). InIK 105 = II Ch94 
we should probably read ‘the burnt offerings which 
he offered’ (RVmg.). E. E. N. 


A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 70 


ASCENTS, SONGS OF. See Psaums, § 4. 

ASENATH, as’1-nath (228, ’ds*nath): The Egyp- 
tian wife of Joseph (Gn 41 45, 50, 46 20); the daughter 
of the priest of On (Heliopolis). Her name is usually 
explained as As-Netth, favorite of Neith,’ the god- 


dess of Sais, or Isis- Neith. Ll, Bae 


ASER, é’ser (’Ache): The AV form in the N T for 
Asher (q.v.) (Lk 2 36; Rev 7 8). 


ASH. See Pauestine, § 21. 

ASHAN, 6é’shan (199, ‘ashan), ‘smoke’: A Levit- 
ical city (still unidentified) in western Judah (Jos 
15 42; I Ch 6 59, called Ain in Jos 21 16). Bor-Ashan 


(Chor-Ashan AV, I 8S 30 33) probably indicates the 
same place. - 

ASHARELAH, agh”o-ri/la (T2870, 'dshar’élah, 
Asarelah AV, as’’a-ri’li): An ‘Asaphite’ musician 
(I Ch 25 2). Called Jesharelah in ver. 14. 

ASHBEA, asgh’bi-a (228, ’ashbéa‘): More cor- 
rectly, Beth-ashbea (I Ch 4 21). The better transla- 
tion is the families of the linen-workers of Beth- 
Ashbea.’ It was situated probably in the Shephelch, 
but the exact site is unknown. 


ASHBEL, ash’bel (398, ’ashbél): The ancestral 


head of the Ashbelites, a clan of Benjamin (Gn 46 
21; Nu 26 38; I Ch 81). 

ASHDOD, ash’dod (718, ’ashdddh): The mod- 
ern Esdud, located 3 m. from the sea almost mid- 
way between Joppa and Gaza (Map I, B &). It 
was one of the five famous cities of the Philistines, 
and the residence of Anakim (Jos 11 22). The city 
was assigned to Judah (Jos 15 46f.), but was prob- 
ably not occupied until King Uzziah broke down its 
walls (II Ch 26 6). Thither the captured Ark of 
God was carried by the Philistines and placed in 
the temple of Dagon (IS 51). About 760 B.c. the 
prophet Amos denounced its inhabitants (1 8), and 
in 711 B.c. the Assyrian tartan, or general, of Sargon 
fought successfully against it (Is 201). According to 
Herodotus (ii. 157), Psammetichus, King of Egypt, 
besieged it for 29 years (c. 630 B.c.), only a remnant 
surviving (Jer 25 20). When Nehemiah, in 445 B.c., 
attempted to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, the Ash- 
dodites were among those who opposed him (Neh 
4 7f.). Both Judas Maccabeeus (c. 165 B.c.) and 
his brother Jonathan (c. 148) sacked the city (I Mac 
5, 68, 10 84). It is mentioned also once in the N T by 
its Greek name Azotus in connection with Philip 
(Ac 8 44). G.L. R. 

ASHDOTH-PISGAH, ash’’doth-piz’ga. See Pis- 
GAH. 

ASHER (WX, ’ashér), popularly taken to mean 
‘happy,’ tho possibly an old deity name: A 
son of Zilpah, Leah’s handmaid, and one of the tri- 
bal ancestors of Israel (Gn 30 12f.). See Trius, §4. 
: ASHERAH, a-shi’ra. See Semitic RELIGIon, 

11. 

ASHES. See Mournina Customs, § 2. 

ASHHOUR, agh’or (T37Y8, ’ashhir, Ashur AV): 
A Calebite (clan?), ‘father’ of Tekoa (I Ch'2 24, 45. 


: ASHIMA, oa-shai’mse. See Semitic RELIGION, 
12. 


Cae f 


oY 


SlazyeJy Ul a[BIG 
<= jisodeg = 


09 
7, 4004 /04nDN 


oot 08 


eiIpeuy fe ATOM 


= 
a 
[4 
Pe) 
=> 
— 
w 
m 
ao 
— 
Oo 
= 
> 
— 
Oo 
a 
fer] 
e 
wa 
pot a 
Oo 
=] 
m 
oOo 
a) 
> 
~” 
aie 
Ss 
m 
con] 
= 


SSeS 


3 SS 
=. OD 


St 


a +\g 


0 


7204 Ul e]¥ag 
81/04 Bulppsnag 


oot 


qyeg [9 qed 


100s «50 0 100 


~ JL. Bridle Paths 

ea omms (Crusading Walls ¥ 

Red Granite Columns 
Gray Granite Columns 
Small Corinthian Capitals 
Large Corinthian Capitals 
Roman Statue 


A 
B 
C 
D 
E 


Permission of the Palestine Exploration, Fund 


R, Byzantine Well 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Arza 
Ashkelon 


Crusadings 
Ruins , Ye 
hg 


"vm. Church 


@ Conorete 
"C 


Church ww 


Scale 
100 


‘%~ These Walls are traditionally 
known as Crusading but a closer 
Examination and Excavation might 
prove them to be Arabic 


WY senate House 
and 


200 - 


s* 
ww 
ay 
“ 
ET. 


Roman 
4 Foundations 


LUMA TTT ES 


= 
‘ 


¢ 
NY as 


Herod's Cloisters 


in Feet: 


400 600 


NOTE: The Crusading Walls are possibly 
built on an earlier line of Roman Wall 


‘now buried by the Sand and show the 


extent of the City in Roman and Byzantine 
Times. The inner line of Hatching defines 





the probable Site of the Philistine City 


Ashkelon 
Asia Minor 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY . GQ 





ASHKELON, ash’k:-len (1i9PY%, ’ashg‘lon): The 
modern ’Askelan, 12 m. N. of Gaza on the seacoast 
(Jer 47 7). Excavations show that the site was 
occupied at a very early period (in the stone age). 
See illustration of the various strata of occupation 
revealed by the excavations. The old Canaanite 
town dating from c. 2000 B.c. was destroyed ec. 1200 
B.c. by the Philistines from oversea who made it 
one of their five principal cities. (MapI,B9). The 





ay, Mu 
ORR area be CIRM: ate re ; 
Ben he sere thn ee Late acd 
a ee - minaP oth : f=) Deposit Crusading 
fa en 5 
ais T= fie] Burnt Layer Arabic Conquest 
Ge ig, , “ Byzantine 
te 4 Late Philistine to Roman 
Lif 2m Philistine 
ange oe Burnt Layer 
. id =} Canaanite 
Z os Early Canaanite 
i La Cate Pre-Semitic 
U,. wv & = Set « re : eg - WY 
y EN ee a Rock 
e\e di. wor FE: PS ___&,)_ Sea Level 

NATURAL SECTION AT ASHKELON 

Scale in Feet 
i 0 i 2 3 4 5 
i 


Scaie in Meters 
10 6 0 10 
be lnchee ted bkrteh teense coer anes 


city was built on a rocky amphitheater overlooking 
the sea. Extensive ruins of the town remain. It 
was the seat of the worship of the fish goddess 
Derceto, with temple and lake E. of the city. Judah 
is said to have captured it (Jg 118; cf., however, the 
LXX reading; also Jos 13 3), but the Philistines still 
occupied it in the days of Samson (Jg 14 19, may be 
identified more correctly, however, with Khurbet’ 
Askalun in Wddy es-Sunt), of Samuel (I S 6 17), and 
of David (II S 1 22). Three prophets predicted its 
overthrow (Jer 47 5; Zeph 2 4; Zec 9 5), but it con- 
tinued to exist as an important city until after the 
Age of the Crusades. It was captured twice by 
Jonathan the Maccabee (I Mac 10 86, 11 60), by the 
Crusaders, and by Saladin. Herod the Great was 
born there, and built it up (Jos. Wars, I 2111). Its 
name seems to have been derived from a charac- 
teristic product, a kind of onion, which grew there, 
called shallot, or escallot, whence Ashkelon. Its 
inhabitants were called Ashkelonites (Jos 13 3, 
Eshkalonites AV). See Bul. ASOR May, 1922, for 
results of excavations up to that date, and for other 
details PEFQ, 1913-1924. G. L. R. 


ASHKENAZ, ash’ki-naz. See ErunograpHy 
AND Erxno.oey, § 13. 

ASHNAH, ash’na (7J?8, ’ashnah): The name of 
ai cities in Judah (Jos 15 33, 43), not yet identi- 

ed. 

ASHPENAZ, ash’pi-naz (12Y8, ’ashpenaz): Chief 
of the eunuchs of Nebuchadrezzar (Dan 1 3). 

ASHRIEL, ash’ri-el. See AsRIEL. 

ASHTAROTH, ash’ta-roth (MIINYY, ‘ashtaroth): 
The plural form of the name of the goddess ‘ASHTART, 


Ashtoreth. This is found as the name of a city 
(Jos 9 10, 12 4, 18 12, 31; I Ch 6 71) taken by Israel, 
before the passage of the Jordan, from Og, King 
of Bashan. It is possible that the same city is 
meant by Ashteroth-Karnaim, ‘two-horned Ash- 
tarts,’ (Gn 14 5), an abode of the Rephaim at the 
time of the invasion of Palestine by Chedorlaomer 
of Elam. Eusebius and Jerome speak of two places 
bearing the latter name, five Roman miles apart, 
in the Decapolis. One of these may be the modern 
Tell ‘Ashtarah, 21 m. E. of the Lake of Galilee 
(see Map I, H 4). There is also a Tell ‘Ashari, 5 
m. to the N. of the former. Be-eshterah, probably 
for Beth-‘Ashtart, ‘house of ‘Ashtart,’ is mentioned 
in Jos 21 27 as a Levitical city, and apparently . 
as equivalent to Ashtaroth of I Ch67. In Egypt. 
inscriptions of the eighteenth dynasty ‘Astiratu is 
mentioned as a place east of the Jordan, and the 
same place appears in the Tell el-Amarna letters as 
Ashtarti. In view of these forms and of the singular 
Beth-‘Ashtart, the Massoretic vocalization of this 
name as a plural is very doubtful. The consonants 
could equally well be read ‘Ashtart. If the plural 
be correct, it indicates that various forms of the 
goddess were worshiped here. The epithet Kar- 
naim, “T'wo-horned,’ has been explained as referring 
to two peaks in the vicinity of the town, or to the 
two horns with which the goddess is frequently 
represented in Canaanite art. In Am 613 for ‘horns’ 
we should probably read ‘Karnaim,’ the reference 
being to a capture of K. by Israel. See also Semitic 
REtiGcion, § 13. J. F. McC.—L. B. P. 


ASHTERATHITE, agh’ti-rath-ait (OVNYY, ‘ash- 
t*ratht), ‘man of Ashtroth’: The adjective of place 
from Ashtaroth, the home of Uzzia, one of David’s 
heroes (I Ch 11 44). 

ASHTEROTH-KARNAIM, ash’t1-reth-kdr-né’/im. 
See ASHTAROTH. 

ASHTORETH, ash’td-refh. See Sumrric Re- 
LIGION, § 14. 

ASHUR, ash’tr. See ASHHUR. 

ASHURITES, asgh’dr-aits (TS, ’dshir7): In 
II S 2 9 the Massoretic text reads ‘Ashurites’ in 
the enumeration of districts subject to Ishbosheth. 
This is perhaps a textual error for ‘Geshurites’ (so 
Vulg. and Syr.), Aramean people N. of Gilead, or, 
more probably, for ‘Asherites’ (so the Targum), 
z.¢., the Israelites N. of the plain of Esdraelon. In 
Ezk 27 6 the AV rendering ‘company of Ashurites’ 
is wrong. The correct Heb. reading bzth’ash- 
shur?m means ‘in boxwood’ (or some similar wood),as 
in RV. E. E. N. 

ASHVATH, ash’vath (MY, ‘ashwath): A de- 
scendant of Asher (I Ch 7 33). 

ASIA. See Asta Minor, III, 1. 

ASIA MINOR: I. Proptes anv,» History. 
Asia Minor—a term not found in either the O T or 
N T, but first employed by Orosius in the 5th cent.— 
is that immense peninsula abutting from Western 
Asia, bound on the N. by the Black (Euxine) Sea 
and the Sea of Marmora (Propontis), on the W. 
by the Agean, and on the S. by the Mediterranean. 
The E. boundary is indeterminate both geographi- 


73 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ashkelon 
Asia Minor 





cally and historically: it may be roughly de- 
scribed as a line passing from the NE. corner 
of the gulf of Alexandretta, along the Giaour 
Dagh, through the Taurus range, touching 
the Euphrates at Malatia, crossing the Armenian 
plateau about Erzingan, and ending in the vicinity 
of Batoum on the W. Caucasus. The extreme 
length is 720 m. decreasing to about 650; the 
width varies from 420 m. to under 300 m. The 
greater part of this peninsula is known to-day as 
Anatolia (Anadol). It is separated from Europe by 
the Dardanelles and the Bosporus. 


Many have been the vast movements of popula- 
tions across and within A. M. Numerous invasions 
from E., W., and N. made its territory the scene of 
incessant conflicts, and the blending place of diverse 
cultures, races, and religions. Aryan, Mongolian, 
and Semitic masses were either attracted to A. M. 
by its wealth or driven thither by the pressure of 
stronger hordes behind. Beyond the first mention 
of the Hittites about 2000 B.c. it is not necessary for 
present purposes to go. For at least twelve centur- 
ies the history of Asia Minor was practically the 
history of the powerful Hittites in their rise and de- 
cline. These non-Aryan (some claim the Hittites 
as Aryan, esp. in language, Sayce as Mongoloids) 
inhabitants were not aboriginal. They have left 
their impressive monuments from Smyrna to the 
Euphrates and from Pteria (Boghaz-Keui) to Aleppo. 
For centuries they contended on equality with the 
powers of the Nile and the Euphrates, and for a 
thousand years A. M. under their leadership held 
the balance of power in antiquity. They saved A. 
M. from being completely Asiaticized so that as a 
result its history has throughout been bound up 
with that of Europe as much as, if not more than, 
with Asia. They carried Oriental—especially Meso- 
potamian—culture and art Westward. They over- 
threw the Amorite empire of Babylon; they annihi- 
lated the Egyptian power in Asia; they held the 
dreaded Assyrians in check for centuries; they exer- 
cised an important economic influence by their con- 
trol of the rich mineral resources of A. M. In the 
15th cent. B.c. they engaged the attention of the 
Pharaohs in several expeditions. In the 14th cent. 
they attained the zenith of their power in an empire 
of federated states under the leadership of the Hittites 
with their capital at Pteria, and important centers 
at Hamath, Aleppo, Carchemish (Jerablus), Marash, 
and Malatia. For two centuries they were the 
dominant power in W. Asia, a position to which 
they were raised chiefly by Subbi-luliuma. With 
the coming of the Muski (Phrygians, or akin to later 
Phrygians) and the downfall of the Hittite rulers the 
empire was dismembered (in 12th cent.) and the 
capital or main center removed to Carchemish. 
During the temporary decline of Assyria and the 
withdrawal of the Phrygians, or their defeat by the 
Assyrian Tiglath-Pileser I, the Hittite states re- 
gained a considerable measure of their former 
prestige but apparently without the re-establish- 
ment of the confederacy. But in the 9th cent. the 
renewed pressure of the Phrygians and the renewal 
of the struggle with Assyria rendered the decline of 
the Hittites irrevocable. These Assyrian invasions 


were maintained until Sargon (721-704) crushed 
the allied Hittites and Urartians (Vannic power). 
Carchemish fell in 718 and Marash in 709 B.c. 
With the destruction of the ancient capital of Pteria 
by the Lydians under Croesus the Hittite story 
ends (middle 6th cent.) Other peoples call for 
briefer mention. The Aryan Muski or Phrygians 
entered A. M. from Macedonia and Thrace. With 
them came, or later they were joined by the Thyni, 
better known as Bithynians. The entry of the 
Phrygians proved fateful, not only for the Hittites 
but for Europe, inasmuch as they were to become in 
later centuries the purveyors of Oriental ideas back 
to Europe. The remains of the tombs of their 
kings and their rock palaces are among the most im- 
pressive of A. M. antiquities. They held sway 
over NW. and central A. M. during the 9th and 8th 
cents. In turn the Phrygians capitulated to the 
invading Assyrians in the campaigns of cir. 718-709 
B.c., and in 675 they were overwhelmed by the on- 
coming Cimmerians (known to the Assyrians as 
Gimirrai), who had entered the peninsula by the 
Caucasus from Southern Europe through Armenia. 
The Cimmerians also assailed Assyria and the 
Vannic kingdom of Urartu. This upheaval afforded 
an opportunity for the rise of the first native power 
known to us in Asia Minor, the Lydian kingdom, 
under Gyges who established the Mermnad dynasty, 
687 B.c. He was obliged to pay tribute to Assur- 
banipal owing to the pressure of the Cimmerians 
who overran Lydia; they finally captured Sardis and 
slew Gyges himself, 652 p.c. Under Alyattes and 
Croesus Lydia became an empire ernbracing all A.M. 
to the Halys, except Lycia. Alyattes after a des- 
perate struggle destroyed the Cimmerians, captured 
Smyrna and reduced the Greek cities. The Persian 
Cyrus next appeared on the stage of A. M.: he cap- 
tured Sardis and Creesus, and divided A. M. into 
satrapies. Meanwhile by the 8th cent. B.c. Hel- 
lenic colonies had been planted on the N. and W. 
coasts of A. M., some of which became founders of 
other colonies (e.g. Miletus, the mother of 75 col- 
onies). These Hellenic colonies were destined to 
bring Europe and Asia into conflict and contact. 
The Persian empire succumbed before Alexander, 
333 B.c. After his death A. M. fell to Seleucus who 
was unable to hold the peninsula. The Attalid 
kingdom of Pergamum arose in 283. In 278 the 
Kelts (Gauls) crossed the Bosporus and Hellespont, 
and after defeats by Antiochus Soter and Attalus I 
they became domiciled in the regions to which they 
gave their name. Rhodes became independent. 
A native kingdom arose in Cappadocia. Bithynia 
and Paphlagonia retained their own princes. Be- 
tween 133 B.c. and 17 a.p. all A. M. to the Euphrates 
passed under Roman control. 


II. Reticious Sreniricancr. Despite the fact 
that none of the great world-religions had its origin 
in A. M. this peninsula has played a significant role 
in the history of religion. Geographically the bridge 
between East and West, it has been the chief med- 
ium whereby the ideas and religions of Europe and 
Asia produced their historic reactions. It was from 
A. M. that Christianity was carried to Europe by a 
native of Tarsus. It wasin A. M. that Christianity 


Asia Minor 





made more rapid progress than elsewhere, which 
cannot be accounted for as an accident. And it was 
the preponderance of A. M. that led to the cleavage 
of Latin and Greek Christianity. The Greek col- 
onies of Ionia were the cradle of European philoso- 
phy, which was for centuries the handmaid of theolo- 
gy, and continues to-day a paramount factor in the 
interpretation of Christianity. Philosophy was the 
form into which the genius of the West tended to 
cast its religious intuitions and reflections, rather 
than, as in the East, into mythologies and symbol- 
ism, altho it by no means overlooked these. More- 
over, this philosophy saved Europe from being 
Asiaticized at an early stage, and from falling under 
the yoke of sacerdotalism and from the vagueness of 
mysticism. From the A. M. mainland literature, art 
and science were transplanted to Greece, that Greece 
might become the schoolmistress of Europe A. M. 
must be reckoned with Syria and Egypt as soil 
congenial to that type of religion whereby men ap- 
proached reality by the path of an esoteric Gnosis, 
which is found in its incipience in e. g. the Ep. to 
the Colossians, representing the Lycos valley, and 
in the Fourth Gospel, from the region of Ephesus. 
See Gnosticism. From time immemorial among the 
Hittites and the Aryan invaders of A. M. the premier 
place was given in religion to a great Mother-God- 
dess, the representative of the powers of reproduc- 
tion in all nature, with whom was associated a lesser 
male deity as spouse or son. This goddess was an 
Earth-Goddess, whose worship was, at least primi- 
tively, that of a bisexual deity, a goddess-god, who 
suffered and died, and yet by self-reproduction overs 
came death in a nature-symbolism which was preg- 
nant with high hopes for man’s future. This di- 
vine personage was to make its contribution to the 
Christian Madonna. The emphasis on the female 
principle stood in marked contrast to the predom- 
inance of the male deity in the religion of the Ary- 
ans, in which Father and Son, rather than Mother 
and Daughter or Son, were the salient aspects of the 
divine nature. The respect for the Mother-Goddess 
in A. M. was accompanied by matriarchate privi- 
leges in society. Out of this primitive nature-cult 
was evolved another type of religion of far-reaching 
importance, the Mystery-Religions with esoteric 
ritual, a passion drama, and sacramental acts, a 
step reached by the telluric symbolism of nature, 
sympathetic-magic taking on the chthonic (under- 
world) and eschatological character, which deepened 
curiosity in the world of death. These Anatolian 
cults were orgiastic and emotional, characterized by 
self-abandonment and a striving for identification 
with the divine. On being transplanted to Europe, 
together with kindred cults from Syria and Egypt, 
they captured the imagination of the Greeks and 
the Romans, supplying an important element wholly 
lacking in either religion. Phrygia was the chief 
center of such enthusiastic worship, from which the 
Great Mother accompanied by Attis entered Athens 
in the 4th cent. B.c., and from which she was wel- 
comed with wild jubilation to Rome in 205 B.c. to 
claim her devotees in the Roman world for six cen- 
turies. It is striking that this land of the Hittite 
Great Mother gave Christianity the ‘Mother of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 74. 





God’ formula at the Council of Ephesus in 4381, at 
which center also we find the earliest trace of a cult 
of the Virgin Mother. The Phrygian Sabazius and 


’ Cappadocian Men also contributed to the growth of 


enthusiastic and personal religion in Europe. It 
was from A. M. that Mithraism was introduced into 
the Roman empire, for the sovereignty of which it 
contended with Christianity. Altho the enthusias- 
tic Dionysiac cult, which revolutionized Greek re- 
ligion, can not be claimed to be of A. M. or Asiatic 
origin (but cf. Davis, The Asiatic Dionysus), but 
rather of Thracian and Macedonian, yet Asiatic 
influences thereon can hardly be denied, esp. in view 
of the fact that Thrace and Macedonia were the 
home-lands of the Phrygian migrations into A. M. 
Moreover, the Ionian colonies would carry their 
Eleusinian trinity of Demeter, Dionysus and 
Persephone to A. M. where it would attract kindred 
conceptions. It is even suggested that the bisexual 
goddess and god of Phrygia may have been the 
prototypes of the Eleusinian deities. That Orphism 
was influenced by Asiatic, particularly Phrygian, 
ideas is beyond dispute. A. M. was also the home 
of the imperial cult, the attitude of Christians to 
which caused their faith to be proscribed and brought 
upon themselves bloody persecutions, which raged 
with greatest severity in A. M. This land was 
naturally the meeting place of the first great Coun- 
cils to define Christian doctrine and combat heresy. 
In addition to fostering Gnosticism A. M. produced 
Montanism, the most formidable heresy next to 
Gnosticism. But it gave the Church men like Paul, 
Basil, and the Gregories. 


III. Taz Roman Provinczs. 1. Asia. The 
Provincia Asia (Ac 16 6, 19 10, 22, 26; I Co 16 19, etc.), 
organized after the death of Attalus III of Pergamum 
in 133 B.c., comprised Mysia, Lydia (probably Caria 
also), and: the islands of the seaboard including 
Astypalea and Amorgos. Phrygia Major, tem- 
porarily annexed in 116 B.c., was not permanently 
incorporated until 49 B.c. Sulla reorganized the 
province in 84 B.c. (the Sullan Era). In imperial 
times A. belonged to the Senate, and was governed 
by a proconsul (residence at first Pergamum, then 
Ephesus). A. was divided into nine judicial dis- 
tricts and was further divided into 44 regiones (city 
districts), responsible for the taxes. The procurator 
Augusti Provincie Asie was the tax commissioner 
for the whole province. 


The cities of A. retained their native institutions 
(usually timocratical). But only citizens had a 
voice in the éxxAyolat and magistrates alone might 
introduce bills. The annually elected GBovrn, or 
council, survived. The yepoucl«, or Senate, had no 
political significance. The Aoytotat (chosen by the 
emperor) had charge of the city’s finances. The 
governor appointed the policemen, from a list sub- 
mitted by the GovAh. Tribal unions (xétvé) for the 
worship of the tribal god flourished everywhere; the 
nxotvoy “Actas (Commune Asie) instituted games and 
cared especially for the worship of Roma and Augus- 
tus; its delegates met yearly, wherever there were 
provincial temples, to offer prayers for the emperor, 
the Senate, and the Roman people, and to deliberate 





75 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Asia Minor 





on matters affecting the whole province; it might 
criticize the proconsul and appeal to Rome. 

A. suffered greatly during the civil wars, especially 
at the hands of Antony, but recovered rapidly and 
was immensely wealthy during the first two cen- 
turies of our era. Her woolen industries and dyeing 
establishments (rugs and seamless garments) were 
famous, as also were her banks (cf. Rev. 1-3). 


2. Bithynia. The boundaries of Bithynia (Ac 
16 7; I P 11) varied much from time to time, but 
roughly speaking it was separated from Asia on the 
S. by the Rhyndacus and Sangarius, from Pontus on 
the E. by the Parthenius. In general mountainous, 
it has several broad plains and one large river (San- 
garius). It still abounds in forests. In the Argo- 
naut myth B. is inhabited by Bebrycians, who were 
displaced and absorbed by Thynian and Bithynian 
Thracians at a time unknown to history. The 
Thracians crossed the Bosporus gradually and 
maintained their language and customs in their 
new home. The name Bithynil, alone used in his- 
torical times, is an expansion of Thynii. The Bithyn- 
ians appear occasionally in early history as an inde- 
pendent, warlike, inhospitable people. In Persian 
times they were still under native chieftains, whose 
power grew gradually after the death of Alexander. 
Nicomedes I subdued all B., founded Nicomedia 
(264 B.c.), and extended his kingdom. Nicomedes 
III, the last king bequeathed his kingdom to the 
Romans 74 B.c. 

B. was organized as a Roman province (65 B.c.) by 
M. Iuncus, governor of Asia, but after the overthrow 
of Mithridates by Pompey (66 B.c.) Pontus was an- 
nexed to B. (Pontus et Bithynia, 62 B.c.). B. was 
governed in imperial times by a proconsul of pre- 
torian rank. Both B. and Pontus retained their 
xotvé&. Besides Priapus, the native god of the 
Bebrycians, the Bithynians worshiped Zeus on 
mountain-tops under the name of Papas, the 
Phrygian Attis, Ares, and the Tracian Bendis. 

3. Cappadocia. Cappadocia, an Old Persian 
word katpa tuka (‘land of Tucha’) applied by Per- 
sians to the country NE. of the Taurus to the Euxine 
and from Lake Tatta to the Euphrates. The As- 
syrians called all C. Tabal. The inhabitants were 
also called Syrians, or White Syrians, as contradis- 
tinguished from the darker hued natives of Syria 
(perhaps a folk etymology). The Cappadocians 
were Aryans, altho probably there were Semitic set- 
tlements inC. The Persians divided C. into two 
satrapies, which ultimately became kingdoms: 
Cappadocia ad Taurum and Cappadocia ad Pontum 
(Pontus). C. became a Roman frontier province in 
17 a.p. and was united with Armenia Minor in 72. 
C. became Christian at an early period (I P 1 1). 
To the Church it furnished Gregory of Nazianzus 
and St. Basil. The later capital of the Cappadocian 
priest kings was at Comana Aurea. It was the seat 
of the worship of Ma. Six thousand priestesses 
served in her temple. 

4. Cilicia. By Cilicia was usually meant a coun- 
try in south eastern Asia Minor, bounded on the E. 
by the Amanus range, on the N. and the W. by the 
Taurus range (Lycaonia, Isauria); but in earliest 
times C. (Assyrian, Khilaku from which its name 


was derived) lay N. of the Taurus range, extending 
N. to beyond the Halys River (Pteria) and E. to the 
Kuphrates (Melitene). Cilicia proper (“The Plain’) 
was always intensely fertile, populous, and wealthy. 
It is well-watered by the rivers Sarus, Pyramus, and 
Cydnus. The coast is marshy. The climate is 
intensely hot in summer, very malarious, and deadly 
to travelers. C. is difficult of access by land: on the 
N. the Cilician gates (a narrow crevasse-like cleft 
in Taurus 83 m. long) constitute a dangerous, easily 
defended passage; on the E. are the Syro Cicilian 
gates and the Amanic gates, less difficult than the 
Cilician gates. The marshes pasture great herds 
of cattle and sheep. Western C., because moun- 
tainous, was called ‘Rugged Cilicia’ (Teaxetz, Tepax- 
et@ttc). Its chief river is the Calycadnus, where 
the Emperor Barbarossa was drowned. 

After experiencing many vicissitudes C. became 
with Lycia, a Roman province, 100 B.c. It was 
reorganized by Pompey, 66 B.c., after his defeat of 
Mithridates and the pirates whom he settled at 
Soli (Pompeiopolis). In 22 B.c. it became an im- 
perial province. Rugged Cilicia was long inde- 
pendent, under native kings, whose residence was at 
Olba. Under the Seleucid kings many Greeks set- 
tled in Tarsus, which became a center of trade and 
the seat of a school of philosophy. (See Tarsus). 


5. Galatia. The Gauls, or Celts, appeared on the 
Adriatic coast about 300 B.c., and from 280 B.c. dis- 
tracted the Roman world under Belgius and Brennus 
After the repulse of Brennus at Thermopyle-Delphi, 
remnants of the mutinous army under Lutarius 
and Leonnorius crossed the Hellespont (278 B.c.) 
at the invitation of Nicomedes I (278-250 B.c.); 
helped him to subdue Bithynia, then settled in Lydia, 
Mysia, and Phrygia, whence they harassed west- 
ern Asia Minor as far as Syria, which paid them trib- 
ute. They were defeated by Antiochus I (281-261 
B.c.). They were afterward defeated by Attalus I 
(about 235 B.c.), who confined them to a part of 
Phrygia (from Pessinus to Tavium), thenceforth 
known as Galatia (from TéAAo, Tadérat). They 
were divided into three tribes: Tolistobogii (in the 
Pessinus region), Tectosages (in the Ancrya region), 
Trocmi (in the Tavium region); each tribe was sub- 
divided into four tetrarchies. This pasture region— 
famous for its Angora goats and cats—suited the 
Gallic pastoral nomads, who prospered, and, altho 
defeated, were independent and continued to be 
troublesome. They became amalgamated with na- 
tives, and adopted the Greek language so rapidly— 
tho still speaking Celtic in the time of Jerome— 
that the Romans called them Gallo-Greci. In 
65 n.c. the tetrarch Deiotarus, Cicero’s friend, was 
aided by Pompey in return for services rendered 
against Mithridates in suppressing the other eleven 
tetrarchs; Pompey made Deiotarus king of G. He 
died about 40 B.c., when Antony made Amyntas 
King of G., Pisidia, and parts of Lycaonia and Pam- 
phylia in 36 .c. At his death (25 B.c.) G. became 
a Roman province, with Ancrya as the residence of 
the pretorian legate. This Provincia Galatia com- 
prised G. proper and included portions of Phrygia, 
Lycaonia, Isauria, and western Pisidia to the Pam- 
phylian frontier. Further territory was annexed 


Asia Minor 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 76 


ee i en ETN, 


from time to time: the principality of Deiotarus 
Philadelphus (western Paphlagonia) in 7 B.c., Se- 
bastopolis in 2 B.c., Comana Pontica (Pontus Ga- 
laticus) in 385 a.p. All this was the country known 
by Paul as Galatia. See Gaxatians, Ep. TO THE 
§ 4.). The inhabitants still bear traces in their 
blue eyes and red hair of their Celtic descent. 


6. Lycaonia. Lycaonia was situated on a high 
table land (3,000 ft.) N. of the Taurus range. Its 
boundaries fluctuated from time to time according 
to its varying political fortunes, but in general L. 
was bounded by Cappadocia, Phrygia, Pisidia, 
Isauria, and Cilicia. The northern part, in which 
Iconium is situated, is a vast, treeless, waterless 
(wells reach water at a depth of 20-30 ft.) plain or 
steppe (frequent mirages); the rivers that flow into 
this great land-locked basin disappear gradually and 
completely; the soil contains much salt and in places 
is semi-barren, but in general suitable for pasturing 
vast herds of fat-tailed sheep, of which Amyntas, 
King of Galatia had 300 herds. The Lycaonians 
were wild, warlike border-men, who maintained their 
independence in Persian times, but were conquered 
by the Macedonians. Their ethnical affinities are 
unknown. 

In 35 B.c. Amyntas, King of Galatia, defeated 
Antipater Derbetes, robber prince of southern L. 
and annexed his principality to Galatia. After the 
death of Amyntas (25 B.c.), most of L. passed with 
the kingdom of Galatia into Roman hands, and 
along with Galatia proper, parts of Phrygia, and 
western Pisidia to the Pamphylian frontier, formed 
the Provincia Galatia. 

The chief cities of L. were Iconium, Lystra, Derbe, 
Laodicea Combusta, Laranda, Parlais. ‘The whole 
region 8. of Iconium abounds in Christian inscrip- 
tions and ruins of Christian churches. 

7. Lycia. Lycia (Ac 27 5) was bounded by Caria, 
Phrygia, Pisidia, Pamphylia, and the sea. The 
country is very mountainous. The views from al- 
pine highlands are the finest in Asia Minor. The 
mountain valleys: are fertile. There is only one 
broad valley, that of the Xanthus, distinguished 
for its fertility and its many cities. 

The first inhabitants of L., known as Solymi, 
were famed among the Greeks as builders of Cyclo- 
pean walls in Greece; they have left proof of their 
cunning in sculptures and rock-cut tombs which 
imitate wood construction. It is uncertain when L. 
became a Roman province. It espoused the cause 
of Cesar and was conquered by Brutus. L. was given 
freedom by Antony, but in 43 a.p. it was again a 
Roman province, under a legate. In Roman times 
L. had become thoroughly Hellenized in speech and 
manners, and her people were very prosperous, as 
the remains of magnificent theaters and other build- 
ings attest. 

8. Lydia. Lydia was named from Lydus, son of 
the sun-god Attis. In Assyrian the Lydians were 
called Luddi (660 B.c.). The earliest Greek name 
was Mzonia. The Greeks assigned two dynasties 
to L. in mythical times: Attyade and Sandonide, or 
Heraclide. The Sandonide dynasty reigned for 
about 450 years, and was supplanted by the Merm- 
nade in the person of Gyges 687 B.c. Ardys, 


Gyges’ son, was tributary to Assyria. Alyattes (612- 
563 B.c.) expelled the Cimmerians, destroyed the 
Phrygian Kingdom, and took the Greek cities of the 
seaboard, allowing them to retain their native in- 
stitutions, altho they paid tribute. Alyattes’ son 
Croesus became famous for his wealth (his gifts to 


Delphi alone aggregated $6,000,000). After ruling 


15 years, he was conquered by Cyrus (546 B.c.), 
who annexed L. to Persia, when Sardis became the 
western capital of the Persian Empire. The Lyd- 
ians, who hitherto had been brave and warlike, 
were made effeminate by the Persians. In 189 
B.c. L. was given by the Romans to Eumenes, and 
at the death of Attalus III of Pergamum (133 B.c.) 


it was incorporated into the Provincia Asia. The © 


Lydians were natural merchants, devoted them- 
selves to commerce, and became business mediaries 
between Asia and Greece. The ‘Lydian market’ 
was famous and followed every army. ‘They manu- 
factured costly garments, rugs (Giérdiz, Ushak,) 
dyed woolen stuffs (madder, Turkey red), cast 
bronze, and were the first to coin money by stamp- 
ing a rude ingot of electrum, which Croesus replaced 
by gold and silver. They were musicians, and also 
kept the first inns. They gradually lost their na- 
tionality and adopted the Greek language. ‘They 
inherited from the Hittites the nature-worship of 
Cybele; and the sun-god Attis, the son-husband of 
Cybele, who mutilated himself and was therefore 
served by eunuch priests. His death by a boar 
meant that summer was slain by the boar-tusk of 
winter. 

The chief cities of L. were Sardis (the capital and 
the terminus of the Persian ‘Royal Road’), Phila- 
delphia, Thyatira, Magnesia ad Sipylum, Hypepa. 
L. was Christianized at an early period as a result 
of the labors of Paul and his companions. 


9. Mysia. Mysia, a country in the northwestern 
corner of Asia Minor, whose boundaries fluctuated 
fromitime to time, but, loosely speaking, it was bound- 
ed by Lydia (Mt. Temnus), Phrygia, and Bithynia 
(Mt. Olympus, 6,000 ft.). It was divided into 
Troas (probably the first settlement of the Briges, 
or Phrygians, on Asiatic soil), Phrygia Parva on the 
Propontis (so named because subject to Phrygia 
when the Greeks were founding colonies), Aolis 
(Greek colonists), Teuthrania (Pergamum region), 
and M. proper, which in Lydian and Persian times 
was confined to the interior. The appellation Mysia 
was not applied to all this territory until Pergame- 
nian and Roman times. The Mysians maintained 
their tribal independence under the Persian kings, 
altho they were never really an independent nation. 
Their language was a combination of Phrygian and 
Lydian. They appear first as allies of Troy. In 
133 B.c. M. became a part of the Provincia Asia. 

The interior of M. is a table-land, stepped by 
mountains running E. and W. It was once covered 
by forests, and had but few cities, but the whole sea- 
board was dotted with cities colonized by Greeks 
from Elza in AXolis to Cyzicus. The most impor- 
tant city of the interior was Pergamum; among those 
on the coast were Cyzicus, Lampsacus; Abydus, 
Alexandria Troas, Assos, Adramyttium Myrina, 
Elea. The inhabitants of M. were Phrygians, 


77 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Asia Minor 





Trojans, Aéolian Greeks, and Mysians proper in the 
interior: the latter were a pastoral folk, who played 
but a small role in history. 

10. Pamphylia. Pamphylia, a name applied 
originally to the level coastal plain lying between 
Lycia and Cilicia, S. of the Taurus Mountains 
(Pisidia). The plain is about 75 m. long by 30 m. 
wide. Atanearly period Greek colonies were found- 
ed at Olbia (afterward Attalia) and Side, whose 
sphere of influence was extended inland to Perga, 
Sillenus, and Aspendus. The Pamphylians were 
never independent and never made their mark in 
history; they seem to have been an admixture of 
aborigines and Greek colonists; their language and 
institutions also were partly Greek, partly barbarian. 

After the defeat of Antiochus ITI, P. was presented 
by the Romans to Attalus IJ, King of Pergamum, 
who made Attalia (Olbia) the capital of P. It passed, 
by the will of Attalus III (133 B.c.), to Rome, and 
at an uncertain date was united with Cilicia into a 
Roman province. Cicero was governor of Cilicia- 
Pamphylia-Cyprus. For a short time P. was a 
part of the kingdom of Amyntas of Galatia (36-25 
B.c.). It formed a procuratorial province from 25 
to 50 a.pv. Both Cilicians and Pamphylians were 
notorious pirates, whose chief center and slave- 
market was at Side. ‘These pirates were suppressed 
by Pompey (67 B.c.) and settled at Soli in Cilician 
territory. In summer the climate is deadly, giving 
rise to pernicious fever. 


11. Phrygia. The original boundaries of Phrygia 
were vague, but in prehistoric times it included the 
whole western interior of Asia Minor, extending 
through Propontis to the Hellespont (Phrygia 
Parva). The Greeks considered the Phrygians the 
primeval people, who spoke the original language 
of man, while her kings were peers of gods. The 
Phrygian kingdom supplanted a part of the Hittite 
Empire (the Hittite road, afterward the ‘Royal 
Road’ of the Persians, passed near ‘Midas-town’). 
The western part of P. was annexed to Pergamum 
in 189 (Phrygia Epictetus). It passed, by the will 
of Attalus III (133), to Rome, and was incorporated 
into the province of Asia. 

The Phrygians were akin to the Greeks, who 
thought them akin to the Armenians. They prob- 
ably came from Europe via the Hellespont to Asia 
Minor, tho some may: have come overland via 
Armenia-Cappadocia. They were most famous in 
prehistoric times and made a profound impression 
on the Greek mind (cf. Midas, Gordius, Marsyas, 
Olympus, the flute). Their chief deities were 
Cybele (Matar Kubile, the ‘Asiatic Mother,’ asso- 
ciated with the nature-worship of procreative power 
in animals and plants) and her son-husband the sun- 
god Sabazius-Alttis (t.e., Tammuz, the Greek Adonis). 
His autumnal festivals were sad, accompanied by 
orgiastic rites and self-mutilations, while in his 
spring festivals frenzied joy prevailed at the reappear- 
ance of the god, expressed by orgiastic dances, and 
bacchanalian wanderings in forest to the music of 
the flute. There was no real marriage, only tem- 
porary unions. Women gained dowries by prosti- 
tution before the deity, without losing caste; there- 
fore descent was reckoned from the mother. P. 


was converted to Christianity at an early period 
(entirely Christian by 300). But their early train- 
ing in mysticism bore fruits in Montanism, which 
was strenuously opposed by Abercius, the great 
Phrygian saint. 


12. Pisidia. Pisidia was a district of southern 
Asia Minor. Its boundaries fluctuated much at 
different times, especially in the western end. Loose- 
ly speaking, it was bounded by Isauria, Cilicia, 
Pamphylia, Lycia, Caria, and Phrygia. The na- 
tionality of the Pisidians (first mentioned by Xeno- 
phon) is uncertain. Some regard them as Solymi, 
but Strabo says that the language of the Pisidians 
was distinct from that of the Solymi. They were 
brave, wild, lawless, liberty-loving border-men, 
who made frequent predatory incursions into neigh- 
boring territory. They offered a stubborn resis- 
tance to Alexander and continued to be governed by 
native dynasts, even when nominally a part of a 
Roman province. Indeed, up to 189 B.c. part of 
the western end of P. formed a separate principality 
(capital Cibyra). It belonged nominally to the 
Seleucids till 189 (the eastern end till 102). Under 
the Pergamenian kings it was united with Pamphylia. 
In 36 B.c. Antony made Amyntas king of Galatia, 
western Pisidia, and parts of Lycaonia and Pamphyl- 
ia. At the death of Amyntas (25 B.c.) his kingdom 
(including western P.) became a Roman province 
with Ancrya as the residence of a pretorian legate. 
In 44 a.p. the western end of P. was added to Phryg- 
ia as part of Asia and in 72 a.p. to Lycia-Pam- 
phylia. 

P. is a rugged, impassable, alpine country, con- 
taining the highest peaks of the Taurus range with 
thrilling scenery, and a salubrious climate on its 
elevated table-lands. The memory of Paul’s visit 
is still preserved in a village named Baulo, on a lofty 
plateau above the source of the Cestrus. The name 
was given to the place probably because Paul rested 
some time in the invigorating climate of Baulo, with 
its sublime views. P., strangely enough, had many 
important wealthy cities: Antioch, Sagalassus (on 
an elevated plateau at the foot of an overhanging 
mountain), Cremna (on very top of a lofty, inac- 
cessible crag; streets still clear and distinct), Ter- 
messus, Selge. 

Educated Pisidians adopted the Greek language, 
while the peasantry clung to the native tongue and 
had but a smattering of Greek. P. contains many 
magnificent ruins and Greek and Latin inscriptions, 
chiefly of the Roman period. 

13. Pontus. Pontus, is not an ethnic but a ter- 
ritorial designation, applied after Alexander to the 
country lying between the River Halys and Colchis, 
part of which originally belonged to Cappadocia, 
while the rest remained independent under native 
dynasts. The real importance of P. begins with the 
kings of Persian stock named Mithridates (from 
337 B.c. on). Mithridates VI (Eupator), the 
Great, 121-63, reigned over a kingdom which in- 
cluded most of Asia Minor and extended around the 
Black Sea to the Cimmarian Bosporus (Tauric Cher- 
sonesus). Defeated by Pompey in 66, he retreated 
to Tauric Chersonesus, where, besieged by his son 
Pharnaces, he committed suicide (63 B.c.), which 


Asiarch 
Assyria 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 78 


rnc RS ta ee 


ended the kingdom of P. Nicomedes III of Bithyn- 
ia bequeathed his kingdom to Rome (74 B.c.), and 
after the overthrow of Mithridates (66) P. was an- 
nexed to Bithynia (62), and the combined province 
was known as Bithynia et Pontus (a senatorial prov- 
ince in 27 B.c.). The rest of Mithridates’ kingdom 
was given to native dynasts; Deiotarus received 
the western interior between the Iris and Halys 
rivers (Pontus Galaticus). Pontus Polemoniacus 
received its name because it was given by Antony 

(36 B.c.) to Polemon Eusebes of Laodicea ad 

Lycum, part of whose kingdom went with his 

widow Pythodoris (granddaughter of Antony) to 

Archelaus of Cappadocia (thenceforth known as 

Pontus Cappadocius). Polemon II ceded the 

kingdom to Nero 63 a.p., when P. became a 

separate province, but in 111 a.p. Pliny was 

consular legate with proconsular power in 

Bithynia et Pontus. 

The people of P. were rude, warlike, barbarous, 
and known in earliest times by Greeks as ‘white 
Syrians.’ Amasia was the capital of Mithridates 
VI and from 7 B.c. the residence of the Roman gov- 
ernor. Comana Pontica, to distinguish it from 
Comana Aurea, was a seat of the worship of Ma, 
and the residence of independent priest-kings (cf. the 
Amazon myth.) 

LireraTurRE: Mommsen, Provinces of the Rom. Empire (1885); 
Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor (1890); J. 
Weiss in PRE}, vol. 10, art. ‘“Kleinasien’”’ (with full bibliog- 
raphy). S. A. 
ASIARCH, é@’shi-Grk (’Acthexns) ‘the chief of 

Asia,’ AV., ‘chief officers of Asia’ RV (Ac 19 31). 

There is much uncertainty about the exact nature 

and function of the Asiarchs. Space precludes dis- 

cussion of the two main views, with diversity of 
details: (1) The A. were religio-political officials 
who presided over the annual assembly of 
civic deputies, the Commune Asie, with which 
was combined a festival in honor of the reigning em- 
peror and games (xowdActac). Thus they united ritual 
and administrative functions. The A. in office would 
be president of the Diet of Asia. They were iden- 
tical with the deyxtepets *Actac. They were pro- 
vincial high-priests of the temples of the imperial 
cult in Asia (So Mommsen. Marquardt, Light- 
foot, Ramsay) (2) Brandis (in Pauly-Wissowa RE 
arts. Asiarches and Archiereus) denies their identity 
with ‘the high-priests of Asia,’ and reduces the A. 
from provincial officials to municipal delegates of 
individual cities to the provincial assembly. We 
read of similar dignitaries in other provinces, Bithy- 
niarch, Syriarch, Galatarch, Lyciarch. The term 
of office was for a year (four years, according to 

Ramsay). The cost of the festivals was defrayed by 

the A., and hence only wealthy men were eligible. 

The dignity was so highly esteemed that it is often 

mentioned in inscriptions. The multiplication of 

temples of the cult of Rome and the emperor and the 
increasing number of these who had a right to the 
title reduced the A. to mere providors of festivals 
in honor of the emperor. The function became 
obsolete in 297 when Diocletian partitioned Asia 
into seven small provinces. It is significant that 

Paul had friends among those who, on either of the 

above views, should at least have been supporters 


of the imperial cult to which the Lordship of Jesus 

was an implicit challenge. cf. Mommsen Provinces 

I p. 344 ff. 

LirERATURE: Lightfoot, St. Ignatius and Polycarp II p. 987 f.; 
Ramsay, St. Paul 280 f., Clas. Rev. III p. 174; Brandis, op. 
Cit. 8. A. 
ASIEL, @'si-cl (?8°BY, ‘Gs7’él), ‘God is [my] ma- 

ker’: A Simeonite ‘prince’ (I Ch 4 35). 

ASKELON, as‘ki-lon. See ASHKELON. 


ASMODZUS, as’’mo-di’us: An evil spirit men- 
tioned in To 37 ff. See DemMono.oey, § 3. 

ASNAH, as’na (398, ’asnah), ‘thornbush’: The 
ancestral head of one of the families of the Nethinim 
(Ezr 2 50). 

ASNAPPER, as-nap’er. See OSNAPPER, 

ASP. See Patsstine, § 26. 

ASPATHA, as-pé’fha (80208, ’aspatha’): One of 
Haman’s ten sons (Est 9 7). 

ASRIEL, as’ri-el (28°W8, ’asri’él): The ancestor 
of the Manassite clan of Asrielites in Gilead (Nu 26 
31; Jos 17 2). The occurrence of the name in the 
variant genealogical notice in I Ch 7 14 (Ashriel AV) 
is probably a scribal error. E. E. N. 


ASS: The ass was domesticated very early and is 
mentioned in the earliest literature of the O T as an 
animal with which the Hebrews were well acquainted 
and used extensively. The ox and the ass were the 
two animals that the ordinary Israelite, as a farmer, 
would be most likely to have (Ex 20 17, etc.). The 
horse came into use in Israel at a comparatively late 
period and then only as an animal for riding or for 
war, not as a work-animal (cf. the figures for the two 
animals at the Return, Ezr 2 68 f.) The ass, on the 
other hand, was used both for riding and for work. 
The O T distinguishes between (1) the hdmér, (so 
called probably, from its predominantly reddish 
color) the male animal, the ordinary beast of burden 
(cf. Gn 42 26 ff., 49 14, etc.), also used for riding, fre- 
quently by women (cf. Ex 4 20; Jos 15 18; 1S 25 23). 
(2) The ’Gihdn, the she-ass, a favorite for riding 
(Nu 22 21 ff.; If K 4 22); white (or nearly so) she-asses 
were considered especially valuable (Jg 5 10). (8) 
The ‘ayir or ass’s colt 7.e., probably a young in dis- 
tinction from an old, worn-out animal, finds frequent 
mention (Jg 10 4; Is 30 6, 24; cf. Mk 11 2 and ||; Jn 
12 15). The possessor of large herds of asses was a 
rich man (cf. Gn 12 16, 32 15; Job 1 3, etc.). 

The wild ass, pere’ and ‘arédh, which goes in herds, 
but also loves solitude (Hos 89), untamable, rejoicing 
in its freedom (Job 39 5), is at home only in the 
desert (Job 24 5; Jer 22 4). See also PALESTINE, 
§ 24. HK. E. N. 


ASSASSINS (‘murderers’ AV): The RV so ren- 
ders atxkerot, Sicarizt (derived from sica, a curved 
sword, small enough to be carried under the cloak), 
meaning strictly ‘daggermen.’ They were a semi- 
political party in the troubled period that culmin- 
ated in the war with Rome and were called ‘assass- 
ins’ from their promptly resorting to murder to ac- 
complish their ends. A band of such men led by the 
‘Egyptian’ into the desert is referred to in Ac 21 38. 
Jos Ant., XX 85; BJ II, 13 3 f., IV 7 2 ff. ete. 

A. C. Z. 


79 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Asiarch 
Assyria 





ASSEMBLY: I. In O T: The rendering of a number 
of original Heb. and Grk. terms of which (5) and (7) 
below are the most important. (1) md‘édh, an ‘ap- 
pointed’ meeting (Ps 74 4; La 115,26). (2) mdshabh, 
‘seat’ (Ps 107 32). (8) migra’, convocation (Is 
113, 45). (4) sddh, ‘circle of intimate friends’ (Jer 
611, 1517). (5) ‘édhah, an ‘appointed’ gathering (the 
congregation of Israel); in RV only in Pr 5 14. (6) 
‘dtsereth, a ‘compulsory’ meeting, generally rendered 
‘solemn assembly’ (LV 23 36, ete.) (7) qahal, the 
‘assembly’ of Is. as a theocratic unit, frequently 
used with (5) nearly always rendered ‘assembly’ in 
RV (Ex 126, 16 3, etc.). A derived word, g¢hilldah, is 
used in Dt 33 4; Neh 57. 

Il. In N T: (1) éxxAnola, the concourse in the the- 
ater (Ac 19 32, 41; cf. ver. 39). (2) cuveywyh, ‘syna- 
gogue,’ ?. e., church meeting (Ja 22). (3) wavhyvets, 
a ‘whole assembly’ (Heb 12 23). E. E. N. 

ASSHUR, ash’tr. See Assyria, §§ 1, 2. 


ASSHURIM, a-shi’rim. See ErHnoGRAPHY AND 
Erunouoey, § 13. 

ASSIDAANS, as’’i-di’anz. See PHarisrEsEs, § 3. 

ASSIR, as’er (128, ’assir), ‘captive’: 1. The 
name of two Levites (Ex 6 24=I Ch 6 22 and I Ch 6 
23, 37). 2. In I Ch 317, AV (ason of Jeconiah). But 
RV has the more correct reading, ‘Jeconiah the 
captive.’ EK. E. N, 

ASSOS, as’es ("Ascoc, Ac 20 13f.): A town sit- 
uated on a lofty hill on the southern coast of the 
Troad, 20 m. from Troas. Its ruins are extensive. 
The docks at Constantinople were constructed from 
its ancient buildings. The mole is still extant. It is 
now called Behram- Kalessi. J.R.S.8.—S. A. 


ASSYRIA, a-sir’l-o: 1. The Name. Assyria is the 
Gr. form of Heb. VWS8, Asshur, which designates in 
O T, for the most part, the Assyrian land and 
people, and also the extension of the kingdom as 
embracing the whole Assyrian Empire. In some 
later writings, the empires succeeding the Assyrian 
are referred to by the same name, e.g., the later 
Babylonian (Lam 5 6) and the Persian (Ezr 6 22), the 
reason being that Assyria was the original compre- 


hensive type, and therefore a natural representative — 


of a great Asiatic empire. 

2. Earliest History. Asshur was first of all the 
name of the patron god of a community of Babylo- 
nian emigrants, who named after him their first 
permanent settlement, founded on the right bank of 
the Tigris, north of its junction with the lower Zab. 
This city remained for a time the principal seat of 
the new nation and was always the chief frontier 
station toward the south, the lower Zab being nor- 
mally the border of Assyria proper. Gradually the 
colonists moved northward, and passing the upper 
Zab they established several fortresses between that 
river, the Tigris itself, and the Zagros chain of 
mountains to the north. 

3. Nineveh and Its Group of Cities. The chief of 
these walled cities were Calah and Nineveh, which 
formed the center of the kingdom. This historical 
process is outlined in Gn 10 10, where Nimrod (cf. 
ver. 9) represents the eponymous founder (Mic 5 6) 
of Babylonian and Assyrian civilization and history. 
‘Out of that land he went forth into Assyria, and 


built Nineveh and Rehoboth-Ir and Calah and Resen 
between Nineveh and Calah.’ In this list Rehoboth- 
Ir is Ribit Nina, the modern Mosul, and the site of 
Resen is unknown. No mention is made of the city 
of Asshur in the O T, perhaps because it had ceased 
to have any importance by the time when the 
Hebrew traditions took shape. 


4. National Character. The Assyrians, as con- 
trasted with the Babylonians, were a more hardy, 
warlike, independent people, with less general 
intellectual talent and enterprise, but with more 
political genius than the Babylonian or indeed than 
any other branch of the Semitic race. Their territory, 
being almost entirely mountainous or rugged, altho 
fertile, was not, upon the whole, as productive as the 
Babylonian. The struggle for existence was made 
keener by attacks from robber bands of the northern 
and eastern mountains. Wars on a larger scale with 
the Guté and the Kasshites, or Cosseans, of the S. 
and E., and with many tribes and nations of the N., 
such as the Kurds, who still control the same region 
as of old, trained them for systematic military opera- 
tions and gave these Romans of the East a discipline 
unprecedented among Oriental peoples. 


5. Purity of Race. The Assyrians, in contrast with 
the Babylonians, represented also the idea of Semitic 
independence and exclusiveness. Their emigration 
was made either before or at the time of the subjuga- 
tion of Babylonia by 
the Elamites. They 
successfully resisted 
the attacks of the 
Cosseans, who later 
ruled in Babylon for 

‘ nearly five centuries. 
# Their religion, altho essen- 
tially Babylonian, was less 
adulterated with foreign 
elements. Their ancestors 
in N. Babylonia were of 
that genuine Semitic stock 
which has left no trace of 
‘Sumerian’ influence either 
politically or in its oldest 
literarary monuments. 
Finally, the numerous 
sculptured representations 
of Assyrian faces bear an unmistakable Semitic 
stamp. 

6. Periods of History. The history of Assyria 
may be divided into three periods marked respec- 
tively: (1) by dependence upon Babylonia, (2) by a 
long struggle for supremacy, (3) by the attainment 
and maintenance of preeminent dominion. 

I. Periop oF DEPENDENCY. 7. Dependence on 
Babylonia. The first period may be regarded also as 
a section of Babylonian history, for not only Assyria 
but the whole region W. to the Mediterranean was 
during most of the time under the control of 
Babylonia. The relations of friendship with the 
parent country were frequently disturbed, during 
the centuries between the founding of the colony 
and the era of the collapse of the old Babylonian 
world-empire, about 1746 B.c., when Babylonia 
proper came under the control of the non-Semitic 






Head of an Assyrian 


Assyria . 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 80 





Cosseans. During this period the supreme rulers 
were not ‘kings,’ but ‘regents of the god Asshur.’ 
Such an appellation implies semi-independence of 
Babylonia, which was wisely permitted under the 
regime of Hammurabi and his successors. Complete 
independence and the assumption of kingship on the 
part of the rulers begins with Puzur-Ashir I, about 
2080 B.c. 


II. Srrua@e_e For Supremacy. 8. Rivalry with 
Babylonia. ‘The second period (c. 1745-745 B.c.) 
shows Assyria as a rival of Babylonia and an in- 
creasingly aggressive power generally. The Cosseans 
domination in Babylonia gave the Assyrians the 
opportunity and justification for proclaiming them- 
selves heirs of the old Babylonian dominion, and the 
great rulers of Assyria speak of themselves frequently 
as successors of the famous kings of the oldest 
dynasties of Babylonia. The inheritance naturally 
included the right first of all to the Mesopotamian 
territory through which passed the highways of 
western traffic. This was secured after several 
centuries of bitter conflict with the growing Aramean 
settlements EK. of the Euphrates. Assyria on the 
whole became continually stronger and Babylonia 
continually weaker. Already in the 12th cent. B.c., 
under the great Tiglath-pileser I, Assyria had, in 
addition to Mesopotamia, subdued the most for- 
midable nations of the northern and northwestern 
highlands as far as Cappadocia, and Assyrian armies 
had overrun Syria as far as the Phenician coast-line. 
But these efforts could not be repeated; and it was 
not till the 10th cent. that they were systematically 
resumed. Meanwhile the Arameans had founded 
their great settlements W. of the Euphrates, and 
Palestine had come largely under the control of the 
Hebrews, while both Assyria and Babylonia were 
enfeebled and inactive. 


9. First Contact with Israel. It was in consequence 
of another revival of Assyrian power and aggression 
that Israel first came in contact with the empire of 
the Tigris in 854 B.c. The situation created in that 
year was typical. Shalmaneser III (860-824 B.c.), 
whose annals are engraved on the famous black 
obelisk in the British Museum, was now king of 
Assyria. He was repeating and extending the con- 
quests of his father, the warlike and cruel Asshur- 
nasirpal (885-860 B.c.). He was approaching 
Hamath from the N., and a combination of twelve 
of the western states was formed against him. The 
lead was taken by Ben-hadad II, the king of Da- 
mascus, by this time the most powerful nation on 
the Mediterranean coast-land. Damascus was also 
normally a bitter enemy of northern Israel; but just 
in that year the peace of Aphek (I K 20 36) had been 
concluded, and Israel under Ahab is mentioned by 
Shalmaneser as contributing a strong contingent 
to the defensive force. Other peoples represented 
were Ammonites and Arabians from E. of Palestine, 
and perhaps more remarkable still was a contingent 
from Que, the Cilician Plain. The battle which en- 
sued was indecisive, but Shalmaneser was inter- 
rupted in his march of conquest. 

10. Attempts on the West-land. As a result of 
subsequent campaigns the Assyrians succeeded in 
breaking the leadership of Damascus in the W., so 


that in 842 Jehu, the ursurping king of Israel, found 
it to his interest to send gifts to Shalmaneser and 
thus become an Assyrian vassal. Assyria, however, 
was overstraining herself, and Damascus had a 
reprieve from attack for forty years, during which 
time the Syrians were able to exert their strength, 
especially under Hazael, against both Israel and 
Judah. But the Aramean capital was at last taken 
in 797 by Adad-nirari III (807-783) and never 
again became the seat of a first-class power. The 
strength of Assyria, however, became exhausted 
by strenuous attempts at extension in all directions, 
and for nearly half a century it had enough to do to 
maintain its hold even upon Mesopotamia. 


Til. AssyRIA SUPREME IN SovutTHwest ASIA. — 


11. Reorganization of the Empire. A series of in- 
surrections in several important centers was ended 
in 745 B.c. by the accession to the throne of the most 
original and far-seeing of Assyrian rulers, Tiglath- 
pileser III (q.v.), also known in the Bible by his 
Babylonian name of Pul (II K 1519). His policy was 
to put all troublesome states under direct Assyrian 
administration, and to hold the tributaries under a 
rigid system of probation whereby sedition or 
intrigue with outside peoples was punished with 
heavy fines and increase of tribute. Such penalties 
were usually so severe that insurrection was resorted 
to for relief, and direct annexation was the almost 
invariable reprisal. Thus the work of empire- build- 
ing was reduced to a system for the first time in the 
world’s history. His military policy was to keep in 
check the northern and eastern mountain tribes by 
occupying their territory, a process which involved 
terrible and frequent wars; to make Assyrian prov- 
inces of the recalcitrant states; to make tributaries 
of the rest by virtue of his rightful prerogative, since 
all of them had at one time or another become 
vassals or wards of Assyria; to bring Babylonia under 
Assyrian control; and to make Nineveh the capital 
of the Semitic world. 


12. Achievements or Tiglath-pileser III. By 738 
B.c. all northern and middle Syria had been made an 
integral part of the Assyrian realm. In that year 
Menahem of Israel bought off Tiglath-pileser with 
an immense sum of money (II K 15 17-20). In 734 
the Assyrians returned to Palestine, where the new 
king Pekah had formed an alliance against the in- 
vaders and attempted to coerce Ahaz of Judah into 
joining the combination (Is ch. 7). Ahaz sought 
Assyrian protection. Tiglath-pileser, ‘within the 
next two years, dethroned Pekah and put him 
to death, made a province of Israel N. of the plain 
of Jezreel, took the city of Damascus, extorted 
enormous tributed from the Phenician seaports, 
and appointed his own creatures to rule over the 
Philistine cities (II K 15 29 ff.). 

Hoshea, who was placed over the dismembered 
kingdom of Israel, kept up tribute-pay:ng till the 
death of the great Assyrian, but he revolted at the 
instigation of the Egyptian princes of the Delta in 
724, the third year of Shalmaneser V. Samaria 
was at once invaded and was taken at the close of 
722. The principal inhabitants were deported to 
distant provinces of the empire (II K 17). The fall 
of Samaria coincided with the death of Shalmaneser 


81 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


: 


Assyria 





and the accession of Sargon, the founder of the last 
and greatest Assyrian dynasty. 


13. The Work Done by Sargon. The reign of 
Sargon (722-705 B.c.) was even more important than 
that of Tiglath-pileser, since he consolidated and 
confirmed the work of the latter. During his 
reign the empire assumed permanent shape and 
substantive existence. The west was carefully 
watched, and the way to Egypt prepared and 
guarded. A rebellion in Ashdod was put down in 
711 (cf. Is 20), and Judah, now a recognized vassal 
state, was warned against intriguing with Egypt and 
the Philistines. More important was the work 
accomplished in Babylonia. There the priesthood 
of Babylon had been favorable to Assyrian inter- 
vention under Tiglath-pileser. But a formidable 
rival had arisen in the south, by the Gulf, where the 
Chaldean chiefs were asserting their claims against 
all intruders (see BaBytonta, § 19). The famous 
Merodach-baladan (q.v.) had, in fact, made himself 
king of Babylon, and it was not until the twelfth 
year of Sargon that he was dislodged. Sargon then 
made himself regent of the country under the gods 
of Babylon. 


14. Sennacherib. On the death of Sargon and the 
accession of his son Sennacherib (705-681 B.c.) a 
great revolt was set on foot. It was headed by 
Hezekiah of Judah in the west with the cooperation 
of the Philistines and the backing of Egypt. In 701 
Sennacherib invaded the country. The allies of 
Hezekiah were defeated, Judah itself ravaged up to 
the gates of Jerusalem, and many of its inhabitants 
carried into exile, while the capital was saved only 
after a terrible plague had decimated the Assyrian 
army when about to invade Egypt (II K 18 13-19 37). 
It is still not quite certain, but seems probable, that 
Sennacherib made two attempts to take Jerusalem, 
the first in 701, the second when he was making a 
campaign against Arabia and Egypt. It was in this 
second campaign that the plague occurred to which 
Herodotus (II, 141) was also making allusion under 
the figure of a plague of mice invading the Assyrian 
camp. 

15. The Acme of Power. Politically this disaster 
to Assyria was only a minor incident, and Judah 
remained a vassal of Assyria until the fall of Nineveh. 
Esarhaddon (681-688), one of the greatest of the 
Assyrian kings, enlarged the empire by the annexa- 
tion of Egypt. Asshurbanipal (668-626) put down 
revolt in Egypt, but had to relinquish its sovereignty 
in or about 645 B.c. A great rebellion in Babylonia, 
headed by Asshurbanipal’s brother as viceroy, was 
put down with terrible severity, and Elam, which 
had long opposed the Assyrian advances in Baby- 
lonia, was finally conquered. 

16. Fall of Assyria. This rounded out the achieve- 
ments of Assyrian empire-building. But the majestic 
structure soon began to fall apart through internal 
strain and the assaults of the Scythians of the north; 
and at last its cornerstone, the mighty fortress of 
Nineveh, was stormed by the soldiers of the new and 
virile empire of the Medes. The city was besieged 
by Cyaxares, with Chaldean assistance, in 614 B.c., 
and fell by assault in August 612. An Assyrian noble, 
bearing the historic name of Ashur-uballit escaped 


and proclaimed himself king of Assyria with Harran 
as his capital. There he was attacked by Nabo- 
polassar, and with help of the Medes driven out and 
his new capital sacked. He later appeared as an 
ally of Necho II when he invaded Asia, but is soon 
lost in obscurity. In his person the Assyrian Empire 
ceased. 


17. Importance of the Assyrian Monuments. The 
resurrected monuments of Assyria, abundant and 
varied as they are, are perhaps of less importance 
to the student of civilization than the vast and 
ever-increasing array of Babylonian antiquities. 
They do, however, supply great defects and gaps 
in the Babylonian records, partly because the longer- 
lived nation had little taste for the chronicling of 
political and military events, and partly because 
much of the best Assyrian literature consists of tran- 
scripts of invaluable Babylonian documents whose 
originals have not yet been found. On the other 
hand, the Assyrian inscriptions, and especially the 
royal annals, are the most valuable material illus- 
trative of the O T which antiquity has yielded up. 
By means of them we have obtained a reliable frame- 
work for Biblical chronology during the most im- 
portant period of Hebrew history, and the history 
itself during the same period has been rearranged, 
readjusted, and made organically intelligible. More 
important still is the commentary upon O T proph- 
ecy which they afford. For example, the records of 
Assyrian warfare explain and vindicate the most 
powerful exposure and arraignment of imperialistic 
aggression ever made, and at the same time help us 
to understand, better perhaps than any modern in- 
stances, the other declaration of prophecy, that 
vainglorious national ambition and even inter- 
national strife have a providential mission of 
chastening and humiliation. Perhaps most important 
of all is that we are now shown by the Assyrian 
annals how prophecy itself was conditioned by and 
shaped in accordance with the successive movements 
of Assyria upon the western lands, and the complica- 
tions that resulted therefrom. 


18. Art and Religion. The Assyrian people in the 
arts of architecture and sculpture alone excelled the 
contemporary Babylonians. Of more importance to 
us is their religion, not only because it affected the 
worship of Israel (II K 2311f.; cf. 16 11 ff.), but also 
because it stands in such close causal relation with 
the political and military system of the Assyrians 
themselves. Just because the empire of the Tigris 
was a concentrated unit, ever striving to realize 
itself in action, the cult of Asshur, the patron god of 
the Assyrians, became more and more emphasized, 
as contrasted with that of the other gods whom they 
worshiped in common with the Babylonians, their 
political and military rivals. It is true that the 
foundation of their religious system was of Baby- 
lonian origin, and certain of the gods, such as the 
theoretical supreme triad, Anu, Bel, and Ea, 
Shamash the sun-god, Sin the moon-god, Adad the 
thunder-god, and Ishtar the deification of the female 
principle, were retained and honored. But their own 
deity, Asshur, who was not in the Babylonian pan- 
theon, came to be looked on as the potential possessor 
of all the moral attributes of the other divinities. 


Astronomy 
Athens 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY $2 





Asshur was also first and foremost a war-god, be- 
cause war was the most genuine and spontaneous 
expression of the national religion. Thus it happened 
that when Assyria passed away as an empire the cult 
of Asshur was ipso facto extinguished, while Marduk 
of Babylon survived the political destruction of 
Semitism under Cyrus and the Persians. 

Literature: For the history and civilization: Rogers, His- 
tory of Babylonia and Assyria, 6th ed. 1915; Olmstead, His- 
tory of Assyria, 1923, for relations to the Bible: Schrader, 
Die Keilinschriften und das alte Testament (2d ed. 1883, Engl. 
tr. by Whitehouse, is referred to as COT; 3d ed., a new work, 
by Winckler and Zimmern, 1903); McCurdy, History, Proph- 
ecy, and the Monuments, 1894-1901 (containing also a con- 
nected political history of the ancient Semites) ; Price The 
Monuments and the Old Testament, 1900; Pinches, The Old 
Testament in the Light of the Records of Assyria and Baby- 
lonia, 1902; Rogers, Cunetform Parallels to the Old Testament 
1912. For the general subject the best résumés are Murison, 
Babylonia and Assyria (Bible Class Primers), 1900, and the 
articles on ‘‘ Assyria”? and “‘ Babylonia’ in EB by King; and 
for the religion, Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia and Assyria, 


1898. J. F. McC.—R. W. R. 


ASTRONOMY AND ASTROLOGY: 1. Scope 
and Nature. In the current cosmology of Biblical 
times, the earth is not a part of the starry universe, 
but a flat surface, on which the heavens rest like an 
inverted bowl. Astronomy does not therefore include 
an account of the earth, but only of the heavenly 
bodies. These were thought to be fixed in the 
firmament, not absolutely, for they move along cer- 
tain paths in definite periods (Jos 10 12; Is 38 8), 
and can be detached thence and fall (Mt 24 29; 
Rev 9 1). The whole view is not animated by 
scientific interest and therefore can not be called 
a theory. It takes cognizance of those facts only 
which have practical bearings. This is true both 
of the O T and the N T. Winckler’s theory, that 
the Semitic peoples, including the Hebrews, con- 
ceived of the world and human history as con- 
stituted upon and ruled by principles resident in 
the heavenly bodies (see Winckler, Himmels und 
Weltenbild der Babylonier, 1901; Die Babylonische 
Weltschépfung, 1906) finds no support in Biblical 
data. 

2. The Sun and Moon. The sun (shemesh, toc) 
is the most splendid of God’s works (Ps 19 5-7). Its 
course is continuous and includes a section under the 
earth traversed at night (Kc 15). It is the source of 
heat and light for the earth. Its darkening is the 
sign and expression of great calamities. Hence, ‘the 
sun shall be darkened at midday’ may describe the 
occurrence of an eclipse, always an occasion of 
superstitious dread among unscientific peoples Is 13 
10; Jl 2 10; Am 89; Mt 24 29; Mk 13 24; Rev 6 12). 
The moon (ydréah, poet., lsbhanadh, seAhvn) is the 
substitute of the sun for the night period (Gn 1 16; 
Ps 121 6, 186 9). Eclipses of the moon may be 
alluded to in the expression the ‘moon turned into 
blood’ (Jl 2 31; Rev 6 12). 

3. The Stars. Of the stars (kdkhdbhim, dotépes) 
as objects of interest in themselves, no account is 
made. In a small number of allusions, however, it is 
possible to detect current astronomical notions. The 
whole of the starry firmament as a body is called 
‘the host of heaven’ (Gn 2 1), altho that phrase 
does not always convey the same meaning (I K 22 19; 
IT Ch 18 18). Of individual stars, including planets, 


Venus is mentioned under the name ‘Day Star’ 
(‘Lucifer, son of the morning’ AV, Is 1412). Saturn 
appears under the name of Chiun (Am 5 26; AV 
and ERV, but ARV, ‘the shrine’). But the fact 
that the star is alluded to as an object of worship 
renders the reference to Saturn quite probable (cf. 
also Ac 7 43, ‘Rephan’, (Gr. Pogay, probably Saturn). 


4. Constellations. The grouping of the stars into 
constellations appears in general (Is 13 10), and in 
the mention of individual constellations as follows: 
(1) Orion (k*stl, Am 58 which according to the 
Semitic conception, represents a slow-witted giant 
chained to the skies; hence the question in Job 38 31, 
‘Canst thou loose the bands of Orion?’ suggesting the 
impotence of man as compared with the omni- — 
potence of God (cf. also Job 99). (2) The Great Bear 
(‘a@sh, Job 9 9, 38 32, Arcturus AV). In the latter 
passage the sons of the Bear ‘the train’ RV) are 
the three stars in the tail of the constellation. By 
some, however, this constellation is identified with 
the Pleiades, which is compared to a hen with her 
brood. Schiapparelli argues convincingly (Astr, in 
O T, 1905, p, 54 ff.) for the Hyades. (3) The Pleiades 
(kimah, Job 9 9) is identified by its designation 
as a compact group. From this view we get the 
expression in Job 388 31, ‘Canst thou bind the 
cluster (‘chain’ RVmg.) of the Pleiades?’ making 
the parallelism of the clauses perfect. (4) Mazzaroth 
(Job 38 32). This seems to be not a constallation 
(Corona Borealis, Hyades) nor the circle of the 
zodiac (Job 38 32; AVmg. and RVmg.), with its 
twelve signs, but the planet Venus or the planets 
collectively (so II K 23 5, but mg. ‘the twelve signs’). 
(5) The Chambers of the South (hadhré ihémadn, Job 
9 9), probably some constellation of the Southern 
hemisphere. (6) The Swift Serpent (nadhdsh bériah, 
Job 2613). There is some uncertainty as to whether 
this phrase designates a constellation. It is certainly 
the name of a celestial phenomenon, and, if a con- 
stellation, it is probably the Dragon located between 
the Great and the Little Bear. (7) In Job 37 9, 
though EVV read ‘north,’ and mg. ‘scattering winds,’ 
there is reason to believe that the Hebrew m¢zadrim 
designates the two constellations of the northern 
skies, the Great and the Little Bear (cf. Schiap- 
parelli, p. 67 ff.). 

5. Star of Bethlehem. The Star of Bethlehem 
(Mt 2 2 ff.) has been sometimes interpreted as a 
conjunction of planets (Kepler; cf. Munter, Stern 
d. Weisen, 1827), but was more probably either a 
comet or a meteor. 

6. Symbolic Usage. Metaphorically, a star stands 
for a guide because stars are so often taken as guides 
in travel at night, and such expressions as ‘sun of 
righteousness’ (Mal 4 2), ‘the bright, morning star’ 
(Rev 22 16) are self-explanatory. The apocalyptic 
use of astronomical facts includes such instances as 
the ‘seven stars’ (Rev 1 16 ff.), symbols of the pro- 
tecting spirit of the Seven Churches; the great star 
Wormwood (Rev 8 10 ff.), symbol of distress, and the 
moon subjected to the Church (Rev 121) with others 
less clear. 

7. Religious Interest. That astronomy is in the 
Bible geocentric has already been intimated. It 
might better be called theocentric. It views the 


83 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Astronomy 
Athens 





material heavens as the handiwork of God and the 

instrument of His pleasure in ministering to men. 

He created them in the beginning (Gn 1 1, 14f.) in 

order to be the means of lighting the earth and 

marking the beginnings and endings of the seasons. 

They impress the mind by their multitude (Gn 15 5), 

their brilliancy, their elevation above the earth (Pr 

25 3; Jer 31 37; Job 22 12). Poetically, they are con- 

ceived as personal beings, declaring the glory of 

God (Ps 148 3). They sing together for joy and in 

many other ways praise their Creator (Job 38 7). 
8. Star Worship. This is in contrast with the 

ideas of the other peoples of Biblical lands. These in 

most cases worshiped the heavenly bodies. The 
contrast is all the more significant because it is cer- 
tain that the cosmological and astronomical ideas of 
the Hebrews are vitally connected with those of 
Babylonia. The faithful Israelite was taught that 
the heavenly bodies as creatures could receive no 
homage from men; but lest he should be too dull to 
perceive that their creaturehood precluded their be- 
ing worshiped, he was explicitly forbidden to offer 
it (Dt 4 19). Violations of this law were severely 
denounced by the prophets and prophetic writers 

(Jer 1913; Ezk 816; II K 17 16; cf. also Ac 7 43, quoted 

from Am 5 26, ‘star of the god Rephan’). 

9. Astrology. Astrology is the art of interpreting 
the motions of the heavenly bodies as portents of 
future events. It was practised probably among the 
majority, if not all, of the nations mentioned in the 
Bible; but like star-worship it found no favorable 
soil in Israel. Astrologers are spoken of as altogether 
outside of Israel. In Is 47 13 Babylon is challenged 
to save herself from the doom merited by her sin and 
invited to resort ‘to the astrologers (‘dividers of the 
heavens’ RVmg.), the star-gazers, and monthly 
prognosticators.’ All these terms appear to be 
Synonymous and, as the words which follow indicate, 
are different names of men who professed to foretell 
the future by observing the stars. Jeremiah (10 2) 
counsels Judah not to be ‘dismayed at the signs 
of the heavens.’ Astrologers are named also in 
Dn 1 2, 2 2 AV, but RV renders more correctly 
‘enchanters.. The Hebrew word for astrologers 
(hobhré shaémayim, ‘dividers of the heavens’) sug- 
gests the method employed, which was the section- 
ing of the firmament and assigning a particular 
meaning to each section according to its relation to 
the object sought to be foreshadowed. 

LireRATURE: Schiapparelli, Astron. in OT (1906); M. A. 
Stern, Die Sternbilder in Hiob 38% (in Geiger’s Judische 
Zeitschrift III, 258 ff.). AiCeZ: 
ASUPPIM, a-sup’im (0’2D8, ’asuppim): In 

I Ch 26 15, 17, AV, this word occurs as a proper 

noun, but it is given more correctly in RV as ‘store- 

house.’ E. E. N. 
ASYNCRITUS, oa-sin’kni-tus (Actyxortos): A 

Christian mentioned in Ro 16 14, to whom Paul sends 

a salutation, of whom nothing further is known. 

Jail. 

ATAD, é@’tad (1981), h@atddh): ‘The [threshing-] 
floor of Atad’ (Gn 50 11 f.). Apart from the state- 
ment that it lay ‘beyond (7.e., E. of) the Jordan’ 
no information is given of its location. But these 
words are more likely a later addition, since to go 


from Egypt to Hebron one has no cause to cross 
the Jordan. E. E. N. 

ATARAH, at’a-ra (T19Y, ‘atdradh): One of the 
wives of valance) perhaps a clan-name (I Ch 2 26). 

ATAROTH, at’a-reth (NINBY, ‘diardth): 1. A city 
of Moab, NE by Gad (Nu 32 3, 34 and Stone 
of Mesha, line 10). Map II, J 2. 2. A town on 
the 8. border of Ephraim (Jos162, in 165 A.-Addar). 
Map III, E 5. 3. A town on the NE. border of 
Ephraim (Jos 167). Site unknown. 4. Atroth-beth- 
Joab, a locality belonging to the Calebites (I Ch 
254). 5. Atroth-Shophan, a town of Gad (Nu 82 35). 
Site unknown. 

ATER, @’tar (188, ’atér): 1. The ancestral head 
of the ‘sons’ of Ater of Hezekiah, one of the large 
families of returned exiles (Ezr 216; Neh 7 21 1017). 
2. The ancestor of a family of gate-keepers (Ezr 
2 42; Neh 7 45). 


ATHACH, é’thac (J9¥Y, ‘athakh): A place in S. 
Judah not yet identified (I S 30 30). 

ATHAIAH, o0-fhé’ya (MOY, ‘athdyah): A Judah- 
ite, the son of Uzziah (Neh 11 4). 


ATHALIAG, ath”e-lai’a (M9DY, ‘dthalyahi, ‘I” 
is great’: 1. A daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, and 
wife of Jehoram, King of Judah. She introduced the 
worship of the Phenician Baal into Judah. After 
the death of her son Ahaziah (q.v) she ursurped the 
throne, securing her position by murdering all the 
seed-royal except Joash, the infant son of Ahaziah, 
who was kept hidden in the Temple, under the tute- 
lage of the priests, for six years. Finally Jehoiada, 
the high priest, taking advantage of the change of 
the palace guards on a Sabbath, assisted by the 
guards, proclaimed Joash king and put Athaliah to 
death (II K 111 ff.). 2. A Benjamite who dwelt in 
Jerusalem (see I Ch 8 26 and cf. ver. 28). 3. The 
father of Jeshaiah who went up with Ezra from 
Babylon (Ezr 87). J. A. K. 

ATHARIM, afh’a-rim (8°78, ’dthdrim): The 
only occurrence of this word (Nu 21 1) seems to 
imply that it was a place-name. Its use with the 
article, ‘the way of [the] Atharim,’ has led some to 
think of it as an appellative, e.g., ‘the way of the 
spies,’ AV (which rests on a wrong reading), or the 
‘caravan way’ (Dillmann). Both the meaning of the 
word and the site remain uncertain. EK. E. N. 


ATHENS (’A@fjvat): The capital of Attica, first 
called Cecropia from Cecrops (autochthonous 
founder). Theseus (semimythical) united the out- 
lying demes (Panathenza). The Acropolis was the 
seat of worship of Athene and of the kings. After 
Codrus the kings were replaced by archons chosen 
from the family of Codrus, elected for life (1068-752 
B.c.); then the archonship was open to Eupatrids 
chosen for ten years (752-682 B.c.). Later, there 
were nine annual archons chosen from the Eupa- 
trids. The chief archon (epdnymos) gave the name 
to the year; the second (basileus) was chief priest; 
the third (polemarchos) commanded the forces; the 
other six were thesmothete (legislators). The Areopa- 
gus was supreme in religious matters. Draco codified 
the laws in 621 8.c and Solon instituted the timoc- 


4 


Athlai 
Azmaveth 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 84 





racy in 594; 6,000 judges, chosen by lot, controlled 
the officials, and a council of 400 aided the archons, 
whose presidents were called prytanés. Pisistratus 
the tyrant (561 B.c.) embellished A., patronized 
literature and art, built the altar of the Twelve Gods 
(center of the state), Enneacrounos, began the Olym- 
pieum, finished the old Hecatompedon and other 
buildings. Cleisthenes reorganized the tribes in 508 
B.c. and introduced ostracism. A. sent twenty ships 
against Darius in 498 and defeated the Persians at 
Marathon in 490. Xerxes destroyed A., but was 
defeated in 480 by Themistocles. As head of the 
confederacy in 474 under Pericles, A. enjoyed her 
‘solden age,’ when the Parthenon, Propylea, Erech- 
theum, and Odeum were built. The liberties of Greece 
were crushed by Philip of Macedon at Chezronea in 
338 B.c. A. made abject submission to Antipater, 
regent of Macedonia, in 322 B.c, In 146 B.c. A. was 
included in the Roman province of Achzea; in 86 B.c. 
is was sacked by Sulla. The Roman emperors were 
lavish in their benefactions to the city because of its 
glorious past. Under Byzantine rule, till 1204, it 
sank into insignificance. It belonged to the Latin 
Empire of the East 1204-1458, when it fell into the 
hands of the Turks under whose rule it remained 
until the emancipation of Greece in 1833. A. was 
the great home of literature, art, and science, and 
has been the school-mistress of Europe. It became 
in the Roman Empire the great university center 
which attracted men like Cicero, Horace, Atticus, 
Libanius, Philo of Alexandria, Julian ‘the Apostate,’ 
Basil, and Gregory of Nazianzus. The edict of Jus- 
tinian in 529 put an end to its long career of a 
thousand years as the teacher of philosophy. Paul’s 
work was a comparative failure in A., probably due 
to (1) the fact that this sojourn was not a deliberate 
arrangement of his mission program, but a result of 
his forced departure from Bercea (Ac 17 3) and the 
necessity of awaiting his colleagues (17 15), and (2) 
A., not being one of the entrepdts of commerce, like 
Corinth or Ephesus, had not attracted a large 
Jewish settlement. S. A. 


ATHLAI, ath’le-ai ('29Y, ‘athlay): An Israelite 
who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 10 28). 


ATONEMENT. See REconciuiaTION AND ATONE- 
MENT. 


ATONEMENT, DAY OF. See Fasts anp 
Feasts, § 9. 

ATROTH-BETH-JOAB, at’’re th-beth-j6’ab, 
ATROTH-SHOPHAN, -sh6’fan. See Arsarortu. 


ATTAI, at’a-ai (DY, ‘attay): 1. A descendant of 
Judah through Jerachmeel (I Ch 2 35-36). 2. A 
Gadite (I Ch 1211). 3. A son of Rehoboam (II Ch 
11 20.) 


ATTALIA, at’’a-lai’a (’Act&Aetx): A city on the 
coast of Pamphylia, founded by Attalus II on the 
site of Olbia (159-138 B.c.), the metropolis of Pam- 
phylia. It was an important seaport. Paul and 
Barnabas embarked here for Antioch on their re- 
turn from mission work in 8. Galatia (Ac 14 25), 
but apparently made no long stay in the place. 

J. R.S. S.+—E. E. N. 


ATTIRE. See Dress anD ORNAMENTS, 


AUGURY. See Magic anp Divination, § 3. 


AUGUSTAN BAND (oxeioa Yebacty) AUGUS- 
TUS’ BAND, AV: According to Schiirer, GJ V (3d.ed.) 
I p. 462 the special title of one of the five cohorts of 
provincial troops stationed in Cesarea (Ac 27 1; cf. 
Jos Ant. XX, 87; CIL VI, No. 3,508). The Italian 
Band (Ac 10 1) consisted of native Italian troops 
(CIL III, Suppl. No. 18,488a). Since the presence of 
the latter in Syria is not attested before 69 a.p. (Arch. 
Epig. Mitihetlungen XVII, 218), reference in Ac 
10 1 may bean anachronism. But see Ramsay, Was 
Christ born in Bethlehem? (1898) p. 260 f. 

Ji Mine 

AUGUSTUS: 1. The name. The word is cog- 
nate with augur and applied to sacred objects and 
the gods. It was conferred upon Caius Octavius, 
Jan. 16, 27 B.c. (cf. Lk 21). 2. Life. Caius Octavius, 
the first of the Roman Emperors, commonly called 
Augustus, was born Sept. 22, 63 B.c. He was re- 
named Caius Julius Cesar Octavianus when adopted 
by Cesar (47 B.c.). He was a student in Apollonia 
when Cesar was killed (44). Altho Cessar’s heir 
his property was refused him by Antony. He de- 
feated Antony (Mutina 43); became consul in 48; 
and forming a triumvirate (with Antony and Le- 
pidus), defeated Brutus and Cassius at Philippi (42). 
In the distribution of provinces A. received Italy, 
and Antony Asia. He defeated Lepidus (86) and 
Antony at Actium (81). He was now master of the 
Roman Empire. He organized a standing army 
of 25 legions (300,000 men), Altho opposed to 
wars of conquest, he conquered Spain (27-19), the 
Parthians (20), and the Germans (16-9). His step- 
sons (mother Livia) were Tiberius and Drusus. He 
adopted Tiberius (4 A.D.) and died in 14 a.p., at the 
age of 76, having reigned 44 years. A. was cautious, 
mild, just, and forbearing, founded colonies, built 
roads, enacted laws in the interest of religion and 
morality. His autobiography is given on the 
Monumentum Ancyranum. On the decree (Lk 2 1) 
see New Test. Coronotoey. J.R.S.S.*—J.M.T. 

AUL. See AwL. 

AVA, é’va, AVIM, é@’vim, AVITE, @’vait. See 
Avva, ete. 

AVEN, é’ven (i}8, ’dwen), ‘trouble,’ ‘wickedness’ 
and then ‘idolatry’: 1. An Egyptian city (Ezk 30 
17). Since the LXX reads Heliopolis (‘city of the 
Sun,’ z.e.,On), Ezekiel probably wrote ]i8 (On, cf. Gn 
41 45, 50), which was later changed to Aven because 
of the idol-worship at On. 2. In Hos 10 8 (ef. 
ver. 5) high places of Aven’ means probably ‘high 
places of idolatry’—tho many take it to refer ironi- 
cally to Bethel as in ver. 5. 3. Am 15, ‘Valley of 
Aven’ may indicate some place in Syria not yet 
identified, or the name of a deity. EK. E. N. 

AVENGER OF BLOOD. See Bioop, AvENGER 
OF. 
AVITH, @’vith (MY, ‘dwith): An ancient capital 
of Edom (Gn 36 35; I Ch 1 46). Site unknown. 

AVVA, av’va (812, 2, ‘awwah): A city some- 
where in the Assyrian Empire whence colonists 
(Avvites) were imported to Samaria (II K 17 24, 
31, called Ivvah [Ivah AV] in II K 18 34, 19 13; Is 
37 13). E. BE. N, 


: = ‘ - 
a ee ee OE ae ee 


Ss ee 


85 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Athlai 
Azmaveth 





AVVIM, av’vim, AVVITES, av’vaits (Q'Y, ‘aw- 


wim): 1. An ancient people dispossessed of their 
territory by the Caphtorim (Dt 2 23). In Jos 13 3 
they are counted with the Philistines. 2. The Av- 


vim (i.e., ‘the ruins’), a place of Benjamin (Jos 18 23). 
Site unknown. 

AWL (2372, mariséa‘, from YS), rdisa‘, ‘to 
pierce’): A small boring instrument (Ex 21 6; Dt 
15 17, aul AV). 


AWNING. See Suirs anp Nayraarion, § 2. 


AX,AXE: Therendering in our EV of seven Heb. 
and one Grk. terms. Of two of these (garzen, Dt 
19 5, 20 19;1 K 67; Is 10 15, and gardém, Jg 9 48;18 
13 20f.; Ps 74 5; Jer 46 22) ‘ax’ is a satisfactory ren- 
dering, altho the size and shape and also the material 
(whether bronze or iron) of the instrument is not 
certain. It is not likely that by any of the terms a 
stone implement is meant. Magzérah (II S, 12 31 
but ‘saw’ in I Ch 20 3) and m¢ghérah (I Ch 20 3, but 
‘saw’ in II § 12 31) both simply indicate a cutting 
instrument, exactly what is not known. Kashshil 
(Ps 74 6) is rendered hatchet in ARV. MHerebh 
(Ezk 26 9) is usually rendered ‘sword.’ In Jer 10 3 
and Is 44 12 Ma‘dtsddh is a cutting instrument, but 
‘ax’ may not be the exact meaning. See also ArTI- 
ZAN Lire, § 6. 


AZAL, @’zal. See Azut II. 

AZALIAH, az’’a-lai’a GM2xe, *disalyGhi): The 
father of Shaphan the scribe of Josiah, King of Judah 
(II K 22 3; II Ch 34 8). 

AZANIAH, az’’a-nai’a (TIN, 
father of Jeshua (Neh 10 9). 

AZAREL, az’a-rel (871, ‘azar’él, Azareel, Aza- 
rael, AV), ‘God helps’: 1. One of David’s follower 
(I Ch 126). 2. A musician (I Ch 25 18, Uzziel in 
ver. 4). 3. One of the sons of Jeroham, a prince of 
the Danites under David (I Ch 27 22). 4. One of 
the ‘sons of Bani’ who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 
10 41). 5. A priest who dwelt in Jerusalem (Neh 11 
13, 12 36). 

AZARIAH, ‘az’e-rai’a  (WNUY, ‘dzaryahi), ‘J’ 
hath helped’: 1. King of Judah. See Uzztan. 2.A 
son of the Kohathites, an ancestor of the prophet 
Samuel (I Ch 6 36). 3. A son of Zadok, priest under 
Solomon (I K 42;cf.I Ch69). 4. Son of Nathan, an 
officer at Solomon’s court (I K 45). 5. A prophet, 
son of Oded, who met Asa returning from the defeat 
of Zerah, the Ethiopian, and exhorted him to perse- 
vere in his religious reforms (II Ch 151-8). 6. A son 
of Jehoshaphat, massacred by his brother Jehoram 
(II Ch 21 2ff.). 7. The father of Amariah, high priest 
under Jehoshaphat (I Ch 610; Ezr 73). 8. A son of 
Jehoram (II Ch 22 6). But see Anazian, 2. 9. 
Two captains who assisted Jehoiada (II Ch 231 ff.). 
10. A high priest, who withstood Uzziah’s attempt 
to desecrate the altar of incense (II Ch 2617, 20). 11. 
An elder of Ephraim, who rebuked Pekah for taking 
Judzan captives in the Syro-Ephraimitish war (II Ch 
28 12 ff.). 12. Two Levites, active under Hezekiah 
(II Ch 29 12). 13. Chief priest under Hezekiah (II 
Ch 110,13). 14. Ason of Hilikiah, and grandfather 
of Ezra (I Ch 613; Ezr 71). 15. A Judean leader who 
opposed Jeremiah’s counsels (Jer 43 2). 16. Two 


’dzanyGh): The 


persons in the genealogy of Judah (I Ch 2 8, 38 f.). 
17. A common name among the exiles who returned 
(Neh 3 23, 77, 87, 10 2, 12 33). 18. The Hebrew 
name of Abednego (q.v.) (Dn 1 6). ACOA VG 

AZAZ, @'zaz ('IY, ‘dzdz): A Reubenite, the son 
of Shema (or Shemaiah) I Ch 5 8). 

AZAZEL, a-zé’zel (INT, ‘az@’zel), Scapegoat 
AV, ‘removal’ RVmg. (Lv 16 8, 10, 26): A name used 
in connection with one of the goats selected for the 
service of the Day of Atonement (Lv 23 26 f.). It 
is not, however, the name of the goat, for that was 
entitled ‘unto Azazel’ just as the other goat was en- 
titled ‘unto Jehovah.’ Azazel, must therefore, be 
the name either of the act of sending the goat away 


into the wilderness or, preferably, of the person to 


whom it was sent, possibly a demon in the wilderness. 

Apart from this ceremony, however, it is not easy to 
trace the existence of belief in such a person among 
the Israelites, altho it was common enough among 
other peoples (Wellhausen, Reste Arab. Heid., pp. 
135-140). In Israel it survived as a shadowy vestige 
of primitive Semitic demonology and was used to 
express the thought that sin belongs to a power or 
principle hostile to J’’ and its complete purgation 
must include its being sent back to its source. 

dM Gey AA 

AZAZIAH, az’’a-zai’a (VTNY, ‘dzazyaht), ‘J’ 
is strong’: 1. A musician (I Ch 15 21). 2. The 
father of Hoshea, prince of Ephraim, in the reign of 
David (I Ch 27 20). 3. A Levite overseer of the 
tithes under Hezekiah (II Ch 31 13). 

AZBUK, az’bok (P'3!¥, ‘azbiiq): The father of 
Nehemiah, ruler of part of Beth-zur, who assisted 
in rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 16). 

AZEKAH, oa-zi’ka (PIY, ‘dzéqgah): A town in 
NW. Judah. It is mentioned with Makkedah (Jos 
10 10 f.) as a place to which Joshua pursued the 
Canaanites at the battle of Gibeon. It is also men- 
tioned with Socoh (Jos 15 35; I S 17 1), but these 
references are not clear enough to identify the site, 
which remains uncertain. A. was fortified by Reho- 
boam (II Ch 11 9), beseiged by Nebuchadrezzar 
(Jer 34 7), and reoccupied by the Jews after the 
Exile (Neh 11 30). E. E. N. 

AZEL, @’zel (PEN, ’Gtsél): I. A descendant of 
Jonathan, son of Saul (I Ch 8 37f., 9 43f.). II. A place 
near Jerusalem (Zech 145; Azal, AV). Perhaps one 
should read, with Mitchell in ICC ’atslé, ‘the side of 
it’. KE. KE. N. 

AZEM, é@’zem. See Ezem. 

AZGAD, az’gad (Ti!Y, ‘azgadh), ‘Gad is strong’ 
or ‘fate is strong’: The ancestral head of a large 
family of postexilic Jews (Ezr 2 12=Neh 7 17; Ezr 
8 12= Neh 10 15). 

AZIEL, @/zi-el (28'1Y, ‘dzi’él), ‘God is (my) 
‘strength’: A Levite musician (I Ch 15 20, Jaaziel in 
ver. 18 and Jeiel in 16 5). 

AZIZA, a-zai’ze (SPIY, ‘dziza@’), ‘strong’: One 
of the ‘sons of Zattu’ who had taken a strange 
wife (Ezr 10 27). 

AZMAVETH, az-mé’veth (MV2IY, ‘azmaweth), 
‘death is strong’: I. 1. One of David’s heroes (II S 


Azmon 
Babylon 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 86 





23 31; I Ch 11 33). 2. A descendant of Saul (I Ch 
8 36,9 42). 3. Apparently the father of certain fol- 
lowers of David (I Ch 12 3). It is likely, however, 
that a place-name is here used genealogically. See 
II, below. 4. One of David’s treasurers (I Ch 27 25). 
Il. The home of a colony of returned exiles (Ear 
2 24; Neh 12 29), called Beth Azmaveth in Neh 7 28. 
It lay a little N. of Anathoth, Map II, F 1. 
H. E.N. 

AZMON, az’men (]!9$¥, ‘atsmén): A town on the 
S. border of Judah (Nu 34 41.; Jos 15 4) called Ezem 
(Azem AV) in Jos 15 29, 19 3, I Ch 4 29. Site un- 
known. 

AZNOTH-TABOR, az’nofth-té’bér (WAN Niy, 
’aznoth tabhér), ‘ears of Tabor’: A place, probably 


hills, near Mt. Tabor on the border of Naphtali (Jos. 


19 34). 

AZOR, é’zér (’Atae): One of Christ’s ancestors; 
son of Eliakim (Mt 113). 

AZOTUS, a-z6’tus. See AsHpop. 

AZOTUS, MOUNT (’Atatoc): The place where 
Judas Maccabezeus fell (I Macc 9 15). The exact 
site is unknown. 

AZRIEL, az’ri-el (V8"1Y, ‘azri/él), ‘God is (my) 
help’: 1. A chieftain of the half tribe of Manasseh EH. 


B 


BAAL, bé’al or ba’al. I. Significance of the 
term: The word Ba‘al (?¥4) occurs many times in 
the Heb. O T with various meanings. 1. In the 
primary sense of ‘master’ or ‘owner,’ as in Ex 21 
28, 34; Jg 19 22; Is 168. 2. In the sense of ‘husband’ 
as in Ex 21 3; IIS 11 26; see esp. Hos. 216. 3. To 
denote the inhabitants or men of a town, as in Jg 
92 f. 4. To denote one who is skilled in some 
practise or intimately connected with some particu- 
lar thing (cf. RVmg. at Gn 3719). 5. As the name 
of the Semitic deity Baal (see Semrric REiIGIon, §10) 
6. In compound personal or place-names. In per- 
sonal names Baal referred to the deity. Such com- 
pounds were very common among the Phenicians 
and Canaanites. In Israelitic personal names com- 
pounded with Baal the term was often used as the 
equivalent of Jehovah—.e., Jehovah wascalled Baal. 
He was the maker, owner, lord. In later times 
(after the 8th cent.) such compounds were viewed 
with disfavor. E. g., Ish-baal ‘Man of Baal’ was 
the name of one of Saul’s sons I (Ch 8 33). InIS 
14 49 copyists did not realize that in such a name 
‘Baal’ meant Jehovah but thought it meant the 
pagan Baal and so substituted the word ‘bosheth 
(‘shame’) for it and wrote the name ‘Ishbosheth.’ 
Place-names compounded with Baal are ancient and 
in such ‘Baal’ stood for the local deity. See Gray, 
Heb. Proper Names pp. 120-136. II. 1. A Reu- 
benite (I Ch 5 5). 2. A Benjamite (I Ch 8 30= 
9 36). III. A town in the S. of Judah, called Bea- 
loth (Jos 15 24), also Baalath-beer in the list of the 
cities of Simeon (Jos 198), where it seems to be iden- 
tified with Ramah of the South. Aside from the 


2. The official head of the 
3. The 


of Jordan (I Ch 5 24). 
tribe of Naphtali under David (I Ch 27 19). 
father of Seraiah (Jer 36 26). 


AZRIKAM, az-rai’‘kam (OP, ‘azriqgam): 1. A 
descendant of David (I Ch 3 23). 2. A descendant 
of Saul (I Ch 8 38, 9 44). 3. A Levite (I Ch 914; Neh 
1115). 4. An officer of Ahaz (II Ch 287). 


AZUBAH, 0a-zi’ba (T3Y, ‘dzibhah), ‘forsaken’: 1. 
The wife of Caleb (I Ch 2181.). If A. is a place- 
name, it may indicate that it was once occupied by 
Calebites and afterward deserted. 2. The mother 
of King Jehoshaphat (I K 22 42; II Ch 20 31). 


| E. E. N. 
AZUR, e’zur. See Azzur. 
AZZAH, az’za. See Gaza. 
AZZAN, az’zan (l!¥, ‘azedn), ‘strong’: The 


father of Paltiel, prince of Issachar (Nu 34 26). 


AZZUR, az’zir (N¥Y, ‘azziir, ‘helped’: 1. The 
father of Hananiah, the prophet of Gibeon (Jer 281, 
Azur AV). 2. The father of Jaazaniah, a prince of 
the people (Ezk 111, Azur AV, same asi[?]). 3. One 
of the signers of the covenant (Neh 1017). 


fact that it was somewhere on the border of Simeon’s 
territory (I Ch 4 33) its site is altogether unknown. 
E. E. N. 

BAALAH, bé’e-la (7923, ba‘dlah): 1. A city on 
the N. border of Judah (Jos 159 £.; I Ch 13 6), also 
called Baale-judah (II S 6 2), Kiriathbaal (Jos 15 
60), and Kiriath-jearim (q.v.). 2. A city in the S. 
of Judah (Jos 15 29), also called Balah (Jos 19 3) and 
Bilhah (I Ch 4 29), and counted as belonging to Sim- 
eon. Site unknown. 3. A hill between Ekron 
and Jabneel (Jos 15 11). For general location see 
Map III, C5. 


BAALAH, bé’a-la, BAALATH, bé’al-ath: Variant 
forms of Baal. See Baat, III. 

BAALATH-BEER, bé’al-ath-bi’ar. See Baat, ITI. 

BAAL-BERITH, -bi’rith (N12 2Y3, ba‘al berth), 
‘Baal of the covenant’: The name of the Canaan- 
ite deity of Schechem (Jg 8 33, 9 4), called Elberith 
in 9 46. What the ‘covenant’ referred to in the 
name was is uncertain. There is no evidence 
that it was a covenant between the original (Ca- 
naanite) inhabitants of Shechem and the Israelites. 
This Baal had a temple at Shechem, which like most 
pagan temples, served as the treasury of the com- 
munity. EK. E. N. 

BAALE-JUDAH, bé’al-i-jti’da. See Baauan, 1. 

BAAL-GAD, -gad (731 ?¥3, ba‘al gadh), ‘Baal of 
good fortune’: A’place in the valley of Lebanon (Jos 
11 17, 12 7), ‘under Mt. Hermon’ (13 5). In these 
passages it marks the N. limit of Israel’s conquest of 
Canaan. Altho often identified with Dan (Ba- 
nias) its site is uncertain. 


87 : A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 
BAAL-HAMON, -hé’men (Ji07 ¥y3,  ba‘al 
hamon): <A place mentioned in Song 8 11. The 


location is unknown. 


BAAL-HANAN, -hé’nan (1) 93, ba‘al hanan,), 
‘Baal was gracious’: comp the Carthaginian name 
Hannibal. 1. The seventh king of Edom (Gn 36 38 f. 
= I] Ch149f.). 2. An official under David (I Ch 
27 28). 

BAAL-HAZOR, -hé’zar (Ti89 53, ba‘al hatsor): 
A town in Ephraim, where Absalom had a sheep- 
range (II § 13 23). Probably the hilltop Tell ‘Asdr. 
Map III, F 5. 


BAAL-HERMON, -hér’mon (JON 7¥3, ba‘al 
hermon): A town or place near Mt. Hermon (Jg 3 3; 
I Ch 5 23). Pe:haps the same as Baal-Gad (cf. Jos 
13 5). 


BAALIT, bé’al-ai: Used in Hos 2 16 as an appellation 
of J’’ in the lower sense of ‘owner’ or ‘master’ in con- 
trast to the higher, more personal, sense expressed 
by ‘Ishi’ (‘my man’). See Baat, I, 2. 


BAALIM, bé’al-im. See Semrric Retiaron, § 10. 


BAALIS, bé’sl-is (0223, ba‘dlis): A king of the 
Ammonites (Jer 40 14). 


BAAL-MEON,-mi-an (119) 72 ba‘al m*‘dn), ‘The 
Baal of Meon’ (‘the dwelling’?): A prominent town 
of Moab (cf. Ezk 259), assigned to Reuben (Nu 32 38; 
I Ch 58; Jos 1317, where it is called Beth-baal-meon). 
It is called Beth-meon in Jer 48 23 and Beon in Nu 
32 3. In the inscription of Mesha (q.v.) it is called 
Beth-baal-meon and represented as ‘built’ (cf. Nu 
32 38), z.e., ‘built up’ or ‘fortified’ hy Mesha. Map 
delet: EK. E. N. 


BAAL-PEOR, -pi’or (119B 93, ba‘al pear), ‘The 
Baal of Peor’: The god who was worshiped at the 
Moabite town, or place, Peor (cf. Nu 23 28). The 
deity was probably Chemosh, the national deity of 
the Moabites. During Israel’s sojourn in Moabite 
territory, the Israelites were drawn away by Moabite 
women to the corrupt worship of the deity (Nu 25 3; 
Dt 4 3; Ps 106 28; Hos 910). See also Pzor. 

E. E. N. 

BAAL-PERAZIM, -pi-ré’zim (O°'S18°-Y3) ba‘al 
pratstm), ‘Baal of (the deeds of) breaking through’: 
The scene of one of David’s victories over the Philis- 
tines (IIS 5 20;1 Ch 1411). The name is significant 
of the early use by the Israelites of Baal = Jehovah. 
Is 28 21 refers probably to this event. The site is un- 
known. 


BAAL-SHALISHA, béol-shal’1-sha (7Y2Y 7Y3, 
ba‘al shaélishah): A place in Ephraim (II K 4 42). 
Map III, E 4. Perhaps identical with Shalisha 
(q.v.) (IS 9 14). 

BAAL-TAMAR, -té’mar (12 2723), ‘Baal of the 
palm’: A place near Gibeah (Jg 20 33), not yet 
identified. 

BAAL-ZEBUB, -zi’bub. See BrrLzEBus. 


BAAL-ZEPHON, -zi’fen (1iD¥, 993 ba‘al tsephon): 
Probably a deity-name giving the name to the town 
when the deity was worshiped. A place near which 


Azmon 
Babylon 


the Israelites encamped before crossing the Red Sea 
(Ex 14 2,9; Nu 337). The site is urtknown. 
EK. E. N. 
BAANA, bé’a-na (8223, ba‘dnd’): 1. The name 
of two of Solomon’s officials (I K 4 12, 16). 2. The 
father of Zadok, one of those who ‘builded the wall’ 
of Jerusalem in Nehemiah’s time (Neh 3 4). 


BAANAH, bé’a-na (1223, ba‘dnah): 1. A Netoph- 
athite, the father of Heleb (or Heled), one of David’s 
warriors (II S 23 292=I Ch 11 30). 2. One of the two 
officers of Ishbosheth, son of Saul, who murdered 
him and were executed by David’s order (II 5 42 ff.). 
3. The ancestral head of a family of returned Exiles 
(Ezr 2 2; Neh 77, 10 27). 

BAARA, bé’a-ra (S13, ba‘dra’): One of the 
wives of Shaharaim, the Benjamite (I Ch 8 8). 

BAASEIAH, bé’’a-si’ya (727Y3, ba‘dséyah): A 
Gershonite Levite, ancestor of Asaph (I Ch 6 40). 

BAASHA, bé’a-sho (8@Y3, ba‘sha’): The third 
king of Israel, who gained the throne by assassinat- 
ing Nadab. His reign of 24 years was spent in con- 
tinual warfare with Asa, who forced him to give up 


Ramah by forming an alliance with Ben-hadad 
(I K 1516 ff., 161 ff.; Jer 419). 4 HS ey 

BABEL, bé’bel (733, babhel), Bab. bab-il, ‘gate of 
god.’ The Hebrew name of Babylon; used in the 
EVV only in Gn 1010, 119. See BaBytonta, §§ 2, 25. 

TBA P. 

BABYLON, bab’i-len (733, babhel): 1. Origin. 
The city of Babylon, as it preceded the making 
of the kingdom of Babylonia (see BaBYLOoNIA, 
§ 16), so also long survived its extinction. It 
undoubtedly owed its rise at some unknown early 
period to the development of trade with the western 
oases and along the great western canal (Pallakopas) 
on which lay the sister city Borsippa, 7 m. to the 
SW. The native name Babil meant ‘gate of God.’ 
The form Babbil (Babel) might also in Babylonian 
mean ‘confusion’ (cf. Gn. 119); but perhaps both of 
these words are folk-etymologies. The city lay 
mainly on the left bank of the Euphrates, as is indi- 
cated by the three great mounds along with lesser 
ruins. It was not until the new empire (see BaBy- 
LONIA, § 21) that the opposite settlement on the 
right bank was built up on a large scale. 

2. Influence of Religion. As in all other Baby- 
lonian cities it was the religious institutions that 
chiefly promoted the development of Babylon. In 
the hands of the priesthood were ample lands held 
in fee simple or by mortgage, and great properties 
accruing therefrom as well as from separate loans 
and investments. The priests also were the teach- 
ers of youth and the promoters of learning and re- 
search, controlling the schools, workshops, and ob- 
servatories which were connected with the temples. 
The temple-buildings themselves were as imposing 
as the royal palaces and more numerous. Chief 
among these in Babylon was E-sagila (‘the lofty 
house’) sacred to Bel-Merodach (see BaByLonta, 
§ 16, and Semrric Rericion, §§ 15, 24), now lying 
under the most southerly of the three mounds that 
occupy the site of the city proper. This, and not the 
somewhat smaller temple of Nebo in Borsippa, 


Babylon 
Babylonia 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 88 





marked by the better-preserved lofty ruin Birs 
Nimrid, was the original of the “Tower of Babel’ 
(cf. Gn 11 1-9). 

3. The Babylon of Nebuchadrezzar. Babylon 
owed most of its prosperity and opulence to its two 
greatest kings. Hammurabi (c. 1955-1913 B. c.; see 
BaBYLOnIA, § 16) made it not only the political and 
business but also the religious center in place of 
Nippur, and E-sagila became henceforth the pride 
and inspiration of true Babylonians. As enlarged 
and beautified by Nebuchadrezzar (605-561) B.c.; 
(see BABYLONIA, § 21), the city was surrounded by a 
great wall, which was however much exaggerated 
in size and length by the Greek writers in circuit, 
the largest structure of antiquity. This was pro- 
tected by a broad moat with enclosing walls of its 
own and pierced by a hundred gates of bronze. A 
space of 4,000 cubits intervened between it and the 
ramparts, within which was a moat guarding the 
inner wall. In the city proper the streets were at 
right angles to one another, as in our modern towns, 
and a canal ran through it from N. to S. parallel to 
the Euphrates. The temple of Merodach, like the 
other great Babylonian sanctuaries, was of two main 
parts. There was the temple proper, having a vesti- 
bule, a long inner court, and an oracle entered once 
a year to learn the will of Merodach. Attached to 
it was a ziggurat or ‘high tower,’ 600 ft. square at 
the base, divided into seven stages, for the sun, 
moon, and five planets. (See Towmr or BABEL.) 

4. Decline of Babylon. Under Cyrus (538-529 
B.c.) Babylon was made one of the Persian capitals. 
It revolted twice against Darius Hystaspis (521 and 
514 s.c.) and each time was besieged, taken, and 
severely punished. Its religion, however, was en- 
couraged by the Persian rulers. Under the Seleu- 
cide it was despoiled in favor of Seleucia, which was 
made their eastern capital. Parthian misgovern- 
ment and neglect of agriculture completed its de- 
cay, altho its worship and even its written language 
survived till within a generation of the Christian era. 
In the N T Babylon is referred to directly only in 
passages reminiscent of the O T (e.g., Ac 7 43). The 
other uses of the name are metaphorical, one in- 
stance (I P 5 13) referring to the city of Rome, and 
the others (Rev 148, etc.) to the Roman world-power 
as opposed to Christianity. In N T times and later 
there was no Christian community in Babylon. 
After the Parthian régime there was a mere village 
of Babil; and the town of Hillah, 3 m. to the S., has 
long been the only center of any permanent settle- 
ment. (See R. Koldewey, The Excavations at Baby- 
lon [1914.]) J. F. McC.—R. W. R. 


BABYLONIA. Inrropuctrory: 1. Importance 
of Babylonia. Babylonia is, upon the whole, the 
most important to the Biblical student of all coun- 
tries except Palestine. In it is laid the scene of the 
creation of mankind, of the earliest history of the 
race, and of the ancestors of Israel. It was also the 
land where in exile Israel was purified and reformed. 
It was the source and nursery of ancient wisdom and 
knowledge, the pioneer of civilization in Western 
Asia, the proprietor and educator of Syria and Pales- 
tine for thousands of years before Israel became a 
nation. Its literature profoundly influenced the 


form and even the contents of the early portions of 
the Bible, and it is one of the main problems of 
archeology to discover to what extent the religious 
institutions of Israel were tinctured with Babylo- 
nian elements. 


I. NAME AND FratuRES: 2. Name. The coun- 
try known as Babylonia was so called by the Greeks 
and Romans, who named it from its capital city 
Babylon (q.v.), the Greek and the Latin form of the 
native Babil. The Hebrew 729, Babhel, which is an 
exact equivalent of the latter, is used in the O T for 
both the city and the country, and therefore the 
modern versions also use Babylon in both senses. 
After the city of Babylon had been established and 
recognized as the capital, the kingship of Babylon ~ 
implied soverignty over the whole country as if it 
were a city-state, so that in an important sense Baby- 
lon really stood for Babylonia. 

3. Limits of the Country. Babylonia properly 
embraced all the alluvial land lying between and be- 
side the lower Euphrates and Tigris. This included 
the territory varying greatly in breadth, stretching 
from Hit on the Euphrates southeastward to the 
Persian Gulf. The length of the country thus de- 
fined was considerably less in ancient times than it is 
at present; for the detritus brought down by the 
great rivers from the Armenian mountains and ming- 
ling with the desert sands has long been gaining 
upon the sea. In the time of the earliest known 
Babylonian kingdom the seashore was at least 150 m. 
farther to the NW. than it is at present, and the 
Euphrates and Tigris flowed into the gulf by sep- 
arate mouths. (See Map.) 

4. Soil and Products. The most striking feature 
of the soil of Babylonia is the absence of metals and 
stone of any kind. In ancient times the land, ex- 
cept where the sand predominated close to the sea- 
shore, was everywhere very fertile. Its present con- 
dition of desolation simply implies a lack of proper 
care, skill, and industry. The inhabitants in the 
earliest historic ages drew off the superfluous water 
into canals and reservoirs, and in the months when 
the soil was dryest it was constantly and systemati- 
cally irrigated. Its productiveness wss enormous, 
especially in wheat, with other cereals, and dates. 
A very large variety of herbs also was cultivated in 
gardens. 

5. Riverand Canal System. The general aspect 
of the country was determined by this level alluvial 
soil, intersected by innumerable canals, which in the 
northern part of the country above Babylon formed 
a perfect network. South of this system a long 
waterway, originally a separate branch of the Eu- 
phrates, now known as the Shatt-en- Nil, ran a course 
almost parallel to the main stream. From it were 
deflected several canals in its downward course. 
The Tigris from Bagdad southward ran nearly 
parallel to the Euphrates, till opposite Babylon it 
began to diverge rapidly and ran an easterly course. 
At its point of farthest removal, over 100 m. from 
the Euphrates, it was in its turn relieved of redundant 
water by a great canal, the Shatt-el-Hai, running 
nearly due 8. across to the lowest stretch of the 
Euphrates. Lesser watercourses also formed a por- 
tion of this third system. (See Map.) 


B = Babil. A palace ' 
of Nebuchadrezzar’s 
PN = Great Palace of 
Nebuchadrezzar 
N = North Citadel 
S =South Citadel 
G = Great Ishtar Gate 
NM = Temple of 
Ninmach, the 
Mother Goddess 
I = Temple of Ishtar 
TB = Tower of Babel 
E-S = E-Sagila. the 
Great Temple of 
Marduk 
T = A Public building 
or Temple 
X= A Temple 
ICW = Inner City Wall 
OCW = Great Outer Wall 
(Double) 26.8 
meters thick and 
over 4,000 meters 
long 
W = Wall along the 
Euphrates Connect- 
ing PN, TB and E-S 
EB = Bridge over 
Euphrates 
NB = The Nil Bridge 


--—* 


from 


ditt 
aonr 





“Road 


N = The Nil Canal 

AK = Ancient Ruined 
Canal 

PS = Procession Street 





Meters 








Based on Koldewey, “The Excavations at Babylon” 


Plan of Babylon as Restored by Nebuchadrezzar 


. VP _&h 
essed B Aayxin] JO Auepunog wiepoy) -——--—- 


Aep-o, aged ay) Si UeY} pPueyu) JeyyIN) 
SOI QOL yoge nH uelsieg a4} JO Ul] SEO) jUBIOUY 
SJOAIY SBI] pue 
. Sa}yesydng jo sjeuey Burjediss, 10 pog JaAly Jusouy 
wYyDT 12L J DIIIH~ ~""SaweN wepoyy) 


NOTAgVa ~~ ~~ S8WeN Jusiouy 


SEU JO a[BS 


% 
“ 
Z 


‘Santg jualouy 40 sayig ay) Bumoys 


(HSVDV1) 


VIENAUIHS | | | a INQOTASVA 


& 
Pay 7) 
on 


Wige 
Le 


"VS 
VddiS¥Og 


4 


Zlig “tZ, 


{? = 


wile : 
W. 
AX 





paulunynyy 12s \ ry 
pepyseg 





89 


A NEW STANDARD 





II. Dtvistons: 6. Divisions Determined by 
Waterways. These waterways and canals deter- 
mined the location of the chief settlements which 
developed into cities or city-states; and the three 
main systems above indicated gave rise respectively 
to three well-marked divisions of the whole country 
into what we may designate North, Central, and 
South Babylonia. 

7. Southern Cities. Nearly all the many important 
cities of Babylonia were situated between the Eu- 
phrates and Tigris. An exception was Ur in South 
Babylonia, the city of the moon-god, which lay on 
the right bank of the Euphrates. E. of Ur and close 
to the old mouth of the Euphrates was Eridu, the 
most southerly city of all Babylonia. To the NW. 
of Ur was Erech, the sacred city of Ishtar. E. of 
Erech was Larsa (the O T Ellasar), and farther to 
the NE. Lagash, the modern Tello. Still farther N. 
were Isin, and Adab, the modern Bismaya. There 
does not seem to have been any general native desig- 
nation for the territory embraced by these southern 
cities. 

8. Middle Cities. The middle group of ancient 
cities begins on the §. with Nippur (the modern 
Nuffar) in the geographical center of old Babylonia. 
Of the other cities the most important in later times 
was Babylon. Borsippa, the seat of the prophet- 
god Nebo, lay 35 m. NW. of Nippur and 7 m. SW. 
of Babylon, on the right bank of the Euphrates; 15 
m. NE. of Babylon, and half-way to the Tigris, was 
Cutha, the modern Tell-Ibrahim, the seat of Negral, 
the god of the dead and the underworld. In that 
same group lay the important cities of Kish and 
Isin, originally called Nisin. This group of cities 
from Nippur to Cutha probably represented the very 
ancient kingdom of Shumer (Shinar). 


9. Northern Cities. Proceeding northward we 
come to the series of numerous canals running across 
to the Tigris. On the northern border of these was 
Sippar (the modern ruin Abu-Habba), a very an- 
cient seat of the sun-god, as Larsa was in the south. 
Near it, and probably to the S., was the still more 
ancient Agade or Akkad which gave its name to 
North Babylonia. This designation was preserved 
to the latest Babylonian times, while the combina- 
tion ‘Shumer and Akkad’ seems to have originally 
designated North and Middle Babylonia, and not 
the whole of Babylonia as is generally assumed. 


III. Hisrory: 10. Region of Earliest Civiliza- 
tion. The development of early Babylonian civil- 
ization was necessarily slow, and a great antiquity 
is to be assigned to its beginnings. But it is prob- 
able that in no region of the world can the conditions 
of the first steps in human culture be so easily in- 
ferred. Thestarting-point must be assumed to have 
been not the south but the central region of Baby- 
lonia. It was riparian and not maritime soil that 
furnished the occasions of the decisive beginnings of 
agriculture, and in the most ancient times the rivers 
could have played no part in the historical lower 
Babylonia. In those days also the desert had more 
numerous and larger oases than those which have 
been known to later times, and the inhabitants of 
one or more of these, perhaps not far W. of Baby- 
lon, became accustomed to observe that vegetables 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Babylon 
Babylonia 


and cereals grew luxuriantly in small areas in the 
neighborhood of the overflow of the three-branched 
Euphrates. 

11. Progress of Culture. The natural impulse 
to repeat and multiply the favorable conditions thus 
noted led by degrees to systematic drainage, irriga- 
tion, sowing, and planting. Then fixed settlements 
were made; private property in land was conceded; 
fields and gardens were set apart in allotments, mak- 
ing earth-measuring or ‘geometry’ and mensuration 
a matter of gradual invention and development. 
When standards of measurement had been adopted 
they were transferred to products of the soil and 
other articles of value, whence arose a system of 
weights as well as of measures. From the beginning 
religion played a leading part in tribal and family 
affairs. In Babylonia it was largely astral and solar, 
and hence measurement of the sky and its divisions 
went hand in hand with measurement of the earth, 
while temple-building employed incessantly all 
the arts of primitive science. Perhaps most of the 
first working tools were modified weapons; but ves- 
sels of various sorts were readily made from the 
unsurpassed potter’s clay that abounded everywhere; 
while cement was furnished by the bitumen, still 
produced in great quantity at Hit. The use of the 
hand in thus modeling objects of utility led to skilled 
labor and the making of objects of primitive art. 
With the growth of agriculture and the increase of 
town life came exchange and trade, and therewith 
and thereafter the use of marks or rudimentary 
writing for record and reference. Such were the es- 
sential foundations of Babylonian culture, and, it 
may be added, the principal elements of the deriva- 
tive science of Babylonia, which found its way to 
other peoples and regions in very early days along 
with many mythological and religious conceptions 
and traditions. 


12. Earliest Type of Culture. To what race the 
people belonged who chiefly contributed to this 
momentous development it is very difficult to de- 
termine. The written and monumental records for 
many hundreds of the earliest years point to a mix- 
ture of races. The final determining element was 
Semitic, akin to the Aramean, the Canaanite, and 
the Arabian. But the cuneiform system of writing, 
the chief factor in the final stage of cultural evolu- 
tion, gives much striking evidence in the names and 
values of its many characters of a non-Semitic ori- 
gin; and a vast number of inscriptions, especially 
in the south, which are partly ideographic and partly 
phonetic, at first sight point the same way. The 
non-Semitic language, thus indicated, and its speak- 
ers and writers, have been designated ‘Sumerian.’ 
The term is a misnomer cf. (§§ 8, 9); but the theory 
as a whole is now universally accepted. 


13. Chronology and Early History. The Chro- 
nology of the earliest periods has received much new 
light from lists recently recovered with names of 
kings from the mythical period to the end of Baby- 
lonian rule. These native lists place the earliest 
legendary dynasties at Kish and Uruk (Erech) and 
the first historical dynasty at Ur, and give the name 
of its first ruler as A-an-ni-pad-da who may have 
lived as early as 4500 B.c., and was certainly not 


Babylonia 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 90 





later than 4100 B.c. A small scaraboid bead in- 
scribed with his name has been found at Tell-el- 
Obeid, four milesfrom Ur. To his dynasty belonged 
three other kings, and then followed the dynasty of 
Awan, and after it the second dynasty of Ur. No 
less than fifteen Sumerian dynasties in succession, 
with the names of most of their kings have been 
made known from these lists, but most of these kings 
are shadowy personalities awaiting future discovery 
to make them seem real. Enough is, however, 
known to make Sumerian civilization even in so 
early a period no empty boast. This was really a 
great people coming we know not whence and 
building in the great valley, cities of no mean size, 
with many evidences of orderly life. Religion and 
war were the chief interests of deep concern so far 
as the meager inscriptions record. Each dynasty 
had its seat in a city, honored its city god, and fought 
with other cities for defense or for extension of power. 
From one of the rulers of Lagash, whose name was 
Entemena (about 3000 B.c.) there has been pre- 
served a beautiful silver vase, sufficient in itself to 
prove a high attainment in the arts. 


14. Northern and Southern Dynasties. About 
2800, however, the Semites of the north attained 
to power, and for a time eclipsed the splendor of the 
southern rulers. Inscriptions found in various re- 
gions show that Semitic communities to the NE. 
(cf. § 15) were civilized and in close contact with 
those in Babylonia. Of the latter Akkad came to 
the front under Sargon I, who brought under his 
dominion the whole of Babylonia and the western 
lands as far as the island of Cyprus. His son, 
Naram-sin, inherited his power and ambition. The 
building up of Sippar (§ 9) was one of his projects, 
and in view of the extent of his dominions he as- 
sumed the title of ‘king of the four quarters of the 
world.’ Soon after his death the hegemony re- 
turned to Erech, and contemporaneous with this, 
the fourth dynasty at Erech, great rulers at Lagash, 
are found not only asserting a wide-spread authority, 
but promoting architecture, sculpture, and other 
arts of civilization. Abundant inscriptions attest 
the energy and resources of this dynasty whose most 
distinguished member was Gudea about 2600. 
But the leadership passed at length from these hands 
to the ancient city of Ur about 2400 B.c. Its rulers, 
by adding to their own proper title that of ‘king of 
Shumer and Akkad,’ showed it to be their purpose 
to unify the whole of Babylonia. This dynasty was 
followed (c. 2200) by one whose capital was Isin; 


15. Rule of the Elamites. The hegemony of 
Isin was ere long interrupted by an invasion of the 
Elamites (c. 2000), which ended in their complete 
subjugation of Babylonia, Larsa naturally being 
made their capital. From Gn ch. 14 we learn that 
these Elamites (under King Chedorlaomer) as rulers 
of Babylonia continued its réle of suzerainty over 
the ‘westland.’ The expeditions there described 
had as their object to secure control of the trade route 
from Damascus to the peninsula of Sinai (cf. vs. 
5-7), which in those early days was even more im- 
portant than it is at present. From the same sec- 
ondary source we are informed that the soverignty 
of Babylon included that of the northeastern coun- 


try as well (‘Goilim, ‘nations,’ AV, Gn 141 = the 
Bab. Guté). (For another view, see Tidal). 

16. Babylon and Babylonia. The Elamitic yoke 
was thrown off by Hammurabi, King of Babylon, 
the ‘Amraphael, King of Shinar’ (Shumer or Central 
Babylonia) of Gn 14, (see also AMRAPHEL) who at 
the same time united all Babylonia under one admin- 
istration. Babylon, which thenceforth became the 
undisputed capital of the whole of Babylonia and the 
leading city of Western Asia, was not by any means 
a new city at this era, tho its earliest history is as 
yet obscure. The dynasty to which Hammurabi 
belonged, altho known as ‘the first,’ was not native 
but Amorite, and he was the sixth of the line. He 
was the real founder of the Babylonian type of. 
nationality, and one of the world’s greatest men. His 
work was epoch-making in religion, civic administra- 
tion, provincial organization, legislation, irrigation, 
and national defense. His paternal care extended to 
hundreds of cities and towns from the Persian Gulf 
to the Mediterranean coastland. Among his chief 
monuments were his temples and palaces, his great 
canals, his legislative code, and the city of Baby- 
lon itself, of which he was the virtual creator, which 
he made the successor of Nippur as the center of 
Semitic religion and culture, and whose patron god 
Merodach was invested with the prerogatives and 
attributes of Bél himself and even with his name (cf. 
Is 461). This first dynasty of Babylon lasted till 
about 1760 B.c. The second dynasty ran till near 
1500 B.c. Little is known of it, but it must have 
been active all over the western country, for the 
Amarna letters of the next period show that Baby- 
lonian influence had permeated the life and thought 
of Palestine and Syria for hundreds of years before 
their date (1450-1400 B.c.). 


17. The Cossean Dynasty. The rulers of this 
second dynasty, especially toward the close, had to 
suffer from inroads of Elamites and Cosseans (or 
Kassites), the latter of whom succeeded in obtaining 
control of Babylon about 1700 B.c. Their rule was 
long and on the whole not very prosperous. Their 
influence was mainly political. They conformed to 
the religion of Babylonia, and in their measure they 
were molded by its civilization. They were not de- 
void of enterprise and daring, but they lacked culture 
and resources. Their empire was contracted by other 
causes also. Assyria was becoming continually 
stronger, and was barring the way to the west. 
Mesopotamia became a bone of contention between 
the two nations, and their rivalry resulted in the 
loss of the ‘westland’ altogether. This was also the 
period of the expansion of Egypt. By 1600, when 
the Asiatic Hyksos were expelled from that country, 
no Semitic force was strong enough to keep the 
Egyptians from successfully invading Palestine and 
Syria. They were succeeded there by Hittites and 
Arameans, and finally Assyrians and not Babylo- 
nians resumed the empire of the west. Meanwhile 
the two powers were engaged in frequent warfare 
with occasional treaties of peace; and both of them 
cultivated friendship with Egypt in the 16th and 
17th centuries while it was a power in Asiatic affairs. 


18. Native Rule Resumed. The Cossean in- 
truders were finally expelled by Nebuchadrezzar I, 


91 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


an early member of the 4th dynasty, about 1150 
B.c. He made a desperate effort to reclaim Syria, 
but had to succumb to the superior power of 
Assyria, Not long after his time Babylon itself was 
captured by the Assyrians, but not permanently 
held. Peaceful relations seem to have been main- 
tained for many years thereafter. The next dy- 
nasty is called that of the ‘Sea-land,’ (1088-1017 
B.C.) which was probably the result of the first effort 
of the Chaldeans to assert themselves on a national 
scale. The 5th, 6th, and 7th dynasties, regarding 
which little is known, were of short duration. The 
7th had at least one Elamitic ruler. After 990 
B.c., the native kings were again in power. With 
the revival of Assyrian aggression on a world-con- 
quering scale Babylonia gradually took an inferior 
place, but it was not till the era of Tiglath-pileser III 
that Assyria gained a permanent footing in the 
mother-country. Early in the reign of Nabonassar 
(747-735), the first king of the Canon of Ptolemy, 
the Assyrians occupied Akkad, and in 729 Babylon 
itself was taken by Tiglath-pileser, who assumed the 
throne under the name of Pulu (the ‘Pul’ of II 
K 15 19). 


19. Chaldeans and Assyrians. The chief ob- 
stacle to the progress of the Assyrians was pre- 
sented by the Chaldeans from the shores of the 
Persian Gulf, who had now begun systematic plans 
for gaining possession of Babylon (§ 18). Their 
aims seem not to have been purely ambitious. 
They wished to maintain a native Babylonian dy- 
nasty, while the all-powerful priestly party in Baby- 
lon was quite willing to tolerate Assyrian rule for 
the sake of its protection and better chances of 
settled government. Merodach-baladan IT was the 
leading spirit of the first great struggle. He was 
three times in possession of the capital and for two 
periods actual king. For thirty years he kept in- 
triguing, fighting, or actually reigning in Babylon. 
It was in 704 that he sent the embassy to Hezekiah 
of Judah seeking help in organizing a general revolt 
against Sennacherib (cf. II K 20 12; Is 391). He 
finally disappeared, embarking in his flight for the 
eastern shore of the Persian Gulf. Native opposi- 
tion to the Assyrians was still maintained till in 690 
Sennacherib captured and destroyed Babylon itself, 
turning the Euphrates over its site. During these 
struggles the Elamites rendered faithful and sub- 
stantial assistance to the Chaldeans. 


20. Assyrian Rule and Ruin. Babylon was re- 
stored (680 B.c.) by the good Assyrian king, Esar- 
haddon, who forebore to assume the title of ‘King 
of Babylon’ and called himself ‘viceregent of Mero- 
dach.’ Under his régime Babylonia was prosperous 
and happy. After his early death Asshurbanipal 
became King of Assyria and his brother viceroy of 
Babylon. For fifteen years the brothers kept on 
good terms, and when a combination of Chaldeans, 
Elamites, and Arameans of the Tigris pasture-lands 
was made against Assyria, Babylon held aloof. But 
the viceroy took part in an insurrection which began 
in 652 and extended through the whole breadth of 
the empire. The chief cities of North and Central 
Babylonia were besieged and yielded only to star- 
vation. Babylon was the last to be taken, and the 


Babylonia 


viceroy immolated himself in the flames of his pal- 
ace (648). During the rest of his life, till 626, 
Asshurbanipal reigned as ‘king’ over Babylon. 
Within the next three years (648-645) Elam also was 
finally subdued, and Susa captured and destroyed. 


21. New Babylonian Empire. Yet, after all, the 
successor of Asshurbanipal in Babylon was a Chal- 
dean, Nabopolassar (625-605), who threw off the 
yoke of the hated Assyrian, and founded the new 
Babylonia. As Assyria declined and shrank in di- 
mensions the Chaldean régime was being constantly 
strengthened. Nabopolassar allied himself with the 
rising power of the Medes, and after the fall of Nine- 
veh (612 B.c.) the whole Assyrian Empire W. and 
S. of the mountains fell to him. His son, Nebuch- 
drezzar, completed the reduction of Syria and Pales- 
tine, which had fallen under the dominion of Egypt, 
by driving out Pharaoh Necho after the battle of 
Carchemish (605 B.c.). He became king upon the 
death of his father during this campaign. Only 
the western districts furnished serious trouble to 
him. Jerusalem rebelled twice and was finally de- 
stroyed in 586. Tyre withstood a siege of thirteen 
years, since the besiegers lacked a competent navy. 
But Egypt was overrun and for a time, it would 
seem, occupied by the Babylonians. Throughout 
the rule of Nebuchadrezzar peace reigned between 
his empire and Media, which extended itself mainly 
westward. His career as a ruler was long and suc- 
cessful. While his outlying dominions were gen- 
erally peaceful and contented, Babylonia itself pros- 
pered beyond precedent. Waste lands were re- 
claimed; irrigation was extended; new settlements 
were formed; commerce, industry, learning, research, 
architecture, and above all temple-building were 
promoted; and the city of Babylon became more than 
ever the metropolis of Asia. 


22. Decline and Fall. The glory of the Chal- 
dean régime was of short duration. Nebuchadrez- 
gar died in 562. His successors were all incompe- 
tent. The fourth and last, Nabonidus, a usurper 
(555) and a religious and antiquarian enthusiast, 
was distasteful to his own people. Cyrus the Great, 
in 539 B.c., added the Babylonian to the other em- 
pires which he had acquired and consolidated with 
magical ease and celerity. A midsummer campaign 
of less than a week ended in the surrender of the 
capital, after which the whole Semitic world came 
under Persian control. Babylon henceforth had 
no higher rank than a province. 

23. Continued Importance of Babylonia. But 
its importance for Biblical history did not thereby 
cease; rather it set itself in a new relation. It was 
because Babylonia was a province of Persia that the 
restoration of Jerusalem and the return of the Baby- 
lonian exiles were made possible and the mainten- 
ance of the precarious settlements in Palestine 
secured. Even Persian modes of thought had only 
a slight influence on the latest canonical writings. 
Of Judaism Babylonia was the center and focus for 
over a thousand years. After the fall of Jerusalem 
(70 A.D.), Babylonia took the place of Palestine as a 
seat of Jewish schools and the interpretation of the 
Law. Under the Parthian, the Sassanid, and even 
the Mohammedan rulers, the Jewish scholars and 


Babylonish Garment 
Baptism 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 92 





teachers of Babylon still held a leading place, and 

it was not till the Mongolians and Turks converted 

the country into a desert that it ceased to be a nurs- 

ery of Judaism. 

LireRATURE: See in addition to the list of works appended to 
Assyria, King, History of Sumer and Akkad, 1910 and King, 


History of Babylon, 1915; Rogers, Hist. of Bab. and Ass. 
(19152). J. F. McC.—R. W. R. 


BABYLONISH GARMENT (properly, ‘mantle of 
Shin‘ar,’ Jos 7 21 mg.): If the text be correct, 
this is an allusion to the costly embroidered robes of 
various patterns which are frequently mentioned in 
the Bab. inscriptions, and to their wide-spread ex- 
port from the place of manufacture. It is possible 
however, that instead of ‘Shin‘ar’ we should read 
se‘ar, ‘hair.’ LBeP. 

BACA,. bé’ka, VALLEY OF (8231] PPY, ‘emeq 
habbakha’, Ps. 84 6, Valley of Weeping RV; ‘balsam- 
trees, RVmg.): Whether there was a real valley 
bearing the name Baca is not clear. The context 
in Ps 84 clearly shows that the phrase is used as 
emblematic of the hard experiences of life which 
faithfulness and constancy in devotion to God may 
transform into sources of joy. For an ingenious 
explanation of the term as a liturgical note see 
Peters, The Psalms as Liturgies (1922) p. 341. 

A. C. Z. 

BACHRITE, bak’rait. See BrecHER. 


BACK: Used of God in an anthropomorphic 
sense (Ex 33 23; Is 3817). In Ex 3, (ARV) ‘back’ 
means ‘West,’ i.e., the Western part of the desert. 
See East. 


BADGER, BADGERS’ SKINS. See SeALsKIN. 


BAG: The rendering of (1) hdarit (II K 5 23), a 
bag of skin, here one large enough to hold a talent of 
silver. A smaller variety is mentioned in Is 3 22 
(satchel RV, crisping pin AV); (2) kis, a bag or 
purse in which was carried money (Is 46 6; Pr 1 14 
[purse] 16 11; Is 46 6), or weights for the balance 
(Dt 2513; Mic 6 11); (3) kelt, lit. any sort of receptacle 
or instrument, used of the shepherd’s bag in I S 17 
40, 49; (4) ts*rdr, from tsdrar, ‘to bind’ (cf. the vb. in 
II K 12 10), a ‘bundle’ (Gn 42 35) or bag (Job 14 17; 
Pr 7 20; Hag 16). (5) @aAAdvttov, purse RV (Lk 
10 4, 12 33, 22 35), the same as (2), above. The term 
yAwooéxou.ov in Jn 12 6, 13 29 means a small box 
(RVmg.) rather than a bag. KE. E. N. 


BAGGAGE: RV for carriages AV (I S 17 22; 
Is 10 28; Ac 21 15), and for ‘stuff?’ AV and ERV (I 
S 10 22, 25 13, 30 24). In every case but Ac 21 15 it 
means the impedimenta of an army. 


BAHARUMITE, boa-hé’rum-ait: In I Ch 11 33 
we read Azmaveth, the Baharumite,’ but in the 
parallel passage (II S 23 31), ‘the Barhumite,’ the 
‘h’ and ‘r’ being transposed. The former is prob- 
ably the correct form. See Banurim. G.L. R. 

BAHURIM, ba-hi’/rim (0°03, bahirim): A 
place in Benjamin on the way from Jerusalem to the 
Jordan (IIS 316, 165). B. was the home of Shimei, 
who cursed David on his flight from Absalom (II § 
165, 1916 ff.;1 K28). Here also Ahimaaz and Jon- 
athan concealed themselves when acting as David’s 
spies (II S 1718). Site unknown. 


BAJITH. See Bayrru. 





BAKBAKKAR, bak-bak’G@r (1P?3P3, baqgbagqar): 
The head of a Levite family (I Ch 9 15). 

BAKBUK, bak’buk (P'13P3, bagbiq): The foun- 
der of a family of Nethinim who returned from Baby- 
lon with Zerubbabel (Eizr 2 51; Neh 7 53). 

BAKBUKIAH, bak”bi-kai’a (TPAP3, bagbug- 
yah): A name occurring three times in Neh (11 17, 
129, 25), all the references being perhaps to one indi- 
vidual, a Levite of the ‘sons of Asaph.’ 


BAKE, BAKER, BAKING, BAKEMEATS. See 
Foop anpD Foop UTeEnsizs, §§ 2, 11. 


BAKING PAN. See Pan. 


BALAAM, bé’lem (0923, bil‘dm): The son of 
Beor and a magician (enchanter) of Pethor, on the 
banks of the River Euphrates (Nu 22 5; but accord- 
ing to another reading he was of the bené ‘ammo 
[by omission of a final n for b¢né ‘ammén, ‘sons of 
Ammon’], hence an Ammonite). As the nar- 
rative stands in Nu 22 3-24 25 [JE] it presents in the 
character of B. the incongruous, altho not necessarily 
contradictory qualities of a heathen soothsayer 
(24 1) and those of a man touched by the spirit of 
J”. Theincongruity is removed when the narrative 
is analyzed and its separate portions referred to the 
documents from which they were drawn. But the 
analysis is not an easy one (cf. Kent, Beginnings 
of Hebrew History, 233-239; Addis, The Documents 
of the Hex., I, 175-184); and the story as it stands 
has a distinct function and spiritual value. It pre- 
sents the heathen occultist as coming under the power 
of the spirit of J’’ and revealing the irresistible na- 
ture of this force. Balaam is summoned by Balak, 
King of Moab, just after the defeat of the Amorites 
by the hosts of Israel, and bribed to curse the vic- 
torious invaders, but is led first by the miracle of the 
speaking ass, and afterwards directly, to bless them. 
In four poetically constructed oracles (Nu 23 7-10 
[EF], 19-24 [Ei], 24 3-9 [J], 16-24 [J]), he foreshadows the 
uniqueness of J’”s people, their strength, the beauty 
and fruitfulness of their land, their glorious victories, 
and finally the great king (‘Star’) who shall create an 
empire out of Moab, Edom, Amalek, and Kain. 
After this B, is for a time lost sight of, and when 
he reappears, it is as the corrupter of Israel. 
Through the means of Midianite women he lures 
many to idolatry and is slain with others for this 
sin (Nu 31 8, 16 [P]). In the OT, B. stands for the 
unavailing curse of the heathen enchanter (Dt 23 5; 
Jos249; Mic65; Neh132);in the N T he is the type of, 
of the tempter to idolatry, especially that form of it 
in which lust plays a large part (II P 2 15; Jude ver. 
11; Rev 2 14); cf. Gray on Numbers, chs. 22-24, in 
ICC, (1903). A. C. Z. 


BALAC, bé’lak. See Bauax. 
BALADIN, bal’a-dan. See Mmropacg-BALADAN. 


BALAH, bé’la (723, balah: A town in SW. Pales- 
tine (Jos 19 3), Bilhah in I Ch 4 29. Site unknown. 
Perhaps the same as Baalah (q.v.). 

BALAK, bé’lak (P23, balaq; Balac, Rev. 214, AC): 
King of Moab in Moses’ day (Nu 22-23) and famous 
for his connection with Balaam (q.v.). 

BALANCE. See WricHTs AND Mnasurss, § 4. 





93 A NRW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY ot eg: Natt oom 
BALD LOCUST. See Pauxstinn, § 26, and Lo- BANNER«)) Bannets 


CUSTS. 


BALDNESS: As tv location, the O T contrasts 
baldness of the forehead (gabbahath, only Lv 13 41 ff.) 
with baldness of the crown (gorhah, or qgdrahath; cf. 
the proper names Korah, Kareah). As to origin, 
baldness was either natural or artificial. The for- 
mer, which is seldom mentioned, was believed to 
result from hard labor (Ezk 29 18), as well as disease 
(Is 3 17, 24), and was perhaps considered a reproach 
(II K 2 23). Baldness was not itself unclean, but 
apparently aroused suspicions of some unclean skin- 
disease (Lv 13 40 ff.). 


Artificial baldness, produced by clipping or shav-_ 


ing (cf. Ezk 51) is frequently mentioned. The an- 
cient belief that the hair was a seat of the vitality 
(cf. Jg 16 17) caused the ceremonial shaving of the 
head to be regarded as a sacrifice to a deity or to the 
dead; hence this was a sign of mourning forbidden to 
the Israelites (Dt 141; Lv 215). It seems, however, 
to have been common in preexilic times (is 22 12; 
Am 8 10, etc.; cf. Job 1 20); and baldness is therefore 
used figuratively for mourning (Jer 48 37; Ezk 7 18, 
etc.). See Mournina anp Movurnina Customs, 
§ 4. The practise prevalent among neighboring na- 
tions of shaving all the head except a circular patch 
in the middle (Jer 9 26, 25 23) was likewise prohibited 
(Lv 19 27, 21 5) on account of its connection with 
heathen worship. At the expiration of the Nazirite’s 
vow, the shaven hair was offered as a sacrifice to J” 
(Nu 6 18; cf. Ac 18 18, 21 24). See Nazrrirs. Paul 
says that ‘it is a shame to a woman to be shorn or 
shaven’ (I Co 116). See Harr and Savina. 
L. G. L.—E. C. L. 


BALM. See Diszasz anp Mepicine, § 3; and 
PALESTINE, § 21. 


BALSAM. See Patzesrinp, § 21. 


BAMAH, bé’ma (93, bamah), ‘high place’: In 
Ezk 20 29 the word is used with reference to a sup- 
posed derivation from ba’, ‘to come’ (‘go’), and mdéh, 
‘what.’ Hence, ‘What whereunto go ye?’ 
with evident contempt for it. This allusion to its 
etymology makes the word a quasi-proper noun as 
rendered in EVV. A. C. Z. 


BAMOTH, bé’meth (1153, bamath), ‘high places’: 
A town of Moab, probably the same as Bamoth 
Baal (Jos 13 17) and the Beth Bamoth of the stone 
of Mesha (line 27). It was one of the last stations 
on Israel’s march through Moab before the final en- 
campment near Pisgah (Nu 21 19 f£.). The identifi- 
cation, Map II, J 1, is uncertain. HK. E.N. 

BAND: Often used in O T and N T for divisions 

_of an army (cf. IIS 4 2; II K 6 23; Job 117; Mt 27 27). 
See WARFARE, § 4; also BEAuTY AND BAnpbs. 

BANI, bé’nai (723, bdnz): 1. One of David’s heroes 
(II S 23 36=Mibhar, I Ch 11 38). 2. A Merarite (I 
Ch6 46). 3.A Judahite, descendant of Pharez (I Ch 
9 4). 4. ‘Sons of Bani,’ a postexilic family (Ezr 
210, 10 29, 34 #. = Binnui in Neh 715.) 5. Name of one 
or more Levites (Neh 3 17, 87, 9 4, 5, 1013, 11 22). 6. 
A term used for one of the divisions of the postexilic 
community (Neh 10 14); cf. 4. 

BANK, BANKER. See TRADE AND COMMERCE, § 3. 


or standards were used 
in ancient armies very 
much in the same way 
as in later times. (1) 
The most common word 
for standard is nés (of 
uncertain root signifi- 
cance); cf. Ex 17 15 
(nisst = ‘my banner’); 
Jer 4 6, 51 12, often ren- 
dered ensign (e.g., Is 
5 26, 319). (2) Another 
word is deghel (‘that 
which is seen’), confined 
to Nu 1 52,22.,1014£., 
and Song 2 4, 6 4, 10. 
In Nu (if the text be 
correct) it is implied 
that each tribe had its 
special standard. (3). 

’Oth, ‘sign,’ is used for 
banner or ensign in Nu 
22; Ps 74 4. One form 
of Assyrian banner is shown in the accompanying 





Military Standard with the 
Image of the God Asshur. 


illustration. There were many other forms. 
E. E. N. 
BANQUET. See Mzats, § 3. 
BAPTISM, BAPTIZE ((&rttoun,  BamrtCerv): 


The words used to designate the rite characteristic 
of John the Baptist’s ministry (Mk 1 4 and |ls; 
11 30 and |/s; Lk 7 29; Ac 1 5, 22, 10 37, 13 24, 18 25, 
19 3£.), as also the rite imposed from the beginning 
upon converts to the Early Church’s preaching of 
Jesus Christ). 

1. In John’s Ministry. The call of the Baptist 
was not only to moral purification, but to this as 
leading to an entirely new order of life in the Messi- 
anic kingdom which he announced (Mt 3 2f.). For 
Messiah would come only to a righteous Israel, fit 
and ready for the nearer and more abiding presence 
of ‘the Holy One of Israel’ in its midst. As adminis- 
tered by the Baptist, therefore, this rite symbolized 
repentance in preparation for this coming Divine 
order (Mt 8 6-12 and ||s; Lk 3 10-17), as forecast by the 
Prophets (e.g. Zee 12 10-13), and consequently must 
have been conceived largely on the lines of 
O T rites of purification (cf. Ez 36 24-28). But 
it recalls still more the rite of initiating 
proselytes into Israel (cf. Schiirer, H/JP, I 
(2), 319-324; Edersheim, Life of Jesus, I, 272 ff.). 
In any case it denoted a radical national ‘unclean- 
ness,’ such as the religious leaders were loath to ad- 
mit, at least in their own persons, and so largely 
held aloof (Lk 7 30, 204 ff. and ||s). John’s baptism, 
in fact, was in terms of the prophetic idea of the 
Salvation of a ‘holy remnant’ through fiery testing 
or Judgment (see Is 4 2-4, Mal 3-4, cf. Mt. 3 10-12/]). 

Jesus’ acceptance of baptism at John’s hands (Mk 
1 9-11 ||s) was due to its primarily corporate nature, 
and to a deep sense of unity with God’s people in all 
its lot. For himself, however, he accepted it sim- 
ply in its positive aspect, as a symbol of devotion 
(the primary meaning of ‘make holy,’ &y:éGewv, in 
the Bible, e.g. Jo 17 17, 19) to God’s will, as to be fully 


Baptism 
Barnabas 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 94 





done in His ‘Kingdom.’ Thus Jesus ‘fulfilled’ the 
rite as an act of ‘righteousness’ (Mt 3 15, cf. 61 f. 
21 32), prescribed by God’s will (21 25 and ||s) for those 
who would be ready for His full presence. Only 
Jesus differed from John as to what this meant 
chiefly, viz. grace rather than penal judgment (cf. 
JOHN THE Baptist, §§ 3, 6). So too, the anointing 
‘holy Spirit’ which He himself experienced, as the 
Father’s response to his self-devotion in baptism, 
was of another order and’ brought another sort of 
testing, as by fire (Mt 3 11 and ||),in the Temptation. 

2. In Jesus’ Ministry. The statement in Jo 
3 22-26, 41f., that Jesus during his early ministry in 
Judea administered the rite of baptism, is not con- 
tradicted by the Synoptists: but the whole matter 
turns on the question of a Judean ministry prior to 
the Synoptic one in Galilee (see JEsus Curist, §§ 
1, 7, 8). 

That it should have been so is probable enough, at least for 
the early days when his work was being done parallel with 
John’s. The fact, however, that the most receptive of the peo- 
ple of Galilee had already accepted baptism unto the coming 
Kingdom (Lk 7 2°) made almost needless any such rite during 
Jesus’ ministry. Of any baptism of those already baptized 


by John there is no hint. The call Jesus made was simply for 
faith in His special Glad Message (Evangel, Mk 1 15). 


It is clear, therefore, that any administration of 
this rite by disciples in the early part of Jesus’ min- 
istry would be temporary, and not belong vitally to 
His own special work. His distinctive Baptism was 
to be with Messianic ‘holy Spirit’? (Mk 17. and ||s) 
—participation in His experience or ‘baptism,’ in- 
cluding sacrificial love (Lk 12 49 £., Mk 10 38 £.). 

3. Inthe Ministry of the EarlyChurch. The con- 
trast between the two baptisms, John’s ‘with water’ 
and Jesus’ ‘with holy Spirit,’ receives final expression 
in Ac 1 6, and is reechoed throughout Ac (11 16, 
19 2-4). ‘Jesus of Nazareth,’ ‘the Christ,’ whom 
‘God anointed with holy Spirit and power’ (10 38), 
was the Baptizer with that Spirit—the medium 
through whom God ‘poured forth’ (Ac 2 17 f., 33; 
cf. Jn 7 39) the Spirit-experience which marked or 
‘sealed’ (Eph 1 13 f.) believers as accepted of God 
for membership of His Spirit-possessed people, 
the mystic Body of the Christ, or simply ‘the 
Christ’ (I Co 1212 f. cf. 102). The Church of Christ, 
as it appears in the N T, is essentially Spirit-anointed 
and conscious of a heightened religious experience, 
a new quality of life, communicated through Jesus; 
and all this goes back to an initial experience of 
Spirit-baptism through faith in His Name (II 
Co 1 21f.). From the opening of the Apostolic 
Age, however, the Spirit-baptism of Jesus the 
Christ (cf. Jn 7 39, 167),a sensible experience ‘and one 
recognizable by outward signs (e.g. rapt utterance, 
glossolalia, Ac 2 4, 10 46, 19 6), was associated with 
water-baptism (Ac 238) on Jewish lines, those of John 
the Baptist. How far the Christians had their 
Master’s explicit authority for this is doubtful; 
many hold the wording of Mt 28 19 f. to be due to 
Church usage passing into tradition (Mk 16 16 is 
certainly secondary). In any case Messiah’s 
Spirit-baptism sometimes came before and apart 
from the outward rite (Ac 10 44 ff., cf. APOLLOS), 
altho normally the two were conjoined in experience 
in the definitive act of self-devotion (cf. the mission 
field to-day, e.g. in India) which constituted the be- 


liever ‘holy’ to God (&ytocs). Further as Spirit- 
baptism was the ‘seal’ of Divine acceptance, it gave 
also objective assurance of ‘the forgiveness of sins’ 
(Ac 2 38, 812, 15 f.; Ro 815 Gal 4 6; cf. He 10 22). 
So Ananias bids Paul ‘Arise, accept baptism (mid. 
voice) and wash away thy sins, invoking His Name’ 
(Ac 22 16), 2.e. that of ‘the Righteous One,’ whose Res- 
urrection ‘in newness of life,’ after death, marked His 
acceptance as holy ‘Son of God’ (R 1 4, 6 4, 10). 
Thus baptism (as burial in the water) became to Paul 
a visible emblem and actual means of salvation in 
the Christian’s experience. 

Having been united by faith with Christ crucified, and so 
with His death to sin—and to the Law as the ‘strength of sin’ 
(1 Co 15 5*)—the believer was fitly ‘buried with Him through | 
baptism into death,’ and rose again with Him in conscious 
‘newness of life’ (Ro 61-1), This mystic experience of twofold 
union (by faith, Col 2 12) with Christ in baptism, this ‘putting 
on’ of Christ, as ‘the new man’ or higher humanity (Gal 3 27f., 
Eph 4 %), becomes the religious basis and principle of the new 
moral ‘walk’ of the Christian ‘by (the) Spirit’ (Ro 6 2) 4, 11 ff.; 
Gal 516; Eph 4 22-4; Col 220-31), Thus Paul constantly appeals 
to the liberating experience of baptism (1 Cor 6 44), as the great 
moment when the new ‘holy Spirit’ energy broke forth as the 
Christian’s true or ‘Christ’ life (1 Co 32-3; Gal 5 25, 2 20; cf. He 
64). See SANCTIFICATION. 

As to the original form of the Baptismal Confession 
(the N Tshows no trace of a baptismal Formula used 
by the baptizer, whose part is that of a mere minister 
and witness, cf. 1 Co 1 14-17, 611, middle voice), it was 
at first apparently only ‘Jesus is the Messiah’ (Ac 
2 38, 18 5, 20, 22 16) or ‘the Lord’ (Ac 8 16, 19 5; Ro 
109; Eph 5 26; 1 Co 611, 12 3; Did. 95: ef. even the 
6 gloss in Ac 8 37 ‘I believe that J.C. is the Son of 
God’). When exactly the Trinitarian form arose 
we do not know, the date of Mt 28 19, Did. 7, being 
uncertain. : 

The reference to ‘baptisms’ or ‘washings’ in He 6 2 
(the more general Barttcudc, cf. 9 10, Mk 7 4, being 
used, not @&xttoza) may be to the relative value of 
Jewish and Christian forms of purification, as re- 
gards ‘repentance from dead (evil) works and faith 
towards God,’ or cleansing ‘from a bad conscience’ 
and ‘full assurance of faith’ (10 22, cf. 1 P. 3 21). 
‘Laying on of hands’ in He 6 2 probably refers to 
the baptizer’s act, as representing the Church, into 
which the baptized was seeking incorporation. It 
can hardly have been a specifically Apostolic act (cf. 
Ananias’ use of it, Ac 9 17), else Paul could not 
have written as he does in 1 Cor 1 14 f.—for such an 
act (Ac 818 £.) was a fortiort open to the misconstruc- 
tion he is there excluding. Nor does a high sac- 
ramentarian view of the baptismal rite generally, 
as regards its matter (the water and manual contact) 
rather than the religious experience normally con- 
ditioned by it, seem—in spite of strong assertions 
from the side of Comparative Religion—to have 
N T authority. 

For the mentality of the original Christian circles (cf. Did.7 also) 
was Hebraic, and so was symbolic rather than realistic, in the 
sense of pagan or ‘mystery’ religions, in which sacramental 
elements themselves acquired a fresh Divine potency. The 
reaction of general ‘Hellenistic,’ rather than Hebraic, modes 
of thought upon Christian sacraments was a secondary thing. 
Some trace of it perhaps appears in ‘baptism on behalf of the 
dead’ (1 Cor 15 29, 7. e. baptism by proxy, for a bodily share in 
the Parousia), as practised by some in the Corinthian church, on 
which Paul seizes as simply a telling arg. ad hom. (for other views 
see Expos. Greek Tezxt., ad loc.). 


Infant baptism does not appearinthe NT. But 


95 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


the analogy of proselyte baptism, which included all 
children; the solidarity of children with the parent’s 
religious status in Hebraism; and particularly the 
parallel between circumcision and baptism as rites of 
incorporation into the Divine Covenant (Col 2 11)— 
all make the ‘argument from silence’ tell for and 
not against the practise as primitive. 

The mode of Christian baptism, like John’s, was 
total or partial immersion when possible, pref- 
erably in ‘living’ (running) water. Yet, asin Jewish 
lustrations, affusion or sprinkling appears fairly soon 
as an allowable form, as in Did. vii 3 (a secondary 
addition) and in early pictorial representations 
(Studia Bibl. et Eccles., Vol. V, pt. iv). 


LirpraturE: Schiirer, HJP, II (2); Edersheim, Life and 
Times of Jesus the Messiah, 1: 272 ff.: art in ERE, Vol. ii, 
where further reff. will be found. J. V.B. 


BAPTIST. See JoHN THE BapPTIst. 
BAR. See Houss, § 6 (1). 


BAR-: In proper names compounded with Bar-, 
seven instances of which occur in the N T, this ele- 
ment signifies ‘son’ (Aramaic 713, bar = Heb. 14, bén), 
é.g., Bar-Jonah, ‘son of Jonah’ (Mt 16 17). 

BARABBAS, bGr-ab’as (BapaGGas): The prisoner 
released at the instigation of the chief priests by Pi- 
late according to a customary but otherwise unknown 
act of clemency at Passover (Mk 157 £. and ||s). He 
was a notable criminal in Jerusalem imprisoned with 
accomplices for robbery, sedition, and murder. The 
name Barabbas (‘son of the Father’)—probably in 
the sense of “Teacher’—is not unknown, there being 
two rabbis with this surname mentioned in the Tal- 
mud. The reading ‘Jesus Barabbas’ for his full 
name in Mt 27 16 f., found by Origen in many MSS., 
and still extant in some cursives and in the Sinaitic- 
Syriac and Armenian versions, was rejected by West- 
cott and Hort, but has been adopted by some re- 
cent commentators, and by Moffatt in his New 
Translation. See Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mephar- 
reshe, ii, 277 f. R. A. F.—E. C. L. 

BARACHEL, ba-ra’kel (98772, barakh’él), ‘God 
blesses’: The symbolic name of Elihu’s father (Job 
32 2, 6). 

BARACHIAH, bar’’e-kai-’a. See BERECHIAH; and 
ZACHARIAH, 3. 

BARACHIAS, bar’’a-kai’as. See ZACHARIAS. 

BARAK, bar’ak (P14, bardqg), ‘lightning’: A 
warrior who shares with Deborah the credit of the 
victory over Sisera and the Canaanites (Jg 4 6, 512). 
He was a native of Kedesh-Naphtali, and was later 
reckoned among the ‘judges’ of Israel in succession 
to Othniel and Ehud. In He 11 32 his name occurs 
amongthose who achieved great things through faith. 


BARBARIAN. See GEnrILEs. 


BARBER: Mentioned in the O T only in Ezk 51, 
showing, however, the existence of professional bar- 
bers. ‘Temple barbers’ are mentioned on Phenician 
inscriptions. Compare the frequent references to 
shaving in the O T (cf. also Is 7 20). See Razor. 

BAREFOOT: ‘The removal of the sandals was in- 
dicative of awe or reverence, of profound emotion, 
or was a symbolic act. When one was on especially 
holy ground or felt himself in the immediate pres- 


Baptism 
Barnabas 


ence of Deity, it was incumbent on him to take off 
his shoes (Ex 3 5; Jos 512). The underlying reason 
for this wide-spread custom is not certainly known 
(cf. Dillmann on Ex 35). The removal of the san- 
dals in experiences of great sorrow and humiliation, 
or as symbolic of such, is illustrated in the case of 
David (II S 15 30) and Isaiah (Is 20 2-4). The hu- 
miliation of the condition of being unshod is well 
illustrated in a detail of the peculiar law of levirate 
marriage (Dt 259f.; cf. Ruth 47 f.). See BuRIAL AND 
Buriat Customs, § 7; also Mournina Customs, 
§ 4. 


~BARHUMITE, bir-hii’mait. See BanaruMire. 
BARIAH, be-rai’a (1713, bdriah): One of the 
later descendants of David (I Ch 8 22). 
BAR-JESUS, bar-ji’zus (Baprynsots, ‘son of Jesus’) 
A Jewish magician and false prophet in the retinue 
of Sergius Paulus when the latter was proconsul of 
Cyprus. For interference with Paul’s work B. is 
represented as stricken with temporary blindness 
(Ac 13 6-12). In ver. 8 B. is called Elymas, which 
may be a second, magical name assumed by the 
same person (but see Dalman, Aram Gr., p. 162), 
possibly to be connected with the Aram. root ox, 
‘strong.’ ‘O wc&yos (ver. 8) is not necessarily an exact 
translation of the word, but may be a general de- 
scription of its meaning. A similar title seems to 
have been borne by Simon Magus (q.v.) (Ac 89 f.). 
See Ramsay St. P. the Traveller pp. 73-88. For 
later legends concerning B. see Lipsius-Bonnet, 
Apoc. Apgesch., II, p. 299 f. Jo Meck. 
BAR-JONAH, bar-jd’na (Bar-jona AV). See Pz- 
TER, § 1. 
BARKOS, bar’kos (P1P13, bargds): The ancestor 
of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2 53; Neh 7 55). 


BARLEY. See AcricuLtruRB, § § 4 and 5; Foop 
§ 1; and Pauestine, § 23. 


BARLEY HARVEST. See Tims, § 4. 
BARN. See AGRICULTURE, § 7. 


BARNABAS, bar’na-bas (Bapyvéac): The surname 
given by the Apostles to the Cypriote Levite, 
Joseph, and taken by the author of Ac (4 46) to 
mean ‘son of exhortation’ or ‘encouragement’ 
(as rae&xAnots clearly means in 13 15, possibly also in 
9 31, 15 31, cf. 32, since the verb in Ac regularly = 
‘exhort,’ ‘encourage,’ e.g. in 11 23 [of Barn], 15 32). 

There is some difficulty about the etymology of BapyaBac. 
Deissmann (Bible Studies, pp. 187f., 307-310) considers it the 
Jewish Grecized form of BaeveBotc, ‘son of Nebo’ (a God), 
found in an inscription from N. Syria (in ZNTW, vii. 91f. he 
cites one from the Euphrates with Baeve@rwy). But the Apos- 
tles would hardly have chosen such a surname, unless they took 
it in the sense implied by Ac. In any case, then, ~va Bas rep- 
resents some Aramaic form related to the Semitic word for 
‘prophet,’ which Deissmann admits to be possible. The sense 
‘son of consolation’ seems less likely on every ground, esp..as the 
surname is referred to before the act which otherwise might 
seem to explain it is named. 

The surname suggests its bearer’s character as 
kindly, sympathetic, optimistic. This is borne out by 
the story of Ac. Thus he first appears as a notable 
contributor to the common fund for the needy 
brethren in the Jerusalem Church (4 36 f.); as sponsor 
for Saul the ex-persecutor, he shielded him from the 
natural first suspicions of the Jerusalem Christians 


Barnabas 
Baruch, Books of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 96 





(9 26 f.); later on, he took the more hopeful view as 
to Mark’s doing better for the future, altho he had 
failed his leaders at a crisis (15 37-39: see Marx). 
But we see both the greatness and the limitations 
of this ‘good-hearted’ man (11 24) most clearly in 
two stages of the rédle he played in Christianity at 
Antioch. In the one (11 19-26) he was the first 
sponsor and nursing-father of Gentile Christianity 
on a large scale, and not as a mere matter of ex- 
ceptional cases (as in Judea, 11 1-18): in the other, 
he vacillated in a difficult situation, where only 
clear, strong grasp of first principles could avail 
to guide conscience, and where the men he most 
trusted took different lines (Gal 211-13). Here he 
followed the man of like temperament to himself, 
Peter, even when his policy, as Paul the man of 
more reflective insight was able to show, involved 
inconsistency on religious principles (see GALATIANS, 
Ep. To). 

Barnabas’ midway position, between the theory and 
practise of the primitive Palestinian Church and the 
distinctive gospel of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, 
is connected with his personal history and training. 
Born in the Jewish ‘Dispersion,’ he was a ‘Hellenist’ 
(q.v.), or Jew of largely Greek culture and feeling, 
more so than the Rabbinically trained Saul the Phari- 
see, whom yet he may have known, through the 
Hellenist synagog (Ac 6 9), in their pre-Christian 
days in Jerusalem (cf. 9 27). He was rather of the 
school of the Hellenist Philip, the liberal missionary 
‘Evangelist’; and so represents with him the great 
spiritual bridge, the importance of which has only 
recently been recognized, by which the Gospel passed 
from Jew to Gentile, altho it required Paul’s more 
radical transcendence (on principle, by antithesis 
rather than mere sublimation) of Law in religion, 
permanently to safeguard the Gospel from the 
recrudescence of Legalism. This we see in the 
crisis at Antioch of Gal 2 11 ff. 

In the light of the above, B.’s career may be briefly 
traced. His original sphere was Jerusalem, where 
his relative, Mary the mother of John Mark, his 
cousin (Col 4 10), had a house that was an important 
centre of Christian life (Ac 1212). But we first get 
an idea of the great place he held in the eyes of the 
Church there, and its leaders, from the fact that he 
was sent, as the most authoritative of ‘Hellenists,’ 
to deal with the new and startling development at 
Antioch due to the preaching there of certain Chris- 
tian Hellenists (see ANTIOcH). Feeling his own in- 
adequacy to deal with the new departure, especially 
on the intellectual side, he brought Paul from 
Tarsus, and the two labored in Antioch for a year or 
more (11 26). Next he and Paul were sent by its 
church to bear famine relief to ‘the brethren in 
Judea’ (27-30). 

Ramsay thinks this visit the same as that described, on an- 
other side, in Gal 2 1-19; possibly it came shortly after that visit 
which, as due to a special ‘revelation’ and private in nature 
(1 f.), remained unrecorded in Ac (see Acts, and Expos. Oct. 
1899; but also GaLaTrans, Ep. To, and Paut; and cf. Burton, 
ICC on Galatians adloc.) On the latter view, Gal. 2 4! ff-, may 
have followed soon after the relief visit—a very natural sequence, 


also making B.’s vacillation easier to understand than if it 
followed the missionary journey with Paul next to be named. 


r Thereafter, as foremost ‘prophets and teachers’ 
in Antioch, they were set apart, by Divine monition, 


to the first deliberate mission of which we have 
record (131-3); and in this connection are referred to 
by Ac as ‘apostles’ or divinely called mission- 
aries (see APosTLE). In the struggle for Gentile 
liberty from the Mosaic Law, after this mission, 
B. stood staunchly by Paul both in Antioch and 
Jerusalem (Ac 15, see Paut, §§ 10 f.); and altho they 
differed as to Mark’s fitness to share in their further 
mission work and so went their several ways—B. 
to Cyprus and Paul to Asia Minor—P.’s later refer- 
ences to B. and Mark suggest that no bad feeling 
was left on either side. In 1 Co 96 he asks ‘Have I 
only, and B.,no right to forbear working?’ instead of 
receiving the maintenance due to an ‘apostle.’ In 
Col 4 10 he describes Mark as ‘cousin of B.’ (as if - 
that were a commendation, and perhaps as if B. 
were still at work), and as one whom he had already 
bidden his own friends to welcome, if he came their 
way. 

To sum up. B. was above all a man of heart, 
like Peter, if less impulsive and less dynamic; full 
of human sympathy and such insight as goes with 
it; and so capable of inspiring admiring love, such as 
the author of Ac clearly bears him. But neither 
in ability of reflective grasp on principle nor in power 
of uttering himself in speech (Ac 14 12) could he 
compare with his great colleague Paul. The two 
illustrate finely the latter’s principle, ‘now there are 
diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.’ 

The place filled by B. in the Apostolic circle caused him to be 
credited (by Tertullian and others in the Western Church) 
with the authorishp of the anonymous ‘Epistle to Hebrews’ 
(q. v.); with the Alexandrine Epistle of Barnabas (Codex 
Sinaiticus); and even with a latish Gospel (referred to in the 
Decretum Gelasti, late 5th cent.), traces of which may survive 
in the post-Islamic Gospel of Barnabas, now extant in Italian 
and Spanish versions (ed. L. Ragg, Oxford). To the same cause 
are due the Acts of Barnabas and fictitious references to him in 
the Pseudo-Clementine story, both originating about the 3d 
cent. JeV¥i- Bi 


BARREL: The AV rendering of kadh in I K 17 
12-16, 18 33 (‘jar’ RV). In the latter passage a large 
earthen water-jJaris meant. In the former, the kadh 
may have been of earthenware, or, as is common 
among Palestinian peasants to-day, made of a mix- 
ture of clay, dung, and straw, perhaps divided into 
two compartments. See plate of Porrmry, fig. 1. 


BARREN. See MAarrRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 
BE. E. N. 


BARSABBAS, bar’sab-bas (BapozBac, Barsabas 
AV): 1. Joseph. Surnamed Justus, nominated 
with Matthias as the successor of Judas (Ac 1 23). 
In the postapostolic literature he is reckoned 
among the ‘Seventy’ (Chron. Pasch., ed. Bonn, I, 
400), and several apocryphal tales concerning him 
are extant (cf. Eus. H#, III, 39, 9: Lipsius-Bonnet, 
Apoc. Apostelgesch., I, pp. 108, 116). J. MicT; 

2. Judas (Ac 15 22, 27, 32). A leading prophet of 
the Jerusalem Church, who accompanied Silas with 
the decree of the Council to Antioch, and afterward 
returned to Jerusalem. Nothing more is known of 
him. Barsabbas being a patronymic, he may have 
been a brother of Joseph Barsabbas (Ac 1 23). 

R. AOE, 


BARTHOLOMEW., bar-fhel’o-miti (Bap8oAopatog, 
‘son of Talmai’): One of the twelve Apostles and 


97 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Barnabas 
Baruch, Books of 





mentioned in all four of the lists (Mk 3 18; Mt 10 3; 
Lk 6 14; Ac 113). Concerning B. there is no trust- 
worthy tradition. For his supposed identification 


with Nathanael see NATHANAEL. J. M. T. 
BARTIMZUS, bar’’ti-mi’us (Baptiatos, ‘son 
of Timseus,’ perhaps equivalent to Aram, bar- 


timi, ‘son of Timi’): A blind man restored to sight 
by Jesus near Jericho (Mk 10 46-52 and ||s). In Mt 
and Lk no name appears. It is possible that the 
name was inserted in Mk for the sake of vividness 
(cf. JAIRUS). J. M. T. 


BARUCH, bé’rvk (1373, bdrtkh), ‘blessed’: 1. Son 
of Neriah, said by Josephus (Ant. X, 9 1) to have 
come of a very illustrious family, one of Jeremiah’s 
associates, mentioned as his trusted friend (Jer 
32 12), and earlier as his secretary and agent (Jer 
36 4, cf. the dates of chs. 32 and 36). Jeremiah dic- 
tated his oracles to B.,who read them to the people. 
These prophecies roused the wrath of Jehoiakim, 
who commanded the arrest of B., and also burned 
the roll written by him. B., however, rewrote the 
oracles. After the murder of Gedaliah, he was 
accused by the leaders of unduly influencing Jere- 
miah to dissuade the people from leaving Judea 
(Jer 43 3). Together with Jeremiah he was taken 
into Egypt. Here all authentic records about him 
cease. According to one tradition, he died in Egypt 
at the same time with Jeremiah. According to an- 
other, he survived the prophet and went to Babylon, 
where he died twelve years after the fall of Jerusa- 
lem (574 B.c.). 2. The son of Zabbai (Zaccai 
RVmg.) who repaired the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 
3 20). 3. One of those who sealed the covenant in 
Nehemiah’s time (Neh 10 6); possibly the same as 2. 
4, The son of Col-hozeh, a descendant of Perez (Neh 
11 5). AO we. 


BARUCH, BOOKS OF: I. The Apocryphon: 
1. Contents. The Greek Book of Baruch is based up- 
on the tradition which represents Baruch the son of 
Neriah as spending the last portion of his life inBaby- 
lon (see BarucH 1). The book purports to be a 
treatise addressed by him to the exiles and consists 
of an introduction and three sections. In the first 
section (1 15-3 8) the exiled Israelites are furnished 
with a form of confession of sin to which is appended 
a prayer for the return of the divine good pleasure 
toward them. In the second section (3 9-4 7) the 
praises of Wisdom are sung in words that recall the 
panegyrics of Job chs. 28 and 38, and the Book of 
Proverbs. In the third section (4 8-5 9) words of 
encouragement and comfort are addressed to the 
exiles similar to the expressions of the Deutero- 
Isaiah. 

2. Dates of Its Parts. These three sections bear 
the marks of different ages and environments. (1) 
The form of confession of sin (1 15-3 8) is of the same 
class as Ezr 9 6-15 and Dn 9 3-19; but while it is evi- 
dently of later origin than the former, it is earlier 
than the Daniel passage. It was therefore produced 
probably about 300 B.c. (2) The section which 
eulogizes Wisdom (3 9-4 7) betrays the effect of a 
long-standing contact with the Gentile world, and 
can best be accounted for upon the view that it 
originated in the first half of the Ist cent. a.p. 


(3) The last section (4 8-5 9) must be, from its de- 
pendence on the Psalter of Solomon, dated at the 
earliest after the fall of Jerusalem (70 a.p.) and may 
be a product of the last years of the Ist cent. The 
introduction (cf. 1 1-15) is a redactorial addition 
embodying the tradition of Baruch’s activity in 
Babylon and therefore the latest of all the parts of 
the book. 

3. Original Languages. These differences of set- 
ting correspond with a marked difference in language 
as between the first and the last two sections. The 
last two are purerand more choice in particular words 
and expressions, thus pointing to the conclusion that 
they were originally composed in Greek. As to the 
original language of the first section, the evidence is 
not so clear, but the probability is that it was com- 
posed in Hebrew. 


4. Ascription to Baruch. As far as the ascription 
to Baruch is concerned, his known intimacy with 
Jeremiah and his concern in the events attendant 
on the deportation to Babylon are sufficient to ac- 
count for the use of his name. The book has been 
known continuously from its first appearance and 
early secured a place among the Apocrypha of the 
O T. 

II. The Syriac Apocalypse of Baruch: 1. Contents. 
This is an apocryphon discovered and published in a 
Latin translation in 1866, and later in a more primi- 
tive Syriac text in 1871. Its contents consist of a 
purely apocalyptic section (from which the whole 
takes its name), and a letter purporting to be written 
by Baruch to the nine and a half tribes of Israel de- 
ported into Assyria at the time of the fall of Samaria 
(722 B.c.). The first of these parts consists of a 
series of seven sections of which the first gives a 
sketch of the circumstances in which Baruch saw his 
visions. It was at the time of the fall of Jerusalem 
into the hands of the Chaldeans. Jeremiah, by 
Divine command, went to Babylon with the captives, 
while Baruch stayed amid the ruins of Jerusalem. 
What he saw in the visions there together with the 
conversations which he held with heavenly person- 
ages are narrated in detail in the next six chapters. 
The sum and substance of these is that while Israel 
may suffer for a time, the Messiah will soon appear, 
and bring to naught the counsels of his enemies. 
The letter to the nine and a half tribes is designed 
to encourage and strengthen the people in the time 
of their distress. It represents their condition as 
fully known to God, and their sufferings intended for 
their own good. 


2. The Author, Date, and Original Language. 
The author of the book was evidently a Jew, and 
wrote some time between the middle of the first 
Christian century and before the opening of the 
second, or approximately about the year 100. The 
original language of the document was probably He- 
brew. Its relations to 4th Ezra (II Esdras) have 
roused the keenest interest. Both books seem to 
issue from the same conditions, are designed to meet 
the same need, and contain the same type of thought 
They have been called the ‘twin Apocalypses.’ The 
Syriac text of the book may be found in Ceriani’s 
Monumenta Sacra, V, 2 (1871). An English trans- 
lation with introduction and notes was published by 


Baruch, Books of 
Beautiful Gate 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 98 





Charles (The Apocalypse of Baruch, 1896), a Ger- 
man translation by Rothstein in Kautzsch’s Pseud- 
epigrapha (1900) and an English translation in 
Charles’ Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O T 
(1913); here the book is called 2d Baruch. 

Ill. The Greek Apocalypse of Baruch: 1. The 
- Discovery of the Book. A book containing a report 
of a visit by Baruch to the seven heavens was men- 
tioned by Origen in his treatise De Principiis, but 
nothing further was known of it until it was dis- 
covered in 1896 by Rev. E. Cuthbert Butler in a 
Greek MS. in the British Museum (subsequently 
published by Prof. M. R. James in the Cambridge 
Texts and Studies, Vol. V, 1897, No. 1, pp. 84- 
94). Almost at the same time a Slavonic trans- 
lation of the production in an abridged form was 
made known by Bonwetsch. These two versions 
are related to each other as the longer and shorter 
recensions of the same writing. Neither one, 
however, is probably the full text of the Apoc- 
alypse known to and mentioned by Origen. In 
that work Baruch is reported to have described 
seven heavens, whereas in the Greek Apocalypse 
he is represented as visiting five, and in the Sla- 
vonic only two. 

2. Criticism. The relation of the work to the 
Syriac Baruch is probably explained by referring 
to 76 3 £. of that work. Here God promises to give 
Baruch after the lapse of 40 days a further revela- 
tion regarding the world of material elements, in- 
cluding the cycle of the earth, the summits of the 
mountains, the depths of the valleys and of the seas, 
and the number of the rivers. The fulfilment of 
this promise is not recorded in what follows, and the 
Greek Apocalypse was composed to show that it was 
fulfilled and how it was fulfilled. A German trans- 
lation of the work is given in Kautzsch’s Pseud- 
epigrapha (1900) and an English translation in 
Charles’ A pocr. and Pseudepigrapha of the OT (1913,) 
where it appears as 3d Baruch. The Greek text 
is to be found in James’s edition above alluded to. 

Besides the above Charles (Op. cit.) names 5 
other works attributed to Baruch. A. C. Z. 

BARZILLAI, bar-zil’e-ai (¥!73, barzillay): 1. 
An aged and wealthy Gileadite of Rogelim who 
substantially befriended David when he fled from 
Absalom (II S 17 27). As he was returning to Jeru- 
salem, David invited B. to spend the rest of his days 
with him at the capital, but B. refused, asking, how- 
ever, favors for his servant (or sons? IT S 19 31-39; cf. 
IK 27). 2. The father of Adriel (II S 21 8). 3. 
The ancestor of a family of priests who married a 
daughter of 1 (supra), but whose descendants could 
not prove their genealogy (Ezr 2 61; Neh 7 63). 

BASE. See Trempts, § 15. 

BASEMATH, bas’i-math (N2¥3,  bdasemath, 
Bashemath AV): 1. One of the wives of Esau, 
daughter of Elon the Hittite (Gn 26 34), but in 36 3 
the daughter of Ishmael (cf. 28 9, where Mahalath 
may = Basemath). 2. A daughter of Solomon (I K 
415, Basmath AV). 

BASHAN, bé’shon, (]¥3, bashan), in Heb. usu- 
ally with the definite article prefixed: The broad, 
rolling, fertile region E. of the Lake of Gennesaret, 


extending, roughly, from Gilead on the S. to Hermon 
ontheN. MapI,GH4,5. To-day it is one of the 
granaries of Palestine. In ancient times the region 
was celebrated for its oaks (Is 2 13; Zec 11 2; Ezk 
27 6) and fine cattle (cf. Ps 2212; Am 41). Its gen- 
eral altitude is about 2,000 feet above sea-level. In 
the NE. portion there is a peculiar, pear-shaped 
region, known to the Arabs as the Leja, which is 
literally a ‘petrified ocean’ of basaltic lava. This 
district is not improbably identified with ‘the region 
of Argob’, which the Israelites wrested from Og, to- 
gether with its ‘threescore cities’ all fortified with 
high walls, gates, and bars (Nu 21 33 ff.; Dt 3 4 f.). 
This whole region was assigned to the half tribe of 
Manasseh (Dt 3 13, 4 43; Jos 13 29 f.). 
taroth, Golan, and Salecah were its chief cities (Dt 
1 4, 31,10, 4 43). Solomon taxed Bashan (I K 413). 
Hazael put an end to the Heb. supremacy over it (II 
K 10 33). Tiglath-pileser seems to have carried its 
inhabitants into captivity (II K 15 29). Under Tra- 
jan (106 a.p.) it was incorporated into the province 
of Arabia. To-day it is inhabited by a fierce, war- 
like sect, the Druses. G. L. R. 


BASHAN-HAVVOTH-JAIR, -hé’’veth-jé’ir. See 
HAvvorTu-J Arr. 
BASILISK. See PaLEestine, § 26. 


BASIN (or BASON) and BOWL are the English 
renderings of eight Hebrew words. According to 
modern usage a bowl is deeper or rounder than a 
basin and is used chiefly for food or drink; but it is 
difficult to preserve this distinction in naming an- 
cient vessels whose size and shape are largely a mat- 
ter of conjecture. 

Basins are mentioned in connection with the 
sacrificial ritual at Sinai (Ex 24 6, E). According 
to P basins were used in the Passover ritual in 
Egypt (Ex 12 22) and among the furniture of the 
Tent were bowls of gold (Ex 37 16) and basins of 
‘brass’ (Ex 38 3). Solomon’s Temple contained 
basins of gold (I K 7 50), ‘brass’ (I K 7 45), and silver 
(I Ch 28 17), which were carried away by the Chal- 
deans (II K 25 14 £.; Jer 52 18 f.), but returned by 
Cyrus (Ezr 17 ff.).For basins as offerings see Nu 
7 passim (P); Neh 7 70 (cf Ezr 8 27). 

Bowls for wine (Jer 35 5, ‘pots’ AV; Am 66) or 
ordinary household use (Jg 5 25, ‘dish’ EV, 6 38; IIS 
17 28) were doubtless common. Among bowl-shaped 
objects were the reservoirs of lamps (Zec 4 2 f.; cf. Ee 
126), the rounded capitals of pillars (I K 7 41=II Ch 
4 12), and the ‘cups’ of the golden candlestick (Ex 
PAE TER 

The vwxtne used by Jesus (Jn 13 5) was probably 
a large foot-basin, provided for the purpose. gtkAy 
(AV ‘vial’) is correctly rendered ‘bowl’ by ARV in 
Rev (5 8, etc.). See also Cup; Laver; and 
TemMpe.g, § 18, and plate, HouseHotp Urensizs, I. 

Li Guba 


BASKET: The uses of the various ‘baskets’ of 
the O T are more evident than their form and mate- 
rial. The didh, used for figs (Jer 24 2), as well as 
clay or bricks (Ps 81 6), was probably a large, shallow 
basket, such as was used by masons in ancient 
Egypt. The sal or ‘plaited’ basket used for carry- 
ing bread (Gn 40 16; Ex 29 3) or meat (Jg 6 19) was 


Edrei, Ash- - 


a eS Oe ee a ee 


an? * ee 9 me 


—— - 


99 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Baruch, Books of 
Beautiful Gate 





apparently smaller, and dish-shaped. The same 
name is used in modern Palestine for a large, soft 
basket, used for transporting articles of all sorts on 
the head. The tene’ was large and deep, shaped 
like an inverted cone (cf. LXX. xéetaAdos), and is 
mentioned only in connection with products of the 
soil (Dt 26 2, 285). The kelaibh (Am 8 1) seems to 
have been a coarsely woven cage-like receptacle 
with a lid. 

The N T xégtvoc (Mk 6 43, 8 19 and ||s) was a stout 
wicker hand-basket, often carried by the Jews when 
traveling, in order to avoid buying food from 
Gentiles. Apparently each of the Twelve (cf. Mt 14 
20) disciples had one. The cruets (Mk 8 8, 20 and ||s) 
was a larger flexible provision-basket of plaited ropes 
or reeds. The basket in which Paul was let down 
was probably a large rope hamper. It is called 
both a oxuels (Ac 9 25) and a sapyévy (II Co 11 33), 
the latter word denoting especially the ‘plaited’ 
structure. See plate, HousmsHotp Urensizs, II. 
Figs. 2, 3, 4, 6. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


BASTARD. This word occurs three times in EV, 
once in N T (He 128, the perfectly correct rendering 
of the Greek vé60¢), and twice in O Tas the transla- 
tion of mamzér (Dt 23 2; Zech 9 6) a word of uncertain 
derivation. It denotes (probably) one born of a 
‘mixed’ marriage (within prohibited degrees, or be- 
tween an Israelite and an alien) rather than one born 
out of wedlock as (the Eng. ‘bastard’ signifies). 

K. E. N. 

BAT. See PAuEstine, § 24. 


BATH. See Weriacurs anp Mnasurgs, § 3. 


BATH-: The element Bath- in compound proper 
names means daughter. It occurs in only two or 
three instances in the O T. 


BATH, BATHING. See Disrast anp Mepr- 

CINE, § 3; and PuriricaTion, § 2. 
' BATH-RABBIM, bafth’-rab’im (Q’37TN2, bath- 
rabbim,) ‘daughter of multitudes’: The name of a 
gate of Heshbon (Song 7 4). Nothing further is 
known of it. For a bold conjecture, see Cheyne 
in EB. 

BATH-SHEBA, bath’’shi’ba (YA¥"N3, bath-she- 
bha‘), ‘daughter of Sheba’: The wife of Uriah 
the Hittite, who committed adultery with David 
and after Uriah’s death became one of David’s wives. 
She was a woman of beauty and energy. Her first 
child after her union with D. died, but she later be- 
came the mother of other sons including Solomon (ef. 
I Ch35). She retained her influence over D. until 
his death, and doubtless it was she who was chiefly 
instrumental in D,’s choice of Solomon as his succes- 
sor (IIS 1124., 12 24f.;I1 K 111-219). 

In II S 11 3 her father’s name is given as Eliam 
but in I Ch 3 5 she is called Bath-shua, the daughter 
of Ammiel (only a variant form of Eliam). Ahitho- 
phel, D.’s counselor, may have been the grand- 
father of B. (cf. II S 23 34). EH. E. N. 


BATH-SHDA, -shii-a. See BarH-sHEBA. 
BATTERING-RAM. See BEsInas. 

BATTLE, BATTLE-ARRAY. See Warrarg, § 4. 
BATTLE-AX. See Arms AND ARmoR, § 5. 


BATTLEMENT: On the use of this term in 
Jer 5 10 AV compare the RV rendering. See also 
Hovss, § 6 (d). 

BAVVAI, bav’a-ai (13, bawway, Bavai AV), (Neh 
318). See Binnvt. 


BAY. See Cotors, § 2. 


BAYITH, ba’yith, Bajith, bé’jith: This word 
is treated as a proper name in the EV of Is 15 2. 
If a proper noun the RV margin is the more cor- 
rect reading. But bayith (M3) may be only a 
textual error for bath (13), ‘daughter,’ and in that 
case we should read “The daughter of Dibon is gone 
up to the high places.’ K. E. N. 


BAY TREE (Ps 87 35 AV): In RV the correct 
reading is given: ‘a green tree in its native soil.’ 
LXX. reads: like the cedars of Lebanon. 

BAZLITH, baz’lith (N?¥3, batslith), and BAZ- 
LUTH (M2, batslith): The ancestor of a family 
of Nethinim (Ezr 2 52; Neh 7 54). 

BDELLIUM. See Sronszs, Precious, § 3. 

BEALIAH, bi’’s-lai’a (mova, bs‘alyah), ‘Jehovah 
is Baal (Lord)’: One of David’s soldiers (I Ch 
12 5). 

BEALOTH, bi-é'loth (MI9Y2, be‘aloth): 1. A town 
in the ‘South’ (Jos 15 24). Perhaps the same as 
Baalath-beer. See Baat, III. 2. A town or district 
in N. Israel (I K 416, Aloth AV). The text here is 
uncertain. E. E. N. 

BEAM (80x6¢): One of the main timbers of a 
building. The term is used figuratively in Mt 7 3; 
Lk 6 41 f. in contrast to mote (q.v.) m order vividly 
to suggest the inconsistency of criticizing the minor 
faults of others when our own are so much more con- 
spicuous. JOMecL. 


BEANS. See Pauestine, § 23; and Foon, § 3. 
BEAR. See PAuestIne, § 24. 


BEARD: The Israelite was accustomed to wear 
a full beard which was shaved only in exceptional 
cases, as that of a leper (Lv 14 9), or of extreme 
mourning (Jer 41 5), altho later this was forbidden 
by the law (cf. Lv. 19 27, 21 5), which viewed such 
defacements as heathenish. To compel one to 
cut off his beard was thus to inflict upon him an 
insulting disgrace (II S 10 4 f.). See also Mourn- 
ING Customs, § 4. E. E. N. 


BEAST: In EVV this term designates: 1. A 
brute animal, as distinguished from man (Ezk 
1413). 2. A quadruped, as distinguished from other 
living creatures (Gn 6 7). 3. A wild, as distin- 
guished from a domesticated, animal (Job 5 22 f.; Ps 
79 2). 4. An apocalyptic symbol of brute force, as 
set over against the divine power, or distinguished 
from humanity (Dn 7 3). In Rev 46 #., the AV 
uses this term, but RV gives the much better ren- 
dering ‘living creatures.’ A. C. Z. 


BEATEN GOLD. See Merats, § 1. 

BEATEN OIL. See OIL. 

BEATING. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 
§ 3 (b). 

BEAUTIFUL GATE. See Tremp xe, § 28. 


Beauty and Bands 
Belteshazzar 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


100 





BEAUTY AND BANDS: ‘Two terms used sym- 
bolically in Zec 11 4-14 (better rendered, ‘grace and 
union’), signifying God’s gracious purpose toward 
His people which they stubbornly opposed. 

E. E 


BEBAI, bi’be-ai (23, bébhay): 1. The ancestral 
head of a large postexilic family (Ezr 2, 11, 811; Neh 
7 16, 10 28). 2. One of this family (Neh 10 15). 


BECHER, bi’ker (173, bekher: 1. The ances- 
tral head of one of the clans of Benjamin (Gn 
46 21; I Ch 7 6-8). 2. The ancestral head of the 
Becherites, a clan or family of Ephraim (Nu 26 35 
Bachrites AV. But in I Ch 7 20 we read Bered, 
which may be the correct form, or there may have 
been some genealogical confusion, owing to the con- 
tiguity of the territory of the two tribes Benjamin 
and Ephraim. E. HE. N. 


BECORATH, bi-ko’rath (1133, bekhdrath, Be- 
chorath AV): An ancestor of Saul (IS 91). 


BED, BEDSTEAD (Couch in RV of I Ch 51; 
Est 1 6, 7 8; Job 17 13; Ps 41 3; Pr 7 16, 17): In the 
simpler conditions of life reflected in the Bible it was 
customary to sleep in one’s ordinary clothing, using 
the outer garment or cloak for a covering (Ex 22 
27). In more advanced conditions, an ordinary rug 
or mat was used asa bed. Later, a mattress either 
took the place of the mat or was used with it, and to- 
gether with a pillow and a simple coverlet or quilt 
for cold nights made up the bed furniture of a ‘com- 
mon’ individual. The mattress was rolled up and 
put away for the day within a closet. But bed- 
steads must have been used occasionally, as may 
be inferred from the fact that the sarcophagus of 
Og, King of Bashan, is called his ’bedstead’ (Dt 3 11). 
But more usually such bedsteads were made of 
lighter material and more easily movable. The 
place of a bedstead was sometimes taken by the 
raised platform or immovable divan along the walls 
of a room (mittah, Gn 47 31: IL K 4 10; mishkdbh, 
Song 31). This was covered with cushions and used 
as a sofa during the day. 

More elaborate and ornamented bedsteads are 
mentioned in Am 6 4, 3 15 (‘beds of ivory’) and Est 
16 (‘couches . . . of gold and silver’). These were 
used by the wealthy, and offered an opportunity for 
indulging the love of display and luxury. Such 
bedsteads were further furnished with pillars 
and a canopy like those of palanquins (Song 3 10; 
Est 1 6). A. C. Z. 

BEDAD, bi’dad (113, bedhadh): The father of 
Hadad, King of Edom (Gn 36 35; I Ch 1 48). 

BEDAN, bi’dan (113, b¢dhan): 1. Referred toinIS 
12 11 as one of the early deliverers of Israel. The 
text is probably wrong. LXX. and Syriac read 
Barak, but perhaps the original reading was Abdon; 
ef. Jg. 1213 f. 2. The head of a Manassite family 
(I Ch 7 17). EH. EL. N. 

BEDCHAMBER. See Hovss, § 6 (h). 

BEDEIAH, be-di’ya (1773, bédhyah): One of the 
‘sons of Bani’ who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 
10 35). 

BEE. See Pauustine, § 26. 


BEELIADA, bi’1-lai’a-do (912292, beelyadha’), 
‘Baal [in sense of Jehovah] knows’: A son of David 
(I Ch 147), called Eliada in ITS 51¢6andI Ch3s. 

BEELZEBUB, be-el’zi-bub: 1. The Heb. 
333} 793, ba‘al z*bhubh, Baalzebub, ‘the god of flies,’ 
rarahifed by the Philistines of Ekron (II K 1 2 f., 6, 
16). It is not clear whether this Baalzebub was re- 
garded as a special divinity, sender of flies, or the sun 
as the healer of disease through his piercing rays. ~ 2. 
The Greek form of the same is BeeACe Gob (Beelzebul, 
so also AVmg. and RVmg., Mt 10 25, 12 24, 27; Mk 3 
22; Lk 1115 £.). Jerome calls him the ‘Chief of the 
devils’; Cheyne renders ‘Lord of the Mansion,’ 
i.e., of the nether world; Lightfoot, ‘Lord of Dung.’ 

APG Zan 

BEER, bi’ar (183, be’ér): 1. A place where the 
Israelites made a station during the wilderness jour- 
ney (Nu 21 16), possibly the same as Beer-elim, ‘well 
of terebinths’ (Is158). 2. The place where Jotham 
took refuge from his brother Abimelech (Jg 9 21). 
Both sites unknown. 

BEER- bi’ar- (183, b°’ér), ‘a well’: On account 
of the necessity of a constant water-supply, sites 
of towns were often chosen because of nearness to a 
well or wells, and named accordingly, as Beer-elim, 
Beer-lahai-roi, Beer-sheba, Beeroth (plural of 
beer. ) ALC. 

BEERA, bi’ar-a (8183, b°’éra’), ‘well’: A son 
of Zophar of the tribe of Asher (I Ch 7 37). 

BEERAH, b ‘ar-a (7183, b’érah), ‘well’: A 
Reubenite ‘prince,’ carried away captive by Tig- 
lath-pileser III (I Ch 5 6). 

BEER-ELIM, bi’er-i/lim (0°28 '3, b’ér lim), 
‘well of [sacred] trees’: According to the common 


Heb. text, ‘well of mighty ones,’ Is 15 8. Site un- 
known. See also BEER. 
BEERI, bi-i’rai (783, be’érz7): 1. A Hittite, 


father of J udith, one of Esau’s wives (Gn 26 34). 2. 
The father of the prophet Hosea (Hos 1 1). 
BEER-LAHAI-ROI, bi’er-lo-hai’-rei” (02 783 
"8, b’ér lahay 70’t%): The well ae not far 
from Kadesh) near which Hagar had her theoph- 
any (Gn 16 7-14) and where Isaac lived for some 
time (Gn 24 62, 25 11). The intrepretation of the 
name given in RVmg., ‘the well of the living one 
who seeth me,’ is not entirely satisfactory. The 
Heb. expression offers difficulties of interpretation 
which have not yet been solved. In the con- 
text (Gn 16 12 f.) the emphasis is on God’s ‘seeing,’ 
but nothing is said that explains lahay, taken to 
mean ‘living one.’ The same Heb. letters would 
ordinarily be taken to mean Jaw bone’ (cf. Jg 15 
17 ff.), but this does not explain 70’%, ‘who seeth me.’ 
Many scholars think that r6’7 stood orginally for the 
name of some animal. In that case the whole name 
must be considered a place-name much older (and 
no longer understood) than the origin of the story 
in Gn 16, which simply gives it an interpretation. 
See Comm. on Gen., esp. Driver, Gunkel or Skinner 
ad loc. E. E. N. 


BEEROTH, br-i’refh N83, b’érdth), ‘wells’: 
A Canaanite city once leagued with Gibeon and 


101 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Beauty and Bands 
Belteshazzar 





included with it in the treaty between Israel and the 
Gibeonites (Jos 9 17). It was in the territory as- 
signed to Benjamin (Jos 18 25; 11S 42). After the 
Exile it was again occupied by the Jews (Ezr 2 25; 
Neh 7 29). Its inhabitants were called Beerothites 
(IIS 4 2, 23 27; 1 Ch1139). For Dt 106, see JAAKAN. 
Map III, F 5. E. E. N. 


BEEROTH BENE JAAKAN, bi’n1 jé’a-kan. See 
JAAKAN. 


BEER-SHEBA, bi-ir’shi-ba or bi’ar-ghi’ba (Y3¥ 


WW b°’ér shebha‘): The residence of the patriarchs 
(Gn 21 33, 26 23, 28 10); the name signifying ‘well of 
sever’ (Gn 21 30 f.), or ‘well of oath’ (26 31-33), or, as 
Strabo states it (xvi, 4, 24), ‘seven wells’ (cf. Kiriath- 
arba, ‘fourfold city’). It is pretty safely identified 
with the modern Bir‘es-seba‘,28 m SW.from Hebron. 
Map II, C 4. The neighboring district was called 
the Wilderness of Beer-sheba (Gn 21 14). Being 
situated on the S. border of the country, the expres- 
sion naturally arose ‘from Dan to Beer-sheba’ 
(Jg 201; I S 3 20), which is used conversly by the 
chronicler ‘from Beer-sheba to Dan’ (I Ch 21 2; 
II Ch 30 5). It was a city of Simeon (Jos 19 2). 
Samuel’s sons became judges at Beer-sheba (IS 8 2); 
Elijah fled to Horeb via Beer-sheba (I K 19 3). 
The mother of King Joash was born there (II K 121). 
In the days of Amos there was at Beer-sheba an 
important sanctuary (Am 5 5, 8 14). Since 1900 a 
modern town has sprung up about the seven wells 
which are now known to exist there. See also 
SHIBAH. G. L. R. 

BEESHTERAH, bi-egh’ti-ra (TUNPYA, be‘eshte- 
rah) (called Ashtaroth in I Ch 6 71; possibly an ab- 
breviation for Beth-Ashtaroth, ‘house of A).’: A 
city of Bashan (Jos 21 27). See AsHTAROTH. 


BEETLE. See Pavestine, § 26. 


BEGGAR: The Mosaic legislation was designed 
to prevent the formation of a beggar class among 
the Hebrews (cf. Dt 15 4, 7, 9, 11; Ex 2311). Accord- 
ingly, altho such a class is common enough in the 
Orient, there is no mention of beggars in the O T 
(except in I § 28, AV for the Heb. ’ebhy6n, ‘poor’). 
The term ‘poor,’ however, may often mean such des- 
titute persons as were dependent upon the bounty 
of their more prosperous brethren for their means of 
daily subsistence (Ps 41 1, 82 4). Likewise in the 
N T the term ‘beggar’ (Lk 16 20, 22) represents the 
Greek xtwyéc, ‘poor.’ See AumMs; and IsRAEL, 
Soctat DEVELOPMENT oF, § 34. A Cr. 


BEGOTTEN. See Onuiy-BEGOTTEN. 
BEHEAD. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 


§ 3 (a). 

BEHEMOTH, bi‘he-médth (NiD72, behemath), 
apparently an intensive plural, from b*hémdh, 
‘beast’ (so Cheyne, HB), hence ‘colossal beast’: A 
monstrous beast, used as an illustration of the Divine 
creative power in Job 40 15 ff. The details of the 
description fit the hippopotamus more nearly than 
they do any other animal. By some the description 
(like that of ‘Leviathan,’ ch. 41) is viewed as passing 
into the mythological realm, borrowing details from 
Egyptian or Babylonian mythology, simply to make 
the impression more forcible and show how God is 


| also II Co 615). 


absolutely supreme over all beings, natural or super- 
natural. Possibly there is a similar instance in Is 
306 (‘beasts’ = Behemoth?). (See Gunkel, Schépfung 
und Chaos, p. 64 f., and Cheyne in HB.) See 
PALESTINE, § 24. E. E. N. 


BEKA, BEKAH, bi’ka. See WriauTs AND 
MEasuRES, § 4. 


BEL. See Semiric Reticion, § 15. 


BEL AND THE DRAGON. See Danrzt, AppI- 
TIONS TO, § 3. 

BELA, bilo (923, bela’): I. 1. Aking of Edom 
the first in the list in Gn 36 32 ff. He is called 
the ‘son of Beor,’ which has led many scholars 
to identify him with Balaam, son of Beor (Nu 
22 5 ff.), but this is uncertain. 2. The ances- 
tral head of one of the clans of Benjamin, the Be- 
laites (Gn 46 21; Nu 26 38 #.;I1 Ch76f., 81f.). 3. 
The ancestral head of one of the clans of Reuben 
(I Ch 5 8-10). 

II. A city near the Dead Sea, one of the five at- 
tacked by Chedorlaomer (Gn 14 2, 8), identical with 
Zoar. E. E. N 

BELIAL, bi/li-al or bil’yal (9 ¥?22, beliyya‘al), bli, 
‘not,’ and ya‘al [in Hiphil], ‘profit’): Primarily 
‘unprofitable.’ From this neutral sense, however, 
the term soon passed into the more positive one of 
‘wickedness.’ It is used in the O T almost invar- 
iably in connection with some prefixed word, such 
as ‘son,’ ‘daughter,’ ‘children,’ ‘man,’ and designates 
a very wicked character (Dt 13 13; Jg 19 22; 1S 116, 
10 27, 25 25, etc. AV). In the apocalyptic literature 
Belial (under the form of Beliar) is personified and 
identified with the genius of all evil, Satan. (Cf. 
See ANTICHRIST. A. C. Z. 


BELLOWS. See Artizan Lirz, §§ 10; 
Merats, § 1. 


BELLS: Mentioned in Scripture only in the fol- 
lowing instances: 1. The golden bells (pa‘éménim, 
fr. pad‘am, ‘to strike’) which alternated with the 
pomegranates upon the skirts of the high priest’s 
robe (Ex 28 33 f., 39 25 f.). 2. The bells used on 
horses were called mésilléth, fr. tsalal, ‘to clang’ 
(Zec 14 20). L. G. L. 


BELSHAZZAR, bel-shaz’ar (¥8V?3, bélsha’ts- 
tsar), Bel-shar-utsur, ‘Bel, protect the king.’ The last 
Chaldean king of Babylon, according to Dn 5; but 
really prince-regent and son of Nabonidus; impor- 
tant in the affairs of Erech; associated with his 
father the king, and equal with him in oaths. He 
had jurisdiction in temple matters, and paid a 
tithe to Eanna. His relation to Nebuchadrezzar 
was simply that of successor and not ‘son,’ as 
Dn 5 18 implies. Whatever view we may take of 
the Book of Daniel at least ten recently published 
tablets establish the fact that B. is a historical 
character, was the oldest son of Nabonidus, and oc- 
cupied a prominent place in the government of 
Babylonia in the last years of its independence. 

Ti Miasu 


BELT. Sce Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 2. 
BELTESHAZZAR, bel’ti-shaz/ar = (T¥NVY?D, 
bélt¢sha’tstsar, Babyl. baldishu’utsur, ‘protect his 


and 


Bemoan 
Besiege 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


——_ 


102 





life’): The Babylonian name given to Daniel (Dn 
17, 2 26, 48 g. etc.). 

BEMOAN. See Mournina AND 
Customs, § 5. 

BEN (13, bén) ‘son’: A Levite (I Ch 15 18). 
reading is probably corrupt; comp. ver 20. 

BEN- (j3) ben: In compound proper names 
means ‘son’ (i.e, ‘son of’). The plural is bené 
(‘sons of’). 

BEN-ABINADAB, ben’a-bin’a-dab (2772813, 
ben-’abhinddhabh), ‘son of Abinadab’: An official 
under Solomon (I K 4 11). 

BENAIAH, bi-né’ya (3149, 193, bendyah), ‘J’ 
has built’: 1. A son of Jehoiada, of priestly family (I 
Ch 27 5), commander of David’s body-guard, reck- 
oned among the heroes (II S 23 22) with a name ‘like 
the three’ (cf. Smith in JCC), a man of prowess and 
the victor over both Moabite and Egyptian cham- 
pions. In David’s later years his star was in the 
ascendant, while between the lines appears the 
story of a bitter rivalry with Joab. When the lat- 
ter’s shrewdness forsook him, and Adonijah’s coup 
failed, Benaiah’s loyalty was rewarded by the chief 
command, and he became his rival’s executioner (I 
K 2 28-35). 2. A Pirathonite, another of the thirty 
heroes (II S 28 30). 3. A Simeonite prince (I Ch 
436). 4. A Levite of the second degree who played 
‘with psalteries set to Alamoth’ in the time of David 
(I Ch 15 18-20). 5. One of the priests who ‘did blow 
the trumpets before the ark of God’ (I Ch 15 24). 
6. A forefather of Jahaziel (II Ch 2014). 7. A Le- 
vite overseer of the Temple in Hezekiah’s time (II 
Ch 3113). 8. The father of Pelatiah, a ‘prince of 
the people’ (Ezk 11 1-13). 9-12. Names of four 
Israelites who married foreign wives (Ezr 10 25 f.). 
A. 8S. C.*—O. R. S. 
See Ammon, AMMON- 


Movurnina 


The 


BEN AMMI, ben am‘ai. 
ITE. 

BENCH. See Suips and Navigation, § 2. 

BEN-DEKER, ben-di‘ker (R719, ben deger), 
‘son of Deker’ (Dekar AV): An official under Solo- 
mon (I K 49). 

BENE-BERAK, ben’1-bi’rak (P1273, bené bheragq), 
‘sons of lightning’ (7.e., of a storm-god?): A city 
of Dan (Jos 19 45), Map III, C 4. 

BENEFACTOR: The translation of evepyétyns (at) 
(Lk 22 25), a title frequently assumed by rulers in 
antiquity; e.g., Ptolemy Huergetes, z.e., Ptolemy the 
Benefactor. 

BENE-JAAKAN, bi’’n1-jé’a-kon. See JAAKAN. 

BEN-GEBER, -gé’ber (13313, ben gebher), ‘son 
of Geber’: One of Solomon’s officials (I K 4 13). 

BEN-HADAD, ben’’hé’dad (11713, ben hadhadh), 
‘son of Hadad’: The name Ben-hadad is the 
Heb. form (perhaps reproduced incorrectly) of the 
aame Dad‘idri, or, as seems more likely, Bir‘idri, 
found in the Assyr. inscriptions as the name of the 
king of Damascus contemporary with Ahab. The 
god Hadad (or Adad, the same as Ramman or Rim- 
mon) was a weather- or storm-god, widely worshiped 


in SW. Asia and, apparently, the national god of 
Damascus. 


The O T speaks of three kings of Damascus of 
this name: 1. The son of Tabrimmon, who was 
hired by Asa of Judah to attack the NE. frontiers 
of Israel (I K 1518 #.; II Ch 102.) 2. The son of 
the preceding and the contemporary of Ahab of Is- — 
rael, with whom he was frequently at war. He was 
an able, energetic king, who waged a long and fairly 
successful struggle against Shalmaneser ITI of Assyria 
(860-824), who has left a record of a great defeat 
inflicted on B. and a number of confederates (in- 
cluding Ahab) at Karkar in 854. This victory was 
really indecisive, for Shalmaneser did not take 
Damascus and undertook several other campaigns 
against B. without attaining any permanent ad- 
vantage. This B. was succeeded by Hazael (who- 
perhaps murdered him; cf. II K 815), about 844 (I K 
20, 22; II K 5, 6 24-7 20, 87-15). Many scholars con- 
sider 1 and 2 to be identical. 3. Theson and suc- 
cessor of Hazael. He is called Mari in the Assyr. 
inscriptions. He was conquered by Ramman Nirari 
III of Assyria, c. 803. This event broke the power 
of Damascus and gave Israel a chance to recover 
from the crushing defeats inflicted by Hazael (II K 
13 3-5, 24). E. EL. N. 


BENHAIL, -ha/l (7°13, ben hayil), ‘son of 
strength’: A prince of Judah, one of the company 
of ‘teachers’ appointed by Jehoshaphat (II Ch 
17'7)3 

BEN-HANAN, -hé’nan (12713, ben hadndn), ‘son 
of the gracious one’: A Judahite, the son of Shimon 
(I Ch 4 20). 


BEN-HESED, -hi’sed (19113, ben hesedh), ‘son 
of Hesed’: One of Solomon’s officials (I K 4 10). 


BEN-HOUR, -hor’ (117°]3, ben har), ‘son of Hur’: 
One of Solomon’s officials (I K 48). 

BENINU, bi-nai’nii (1723, bentnt@): A Levite who 
sealed the covenant (Neh 10 13). 

BENJAMIN, ben’ji-min (]’?3}4, binydmin), ‘son 
of the right hand’: I. 1. A son of Jacob (see TRIBEs, 
§ 4). 2. A Benjamite, the son of Bilhan (I Ch 7 10). 
3. One of the ‘sons of Harim’ (Ezr 10 32; Neh 
3 23, 12 34). 

II. The tribal name Benjamin was naturally ap- 
plied to the territory occupied by the tribe. This 
territory is defined in Jos 18 11-20, and included the 
towns enumerated in the immediately following par- 
agraph (vs. 21-28). It is not clear whether Bethel and 
Jerusalem were within it. The site of Jerusalem 
was just on the border between Benjamin and Judah, 
and, ideally considered, might have belonged to the 
former during the earlier days when it was still a 
Jebusite city. There are evidences, however, that 
at the time of the Exile it was quite firmly fixed in 
possession of the larger tribe (Jer 37 12). 

As to Bethel, after the disruption following the 
accession of Rehoboam, it is viewed as in Ephraim 
and was one of the two shrines of the northern 
kingdom favored by Jeroboam I, (I K 12 32). 
In Jos 18 22, however, it is said to belong to Benja- 
min. It is possible that part of Benjamin joined in 
the revolt against Rehoboam. It has been held that 
such was the case upon the basis of I K 12 20 (‘There 
was none that followed the house of David but the 


103 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Bemoan 
Besiege 





tribe of Judah only’). But against this stand a 
series of explicit statements (I K 12 21, 23; II Ch 11 10, 
i2, 23, 148, 15 2,9, etc)., and the fact that even in N T 
times Benjamin was regarded as a portion of the 
Jewish commonwealth. Paul belonged to this tribe. 

III. One of the gates of Jerusalem, (Jer 20, 2, 37 13, 
387; Zec 1410); see JERUSALEM, § 32. A. C. Z. 

BENO, bi’no (133, bend): A son of Merari (I Ch 
24 26 £.). 

BENONI, ben-d’n1: Another name for Benjamin. 
See Triszs, § 3. 


BEN-ZOHETH, ben-zd’heth (MMiIM3 ben zohéth), 
‘son of Zoheth’: A son of Ishi, a man of Judah 
(I Ch 4 20). 

BEON, bi’on. See Baat-Mzon. 


BEOR, bi’er (119A, be‘dr): 1. The father of Bela, 
the first king of Edom (Gn 36 32). 2. The father of 
the seer Balaam (Nu 22 5, etc.). Some would iden- 
tify him with 1. 

BERA, bi’ra (913, bera‘): King of Sodom (Gn 
14 2). 

BERACAH, ber’a-ka (19°13, berakhah, Berachah, 
AV ‘blessing’): I. A Benjamite who came to David 
at Ziklag (I Ch 12 3). II. A valley where an army 
invading Judah in the days of Jehoshaphat was 
destroyed (II Ch 20 26). Perhaps the modern ruins 
Berekat indicate the locality. Map II, E 2. 

BERACHIAH, ber’’a-kai’a. See BERECHIAH. 

BERAIAH, ber’’a-ai’a (813, bera@’yadh), J’ cre- 
ates’: A Benjamite, one of the sons of Shimei (I Ch 
8 21). 

BEREA, bi-ri’a See Brerma. 


BERECHIAH, ber’1-kai’a (273, berekhyah), 
‘J’’ blesses’: 1. The father of Zechariah the prophet 
(Zec 11, 7). (In some editions of AV called Bara- 
chiah.) 2. The father of Asaph the singer (I Ch 
6 30, 1517). 3. A Levite doorkeeper for the ark (I 
Ch 15 23). 4. A chief of the Ephraimites (II Ch 28 
i2). 5. A postexilic Levite (I Ch 916). 6. The father 
of Meshullam (Neh 3 4, 30,618). 7. One of the sons 
of Zerubbabel (I Ch 3 20). 


BERED, bi’red (113, beredh): 1. A place in the 


wilderness S. of Beersheba (Gn 16 7, 14). Site un- 
known. 2. See Brecuer, 2. 

BERI, bi’rai (°13, bérz): The head of a family of 
Asher (I Ch 7 36). With this family the Berites 
(II S 2014) had nothing to do. Perhaps the original 
reading was Bichrites (see Brcuer, 2.) 

BERIAH, bi-rai’a (79773, ber7‘Gh): 1. One of the 
sons of Asher who migrated to Egypt with Jacob 
(Gn 46 17) and therefore the designation of one of the 
clans of the tribe of Asher, the Beriites (Nu 26 44 f.). 
2. The designation of an Ephraimitic clan with a 
Benjamite intermixture. According to 1 Ch 7 21 f. 
Ezer and Elead, sons of Ephraim, lost their lives in a 
cattle raid against Gath. After a period of mourn- 
ing, their father, Ephraim, begat another son, Be- 
riah. In JI Ch 813 Beriah and Shema are two Benja- 
mites who put the men of Gath to flight. Scholars 
interpret these names in the tribal sense, Beriah 
being a clan composed of individuals from the two 


tribes Benjamin and Ephraim. 3. A son of Shimei, 
the Gershonite (I Ch 23 10). JiAw KK: 


BERNICE, bar-nai’sé (Beovixn Maced. form of 
®epevixyn, ‘bearer of victory’: Daughter of Herod 
Agrippa I and sister of Herod Agrippa II. She was 
thrice married. At the time of Paul’s trial before 
Festus (Ac 25 13 ff.), she had recently left her third 
husband, Polemon, King of Pontus. She was sus- 
pected of criminal intimacy with her brother. 
During the war with Rome (66-70) she became the 
mistress of Titus and afterward lived with him at 
Rome. Public policy alone prevented him from ac- 
knowledging her to be his wife. See Jos. Antig. 
(passim) and Schiirer HJP I. § 19 (supplement). 
See also Hprop, § 9. EK. E. N. 


BERODACH-BALADAN, be-rd’’dak-bal’a-dan: 
A king of Babylon (II K 2012; Is 391). See Mmro- 
DACH-BALADAN. 

BERGA, be-ri’a (Bépota) Berna, AV: A city of 
Macedonia in the province of Emathia, at the foot 
of Mt. Bermius. B. was the most populous city 
in Macedonia in the Ist cent. A.p. Paul preached 
here with some success to the Jewish colony on his 
second missionary journey (Ac 17 10, 13). It was 
destroyed by an earthquake in 900 a.p. The mod- 
ern name is Verria. 


BEROTHAH, be-rd’fha (70173, bérdthah): A 
place on the (ideal) N. border of the Holy Land 


(Ezk 47 16). Site unknown. Possibly the same as 
the following. 
BEROTHAI, be-ro’fhai (013, bérdthay): A 


city belonging to Hadadezer, King of Zobah, con- 
quered by David (IIS 88). It is identified by some 
with Bereitén, a little S. of Baalbek. 

BEROTHITE, be-ro’fhait (N13, bérdthi): Na- 
harai the Berothite (I Ch 11 39) was probably a man 
of Beeroth (q.v.). 


BERYL. See Sronzs, PREctovs, § 2. 
BESAI, bi’sai ("P2, bésay): The ancestral head of 
a Nethinim family (Ezr 2 49, Neh 7 52). 


BESIEGE: The offensive wars in which the Is- 
raelites were engaged were usually of short duration 
and probably did not involve any long or elaborate 
siege-operations. Altho we read of sieges (e.g., 
in Jg 9 40-52; II S 20 15; I K 15 27) these were little 
more than the brief investment of a town by the 
attacking army. The methods for destroying the 
wall, etc., were of the simplest kind. It was other- 
wise with the operations of the Egyptian and Assyr- 
ian armies. ‘These were provided with scaling-lad- 
ders, with protected cars which could be pushed close 
to the walls (as depicted on their wall inscriptions), 
with battering-rams (Ezk 21 22, the covering of 
which is perhaps meant by mantelet, Nah 2 5), etc. 
Later kings of Judah sought to provide themselves 
with like engines of warfare (II Ch 26 15). Natu- 
rally, with this development of offensive methods 
there went a corresponding development of defen- 
sive works. Walls were made stronger, furnished 
with bulwarks or outer walls, etc. By the Romans 
the science of siege-operations was carried to a high 
state of perfection (cf. Josephus’ description of the 
siege of Jerusalem in BJ, V, 6-VI, 4). E. E. N. 


Besodeiah 
Bethlehem 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


104 


ee LL LE 


BESODEIAH, bes’o-di’ya (27103, besddhyah), 
‘in the secret of J’” (?): The father of Meshullam 
(Neh 3 6). 

BESOM, bi’zam: An old English word meaning 
a broom. The Heb. term mat’dté’ in Is 14 23 is rare, 
but means probably some kind of sweeping instru- 
ment. E. E. N. 

BESOR, bi’ser (11¥3, besdr): A wady or brook 
mentioned in I S 3049, 10, 21. Probably the Wddy 
esh Sheriah, a tributary of Wdaddy Ghuzzeh, Map II, 
B 3. 

BESTEAD, bi-sted’, for early Eng. bested, 1.e., 
‘placed’ (Is 8 21 AV). The RV reads ‘sore distressed.’ 
The Heb. ("¥P3) has reference to being in great 
difficulty or hardship. 

BETAH, bi’ta. See TEeBan. 

BETEN, bi’ten (193, beten), ‘a hollow’: A town 
on the border of Asher (Jos 19 25), site unknown 
(perhaps el Baneh, Map, I E 4). 

BETH- (3, béth-), ‘house of’: In compound 
place-names Beth- means ‘place of,’ ‘abode of,’ 
‘temple of,’ ‘house of,’ etc. 

BETH-ABARA, beth’’-ab’a-ra. See Beruany, 2. 

BETH-ANATH, beth’’-é’nath (N}Y ‘3,  bath- 
‘anath), ‘temple of Anath’: An old Canaanitish fort- 
ress later occupied by Naphtali (Jos 19 38; Jg 1 33). 
Altho mentioned in Egyptian lists, its exact site 
is uncertain. 

BETH-ANOTH, beth’-é’noth (ny ‘3, 
‘anéth): A town of Judah (Jos 15 59). 
modern Beit’ Ainim, Map II, E 2. 


BETHANY, beth’a-ni (Bybavia): 1. Bethany near 
Jerusalem, now called el’ Azariyeh from Lazarus, 
the place of Jesus’ arrival on His last journey to Je- 
rusalem (Mk 111; Mt 211; Lk 19 29; Jn 12 1); also 
the place of His ascension (Lk 24 50). Map II, F 1. 

2. Bethany beyond Jordan (Jn 1 28, early changed 
in some MSS. to Bethabara, so AV). One of the 
places where John baptized (cf. also Jn 3 23). The 
site is uncertain. 5 Bes be 

BETH-ARABAH, beth’’-ar’a-ba (TAWWAA'2, bath 
h&‘dradbhah), ‘the house of (or in) the Arabah’: A 
town on the NE. border of Judah. Site unknown 
(Jos 15 6, 61); Jos 18 22 may refer to a different 
place. E. E. N. 

BETH-ARAM, -é’ram. See BeruH-Haran. 

BETH-ARBEL, beth’-dr’bel (28278 ‘2, bath 
’arbé’l), house of Arbel’: In Hos 10 14 we read ‘as 
Shalman destroyed Beth-arbel in the day of battle.’ 
Many conjectures have been advanced to explain 
this statement, as e.g., that Shalman =Shalmaneser 
III, King of Assyria, and Beth-arbel=Arbela (Irbid in 
Gilead, Map I, G 5), but none of them rests on 
certain grounds. Bru N 

BETH-AVEN, -é’ven (])8 ‘3, béh ’dwen): A 
place E. of Bethel near Ai (Jos 7 2; 1S 13 5, 14 23). 
Near it was a ‘wilderness’ (Jos 18 12). The exact 
site is unknown. According to the pointing of the 
present Heb. text béth ’G@wen means ‘house of wick- 
edness.’ It was easy to use this as a contemptuous 
designation for Bethel ‘(house of God’), the seat of 


béth- 
Probably the 


corrupt worship, as seems to have been done by 
Hosea (4 15, 5 8, 10 5). HE. HE. N. 


BETH-AZMAVETH, -az-mé’vefh. See Azma- 
VETH. 

BETH-BAAL-MEON, -bé’’al-mi’on. 
MEON. 

BETH-BARAH, bé’ra (172 ‘3, béth-barah): A 
locality which, owing to its waters, was difficult to 
traverse by the fleeing Midianites (Jg 7 24). 
Moore’s conjecture that it was the region near the 
mouth of the Wdady Farah (Map III, H 4) is prefer- 
able to the site given on Map Ii, E 8. The exact 
situation is unknown. E. E. N. 


BETH-BIRI, -bi/rai (8173 ‘3, bé&th birt), B- 
birei AV: A place in Simeon (I Ch 4 31), called 


Beth-lebaoth in Jos 19 6 and Leboath in Jos 15 32. 
Site unknown. 


BETH-CAR, -kar’” (19 ‘5, béth kar): A place, 
possibly a height, marking the limit of a pursuit of 
the Philistines by Israel (IS 7 11). Perhaps the mod- 
ern ‘Ain Karim Map II, E11. HK. E. N. 


BETH-DAGON, -dé’gen (ji11 ‘3, béth daghédn) 
‘house of Dagon’: 1. A town of Judah (Jos 15 41). 
Map III, C 5. 2. A town on the border of Asher 
(Jos 19 27). The identification, Map IV, B 6, is 
somewhat uncertain. Both places were doubtless 
once seats of Dagon-worship. EK. E. N. 


BETH-DIBLATHAIM, -dib’ls-fhé’im. See AL- 
MON-DIBLATHAIM. 


BETH-EL Oxna, béth-’él), ‘house of God’: A 
locality 12 m. N. of Jerusalem on the way to She- 
chem. Three accounts are given of the origin of the 
name. According to one, Jacob fleeing from Esau 
to Haran became aware through a dream of God’s 
special presence at the place, and called it ‘the 
house of God’ (Gn 28 19 [J]); according to the sec- 
ond, after leaving Shechem he came to B. when he 
built an altar, calling it El-beth-el, and set up a 
pillar, in fulfilment of his vow when fleeing from 
his brother (Gn 35 1-7, 14 and cf. 28 18-22 [H]). Ac- 
cording to the third, on his return from Padan- 
aram he received the assurance of a blessing from 
God at that spot, ‘and Jacob called the name of 
the place where God spake with him Beth-el’ (Gn 
35 9-13, 15 [P]). Originally, the name probably 
belonged more narrowly to a high place or shrine 
in the vicinity of Luz. Later, it passed on to 
the neighboring city with its adjacent country (Jg 
1 23). In Jos 18 22 it is reckoned among the cities 
of Benjamin; but from Jg 1 22-25 it appears that 
‘the house of Joseph’ secured possession of it by 
treachery, and in Jos 8 17 its capture is associated 
with that of Ai. In I Ch 7 28 it is mentioned among 
the possessions of Ephraim. When Jeroboam led 
the ten tribes to break away from Rehoboam, Bethel 
became the most prominent shrine in the new king- 
dom (cf. Am 7 10-13.) To this end its history contrib- 
uted materially, for even before the days of Jacob, 
Abraham had built an altar at the place (Gn 12 8, 
13 3-6), and Jacob’s experience gave it a permanent 
name for sacredness (Gn 28 18-22, 3113, 3515). Tothe 
prophets Bethel became a symbol of the idolatrous 


See Baa.- 


105 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Besodeiah 
Bethlehem 





worship of the northern tribes which was evidently 
thoroughly organized with its own priesthood and 
ritual. In modern geography, Bethel is to be iden- 
tified with Beitin. MapIil,F5. (Cf. for fuller his- 
tory G. A. Smith, HG HL, p. 250 ff.) Fos Gah 

BETH-EMEEK, -i’mek (P9¥ ‘3° beth ha-‘émeq), 
‘house (place) of the valley’: A place on the border 
of Asher (Jos 19 27). Possibly the modern ’ Amkad, 
Map IV, B 6. 

BETHER, bi’thar (193, bether): In Song 2 17 we 
read ‘the mountains of Bether.? The name may be 
only figurative, ‘mountains of divisions or separa- 
tions.’ A slight emendation of the Heb. would 
give ‘Cypresses,’ the reference being to Lebanon 
(so Cheyne). A place Bether is mentioned in LXX. 
of Jos 15 1s—probably the modern Bittir on a hill 
about 6 m. SW. of Jerusalem. Map II, E 1. 

K. E. N. 

BETHESDA, bi-fhez’da. See JERUSALEM, § 12. 


BETH-EZEL, -i’zel (?¥87 ‘3, beth ha’étsel), 
‘place near by’: A place in the Shephelah (Mic 1 11). 
Site unknown. 


BETH-GADER, -gé’der (17) ‘3, béth gadhér): A 
place inhabited by a Calebite clan (I Ch 2 51), 
otherwise unknown. 


BETH-GAMUL, -gé/mul (7123 3, béth-gamil): A 
town of Moab (Jer 48 23). Its site is unknown. 


BETH-GILGAL, -gil’gal (73730 '3, bath haggilgal), 
‘house of Gilgal, ’ so AV (Neh 12 29). Same as 
GILGAL (q.V.). 

BETH-HACCHEREM, -hak’ki-rem (9797 ‘3, 
béth hakkerem, Beth-Haccerem AV ), ‘place of the 
vineyard’: A place in Judah (Jer 6 1; Neh 8 14). 
The site is uncertain. Cheyne’s identification with 
Beth-car (q.v.) is plausible. 

BETH-HARAN, -hé’ran (]1J '3, béth-hdradn): A 
city E. of Jordan in the territory of Gad (Nu 32 36, 
called B.-Haran in Jos 13 27 [B.-Aram AYV]), identi- 
fied usually with Tel Ramah, Map II, H 1. This 
was rebuilt by Herod the Great and named Livias, 
and later after being destroyed was again rebuilt 
by Herod Antipas and named Julias. Here pos- 
sibly he celebrated his birthday (Mt 14 6-12). 

BETH-HOGLAH, -heg'la (7739 '3, bath-hoghlah) 
‘place of a partridge’: A town of Benjamin near the 
NE. border of Judah, not far from the Dead Sea 
(Jos 15 6; 18 19, 21). Map II, H1. 

BETH-HORON, -hd’ren (jinh ‘a, beh hordn), 
‘house of a hollow,’ perhaps from a bowl-shaped 
valley in the vicinity: Two neighboring places 
(II Ch 8 5) about 3 m. apart, distinguished from 
each other as the ‘upper’ (Jos 16 5) and ‘nether’ 
(Jos 16 3) Beth-horon. They were both on the 
boundary between Ephraim and Benjamin to the 
W. of the watershed of the hill-country (Jos 10 10 f.). 
Map III, E 5. Josephus (BJ. II, 19 8). places 
the region on the way from Jerusalem to Antipatris 
and Cesarea. The importance of B. in history 
lies chiefly in the availability of the spot as a forti- 
fied strategic point (Jth 4 4). Solomon evidently 
appreciated this fact when he ‘built’ it (I K 9 17; 
If Ch 8 5); so did the Ephraimitess Sheerah, whose 


interest and authority, however, are very obscure 
(I Ch 7 24). In the Maccabean period, Jonathan 
used the spot in a similar way (I Mac 3 13 ff., 7 39). 
Beth-Horon was also invested with a sacred charac- 
ter as a Levite city (Jos 21 22; I Ch668). In modern 
times the two Beth-Horons are known as Beit- Ur el 
Foéga and Beit- Ur et-Tahia respectively, two villages 
with some old ruins (cf. G. A. Smith, HG HL, pp. 
254, 290). A. C. Z. 


BETH-JESHIMOTH, -jesh’1-meth (NID WT ‘3, 
béth hay*shiméth): A town in the territory of Moab, 
in the region where Israel encamped (Nu 33 49). It 
was assigned to Reuben (Jos 12 3, 13 20). Later 
reoccupied by the Moabites, it was still in their 
hands atthe time of the exile (Ezk 259). MapII,H1. 


BETH-LE-APHRAH, -li-af’ra (71PY9 ‘3, bath 
le‘aphrah), ‘house of Aphrah’ (so AV): A town near 
the western border of Judah (Mic 1 10). Site un- 
known. 


BETH-LEBAOTH, -l-ba/oth (nikad ‘3, beth 
lebha’ oth, ‘place of lions’: A town of Simeon (Jos 
19 6), also called Lebaoth (Jos 15 32) and Beth-biri 
(I Ch 4 31). Site unknown. 


BETHLEHEM, beth’li-hem (09273, bath le- 
hem), ‘house of bread’: 1. A city of Judah, called at 
times Beth-lehem-judah (Jg 177 f., 191 .; Rul 
1£.;1S 17 12; cf. Mt 21,5 £.), to distinguish it from 
the city of similar name in Zebulun (see 2), the 
modern village of Beit Lahm (‘house of flesh’), 5 m. 
SSW. of Jerusalem (Map II, F 1), situated in a re- 
gion which was, and still is, one of the most fertile 
in Judea, altho, singularly enough, unsupplied with 
springs of water. 

If the LXX. text of Jos 15 59 is genuine, the name 
occurs in the list of the cities of Judah. The first 
reasonably assured mention of the place, however, is 
in the David narrative, where it is spoken of as the 
home of his father, Jesse, the Bethlemite (I S 161, 
17 58; cf vs. 12 and 15, where it is definitely named) 
and his own city (IS 206, 28 f.), the scene of his 
anointing (I S 16 4 ff.) and from the well at 
whose gate he longed for a draft of water (II S 23 
14 ff.). The district in which B. lay was called 
Ephrath perhaps a clan-name, cf. I Ch 2 19, 50, (cf. 
IS 1712; Ru 1 2, where inhabitants of B. are called 
Ephrathites), which is given in its longer form 
Ephrathah (Ephratah AV), as part of the accepted 
name of the place by Micah (5 2; cf. the later docu- 
ments Ru 411; I Ch250,44; Ps132 6). Confusion with 
another Ephrath, some miles S. of Bethel led to the 
gloss in Gn 3519and 487. Itis the scene of the story 
of Ruth (1 19, etc.); the place of the family sepulcher 
of Asahel, brother of Joab and Abishai (II S 2 32); 
the home of Elhanan, one of David’s mighty men 
(II S 23 34). It was fortified by Rehoboam (II Ch 
11 6). It was near B. that the Jews, who in 586 
B.c. fled to Egypt, found a wayside refuge (Jer 
41 17), and the site itself was repeopled by the ‘Chil- 
dren of Bethlehem’ after the return from Babylon 
(Ezr 2 21 || Neh 7 26). 

Its special distinction came from its prophetic 
assignment as the home of the coming Messianic 
King (Mic 5 2). In fulfilment of this prophecy it 


Beth-Maacah 
Bible 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 106 


enema cneen Rett i LLL LANL LLL Nt 


appears in the Mt narrative as the birthplace of 
Jesus (21-18). In the N T it is still distinguished as 
the Judean B. (Mt 2 1, 5 f.), and as the ‘City of 
David’ (Lk 2 4; cf. Jn 7 42). As such it was recog- 
nized in the Roman administration of the land; 
since the fact that Jesus was born in the place was 
due solely to the coming there at that time of 
Joseph and Mary to be registered as ‘of the house 
and family of David’ under the Syrian census of 
Quirinius, c. 6 B.c. (Lk 21-7). The statement of 
Luke (27), that because of the lack of room in the 
inn, or khan, Mary laid the infant in a manger is 
confirmed by the early tradition that makes Him to 
have been born in a cave (Justin Martyr, 140-150 
A.D., Dial c.Tryph.§ 78) and by the ancient practise 
of using the limestone caves of the hill-country of 
Judea as shelters for cattle. The modern Church 
of the Nativity is built over a group of caves, some 
one of which may have been the historic cave of the 
nativity. 

2. Acity of Zebulun (Jos 1915), the modern insig- 
nificant village of Beit Lahm, 7 m. NW. of Nazareth 
(Map IV, C7), generally held to have been the home 
and burial-place of Ibzan, who judged Israel seven 
years (Jg 12 8, 10). 

Literature: Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels (1903); 
amet Was Christ Born in » Bethelehemt ar 


BETH-MAACAH, -mé Pa. (n2BP "2, bath 
ma‘dkhah, Beth-Maachah AV): The (antatet 
Aramean, see Maacan) district where the town 
Abel was situated. ‘Abel of Beth-maacah’ should 
be read in II S 2014. This Abel was attacked by 
Ben-hadad I (I K 15 20) c. 900 B.c. Its people 
were carried away by Tiglath-pileser III (II K 15 
29) c. 734 B.c. It was an old city mentioned in the 
list of cities taken by Thormes ITI of Egypt c. 1475 
B.c. and later famous for its circle of ‘wise’ men and 
women (II § 2018). The fertility of the site is indi- 
cated in its alternate name Abel-maim, ‘meadow of 
waters’ (II Ch 16 4). Its situation was strong and 
advantageous. Map IV, E 4. E. EL N. 

BETH-MARCABOTH, -mar’ke-beth (Nia9 72 ‘2, 
béth markabhoth), ‘place of chariots’: A town of 
Simeon not far from Ziklag mentioned along with 
Hazarsusah in Jos 195 I Ch 4 31. The parallel 
passage (Jos 15 31) has Madmannah (q.v.) and San- 
sannah (q.v.) as the names of the places. Since B.- 
Marcaboth = ‘place of chariots,’ and MHazar- 
susah = ‘place of horses,’ it is not impossible that the 
places had some connection with the trade in horses 
mentioned in I K 10 28 f.; cf. 9 19. E. E. N. 

BETH-MEON, -mi’en. See Breru-Baat-MzEon. 

BETH-MERHAK, -mer’hak (P1191 ‘3, bath ham- 
merhaq), ‘the house afar off,’ ‘the far house’ (II § 
15 7; cf. AV): Apparently the name of a house or 
station near Jerusalem, between the city and the 
Kedron. E. E. N. 

BETH-NIMRAH, -nim’ra (779) ‘3, béth nim- 
rah): A town of Moab, in the region assigned to Gad. 
It was further built up and fortified by the Gadites 
(Nu 32 36; Jos 13 27). It is called Nimrah in Nu 
32 3. Map III, H 5. 

BETH-PALET. See BrErs-PE.LeErT. 


BETH-PAZZEZ, -paz'ez (V¥® ‘3, béth patstséts): A 
town on the border of Issachar (Jos 19 21). Site 
unknown. 

BETH-PELET, -pi’let (U2 ‘3, béth pelet), 
‘house of escape’: A town in southern Judah (Jos 
15 27, Beth-palet AV) reoccupied in _ postexilic 
times (Neh 11 26, Beth-phelet AV). Site unknown. 

BETH-PEOR, -pi’ér (11Y3 ‘3, béth p*‘dr), ‘house 
of Peor,’ possibly ‘house of Baal-Peor,’ 7.e., a shrine 
where Baal-Peor was worshiped: <A city of Moab, 
not far from Mount Pisgah, the place where Is- 
rael listened to the farewell discourses of Moses (Dt 


3 29, 4 46) and the neighborhood in which Moses was 


buried (Dt 346). In the assignment of territory E. 
of the Jordan it fell to the lot of Reuben. Regard- 
ing its more definite identification in modern geog- 
raphy, there is great uncertainty (cf. Conder, PEFQ, 
1882, p. 85f.). Map II, H 1. A. C. Z. 

BETHPHAGE, beth’fa-ji (Byfeayq), ‘house of 
figs’ (Mt 211 and ||s): A place on the Mt. of Olives, 
near Bethany. ‘The exact site is unknown. 

BETH-RAPHA, -ré’fa (89) ‘2, béth-rdpha’): Prob- 
ably a place-name in the genealogy of Chelub 
(Caleb) (I Ch 4 12). 

BETH-REHOB, -ri’heb (3177 ‘3, beth rehadbh): 
The name of a town and its district situated not far 
from Dan (Jg 18 28; IT S 10 6). The location as- 
signed on Map IV, E 4 is almost certainly wrong as 
the city of Dan was situated in the ‘valley of Beth- 
rehob’ (Jg 18 28). Syrians of B. were involved in 
war with David (II S 106 #.). See also RreHos. 

E. E. N. 


BETHSAIDA, befth-sé/i-da (Br Ocatd&z), ‘house of 
the fishers’: According to Josephus (BJ. III, 107; cf. 
Vit. 72; Ant. XVIII, 2 1), a town situated 120 
furlongs S. of Lake Semechonitis (Mérém, Jos 11 5), 
the site of the modern et-Tell. MapIV,E6. Early 
in the reign of Philip the Tetrarch B. was advanced 
to the rank of a city and named Julias in honor of 
Julia, the daughter of Augustus (Ant. XVIII, 21). 
B. was the home of one of Jesus’ disciples, Philip, (Jn 
1 44, 12 21), and along with other towns in the region 
was denounced by Jesus for its unbelief (Mt 11 21 
and ||). Jesus and His disciples withdrew to B. 
in order to escape Herod (Lk 9 10) and to avoid the 
multitudes (Mk 6 45, 8 22). The N T passages do 
not require the assumption of a second B. on the W. 
side of the lake (see Smith, HGHL, p. 457 f., and com- 
pare the inconclusive reasoning of R. L. Stewart 
in DCG; that the reff. in Jn do not indicate that 
Andrew and Peter were from B. cf. Exp. Times, 
July 1924, pp. 475 f. For the later history of B. cf. 
Schiirer GJ V, (3d-4th Ed 1907 Vol. II p. 208. 

J. M. T. 

BETHSHAN, -shan (1% '3, béth shan), soin I S 
31 10, 12; II S 21 12; elsewhere Beth-shean, |8¥ ‘3, 
beth she‘Gn), ‘house of safety’: An important ancient 
Canaanite city. Excavations show that it was in 
existence earlier than 2000 B. c. Itlay about 4m. W. 
of the Jordan, and 12 m. S. of the Sea of Galilee, 
Map III,G2. Itsstrength enabled it to suecessfully 
resist the first attacks of the invading Israelites 
(Jg 1 27 .=Jos 17 12 £.). Later it seems to have 





ee i 





107 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Beth-Maacah 
Bible 





| 
been the first and easiest accessible place for the 


Philistines to celebrate their victory (I S 31 10). 
Its modern name is Beisan. It had an important 
history in postbiblical times. Cf. 1 Mac 12 40; G. 
A. Smith, HG HL, pp. 357 ff. A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 
BETH-SHEMESH, -shi’mesh (¥O¥ ‘3, bath 
shemesh), ‘house of the sun’: 1. The modern Ain 
Shems. Map II, D1. Excavations show that the 
site was that of an important city from very early 
times (c. 2000 B.c.). It was strongly fortified, much 
of the ancient wall can still be traced. It was taken 
from the Canaanites by the Philistines and then 
passed to Israel. Its sanctuary was without doubt 
a seat of sun-worship (See PHFQ 1911 and 1912). 
It was on the border of Judah (Jos 15 10) and counted 
as a priestly city (Jos 2116). Under the name Ir- 
Shemesh it is assigned to Dan in Jos 1941. Here, 
in the field of Joshua the Beth-shemite, the Ark 
rested on its return from the Philistines, but was not 
allowed to remain (I § 69 f.). Here Amaziah of 
Judah was defeated by Jehoash of Israel (II K 14 
11 ff.). Later, in the days of Ahaz, it was taken by 
the Philistines (II Ch 28 18). 2 and 3. Two still 
unidentified towns, one in Naphtali (Jos 19 38; Jg 133) 
the other on the border of Issachar (Jos 19 22). 
These three places (probably there were others) with 
this same name show the prevalence of sun- 
worship in ancient Canaan. 4. A city of Egypt, 
probably On 7.e., Heliopolis (Jer 43 13). E. E. N. 


BETH-SHITTAH, -shit’a ("QW ‘3, béth-shitiah), 
‘place of the acacia’: A place to which the Midian- 
ites were pursued (Jg 7 22). The ordinary identi- 
fication with Shutia (Map IV, 8) is not entirely satis- 
factory. E. BE. N. 

BETH-TAPPUAH, -tap’pti-a (M2 ‘3, béth-tap- 
puah), ‘place of apples’ (?): A town of Judah (Jos 
15 53), connected possibly with the family named 
Tappuah (I Ch 2 43), Map II, E 2. H. E. N. 


BETHUEL, bi-thi’el (P8IN2, betha’él). I. A 
son of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, and the father 
of Rebekah, Isaac’s wife, and of Laban (Gn 22 22 
f., 24 15, etc. 25 20, 28 2,5). II. See Beruut. 

BETHUL, beth’vl (7503, thal): A town in the 8. 
of Judah (Jos 19 4) called Bethuel (I Ch 4 30) and 
Chesil (Jos 15 30). Site unknown. 

BETHULIA. See Jupiru, Boox or. 

BETH-ZUR, -ztr’” (73x '3, béh tstir), ‘house of 
rock,’ or Zur may be the name of a deity: A town 
of Judah (Jos 15 58; I Ch 2 45), strongly situated, 
commanding the road between Hebron and Jerusa- 
lem (Map II, E 2) and fortified by Rehoboam (II 
Ch 117). It was occupied by a postexile colony 
(Neh 3 16) and was the scene of several conflicts in 
the Maccabean war (I Mac 419, etc.). E. E. N. 

BETONIM, bet’o-nim (0°63, benim), ‘pistachio 
nuts’: A place on the border of Gad (Jos 13 26). 
Site unknown. 

BETROTH. See MarrracEe anp Divorce. 

BEULAH, biii’/la, ‘married’: The reference in Is 
62 4 is to the old Semitic idea that a deity stood in 
closest relation to the land in which he was wor- 
shiped, 7.e., he owned it, controlled it, gave fertility 


to it, etc. The prophet here uses the term, altho 
his idea of J’ is far more spiritual than was that of 
the earlier age. EK. E. N. 


BEWAIL. See Mournine Customs, § 5. 
BEWITCH. See Magic anp DrivinaTIon. 


BEWRAY: An old English word meaning ‘to 
disclose,’ found in the AV of Is 16 3; Pr 29 24, 27 
16; Mt 26 73. The Heb. of Pr 27 is altogether ob- 
scure. 


BEYOND THE JORDAN: When this phrase oc- 
curs in the reported speeches of Moses it denotes 
the region W. of the river (Dt 3 20, etc.), but when 
used by the author who reports them, the region E. 
of the river (Dt 11, 5, etc.; cf. also Gn 50 10). The 
latter is also the N T meaning (Mt 4 15, 25; Mk 3 
8; etc.). 

BEZAI, bi’za-ai ("S3, bétsay): The ancestral head 
of a large postexilic family (Ezr 2 17; Neh 7 23, 
10 18). 

BEZALEL, bez’a-lel (P8?¥3, beisal’él, Bezaleel 
AV), ‘in the shadow of God’: 1. The son of Uri, 
the son of Hur, who was divinely called to be the 
chief artificer of the Tent and its furnishings (Ex 
31-39; I Ch 2 20; II Ch 15). 2. One of the ‘sons 
of Pahath-moab’ who had taken foreign wives (Ezr 
10 30). 

BEZEK, bi’zek (P!3, bezeq): 1. A town ruled 
over by Adonibezek, captured by Judah and Simeon 
in their invasion of Canaan (Jg14f.). It could not 
have been far from Jerusalem (cf. ver. 7), but its site 
is unknown. To identify it with the following with- 
out distorting the whole narrative is impossible. 2. 
The place where Saul rallied the Israelites before 
marching to the relief of Jabesh-gilead (I S 11 8). 
Map III, G 2. E. E. N. 


BEZER, bi’zar (1¥3, betser), ‘fortress’: I. The 
head of a family of Asher (I Ch 7 37). II. A city of 
refuge, also one of the Levitical cities in the tribe of 
Reuben, Dt 4 43; Jos 20 8, 21 36; Ch678). It was 
‘in the wilderness in the plain (mishér, here ‘upland 
plain’). Of the same place Mesha says (Mesha 
stone, line 27): ‘I built B., for ruins had it become.’ 
Site unknown. K. E. N. 


BIBLE. 1. Name and Names. The word Bible 
is from the Gr. @f@Aoc, the inner layers of the 
papyrus-plant used in making the paper of which 
books, @fGAot, were manufactured. The dim. 
@:@Atov was especially used of a ‘book’ as a part or 
division of a larger work. The pl. t& @:@Ata, ‘the 
books,’ was applied to the Scriptures in consequence 
of their supreme importance. This Greek plural 
passed over into the Latin as a singular biblia, 
whence the English word ‘Bible.’ The oldest 
name among the Jews for their Scriptures was ‘the 
books’ (Dn 9 2) or, for the legal part, the ‘book of 
the law’ or ‘book of Moses’ (Neh 9 3, 131). In 
N T times the Jews were accustomed to say ‘the 
writings’ (Heb. kethubhim; Gr. yeagat, Lat. Scrip- 
ture), or, in case of quotation, etc., ‘Scripture’ 
(} yeah; Lat. Scriptura, which term passed 
over into Christian usage and has maintained itself 
until the present day. 


Bible 
Bitter Water 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


108 





The term Testament is from the Lat. testamentum, 
‘will,’ the rendering of the Gr. &ta0yxn (ef. also 
Mt 26 28, etc.), which, however, neither in the LXX. 
nor in the N T, means ‘will’ but (as e.g., in II Co 3 4) 
‘covenant.’ It was easy, however, to take d:abqjxy 
in the sense of a testamentary document and use it 
of the Scriptures of the old and new covenants, and 
in ecclesiastical literature from the 2d cent. this is 
a common designation of the Scriptures. For the 
names applied by the Jews to the various parts of 
the O T see Otp anD New TESTAMENT CANON. 


2. The Bible a Collection of Books of Various 
Dates and by Many Writers. The Protestant 
Bible in common use is a collection of sixty-six 
books, subdivided into the O T (thirty-nine books) 
and the N T (twenty-seven books). The thirty- 
nine O T books originally constituted the Hebrew 
Scriptures recognized and used by Palestinian 
Judaism in New Testament times. The remaining 
twenty-seven originated in Christian circles in the 
Apostolic Age. The Greek-speaking Jews of the 
New Testament period recognized as Scripture a 
larger number of books than was the case with their 
more conservative brethren in Palestine, and the 
Greek O T which passed from Hellenistic Judaism to 
the early Christian: church contained, in addition 
to the thirty-nine books of the Hebrew canon, a 
number of others of which seven, Tobit, Judith, Wis- 
dom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I and II Maccabees 
plus the so called Additions to Esther and Daniel, 
are considered canonical by the Roman church and 
are quite familiarly used in the Greek Catholic and 
also in the Lutheran churches on the continent. 
The Roman Catholic O T contains therefore forty-six 
instead of thirty-nine books (See ApocryPHa and 
VERSIONS.) 

The material in the Bible was composed at differ- 
ent times during a period of more than a thousand 
years—from the foundation of the Hebrew nation 
by Moses (c. 1200 B.c.) to about the end of the Ist 
cent. A.D. The number of writers whose work is 
preserved in the Bible is unknown. A large number 
of the OT books and some of the N T are anonymous. 
The range and variety of subjects are indicative of a 
corresponding variety and number of authors. The 
poet, the historian, and the philosopher (‘wise man’), 
the priest, the prophet, and the apostle, the king and 
the statesman, the popular story-teller, the serious 
legislator, the antiquarian delighting in genealogy 
and statistics, the zealous reformer, the faithful 
teacher, the seer, all these and others, even the 
Divine Son of Man Himself, find their words or work 
represented in the Bible. 

It is also a world of varied thought and culture 
that is reflected in the Biblical material. In one 
part we are face to face with the primitive simplicity 
of the Semitic nomad; in another we are in touch 
with the rich culture of the ancient Babylonian 
civilization; again we share the experiences incident 
to the predominantly agricultural type of life of the 
ancient Hebrew commonwealth; at first we witness 
the crude and petty warfare between clans or tribes, 
then the larger struggles of Israel with her near 
neighbors; next we hear the measured tread of 
Assyria’s victorious armies, creators of the first world 


monarchy; then, in succession, it is the Babylonian, 
the Persian, the Greek, and finally the Roman em- 
pires that form the background of the Biblical his- 
tory. 

3. The Original Language and Text of the Bible. 
The original languages of the Biblical books were 
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Nearly all the O T 
was composed in Hebrew, the language spoken by 
Israel in Canaan before the Exile, but after the 
Return gradually giving way—as the speech of 
common intercourse—to the Aramaic, then the 
lingua franca of all SW. Asia. Parts of Daniel and 
Ezra and one verse in Jer (10 11) are in Aramaic. 
There is also an Aramaic coloring to many expres- 


sions scattered through the O T. A dialect of Ara- 


maic was the vernacular of Palestine in N T times, 
and it is probable that Jesus’ teachings were spoken 
by Him in Aramaic and later rendered into Greek by 
the teachers of the early Apostolic Church (see 
ArAMaic LANGUAGE). Apart from this Aramaic 
basis of the Gospels, especially the first three and of 
some material in Ac, the N T was composed en- 
tirely in Greek, the Greek of ordinary intercourse 
in the Hellenistic world (see Gremx LANGUAGE).! 

The text of the Bible has doubtless had a very 
checkered history. Nothing is known of the means 
taken to preserve the text of the O T autographs. 
It is probable that much editorial work was done by 
exilic and postexilic scholars on the material in their 
hands, and we do not know when the text came to be 
so carefully guarded that no more changes were pos- 
sible. The Greek translation of the O T, the Septua- 
gint (LXX., begun c. 250 B.c., and perhaps com- 
pleted by 150 B.c.), shows that in many places the 
text before the translators differed from the Hebrew 
text current to-day (see VERSIONS OF THE O T). 
The great Hexapla of Origen, c. 225 a.p. (a six- 
column edition of the O T, one column giving the 
Hebrew text), and the Latin Vulgate of Jerome (390- 
405 a.D.), who made use of the Hebrew, also furnish 
valuable testimony to the ancient Hebrew text. 
Finally, the Massoretes (Jewish scholars who were 
careful students of the text, 3d to 10th cent. a.p.) 
settled upon a uniform text which is that repre- 
sented in practically all Hebrew MSS. extant. (See 
Oup TESTAMENT Text 5.) 

The text of the N T has had a corresponding 
history. The autographs, written on papyrus, were 
perishable and soon disappeared. The first copying 
was of an unregulated and perhaps at times careless 
character. With the growth of the Church in num- 
bers and culture more attention came to be paid to 
the copying of the text. At last, mainly through the 
influence of the first printed editions, one type of 
text, unfortunately very corrupt, the so called 
Textus Receptus, became dominant. Only within 
the last seventy years have more critical and there- 
fore correct texts become available. (For a full dis- 
cussion see New TEestaMEnT Text.) 

Since the Biblical material was produced under 
such a variety of circumstances, by so many differ- 
ent authors, and its composition covered such a long 


1 Very recently the theory has been propounded that the 
original draft of the Fourth Gospel was in Aramaic and then 
put into Greek by the author, (See Jonn, Gosprn or.) 


i i i 


109 


period of time, it is evident that the collection in its 
present form has a complicated history behind it. 
The O T was already complete before a word of the 
N T was written. But neither collection was the 
work of a single age or made at the dictation of 
~ any external authority. For full discussion of the 
formal steps that led to the final results in both 
cases see O T Canon and N T Canon. For the prin- 
ciples involved in a proper appreciation and study 
of the Bible see the articles on THE APPROACH TO 
THE BIBxe, at the beginning of this work. 
EK. HE. N. 

BIBLICAL GREEK. See Greek LANGUAGE. 

BICHRI, bik’rai (123, bikhri): Sheba, who re- 
volted from David (II S 201 ff.), is called ‘son’ of 
Bichri, 7.e., he was of the clan of Becher—of Ben- 
jamin. See BrecHeEr. 

BID. See Marriace anp Divorce, § 2. 

BIDKAR, bid’kdr (1P74, bidhgar): Captain of 
Jehu’s chariot, z.e., his aide (II K 9 25). 

BIER. See Buriat anp BurtaL Customs, § 4. 

BIGTHA, big’tho (8013, bightha@’). See Coam- 
BERLAINS, THE SEVEN. 

BIGTHAN, big’fhan; BIGTHANA, big-fhé’na 
(023, 83022, bighthdn, bighthand’): One of the cham- 
berlains (lit. ‘eunuchs’) of Ahasuerus who kept the 
door of the palace (Est 2 21, 6 2). 

BIGVAI, big’va-ai (23, bighway): 1. One of the 
leaders of the Return (Ezr 22;Neh77). 2. The an- 
cestor of a large postexilic family (Hzr 2 14, 8 14; 
Neh 7 19), possibly the same as 1. 3. A representa- 
tive of this family (Neh 10 61). 

BILDAD, bil/dad (7173, bildadh), ‘Bel loves’ 
(?): One of Job’s friends (Job 2 11, etc.), called ‘the 
Shuhite’, z.e., of the line of Shuah, son of Abraham 
(Gn 25 2, 6). 

BILEAM, bil’l-am. See Ipieam. 

BILGAH, bil’ga (73°23, bilgah): The ancestral 
head of the fifteenth course of priests (I Ch 24 14; 
Neh 10 8 [Bilgai], 12 5, 18). 

BILHAH, bil/’ha (1773, bilhah): I. The hand- 
maid of Rachel and mother of Dan and Naphtali 
(Gn 29 29, 30 3-7, 35 22, etc.). See Tripus, §§ 2, 3. 
II. A town in Simeon. See Baauan, 2. 

BILHAN, bil/han (1773, bilhan): 1. A Horite clan 
(Gn 36 27;1Ch142). See Hortres. 2. A Benjamite 
clan (I Ch 7 10). 

BILL. See Marriage anp Divorce, § 5; and 
TRADE AND COMMERCE, § 3. 

BILSHAN, bil’shan (1¥?3, bilshan): One of the 
leaders of the Return (Ezr 2.2; Neh 77). 

BIMHAL, bim/hal (772, bimhal): One of the 
descendants of Asher and a son of Japhlet (I Ch 
7 33). 

BINEA, bin’1-a (8923, bin‘a@’): Son of Moza and a 
descendant of Jonathan (I Ch 8 37, 9 43). 

- BINNUI, bin’nit-ai (73, binniiy), ‘building’: The 
ancestral head of the ‘sons of Binnui,’ one of the 
great postexilic families (Neh 7 15; Bani in Ezr 2 10). 


To this family most of the following individuals | 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Bible 
Bitter Water 


probably belonged: (a) The Levite (Ezr 8 33; Neh 12 
8); perhaps the same person is called Bunni (Neh 
9 4) and Bani (Neh 87). (6b) One of the ‘sons of 
Pahath-moab’ and (c) ‘one of the sons of Bani,’ 
both of whom had taken foreign wives (Ezr 10 30, 38). 
(d) A Levite, the son of Henadad, who helped in re- 
pairing the wall (Neh 3 24, 109; the same as Bavai 
of 3 18?). 

BIRDS. See Patestine, § 25. 

BIRSHA, bir’sha (Y¥713, birsha‘): King of 
Gomorrah (Gn 142). See CHEpoRLAOMER. 


BIRTH, BIRTHDAY, BIRTHRIGHT. See 
FAMILY AND Faminy Law, §§ 6, 8. 
BIRZAITH,  bir-zé'ifh; BIRZAVITH,  -vith 


(MA or MINA, birzdwith or birzayith): A place (?) 
in Asher (I Ch 7 31). Site unknown. 

BISHLAM, bish’lom (0203, bishlam): A Persian 
official (Ezr 4 7). 

BISHOP, BISHOPRIC. See Cuurcna, § 8. 


BIT, BRIDLE: ‘These words, as used in EV, 
indicate three different objects: (1) The bridle (me- 
thegh, xaAtv6c), which includes the curb or bit, is 
mentioned as part of the harness of the horse (Ps 32 
9, ‘bit’; Rev 14 20) and ass (Pr 26 3). It is used fig- 
uratively for restraint (II K 19 28=Is 37 29; Jas 1 26, 
3 2 f., of the tongue) and for the authority of the 
mother-city (IIS8s1). (2) Theresenisa halter (EV 
‘pridle’) and is used metaphorically for restraint of 
the actions (Job 30 11; Is 30 28). The ‘double bri- 
dle’ (Job 41 13, AV) of Leviathan seems to refer to 
his upper and lower jaws (so ARV). (8) The mah- 
sém was a muzzle, intended to prevent the animal 
from biting (Ps 39 1; cf. ARVmg.). See plate of 
ARTICLES UsED IN TRAVEL, Fig. 5. 

L. G. L.—L. B. P. 

BITHIAH, bith’i-a (NA, bithyah): A daughter 
of Pharaoh whom Mered, a descendant of Judah, 
married (I Ch 4.18). The statement is a peculiar 
one and difficult of explanation. 


BITHRON, bith’ren (117193, bithrén),‘the gorge’: 
A wady through which Abner fled from the Jordan 
to Mahanaim (IIS 2 29). Perhaps the Wady ‘Ajlin, 
Map III, H 3. 


BITHYNIA, bi-fhin’i-a. See Asta Mrnor, III 2. 


BITTER HERBS: One of the elements of the 
Passover meal (Ex 12 8; Nu 911). The herbs used 
were watercress, lettuce, endive, and chicory. They 
were either mixed or used separately. Regarding 
their significance different views are held, some 
alleging that they symbolized the sufferings of the 
people in Egypt, while others hold that like the pro- 
hibition of leaven they were the sign of the haste in 
which the Exodus took place. An GZ 

BITTERN: The AV rendering of 12P, gippddh | 
(Is 14 23, 3411; Zeph 214). The meaning of the Heb. 
is not known. RV renders ‘porcupine.’ Cheyne 
(EB, s.v.) favors bittern. Socin, in Guthe’s Bibel- 
worterbuch, thinks some kind of lizard is meant. 
See PaLesTINnE, §§ 24, 25. E. E. N. 

BITTER WATER. See Crimes AND PUNISH- 
MENTS, § 3 (b). 


Biziothiah 
Books and Writing 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


110 


SS cee a oy ee ere RT EET EE LO TS RTE TERETE STOEL Gi TEND ST” 


BIZIOTHIAH, biz’1-0-fhai’a (MNVIZ, bizydth- 
yah; Bizjothjah, biz-joth’ja, AV: The reading 
found in the Heb. of Jos 15 28, but in LXX. and at 
Neh 11 27 we read ‘and the towns thereof’ (= Heb. 
Wni33}), which is probably the true text. E. E.N. 


BIZTHA, biz’the. See CHAMBERLAINS, THE 
SEVEN. 

BLACK. See Cotors, § 1. 

BLAIN. See Disrase anD MepiciIne, § 4 (2). 


BLASPHEME, BLASPHEMER, BLASPHEMY. 
In the N T the words so reviewed exacily represent 
the Grk. Graconuetv, BAkopnos, BAaconuta, which 
mean‘speaking lightly, contemptuously or injurious- 
ly’ of another. In the OT the root-idea of the Heb. 
originals (with one exception) is that of ‘cutting 
into,’ ‘piercing’ (thus injuring the honor or good 
name of another) or of ‘spurning.’ In I K 21 10, 13 
the literal meaning of the Heb. bérakh is ‘to bless’ 
and the word is here used antithetically to express 
the exact opposite. See also CRIMES AND PUNISH- 
MENTS, § 2 (c). ; By HN: 


BLAST: The rendering of n¢shamah, ‘breath,’ as 
in II S 22 16; Ps 1815, where it is followed immedi- 
ately by ruah, ‘wind,’ and of ruiah in Ex 15 8; Il K 
19 7, etc. In all cases it refers to a manifestation 
of God’s power, either in the physical world by wind 
or storm, or by a plague (Is 37 7), except in Is 25 4, 
where it refers to human violence. E. E. N. 

BLASTUS, blas’tus (Bdd&stos): The chamber- 
lain of Herod Agrippa I (Ac 12 20), through whose 
intervention certain men from Tyre and Sidon se- 
cured an audience with the king. No mention is 
made of Blastus in Josephus’ account of the death 
of Herod (Ant. XIX, 82). See Hnrop Acrippa I. 

a PN habe’ DP 


BLEMISH. See Diszasz AND MeEpIcINnE, § 6; 
and SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 5. 


BLESS, BLESSING. See Trmrms or BLESSING 
AND REPROACH. 


BLINDNESS. See Dismnasz anpd MepIciINngz, 
§§ 6 and 7). 


BLOOD: 1. Significance. The important mean- 
ing attached to blood in the Oriental world was de- 
termined by the notion that the life principle either 
is the blood itself or has its residence in the blood 
(Lv 1711). Just how such a notion might originate 
it is not difficult to understand when one considers 
that after the blood is allowed to run out of the body 
the life of the body is extinguished. This is true of 
both man and the lower animals (Gn 9 4). 

2. Legislation About Blood. From this notion 
are deducible the prescriptions as to the treatment 
of the blood: (1) Blood was not to be made an article 
of food (Lv 7 26 £.; Dt 12 16). This law is applied 
to all blood, not simply to that of animals slain for 
sacrificial purposes. (2) The tabooing of the blood 
of sacrificial victims (I S 14 32). (8) The presenta- 
tion of the blood of an innocent victim at the altar of 
Jehovah as pure life to cover the offending life of the 
offerer (Lv 1 5, etc. See also Sacrifice). (4) The 
value of blood as means of ceremonial cleansing, as 
in the case of purification from leprosy (Lv 14 5-7). 
(5) The law of blood revenge, z.e., a life for a life. 


(Gn 96; Dt 196), and (6) the use of blood as a means 


of establishing a covenant (Ex 24 6). Cf. Trum- 
bull, Threshold Covenant. See SAcRIFICE AND 
OFFERINGS, § 16. A. C. Z. 


BLOOD, AVENGER OF (gd’él haddam, Nu 35 
19): The next of kin whose duty it became to visit 
vengeance for the violent death of those related to 
him. The duty was based on the theory that the 
family, tribe, and clan constituted sacred units. 
When the blood of a member of one of these units 
was shed, atonement was required either through the 
death of the shedder of the blood or through that of 
some member of the unit to which the offender be- 
longed (II 8 21 1-14; Jg 8 18-21). The earlier law 
made no distinction between intentional murder and 
undesigned homicide (Gn 9 6); the later (Nu 359 f..) 
was a great improvement over the earlier in that it 
did and thereby softened the asperities of natural 
feeling, placing safeguards about the whole prac- 


tise and thus preventing injustice and cruelty. 
A. C. Z. 


BLOODGUILTINESS. See Buioop, 2 (5); and 
BLoop, AVENGER OF. 


BLOOD, ISSUE OF. See Diszasz anD MEpI- 
CINE, § 8. 

BLOODY FLUX. See Disnase anp MEDICINE, 
§ 4 (5). 

BLOODY SWEAT: Taken literally this would 
mean the oozing of the blood through the pores 
of the skin, together with the perspiration. That 
under intense excitement such as was experienced 
by Jesus (Lk 22 44) perspiration sometimes breaks 
into bloody sweat is a well-known fact in medical 
science. But it is by no means certain that the text 
of Lk is pure (cf. Westcott and Hort, The N T in 
Greek, Vol. II, App. p. 64 ff.) or that the statement 
was intended as a literal one (cf. Plummer on Lk in 
ICC, 1896). A. C. Z. 

BLUE. See Coors, § 2. 

BOANERGES, bd’’a-nir’jiz (Boavypyés): A sur- 
name given by Jesus to James and John (Mk 3 17), 
interpreted by Mark to mean ‘Sons of thunder’ 
(Yiot Boovenhs). The nearest known Aram. equiva- 
lent is bené reghaz or b’né reghesh (see Dalman, 
Aram. Gr. 2, p. 144), which, however, means ‘sons 
of wrath,’ or ‘sons of tumult,’ not ‘sons of thunder.’ 
Mark’s interpretation is perhaps a reminiscence of 
the tradition in Lk 9 54. For an explanation of B. 
as equivalent to the Dioscuri, or Heavenly Twins, 
see J. Rendel Harris, Expos. Feb., 1907. J.M.T. 


BOAR. See PauustTine, § 24. 

BOAT. See SHips anp NavigarTion, § 1. 

BOAZ, bo’az (1Y4, bd‘az), ‘swiftness’ (so Oxf. Heb. 
Lex.): 1. A prominent citizen of Bethlehem, kinsman 
of Elimelech, husband of Naomi (Ru 21 #.). Upon 
the return of Naomi from Moab with Ruth, her 
daughter-in-law, Boaz was led to take the later 
under his protection by purchasing the right of re- 
demption from the next of kin. And as this right 
included according to the Law that of levirate mar- 
riage (Dt 25 5 ff.), Boaz took Ruth as his wife, and 
from this marriage sprang Obed, the grandfather of 
David (Ru 4 21 £.). The importance of Boaz in 


111 


history is accordingly in the main genealogical (cf. 
Mt 15; Lk 3 32, Booz AV). 2. For the pillar called 
Boaz at the vestibule of Solomon’s Temple, see 
TEMPLE, § 14. A. C. Z. 

BOCHERD, bd’ke-rii or bok’1-rii (1993, bdkheri): 
A Benjamite of the stock of Saul through Jonathan 
(I Ch 8 38, 9 44). 

BOCHIM, bd’kim (8°22, bokhim), ‘weepers’: A 
place where the Israelites were reproved by an 
angel (Jg 21,5). In 21LXX. reads ‘Bethel,’ which 
is probably the true reading. In that case ‘Bochim’ 
would be a place in or very near Bethel. See 


Auton-Bacutu (ef. Moore on Judges, in Int. 
Crit. Com.). EK. E. N. 


BODY: The earliest Biblical usage has no fixed 
name for the human body as a living organism. 
Several terms are used which designate it from some 
portion or peculiarity, such as ‘belly,’ beten (Mic 67; 
Job 1917), which is quite uniformly, however, a syno- 
nym of ‘womb’; also ‘bowels,’ mé‘tm (Song 5 14; ‘back,’ 
géw, géwah, g¢wiyyah (Is 51 23; Job 20 25; I S 31 10; 
also gabh, Job 13 12, AV); ‘bone,’ ‘etsem (Ex 24 10, 
_AYV); ‘thigh,’ ya@rékh (Jg 8 30); ‘flesh,’ bdsdr (Is 
10 18), also sh’ér (Pr 5 11); ‘breath,’ nephesh (Lv 21 
11); ‘carcass,’ n*bhélah (Dt 21 23), together with an 
occasional metaphorical expression such as ‘house 
of clay’ (Job 419). The later usage added to these 
guphah, ‘back’ (I Ch 10 12), g’shém, ‘material’ (Dn 
3 27), and nidhneh, ‘sheath’ (Dn 7 15). In the N T the 
single term c@u« is comprehensively used (except in 
Ac 19 12, where xcs, lit. ‘skin,’ is found). In Paul’s 
conception of the spiritual body, there is a hypo- 
thetical counterpart of the animal organism with 
which the spirit of man Is always found associated on 
earth. Such a hypothetical being, whatever its true 
nature, removes a difficulty in the way of belief in 
the resurrection (I Co 15 44). See also Man, Doc- 
TRINE OF, §§ 6, 7. A. C. Z. 


BODY OF CHRIST. See Kinaepom or Gop, § 8; 
and CuurcH Lirz AND ORGANIZATION, § 4. 

BOHAN, bo’han (73, bdhan), ‘thumb’: ‘The 
stone of Bohan, son of Reuben,’ was a landmark on 
the NE. boundary of Judah (Jos 15 6, 1817). No 
mention is made of B. in the genealogies of Reuben. 
The stone may have had the appearance of a great 
thumb. E. E. N. 

BOIL. See Diszase anp Menpicinz, § 4 (2), (8) 
and 5; and SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 16. 


BOLLED: The English word ‘bolled’ (Ex 9 31) 
means ‘swollen,’ as pods are by seed. But the Heb. 
term, gibh‘dl, is more correctly rendered by the 
ARV ‘in bloom.’ 


BOLSTER: The translation in AV of a Heb. 
term (m‘ra’dshéth) meaning ‘at the head of’ or ‘near 
the head’ (IS 1913 #f., 267 ff. cf. RV.). 

BOLT. See Hovss, § 6 (1). 

BOND: Besides having its more common meaning 
of a fetter or chain (Jer 27 2; Ac 26 29; Eph 6 20) or of 
a pledge in connection with an oath or vow (Nu 30 2), 
the word stands in EV for (1) mdsar, the bond of a 
king (Job 12 18), z.e., the obligation imposed by the 
authority of a king; (2) masdreth, the bond of the 
covenant (Ezk 20 37), z.e., the relation of the theo- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Biziothiah 
Books and Writing 


cratic community; (3) cly3ecuoc, ‘the bond of in- 
iquity,’ ‘the bond of peace,’ ‘the bond of perfect- 
ness’ (Ac 8 23; Eph 4 3; Col 3 14), 2.e., the fellowship 
created by the acceptance of these as ideals of con- 
duct. In I Co 1213, ete., it is used to render 30dA0g, 
‘slave,’ or ‘bond servant.’ See also SuaveRyY, § 2; 
and TRADE AND CoMMERCE, § 3. Ai CPZ 


BONDAGE, BONDMAID, BONDMAN, 
See Suavery, § 2. 


BONES, DISEASES OF. See Diszasz AND 
MeEpIicing, § 6. 


BONNET. See Dress anp ORNAMENT, § 8. 
BOOK OF LIFE. See Lirs, Boox or. 


BOOK OF THE WARS OF JEHOVAH. See 
WARS oF JEHOVAH, Book oF. 


BOOKS AND WRITING. 1. Materials. In Bib- 
lical times, men wrote upon diverse materials, such 
as clay tablets, stone stelai, skins, painted wooden 
boards, waxed wooden tablets, potsherds, papyrus, 
and parchment. The Hebrews, following the 
practise of the Babylonians and Assyrians, used 
clay tablets for letters and records until the 8th 
century B.c., and for contracts until an even later 
date. Among the tablets found at Tel el-Amarna in 
Middle Egypt, dated c. 1380 B.c., are letters written 
by the Syrian governors in cuneiform characters, 
which contain Hebrew words, and the reference in Jer 
32 10-12 is evidently to such a clay tablet, sealed in 
its clay envelope. These cuneiform characters were 
made with a wedge-shaped wooden stylus. 

Inscribed tables of stone are mentioned in Ex 
24, 12 and elsewhere in the Old Testament, and 
there exist to-day Hebrew inscriptions on stone, 
dating back to the 9th and 8th centuries B.c. The 
iron pen of Job 19 24 seems to imply a cold chisel 
for engraving on stone. But a more portable form 
of document was needed and we have every reason 
to believe that from the earliest times, the Hebrews 
committed their sacred writings to skins (8:¢@épat). 
These are not specifically mentioned in the Old 
Testament but their manufacture is known to have 
been very ancient, and the copy of the law which is 
said to have been sent from Jerusalem to Alexandria 
in the 3d century B.c. for translation from Hebrew 
into the Greek version known as the Septuagint, 
was written on skins. 

In Egypt, papyrus paper had been used from 
early Dynastic times and it was adopted in Pales- 
tine before the end of the 7th century B.c., in the 
lifetime of Jeremiah. In ch. 36 (LXX version) the 
prophet has two words to denote book, yéety¢ for 
the roll of papyrus uninscribed and 6@Atov for 
the written roll of the book. By permitting greater 
facility in writing, papyrus encouraged the develop- 
ment and increase of Hebrew literature at this 
period. Apparently Jeremiah and his scribe 
Baruch wrote a cursive hand in place of the formal 
characters known to us on stone. Some centuries 
later, the modern square characters were adopted 
for sacred writings and it is this form which was 
familiar to Our Lord (cf. Lk 417). See ALPHABET, 

For memoranda, brief letters, bills, contracts and 
schoolwork, wax tablets were regularly used from c. 


etc. 


Books and Writing 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


112 





300 s.c. to c. 300 a.p. and it was probably a wax 
tablet on which Zacharias wrote ‘His name is John’ 
(Lk 163). They were made of wood and resembled 
our school slates, having the waxed surface pro- 
tected from injury by a raised rim. Single tablets 
do not appear; instead, two, three or more tablets 
were hinged together by thongs or strings and were 
known as diptychs, triptychs, etc. As the waxed 
surfaces were on the inside only, there was no danger 
of accidental erasure or injury. Letters and even 
legal documents have been found in this form, tied 
with string, the ends of which were sealed with wax 
or clay. The tablets were often supplied with 
handles by which to carry them or to hang them up. 
It is natural to see in the multiple tablets a sug- 
gestion of the later codex or book form. 

2. Instruments. For incising waxed tablets a 
stylus (ctéAos) of bone, ivory, or metal was used, 
and the blunt or flattened end did duty for smooth- 
ing the wax surface for use again. Ink and a reed 
pen were employed by the scribe to write upon 
papyrus, parchment and vellum, and by the school 
boy to copy his exercises on painted board or pot- 
sherd. The end of the pen (xéAauog III Jo 13) was 
softened in the mouth or later split like a quill. 
Ink (wéAav), mentioned in IT Co 3 3, IT Jo 12 etc., was 
made from soot or charcoal with gum or glue, the 
mixture then being diluted with water. Ink made 
from sepia, like the India and Chinese inks to-day, 
may have been in use; it is doubtful if that made 
from galls was known. Ezekiel (9 2, 3, 11) mentions 
the writer’s inkhorn at his girdle. A sponge (onédyyos) 
served to clean the pen and to obliterate writing; 
the penknife (Eve4v) for erasure and to sharpen the 
pen. With such a knife Jehudi (or the King?) cut 
the roll which Baruch had written at Jeremiah’s 
dictation (Jer 36 23). With a disk of lead (u6Av880¢) 
and a ruler (xavwy) the writer could score lines on 
papyrus or parchment for his guidance. With 
compasses or a pricker he could prick out the line 
and column spaces, and holes made in this way are 
geen in many a manuscript preserved to us. A piece 
of pumice-stone was needed for finishing the pen- 
point, and for smoothing the edges of the roll and 
the roughnesses of the surface of the papyrus and 
parchment. 


3. Papyrus and rolls. For literary matter and 
fuller documents the roll form (Jer 36 2, Scroll, 
Is 34 4; Rev 6 14) was in use, whether of skin 
or of papyrus, or later of parchment. For such 
purposes, wax tablets were both cumbersome 
and perishable. Papyrus or xé&xveos sheets 


were prepared in Egypt from the stem of the papyrus | 
reed (Cyperus papyrus), long and narrow strips | 


being placed on a board side by side to the required 
width, forming a layer across which, at right angles, 
another layer of shorter strips was laid. Soaked, 
beaten and pressed together, the sheets assumed a 
paper-like consistency. A common size for these 
sheets was 9 to 11 inches high and 5 to 6 broad. A 
number of these were then joined together side by 
side, with paste, to form a roll of the required 
length. A common length in the time of Pliny was 
20 sheets, but one existing Egyptian roll of pray- 
ers for the dead is 144 feet long. Excessive length 


led to complaints, such as that of Callimachus, who 
wrote in the 3d cent. B.c. that ‘a great book is a 
great evil.’ The difficulty of referring to any de- 
sired passage or incident was very great, especially 
as there was no division into chapter and verse or 
paragraphs; and in an age when strict quotation was 
actually alien in thought, the tendency to quote 
the general sense, or from memory, must have been 
irresistible. ‘The cumbersomeness of the great rolls 
led to the division of the classics, such as the Iliad 
and the Odyssey, into books, which were merely 
rolls of modest size. Originally the word Bi6i0c, a 
book, did not mean a volume or a section of a work, 
but the material on which it was written, 666A0¢ 
being the name of the papyrus reed. By trans- 
ference, the word came to be used for the matter 
written on the material. By the beginning of our 
era it had become customary to make rolls and 
sheets of certain sizes. St. Mark would have em- 
ployed an average-sized roll of 19 feet for his gospel, 


whereas St. Luke, both for his Gospel and for 


Ac, needed the extreme size; and it may even 
be that he compressed his matter somewhat or 
modified his writing to accommodate it. 


The scribe wrote normally on the inside of the 
papyrus, thus having the advantage of the hori- 
zontally stretched material. This provided not 
only an easy surface but a guide to level writing 
without the necessity of ruling, and was better 
adapted for rolling inwards. The roll had a cylin- 
der (4uoaA6c) either attached to the end of the 
papyrus or loose, with its ends, called horns (xépata), 
projecting. The edges of the roll were trimmed, 
smoothed with pumice-stone and colored, generally 
black. The text was usually in narrow columns of 
from 2 to 3 inches, but wider in nonliterary MSS. 
In literary MSS. each column contained the 
same number of lines. This made for ease 
in calculating the number of lines in a roll, 
and in appraising the cost of copying. Opening 
the roll, the reader found it convenient to 
have as many as four columns before his eyes, and 
this habit was carried over at first to the parchment 
codices. An example of this is seen in the 4th 
century Codex Sinaiticus of the Bible, which has 
four columns on the page. Later codices illustrate 
the gradual dwindling from the four- to the familiar 
one-column. The text was without punctuation, 
very rarely a dot separated words, the line being a 
series of evenly written continuous letters. In 
copying there was a tendency to abbreviate words 
and to omit syllables. Naturally this led to am- 
biguity and errors. The reader held the roll in his 
right-hand, unwinding it with his left and then roll- 
ing up with that hand the part read. This image 
of the book unrolled is used of the heavens in Is 
344and Rey 614. At the end of the reading it was 
necessary to reverse the process, and to unroll the 
book and reroll it from the right-hand end. A 
number of rolls, such for instance as the books 
of the Iliad, would be kept together in a case 
or chest (xfotn or xtGwtdc). A title ofAAvBos 
or ofttuGos) on a small strip of papyrus was 
attached to the top edge, which could thus 
be easily read, whether the roll stood up on 





118 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Books and Writing 





end with others in a chest, or lay on a shelf. Rolls 
on cognate subjects were kept together, and, if 
without titles, might after a lapse of time become 
confused, thus furnishing another cause of error. 
A possible example of this is the passage in Rom 
16 1-23 which does not belong in its present position, 
but probably formed a separate epistle, perhaps ad- 
dressed to the Ephesians (cf. Eppmstans. Epistle 
ro, and also Corintu1ans, EpistLes To, where this 
probability is used as solving the problem of the 
integrity of II Cor.) 

Books, or rather rolls, were commonly copied for 
gale; and as publishers employed slaves for this 


- work, and were only at the cost of their food and 


clothing, they were able to produce copies at rea- 
sonable prices. It is pointed out, however, that in 
the first centuries a.D., publishers would not have 
dared to issue the books of a persecuted sect, and 
yet before the 2d century the four Gospels appear 
to have been known in a very large number of the 
churches throughout the Empire. The explanation 
is that as the early Christian MSS. had been writ- 
ten in the main for private use, so also the early 


copies were made and circulated privately. The. 


work of slaves as copyists was both mechanical and 
skilled, and resulted in fairly faithful texts. On the 
other hand, the work of amateurs, friends and con- 
verts, would not be mechanically correct, and var- 
iants naturally crept into the successive copies. 
Also since the writers were deeply interested in the 
subject matter, they no doubt sought to improve 
it by emending or by inserting new material from 
other sources, written or oral. An important ex- 
ample of this latter is the story of the woman taken 
in adultery (Jo 7 53-8 11), which is absent from the 
better MSS. It is estimated that there exist to-day 
more than 4000 Gr. MSS. of the books of the N Tand 
probably 1000 early MSS. of translations, no two of 
which are exactly alike, tho helping very greatly in 
checking each other. Some of these variants are 
due to the fact that comments or emendations in the 
margin afterwards became embodied in the text. 
Rolls could be protected from moths by being 
soaked in cedar-oil but not from wear and the effects 
of climate. Papyrus grows brittle in time and cracks. 
Thus gaps arose in the rolls or, if they were patched, 
a problematical restoration of the text took place. 
The same causes led to another serious result. The 
beginning and end of the roll naturally received the 
most wear and tear, and unless promptly patched 
or strengthened, these parts or either of them 
might be lost. This, it is conjectured, is the reason 
for the abrupt ending of St. Mark’s Gospel at ch. 
16 9 in two of the most important MSS. and at v. 8 


-inathird. The addition of vv. 10-20, which do not 


fit, is believed to have been made by a later hand 
(cf. also the case of II Cor.; see CorinrHIANs, 
EPISTLES TO). 

It seems probable, notwithstanding the remark- 
able discoveries of papyri in Egypt, that the orig- 
inal sources of the N T written on this material 
must have perished either through wear, climatic 
changes or as a result of persecutions. It is not im- 
possible that there should yet be found in Egypt 
a 2d century copy of a Gospel or Epistle. If such 


a find were made we should expect it to prove to be 
& private copy, for the more accurate semi-official 
copies belonging to the churches, corresponding to 
library copies of the classics, would most probably 
have perished in the persecutions. 

The text of the O T books must have suffered 
many of the misfortunes which befel that of the 
N T. In addition, there was a great lapse of time 
between the dates of the earlier books, such as 
Samuel and even Isaiah, and the fixing of the text 
in the Greek Septuagint version. It would indeed 
be a miracle if the original text of the O T had been 


preserved from error. 


Knowledge of reading and writing was wide- 
spread in the Ist cent. a.p., and it is said that more 
than 200 years earlier a law had been passed at Je- 
rusalem providing for the compulsory attendance 
of boys at elementary schools. From the prac- 
tise of the times one may suppose that many per- 
sons jotted down, shortly after the Resurrection, 
notes of the incidents in the life of our Lord, and St. 
Luke may have referred to such in ch. 11-3. For 
literary purposes, however, an amanuensis would be 
required, as professional letter-writers are commonly 
employed in the East to-day. If even an educated 
man like Paul found it convenient to dictate his 
letters, much more would the fishermen .Peter and 
John need such help. The effects of dictation are 
seen in the vividness of the narrative of an eye-wit- 
ness, in occasional broken construction, and in sud- 
den changes. It is also probable that St. Paul used 
different methods at different times, dictating word 
for word at one time and at another outlining the 
sense, to be embodied in the scribe’s own words. In 
the case of St. Mark’s Gospel it is the common 
accepted belief of scholars that the writer recorded 
in Greek reminiscences of many a narrative which he 
had heard in Aramaic from the lips of St. Peter as 
he preached. 

A postal service existed in the Roman Empire for 
official purposes only, letters of private persons being 
forwarded through traveling friends (1 Pet 5 12, 
Eph 6 21, 22), merchants or captains of ships. This 
fact, together with the high cost of papyrus, led a 
number of friends to add their greetings at the end 
of letters, as in Rom 16 21-23, and Col 4 10-14. 

4. Parchment and codices. Among the great city 
libraries of antiquity two stand out, those of Alex- 
andria in Egypt and Pergamum in Asia Minor. A 
story, disputed but not disproved, tells us that in 
the 2d century B.c., one of the Ptolemies, jealous 
for the library at Alexandria, forbade the export 
of papyrus, hoping thereby to deal a blow to the 
Pergamum library. Pergamum was the center of 
the skin and leather trade, and probably the story 
witnesses to a new development due to a shortage 
of papyrus supplies. In the new preparation, in- 
stead of tanning the skins, both sides were prepared 
in such a manner as to give two writing surfaces, 
which in the early stages were probably rather 
rough. The material used was the skin of the 
sheep or goat, and possessed this advantage that in 
time it could be manufactured anywhere, altho it 
always kept the name of sepyaunvy, (adj.= 
‘Pergamene’ s. c. skin), parchment, from the city 


Books and Writing 
Brethren of the Lord 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


114 





of its invention. The earliest biblical manu- 
scripts which are approximately complete were 
written on parchment or vellum. The latter 
was made, strictly speaking, from the skins of young 
calves and lambs, and provided a surface superior 
to parchment. The new material was neither fra- 
gile nor perishable, and with a writing surface on 
both sides, it encouraged the use of book or codex 
form for which it was so well-suited. The leaves of 
parchment or vellum were folded once, arranged in 
quires, and sewn as modern books. While it is true 
that papyrus was used mainly in the roll, codices 
are known, and indeed the earliest fragments of 
the N T writings dating from the 3d and 4th cen- 
turics are pages from papyrus codices. Parchment 
did not become common until the 3d century a.p. 


and did not supplant papyrus until the 5th century. | 


The codex form received an impetus, not only from 
the convenience of parchment but also from the 
Christian demand for the Scriptures; for a single 
codex could hold the O T and N T, whereas in the 
old material 30 rolls would have been required. 
The conversion of the emperor Constantine and the 
establishment of the Christian religion in the 4th 
century led to the multiplication of the Scriptures. 
No longer was it necessary to have them copied fur- 
tively. Professional scribes wrote them more ac- 
curately and in the literary hand. From this time 
there is a decided improvement in the penmanship, 
which, freed from the limitations of space, grew 
larger and better. 

5. Palimpsests. Reasons of economy led some- 
times in later days to the practise of sponging off 
as much as possible of the old writing, and using 
the material again for another document. Thus 
unintentionally have been preserved to us, tho faint 
and read with difficulty, some valuable and ancient 
MSS. It is this practise of blotting out which is 
referred to in Col. 214. It was possible to do this 
with a papyrus MSS. only when the ink was fresh. 
If old rolls of papyrus were used again. it was by 
crossing out the original text or by writing on the 
back. In Ezk 2 10 reference is made to writing on 
both sides of the roll in order to emphasize the 
limitless nature of the message of lamentation and 
wo. “ GPa ok 


BOOTH: In the climate of Biblical lands, the 
booth or bower (sukkah), constructed in the form 
of a tent from branches of trees, is a very conve- 
nient refuge from the heat of the sun by day and a 
comfortable place for sleep at night. It was used 
for the accommodation of both men and beasts (Gn 
33 17; Job 27 18; Jon 4 5). Essentially the same 
thing is meant by the term ‘lodge’ in Is 18. Cf. 
also VINES AND VINTAGE, § 1. A. C. Z. 

BOOTHS, FEAST OF. See Fasts anp Fwasts, 
§ 8. 
BOOTY. See Warrarg, § 5. 

BOOZ, bod’ez. See Boaz. 

BORASHAN, bor’’-ash’en. See ASHAN. 

BORDER: (1) The word g*bhil, used in most of 
the geographical notices of the O T, means ‘bound- 
ary’ or ‘limit.’ Sometimes other terms as g*lilah, 
‘circuit,’ ‘region,’ RV (Jos 18 2, etc.), yarkhah, 


‘side’ (Gn 49 13), géts or gdtseh, ‘end’ or ‘extremity’ 
(II K 19 23; Ex 16 35, etc.), saphah, ‘lip’ (Jg 7 22), 
tots@ 6th, ‘outgoings’ (I Ch 5 16) are used. Yddh, 
‘hand’ (IIS 8 3; I Ch 7 29) means dominion or power. © 
In Jos 11 2 ‘borders of Dor’ means the high land, 
near Carmel, belonging to Dor. In the N T ta dota 
(Mk 7 24; cf. Mt 4 13) means ‘boundary’ or ‘fron- 
tier.’ (2) The word is used also of the hem or edge 
(Heb. kdndph, ‘wing’) of a garment (Nu 15 38; cf. 
xogatedov, Mt 23 5, etc.), of the enclosing edge; 
misgereth, of a table or other structure (Ex 25 25; 
I K 7 28, etc.). In Ex 13 7, 28 26, 39 19; Dt 19 , 
IIS 8 3; II K 19 23; Song 1 11; Is 26 15, 37 24 the RV 
corrects the AV. 










Wf, 
fis 


x 


\. 
\ 


\ 


* 


x 
es 
<N, 
S aN 
RS 
s 


B 


“ i. 
ve ff 
om so x 
4 — _ i ‘3 
g 3 os ays 
yes v \ 
a” 
a Se anauehn 


A Modern ‘Booth’ or ‘Lodge’ in a Vineyard. 


BORROWING. See TrapE AND COMMERCE, 
§§ 3, 5. 

BOSCATH, bes’kath. See Bozxaru. 

BOSOM. See Dress anp ORNAMENT, § 3. 

BOSOR, bd’sor (Booée): In IT P 215, AV, following 
incorrect spelling of most N T MSS., for Beor 
(q.v.). 

BOSS. See Arms anp Armor, § 7. 

BOTCH. See Disrasze anp Mepicring, § 4 (i). 


BOTTLE: (1) The bagbiq or ‘gurgler’ (I K 14 3; 
Jer 191, 10) was an earthenware bottle or cruse. (2) 
The nébhel sometimes denoted a breakable jar (Is 22 
24, 3014; Jer 1312, 4812; La42). (3) In all other in- 
stances (except Hos 7 5; Hab 215, where the meaning 
of the Heb. is ‘heat’ or ‘rage’; cf. RV) the ‘bottle’ of 
AV (bh, hémeth, no’dh =aox6c¢) is a vessel made of 
goatskin, and is usually translated ‘skin’ or ‘wine- 
skin’ by ARV or ARVmg. (e.g., Job 32 19; Gn 21 14; 
Mt 917). See Plate of BoTrLes oR WATER SKINS. 
Glass bottles are not mentioned in the Bible. See 
also FLacon; PrrcuEer; Crusy; and Plate of Housr- 
HOLD Urensits, II. L. G. L.—E. C. L. 


BOTTOMLESS PIT. See Escnatrouoey, § 48. 
BOUND, BOUNDS. See Cosmocony, § 3. 


Sororeonlse wegeennant. 
etree tite ser 





BOTTLE OR WATER-SKINS AND OTHER SKIN UTENSILS 


1. Jerdb khubz, bread-bag. 7. Jeradb khubz, bread-bag. 
2. Jerdb kemah, flour-sack. ‘ 8. Jerdb khubz, bread-bag. 
3. Mijrabe, small bread-bag of shepherd. 9. Delu, water-bucket. 

4. Héra, reaping-apron. 10. Jeradb khubz, bread-bag. 
5. Se‘én, water-skin for woman. 11. Jerab khubz, bread-bag. 
6. Kirbe, water-skin for man. 


(From the Suvia Davison Paton Collection in Hartford Theological Seminary.) 





jan a. ‘ 

my er: AA) 

Bik are e 
i 


i J sp ¢ 7 + 
cA? +. ? 
i 
r 


~4) 
ay ug ‘ 
i a” ss * 
, oy 
7 to 
4 4 
4 ‘sh ce 5 
7 5 ; 
. 
Lin 
i: 
RA 
ff 
a 
; 
‘ 
ag? 
a 
’ 
w 
/ 
| 
» &-:. : r @ 
a ¥ 
okt J 
Pe bres le 
a “i6" one 
ei cae Ter, o 
7 . 
im are 2 af 
4 
ieee Rania 
vi <a =e 
is 
¥, eo Abe 
ee in 
f. 
= . . 
ae 
P T <~ & 2O0e 
. / 
ay S 4‘ ; ; 
F [wl ) fa 
* 2a vw a! 
P . We rs WE id 


J ' 





115 A NEW STANDARD 


BOW: Metaphorically, the word is used to sig- 
nify the military power or prestige of a nation or 
people; cf. Gn 49 24; Jer 49 35; Hos 15. Inthe same 
way it is symbolical of God’s power and wrath in 
action against His enemies; cf. Ps 712; La24. See 
also ARMS AND Armor, § 3. As used in Gn 913 ff., 
see RainBpow. IIS 1 18 is of quite uncertain mean- 
ing. EV supplies ‘the song of’ before ‘bow’ to make 
sense. But this is mere conjecture. See ICC ad 
loc. EK. E. N. 


BOWELS. See Man, Doctrine or, § 8 (2). 
BOWL. See Basin. 


BOX, BOX-TREE. See Viau; and PAauesrine, 
§ 21. 

BOZEZ, bo’zez (/$13, bédtséts): A high rock in 
the pass of Michmash (I S 14 4). The name per- 
haps means ‘shining’ and in consequence this rock 
is located on the N. or sunny side of the pass, a little 
KE. of Michmash. See Smnen. See Map III, F 5. 

K. E. N. 


BOZKATH, bez’kath (NP¥3, botsgath, Boscath 
AV): A town in the lowlands of Judah (Jos 15 39; 
II K 221). Site unknown. 

BOZRAH, bez’ra (11%3, botsréh), ‘fortress’: 
1. The capital of Edom (Gn 36 33; Is 34 6; 63 1; Jer 
49 13; Am 1 12), located by modern explorers at el 
Buseira, about 50 m. SE. of the Dead Sea (Robin- 
son, Hxpl. II. p. 125; Buhl, Edomiter, p. 37). 2.A 
city in Moab (Jer 48 24), probably the same as 
Bezer (Dt 4 43). It was the city of refuge for the 
Reubenites (Jos 208). King Mesha claims to have 
fortified it (cf. Musa, Stone of, line 17). A.C.Z. 


BRACELET. See Dress AND ORNAMENT, II. 2. 

BRAMBLE. See PALESTINE, § 2. 

BRANCH (Nes, tsemah): A designation of the 
Messiah first used as such by Jeremiah (23 5, 33 15), 
altho it had been employed in an impersonal sense 
as early as by Isaiah (4 2). Later it was taken up 
by Zechariah (3 8, 6 12) and more definitely identi- 
fied with the ideal king of Israel. Its selection was 
inade at a time when the house of David viewed as 
a tree was in a decaying condition, showing signs 
of a speedy and complete collapse. In the prophetic 
vision the dying away of the tree was not to be 
its final disappearance. A new branch, shoot, or 
sprout (nétser) would issue from its trunk in the per- 
son of the Messiah (Is 11 1). A.C. Z. 


BRAND. See FirEBRAND; and CRIMES AND 
PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (b). 

BRASS. See Merats, § 3. 

BRAZEN SEA. See Trempte, § 13. 

BRAZEN SERPENT. See Newyusuran. 

BRAZIER. See Houss, § 6 (i). 


BREACH: (1) The rendering of bedheqg, a rent or 
break especially in a wall (II K 12 5-12, 225). (2) Of 
baga‘ and derivatives, meaning ‘to cleave’ (Is 7 6, 
229; Ezk 2610). (3) Of parats (vb.) and perets (n.)., 
‘to break,’ ‘a breaking,’ especially associated with the 
idea of violence (II S 5 20, 6 8, etc., very frequent). 
(4) Of shebher, a breaking or crushing that has 
serious results (Lev 24 20, etc.), In Jg 517 both 


Books and Writing 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Brethren of the Lord 


‘breaches’ AV and ‘creeks’ RV are open to ob- 
jection. Moore (JCC) renders ‘landing-places.’ 
On Nu 14 34 AV cf. RVmg. for the true sense. 
In Am 6 11 the Heb. r*ststm means ‘ruins,’ rather 
than ‘breaches.’ E. E. N. 


BREAD. See Foon, § 2. 


BREAD, BREAKING OF. See Cuurco Lire 
AND ORGANIZATION, § 2. 


BREAST. See Sacrifice AND OFFERINGS, §§ 
10, 11. 


BREASTPLATE. See Arms anp Armor, § 
9; and Srongs. Precious, § 2. 


BREATH. See Man, Doctrine or, §§ 2, 6. 
BREECHES. See PriestHoop, § 9b. 


BRETHREN OF THE LORD, THE (oi d3eAgoi 
cod xvefou): A term used by Paul in I Co 9 5 (cf. also 
Gal 1 19) to designate the brethren of Jesus who are 
referred to in the Gospels (Mk 38 31 ff. and ||s, 6 3 and 
ll; Mt 28 10 [?]; Jn 2 12, 7 3, 5, 10, 20 17 [?]), andin Ac 
1 14, and whose names are given as James, Joses 
(Joseph, v.l. John; Mt 13 55), Judas, and Simon. 

As to the specific relationship which they sustained 
to Jesus, there has been question since the early 
ages of the Church, the discussion formulating itself 
finally in three views, termed by Lightfoot (Com. 
on Galatians, p. 242), after the names of their fore- 
most supporters, (1) the Epiphanian, that the breth- 
ren of Jesus were the children of Joseph by a former 
wife; (2) the Helvidian, that they were children of 
Joseph and Mary, younger than Jesus; (3) thetheory 
of Jerome, that they were not brothers but cousins 
of Jesus. 

In the earliest period of which we have know- 
ledge after the Apostolic Age, Christian opinion was 
divided between the first and second of these views. 
The language of Lk 27, Mt 1 25 (see below), naturally 
suggested that Joseph and Mary had children 
younger than Jesus, whom the evangelists, not in- 
appropriately, termed his brothers and sisters. 
This opinion, (the ‘Helvidian’) ismentioned by Origen 
(Tom. x. 17, on Mt 13 55) as if current in his time 
but not universally held; a half-century earlier it 
seems to have been the view of Tertullian (Contra 
Marcionem iv. 19; De carne Christi 7), to whom it 
was acceptable because he valued marriage but con- 
demned second marriage (‘unum matrimonium 
novimus sicut unum deum,’ De monogamia 1). 

The other early view mentioned (the ‘Epiphan- 
ian’) is the basis of the interesting and influential 
‘Protevangelium Jacobi,’ a fictitious narrative of 
the birth and early history of the Virgin Mary, of 
which the greater portion seems to have been 
written in the late 2d or early 3d century. Here 
Joseph is expressly stated to have been a widower 
eighty years old at the time of his betrothal to Mary, 
and to have had already a number of children by his 
first wife. Mary, who, according to this book, had 
been born miraculously, and brought up in the 
Temple, was entrusted to Joseph as his wife with 
express understanding that her virginity should be 
perpetual. The idea that the brethren were Jo- 
seph’s older children by an earlier marriage may very 
likely have been adopted by the Protevangelium 


Brethren of the Lord 
Burial 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


116 





from earlier popular thought; it was perhaps the 
view of Clement of Alexandria (f ca. 215), and was 
definitely affirmed by Origen (f 254), altho he seems 
aware that it was only a theory, resting on dogmatic 
and sentimental grounds, and possessing no claim to 
have been transmitted by actual tradition. Origen 
states that it was found in the apocryphal ‘Gospel 
according to Peter’ (2d cent.), of which only a 
fragment from the later sections has been preserved 
to us. 

The view of Origen evidently gained ground 
rapidly, and in the 4th cent. had come to prevail 
nearly everywhere. Epiphanius (376-377) wrote 
a powerful attack (Adv. haereses ii. 2) on those 
unimportant, or even heretical, groups of Chris- 
tians who did not hold it; hence the name ‘Epi- 
phanian’ applied to it. It accorded not only with 
popular Christian sentiment, but also with the dom- 
inant monastic ascetism of the time. It was held 
by many Latin fathers, and by nearly all the Greek 
fathers from the 4th cent. on, and has been the 
view of the Greek Orthodox Church and the Orien- 
tal Churches down to the present day. 

In the 4th cent., however, an otherwise unknown 
Roman lay Christian, Helvidius, disaffected in 
general toward the current monkish asceticism, 
wrote a treatise maintaining the natural view that 
the ‘brethren’ were the children of Joseph and Mary 
(hence the name ‘Helvidian’). To this Jerome 
wrote a reply (ca. 380), entitled Adversus Hel- 
vidium de perpetua virginitate B. Mariae, and in the 
course of it developed what appears to have been a 
wholly original theory (hence called ‘Hieronymian’, 
from Hieronymus =Jerome), which can best be ex- 
hibited in the following table of supposed relation- 
ships. 

| 





Mary Mary of Clopas, wife of 
Alphzeus 
Jesus 
| 
James Joses Judas Simon sisters 
‘son of Alphzus’ 
‘apostle,’ 


‘the less,’ 
‘brother of the Lord.’ 


The assumption necessary for this theory was that 
‘brethren’ meant cousins. Altho this assumption 
is unlikely, and to most Protestant scholars seems 
impossible (I Ch 23 21 £., Lv 10 4, Gn 14 14 f., 29 15 
appear to have no more bearing on the question 
than would Ro 7 4 or I Co 11), Jerome’s theory was 
attractive to his contemporaries, and for them was 
superior to the Epiphanian view in that it permitted 
belief in the perpetual virginity of Joseph as well as 
of Mary. It rapidly conquered the Latin-speaking 
church, so that in less than a century it was the 
common view of Western Christendom; and it is 
still the established tradition of Roman Catholics. 

The men of the Reformation did not reject this 
current view, and, with a few notable exceptions, 
such as Hugo Grotius (1645, Epiphanian), it was 
generally held by Protestant theologians and schol- 


ars until the end of the 18th century. Since that 

date Protestant thought has gradually turned against 
it, and at present it is probable that but few 
Protestant scholars accept it. 

The main Biblical argument for Jerome’s view is 
derived from the supposed implication in Gal 1 19 
that ‘James the Lord’s brother’ was one of the 
twelve apostles. Since James the son of Zebedee 
had been executed about 44 a.p. (Ac 12 2), that im- 
plication, if accepted, would require the identifica- 
tion of ‘James the Lord’s brother’ with the apostle 
‘James the son of Alpheus’ (Mk 3 18 and ||s). The 
other chief data for the table of relationships are 
found in Jn 19 25, Mk 15 40. But the historical 
constructions based on these passages crumble un-— 
der analysis; while many improbabilities in detail 
combine with the indication (Jn 7 5; Mk 3 21, 31,) 
that Jesus’ brethren did not believe on him in the 
period when the apostles were chosen, to make Je- 
rome’s theory unacceptable. 

Since both the Epiphanian and (with increasing 
dominance) the Helvidian view have been held by 
modern Protestant scholars, and since the two views 
are alike attested for the second century, it is evi- 
dent that the positive evidence in either direction 
is not very convincing. Some of the arguments 
brought forward are as follows: 


I. Arguments for the Epiphanian View: (1) Mary’s 
reply to the angel’s announcement that she should 
conceive and bring forth a son (‘How shall this be, 
seeing that I know not a man,’ Lk 1 34) is said to 
imply that with Joseph’s consent she had devoted 
herself to a life of virginity even in marriage. (2) 
The brethren of Jesus conduct themselves toward 
Him with a spirit of superiority natural to older 
brothers, presuming to control His conduct (Mk 
3 21 with 31 and |/s) and advise Him in a faultfinding 
way (Jn 7 2 f.). (8) At the Cross Jesus commits 
His mother to the care of (His cousin?) John (Jn 
19 26 f.), which would be more natural on His part 
if His ‘brethren’ were not Mary’s own children. 
(4) In addition to these arguments from the Gospel 
narratives, some feel it inherently unlikely that 
after the miraculous event of the birth of Jesus, 
and in view of ancient (but not Jewish) ideals of the 
superiority of virginity, Joseph and Mary should 
have united to raise up seed. 

II. Arguments for the Helvidian View: (1) Lk 27 
(‘And she brought forth her firstborn son’ xat &texey 
coy uldy alts toy cowtétoxoy), and Mt 1 25 (‘and 
knew her not till she had brought forth a son’ 
xat otx éylvwoxev [v. 1. Fyvw] dutty Fo of Brexev 
uiév) do not seem to imply the perpetual virginity 
of Mary, but rather (altho not certainly) the oppo- 
site. (2) These brethren not only lived under the 
same roof with Mary, but are found in her com- 
pany on more than one occasion (Mk 3 31 ff. and |ls; 
Jn 212; Ac 114), which would be naturai if they were 
her children as well as Joseph’s. 

The positive arguments for the Epiphanian view 
do not indicate with any clearness that the evange- 
lists held the ‘brethren of the Lord’ to have been 
children of Joseph but not of Mary; on the other 
hand the passages adduced for the Helvidian view 
are inconclusive, altho the natural impression con- 


a eS 


117 


_ story in Gn 19. 





A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Brethren of the Lord 
Burial 


ee nnntonsnesnnsiihdeenaesd 


veyed by them (esp. by Mt 1 25) is that Jesus, super- 
naturally conceived tho he was, was deemed by the 
evangelists to have been but the first of Mary’s 
children. In these circumstances the student’s 
conclusion as to the actual fact will depend on 
his theological and historical presuppositions; 
nothing in the Gospels forbids either view. 
LirrratureE: Lightfoot, Com. on Galatians (1865), pp. 241-275 
(Epiphanian view, with full citation of patristic testimony, 
and reff. to older discussions); Mayor, Com. on Ep. of James 
(31910), pp. vi-lv (Helvidian view); Ropes, in ICC. Ep. 
of James, (1916), pp. 54-61; Zahn, Forsch. z. Gesch. 
d. N. T. Kanons, VI (1900), pp. 227-363; Meinertz, Der 
Jakobusbrief und sein Verfasser in Schrift und Uberlieferung 
(1905); Patrick, James, the Lord’s Brother (1906); and articles, 
‘Brethren of the Lord’ in HDB (Mayor), DCG (Harris); 
*Clopas’ in EB (Schmiedel); ‘Jakobus’ (Sieffert) and ‘Maria’ 
(Zockler) in PRE’. For transl. of Protevangelium Jacobi, 
see Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. VIII; M. R. James, Apocryphal 
New Testament (1924). AO shia oe 


BRIBERY. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 
2 (b). 

BRICK, BRICK-KILN: Brickmaking was well 
understood among the Israelites, since their houses 
of the more common sort were often constructed 
of bricks (see Houss, § 4), tho the references 
to such are very few in the O T (IIS 12 31; Is 9 10). 
The art of brickmaking was highly developed in 
Babylonia (cf. Gn 11 3) and in Egypt (cf. Ex 1 14, 
5 7-19). From the Egyptian inscriptions and illus- 
trations on the walls of temples, tombs, etc., a very 
complete knowledge of the ancient process of brick- 
making can be gained. The details agree quite 
closely with those in Ex 57 ff. The Heb. malbén, 
rendered ‘brick-kiln’ in EV (II S 12 31; Nah 3 14) 
should be rendered ‘brick-mold’ as in ARVmg. 
On Jer 439 cf. RVmg. (The Heb. malbén, ‘brick- 
mold’ suggested the derived meaning ‘square’ from 
its rectangular shape. ) E. E. N. 


BRIDE, BRIDEGROOM, BRIDE-CHAMBER. 
See MarrIAGE AND Divorcs, § 2. 


BRIDLE. See Bir Anp BRIDLE. 
BRIERS. See THorNS AND THISTLES. 


BRIGANDINE, brig’an-din or -dain. 
AND ARMOR, § 9. 

BRIMSTONE: The Heb. term gophrith, (LXX. 
Oetov) ‘sulfur,’ is of uncertain derivation. Many 
connect it with képher, ‘bitumen,’ of which there is 
an abundance in the Jordan Valley and near the 
Dead Sea. The ‘raining’ of brimstone (Gn 19 24, 
etc.) refers perhaps to conmbustion of sulfur or pe- 
troleum from sulfur or petroleum springs which 
thus could be used as illustrations of the Divine 
judgment, especially under the influence of the 
(Cf. Dt 29 23; Is 30 33, etc., and in 
EK. E. N. 


See ARMS 


N T Rev 1410, 19 20, etc.) 

BROAD PLACE. See Crry, § 3. 

BROAD WALL. See JmrusALEM, § 38. 

BROID, breid, BROIDER, brei’dar: The word 
rigmah, so rendered in Ezk chs. 16, 26, and 27, 
means ‘variegated’ and indicates that the garments 
were of variegated colors, not that they were em- 
broidered. In Ex 28 4 tashbéts and in I Ti 29 riéype 
are rendered in AV ‘broidered,’ but cf. RV for a 
more correct translation. E. E. N. 


BROOCH. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § II. 2. 

BROOK: With only a few exceptions the Heb. 
word rendered ‘brook’ is nahal, which means either 
the valley or ravine in which water is found (cf. Gn 
26 19; Nu 21 15; Job 30 6) or the brook itself. Pales- 
tine abounds in such valleys with thin brooks. 
Nahal is the word used for the streams that run only 
a part of the year, drying up in the summer-time, 
while nahar is the proper word for the larger per- 
manent river. But this distinction is not always 
observed. K. E. N. 

BROOM. See PatestIng, § 21. 

BROTH. See Foon, § 10; and Sacrirtcr, § 14. 

BROTHER. See Famity anD Famity Law, 
§§ 1, 8; and Caurcn Lirz anp ORGANIZATION, § 2. 

BROWN. See Cotors, § 1. 

BRUISE. See Foon, § 1. 

BRUIT, brit (from the Fr. bruire, ‘to make a 
noise’): The word means rumor or report (Jer 10 
22; Nah 3 19; cf. RV). 

BUCKET (27, di, from 7%", ‘to draw’): A 
vessel for drawing water, usually of earthenware. 
The word is used in O T only figuratively (Nu 
24 7; Is 40 15). 

BUCKLER. See Arms anp Armor, § 7. 

BUKKI, buk’ai (P23, buggt), short for Bukkiah: 
1. A priest in lineal descent from Aaron according 
to I Ch6 6, 51; Ezr 74. 2. A Danite (Nu 34 22). 

BUKKIAH, bok-kai’a (P32, buggiyyaha): A mu- 
sician, ‘son’ of Heman (I Ch 26 4, 13). 

BUL, bol: The Heb. term for the eighth month 
(approximately, November) of the old agricultural 
year (I K 6 38). See Timm, § 3. 

BULL, BULLOCK, WILD BULL. See Pauzs- 
TINE, § 24. 

BULRUSH. See Rien. 

BULWARK: The rendering of (1) 7, hal 72D, 
hélah (Is 26 1; Ps. 48 13), properly the lesser wall 
before the main wall, elsewhere often rendered 
‘rampart’ RV (‘trench’ AV). (2) NS, mdiséddh, 
‘fortification’ (Ec. 9 14). (3) WS2, matsdr, a be- 
sieger’s wall (Dt 20 20). (4) Of 33, pinnah, ‘cor- 
ner’ (II Ch 26 15 AV, ‘battlements’ RV). See also 
BESIEGE; and Ciry, § 3. 

BUNAH, bii’na (13, binah), ‘intelligence’: A 
‘son’ of Jerahmeel (I Ch 2 25). 

BUNCH. The AV of the Heb. dabbesheth, Is 
30 6 RV correctly renders ‘humps.’ 

BUNNI, bon’ndi (23, bunni): A personal name 
occurring three times in Neh. The same person 
may be referred to in 9 4 and 10 15 while 11 15 seems 
to refer to a man belonging to an earlier genera- 
tion. It is possible that in 9 4 and 10 15 we have 
only a scribal error (dittography) for Bani. 

EK. E. N. 

BURDEN. See Propruecy, § 9. 

BURIAL AND BURIAL CUSTOMS. I. Pre- 
PARATORY TO Buriat: 1. Preparation of the 
Body. Customs and usages connected with death 
reach back into remote antiquity, and show the 


Burial 
Cesarea Philippi 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


118 





family to have been even then a social-religious 
unit. When death occurred, it was a duty to close 
the eyes (Gn 46 4), probably also the mouth of the 
person. It is true this is distinctly mentioned only 
in the Mishna (cf. Tract. Shabbath 23 5—codified 
about 200 a.p.), but the custom certainly antedates 
this tractate. Kissing the dead (Gn 50 1) was 
probably exceptional. The body was washed 
(Ac 9 37) and anointed (Mk 161; Lk 241; Jn 12 7, 
19 40). It was wrapped in a white linen sheet (Mk 
15 46 and ||s), the hands and feet being bound (Jn 
19 40) with grave-bands (RV mg;. Gr. xetofar) and 
the face with a napkin (covdkéerov, ‘kerchief’), Jn 
11 44. How ancient these customs were it is not 
possible to determine. 


II Buriat. 2. Interment Ceremonies. The 
Israelites did not embalm their dead (cf. Gn 50 2 
f., 26). FromIS 2814; Is 149 #.; Ezk 32 27, we must 
conclude that in the ancient period the dead were 
buried with the garments they had worn while 
living. According to Jer 34 5; II Ch 16 14, 21 19 
(cf. Jos. BJ. I, 33 9), spices were burned beside the 
bodies of prominent men. Later it was the cus- 
tom to bury together with the dead objects which 
had been used by them during life, e.g., inkhorns, 
pens, writing-tablets, keys, etc. Herod furnished 
Aristobulus his funeral spices and other articles 
(Jos. Ant. XV, 3 4). Probably this custom goes 
back to older times (cf. Jos. Ant. XIII, 8 4; XVI, 
7 1). Cremation was not practised in Israel (cf. 
Comm. on 1S 31 12; Am 6 10); the usage was rather 
to bury the dead, while cremation, e.g., of criminals 
(Lv 20 14, 219; Jos 7 25; cf. Dt 21 23), appears as a 
disgrace added to the penalty of death (Mishna, 
Tract. Aboda Zara I, 3 rejects cremation as heathen 
practise. Cf. Tac. Hist. V, 5 4). 

3. Importance of Burial. Not to be buried was 
considered by the Israelites, as by other peoples 
of antiquity, a frightful fate which one wished 
visited only on his worst enemies (Am 2 1; cf. Is 
33 12; Jer 16 4; Ezk 295; II K 910). This is to be 
explained from the belief that the spirits of the un- 
buried dead were obliged to drift about restlessly. 
Even in Sheol the lot of the unburied is lamentable. 
They must shift about uneasily in nooks and cor- 
ners (Ezk 32 23; Is 14 15, etc). 

4. Mode of Burial. In all probability burying 
came usually on the very day of death, as at pres- 
ent in the Orient. Of coffins the Israelites knew as 
little as the ancient Arabs (II K 13 21). The body 
was carried on a litter or bier (mittah ITS 3 31; cf. Lk 
7 14), and was followed by mourners who chanted 
lamentations. 


III. Puace or Buriat: 5. The Grave. In view 
of the belief that family unity survived death we 
can understand the importance attached to the 
custom of placing bodies in a household grave; it 
was thus that connection with the family was pre- 
served after death (cf. Gn 15 15, 25 8, 17, 35 29, etc.). 
It is obvious that in ancient times these household 
graves were located upon land belonging to the 
family and in proximity to the house (cf. Gn ch. 23; 
IS 25 1; accordingly the tombs of the kings down to 
Ahaz are found in the citadel, later in the ‘garden 
of Uzza,’ which in any case is to be sought for in 


the vicinity (cf. Ezk 487). Preferably such graves 
were located under shade-trees (sacred trees, Gn 
35 8;158 3113), or in gardens (II K 2118, 26). Grad- 
ually the habit prevailed of placing them outside 
of inhabited districts and of making use of clefts 
and of caves, in which the country abounded. For 
the most part, however, the graves were excavated 
and the effort was made to place them on the rocky 
hillsides and often on heights difficult of access 
(Is 22 16; II K 23 16); but in view of the dangers 
from beasts of prey, their openings were closed 
with heavy stones. The sepulcher was always 
strictly regarded as family property, in which no 
stranger should be laid. Only in later times, as © 
older views were relaxed, did strangers, in excep- 
tional circumstances, find burial in them (II Ch 
24 16; Mt 27 60). For the destitute (II K 23 6; Jer 
26 23) and for pilgrims (Mt 277) there were common, 
7.€., public cemeteries, where criminals also were 
interred (Jer 26 23; Is 5389; I K 18 22). 


6. Sanctity of the Grave. Inasmuch as the graves 
of ancestors were in earlier times places of worship 
(shrines), and as such, holy ground, it is easy to 
understand that over the tomb of Rachel a matstsé- 
bhah (‘pillar’) was raised (Gn 35 20). It appears 
probable that the sacredness of some shrines rests 
upon the fact that they were burial-places of heroes 
(cf. Hebron, Gn 23, 25 9, 49 31; Shechem, Jos 24 32; 
Kadesh-barnea, Nu 201). The tomb of Deborah 
was under a sacred tree near Bethel (Gn 35 8). In 
later times sepulchers as a whole were regarded as 
unclean, because associated with another worship 
—i.e., the worship of the spirits of the departed as 
contrary to the worship of Jehovah, and the custom 
arose of whitewashing the stones which covered them 
in order to render them distinguishable from afar 
and keep passers-by from ceremonial pollution 
(Mt 23 27). 


IV. Movurnina. 7. Customs of Mourning. 
Upon the news of the death of a relative it was cus- 
tomary to rend the clothes (II S$ 1 11) and gird one- 
self with the mourning garment (cf. II S 3 31 f., 
which originally was probably nothing but a loin- 
cloth. Among the Arabians the custom prevailed 
of going about naked as a sigu of mourning. Wheth- 
er this was practised in Israel is doubtful (Mic 18; 
Is 20 2 f. are not clear evidences of such a usage). 
But it was customary to go bareheaded and bare- 
foot (Ezk 2417; ITS 15 30), to sprinkle dust and ashes 
on the head (Jos 7 6; IIS 1 2), to cover the head, or 
at least the beard (Ezk 24 17; Jer 14 3; II § 15 30), 
or to place the hand on the head (II § 138 18 f.), and 
to sit in dust and ashes (Jer 6 26; Job 28). In addi- 
tion, various disfigurements and mutilations were 
self-inflicted. The head was shaved (Jer 16 6, 47 5); 
the beard was cut off, or at least clipped (Jer 41 5, 
48 37; Is 15 2; Lv 19 27); gashes were made on the 
whole body, or at least on the hand (Jer 16 6, 41 5, 
etc.). It was quite usual upon the occurrence of a 
death to follow the wide-spread custom of holding a 
funeral repast (Hos 9 4; IIS 3 35; Jer 167 £.; Ezk 24 
17,22). In addition there were separate offerings of 
food and drink which were placed upon the grave 
(Dt 26 14). From To 418 and Sir 30 18 f., we learn 
that this custom continued until quite late. Wide- 


119 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Burial 
Cesarea Philippi 





spread was also the custom, while the women of the 
house were sitting upon the earth weeping, for pro- 
fessional female mourners to come and chant pecu- 
liar rhythmic lamentations beginning with ’ékh or 
’ekhah. “Evidently this custom of funereal lamen- 
tation was a religious usage regulated by nearness 
of relationship (cf. Zec 12 10 f.). See also Mourn- 
ina Customs, § 5. 

8. Significance of These Customs. How these 
different customs are to be accounted for is a much- 
debated problem, which has not yet been brought 
to a definite solution. Particularly, it is in no way 
certain that all these customs can be traced back 
to one original idea and practise. Some may pos- 
sibly be conceived as expressions of the vivid sense 
of grief peculiar to the Oriental; but the attempt to 
say this of all, as Kamphausen and others have 
done, has failed. As far as one class of these cus- 
toms is concerned, it is not to be disputed that they 
probably were connected with the worship of the 
deceased, once prevalent also in Israel. This in no 
way means that the Israelites in all ages were con- 
scious of such connection. It is much more likely 
that in this case, as in many others, such customs 
continued even when the original idea from which 
they sprang had long since disappeared. 
LireraTurE: Fr. Schwally, Das Leben nach dem Tode, etc., 

1892: Joh. Frey, Tod, Seelenglaube und Seelenkult, 1898; 

C. Griineisen, Der Ahnenkulius und die Urreligion Israels, 

1900; L. B. Paton, Spiritism and the Cult of the Dead, 1921, 

chs. x-xi. W. Ee 

BURNING. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 
§ 3 (a); BurtaL AND BurtaL Customs, § 2; 
Mourning AND Mournine Customs, § 6; Sacri- 
FICE AND OFFERINGS, §§ 6 ff., 16. 

BURNT OFFERING. See SacririceE AND OF- 
FERINGS, § 6. 

BURY, BURYING-PLACE. See Buriat anpD 
Buriau Customs, §§ 2-6. 

BUSH, THE BURNING: The instrument of a 
theophany in the experience of Moses (Ex 3 2 f.; Dt 
33 16; Lk 20 37; Ac 7 30, 35). The natural mecha- 


(c 


CAB. See WxeIGcutTs AND MEASURES, § 3. 

CABBON, cab’ben (1129, kabbén): A town of 
Judah near Eglon (Jos 15 40), site unknown. 

CABINS: This term occurs only in Jer 37 16 (AV), 


~ for which RV has, more correctly, ‘cells.’ 


_ ‘good for nothing.’ 


CABUL, ké’bol (7322, kabhil): A town on the 
border of Asher (Jos 19 27), Map IV, C6. InI K 
9 13 it is said that Hiram called the 20 cities in 
Galilee given him by Solomon ‘the land of Cabul,’ 
apparently indicative of his dissatisfaction. Popu- 
lar etymology may have interpreted ‘Cabul’ as= 
E. E. N. 


CZSAR (Kaicae): The surname of Julius Cesar 
and then, after the organization of the empire by 
his heir Augustus, the general title of the Emperors; 
hence, practically equivalent to ‘the emperor.’ 
(cf. e.g., Ac 25 8, 11 f., etc.) 


nism of the phenomenon may have been electrical 
(W. Robertson Smith, Rel. Sem. II, p. 193 f.). The im- 
portant feature of it is the revelation of God through 
it to Moses. The effort to identify the species of the 
bush (Heb. s¢neh) with the seneh, a thorny shrub, 
is not altogether successful. A. C. Z. 


BUSHEL. See Wriauts anp Measurgs, § 3. 


‘BUSINESS: This term is used in EV in a vari- 
ety of senses, corresponding to the different original 
Heb. and Gr. terms. (1) As the rendering of dd- 
bhar, ‘word,’ often used in the more general sense of 
‘matter,’ ‘affair,’ like the Gr. Adyos (Dt 24 5; 
Jos 2 14, etc.). (2) Of mela’ khah ‘work,’ 7.e., ‘occu- 
pation,’ (Gn 39 11; cf. RV; I Ch 26 30, etc.). (3) Of 
‘inyan, ‘occupation,’ ‘task,’ (Ec 5 3, 816). Most of 
the other cases need no comment. On Lk 2 49; Ro 
12 11 (both AV) cf. RV for the correct rendering. 

E. E. N. 

BUTLER. See CupBEARER. 


BUTTER. See Foon, § 6. 
BUY. See TRapE AND ComMMERCE, § 3. 


BUZ, boz (na, baz): 1. The name of a region (Jer 
25 23) probably somewhere in N. Arabia, possibly 
the Bazi of the Assyrian inscriptions. The inhabi- 
tants were called Buzites (Job 32 2, 6). 2. ‘Son’ 
of Nahor, and therefore apparently an Aramean 
tribe which may have lived in Buz (Gn 22 21). 3. 
A descendant of the tribe of Gad (I Ch 5 14). 

EK. E. N. 

BUZI, biti’zai (M3, bézt): The father of the 
prophet Ezekiel (Ezk 1 3). 

BYPATH, BYWAY. See Way. 


BYWORD: (1) In Job 30 9 the Heb. millah 
means ‘word.’ (2) In Job 17 6; Ps 44 14 méashdl, the 
ordinary word for ‘proverb’, means a saying of more 
than ordinary significance (in a good or evil sense). 
(3) In Dt 28 37; I K 97; If Ch 7 20 shentnah from sha- 
nan, ‘to sharpen,’ means a ‘sharp’ saying, 7.e., one 
with a ‘sting’ to it. See Tmrmus or BLESSING AND 
REPROACH. E. EL N. 


CZSAR AUGUSTUS. See Auausruvs. 


CAESAREA, ses’’a-ri’a: A city on the coast of 
Palestine (Map I, C 5). The ancient name of 
the site, ‘Straton’s Tower’ (Jos Ant. XIII, 12 2), may 
have been derived from the name of one of the 
Sidonian kings (cf. CIGr. 87). The city became a 
part of the domain of Herod the Great, who rebuilt 
both city and harbor on a magnificent scale (Jos. 
BJ. I, 21 58), naming the city Katckeee and the 
harbor Atwty LeBactss in honor of Augustus. After 
the deposition of Archelaus in 6 a.p., C. became the 
residence of the Roman procurators. C. plays an 
important part in Apostolic and post-Apostolic 
history (cf. Ac 101 ff. etc. and Eusebius, HH II 3 
and passim.) See Plan on page 120. J. M. T. 


CAESAREA PHILIPPI, f1-lip’ai (Map IV, F 4): 
The site, near one of the sources of the Jordan, is 
probably the same as that of Baal Gad (Jos 11 


Cesar’s Household 
Calif, Golden 


17) and Baal-hermon (Jg 3 3), so called because it 
was an early seat of Canaanitic worship. Under 
Greek domination site and district were called 
Paneion, Panias or Paneas (Jos. Ant. XV 10 3, 
XVIII, 21, Pliny Hist. Nat. V, 18), from a grotto 
dedicated to the god Pan (cf. the inscription, [avi 
ce xat Nbugatc). The tetrarch Philip renamed the 
place Cesarea in honor of Augustus (Jos. BJ. II, 
91). Inthe N T (Mt 1613; Mk 8 27) and Josephus 
(BJ. III, 97; Vita, 13) it is known as Cesarea Phi- 
lippi, to distinguish it from Cesarea on the coast. 
Under Agrippa II the city was called Neronias, 
but after the 4th cent. only the old name Paneas 
occurs, still preserved in the modern Arabic name 
of the place, Banids. Je ie yy 






© thidicates Wells 







Oe 
1 05* 


" Baye 
ai 


Di bp 
YY 


Y, 
iy 


Plan of Caesarea, 


CZSAR’S HOUSEHOLD (ot éx tis xatsapos 
otxlas): A group of Christians mentioned in Ph 
4 22, whose greetings are sent to the Church in Phi- 
lippi. Since familia (oixt«) is used to include the 
dependents as well as the immediate members of the 
household it is not necessary to assume that the 
converts to whom Paul here refers were of dis- 
tinguished rank (cf. Dissertation by Lightfoot in 
Ep. to the Phil., p. 169 f.). See also Prerorium. 
JM. 'T. 


CAGE. In Jer 5 27 the Heb. klibh means the 
wicker-basket in which the fowler placed the 
captured birds. 
with living birds, were probably a familiar scene in 
the markets of ancient cities. In Rev 18 2 the exact 
meaning to be assigned to the Grk. gudAaxn, ‘cage’ 
AV, ‘hold’, RV, ‘prison’ RVmg. is somewhat un- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Such baskets, filled to capacity | 


120 


certain, see Beckwith, The Apocalypse of John, 
ad loc. EK. E. N. 
CAIAPHAS, ké’a-fas or kai’a-fas (Kaikoac): 
The high priest before whom Jesus was tried (Jn 
18 14 f.). His original name was Joseph (Jos. Ant. 
XVIII, 2 2), and he was the son-in-law of Annas 
(Jn 1813). He became high priest not later than 
18 a.v. (Ant. XVIII, 2 2), and retained his office 
until about 36 a.v (Ant, XVIII, 2 2, 4 3). His 
adroitness and capacity for intrigue are well illus- 
trated in Jn 11 49 f. He naturally presided at the 
session of the Sanhedrin at which Jesus’ arrest was 
planned (Mt 26 3), and after His condemnation it 
was his official duty as head of the nation to deliver 
Him to Pilate with the request for His execution, 
(Mt 26 57 £.; Jn 18 24, 28; cf. Jos. Ant. XVIII 2 2. 
43, XX, 10, end; Contra Apionem, II, 23;. J. M. T. 


CAIN, kén (MP, gayin), ’smith,’ ‘artificer’: I. 
‘he eldest son of Adam and Eve (Gn 41ff.). In the 
ancient story of Gn ch. 4 by a popular etymological 
word-play the name is made to mean ‘acquired’ or 
‘possession.’ The material in Gn 4 1-24 is not all of 
the same character. The Cain of vs. 12 ff. (a ‘fugi- 
tive’ and a ‘wanderer’) is not the Cain of vs. 16 ff. 
(a city builder and head, after Adam, of one of the 
great genealogical lines of descent). The story in 
vs. 2-15 probably reflects some ancient struggle or 
antipathy between two different types (or tribes) of 
men. That in vs. 16 ff. is an ancient attempt at 
tracing the development of civilization by con- 
necting the discovery of the different arts with 
certain legendary heroes. In the names Jabal 
(v. 20) the ‘father’ of shepherds, and Tubal-Cain 
(v. 22) the ‘smith,’ it is not difficult to see another 
form of the legend of v.2._ The two stories later be- 
came connected, perhaps through the ancient song 
of Lamech (q.v.) which may have been originally en- 
tirely independent of both (cf. ver. 15 with ver. 24). 
The ‘sign’ put upon Cain is thought by some to 
have been the totem sign of the clan or tribe of 
Cain. The Cain-genealogy in Gn 4 16 ff. (J) is 
but another form, presumably a simpler and earlier 
one, which took no account of the flood, of the 
Seth-genealogy of P in 5 1-31 which conforms more 
closely in outline to the Babylonian form found in 
Berossus. Fragments of another Seth-genealogy 
survive in 4 25 and 5 29 (J also, but from another 
source). See A. R. Gordon, Early Traditions of 
Genesis (1907) pp. 188-192; J. Skinner in JCC 
Genesis, ad loc. II. A town in Judah (Jos 15 57). 
See KaIn. E. E. N. 


CAINAN, ké’nan (1?P, géndn): 1. Son of Enosh. 
See Kenan. 2. Son of Arphaxad (Lk 3 36). In the 
Heb. text of Gn 10 24, 11, 12, there is no mention 
of Cainan. Luke has followed the LXX., where the 
name was probably interpolated to make 10 terms 
in the genealogy. E. E. N. 


CAKE. See Foon, § 2; and SacriricE AND OF- 
FERINGS, § 12. 

CALAH, ké'la (N22, kelah, Assyrian kalhu, 
kalah): One of the chief cities (next to Asshur and 


Nineveh) in Assyria, said in Gn 10 11 to have been 
built by Nimrod. It acquired importance under 


121 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Cesar’s Household 
Calf, Golden 





Shalmaneser I in the 14th cent. 8.c. The period of 
its greatest glory was during the reigns of Asshur- 
nasirpal and Shalmaneser ITI (885-824 B.c.). Many 
of the inscriptions of these kings have been discov- 
ered on its site, which is identified by Layard and G. 
Smith with the mound Nimrud, about 20 m. SE. 
of Nineveh (Kuyunjik). It was the first of these 
kings (Asshurnasirpal) who built and fortified the 
town, adorned it with a palace, constructed a canal, 
and induced many to take up their residence in 
the city. Baked 


CALAMUS. See OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, 
§ 1 (3); and Pauzsrine, § 23. 


CALCOL, kal/kel (7272, kalkal, Chalcol AV): 


Son of Zerah, son of Judah, according to I Ch 2 6, 


but in I K 4 31, a famous wise man, son of Mahol. 


CALDRON, kel’dron: In Job 41 20 the RV ren- | 
The other words ren- | 


dering ‘rushes’ is correct. 
dered ‘caldron’ (‘pots’ in RV in Jer 52 18 f.), all 


refer to earthenware vessels, but it is now impos- | 


sible to ascertain how they differed from one another. 
. EK. BE. N. 

CALEB, ké'leb (223, kalabh), ‘dog’: 1. One of the 
twelve spies; son of Jephunneh, of the tribe of Judah 
(Nu 13 6, 34 19). With Joshua he advised an im- 
mediate advance into Canaan. For his faith shown 
in this attitude, he was rewarded with long life, and 
entered into the possession of his share of the land 
allotted to Judah. In Jg 1 10 ff. he appears, inde- 
pendent of all connection with Joshua, as a leader 


in Judah’s conquest of the region about Hebron | 
From Jos 14 6, 14, it appears that | 
Caleb was not a natural descendant of Judah but a | 
Kenizzite adopted into the tribe, within which his | 


and Debir. 


name became the eponym of a subdivision or clan 
(cf. I S 25 3, the kalebbt [Calebite], ‘of the house of 
Caleb’ EV). 
the variant form of Chelubai (I Ch 2 9, 18), brother 
of Jerahmeel. In Chronicles he is designated not 


as the son of Jephynneh but of Hezron, a remoter | 


ancestor, 7.e., a Hezronite. 2. Son of Hur and 
grandson of the preceding (ICh250). A.C.Z. 


CALEB-EPHRATHAH, ké"leb-ef’ro-fha (222 
MMPS, kalébh ’ephrathah): According to the com- 


mon text (I Ch 2 24) this term is a place-name. | 


But the Heb. is confused and the true reading prob- 
ably was ‘and after Hezron was dead Caleb went in 
unto Ephrath (ah), the wife of his father Hezron, and 
she bare,’ etc. see also EpHratu and cf. Curtis in 
ICC, Chronicles, ad loc. Rou NG 


CALF. See Sacrivicze AND OFFERING; § 5; and 
Foon, § 10. 


_ CALF, GOLDEN, and CALF IMAGES: 1. The 
account in Ex. 32: This narrative is the result of 
combining two distinct accounts (J and E), neither 
of which is now preserved intact (see HexaTEucn, 
§ § 12-18). 

In J’s account (vs. 7 and [8] 9-14, 25-29) emphasis 


is laid on the mutinous disorder in the camp and | 
_ on the loyalty of the Levites. 


E gives a detailed 
account of the making of the calf (vs. 1-6), of Moses’ 
surprize as he enters the camp (15-18), and of his 
wrath and rebuke of Aaron (19-24). Ver. 8 may be 


The name of Caleb is also given in | 





editorial; consequently it is uncertain whether 
J’s original narrative said anything about acalf. It 
is in EK that we get the fullest description of the apos- 
tasy as consisting in making a calf to symbolize J’ 
and in worshiping Him by this means. Since E 
was probably written in northern Israel, this is what 
might be expected, as calf-worship was practised in 
the northern kingdom. 

There is nothing improbable in the story that the 
Israelites in the desert fell into this sin. The prohi- 
bition of metal images as symbols of deity was one of 
the fundamental principles of Moses’ teaching 
(according to both J and EH, even independently 
of the Second Commandment, cf. Ex 20 23, 34 17), 
while the temptation to symbolize their deity under 
the form of a young bull, for such is the meaning 
of ‘calf’? here, was one that might have presented 
itself very easily to the Israelites even in the desert, 
not because of their knowledge of the Egyptian 
animal-worship (which was of a very different type), 
but simply because of the wide-spread use of the 
bull as a symbol of deity throughout the Semitic 
world. The kernel of E’s account may then be 
historical, altho the narrative itself may be colored 
by details drawn from the writer’s personal knowl- 
edge of calf-worship in N. Israel. It is probable 
that the bull was a symbol of strength, possibly also 
of generative power. 


2. The bull-worship introduced by Jeroboam I 
(I K 12 28-30): Jeroboam’s motive in this was po- 
litical rather than religious. He was not intro- 
ducing a new deity, since his proclamation in ver. 
98 evidently refers to J’. The plural (‘these be thy 
gods’) is remarkable, but is more natural here than 
at Ex 32 4, 8, which therefore is suspected of having 
been edited under the influence of I K 12 28. On 
the other hand, in the || in Neh 9 18 the singular is 
found, which after all may be the original reading. 

Furthermore, Jeroboam was not guilty of making 
a complete innovation; for the worship of J” by 
means of images was practised before his time 
(cf. e.g., Jg 17 4, 18 17, 30-31). Nevertheless, it was a 
step downward, tending to obliterate the essential 
distinction between the religion of J’’ and common 
Semitic religion. The severe judgment pronounced 
upon Jeroboam expresses the view of the Deutero- 
nomic author of Kings (see Hexarrucn, § 19, and 
Kines, Booxs or). It is the view of a later time, 
after the prophetic polemic (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, 
Micah) had aroused and enlightened the conscience 
as to the true character of such worship. 

3. Subsequent history of calf-worship in Israel: 
Jeroboam I set up this worship at two old and im- 
portant sanctuaries, Bethel in the 8. and Dan in 
the N. There is no evidence that calf images existed 
at any other N. Israelite sanctuary, while Judah 
seems to have been free from the practise—at least 
in any officially recognized form. The early oppo- 
sition to it in Israel seems to have quieted down. 
Elijah and Elisha made no protest against it, altho 
they can not have approved it. It survived the de- 
struction of the Baal-worship by Jehu and possibly 
then took on new strength. Amos’ attitude to- 
ward it is not explicitly noted, but Hosea vehe- 
mently opposed it (cf. 8 5-6—where ‘Samaria’ 


Calker 
Cappadocia 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


122 


a nS ON en UEEEIEESESSISENENNI 


means not the city, but the realm—and 13 2). It 
maintained its hold until the fall of N. Israel in 721. 
(See also Semitic REuiaron, § 16.) 


LireRATURE: Besides Comm. on Exodus and Kings, see Hia- 
tories of Israel, by Kittel (6th ed., 1922), Cornill (4th ed., 
1909), Wade, etec., and the important discussion by Baudissin 
in PRE, vol. 9, pp. 704-713. HK. E. N 


CALKER: See Suirs AND NAVIGATION, § 2. 


CALLING (xAjotg): The primary significance of 
the Greek word is ‘invitation.’ Sometimes the ob- 
ject or design of the invitation is explicitly stated 
(I Th 2 12, unto his own kingdom and glory; Col 
315, ‘to peace’; I P 29, ‘his marvelous light’). The 
word is also used without such definition of the 
object. In that case it signifies God’s invitation of 
men to accept the redemption He offers through 
Christ (Ro 8 28, 11 299; Ph 314). This calling is asso- 
ciated with God’s eternal purpose, but is also repre- 
sented as involving the response of acceptance by 
man as a necessary condition of its completeness. A 
difference may be noted between the Pauline and the 
Synoptic usage. According to the latter it is com- 
plete, irrespective of the response of man (Mt 20 ie, 
but text doubtful). A. C. Z. 


CALNEH, kal’ne (Cal’ne, 7272). 1. One of the 
four cities of Nimrod’s kingdom (Gn 10 10). Its 
site has been the subject of much dispute. The 
Talmud’s ‘Calneh means Nippur’ is generally re- 
garded as untrustworthy. Delitzsch’s effort to 
identify it with Kul-min (Wo Lag das Parad., p. 
226) has not succeeded. 2. A city in Syria (Am. 
6 2, also called Calno, 1323, Is 109) is probably the 
Kulnia (Kullani) associated with Arpad and 
Hadadezer in an Assyrian ‘tribute list’ (Western 
Asiatic Inscriptions, II, 538, no. 3.) A. C. Z. 


CALVARY. See Jerusauem, § 45. 


CALVES OF LIPS: In Hos 14 2 we read: ‘We 
render as bullocks (the offering of) our lips’; but 
the LXX. evidently read a text equivalent to ‘fruits 
of our lips.’ If EV be correct, the phrase means: 
‘that which proceeds from the lips’ as an expression 
of heart devotion in lieu of animal sacrifice. 

A. C. Z. 


CAMEL (973, gamal): The camel is referred to | 


in the O T most frequently as in use in the no- 
madic stage of civilization, as by the patriarchs 
(Gn 12 16, etc.), the Midianites (Jg 6 5-8 21), Job 
(Job 1 3, 42 12), the people of Kedar (Jer 49 29), etc. 
Its use in caravans is referred to in I K 10 2; Ear 
2 67. David is said to have had a herd of camels 
(I Ch 27 30). Possibly the same thing is to be in- 
ferred as to the Pharaoh from Ex 93. At the same 
time it must have been a more or less common pos- 
session of many in Palestine (cf. 1S 15 3; I Ch 12 40; 
and the prohibition of the camel as food in Lv 11 4; 
Dt 147). The one-humped or Arabian variety was 
the one common in Palestine, the two-humped or 
Bactrian camel being used farther east. The 
camel was used mainly as a beast of burden (ef. II 
K 89), or for riding, especially on long journeys and 
over desert country (cf. Gn 24 61; I S 30 17, etc.) 
Its milk was also used (Gn 32 15). The structure 
of its feet, its capacity for going without water for a 


long period—as much as a week—and its ability to 
subsist on almost any sort of pasturage, even this- 
tles, fit it preeminently for hard service on the 
hot, dry, and barren desert. Its wool is woven 
into coarse cloth much used by the Bedawin (cf. 
If K 18, RVmg. and Mt. 3 4). The camel, while 
generally patient and serviceable, is often vindic- 
tive and savage. The word translated ‘drome- 
dary’ (Is 60 6; Jer 2 23) may also be rendered ‘young 
camel.’ On Est 8 10, 14 cf. the RV. E. E. N. 


CAMEL’S HAIR. See Camet; and Dress AND 
ORNAMENT, § 9. 


CAMON, ké’mun. See Kamon. 


CAMP: The word mahdneh, rendered ‘camp,’ 
means the place where the tent is pitched and thus 
indicates the encampment, or resting-place, of the 
tribe or clan, and has no necessary connection with 
warfare. Throughout the Hexateuch it is generally 
used of Israel, whether stationary or on the march, 
as dwelling together in tents. In the subsequent 
O T books it generally refers to a military camp. 
See also WARFARE, § 3. E. E. N. 


CAMPHIRE, cam’fair: Only in Song 114, 413 AV. 
See Pa.esrine, § 21. 


CANA, ké’no (Kavé): A village of Galilee referred 
to several times in the Gospel of John (2 1, 11, 4 46, 
21 2). Since Jesus’ mother and apparently His en- 
tire family were at the wedding-feast (Jn 2 2, 12), 
Cana was probably not far from Nazareth, while the 
fact that Jesus ‘went down’ (2 12) from Cana to 
Capernaum would imply that it was among the 
hills. This agrees somewhat better with the mod- 
ern Khurbet Kaénah (Map IV, C7), ona ridge above 
the plain of el Buttauf, than with Kefr Kenna (Map 
IV, D 7), altho the latter is much nearer Naza- 
reth. Khurbet Kdndh is also to be preferred on 
philological grounds (cf. Jos 16 8, LXX., where 
Kavé is apparently the equivalent of Qanah). The 
hints in Josephus (cf. Vita, 16 with 40), and the 
traditions of the crusaders favor the same identifica- 
tion (see Conder, Tent Work in Pal., p. 79 f.) 

J. M. T. 


CANAAN, ké’nan (1929, kena‘an). I. The son 
of Ham in the ethnological (really geographical) lists 
in Gn chs.9and10. It is possible that Caanan and 
Cain may be but two varieties of the same ethnolog- 
ical-geographical tradition (see ETHNOGRAPHY AND 
EruHnoLoey,§§9and 12). II. One of the old designa- 
tions for Palestine, the land of the Canaanites whom 
the Israelites dispossessed. This term can be traced 
as far back as the Egyptian inscriptions of ce. 1800 
B.c. in which it is used for the coastland between 
Egypt and Asia Minor. It appears also in the 
Amarna letters of c. 1400 B.c. as a designation of Pal- 
estine. The etymology and earliest history of the 
name are unknown. Phenician traditions show that 
the Phenicians themselves were known as Canaan- 
ites. Some hold that the name originally belonged 
to a region of Babylonia and was carried west by the 
Semitic emigrants who settled on the Mediterranean 
coast 3000-2000 s.c. The O T uses the word Ca- 
naanite sometimes in a wider, sometimes in a nar- 
rower sense. In Gn 126, 24 3, 37; Jos 3 10, it includes 


123 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Calker 
Cappadocia 





the whole pre-Israelite population, even those E. of 
the Joran. In other passages the Canaanites are 
spoken of as but one of six or seven different peoples 
dispossessed by Israel (Ex 3 8, etc.). The ‘land of 
C.’ generally refers to the whole W. Jordan land. 
Canaanite and Amorite are often used synony- 
mously. In Is 238 and Hos 127 the Heb. word ren- 
dered ‘trafficker’ is Canaan, the word having be- 
come the equivalent of ‘merchant,’ because of the 
mercantile activity of the Canaanites, especially the 
Phenicians. See ErHNoGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, 
§ 9. 

The Canaanites were of Semitic stock, like the 
Phenicians to the N., and were but a part of the 
Jarge Semitic group (Phenicians, Amorites, Ca- 
naanites) whose ancestors migrated west from NE. 
Arabia 3000-2000 s.c. Their language (the ‘lip’ of 


Canaan, Is 19 18), the same as that spoken in Phe- | 


nicia, Moab, etc., was adopted by the Israelite in- 
vaders and is the Hebrew of the O T. They were 
well acquainted with Babylonian culture long be- 
fore they were conquered by Israel. They became 
subject to Egypt c. 1500 B.c. and continued under 
Egyptian suzerainty until c. 1200 B.c., when Egypt’s 
hold gradually relaxed. The Canaanites lacked 
organization. Each city held itself aloof from the 
rest, jealous of its own independence, and thus fell 
more easily into the hands of the invading Israel- 
ites. The majority of the Canaanites were prob- 
ably not exterminated, but gradually absorbed into 
Israel, which eventually contained a large Canaanite 
admixture. The Canaanites possessed a (material) 
culture higher than that of their conquerors, 
and it was the presence of the Canaanites 
among the Israelites and their close intimacy 
with them that rendered the religious prob- 
lem in Israel so serious and difficult. They taught 
their conquerors agriculture and many other use- 
ful arts and also led them to adopt many of their 
religious practises. The ultimate triumph of Israel 
‘speaks well for the strength and vitality of Israel’s 
own religion. (See Paton, Karly History of Syria 
and Palestine. Cambridge Anc. History, Vol. I 
pp. 225-237 [1923]. See also EXPLORATION AND 
ExcavaTIOoN, § 15; IsrarL, History oF § 3; PauEs- 
TINE, §§ 28-30; and TrRaDE AND ComMeERcE, § 3. 
E. E. N. 


CANANAZAN, ké’’na-ni’on (Kavavatoc, perhaps 
more correctly Kavwatoc = Aram. gannai, ‘a zeal- 
ous one,’ of which the Gr. equivalent is CynAwrhs, 
_ ‘Zealot.’ Some MSS. have Kavavitns = Canaanite, 

so AV): A title borne by the Simon mentioned 
toward the end of the lists of the Apostles (Mk 3 18; 
Mt104). In Lk 615, Ac113 the Greek form ‘zealot’ 
is used. The Zealots were the party organized by 
Judas of Gamala in opposition to the census under 
Quirinius (q.v.), in 6 a.v. (cf. Jos. Ant XVIII, 
11,6). They were intensely nationalistic in their 
aims and during the civil war commited many ex- 
cesses (Jos BJ. IV, 51-3). See also Schiirer, GJV. 
(3d ed.) I. p. 486, note; and Mathews, The Mes- 
stanic Hope inthe N T, p. 15f. J. M. T. 


+ CANDACE, can’do-se (Kavd&éxn): According to 
_ Ac 8 26f. the queen of the Ethiopians, whose treas- 


urer was baptized by Philip. The word is probably 
a dynastic title rather than a personal name (cf. 
Pliny, HN. VI, p. 35). 4 as 


CANDLE. See Lamp. 


CANDLESTICK: From II K 4 2 it seems evi- 
dent that some sort of stand on which the clay lamps 
were placed was in common use, but little is known 
@s to this in detail. In Mt 515; Mk 4 21, Lk 8 16, 
11 33, ‘candlestick’ (AV), RV reads ‘stand’ retain- 
ing, somewhat inconsistently, the AV in other places 
(Heb. 9 2; Rev 112 etc.) See Lamp; Temp ez, §§ 15, 
23; and TABERNACLE, § 3. KE. E. N. 


CANE. See Patzestinn, § 22. 
CANKER. See Diszasz anp Mepicingp, § 5. 
CANKER-WORM. See Locust. 


CANNEH; kan’e (122, kannéh): A place in Syria, 
mentioned with Haran and Eden (Ezk 27 23), other- 
wise unknown; perhaps an error for Calneh. 


CANON. See Outp ‘TESTAMENT AND 
TESTAMENT CANON. 


CANOPY: In the ERV of is 4 5 for AV ‘de- 
fense.’ The ARV reads ‘covering’ the primary 
meaning of the Heb. term (121), huppah). 


CANTICLES. See Sona or Sonas. 


CAPERBERRY. See Dismnasz AND MEDICINE, 
§ 3. 

CAPERNAUM, ka-pour’na-om (Kagapvaotyu, 7.¢., 
Kaphar- Nahum ‘village of Nahum’): A city of 
Galilee where Peter and Andrew had taken up 
their residence before Jesus called them to be His 
disciples (Mk 1 16-21; Jn 1 44). Jesus Himself made 
it the headquarters of His ministry in Galilee 
after His rejection at Nazareth (Mt 4 13; Mk 21). 
That it was a town of considerable size in the days of 
Jesus there can be no doubt whatever. It contained 
the office of a tax-collector (Mk 2 14), a representa- 
tive of the king, Herod Antipas (Jn 4 46 mg.), and 
a military station whose commander had built a 
synagog for the people (Mt 8 5-13; Lk 7 1-10). Its 
present site is a matter of dispute. The view that 
Tell- Hum is the ancient Capernaum is supported 
by a tradition going back to the 4th cent., as well 
as by the excavation of the ruins of a synagog 
there. Further, the last syllable of the name ( Hum) 
seems to be a remnant of Kaphar-Nahum. This 
view has steadily gained ground in recent years. 
In favor of Khan-Minyeh the facts are cited that 
Capernaum must have belonged to the Plain of 
Gennesaret (Jn 6 1-21), that a place of such size and 
importance must have been on a highroad, and that 
the name Minyeh is a remnant of the ancient desig- 
nation of Christians as Minim, ‘heretics.’ See 
Map IV, E6. (Cf. G. A. Smith, HGHL, p. 456; 
E. A. Wicher, in Am. Jour. Archeology, XX, 1. 
90.) Ay.CeZ, 

CAPHTOR, kaf’ter; CAPHTORIM. See Ern- 
NOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. 

CAPITAL, CAPITOL. See Tremp es, § 14. 


CAPPADOCIA, kap’’a-do’shi-a. See Asta Mr1- 
nor, ITI, 3. 


Npw 


Captain 
Centurion 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


124 





CAPTAIN: This term is used somewhat loosely in 
the Eng. Bible (especially the AV) as the rendering 
of nineteen different Heb. and Gr. words, only one 
of which, xtAtzexos, ‘chiliarch,’ was specifically a 
designation of a particular military rank. Most of 
the others are terms expressive of leadership, but not 
technical terms for specific grades or ranks in a mili- 
tary organization. In some instances the more cor- 
rect RV rendering is altogether different from the 
AV, eg., ‘friends,’ Jer 13 21 ‘marshal,’ Jer 51 27, 
Nah 3 17, ‘battering-ram,’ Ezk 21 22. In other 
cases, the substitutions of ‘prince’ (I S 9 16, etc.), 
‘governor (Jer 51 23; etc.), ‘chief,’ or ‘chief men’ 
(Jos 10 24; I Ch 11 15, etc.) are not significant. Cf. 
also the RV in Dt 29 10; I Ch 11 11, 12 18; He 2 10 for 
improvements in translation. In the O T the most 
frequently used termis 1, sar, a term that could 
be used for almost any kind of military leadership. 
Chief captain is used in the NT to render x: Atapxos, 
the technical Gr. term for the commander of a 
cohort, 7.e., one-tenth of a legion, for which the Latin 
term was ‘tribune.’ In Ac the usage of this term is 
perfectly regular, but in the Gospels (Mk 6 21; Jn 
18 12) and in Rev 6 15, 19 18, it is used to designate 
any high military rank. The ‘captain of the tem- 
ple,’ Ac 41, 5 24 ff. was a priest of high rank. See 
also WARFARE. E. E. N. 


CAPTIVITY. See Isrant, Hisrory or, § 7; and 
ISRAEL, RELIGION OF, §. 


CARAVAN. See TrapDE AND COMMERCE, §§ 
2, 3: 
CARBUNCLE. See Sronzs, Precious, § 2. 


CARCAS. kdar’kas. 
SEVEN. 


CARCASS. See Purirication, § 6. 


CARCHEMISH, kGr’ki-mish (¥’)3°2, karkemish; 
Assyr. kargamish and gargamish. A city of ancient 
times lying 63 m. NE. of Aleppoj on the W. bank 
of the Euphrates identified with the modern 
Kala’at near the modern Dyerablus (Turkish). 
The oldest extra-biblical reference to C. is 
found in the time of Thutmose III ca. 1500 
B.c. when its plundering is recorded. Ramses 
II of Egypt, also reports its sacking. It was 
for long centuries a Hittite capital and head- 
quarters of commercial and military activity. Tho 
it paid tribute to several Assyrian kings, beginning 
with Shalmaneser III about 858 B.c., it was not com- 
pletely overcome and defeated until the disastrous 
assault of Sargon II in 717 B.c. (cf. Is 109). Hence- 
forth it declined, and became merely an Assyrian 
dependency. It was the scene of Nebuchadrezzar’s 
great victory over Pharaoh Necho (Jer 46 2; II Ch 
35 20), 605 s.c. Extensive excavations. by the 
British Museum 1911-1914 give it new significance 
in the history of W. Asia. See Woolley and Law- 
rence, Carchemish (Parts I, 1914; and II, 1921). 

[BN Wp ig 


See CHAMBERLAINS, THE 


CAREAH, ko-ri’a. 


CARITES, kar’i-tiz. The RV rendering of a Heb. 
word (kart) of uncertain meaning (II K 11 4, 19). 
The AV has ‘captains.’ It was evidently the desig- 


See KAREAH. 


nation of a body of troops, but whether a proper 
name or a mere appellation is uncertain. HE. E. N. 


CARMEL, kar’mel (9272, karmel), ‘garden,’ 
‘vineyard’: 1. The name of a mountain situated be- 
tween the plain of Esdraelon and the Mediterra- 
nean Sea, so called because of its thickly wooded as- 
pect, which was even more striking in ancient times 
than it is at the present day (Map IV, A 7). From 
the single peak, however, the name passed to the 
range of hills associated with it, thus designating 
the mountainous territory more than 20 m. in 
length, and from 3 to 8 m. in breadth to the W. and 
NW. of Esdraelon. In history Carmel became 
noted for the contest between Elijah and the Baal 
prophets (I K 18). It was also famed in literary 
composition for natural beauty (Song 7 5; Is 35 2). 
Together with Sharon, Lebanon, and Bashan it is 
one of the points of Palestine which especially show 
God’s favor to Israel in bestowing such a country 
upon it (Jer 50 19; Mic 7 14). Its devastation is, 
therefore, a sign of the decided displeasure of J’’ 
(Is 389; Jer 4 26; Am 1 2; Nah 1 4). 

2. A town in the hill-country of Judea (Jos 15 55). 
The residence of Abigail, wife of Nabal, who after 
her husband’s death was taken by David as one of 
his wives (I S 305). Abigail is accordingly called 
‘the Carmelite.’ This Carmel was also the scene of 
other incidents in the lives of Saul and David (IS 


15 12, 25 2). Its modern name is Karmal, and its 
exact location 8m. SE. of Hebron. Map II, E38. 
A. C. Z. 


CARMI, kar’mi (272, karmiz): 1. Father of 
Achan and head of the Carmites a family of Judah 
(Jos 71,18; I Ch 27). 2. Head of one of the clans 
of Reuben (Gn 46 9; Nu 26 6, etc.). It is probable 
that in I Ch 41 Carmi is a textual error for Caleb. 

E. E. N. 

CARNALLY. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 
§ 2 (c). 

CARPENTER. See Arrizan Lire, § 5. 


CARPET: The term occurs in the RV of Jg 
5 10 for AV ‘in judgment,’ and of Pr 31 22 for the 
AV ‘coverings.’ The two different Hebrew words 
(middin and marbhaddim) are of uncertain mean- 
ing, but each indicates a covering of some sort. 

EK. E. N. 

CARPUS, kar’pus (Kéexoc): A friend of Paul’s 
probably a resident of Troas (II Ti 4 13). Later 
legend made him one of the seventy disciples of 
Jesus EK. E. N. 


CARRIAGE: This term occurs five times in the 
AV, and in each case the RV substitutes a more cor- 
rect rendering; in Jg 18 21 ‘goods’; in I § 17 22; Is 
10 28; Ac 21 15 ‘baggage’; in Is 461, ‘the things that 
ye carried about.’ See BaGGaGE. 


CARSHENA, kar’shi-na (Est 114). See Princzs, 
THe SEVEN. 

CART (1222, ‘aghalah, trom ‘aghal, ‘to be round,’ 
‘to roll’): The cart or wagon of the Hebrews was 
probably a somewhat rude and clumsy affair, with 
two wooden wheels, and furnished with.a tongue or 
pole, as it was drawn by two oxen yoked side by side. 
The accompanying cut of a modern Syrian cart 


NONVEUT JO SUVGHO HWHL FO SHAOUHD ON 





NIVNAY MAT AHL JO aNoO 








125 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Captain 
Centurion 





probably well represents those used in ancient times. 
In Is 28 27 f£. the reference is to the ‘rollers’ of the 
threshing-sledge (see AGRicuLTuRE, § 7). For ‘wag- 
ons’ in Ezk 23 24 AV, the RV renders correctly 
‘chariots.’ ) E. E. N 


Og 


Sora TCG: Paes: 
An Ox-Cart, as Seen in Palestine To-Day. 


CARVING. See Arrizan Lis, § 5. 
CASEMENT. See Houss, § 6 (j). 


CASIPHIA, ko-sif’i-a (S202, kdsiphyd’): A 
‘place’ (in Babylonia) which was the home of a 
colony of Levites and Nethinim (Ezr 8 15-20). Its 
site is unknown. 


CASLUHIM, kas’lu-him. See ErHNoGRAPHY 
AND Eruno.oey, § 13. 


CASSIA, kash’i-a. See OrnrmMENTS AND PER- 
FUMES, §; 1 and PaLEsting, § 21. 


CAST. See Artizan Lirs, § 10; and Mrrats. 
CASTANET. See Music, § 3 (1), (c). 


CASTAWAY: In Co 9 27 &3éxtuoc, ‘ a castaway’ 
AV, is rightly changed in RV to ‘rejected.’ The 
Gr. word means ‘not approved,’ ‘unable to stand 
the test.’ 


CASTLE. See Crry, § 2; Forr; JerusaLem, § 
38; and TEMPLE, § 36. 


CASTOR AND POLLUX, kas’tar, pel’oks. See 
Twin BroTHERS; and SHips aND NavigcaTIon, § 2. 


CATERPILLAR. See Pauusrine, § 26. 


CATHOLIC EPISTLES: A term applied to the 
Epistles of James, Peter, John, and Jude. Since 
no one of these seven epistles is addressed to a spe- 
cifically named church or individual, and all (except 
II and III Jn) deal with general rather than merely 
local or individual questions, they easily came to be 
considered by the early Fathers as addressed to the 
_ Church at large, 7.e., the catholic (or universal) 

Church. The AV expresses this idea by the word 
‘general’ in the titles of Ja, I P, II P, I Jn, and 
Jude, which is the translation of xadodAmh, found 
in many late MSS. With the early MSS. the RV 
omits it. EH. E. N. 


CATTLE. See Nomapic anp PasrorauL Lirg; 
SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS; and PALESTINE, § 24. 


CAUDA (Kaida) Cauda AV, now Gavdho: A small 
treeless island S. of Crete, with no safe anchorage 
on its E. side (Ac 27 16). Its present population 
numbers but 70 families. J.R.S.S.*—E.E.N. 





CAUL: The sacrificial term (Ex 29 13, etc.). (1) 
The Heb. ("9D’, ‘the excess’ or ‘that which is left 
over’) seems to mean the fatty mass near the open- 
ing of the liver (cf. Dill. on Lv 3 4). (2) In Hos 
13 8 (Heb. 19, ‘enclosure’) it means either the 
pericardium or the breast as a whole. (3) For Is 3 
ig see DRESS AND ORNAMENTS, § II, 2. See Sacri- 
FICE AND OrreRiInes, § 10. K. E. N. 


CAUSE. See Law anv Lraau Practiss, § 4. 
CAUSEWAY. See Way. 


CAVE: In the hilly regions of Palestine caves 
are very numerous. The O T contains many refer- 
ences to them as places of temporary abode (Gn 19 
30), of refuge from invaders (Jg 6 2; 1S 13 6, etc.), or 
from pursuers (Jos 1016; IS 221, etc.) and as burial- 
places (Gn 238 9 #f.; cf. Jn 11 38). Excavations, such 
as those of Gezer (q.v.) and Ascalon, show that later 
city-sites were first occupied by a cave-dwelling race. 
This is probably true even of Jerusalem (see G. A.’ 
Smith, JeErusAuLEM, Vol. I, p. 283 ff.). The Horites 
(Gn 14 6, 36 20 ff.) were probably cave-dwellers, as 
the word Horite is from hér (one of the O T words 
for cave.) See Horirn. E. E. N. 


CEDAR (M38, ’erez): The cedar so often referred 
to in the O T is always the cedar of Lebanon with 
the possible exception of Nu 24 6 (where the text 
may be corrupt). These cedars were famed through 
out all SW. Asia. The lumber made from them, 
because of its size, durability, and fragrance, was 
used from early times by the kings of ancient Baby- 
lonian cities and later of Assyria and other coun- 
tries for the decoration of their palaces, etc. The 
various notices of the use of cedar in Israel (Lv 
414,11 S 51;1I K 58, 69, 7 2; Song 1 17; Jer 22 14, 
etc.) illustrate its use in other countries. The tree 
itself was considered the most beautiful and majestic 
of trees and was easily made the symbol of strength, 
glory, and regal power (Ps 92 12; Ezk 31 3, etc). The 
cedars now extant on Lebanon are probably only 
stunted and scattered remains of once large and 
magnificent forests. See also PALESTINE, § 21. 

EK. E. N. 

CEDRON, si’dren. See JERUSALEM, § 5. 


CEILING, CIELING AV: See Houss, §§ 5 and 
6 (a). 

CELLAR: In I Ch 27 27 £., the word MINER (’dts*- 
roth, plur. of ’dtsdr, rendered ‘cellars’) means merely 
storehouses or rooms where wine and oil were 
stored. In Lk 11 33 (RV) the Gr. xedxtn means 
literally ‘a hidden place,’ 7.e., anything similar to 
a vault, crypt, or cellar. 

CENCHREA, sen-kri’a (Kevypela): A harbor of 
Corinth on the Saronic gulf and a town of some size 
(Ac 1818; Ro 161). It contained temples of Aphro- 
dite and Artemis, a bronze statue of Poseidon, sanc- 
tuaries of Asclepius and Isis, also the Baths of Helen. 
The mole is still visible. J. R.S.S.*—E. E. N. 


CENSER. See Tremp te, § 16. 

CENTURION (ixatovtéexns [and -oc], ‘ruler of a 
hundred,’ and xevtvefwy [=Lat. centurio]): The 
commander of a ‘century,’ 7.e., a hundred men, the 
sixtieth part of a legion, in the Roman army. The 
centurion mentioned in Mt 8 5-13; Lk 7 2-6 (=Jn 4 


Cephas 
Cheran 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





46 ff. ?) belonged probably to the small military force 
of Herod Antipas, organized on the Roman model. 
In all other cases a Roman officer is meant. E. BE. N. 

CEPHAS, si’fas. See Prermr. 

CERTIFY: The words rendered ‘certify’ mean: 
in II § 15 28 ‘to announce or tell’; in Ezr 414, 16, 5 
10, 7 24 ‘to cause one to know.’ In Est 2 22 the RV 
renders, much more correctly, ‘told,’ and in Gal 
1 1 ‘make known.’ 

CHAFF: The translation of: (1) méts, a:ways 
correctly rendered ‘chaff? in both RV and AY. 
(2) hdshash, ‘dry grass’ (Is 5 24 AV, 3311). (8) ‘dr, 
Dn 2 35. (4) &yvoeov (Mt 312; Lk 317). In Jer 23 
28 the RV ‘straw’ is more correct. 

CHAINS: These were either voluntarily worn 
for purposes of personal embellishment or imposed 
from without as means of preventing movement. 
(1) Of ornamental chains the most typical are those 
referred to in the stories of Joseph and Daniel (Gn 
41 42; Dn 5 7, etc.). See also Dress anp ORNaA- 
MENTS, § II. 2. (2) Of restraining chains those 
worn by Paul may be cited (Ac 28 20; II Ti 1 16; 
but cf. also Ac 12 7). In this case for a clearer 
understanding it must be borne in mind that the 
prisoner was fastened by the wrist through a chain 
to a guarding soldier, whose wrist was also attached 
to the other end of the chain. See Crimms AND 
PUNISHMENTS, 3 (b). Th CAA 


CHALCEDONY, kal-sed’o-n1. SeeSronzs, Pre- 
cious, § 3. 
CHALCOL, kal’kel. See Caucot. 


CHALDEA, kal-di’2, CHALDEANS: The Heb. 
term kasdim (Gn 11 31, etc.) corresponds phonet- 
ically to the form kaldu found on the Assyrian in- 
scriptions. The Chaldeans were a Semitic people 
who pressed into Babylonia from the S. (c. 12th 
cent. B.c.), and occupied the whole seacoast region 
of S. Babylonia. They were not without political 
ambition and from this time on more than one Baby- 
lonian king was of Chaldean origin. The capital 
city of the Kaldu was Bit Yakin. 'The Assyrians 
found in the Kaldu most determined opponents of 
their supremacy in Babylonia (see Mrropacn- 
BauaDAN). Finally, the Chaldean Nabopolassar, 
c. 626 B.c., on the eve of the downfall of Nineveh, 
established himself on the throne of Babylon,thereby 
founding the new Babylonian or Chaldean kingdom 
of which his son Nebuchadrezzar was the greatest 
ruler (see BABYLONTA, §§ 18-22). For ‘Ur of the 
Chaldees’ see Ur, and for Chaldeans in another sense 
see Magic anp Divination, § 7; and Wisk Men, 
§ 1. K. E. N. 

CHALKSTONES: In Is 27 9 the word is used as 
a symbol of brittleness. The altars of idols were to 
be as easily destroyed as if made of chalkstones. 

CHAMBER. See Houss, §§ 5, 6; and Trempte, 
§§ 11, 20, 21, 28. 

CHAMBERLAIN (II K 23 11): The chamberlain 
occupied a position of trust involving political 
duty, which was, therefore, somewhat more impor- 
tant than that of the steward. Here the Heb. saris, 
‘eunuch,’ is not to be taken strictly in its literal 
sense. On Ro 16 23, see Erastus. 


CHAMBERLAINS, THE SEVEN: The term 
‘chamberlains’ (II K 23 11; Est 1 10 ff.) is a somehwat 
euphemistic rendering of 9°79, sdris, ‘eunuch.’ 
The same idea is contained in the phrase éxt tod xo1t6- 
voc, ‘over the sleeping-room,’ applied to Blastus (Ac 
12 20). It was the custom for kings to have eunuchs 
supervise the affairs of their harems. The seven 
eunuchs of Xerxes, according to Hst 1 10 f., were 
Mehuman, Biztha, Harbona, Bigtha, Abagtha 
Zethar, and Carcas. Others, however, are also 
mentioned, as Hegai (2 3), Bigthan and Teresh (2 21, 
62) and Hatach (4 5). To what extent these per- 
sons are historical is unknown. See Estumr, Boox 


OF BK. Ey." 
CHAMELEON, ke-mf’li-on. See Pa.xesriny, § 
26. 
CHAMOIS, shami’ or sham’we. See PALzs- 
TINE, § 24. 


CHAMPAIGN, sham-pén’: In Dt 11 30 (‘Arabah,’ 
RY) the original means a low-lying, open plain. 


CHAMPION: In I § 17 51 this word renders 
gibbor, ‘mighty man.’ In I 8 17 4, 23, it is a good 
translation of the Heb. S:7377°™'S, ‘man of the 
middle places,’ 7.e., the man who stands between 
two armies to decide the case of one against the 
other. See also WARFARE, § 4. 

CHANAAN, ké’nan (Xavéav): The AV spelling 
for Canaan (q.v.) in Ac 711, 13 19. 


CHANCELLOR: The title of Rehum, Ezr 4 8-17. 
The exact significance of the Aram. OY)" 2Y3, ‘mas- 
ter of taste, judgment, command,’ is obscure. Most 
modern scholars take it in the sense of ‘chief official,’ 
Batten in ICC renders ‘reporter.’ (see REHUM). 


CHANGE OF RAIMENT. See Dress anp 
ORNAMENT, § 5. 

CHANGER. See Trapr anp Commences, § 3. 

CHANT. See Music, § 5. 

CHAPEL: The AV rendering of miqddsh, ‘sanc- 
tuary,’ in Am 7 13. 

CHAPITER. See TEempte, § 14. 

CHAPLET. The RV at Pr 1 9 of the Heb. 
liwyath, ‘wreath.’ 

CHAPMAN. See TrapE anp Commences, § 3. 

CHAPT (Jer 14 4, AV; ‘cracked,’ RV): The 
Heb. term hatta@h means ‘broken,’ ‘terrified,’ or ‘dis- 
mayed.’ 

CHARASHIM, kar’a-shim. See Gr-HARASHIM. 

CHARGER. See PLatTEr. 

CHARIOT. See Warrars, § 4; and ARMS AND 
Armor, § 6. 

CHARIOT HORSE. See Arms anp ARMOR; 
§ 6; and Horskr. 

CHARITY: The AV rendering in about 28 pas- 
sages in Paul’s Epistles, the Catholic Epistles, and 
Revelation of the very frequent Gr. éyéry, ‘love,’ 
in the sense of ‘Christian love for one’s fellow men.’ 
‘Charity,’ without doubt, crept into the Eng. Bible 
from the Latin Vulgate, in which cariias was often 
used to render dy&éxn. Caritas, however, means 
‘dearness,’ ‘high esteem,’ rather than ‘love’ in the 


126 


= - 


127 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Cephas 
Cheran 





broad sense of the Gr. éyéxn; consequently charity 
should not be used to render dy&xy, since, in the 
modern English, it is not synonymous with love. 
See also Love. S. D.—M. W. J. 


CHARM, CHARMER. See Maaic anp Dyiv1- 
NATION, § 3. 

CHARRAN, kar’an (Xappdv, Ac 7 2, 4): The AV 
spelling for Haran (q.v.). 


CHASTE (ayvéc, ‘unsullied’): Used to indicate 
inward, personal purity which shrinks from con- 
tamination or pollution, consequently free (1) from 
imperfection generally (I P 3 2); (2) from carnality 
(II Co 11 2, ‘pure’ RV; Tit 25). S. D—E.E.N. 


CHASTEN, CHASTENING, CHASTISEMENT, 
CORRECT, CORRECTION. These words in the 
O T are usually translations of the Hebrew ydsar, 
miusar, or of yakhah. The latter word is more com- 
monly translated ‘reprove’ or ‘rebuke,’ but appears 
several times in late literature under one of the 
above terms. The underlying idea of ydsar is that 
of discipline or moral training. Chastisement may 
be included since the Hebrew moralists were accus- 
tomed to commend the rod as one of the most im- 
portant instruments of education. See numerous 
passages in Pr. But the idea of instruction as a 
part of discipline is found in Dt 4, 37, 85, 11 2, in all 
of which ‘discipline’ should be the translation. 
God is entreated not to chasten in anger, Ps 6 1, 
38 1; but it is recognized that punishment for sin is 
a necessary part of God’s training, as it is of the 
parents’ (cf. Ps 94 12; Pr. 3, 11, 12, etc.) 

In the N T the Greek words are xatdefe and 
matdebw. In classical Greek these words covered 
simply the physical and mental education of the 
boy (xatcs), but as they were used in the LXX to 
translate ydsar and misdr they came to have the 
additional idea of moral education, and are used 
much as the above words in the O T. There is a 
beautiful description of the results of chastisement 
in He. 12 5-11. In II Ti 316 ‘correction’ is the trans- 
lation of another word which means ‘a setting 
straight,’ and xatdela is translated ‘instruction.’ 

E.. Cub. 

CHEBAR, ki’bdr (139, kebhar): Assyr. ka-ba-ru; 
A river by which Ezekiel and the exiles dwelt in 
Babylonia (Ezk 11, 3, 3 15, etc.), now identified as 
a navigable canal, Kabaru, just E. of the ancient 
site of Nippur adjoining one of the great ship canals 
of Babylonia. 1 AE bad 


CHECKER-WORK. See Tremp e, § 14. 


CHEDORLAOMER, ked’or-lo-d’mar (7992773, 
_ Xodo0AAcy6u0e, LXX). A king of Elam, mentioned 
in Gen ch. 14 as one of the leaders of an invasion of 
of Palestine in the time of Abraham. The name has 
not yet been found upon any Oriental inscription, 
but it is correctly compounded of Elamite elements, 
and there is no reason to doubt that it once existed 
entire. The first part of it is a good Elamite word 
Kudur which means ‘servant’ and is represented in 
the Elamite names Kudur-Nankhundi, Kudur- 
Mabug and Kudur-Ellil. The second part of the 
name appears as the name of an Elamite god 
La-ga-ma-ru and La-ga-ma-ri, and the whole name 


would therefore be Kudur-Lagamaru, or ‘Servant 
of (the god) Lagamar,’ and this form for the name 
finds confirmation in the Greek. The determina- 
tion of the name is important, but it does not solve 
questions about the historical situation. The 
Genesis narrative portrays a movement into the 
W. from the E. in which an Elamite king, named 
Chedorlaomer, whose name has not yet been found 
in Elamite or Babylonian documents is a leader 
against petty kings or princes in Palestine. After 
a preliminary success and the sacking of Sodom 
and Gomorrah he is defeated in a night surprize by 
small forces under the leadership of Abraham. No 
confirmation of the story has yet appeared, but on 
the other hand no contradiction has been secured 
by those who have doubted its historical character. 
Nor is there sound reason for doubt. It is known 
that Elam had contacts both with Babylonia and 
with Palestine, and there is no inherent improbabil- 
ity in the main outlines of the narrative. See also 
AMRAPHEL; ArRIocH; and TIDAL. Ru Walk. 


CHEESE. See Foon, § 6. 


CHELAL, ki’lal (73, klal): One of the ‘sons 
of Pahath-moab’ who married a foreign wife (Ezr 
10 30.) 

CHELLOUGA, kel’ti. See CHELvuat. 

CHELUB. ki'lub (3173, klabh, another form of 
Caleb): 1. The ancestral head of a clan of Judah, 
possibly a place-name (I Ch 411). 2. The father of 
Ezri, one of David’s officers (I Ch 27 26). 


CHELUBAI, ki-li’bai. See Ca.zs. 

CHELUHI, ki-li’hai Cm, keltht, Chelluh, AV): 
One of the ‘sons of Bani’ who had taken a foreign 
wife (Ezr 10 35). 

CHEMARIM, kem’s-rim. See PrigstHoop, § 2 


CHEMOSH, ki’mosgh (¥1D3, kemédsh): The na- 
tional deity of the Moabites. See Sremriric RE- 
LIGION, § 17. 


CHENAANAH, ki-né-a-na (72929, kena‘anah): 
1. Father of the court prophet Zedekiah (I K 22 11, 
24; II Ch 18 10, 23). 2. Head of a Benjamite family 
(I Ch 7 10). 


CHENANI, ki-né/nai (37, k¢ndnz): One of the 
assistants at the reading of the Law (Neh 9 4). 


CHENANIAH, ken”a-nai’a (177219, kenanyahi), 
‘J” establishes’: 1. A prominent Levite musician 
(I Ch 15 22, 27). 2. One of David’s officers (I Ch 
26 29). 

CHEPHAR-AMMONI, ki’far-am/an-ai (127 
ONT, k*phar ha‘ammoni, Chephar-Hammoni, 
AV), ‘village of the Ammonites’: A town of Ben- 
jamin (Jos 18 24), perhaps the mod. Kefr And, Map 
Ill, F 5. EK. E. N. 

CHEPHIRAH, ki-fai’ra (1729, kephirah): One 
of the cities of the Gibeonites (Jos 9 17), later as- 
signed to Benjamin (Jos 18 26) and reoccupied after 
the Exile (Ezr 2 25; Neh 7 29), Map, II EF 1. 


CHERAN, ki’ron (11, k*ran): A Horite clan (?) 
(Gn 36 26; I Ch 1 41). 


Cherethites 
Chorazin 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


128 





CHERETHITES, ker’1-thaits (19, kerétht): The 
name of a people in the S. of Philistia, perhaps a 
division of the Philistines themselves (I 8 30 14; Ezk 
2516; Zeph 25). The word may indicate the Cretan 
origin of a portion of the Philistine population. The 
Cherethites and Pelethites are frequently mentioned 
as composing David’s body-guard (IIS 8 18, 15 18, ete 


The word Pelethite Cn? plétht) is probably but a 


variant form of ‘Philistines.’ Thus David’s guard 
was recruited largely from the Philistines. See 
PHILISTINES. EK. E. N. 


CHERITH, ki’rith (N°), kerith): The torrent- 
valley or wady where Elijah sojourned for a while 
(I K 17 3-5). The statement that it was ‘before,’ 
i.e., E. of the Jordan, is indefinite and the site re- 
mains uncertain. 


CHERUB cher’ vb (3199, keriibh, pl. CHERUBIM) 
The Hebrew conception of the cherubim varied at 
different periods of history. In the O T they are 
referred to in four connections. After the expulsion 
of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden, they 
appear as guardians of the tree of life (Gn 3 24 J.) 
A different version of this story is alluded to by 
Ezekiel (28 14, 16); a cherub expels the Prince of 
Tyre from Eden, the Garden of God. In the Taber- 
nacle there were two golden cherubim at each end 
of the propitiatory or mercy seat (see ARK). Fig- 
ures of cherubim were embroidered on the curtains 
and the other hangings of this sanctuary (Ex 25 18, 
26 1, 31 P; cf. He 95). In Solomon’s Temple two 
huge cherubic figures of olive-wood overlaid with 
gold stood in the Holy of Holies. Their outstretched 
wings overshadowed the ark (I K 6 23-28). Cheru- 
bim, sculptured in bas-relief and alternating with 
palm-trees, ran in a frieze round the wall of the 
Temple, and decorated the base of the great sea, 
the capirals, and doors (I K 6 29, 32, 35). They were 
figures connected with religious symbolism; they 
acted as bearers of Deity, and were consequently 
emblematic of Jehovah’s presence. Cf. the phrase 
‘Thou that sittest above the cherubim’ (Ps 80 1). 
In the Holy of Holies they were guardians of the 
ark and its treasures, as well as symbols of God’s 
presence, and consequently emblematic of His 
unapproachability. We have a similar conception 
of the cherubim in the living creatures of Ezekiel’s 
vision (Ezk 1; cf. 10 2). These composite figures, 
each with four wings and four faces—man, lion, ox, 
and eagle—carry the firmament which supports the 
throne of Jehovah. In discussing the origin and 
significance of the cherubim, a crucial passage is Ps 
18 10 (cf. IIS 2211). The poet describes the descent 
of Jehovah on the lowering thunder clouds: ‘He jrode 
upon a cherub, and did fly; Yea, he soared upon 
the wings of the wind.’ The function of the cherub 
in this passage is similar to that of the symbolic 
figures in the sanctuary and the living creatures in 
prophetic vision. But we have here also a hint of 
their origin. Primarily they were a personification 
of the storm cloud or wind, and this poetic passage 
has preserved this ancient popular conception of 
the cherubim. Three theories have been held in 
regard to the form and nature of the cherubim: 
(1) That they were real existences, (2) that they were 


mythological beings, (3) that they were mere sym- 
bols. The view that they were supernatural spir- 
itual essences is now generally discarded, altho it 
was long dominant in the Church. The facts point 
to a combination of the symbolic and mythical 
theories as the true view. ‘The religious imagina- 
tion of the Hebrews, working on mythological 
figures which they had in common with their neigh- 
bors, produced these symbolic forms. To them 
they were not mere allegories, but had a real exist- 
ence. As to their actual shape and form there is 
considerable uncertainty. They were winged and 
composite, and consequently have been compared 
to the colossi at the entrances to Babylonian tem- 
ples and palaces. These often had a man’s head, 

a lion’s body, and eagle’s wings; sometimes they were 

winged bulls with human heads. Cheyne thinks 

they were more like the Hittite griffins in figure, and 
hada similar function as guardians of sacred things. 

The Egyptian representation of human winged 

figures, kneeling between their outspread wings and 

facing each other, which were found in the zodiacal 
sanctuary of Dendera, correspond very nearly to the 
description of the cherubim of the Hebrew sanc- 
tuary (Ex 379; I K 6 23 £.) ef. Fig. 160 in Gressmann, 
Texte und Bilder. In Palestine itself cherubic fig- 
ures have been recovered; they occur on the altar 
of incense found at Taanach and also on seals from 
the excavations at Gezer. In later Jewish theology 
they are one of the three highest classes of angels, 
and are evidently the original of the four living 

creatures of the Apocalypse (Rev 4 6-8). 

LirzrRaTURE: Commentaries on Genesis by Driver, Delitzsch, 
Ryle (Camb. B.) and Skinner (ICC): on Isaiah by Cheyne; 
Schultz, O 7 Theology, II, 229 ff.; Jeremias, The O T in the 
Light of the Ancient East, II, p. 124 f. (31911); Gressmann, 
as cited above DAs 
CHERUB, ki’rub (2179, keraibh): A Babylonian 

locality where a colony of exiles lived (Ezr 2 59; 

Neh 7 61). J. ASK: 


CHESALON, kes’s-lon (11793, kesalan): A town 
on the boundary-line between Judah and Benja- 


min (Jos 1510), between Kirjath Jearim and Beth- 
shemesh, modern Kesla, 10 m. of Jerusalem. 


Map II, E. 1. 
CHESED, ki’sed (1%, kesedh): A ‘son’ of Nahor 
(Gn 22 22). Probably the name of an Aramean 


clan. 

CHESIL, ki'sil (7°03, kesil): A town of Judah 
(Jos 15 30) called Bethul in 19 4). See also Beruut. 

CHEST: In II K 129+f.; II Ch 248 f., the Heb. 
’drdn means simply a box or chest suitable for the 
purpose mentioned. In Ezk 27 24 the term g*nd- 
zim is of doubtful meaning. There is no sound basis 
for the rendering ‘chest.’ Rich garments or cloths 
may be meant. , B. ESN. 

CHESTNUT. See Patusrine, § 21. 

CHESULLOTH, ki-sul’oth (Mi?03, kegulloth): A 
town of Issachar (Jos 19 18), probably the same as 
Chisloth-Tabor (Jos 19 12), the mod. J keal, Map IV, 
Ofy és 

CHEZIB, ki’zib. See Acuzrs 2. 


CHIDON, kai’den. See Nacnon. 


129 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Cherethites 
Chorazin 





CHIEF: The rendering of a number of Heb. and 
Gr. terms, all of which express the idea of head- 
ship, but generally in a somewhat loose and non- 
technical sense. ‘The most commonly used term is 
ws, rd’sh, ‘head.’ In Nu 25 14 f., Jos 22 14, the 
Heb. is ’abh, ‘father,’ and RV renders ‘fathers’ 
house.’ For other cases needing special mention 
see Coipr Men. See also Faminy anp FaMILy 
Law, § 4; and Warrarep, § 1. EK. E. N. 


CHIEF MEN: A term used in the N T to render 
two Gr. words. (1) ot xpéto. (a) In Mk 6 21 
(‘chief estates’ AV) it refers to the leading provin- 
cials of Galilee, who doubtless formed the unofficial 
retainers of Herod’s court. These, with the chief 
civil dignitaries (ueytot&ves) and the chief military 
officers (ytAtcexot), constituted the invited guests 
at the feast. (b) In Ac 13 50 it refers to the 
board of magistrates of the city. (c) In Ac 287 it is 
used in the singular (‘chief man’). It is not clear 
whether it refers to Publius as the procurator of the 
island—an official assigned to Malta under the Em- 
pire (CIL, x, 7494; IGSic. et Ital. 601; also see 
Pusuivus) or as the actual Governor of the island 
(CIL, x, 6785), or whether it was simply a title of 
compliment (C/G, 5754 = Kaibel, /GSic. et Ital. 601). 
(d) In Lk 1947it isrendered ‘the principal men [‘chief’ 
AV] (of the people), in Ac 25 2 ‘the principal men 
[‘chief’? AV] (of the Jews),’ and in Ac 28 17 ‘the chief 
(of the Jews).’ In the first passage it is seemingly 
unofficial and has reference to the socially prom- 
inent laymen among the people, who were sym- 
pathetic with the ‘chief priests and the scribes’ in 
their hostility to Jesus. In the second passage it is 
probably official and refers to the Sadducean leaders 
in the Sanhedrin (cf. 25 15, 24, 23 14). In the third 
passage it is more general and includes doubtless 
the elders (xpecGitepo:) and chiefs (&exovres) of the 
congregation, and the svnagogrulers (dextcuvéywy or), 
_ of the various communities into which the Jews in 
Rome were divided (cf. Schiirer, HJP. IT, ii. § 31). 
(2) hyobwevor, which in Ac 15 22 refers to Judas 
Barsabbas (q.v.) and Silas (q.v.) in a wholly unoffi- 
cial sense, simply as men prominent in the Christian 
- community for their work and counsel and instruc- 
tion (cf. v. 32) and so preeminently fitted to accom- 
pany Paul and Barnabas on their return mission to 
the brethren in Antioch. M. W. J.—J. M. T. 


CHILD, CHILDREN. See Famiiy anp Faminy 
Law, § 6. 


CHILDBEARING, CHILDLESS. See Famimy 
AND Famiuy Law, §§ 5, 6. 

CHILDREN OF THE BRIDECHAMBER. See 
Marriace AND Divorce. 

CHILDREN OF THE EAST. See East. 

CHILEAB, kil’1-ab (ax?>, kilabh): According 
to the Heb. text of II S 3 3, a son of David by Abi- 
gail. In I Ch 31 he is called Daniel. The LXX. 
of II S 3 3 reads AaAovta, which may imperfectly 
represent the original name, but this can not now be 
recovered. E. E. N. 

CHILION, kil/-on (123, kilyon): Chilion and 
Mahlon were sons of Elimelech and Naomi (Ru 12). 
They married two Moabite women, Orpah and Ruth, 


Chilion being the husband of Orpah, and both died 
in the land of Moab (Ru 4 10, 1 5). The names 
Chilion, ‘wasting,’ and Mahlon, ‘sickness,’ are sig- 
nificant possibly of artificial elements in the story. 
K. E. N. 
CHILMAD, kil’mad (7272, kilmadh): A place 
mentioned in Ezk 27 23 along with Sheba, Assyria, 
etc. The identification is doubtful. Some, follow- 
ing the Talmud, would read "19°72, ‘all the Medes,’ 
or ‘all Media,’ but this is only a conjecture. E. E. N. 
CHIMHAM, kim’ham (81122, kimhaém): The son 
(probably) of Barzillai of Gilead who was given a 
place at David’s court in return for kindness shown 
to the king (IIS 19 37-40; I K 27). Geruth-Chim- 
ham, ‘the habitation of Chimham’ (Jer 41 17; cf. 
RVmg.) near Bethlehem, may refer to a lodging- 
place or inn erected by this person. Another well- 
supported reading is ‘sheepfolds of Chimham.’ 
E. EK. N. 
CHIMNEY. See Houss, § 6 (j). 


CHINNERETH, kin’1-refh (1732, kinnereth); 
CHINNEROTH, -roth (N17, kinerdth); CINNE- 
ROTH, sin’e-reth: 1. The name of a town (Jos 19 
35) extended also apparently to a district (I K 15 
20). The name is old, being found on the Egyptian 
list of towns captured by Thotmes III (16th cent. 
B.c.), the form there being Kinneroth. Its signifi- 
cance is a matter of dispute, also its relation to the 
name Gennesaret. It was located probably in the 
plain of Gennesaret. 2. For the Sea of C. (Jos 
11 2, etc.), see GALILEE, SEA OF. K. E. N. 


CHIOS, ki’os or cai’es (Xtos): A mountainous 
island, off the Asiatic seaboard (Ac 20 15). It 
joined Cyrus in 546 B.c., but fought the Persians in 
480. It became independent in 355 and later fa- 
vored Rome. It has now about 100,000 inhabitants 
and a considerable commerce in blue marble, anti- 
mony, ocher, silk, mastic, fruits, and brandy. 

J. R.S. $.*—E. E. N. 

CHIRP (occurs only in Is 8 19, ‘peep,’ AV). 
See Magic anp Divination, § 3. 


CHISLEV, CHISLEU, kis’liu. See Time, § 3. 


CHISLON, kis’lon (11992, kislon): The father of 
Elidad (Nu 34 21). 

CHISLOTH-TABOR, kis’’leth-té’bar. 
SULLOTH. 

CHITHLISH, kith’lish (won, kithlish, Kithlish, 
AV): A town of Judah, in the Shephelah (Jos 15 
40). Site unknown. 

CHITTIM, kit’im. See Kirrimm. 

CHIUN, kai’on: A deity mentioned in Am 5 26. 
See Semitic Reticion, § 18. 

CHLOE, klo’1 (XA6y): Paul was informed of the 
conditions in the church at Corinth by ‘them which 
are of the household of Chloe’ (I Col). Itisun- . 
known whether this woman had her home in Ephe- 
sus or in Corinth and nothing whatever is known of 


See CHE- 


her relation to the church. E. E. N. 
CHOR-ASHAN, kér’’-ash’on. See ASHAN. 
CHORAZIN, k6-ré’zin (Xopatetv): One of the 


cities condemned by Jesus for its indifference to 


Chosen 
Chronicles, Books of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


180 





His works (Mt 11 21; Lk 1013). The site is not 
certainly identified; but is probably the modern 
Kerdseh, N. of Tell Hum (Map IV, E6.) J.M. T. 


CHOSEN: The word is sometimes used in the 
general sense of ‘choice,’ ‘superior’ (cf. Ex 147, ‘six 
hundred chosen chariots,’ or Jg 20 15, ‘seven hun- 
dred chosen men’). Ina more restricted and quasi- 
technical sense, it is applied to believers, and denotes 
from the Divine point of view their distinctive char- 
acter. ‘Ye are a chosen generation’ (I P 29 AV; cf. 
also Rev 17 14). In a still more restricted sense, it 
is applied to the people of God as a whole (I Ch 1613, 
‘children of Jacob, his chosen ones,’ cf. also Ps 105 
6; Is 48 20). See also ELECTION. A.C. Z. 


CHOZEBA, ko-zi’ba. See Acuzis, 2. 
CHRIST. See Jesus Curisr and Merssiag. 


CHRISTIAN: The name applied to the followers 
of Christ by the heathen populace of Antioch (Ac 
11 26; cf. Tac. Annal. XV, 44)— a city famous, as was 
Alexandria, forits habit of nicknames. The reason for 
giving it was not simply the extended size and the 
organized form which the body of disciples had at- 
tained, but the preponderating Gentile element which 
in that city had entered its membership and which 
marked it as distinctly different from Judaism. 

As an adjective derived from a personal name its 
ending (-tavé¢) is Latin and not Greek (cf. Zahn, In- 
troduction, § 40, n. 10; Blass, NTGr., § 27.4). If its 
primary form was Chrestianos (Xexyottavés), as we 
might be led to suppose from Suetonius (Claud. 25; 
ef. Kaibel, [GSicil. 78, 754; CIL. X, 7173; also 
codex &, in all the N T passages, and the possible 
word-play in I P 2 3 ‘gracious’ = yenotés), then 
there was a mild contempt intended in its giving, 
Chrestos (Xenotés) signifying a ‘worthy fellow.’ It is 
in this spirit that the name is used by Agrippa in his 
reply to Paul’s impassioned appeal (Ac 26 28), 
whether the form he actually used was Chrestianos, 
or Christianos which came to be adopted by the 
disciples and which consistently is used in the N T. 

In I P 416 the name is used from the point of view 
of the hostile heathen world, and indicates a date for 
the Epistle when the followers of Christ were con- 
demned if they confessed to being Christians (cf. 
Ramsay, Church in Rom. Empire, Index [s.v.], and 
see Perrr, First Eristur or). 

The references in Ac 5 41and Ja 27 are not to the 
appellative, Christian, but to the personal name, 
Christ. M. W. J. 


CHRONICLES, BOOKS OF: 1. Contents. The 
Books of Chronicles, together with those of Ezra 
and Nehemiah, are the compilation of an author 
whose name has not been handed down to us, but 
who may be conveniently termed the ‘Chronicler,’ 
and who wrote probably not before 300 B.c. The 
books embrace the period from Adam to the edict 
of Cyrus permitting the exiles to return to Judah, 
537 B.C.: they thus cover substantially the same per- 
iod as the other great series of historical books, Gn 
to IT K (from the Creation to 561 B.c.); but they are 
written from a very different point of view, and with 
a much more limited aim. Their main object, viz., is 
to give a history of Judah, with special reference to 
the institutions connected with the Temple; and 


whatever has no bearing on one or the other of these 
subjects is either passed over rapidly or omitted 
altogether. The author begins (after the man- 
ner of the later Semitic historians) with Adam; 
but I: ch. 1 consists merely of genealogies, excerpted 
from Gn, leading up (ver. 34) to Esau and Jacob; 2 
1 f. enumerates the sons of Jacob; and the rest of 
ch. 2 is devoted to statistical particulars (genealogies 
of clans and clan settlements) of the tribe of Judah, 
as ch. 3 is devoted to the descendants of David. In I: 
chs. 4-8, dealing from the same point of view with the 
other tribes, the priestly tribe of Levi is treated at 
greatest length (I:ch. 6). I:9 1-34 is on the postexilic 
residents in Jerusalem and certain arrangements 
relating to the Temple. The introduction (1: 11-9 34) 
ended, the history proper begins. The account of 
Saul is limited to his genealogy (1:9 35-44) and the 
narrative of hisdeath (I:ch.10). The history of David 
begins with his election as king over all Israel at Heb- 
ron: all events in his reign of a personal or private char- 
acter (e.g., his crime against Uriah and Bathsheba; 
the revolt of Absalom) are omitted; on the other 
hand, the arrangementsfor a temple attributed to him 
are narrated at considerable length (I: chs. 22-29). 
After the division of the kingdom the history of 
Judah occupies almost entirely the compiler’s at- 
tention, the N. kingdom being referred to only where 
absolutely necessary. This silence with regard to 
the North is significant and is adequately explained 
by the historical situation at the period when the 
Chronicler wrote; it is in reality an indirect criticism 
of the ecclesiastical pretensions of the Samaritans 
whose temple on Gerizim was designed to rival Je- 
rusalem; it is a passionate endeavor to vindicate 
the religious uniqueness of Jerusalem and the tem- 
ple. The writer dwells throughout with the greatest 
satisfaction upon the ecclesiastical aspects of the 
history. The same interest is not less apparent in 
Ezr, Neh; and hence the entire work (Ch, Ezr, Neh) 
has been not inaptly termed by Reuss the ‘Ecclesias- 
tical Chronicle of Jerusalem.’ The compiler, be- 
cause of his marked interest in the Levites, is usually 
supposed to have been a Levite, perhaps in particu- 
lar a member of the Temple choir. 


2. Character of Contents. The basis of the Chron- 


‘icles consists of a series of excerpts from the earlier 


historical books (Gn to II K; I: 9 3-17a is also from 
Neh 11 4-193), with which is combined much entire- 
ly new matter. These excerpts are not made through- 
out upon the same scale. In the preliminary chap- 
ters (I: chs. 1-9) they are often condensed, and con- 
sist chiefly of genealogical notices; in I: ch. 10-II: ch. 
36 (which is parallel to IS ch. 31-II K ch. 25) pas- 
sages are, as a rule, transferred in extenso with but 
slight variations of expression; not infrequently, 
however, the excerpted narratives are expanded, 
sometimes remarkably, by the insertion either of 
single verses or clauses, or of longer passages, as 
the case may be. It is impossible to give here a 
list of all the Chronicler’s additions; the following 
are, however, the principal longer passages: I: chs. 
22-29 (dealing mostly with David’s preparations 
for a temple, and organization of the Levites, etc.), 
II:11 5-23, 12 1, 2b-93 (inserted between I K 14 25 
and 26), 13 3-22; 14 3-15 15, 167-10, 17 ib-19, 19 1-20 


131 





30, 21 2-4, 10b-19, 24 15-22, 25 5-10, 12-16, 26 5-20 (to 
‘because’), 27 4-6, 28 5-15, 17-20, 29 3-31 21 (Heze- 
kiah’s passover, etc.), 32 2-8, 25-29, 33 11b-19 (Ma- 
nasseh’s captivity, repentance, and restoration), 
34 3-7, 35 1b-17 (Josiah’s passover), 21-23 (inserted 
between II K 23 29 and 30). 

The reader who desires properly to understand the 
method and point of view of the Chronicler should 
mark in his RV—by underlining in the case of sim- 
ple words or verses, and by drawing a line along the 
margin in the case of longer passages—these and the 
other passages peculiar to him. He will then soon 
discover that they have a character of their own, 
in language and expression, not less than in subject- 
matter, which differentiates them materially from 
the parts transferred unaltered from Samuel or Kings 

Thus (1) they often comprise statistical matter, 
genealogies, lists of names, etc. (e.g., most of I: chs. 
2-9, 12, 15 4-10, 25 9-31, etc.). 

(2) Very frequently they relate to the organiza- 
tion of public worship, or describe religious cere- 
monies, especially with reference to the part taken 
in them by Levites and singers, as I: 13 1-5, 15 1-28, 
16 4-42 (where the older narrative of the transference 
of the ark to the city of David has been enlarged, 
or, asin 15 25-28 = II S 6 12b-15 altered, from this point 
of view) and most of I: chs. 22-29, IT:8 13-15, 20 14, 
19, 21, 28, 29 3-31 21, 35 1b-17. 

(3) In many cases they have a didactic aim: in 
particular they show a tendency to refer events to 
their supposed moral causes, to represent, for in- 
stance, a great calamity as a punishment for wick- 
edness, and a great deliverance as the reward of 
piety; notice, for example, II:12 1, 2b-8 (the cause of 
Shishak’s invasion), 13 18, 17 10, 21 10b, 227, 24 23-24, 
26 5, 16-20 (only the fact of Uzziah’s leprosy is nar- 
rated in II K 155), 27 6, 32 25 £,, 33 11-13, 35 21-23; and 
in speeches put into the mouths of various prophets, 
IT: 12 5-8, 13 4-12, 16 7-10, 19 2-3, 20 14-17, 37a, 21 12-15, 
and elsewhere. Attention should also be directed 
to the short insertions introduced often into the 
narratives excerpted from Samuel or Kings for the 
purpose of supplementing them from the points of 
view just indicated. Comp., for instance, the notes 
of this kind on ritual, or the parts taken by Levites, 
singers, etc., in II:5 11b-13a (inserted in the middle 
of I K 810), 6 13, 7 1-3, 6, 23 2, 4, 62 (and much besides in 
this ch., altered from II K ch. 11), 34 12b-13; and the 
explanations, or reflections, in I: 10 13 f. (the cause 
of Saul’s death), 21 6 f., 29 f. (justifying David’s sac- 
rifice on Zion), II: 1 3b-6a (legalizing the worship at 
the high place of Gibeon), 8 i1b, 12 12, 14, 16 12b, 18 
31b, 22 3b, 4b, 24 25 (middle), 25 20b, 27a. 


_ 3. Sources Used by the Compiler. One main 
source of the Chronicler has been sufficiently indi- 
cated viz., the earlier historical books from Gn 
to II K (especially I S-II K). What, however, 
were the sources from which the additional matter 
contained in Ch was derived? The notices con- 
tained in I: chs.1-9 were derived, it is natural to 
think, from genealogical and other tribal records 
(cf. 1:517,91). But from the time of David onward 
the Chronicler, like the compiler of Kings, refers, as 
& Tule, at the end of each reign, to some definite 
source where further particulars are to be found. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY, 


Chosen 
Chronicles, Books of 





The source most frequently cited is the ‘book of the 
kings of Judah and Israel’ (or ‘of Israel and Judah’), 
II :16 11, 27 7, etc.; elsewhere (where this book is not 
mentioned) he refers to some special authority bear- 
ing the name of a prophet (I: 29 29, II:9 29, 12 15, 
13 22, 20 34, 26 22, 32 32, 3319); once (II: 24 27) he cites 
the ‘Commentary (midhrash) of the Book of the 
Kings’ (cf. II: 13 22, the ‘Commentary (midhrash) 
of the prophet Iddo’). That the first of these 
books is not the canonical Book of Kings is ap- 
parent from its being cited for particulars which 
this does not contain (as II: 27 7, 33 18): inasmuch, 
moreover, as the prophetic histories just mentioned 
are never cited with the ‘Book of the Kings of Judah 
and Israel’ (tho this must have extended at least 
from Asa, II: 16 11, to Jehoiakim, II: 36 8), and as 
two of these histories are stated to have formed 
part of that book (II: 20 34, 32 32), it is generally 
supposed that they were not independent works 
written by the prophets in question, but sections 
of the great ‘Book of the Kings’ relating to them, 
and hence familiarly cited under their names. 
Whether the ‘Commentary of the Book of the Kings’ 
(II: 24 27) is another name for the ‘Book of the Kings 
of Judah and Israel’ is uncertain; but in any case 
the name is significant; for ‘midhrash’ (common in 
postbiblical Hebrew) means a didactic or homiletic 
exposition, or an edifying religious story (such as To 
or Sus): the ‘midhrash’ here referred to will thus have 
been a postexilic work intended to develop the moral 
or religious lessons deducible from the history of the 
kings. Now this is just the leading motive in many 
of the narratives peculiar to Chronicles, which have 
been apparently derived by the compiler from the 
‘Book of the Kings’; the last-named work, therefore, 
even if not (as many scholars suppose) identical 
with the ‘Commentary of the Book of the Kings,’ 
will have been similar in character and tendency. 
The ‘Commentary of the Prophet Iddo’ will have 
been either a particular section of the same work or a 
separate work of the same kind, in which Iddo was 
the prominent figure. 


4. Historical Value. Much of the additional 
matter peculiar to Chronicles can not be historical. 
In some cases the figures are incredibly high 
(II 17 14-19); in others the scale or character of 
the occurrence is such that, had they really 
happened precisely as described, it is difficult 
to think that they would have been passed by 
in Samuel and Kings (II 38 11-17); while as re- 
gards the speeches assigned to historical characters, 
and the motives attributed to them, these are nearly 
always conceived largely from a point of view very 
different from that which prevails in the earlier 
narratives, and agreeing closely with the compiler’s. 
(II 13 4-12). The compiler lived in an age, two cen- 
turies or more after the return from Babylon, when 
new religious interests and a new type of piety had 
been developed, and asserted themselves strongly. 
The Chronicler reflects faithfully the spirit of his 
age. A new mode of viewing the past history of his 
nation began to prevail: preexilic Judah was pic- 
tured as already in possession of the institutions, 
and governed by the ideas and principles, which 
were in force at a later day; the empire of David 


Chronicles, Books of 
Church Life 





and his successors was projected on a magnified 
scale: the past, in a word, was idealized, and its his- 
tory, where necessary, rewritten accordingly. 
‘Thus it was quite impossible in the Chronicler’s 
time to represent the age of David and Solomon as 
great and glorious unless the moderate figures given 
in Kings were altered to correspond with the ideas 
of men accustomed to think of the mighty armies 
of the persian monarchs or of Alexander the Great.’ 
(W.A.L.Elmslie, p. xv.) Thus the Levitical organiza- 
tion of the compiler’s own time, especially the three 
choirs, are represented as established by David; 
the ritual of the Priests’ Code is duly observed under 
the early kings: religious ceremonies, including even 
some not mentioned in Samuel and Kings at all, 
are described with an abundance of detail suggested 
evidently by the usage of the compiler’s own day; 
David amasses for the Temple enormous treasures 
(I 22 14); and his successors have the command of 
large armies, and are victorious against even larger 
than their own (e.g., II 13 3, 17, 14 8, 9, 17 14-19). 
There is doubtless a genuine historical nucleus at the 
basis of many of these representations; but it has 
been expanded by the Chronicler and thrown by 
him into a form adapted to describe past events as he 
conceived they must really have happened, and to 
inculcate the lessons which he understood the his- 
tory to teach. There is thus nothing improbable 
in the statement that David collected materials for a 
temple; but the details in I:chs. 22-29 must begreatly 
exaggerated. The narrative in IIS 6 of the removal 
of the ark to Zion makes no mention of Levites as 
present on the occasion; but in [:13, 15-16 (see above) 
the Chronicler introduces many additions with the 
object of making good the omission, and in 16 8-36 
places in David’s mouth a Psalm composed of parts 
of three postexilic Psalms (105 1-15, 96 1-13a, 106, 1, 
47, 48). InIK 83 the ark is borne by priests; but in 
II Ch 5 4 ‘Levites’ is substituted to make the usage 
conform to the later Leviticallaw; I K 8 66is similarly 
altered in II Ch 79 f. to harmonize with the custom 
of the Second Temple. In II K 11 Jehoiada’s as- 
sistants in the deposition of Athaliah are the foreign 
body-guard; in II Ch 23 they are Levites, in ac- 
cordance with later usage, which did not allow aliens 
to approach so near to the holy things; a series of 
deliberate alterations has been made in the older 
narrative, and a new coloring given to the entire 
occurrence. In II: 2 3-16 the correspondence be- 
tween Hiram and Solomon (I K 5 2-9) has been re- 
written by the Chronicler in his own style. Other 
similar instances could be quoted. It is also hardly 
open to doubt that both the speeches attributed to 
various prophets, and the representations of the his- 
tory itself, are in many cases strongly colored by the 
compiler’s theory of the prompt and direct punish- 
ment of sin and reward of virtue (comp. above, § 2 (3) 
and the short insertions quoted just afterward). 
The Chronicler supplies evidence of the highest value 
for the ideas and institutions of the age in which he 
himself lived; but his representations of the past 
must be accepted with great caution and discrimi- 
nation. He is not, however, on that account to be 
regarded as a falsifier of history; on the contrary, he 
is a man of deep moral earnestness, and a pleasing 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


132 


and doubtless also a characteristic example of the 
type of godliness prevalent in Israel at his time; he 
simply viewed the past as his contemporaries viewed 
it, and described it accordingly. 

5. Linguistic Peculiarities. The Hebrew style 
of the Chronicler is peculiar: it is marked by many 
mannerisms (some of which are perceptible even in 
a translation), and also by the occurrence in it of 
numerous words and expressions which are not only 
peculiar, but distinctly late (see particulars in HDB 
I, 389 ff., or Driver, LOT, p. 535 ff.). This fact is 
of importance; for it is conclusive evidence that no 
part of the additions can be an excerpt from the 
autographs of any preexilic writing; if such auto-. 
graphs were accessible to the compiler, the informa- 
tion derived from them must have been entirely 
recast by him and presented in his own fashion. 
The speeches contained in the additions form no ex- 
ception to what has been said: these also, even the 
shortest (e.g., II 16 7-9) are shown, by their close 
similarities in both thought and expression to the 
postexilic narratives peculiar to the Chronicles, 
to be one and all the Chronicler’s own coinposition. 
LirprRatTuRE: The standard commentary is still that of Ber- 

theau (1873), to be supplemented, where necessary, by 

Benzinger (1901) and Kittel (1902). The Eng. reader may 

consult W. A. L. Elmslie’s Comm. in the Cambr. Bible (1916), 

E. L. Curtis ([CC.) and W. Harvey-Jellie. W. H. Bennett’s 

vol. in the Expositor’s Bible, tho not a continuous com- 

mentary, contains much that is suggestive and useful, 
especially on the aims and method of the Chronicler. 
S. R. D.*—J. E. McF. 

CHRONOLOGY OF THE NEW AND THE 

OLD TESTAMENT. See New TrstamMent CHRo- 


NOLOGY; and OLtp TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY. 
CHRYSOLITE. See Sronszs, Precious. 
CHRYSOPRASE. See Sronzs, Precious. 
CHUB. See Cus. 

CHUN. See Cun. 


CHURCHES, ROBBERS OF. See Trmpuus, 
ROBBERS OF. 


CHURCHES, THE SEVEN. See Reve.nation, 
Book oF, § 2. 


CHURCH LIFE AND ORGANIZATION. 1. 
The Church not Organized by Jesus. The Christian 
Church as an organization, rather than a Brother- 
hood bound to Jesus as God’s Messiah, Head of His 
coming Kingdom in and through Israel (see Kina- 
DOM oF Gop), did not exist in the lifetime of Jesus. 
Further, altho the choice of the Twelve and the 
references to a Church (Congregation) of His own 
(Mt 16 18), and to His building a temple not made © 
with hands (Mk 14 58), may be evidence that He had 
in view a renovated Congregation (éxxAnole cf. 
‘the Congregation in the wilderness,’ Ac 7 38) of 
Israel, ‘the Kingdom of God’ (Mt 8 11; Lk 13 28 f.), 
He gives no rules for its constitution or organization. 
It is vain to seek such either in Mt 16 18 ff. or in Mt 
1815 ff. Even the ordinance of baptism is connected 
in the N T only with the risen Jesus (see BAprisM 
§ 3); and even if we accept as historical—rather 
than as the Church’s reading of its Lord’s intention 
in the light of its own usage—the command to re- 
peat certain acts of the Last Supper (I Co 11 24f.; 
Lk 22 19; but not Mk or Mt), nothing is said as to 





188 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY | 


Chronicles, Books of 
Church Life 





the manner. The life and organization of the 
Church are visible only after the Pentecostal gift 
and experience of Messiah’s own Spirit. They are, 
in fact, the free product of this great event (cf. 
“What happened at Pentecost?” in The Spirit 
[1919]). 


2. Earliest Apostolic Church life. The earliest 
picture of Church life is given in Ac 2 42; ‘They de- 
voted themselves assiduously to the teaching of the 
Apostles and to (the) fellowship—the Breaking of the 
Loaf and the prayers.’ In these four particulars 
Luke has given the notes of the Church in its first 
days. The Apostles had a unique place in it by 
virtue of their unique relation to Jesus. ‘Un- 
learned and laymen’ (id:@tat, Ac 413) in technical 
religious teaching (doctrine AV), as they were, there 
was one thing they knew better than others; they 
knew Jesus and could bear witness to Him (Ac 1 8). 
Their teaching was given, it seems, in the Temple 
(2 46), in Solomon’s Portico (see TEMPLE §27) or 
Colonnade, where religious teachers of any kind 
could instruct those who cared to listen (Jn 10 23; 
Ac 311, 512). Its character may have been a rudi- 
mentary form of such witness to Jesus and His 
teaching as we have in developed form in the Synop- 
tic Gospels. But the Church was devoted, also, to 
fellowship, xorvwvie (see C. A. Scott, The Fellow- 
ship of the Spirit, [1921], for this and for all it im- 
plied and issued in). Its members had a profound 
sense of unity (éxt +d aicé, ‘together in unity’ 
[2 47] describes them), conjoined with exultant joy 
(ayaAXtactc, 246). ‘None of them said anything 
of the things he had was his own’ (4 32). 

There was no compulsory communism (Ac 5 4), 
but an immense generosity of which the case of 
Barnabas was a specially shining example (4 36 f.). 
Out of common funds voluntarily given, distribu- 
tion was made according as any had need (Ac 4 35). 
A spontaneous and genuine attempt was made to 
realize brotherhood, the oneness of the children of 
God. Of such ‘fellowship’ a characteristic expres- 
sion was the breaking of bread. This was daily 
and domestic (xat’ ofxov, 2 46), and is interpreted by 
the phrase, weteAduBavoy teo9hs, ‘partook of food.’ 
If it was sacramental, it was a sacramental meal, 
and not a sacrament in the modern sense, which ex- 
cludes the idea of a meal. It is not ‘the daily minis- 
tration’ of Ac 61 which is here in view—this last 
is akin rather to a food dispensary for relief of dis- 
tress—but a sacred meal (like that of Jesus and His 
inner circle, hallowed by blessing over a loaf, cf. 
Lk 24 30, 35) shared in by all Christians, such as 
that described in I Co 11 20 ff., and under the title 
Agapé (‘Feast of Charity,’ ‘Love Feast’) in Jude 
ver. 12. What we speak of as the Lord’s Supper 
or Eucharist, z.e. the Thanksgiving or Blessing of 
God over His gifts of bread and wine, and solemn 
eating together the elements thus blessed, was in 
the beginning part of such a ‘love-meal’ or ‘Lord’s 
Supper’ (I Co 11 20 £.). According to the close 
analogy to Jewish sacred meals of this order, pre- 
faced by ‘Hallowing’ (Kiddish) or solemn blessing 
of God’s name over a broken loaf and a common cup 
(see Mansfield College Essays, 55 ff.; E. von der 
Goltz, Tischgebete u. Abendmahlsgebete, [1905]), this 


‘Breaking of the Loaf’ with Thanksgiving Prayer 
came at the opening of the meal. It was only the 
emergence on heathen soil of such disorders as are 
referred to by Paul, which led to the two being sep- 
arated and made in the strict sense a sacrament. 

The other form of Christian Fellowship named 
in 2 42 is the prayers, the definite article showing 
that special prayers are meant, probably those 
associated with the ‘Breaking of the Loaf,’ round 
which grew up the only distinctive Christian wor- 
ship at the first. Otherwise the believers in Jesus, 
‘those who had believed together’ (so 2 44 in WH’s 
text), shared the ordinary Jewish forms of devo- 
tion in the Temple (31, cf. 2 46; Lk 24 53). 

There is no trace at this stage of any definite 
organization in the Church. The Apostles were its 
natural and inevitable, rather than its official, 
leaders; and not only witnessed to Jesus, but had 
the management of the common funds (Ac 4 35— 
5 2), tho the actual daily relief work fell on others, 
but rather informally (see below). The Jewish 
type of thought in the new Israel comes out in the 
choice of Matthias, in order to make their number 
again correspond to its twelve tribes (Ac 1 15 f..) 
All who were of the Church were inspired with 
‘holy Spirit’ the specific Messianic gift (2 16 ff., 33, 
38). In relation to one another they were brothers: 
in relation to Jesus they were disciples. This last 
word is found only in Ac and the Gospels. Altho 
it signifies not only a pupil but an adherent, its 
suggestion of actual personal relationship with Jesus 
as Teacher seems to have caused it early to die out 
(save for martyrs, as specially ‘learners’ of their 
Lord in His earthly example: so e.g. Ignatius). 


3. Extent of Organization in the Jerusalem 
Church. The first indication of more official organ- 
ization is givenin Ac ch. 6: the appointment of the 
Seven. There is no hint of a constitution Divinely 
fixed beforehand, and now put in effect. A new 
need emerges in the Church’s life; and reasonable 
steps are taken to meet it. Neither is there any 
idea that all office in the Church is implicit in the 
apostolic function, and that the Apostles here dele- 
gate part of their authority to what may therefore 
be called an apostolic ministry. The very reverse 
is the case. The Apostles say: ‘This daily minis- 
tration, this serving of tables, is not our business; 
it is not meet that we should leave the word of God 
to attend to it; look out trusted and qualified men, 
and we will entrust it to them’ (Ac 61-6). This was 
done. It is an irrelevant question to ask whether 
the Seven were deacons. Later on,to be a deacon 
was to have a certain office; but these men were not 
invested with an office, they were appointed to a 
function, ‘to serve (3taxovetv) tables,’ which was 
relief in kind. They are never in Ac called ‘dea- 
cons’ (Philip, one of them, is described later sim- 
ply as ‘one of the Seven,’ 218). Plainly Stephen 
had gifts proper to more ‘spiritual’ functions than 
those here entrusted to him; so, too, Philip, the 
Evangelist, did distinguished service in other ways, 
and in places far from Jerusalem (Ac 8 5, 26, 40 21 8). 
Possibly this Board of Almoners, as such, was broken 
up finally by the persecution aroused by Stephen, 
particularly against ‘Hellenist’ Christians, the ele- 


Church Life 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


134 





ment in the Church from which they seem specially 
to have been taken (61, 5,81, 1119). If itis an 
anachronism to call the Seven ‘deacons,’ it is an 
additional anachronism to speak of prayer and im- 
position of hands in their case as ordination (see 
§ 8, below). They were chosen as already ‘full of 
Spirit and (practical) wisdom’ (6 4). Prayer natur- 
ally accompanied their formal appointment (as it 
did all solemn Church actions), which was expressed 
symbolically, in keeping with Jewish usage, by 
laying on of hands (cf. Ac 13 2 f., where equally 
there is no idea of ‘conferring orders’). 


We come across elders in Judea (not Jerusa:em 
in particular), without warning, in Ac 11 30). It 
was so natural for any Jewish society to rule itself 
by 0°32! (zqénim), that the historian takes their 
existence for granted. It is clear from Ac 15 2, 4, 
6, 22, 16 4, where they are mentioned at Jesusalem 
in connection with the Apostles, that they had an 
important place in the administration of the Church 
(see §8, below). ‘The whole Church’ there, indeed, 
is associated with both in Ac 15 22: but the Apos- 
tles and elders took the lead in guiding its delibera- 
tions, and formulating and carrying into effect its 
decisions. In all these passages the Apostles are, 
no doubt, the _Twelve. According to Ac they exer- 
cised a general supervision over the spread of Chris- 
tianity, and maintained in this way the sense of 
unity in the Church. Thus, when Philip preached 
in Samaria, they sent Peter and John down from 
Jerusalem to make sure the new development in 
principle had the Divine approval, and to keep the 
work in contact with the center. The prayers of 
the two Apostles, accompanied with the laying on 
of hands, procured for those Samaritans who had 
been baptized the gift of ‘holy Spirit’? (Ac 8 14). 
As the gift here spoken of was a sensible one—it 
‘fell upon’ them, 7.e., there was an ecstatic burst of 
glossolalia or prophecy—it is not what is either asked 
or expected in the modern sacrament of Confirma- 
tion; it was the proof to men of God’s acceptance of 
any (here a fresh class) into His holy Ecclesia; hence 
to speak of what happened here as ‘confirmation’ 
is one anachronism more. The extent to which the 
life of the Church was consciously under Divine 
guidance is shown especially in the stories of Philip 
and Peter in Ac 8 26, 29, 39, 10 3, 10, 19. Every step 
in its expansion is supernaturally indicated and 
sanctioned; and it is by the ministry of its inspired 
men—by the exhortation of the Holy Spirit’ (Ac 
9 31)—that it is multiplied. Prayer and the minis- 
try of the word are the main duties of the Twelve 
(Ac 6 4): there is no trace of official preachers, ap- 
pointed for this function which thus far depends 
solely on direct ‘holy Spirit’ gifts. 

Prophets are mentioned, several by name (Ac 
11 27, 131, 15 32); also an inspired kind of ‘teachers’ 
(131). Any one might ‘speak the word’ who had 
the spiritual gift to do so (8 4, 11 19). It was, in 
point of fact, unofficial and unordained preachers 
to whom the Gospel owed much of its diffusion 
(e.g. 8 4, 11 19 generally, 8 5-40 Philip); and in the 
most important cases, like Samaria (8 5 ff.) and 
Gentiles at Ceesarea (111,18) and Antioch (11 22), the 
Apostles and the mother-Church supervised and 


approved as they could. Life was abundant, free, 
inspired; tho conscious of its own unity and with an 
instinct for its preservation, it neither was nor 
could be organized in legal forms. 

A singular phenomenon in the primitive Palestin- 
ian Church was the authority wielded by James, the 
Lord’s brother (see JAMES). We have a hint of this 
in Ac 12 17; it isclear in Ac chs. 15, 21, and Gal. ch. 2. 
It rested, no doubt, in part on the special appear- 
ance of the risen Savior to him (I Co 157); but in 
part, also, on his natural relation to Jesus (ef. the 
later case of his kinsman, Symeon, Euseb. H. E. 
III, 11), and on the congeniality of his type of piety 
to the mass of Jewish believers (and even to the. 
Jews generally, if we may trust Josephus, Ant. 
XX. 9, 1, and Hegesippus ap. Hus. H. E. II, 238). 
But even if he was counted an apostle (Gal. 1 19, 
see APOSTLE), his ascendancy was personal, not 
official. 

4. Paul’s Ideas of the Church. So much for 
primitive Church life as moving on lines continu- 
ous with Jewish ideas and forms of religious order 
and organization, while yet raised to a higher power 
by the new inspiration (‘holy Spirit’) due to faith 
in Jesus as Messiah. A more varied scene meets 
us when we pass to the Church in the Gentile world 
and to the abundant information of the Pauline 
Epistles. Some of it is occasional, dealing with 
things as they were in this church or that, e.g. in 
I Co; some is more doctrinal, dealing with the ideal 
of the Church and its life and ministries, e.g., in 
Eph. Only in Paul the real and the ideal do not 
so much contrast, as interpenetrate each other. 
The community of believers in Corinth is the 
Church of God (in miniature) in that city; the Apos- 
tle describes it as cya Xprotod Christ’s body (I 
Co 12 27); and the ideal and eternal Church of Eph. 
1 23, ‘His body, the fulfilment (full realization) of 
Him that is coming to universal fulfilment’ (cd 
TAHOWLA too tae Takvta év m&aty TANEOUUEvoD, cf. 
4 16; Col 1 17 £.), is actually represented in the local 
churches to which Paul sends this circular letter. 

The life of the Church is one because it is the life 
of one Spirit in it; and this vital unity, or unity of 
the Spirit (Eph 4 3), is the only unity with which 
Paul is concerned. But it can not be realized save 
in and through actual Church unity, as distinct from 
factions and schisms in the visible community, both 
local and universal. When he says there is one 
Body, he uses the word body in the organic or phys- 
iological sense. The Church is one body because 
one life pervades it and unites its members; it is not 
one corporation, in the legal sense; or one organiza- 
tion, with a legal constitution, to vary from which is 
schism or death. True Christians are one in Christ, 
in the one Spirit which all have drunk (I Co 12 13), 
or in the common life of Love by which they are all 
animated (Eph 41-4); they have ‘one Lord, one faith 
(in Him), one baptism (into Him)’ (Eph 4 5). 
But it is another matter to say that they form one 
visible organization or corporation throughout the 
world. This was not the case. 

5. The Church a Living Body. To get a pro- 
portioned look at the life, organization, and minis- 
tries of the apostolic Churches, we must start with 


135 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Church Life 





this conception of the ‘the body of Christ.’ Every 
Christian is a member of the Body of Christ,— 
at once universal and particular or localized—and 
every member has his function in the Body. That 
function is the d:axovia, service or ministry, which 
it can render to the whole; and Christian ministry 
is not primarily official, but a function of the 
Body. Every member ministers in virtue of his 
or her membership, and of the specific function 
immanent in the special grace-gift (charisma, 
Spiritual gift, EV) of each member. Such was the 
basis of the Christian ministry. Therein lay its 
primary Divine authority, the purpose for which 
God through Christ gave the gifts for the common 
profit (Ro 12 4 #.; I Co 12 4-7, 11 #.; Eph 47 f.). 
The Church’s action, giving its corporate commis- 
sion to certain of its members to exercise special 
representative functions of ministry, came, in time, 
to add, indeed, something of authority ad homines, 
but only on the basis of its own Spirit-taught recog- 
nition of the Divine will in its members’ gifts of 
grace. Such authority, that is, was secondary 
and derivative. 

Fundamentally, then, God by ‘grace-gifts’ de- 
termined function or ministry in the Church; this, 
by common recognition crystallized into office 
(I Th 5 12 #.; I Co 165 f., 18); and this in turn led 
in certain cases to formal commission or ordination. 
These principles we now proceed to elucidate in 
more detail. Here the chief passage is I Co chs. 12-14; 
and it is a striking fact that neither there nor through- 
out the Epistle do we meet the idea of official minis- 
try at all. ‘God hath set some in the Church, 
first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers, 
then miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, govern- 
ments, divers kinds of tongues’ (I Co 12 98). 
A parallel to this is found in Ro 12 3-8, where also 
ministry is conceived as the exercise of a grace-gift. 
Only, here we see that every member of the Church 
has such a gift, and therefore is potentially, at least, 
part of its organic ministry, which is ideally co- 
extensive with its membership. There is, that is, 
no difference in principle at first between the minis- 
try which we should call respectively ‘churchly’ 
and ‘social.’ ‘Prophecy’ (the most ‘spiritual’ of 
_ functions), and lowly practical service to others’ 
need (diakonia); ‘teaching’ the word, or applying 
it personally as ‘exhortation,’ and ‘sharing with 
others’ deeds of beneficence (cf. He 1316); leadership 
and showing pity—all these equally are treated 
as ministry to and of the Body of Christ. And the 
laws of the ministry (as explained in Ro 12; I Co 
12-14) are the same for all. The first is humility; 
it is only with what we have received that we can 
Minister, and therefore gifts are never to be used for 
vain glory. The second is love; nothing that we 
have received is for ourselves alone; the manifesta- 
tion of the Spirit is given to every man xpdc¢ +d 


sungépoy, in the interests of the whole. Here comes 
in Paul’s ‘Psalm of Love’ (I Co 18). 
6. The More Important Ministries. There was, 


however, a grading of grace-gifts and ministries, 
according to their value and rarity in the Church, 
In the first class came Apostles, Prophets, Teachers 
(I Co 12 28), all of whom ‘spoke the word of God’ 


with the insight implying specially fresh and full 
inspiration. In idea their ministry was for the 
Church generally rather than as localized, tho in 
different degrees, this being chiefly so of Apostles 
and least of Teachers. None of these were elected 
or ordained by men. Their gift was self-attesting; 
the spiritual power which accompaned the exercise 
of it was the only guaranty it had. Besides the 
stricter sense of the word apostle, according to which 
it came in the end to include only the Twelve and 
Paul, there was a larger sense in which it included 
all primary ‘missionaries’ of the Gospel (see I Co 
15 5, with ver. 7, 91-5; Ro 167). (See Apostie), 
The prophet was a man who had more than the com- 
mon Christian inspiration (see Eph 2 20), and who 
spoke the word of God with manifest power, unto 
edification, encouragement, and consolation (I Co 
14 3). The Divine impulse in him was of a less 
ecstatic kind than the gift of ‘tongues’ (glossolalia), 
and could be used more self-consciously; ‘the 
spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets’ 
(ver. 22). Altho inspired, however, the prophet 
was not infallible; and when he had spoken, it was 
for the Spirit-bearing Church itself to discriminiate 
the value of the message given in God’s name 
(I Th 5 21). We have an instance of the sort of 
principle determining this in I Co 12 3; and we read 
of discernment of spirits as itself a prophetic char- 
tsma (I Co 12 10, cf. 14 29). Paul’s injunction not 
to despise prophecies—lest it mean ‘quenching the 
Spirit’—but to prove all such fervid words, and hold 
fast what was good (I Th 519 #.), implies that there 
was already a tendency to look askance at such in- 
spired spontaneity on account of its abuses—a 
tendency which grew as time went on—and also 
as impostors, morally false prophets (cf. II P 21 f.; 
Jude 19 and passim; Rev 2 20) began to ape the pro- 
phetic manner. Prophets, no doubt, spoke often of 
things to come, on the lines of O T prophecies, as 
of the glory to be revealed I Co 29 ff.; Rev passim), 
and especially of the Parousia (cf. I Th 4 13 f.; IT 
Th 2 28.;1 Th 41f.), and may sometimes have let 
the imagination run wild. Sometimes, as in the 
case of Agabus (Ac 11 27, 21 10, cf. 20 23, 21 4), they 
concerned themselves with a nearer future. But for 
the most part Christian ‘prophecy’ was rather pow- 
erful preaching of the deeper aspects of the Gospel 
as present spiritual truth (Cf. I Co 128, 13 2, 14 3, 
6). About the teachers it is not easy to be definite. 
In Ac 131 they are combined, as in I Co 12 28 (cf. 
14 6; Ro 127 f.), with the prophets; in Eph 4 11, at a 
rather later stage, they are more closely connected, 
perhaps to some extent identified, with the pastors, 
as if ‘teaching’ were now becoming a function of the 
latter’s practical ministry of oversight (see below 
no. 8). Probably ‘teachers’ had in a more reflec- 
tive form, acquired through others, something of the 
insight into what is called in I Co 12 8 ‘the word of 
wisdom’ and ‘the word of knowledge,’ which ‘proph- 
ets’ had more intuitively, by fresh spiritual vision. 
Hence the message passed on by the teacher was 
‘instruction’ (didaché) in the form suited to become 
part of the Church’s tradition (paradosis) of truth. 
Thus, tho the gift of teaching, or the right to teach, 
was not at first connected with any office (cf. I Co 


Church Life 
Chuzas 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


136 





14 26, ‘when ye come together every one hath a 
didache,’—a lesson to teach), it would be an advan- 
tage, when once local offices did come into being, 
to have them filled, other things being equal, with 
men who could also render the Church this service. 
In Jewish Christianity both ‘wisdom’ and ‘knowl- 
edge’ were largely practical in meaning, concerned 
with the ‘way’ of life or truth; and probably the 
‘teacher’ was mostly an expounder of Christian 
ethics (cf. the traditional ‘Didaché of the Twelve 
Apostles,’ especially V. 1, ‘this way of the teaching’ ; 
also the use of didaskalos in Ja 31). One other in- 
spired minister is mentioned in Eph 4 i, the evan- 
gelist. As applied to Philip (Ac 21 8), the name 
means a missionary of the Gospel, without the higher 
powers of Apostleship or of Prophecy, as its order 
in Eph 4 11 suggests. In II Ti 45, Timothy is bid- 
den ‘do an evangelist’s work,’ in the sense of ‘pro- 
claim the message’ (ver. 2) of the Evangel, as he 
had learned it from Paul and taught it by his side. 
Far later, the name is used by Eusebius (H. #. III. 
37, cf. V. 10) of missionary disciples of the Apostles, 
¢.e., secondary Apostles (cf. those of the Didaché), 
which is very much the N T meaning. 


7. The Less Important Ministries. The other 
inspired ‘gifts’ and ministries are of minor impor- 
tance for our subject. Paul describes them by ab- 
stract nouns in the plural number—3dvvéuetc, 
yaolouata iaudtwy, avttAnudets, xuBepyycetc, yévy 
yAwscéy (I Co 12 28)—as tho the person here 
were of less significance. Here, too, the order, prob- 
ably, shows Paul’s relative valuation of them for the 
Church of his day. It is striking, then, that at 
first ‘helping’ was held higher than ‘governing’; 
cf. I Co 1615; Ro 127 f. and contrast the later Ph 11. 
The first two we should regard as ‘supernatural,’ 
the next two as not so. To Paul they were all 
‘manifestations of the Spirit’ (I Co 127-11), ‘tongues’ 
coming last because of least ‘profit’ to Church life. 

Powers (‘miracles,’ EV) were acts most patently 
revealing super-human power, inclusive of exorism 
(Ac 19 11.) and other exceptional ‘wonders’ of heal- 
ing or judgment (Ac 5 12, 15 f., cf. 1-119 34, 13 1 £., 
1912, 20 10-12; 1 Co 55; II Co 1212, 13 2£.). Charisms 
(gifts) of healings were healings of a less striking 
kind (Ja 5 15; Ac 28 8). 

Coming now to the less abnormal grace-gifts, 
helps (dvtrAnuers) suggests the practical ministry 
of service (Ro 127; I Co 16 15 f.), such work as came 
later to be assigned to official deacons; and govern- 
ments (xuGepvycers), lit. ‘steerings,’ suggests such 
a function of guidance or administration as came 
later to be assigned to official elders. But neither 
in Ro nor I Co is there any trace of officials. Such 
gifts are freely given by God and spontaneously 
exercised by those who have them; e.g. the house of 
Stephanas (I Co 16 15) who ‘set themselves to min- 
ister unto the saints.’ All Christians were called 
to put their yaefsuece into the common stock and 
no Official organization cancelled freedom, lest it 
should, as Paul says, ‘quench the Spirit.’ The 
last gift specified in I Co ch. 12 is kinds of tongues 
(ver. 28), ‘speaking with tongues’ (ver. 30,142). It is 
frequently combined with prophecy as one of the 


most characteristic of spiritual gifts (xaetopata, Ac 2 | 


4-11, 10 46; 1 Co 131,142). Paul, himself, possessed 
it in a conspicuous degree (I Co 14 18), and thanked 
God for it, but he ranked it lowest of spiritual gifts. 
It is his account of it in I Co ch. 14, and not the 
transformed one in Ac ch. 2, on which we must 
base our conception of it (see also Tonauss, SPHAK- 
ING WirH). It had nothing to do with foreign 
languages. It was an emotional, not a linguistic, 
gift; the man who spoke with a tongue, spoke out 
of an emotional rapture. His ‘spirit’ was active 
in this—as we might say now, his religious nature 
was engaged in it; but his nous, understanding, was 
not. There might be some one present in the as- 
sembly who could interpret this overwhelming 
emotion, better than the man who was subject to it: 
if so, to speak in a tongue might be allowed in church; 
otherwise, not. For, after all, unlike prophecy, 
it was a ‘sign’ meant for non-believers rather than 
believers (14 22). It is clear from Ac 2 11, 10 46; 
I Co 14 16, that in its general character ‘speaking 
with tongues’ was an ecstasy of praise, a magnify- 
ing of God and His mighty works of redemption, 
a thanksgiving to which Amen was the natural 
sequel. Its dangers were evident, and Paul warns 
against them. ‘They lay partly in the temptation 
to indulge in a sub-personal religious experience; 
partly in a tendancy to vanity, making a display of 
one’s ‘supernatural’ gift without regard to others’ 
good. Hence Paul discouraged ‘tongues’ in favor 
of the intelligible gift of prophecy, by which one 
could build up not only himself but also the Church 
(I Co 14 3); and in course of time it died out. 


8. Organization of Local Churches. The min- 
istry which is a function of Church-membership 
and depends on the free exercise of spiritual gifts, 
tho it is the vital one, on which the being of the 
Church depends, is not the only one. No society 
can long live and act without some kind of more 
formal organization, some official ministers to act 
as its representatives; and the beginnings of such a 
ministry can be traced in the N T. We have seen 
that there were elders in the church at Jerusalem; 
and in Ac 14 23 we read that Paul and Barnabas 
appointed elders in every church founded on their 
first journey. On the mode of appointment Luke 
is not quite explicit (see Ramsay, St. Paul The 
Traveler, pp. 120 ff.). Probably (cf. 6 3) the Apos- 
tles described the kind of men wanted and the church 
chose them (what follows may all refer to the 
churches, not the elders, cf. 20 32). The duties of 
elders are not defined, but can be inferred indirectly. 
It is clear from 20 28, compared with 20 17, that 
they were mainly pastoral—that is, duties of moral 
supervision. ‘The elders of Ephesus are exhorted 
to take heed to the flock of God in which the Holy 
Spirit has made them bishops (éxtcxorot, over- 
seers mg.)—here used to express function, not 
office—and to shepherd the Church of God. So in 
I P 51, Peter exhorts ‘elders’ among his readers 
(here, probably, simply ‘seniors,’ as the Apostle 
calls himself their ‘fellow-elder,’ cf. ‘juniors’ in ver. 
5; see I Clem. I. 3; Polycarp, ad Phil. V. 1, 3 for 
such age-distinctions in the Church). to shepherd 
the flock of God (‘exercising the over-sight,’ 
émtoxonodyees, is absent from the best MSS.). Broadly 


hen, 





137 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Church Life 
Chuzas 





speaking, the antecedents of the name xpecGbtepoc, 
‘elder’, were more Hebrew, and those of ‘bishop’ 
more Greek (see Concordance to LXX. s.v.). The 
facts justify us in saying that ‘elder’ is a title of dig- 
nity, and ‘bishop’ a.corresponding title of function. 
The persons were at first and for long the same. In 
every church there were several men who had the 
rank of elders and the duties of bishop (in Ph 
11 ‘with bishops,’ without the article), that is, ‘over- 
sight’ (cf. Tit 1 5-7). Pastors (Eph 4 11) is a more 
pictorial name for the same persons (elders) viewed 
in another aspect (see I P 2 25, ‘the pastur and bishop 
of your souls’). Moral supervision and discipline 
were their preeminent concern. 


The edifying of the Church by prophesying, 
teaching, praise and public worship generally 
(eucharistic prayer was the special function of 
‘prophets,’ Did. X. 7), belonged at first to the 
apostles, prophets and teachers who might visit it, 
or to the free exercise of their spiritual gifts by mem- 
bers generally (I Co 14 26). In course of time, 
however, men would often be chosen as elders who 
possessed, also, other gifts useful to the Church; 
and, as the enthusiastic inspiration waned, the con- 
duct of the public worship—and not only the func- 
tion of presiding and overseeing its order—and es- 
pecially the administration of the sacraments 
(in which the Church must act through authorized 
representatives, if all is to be done decorously and 
in order), would fall into their hands. Thus we see 
the same class of ministers called ‘pastors and teach- 
ers,’and contrasted with the non-local ministry— 
apostles, prophets, and evangelists—in Eph 4 11. 
Elders;‘who labor in word and teaching,’ as well as 
in their more proper function of moral over-sight 
(episkopé, 31), are to be reckoned worthy of excep- 
tional honor (I Ti 5 17, cf. 3 2 d3:3axtixbd¢ ‘apt to 
teach’). The whole body of elders in a local church 
was called the specQutéorov, the presbytery 
(I Ti 414). At Lystra it joined with Paul in laying 
hands on Timothy, when he was set apart as an 
evangelist. The gift of God given in this ordina- 
tion (I Ti 4 14; II Ti 16) must be interpreted of 
Timothy’s fresh experience at the time, as condi- 
tioned by (8«) prophesy (revealing its latent pres- 
ence), on the one hand, and the solemn laying on of 
hands by Paul and the local presbytery, on the other. 
It meant a greater fulness of the spirit of courage, 
love, and self-discipline (ver. 7), fitting him better 
for his task, and coming to him naturally by the 
grace of God in that impressive hour. Probably 
in many cases like Timothy’s, there were ‘prophecies 
leading the way to’ (I Ti 1 18; cf. J Clem. XLII, 4 
_ ‘testing them by the Spirit’) the men to be chosen; 
that is, inspired voices named fit persons for any 
particular task (Ac 13 2). But, tho they were ap- 
pointed because they were fit, such persons got a new 
degree of fitness through the experiences connected 
with their appointment and setting apart to a given 
ministry. 

In the later N T books (Ph 11; I Ti 3 1-13), we find 
side by side with elders a set of officers called tech- 
nically deacons. This word is applicable to every 
minister of the Church, from the apostle down, but 
in its special sense, used of women as well as men 


(Ro 161; I Ti 3 11), it indicates a class of officers— 
acting in association with, but of less authority 
than, the elder-bishops or pastors—who had duties 
connected with the Church’s charities, its care of the 
poor, strangers, etc. Their qualifications are all 
those of character and common sense; nothing is 
said of teaching. When, in course of time, the 
‘elder-bishops’ succeeded ‘prophets’ in the lead of the 
local church’s corporate (and not merely domestic) 
Eucharistic worship—and particularly in offering 
with prayer the church’s ‘gifts’ of thanksgiving— 
deacons shared in this ministry, as assistants in the 


handling of the elements (Did. xiv-xv. 2 shows the 


transition most clearly; cf. I Clem. XLIV). 

Men like Timothy at Ephesus or like Titus in 
Crete were not church officers, but apostolic dele- 
gates; they do not represent the normal organiza- 
tion of the Church, but help us to see how the or- 
ganizing was directed. The development of the 
monarchial episcopate or pastorate, as distinctive 
from the collective oversight just explained, lies 
beyond the limits of the N T (cf. Hort, as below, 
p. 232). 

9. Essential Unity of the Church. The variety 
of gifts, functions, and offices in the N T Church is 
only the foil to its essential unity under its one Head, 
and as indwelt by the one Spirit. It is expounded 
in Ro 12, I Co 12, and Eph 4, in relation to that 
unity. The great conception of the Body of Christ 
underlies it everywhere. The sense of the one 
Brotherhood (I P 5 9) comes out in numberless 
ways: in the salutations of the churches to each other 
through correspondence (Ro 1616; [ P5 13; He 18 24); 
in the holy kiss of love, which became a regular 
part of the church service (Ro 16 16; I Co 16 20; IT 
Co 13 12; I Th 5 26; I P 514); in the collections which 
they made for each other’s help in times of distress 
(Gal 2 10, for Paul’s great collection in all Gentile 
churches, for the poor saints at Jerusalem, cf. Ac 
2417; I Co 161-4; II Co 8, 9; Ro 15 25-31); and even 
linguistically, in the multiplication of compounds 
with ctv. Of these the commonest are ouvepyés, 
variously rendered in AV fellow-helper, -laborer, 
-worker, and work-fellow; cuvotpatiutys, fellow- 
soldier, the Christian ministry being conceived as a 
campaign (Ph 2 25; Phm 2); cuvatyukdAwtos, fellow- 
prisoner in war, the same figure continued (Col 4 10; 
Phm 23; Ro 16 7); and otySoudosc, fellow-slave (Col 
17,47). Yoke-fellow, stv{uyoc, and fellow-elder, 
each occurs once (Ph 4 3;1 P51). Most significant 
of such terms are ouyxAnpovéua, ctocwuan and 
ouuu.étoxa, fellow-heirs, fellow-members of the body, 
fellow-partakers (Eph 3 6), all together expressing 
‘the mystery’ of God’s grace and power in annulling 
the age-long barrier between Jew and Gentile in the 
one Headship of Christ. 

LitERATURE: The best books are Hort’s Christian Ecclesia, 
1897; C. A. Scott, The Fellowship of the Spirit, 1921; Sanday, 
The Primitive Church and Reunion, 1913 (a fine review of 
theories). For fuller study: Hatch, The Organization of the 
Early Christian Churches, 1881; Harnack, The Constitution and 
Law of the Church, 1910; Gore, The Ministry in the Christian 
Church, 1921; Lindsay, The Church and the Ministry in the 
Early Centuries, 1903; E. von Dobschiitz, Christian Life in the 
Primitive Church, 1904. J. D.z—J. V. B 
CHUZAS, ¢hii’zas (Xovtas, Chuza AV): The stew- 

ard (éxitpoxos) of Herod (probably H. Antipas) 


Cieling 
City, Rulers of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


138 





(Lk 83). As general manager of Herod’s estates and 
household (cf. Plummer, JCC., ad loc.) he was 
probably a man of rank and means. 


CIELING. See CEILING. 
CILICIA. See Asta Minor, III, 4. 


CINNAMON. See OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, 
§ 1; and PALEsTINE, § 23. 


CINNEROTH. See CHINNERETH. 
CIRCLE. See Cosmoaony, § 3. 
CIRCUIT. See Cosmocgony, $3. 


CIRCUMCISION: The cutting off of the fore- 
skin (preputium). Among the Hebrews, the Law 
required the submission to the rite by all the male 
members of the community on the eighth day after 
birth (Lv 12 3; Gn 214 [P]). In later Judaism, this 
specification of time was so strictly interpreted that 
even the Sabbath might be disregarded for the sake 
of conforming to the law (Shabb, 19 2 #.; Jn 7 22). 
The person whose duty it was to perform the rite 
was primitively the father of the child (Gn 17 23); 
but in exceptional cases in earlier days women were 
known to have administered it (Ex 4 25), and in 
later times it became more and more common either 
to call in a physician (Jos. Ant. XX, 2 4) or to rele- 
gate the duty altogether to a special official (the 
Mohél), as at the present day. Besides the male 
children of the household, it appears from Gn 17 22 
ff. that slaves also were circumcised; and according 
to the law of Ex 12 48 (P) also strangers who wished 
to participate in the Passover. The practise was 
not peculiar to the Hebrews. Among the Egyp- 
tians there is no doubt that some (Ebers Aegypt 
u.d.Btich. d. Mos., I, 278, 283), and if Herodo- 
tus was correctly informed, all persons were circum- 


cised (Herod. II, 36; cf. also Philo 2. 210, ed. Mangey | 


Erman Egypt, p. 32 f., 539). The Semitic peoples 
generally seem to have practised the rite with the 
possible exception of the Assyrians and Babylo- 
nians. The reproach of uncircumcision, is especially 
held up against the Philistines; from which it has 
been inferred that the Canaanites practised the rite. 
Among extra-biblical peoples the primary and origi- 
nal aim of the rite was that of a sacrifice designed 
to secure fertility; but among the Hebrews from the 
earliest days the idea of ‘purification appears to 
have supplanted this conception. The ceremony 
indicated the casting off of uncleanness as a prep- 
aration for entrance into the privileges of member- 
ship in Israel. In the N T, with its transfer of 
emphasis from the external and formal to the inner 
and spiritual side of things, it was first declared 
unnecessary for Gentile converts to the Gospel 
(Ac 15 28), and afterward was set aside even by 
Jewish Christians. In the Pauline Epistles it 
serves as the basis of a figure signifying the casting 
off of the uncleanness of sin (Gal 27 £.; Eph 2 11). 
Cf. ERE (1911) sub. v. and see Diskase AND 
MepicIne, § 6. At a, 


CIS, sis. See Kisu. 
CISTERN: The character of the land-surface of 
most of Palestine is such that the rain penetrates but 


a little way and is soon drained off from the steep 
hillsides through the numerous ravines and water- 


courses. Recourse must be had, therefore, to arti- 
ficial means for collecting and holding the water, and 
cisterns have been numerous and much used in Pal- 
estine ever since it has been inhabited. Every well- 
ordered house had a cistern in its court (see Housz, 
§ 6 (f); Foop anp Foop Urernsits, § 12). The RV 
uses ‘cistern’ for ‘well’ AV in Dt 6 11 (mg.); IS 
19 22 (mg.); II Ch 26 10; Neh 9 25, and for ‘pit? AV 
in Is 3014 and Jer 14 3. See Patusrine, §§ 19, 20; 
and also Libbey and Hoskins, The Jordan Valley and 
Petra, Vol. I, p. 245 f. E. E. N. 


CITIZENSHIP: The civic side of community 
life is almost never referred tointheO T. This was 
partly because the basis of Israel’s social organiza- 
tion was the clan or tribe rather than the city 
(q.v.) partly because of the emphasis laid on the re- 
ligious organization of Israel, rendering city and 
state secondary features in social life and the con- 
gregation or theocratic kingdom primary, and partly 
because of the life of the people which was mainly 
agricultural during the greatest part of its history. 
The good citizen was the faithful Israelite and the 
lawless a ‘son [man] of Belial’ (Jg 19 22; I K 21 10 
AV). With the admission of Greek ideas secular 
relations were distinctly recognized (II Mac 5 8, 
148). Inthe N T the figure of the state is so prom- 
inent that even the religious community is at times 
symbolized by it (‘commonwealth of Israel,’ Eph 
212). Likewise the privileges of the spiritual com- 
munity are figured under the conception of citizen- 
ship (xoAtcevxua, Phil 3 20; but AV conversation, 
and RVmg. ‘commonwealth’). In fact, citizenship 
is the type of the whole sphere of conduct both social 
and moral (cf. II Co 1 12, ‘behave ourselves’ RV, 
‘conversation’ AV, and Eph 2 3, ‘live’ RV). For 
this figure the conception of the kingdom of heaven 
furnished proper foundation (‘fellow citizen,’ Eph 
219). Of citizenship in the literal sense mention is 
made but once (Ac 22 25, 28, freedom AV). See 
IsRAEL, SoctaL DEVELOPMENT oF, §§ 27, 31; and 
RoMAN. A. C. Z. 


CITY: 1. Age of Israelitic Cities. The begin- 
ings of city building are referred by Israelitic leg- 
end to the earliest period of human history, and are 
associated not with nomadic (Abel), but with agri- 
cultural (Cain) life. As a matter of fact, most of 
the cities of the Israelites were originally Canaan- 
ite, and came into the hands of the Israelites only 
as the result of a gradual conquest. When the Is- 
raelites reached Palestinian territory, they suc- 
ceeded in establishing themselves first in the open 
places and especially in the mountain districts; but 
as nomads they could not at first secure possession 
of the fortified cities. In course of time, however, 
these Canaanite cities were subdued and to them 
were added also others distinctively Israelite. 

2. Significance of City Names. Many of the names 
of cities are characteristic, and give us the points 
of view which were determinative in the selection 
of localities. (1) Names like Ramah, Mizpah, Geba, 
etc. (all from roots signifying elevation) indicate 
that a mountain or a hill site was preferred, evi- 
dently because it could be easily defended against 
assault. (2) En-gedi, En-gannim (En = ‘spring’), Beer- 
sheba (Beer =‘well’), etc., indicate the importance 





189 


of the nearness of a spring, a stream, etc. (3) 
Designations such as Jearim (‘forest’), Kerem (‘vine- 
yard’), Abel (‘meadow’), etc., show that the location 
of these cities was marked by such natural features. 
Cities in valleys, such as Hebron, constituted an ex- 
ception, since cities usually were built on the slope 
of a hill—the citadel, or castle, perched on the sum- 
mit always offering a sure refuge and one difficult 
to capture. 

3. Distinction Between ‘City’ and ‘Village.’ 
Villages and hamlets (hdtsér, p*razdth, kaphar, 
kopher) on one side, and cities (‘tr, poet. giryah) on 
the other, are clearly distinguished in the O T. 
The hdtsérim are open localities without walls (Lv 
25 31); also the ‘adré p*rdzdth (Est 9 19) are desig- 
nated as places without walls, without gates and en- 
closures (Ezk 38 11), for which latter képher is the 
characteristic name. The city (‘%), on the con- 
trary, was surrounded by a wall (cf. Lv 25 29, ‘ir 
homah, ‘city of a wall’), sometimes also by a moat 
(Dn 9 25, ‘wall’ AV), and even by a second smaller 
wall (él) in the nature of a rampart (II S 20 15, 

‘trench AV; I K 21 23), and had a citadel (migdal), 
the gates of which were closed during the night 
(Jos 2 5, 7), and in later times on the Sabbath (Neh 
13 19). (See Plan under NinevenH.) Such cities 
were called fortified (II Ch 11 10, etc., fenced AV). 
The gates were provided with bronze or iron bars 
and bolts (Dt 3 5; Jg 16 3; Neh 3 6, lock, AV), and 
were built with chambers overhead (II § 18 24 f..). 
From the roof of the structure (II S 18 24), or from 
a tower by the gate (II K 9 17), a watchman looked 
out in order to announce approaching danger (Jer 
617). Near the gates within the city were to be 
found open places (broad places, broad ways, r¢- 
hoboth, streets, AV Jer 5, Am 516), the centers of 
communal life. Here contracts were entered into 
(Dt 25 7; Ru 41f., 11; Gn 23 10, 18), assemblies for 

judicial or deliberative purposes were held (Am 5 12, 

15; Is 29 21), buying and selling took place (II K 71; 

cf. market-place, Mt 20 3), and public announce- 
ments were made (Jer 17 19). Here was the center 

of social intercourse in general (Gn 191; Ps 69 12). 

Here strangers who had no friend in the city passed 

the night (Gn 19 2 #.; Jg 19 15). 


4. Principal Features of a City. The plan and 
construction of cities were not in ancient times es- 
sentially different from those of the Orient of to- 
day. As walled cities were used more or less as 
strongholds, it was of advantage not to extend the 
walls too far from the center. In consequence 
there was a tendency to contract cities into as small 
a space as possible. The streets (hiitsdth) were as 
harrow as they are to-day (cf. Jos. Ant. XX, 5 3; 
BJ. II, 149, 155; VI, 85). For the most part they 
tan through the city in circuitous courses, so that 
a straight one was quite the exception (Ac 9 11). 
In cities which were built on steep hillsides, the 
roofs of the lower houses served as the street for the 
_ higher ones, as at the present day. The streets 
were not paved. It is in the days of Herod Agrippa 
II that we first hear of the paving of the streets of 
Jerusalem with white stones (Jos. Ant. XX, 9 7). 
This was, however, after the principal street of An- 
_ tioch had been paved with stone slabs at the ex- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Cieling 
City, Rulers of 


pense of Herod the Great (Jos. Ant. XVI, 5 3; BJ. 
I, 21 11). Street-cleaning was as unusual in ane 
cient times as it is to-day. Garbage was thrown out 
of the houses and left to be disposed of by the dogs 
that roamed at will about the city (Ex 22 31; Ps 59 
6, 14 f.). There was also no such thing as the light- 
ing of the streets. The only care of them that is 
referred to is that by night-watchman (Song 38 3, 
5 7; Is 21 11; Ps 1271, 1806). The custom practised 
even to-day of establishing bazaar-streets (shiq; 
ef. sh°ewaqim, I K 20 34; Ee 12 4; Song 3 2)—~.e., 
streets in which artizans or merchants of the same 
class ply their trades—is traceable to ancient times. 
We read of a bakers’ street in Jer 37 21, of a gold- 
smiths’ quarter and a quarter of spice-merchants 
in Neh 3 31f., of a fish-gate in 2 Ch 33 14, Neh 3 3, and 
of a valley of craftsmen in Neh 11 35. Josephus 
mentions the quarters of wool-merchants, of smiths, 
and of cloth-dealers (BJ. V, 81). To provide an 
adequate supply of water was frequently a matter of 
great difficulty. It was necessary at times to con- 
struct cisterns or aqueducts. Jerusalem, for ex- 
ample, had quite early in its history a conduit, which 
was later improved (Is 7 3, 229,11). See JERUSALEM, 
§§ 18, 34. 

5. City Government. As to the administration 
of the affairs of cities, we know but little. In the 
days of the Deuteronomist there is evidence of 
elders and along with them judges (Dt 16 18 ff., 19 
12, etc.). Probably the former were the heads of the 
most influential families. Over Samaria we find a 
governor (I K 22 2%). In fact, Jerusalem must 
have had several high officials (II K 23 8, etc). 
This ancient Jewish administration of cities by eld- 
ers and others was preserved in the specifically 
Jewish territory down to the days of the Herods, 
while other cities adopted a Hellenistic policy (cf. 
also Town CLERK; TREASURER; and Crry, RuLERS 
OF). W. N.—L. B. P. 


CITY,FENCED. See Crry, § 3. 
CITY OF DAVID See Jerusatey, § 15. 


CITY OF DESTRUCTION: The similarity of 
heres (017), ‘destruction,’ to heres (070), ‘sun,’ ap- 
parently caused confusion in Is 1918. Many MSS. 
and several versions read ‘City of the Sun,’ which, 
as indicating Heliopolis, have been supposed to be 
the original reading. But the LXX. reads ‘city 
of righteousness.’ which Gray thinks (JCC ad loc) 
the only satisfactory and therefore original reading. 

EK. E. N. 

CITY OF PALM-TREES. See JrRIcHo. 


CITY OF SALT (1207 VY, ‘ir hammelah): A 
town of Judah in the wilderness (Jos 15 62). The 
identification with the ruin Tell el Milh (Map II, 
E 4) is unsatisfactory. 

CITY OF WATERS. See Raspau; and Royan 
Ciry. 

CITY, ROYAL. See RassBau. 

CITY, RULERS OF (roditéexat, ‘politarchs,’ Ac 
176): Civil magistrates of a Greek city as contra- 
distinguished from Roman officials. The term poli- 
tarch is self-explanatory, but it was confined to 
Macedonia and the sphere of Macedonian influence. 


Clasps 
Colors 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


140 





Luke’s use of the unusual title is confirmed by an 

inscription on an arch in Thessalonica mentioning 

magistrates as politarchs. They are mentioned also 

in seventeen other inscriptions. In Ac 1619 ‘rulers’ 

are ‘archons,’ the ordinary title of the magistrates 

in a Greek city. J.R.S. S.*—E. E. N. 
CLASPS. See TABERNACLE, § 3. 


CLAUDA. See Caupa. 


CLAUDIA (Kiavita): Probably a Roman Chris- 
tian (II Ti 4 21), perhaps a freedwoman of the 
Claudian gens. She figures in later tradition as the 
mother or wife of Linus. (Ap. Const. VII, 46). 

4 Ha op i 

CLAUDIUS (Kiaddtoc, Ac 11 28, 18 2): The fourth 
Roman emperor (41-54). He was nephew of Tiber- 
ius and grandson of Mark Antony. He was pro- 
claimed emperor by the Pretorian guards in 41. 
C. was a harmless, well-intentioned man, but was 
induced to bloodshed by his favorites Narcissus, 
Pallas, and his wife Messalina. He was poisoned 
by Agrippina his niece and second wife in 54. 

The relations of Claudius to Herod Agrippa I, 
to whose political energies he largely owed his ad- 
vancement to the throne (cf. Jos. Ant. XIX, 4 5), 
were most friendly throughout his reign (cf. Dio 
Cassius, LX, 8; Jos. Ant. XX, 71, 1 3), and even led 
him to grant to the Jews in general throughout the 
Empire the right of religious worship, warning them 
at the same time to use it peacefully (cf. Jos. Ant. 
XIX, 52f.). This did not imply a love of the Jew- 
ish people as such; so that, if the warning attached 
to it was not heeded, restrictive measures against 
them on the Emperor’s part can easily be under- 
stood, for example, their expulsion from Rome re- 
ferred to in Ac 18 2 (ef. Suet. Claud. 25)—whether 
the expulsion of the entire Jewish community ac- 
tually occurred, which seems doubtful (note the 
silence of Tacitus and Josephus regarding it), or 
was merely attempted and found impracticable 
(cf. Suet. 7’tber. 36), or was not an expulsion at all 
but only a prohibition of tumultuous assemblages 
of the general Jewish populace, apart from their 
ordinary religious services, the right to which they 
still possessed (cf. Dio Cassius, LX, 6 6). In any 
case the action of the Emperor would cause many of 
them to leave the city and account for the presence 
of Aquila and Priscilla in Corinth when Paul arrived 
_there; since the date of the ‘edict,’ while not pos- 
sible of accurate determination, is quite likely to 
have been between 50 and 52 (cf. Schiirer, HJ P. II, 
ii. § 31, n. 69; Zahn, Introd., part XI, Chron. Sur- 
vey; Ramsay, Paul, p. 254; Knowling on Acts in 
Expos. Greek Testament). 

Under C. Christianity had not been proscribed 
as a religio illicita, but was still protected sub wm- 
braculo religionis licite of Judaism. Consequently, 
Gallio, proconsul of Achaia (51-52 a.p.), dismissed 
the Jews’ impeachments against the apostle, Ac 18 
12 ff. The imperial cult, so obnoxious to the early 
Christians, was promoted by C. who consecrated his 
grandmother Livia as Diva and her husband Divus 
Augustus. He permitted a temple to be erected for 
his worship at Camulodunum (Colchester) in Brit- 
ain (Tae. Ann. XIV 31) and after death he was 
apotheosized by the Senate. J.R.S.S.*—S. A. 


CLAUDIUS LYSIAS: The military tribune (y:At- © 
aexos, ‘chief captain’) holding the chief com- 
mand in Jerusalem, who rescued Paul from the mob 
and sent him to Cesarea to Felix (Ac 21 31-23). 
He had under him a cohort of Roman auxiliaries, 
about 1,000 strong, which upon the occasion of the 
Jewish festivals was always held in readiness in their 
headquarters in the castle of Antonia, which was 
connected by stairs with the Temple court. Lysias 
had bought his Roman citizenship at a high price, 
and had probably taken the cognomen Claudius from 
the Emperor Claudius, whose wife and court drove 
a flourishing trade in such sales. Paul’s inherited 
citizenship greatly impressed Lysias. 
R. A. F.—E. E.N. 
CLAY: This term renders (1) hémer, from a root 
meaning ‘red’ (Is 45 9, etc.); (2) fit, ‘mud,’ ‘slime,’ 
etc. (Ps 40 2; Is 41 25); (3) hdsaph, ‘pottery’ (7.e., 
made of potters’ clay) (Dn 2 33-45); (4) xnAéc, 
either ‘mud’ made of soil and spittle (Jn 9 6 ff.) or 
clay proper (Ro 9 21). The rendering ‘clay ground’ 
(I K 7 46; II Ch 4 17) is uncertain, and the AV ‘clay’ 
of Hab 2 6 is corrected into ‘pledge’ by the RV." 
In the low lands of Palestine clay is abundant and its 
use for brick, mortar, and pottery was common in 
O T times. In Job 419, etc., the word is used figura- 
tively for the flesh (as made from earth) and in Is 
64 8, etc., it represents human subjection to the di- 
vine sovereignty. At Jer 48 9 cf. RV. The Heb. 
text of I K 7 46=II Ch 4 17 should be corrected to 
read ‘at the ford of Adamah.’ E. E. N. 


CLEAN, CLEANNESS, CLEANSE. See Pure, 
PuRIFICATION, §§ 1, 2. 

CLEMENT (KaA‘fpns): A fellow worker with 
Paul at Philippi (Ph 43). There is nothing to jus- 
tify his traditional identification with Clement of 
Rome. E. E. N. 

CLEOPAS (Kiebxac): One of the early dis- 
ciples, mentioned only in Lk 2418. Not to be con- 
fused with Cleophas. 


CLEOPHAS. See Cuiopas. 


CLOAK, CLOKE. See Dress AND ORNA- 
MENTS, § 3. 

CLOPAS (Kiwziés, Cleophas AV): Mentioned 
only in Jn 19 25 as the husband of a certain Mary, 
thought by many to be the sister of Jesus’ mother. 


See Mary. 


CLOSET. See Houss, § 6 (h). 


CLOTH, CLOTHES, CLOTHING. See Buriat, 
§ 1; and Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 5. 


CLOUD: The cloud is of frequent occurrence in 
figurative speech. (1) Its darkness serves as the 
image of mystery (Ps 97 2; Job 3 5), especially the 
profound mystery of the creation (Job 38 9). (2) 
Its distance from the earth is made to represent the 
unattainable (Is 14 14; Ps 108 4; Job 206). (3) Its 
changeableness is the image of the transitory, espe- 
cially of short life (Job 79, 3015; Hos 64). (4) But 
the most suggestive use of the figure is in connection 
with the divine presence. Not only is Jehovah said 
to ride upon the cloud (Is 191; Nah 1 3), but He 
makes a special cloud the sign of His presence (Ex 





141 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Clasps 
Colors 





13 21, etc.) both in the guiding of the Israelites 
toward Canaan and in the dedication of the Temple 
(I K 810f.; If Ch 513 f.) A. C. Z. 


CLOUT: In Jer 38 11 ¢. ‘clouts’ means ‘rags,’ 
or ‘ragged cast-off clothes.’ In Jos 9 5 it means 
‘patched’ and has been so translated by the RV. 
Here the reference is to patched shoes. E. E. N. 


CLUB. See Arms AND Armor, § 5. 


CNIDUS, nai’dus (Kvi3oc, Ac 27 7): A city at 
Cape Crio in Caria. It lay on a small island (Trio- 
pium), connected by a causeway with the main- 
land. It had two harbors and contained a temple 
of the Cnidian Aphrodite (by Praxiteles). Games 
in honor of the Triopian Apollo were celebrated 
conjointly with Rhodes and Cos. 

J. R.S. S.*—J. M. T. 


_COAL: The following words, wrongly translated 
‘coal’ in AV, are correctly rendered in ARV or 
ARVmg.: resheph (Song 8 6; Hab 3 5), a poetic word 
for ‘flame’; retseph (I K 19 6) or ritspah (Is 6 6), a 
heated stone; sh?hdr (La 48), ‘blackness.’ 

Mineral coal is not found in Palestine, and the de- 
posits in Lebanon have been little mined. The 
words properly rendered ‘coal’ in EV refer either 
to charcoal (pehadm, ‘black’; Is 44 12, 54 16, and es- 
pecially Pr 26 21), or, more broadly, to live embers of 
any kind (gaheleth), including glowing charcoal. 
The latter is the common Heb. term (Ps 120 4; Is 
44 19; Ezk 2411). It is written more fully ‘coals of 
fire’ (e.g., Pr 25 22=Ro 12 20, dvOpaxeg mupdc), and 
is frequently used metaphorically (II S 147; Ps 188). 

The N T dvOpaxcé (Jn 18 18, 219) was, of course, a 
fire of charcoal. See also Heartu; Houses, § 6 (i); 

and CHIMNEY. L. G. L.—E. E. N. 


COAST: A term frequently used in the AV, but 
largely displaced by other more correct terms in 
the RV. (1) In the many cases where the Heb. 
is g*bhil, the RV reads ‘border(s)’ instead of 
‘coast(s).’ (2) In the other instances ‘coast(s)’ 
AV is displaced in RV by ‘regions’ (Jl 3 4), ‘shore’ 
(Jos 91), ‘side’ (Nu 13 29, 34 3; Jg 11 26), ‘height’ 
(Jos 12 33), ‘whole number’ (Jg 18 2), ‘among them’ 
(Ezk 33 2), ‘end’ (Nu 34 3), ‘parts’ (Mt 15 21, 16 
13), ‘borders’ (Mk 5 17, 7 31, 101; Ac 13 50), ‘places 
on the coast’ (Ac 27 2), and ‘country’ (Ac 26 20). 

COAT. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 2. 

COAT OF MAIL. See Arms anp Armor, § 9. 

COCK. See PauEstIne, § 25. | 

COCKATRICE. See PAuestine, § 26. 

COCK GROWING. See Timp, § 1. 

COCKLE. See Pauestine, § 22. 

CCELE-SYRIA, si’li-sir’-ia (KotAn Svoela), ‘hol- 
low Syria’: A term of frequent occurrence in the OT 
Apocrypha. Strictly considered, it was the desig- 
nation of that part of Syria that lay between the 
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon ranges, but it was often 


used to cover all the Syrian possessions from the 
Lebanons S§. as far as Egypt. BK. E. N. 


COFFER: Used in I S 68 ff. as the rendering of 
"arghaz, the meaning of which is obscure. 


COFFIN: Used only in Gn 50 26. The Heb. word 
Gron means literally a ‘chest’ or ‘box’, but is used 





here evidently in the sense of ‘mummy-case.’ See 
also BuRIAL AND BuRIAL CustoMs, § 4. 

COIN. See Money. 

COL-HOZEH, kol-ho’ze (7!M"73, kol-hozeh), ‘he 
sees all’ (8): A Jew of Nehemiah’s day (Neh 3 15, 
11 5). 

COLLAR, COLLARS (Jg 8 26). 
ORNAMENTS, II, 2. 


COLLECTION. See Tax, and Cuurcg, § 9. 
COLLEGE. See JERUSALEM, § 36. 


COLLOP: An old English word meaning ‘slices of 
meat’ made tender by beating (see Skeat’s Dict.). 
It is used only in Job 15 27, where RV reads ‘fat,’ 
which is the meaning of the Heb. 


COLONY (from the Latin colonus, ‘farmer’): 
Settlers sent to foreign parts to establish trading- 
stations generally retained their native institutions 
and their allegiance to the mother country. The 
Greeks were very successful colonists (Asia Minor, 
Black Sea, lower Italy [Magna Grecia], southern 
France, Spain, northern Africa), and Alexander 
colonized many cities from Egypt to Bactria. Rome 
established military colonies (of invalid soldiers) 
everywhere, of which Philippi (Ac 16 12) was an 
instance. Roman colonists as such enjoyed certain 
well-defined privileges which were not granted to 
ordinary provincials. J. R.S. S.*—E. E. N. 


COLORS: Both the O T and the N T illustrate 
the general fact that ancient literature knows little 
of the modern sensitiveness to color-effects and their 
subtle gradations. Most of the references are casual 
and involve merely primary distinctions. The only 
passages where colors are emphasized are the ac- 
count of the materials and vestments of the Taber- 
nacle and Temple (Ex 25-28, 35-39; Nu 4, 15; II 
Ch 2-3), the diagnosis of leprosy (Lv 13-14), and 


See Dress AND 


‘the apocalyptic visions of ‘horses’ (Zec 1, 6; Rev 


6, 19). 

1. White and Black. White is the symbol of 
purity, as shown in comparisons with snow (Ps 
517; Is 118), in the vesture of angelic beings and of 
the redeemed (Dn 7 9, 12 10; Mt 17 2; Mk 9 3; Lk 
9 29; Mt 28 3; Mk 16 5; Jn 20 12; Ac 1 10; Rev 3 4, 
5, 18, 4 4, 6 11, 79, 13, 14, 19 8, 14), in the mystic ‘stone’ 


| with the ‘new name’ and the heavenly ‘throne’ 


(Rev 2 17, 20 11). It was also the color of nobility 


{ and elegance (Est 8 15; Ec 98; La 47; Jg 5 10; cf. Rev 


19 11, 14). From it came the name ‘Lebanon’— 
the ‘white’ mountain. Reference is made to the 
whiteness of the skin, the teeth, and the hair (Song 
5 10; Gn 49 12; Mt 5 36), of wool (Ezk 27 18; Rev 114) 


! of milk (La 4 7), of alabaster or marble (Est 1 6; 


Song 5 15), of ripe wheat-fields (Jn 4 35), of bread 
(Gn 40 16), of walls (Mt 23 27; Ac 23 3), and of blind- 
ing heat (Is 18 4). Whiteness of the skin and hair 
was a symptom of leprosy (Ex 4 6; Lv 13-14; Nu 12 
10; II K 5 27, etc.), as paleness was of fear (Is 29 22). 
Doubtless ‘white’ often means ‘gray’ or ‘light brown,’ 
as in the description of garments of linen or byssus. 
Black, or some dark hue, is the symbol of disaster 
or mourning, as in the visage of the overwhelmed 
(Job 30 30; Jer 8 21; La 4 8, 5 10; J1 26; Nah 2 10) 
or the garb of the sorrowing (Job 30 28; Ps 429; Jer 
14 2, etc.). But swarthy skin or hair was a sign of 


Colors 
Condemn 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


142 





race (Song 1 5 f., 5 11), as of Ethiopians and other 
Africans. The blackness of night or tempest is 
noted (I K 18 45; Job 3 5; Is 50 3; Jer 4 28; He 1218; 
Jude 13, etc.), of the raven (Song 5 11), of ice on the 
streams (Job 6 16), and of porphyry or dark marble 
(Est.16). Black hairs are mentioned in testing the 
leper (Lv 13), and the visions include black horses 
(Zec. 6; Rev. 6). Brown (Gn 30 32-40 AV) is prop- 
erly black as in RV. The ‘black marble’ referred 
to in Est 1 6 (cf. margin ‘stone of blue color’) was 
probably a drab slate or marble. 

2. Scarlet, Purple, and Other Reds. Bright red, 
‘scarlet,’ or ‘crimson.’ a color obtained from the 
kermes-worm or cochineal, and a richer ‘purple’ 
from a mollusk, were the badges of royalty, or at 
least of wealth. The two often occur together (Ex 
25-28, 35-36, 38-39; Nu 4 8, 13; II Ch 27, 14; 3 14; 
Pr 31 21 f.; Rev 17 3 f., 18 12, 16), but also the former 
alone (Gn 38 28, 30; Lv 14; Nu 19 6; Jos 218, 21; ITS 
1 24; Song 4 3; Is 1 18; Jer 4 30; La 4 5; Nah 2 3; 
Mt 27 28; He 9 19), and the latter alone (Jg 8 26; 
Est 1 6, 8 15; Song 3 10, 75; Jer 109; Ezk 277, 16; Dn 
5 7, 16, 20; Mk 15 17, 20; Jn 19 2,5; Lk 1619). Lydia 
was a dealer in purple (Ac 16 14). 

It is likely that the term rendered ‘blue’ was 
some variety of purple. It occurs only with dyed 
stuffs (Ex 25-28, 35-36, 38-39; Nu 4, 15 38; II Ch 
27, 14; 3.14; Est 16, 815; Jer 109; Ezk 23 6, 277, 24). 

Ruddiness, such as that of a clayey soil, is often 
indicated, as of the flesh (Gn 25 25; IS 16 12, 17 42; 
Song 5 10; La 47), a sore (Lv 13), the lips (Song 4 3), 
animals (Nu 19 2; Zec 1, 6; Rev 6, 12 3), wine (Ps 
75 8; Pr 23 31; Is 27 2), pottage (Gn 25 30), dyed 
leather or cloth (Ex 25 5, 26 14, 357, 23, 36 19, 39 34; Is 
63 2), painted wood (Jer 22 14; Ezk 2314; Nah 2 3), a 
kind of stone (Est 1 6, porphyry?), and the fiery 
twilight sky (Mt 16 2-3). The word for the ‘red’ 
eyes of the drunkard (Gn 4912; Pr 23 29) probably 
means ,‘unclear’ or ‘darkened.’ The term bay—a 
bright red—(Zec 6 3,7 AV) is properly rendered 
‘strong’ in RVmg. 

3. Green and Yellow. Green is naturally often 
indicated as the attribute of vegetation in all its 
forms (as Ps 52 8; Jer 17 8; Hos 14 8; Rev 9 4, etc.) 
In one description of dyed stuffs (Est 1 6) the word 
rendered ‘green’ may mean simply a special kind of 
linen. A greenish color occurs in the test for leprosy 
(Lv 13 49, 14 37), and also a glistening yellow (Lv 
13 30-36); the former of these two words is also used 
with gold (Ps 68 13). 

In the disposition of the precious stones in the 
high priest’s breastplate (Ex 28 17-20, 39 10-13; Ezk 
28 13) and in the foundations of the heavenly Jeru- 
salem (Rev 21 19-20) there was probably an inten- 
tional color-scheme. eS ie fe 


COLOSS&:, ko-les’1 (KoXocsat): A city of Phrygia 
Pacatiana, situated on the S. bank of the Lycus, on 
rising ground in the open plain (11 m. from Laodicea, 
13 m. from Hierapolis) on the highway between 
Ephesus and the Euphrates; 3 m. NW. of modern 
Khonat. The acropolis was on the N. bank. Tho 
now quite deserted, Colossee was the great city of 
Phrygia when visited by Xerxes (481) and Cyrus 
the Younger (401). It lay on the main trade-route 
from the seaboard to the East. It was ruined 


by the change of the road-system and the establish- 


ment of Laodicea. C. was famous for its wool of 
violet hue (colossinus). Philemon, Onesimus, Ar- 
chippus, and Epaphras, the probable founder of the 
Church at C., all lived here (see CoLossians and 
Puitemon). The ‘worship of angels,’ against 


| which Paul preached (Col 2 18), was perpetuated in 


the great and pretentious church of Michael the 
Archistrategus, which was destroyed by the Turks 
(12th cent.). J.R.S. S.*—S. A. 


COLOSSIANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 1. Attesta- 
tion. The external evidence for the Epistle is 
quite adequate. It is mentioned by Irenzus, and 
included in the Canon of Muratori, as well as in 
that of Marcion. 

2. Relation to ‘Ephesians.’ Its intimate relation 
to the epistle to the Ephesians presents a compli- 
cated problem which has never been successfully 
handled—various attempts have been made in this 
direction, notably that of H. J. Holtzmann. His 
theory is that Paul himself wrote briefly to the 
Colossians: that on the basis of this letter, a later 
writer composed the Epistle to the Ephesians as 
we have it: and that into Paul’s original letter to 
Colosse he interpolated passages from Ephesians 
and other fragments, so that thus the Epistle to the 
Colossians as we possess it took shape. The 
hypothesis has not obtained wide approval, as it 
depicts the whole situation in a most artificial and 
cumbrous fashion, 

3. Purpose. It is clear that the purpose of the 
Epistle is to emphasize the complete adequacy of 
Jesus Christ both with reference to the church and 
the world. . 

4. False Teaching. But it seems impossible to 
identify the positions combated in the epistle with 
any of the definite movements known in the his- 
tory of the Church at the time. All that can be said 
is that the age was one given to syncretism in re- 
ligion, and we can not be surprized to find changes 
of doctrine in a Phrygian community like Colos- 
se. Certain elements stand out distinctly. Stress 
was laid on ascetic practises. Obviously these which 
had to do with eating and drinking, and the ob- 
servance of festivals and holy days, formed part of a 
theosophy, which detracted from Christ. A prom- 
inent feature in this devotion was the worship of 
angels, which suggests that they dabbled in a false 
spirituality. Most probably they shrank from 
matter as evil. Perhaps this zeal for angel-worship 
implied a hesitation to come directly to God in 
Christ. Plainly they were beguiled by some 
esoteric teaching, on which they prided themselves 
(2 8). A tantalizing meagerness is shown in the 
description of the more mystic conceptions in 2 
18, which used to be regarded by Lightfoot, Hort, 
and others, as a corrupted text. , Various bold 
emendations were proposed, but, as so frequently, 
subsequent discovery confirms the existing text. 
The crucial word of the passage, éu@atedwy, has 
been found in some _ inscriptions from the 
temple of Apollo at Klaros in Asia Minor. In 
these inscriptions the word is closely associ- 
ated with mystic rites. Sir W. Ramsay be- 
lieves that it points to the culminating act of 





143 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Colors 
Condemn 





the mystic ritual, symbolizing the entrance 
on a new course of life (Teaching of Paul in Terms 
of the Present Day, pp. 288-304). There seems to 
be no sufficient ground for describing the curious 
Judaistic doctrine as Essene. As a matter of fact, 
we know far too little about the Essenes to detect 
traces of them, especially so far away from their re- 
ported habitation. Probably some of the terms used 
suggest Gnosticism, but the incipient stages of that 
movement are singularly elusive. All we can say is 
that it, like the erroneous teaching at Colossz, was 
eclectic in its character. 
LITERATURE: The best commentary is that of E. Haupt, being 
the 6th edition of Meyer’s Kommentar. Cf. also Comm. 
by Lightfoot (1890) ;\T. K. Abbott in ICC (1902), and Currie 


Martin in New Cent. Bible (1902); also Introd. to N. T. by 
Zahn (21917) and Moffatt (1915). HUAL A; KK; 


COMFORTER. See Hoty Spirit, § 2. 


COMING OF THE LORD. See Escuaro.oey, | 


§§ 34-36, 41, 46-48. 


COMMANDMENT: All but three of the O T 
words rendered ‘commandment’ (and these three 
derived from the same root) signify primarily ‘that 
which is uttered or spoken.’ The idea of authority 
is read into these terms from the character or office 
of the person who makes the utterance. A com- 
mandment is, therefore, in the Biblical sense of the 
term, the word of one who has a right to be obeyed. 
In the N T the conception of authority has crystal- 
lized in the terms used. Ae Cr, 

COMMANDMENTS, THE TEN. See Decatoa. 

COMMENTARY (¥77, midhradsh, from dd- 
rash, ‘to inquire,’ ‘investigate’): In II Ch 13 22 a 
reference is made to the ‘commentary’ (‘story’ 
AV) of the prophet Iddo and in 24 27 to the ‘com- 
mentary’ (‘story’ AV) of the ‘book of the Kings.’ 
The Heb. term means ‘didactic or homiletic exposi- 
tion,’ or ‘an edifying religious story’ (Driver). 
Some such works are referred to by the Chronicler 
as among his sources. See CHRONICLES, BOOKS oF. 

K, BE. N. 


COMMERCE. See TRADE AND COMMERCE. 


COMMON: The Biblical conception of what is 
common includes: (1) The broad and general idea 
of the ordinary as distinguished from the excep- 
tional (Jer 26 23; Ly 4 27; Ezk 23 42; Ac 518 AV; I Co 
10 13 AV, etc.); (2) the conception of that which 
belongs to all as a general characteristic (Tit 1 4; Jude 
ver. 3) or that in which all participate (Ac 2 44); and 
(8) the notion of ceremonial uncleanness, in which 
sense the word is used inI § 21 4f.; Jer 315 RVmg.; 
Ac 10 14, 28). See Purn, §§ 5 ff. A. C. Z. 


COMMONWEALTH. See Crrizensuip. 


COMMUNICATE, COMMUNICATION: These 
words are employed: (1) In their original tho 
now rather obsolete English meaning of ‘making 
common,’ z.€., of sharing, dividing, taking another as 
one’s partner, having fellowship with—in temporal 
goods (Gal 6 6), afflictions (Ph 4 14 AV), necessi- 
ties (Ro 12 13), giving and receiving (Ph 4 15 AV), 
or of Christian fellowship generally (I Ti 6 18; Phm 
6 AV; He 1316). (2) In the usual modern sense of 
sharing or imparting information, knowledge, etc., 
by speech, hence meaning ‘word,’ ‘speech,’ ‘dis- 


course’ (II S 3 17; IIT K 91. AV; Mt 5 37 AV; Lk 
24 17; Gal 22 AV; Eph 429 AV). InICo15 33 AV 
the Gr. duAtxe probably means ‘conversations,’ 
‘disputings’ rather than ‘companionships’ (ARV). 
In Col 38 AV by aisxeoAoyla abusive as well as 
obscene speech is intended. S. D.—E. E. N. 

COMMUNION. See Lorp’s SuprEr; and Hoty 
Sprrit, § 3. 

COMPANION: This word is the rendering of 
nine Hebrew terms and one (four AV) Greek. Five 
of the Hebrew originals indicate general community 


j of interest and enterprise (cf. Ezr 47 #.; Is 1 23; 


Mal 2 14), whereas the other four convey the idea 
of delight in personal association (cf. Ex 32 27; Jg 
14 11 #.; Pr 13 20). In the N T the Greek terms 
signify simple association or partnership in a com- 
mon work or cause (cf. Ac 19 29; also in AV Ph 2 25; 
He 10 33; Rev 1 9). A. C. Z. 


COMPANY. See Trapp aND CoMMERCE, § 3. 
COMPASS. See Cosmoaony, § 3. 


COMPOUND. See OINTMENTS AND PER- 
FUMES, § 2. . 

CONANIAH, ken’s-nai’a (722, kénanyahi): 
1. A tithe supervisor in the days of Hezekiah (II 
Ch 31 12 £.; Cononiah AV). 2. A prominent Levite 
who lived in the reign of Josiah (II Ch 359). 


CONCISION: A term which occurs but once in 
the Bible, Ph 3 2, where it renders the Gr. xatatouwh 
(‘incision’)—a word not found at all in the LXX. 
nor in prechristian Gr. in this connection. It is a 
paronomasia evidently used here by Paul to char- 
acterize as nothing less than the flesh-cutting for- 
bidden in the Law (Ly 215; cf. I K 18 28), the cireum- 
cision which was wholly ceremonial and lacked all 
regard for its spiritual significance. The term is to 
be distinguished from the yet stronger expression 
dnoxéntety (‘to cut off?) in Gal 5 12, where the 
reference is to the prohibition of Dt 231. See Crr- 
CUMCISION. M. W. J. 


CONCUBINE. See Marrtace anp DIvorce, 
§ 3; and Famiuy anp Famiuy Law, § 8. 


CONDEMN, CONDEMNATION: The render- 
ing of a group of N T Gr. words, the chief element in 
which is made up of xetvety, with its compound (xata- 
xelvetv) and its derivatives ([xelotg AV], xat&xetats, 
xetua, xavkxotua, alctoxatkxettos). In some pas- 
sages the meaning is confined to human action 
and refers (1) to one’s judgment against another 
([xataxetvety] Jn 810f.; Ro 8 34; [xat&xerotc] IL Co 
7 3; [xefue] I Ti 36). In Ro 21, 14 23 (‘damned’ 
AV), where xotvery is the original, there seems to be 
included also the element of one’s judgment against 
himself (cf. ver. 22 AV); or (2) to the judgment into 
which another’s conduct is brought by one’s own 
good life ([xacaxelyerv] Mt 12 41 and ||; He 11 7).1 
In the great majority of passages, however, the 
meaning is distinctively that of the Divine judgment 
against sin ([xetvey] Ja 59 AV; Jn 317. AV; [xara- 
xolvety] Ro 83; [xart&xprots] IT P 26; I Co 11 32; IL 
Co 39; [xefwa] Mk 12 40 and ||; Ja 31 AV; I Co 11 34 
AV; Ro 38 RV; [xaté&xetuag] Ro 5 16, 18,81). InJn3 
17-19, 5 24 (where only the AV renders xolvew and 
xeletg by ‘condemn’ and ‘condemnation’) there 


Conduit 
Conscience 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 144 


(cee RL LL LLL LL 


is meant the judgment brought by men upon them- 
selves because of their rejection of Christ. Parallel 
with this is Tit 3 1 (adcoxat&xertos), where the refer- 
ence is to the judgment brought upon oneself by 
persistency in evil. In Ac 138 27 (xetvet); Lk 24 20 
(xotua); Mt 27 3; Mk 1033 and ||s, 14 64 (xatamotvety), 
the reference is to the sentence of a court, expressing 
the general judgment of the people; in Lk 23 40 
(xetua) to the sentence of a court resulting in con- 
demnation to death. 

The rest of the group consists of the compounds 
naradixdley, xatayryvecxery and dxatéyvwotoc. In 
all but one of the passages where these words occur 
the meaning is confined to human judgment. Twice 
it is the censorious judgment against one’s fellow 
man ([xatadixdétev] Mt 127; Lk 6 37); twice it is the 
self-judgment which comes from the condemning 
character of one’s own conduct (xataytyvacxerv] Gal 
211 RV; IJn320f.); onceitisthesentence of a secular 
court—as an instrument of oppression ([xatadiméCerv] 
Ja 56). Once only is the meaning that of Divine 
judgment against evil ([xatadix&terv] Mt 12 37). 

There are two passages (I Ti512RV [xofue)]; Tit 28 
[axatkéyywotos]) where the reference seems to be to 
a judgment implying more or less of ecclesiastical 
oversight and review. See also JUSTIFICATION. 

M. W. J. 


CONDUIT. See JmRusALEM, §$ 13, 34. 
CONEY. See PaLestIne, § 24. 


CONFECTION, CONFECTIONERY. See Ornt- 
MENTS AND PERFUMES, § 2. 


CONFEDERACY, CONFEDERATE. See Con- 
SPIRACY. 


CONFESS, CONFESSION (époroyetv [&&onodo- 
yetv], dénoAo0yla): A term which in the N T has 
several varieties of meaning: (1) “To concede,’ 
‘allow’ (Jn 1 20; Ac 2414; He 1113). (2) ‘To ac- 
knowledge one’s ‘sins’—confess’ in the narrowerer 
sense (Mt 36;Mk 15; Ac 1918; Ja516;IJn19). (8) 
‘To openly acknowledge’ or profess one’s faith in 
anything (Ac 23 8 [cf. Gr. of Tit 1 16]), especially in 
Jesus as the Messiah Son of God, etc. (Mt 10 32a; 
Lk 12 8a; Jn 9 22, 12 42, Ro 109; II Co 913; Ph 2 11; 
I Ti 612£.; He 31, 414, 10 23; I Jn 2 23; 42f., 15; IT 
Jn 7). Also of Jesus’ acknowledging His own in 
the judgment (Mt 10 32b; Lk 12 8b; Rev 3 5 [cf. Gr. 
of Mt 7 23]). In the papyri éwodAoyety is the offi- 
cial formula for publicly acknowledging a contract, 
sale, receipt, etc.; cf. also Gr. of Mt 147; Ac 717, 
where it is used in the sense of a public assurance 
or promise. (4) Of thankfully and worshipfully 
acknowledging God, so ‘to praise’ Him (Ro 14 11, 
15 9 RVmg. [both cited from LXX.]; He 13 15). 
See SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, §§ 8, 16. 

S. D.—M. W. J. 


CONFISCATE, CONFISCATION. See Crimss 
AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (c). 


CONFORM, CONFORMED: The translation of 
the Gr. cbuuoepgog (Ro 8 29; Ph 3 21 RV); of the 
ptcpl. cuupoegrtduevos (Ph 3 10); and of ouvy- 
oxnuartitecbar (Ro 12 2, ‘fashioned’ RV; ef. Gr. 
of [P 114). It is evident that in the N T the com- 
pounds ciupoppgoes and cuupoppitery place the em- 


phasis on the internal (moral and intellectual) 
aspects, while cuvoxnwartitery refers primarily to the 
external (physical and formal) relations. 

E. E. N. 


CONGREGATION: Predominantly an O T word. 
In the N T found only in Ac 18 43 AV (‘synagogue’ 
RY). The AV uses the term as the translation of a 
variety of Hebrew words in all of which the notion 
of meeting is primary. The RV has properly sub- 
stituted in all cases which designate the place of the 
meeting of God with the people in the person of their 
representative Moses (Ex 27 21, etc.) the more ac- 
curate form Tent of Meeting. Another change in- 


troduced in RV, in the interest of greater clearness. 


and uniformity, is the substitution of assembly for 
‘congregation’ wherever the theocratical convoca- 
tion of the people is meant, as when the original 
Heb. is gahal (Lv 4 14). The term ‘congregation’ 
(in the RV) is thus almost limited to the designa- 
tion of the stated meetings of the people for the 
transaction of political or legislative business. The 
distinction can not be pressed too closely, but in 
general it will hold true.. The word is preeminently 
a ‘priestly’ one, confined almost entirely to the 
priestly elements of the Hexateuch and to Chroni- 
cles-Ezra-Nehemiah. See also AssemMBLY (5) and 
(7). A. C. Z. 


CONIAH, ko-nai’a. See JEHOIACHIN. 
CONONIAH. See ConantaH. 


CONSCIENCE: This word is not used in the O T, 
(but cf. Ec 10 20 [LX X.]:and, in the Apoc., Wis 17 11). 
In the N T it is used mainly in the Pauline Epistles; 
twice in Paul’s speeches in Acts (231, 2416). Else- 
where it appears only in Hebrews, and in I Peter. 
Outside its Biblical usages the Greek word (cuvet3y- 
ots) had not yet obtained the fuller meaning given to 
it in the N T. It was used somewhat vaguely for 
the consciousness with which a man views his com- 
pleted act, for the feeling aroused as he recalls and 
contemplates a wrong deed (Cremer’s Lexicon and P. 
Ewald). Inthe N T a distinct development is found. 


1. Pauline Usage. In Ro 214f., Paul finds a dou- 
ble proof that the law of God is real for the heathen 
world, first in the very character of their works which 
imply the power of making moral distinctions; and, 
second, in a twofold inner movement described in 
two independent clauses in the passage. The sec- 
ond clause is not explanatory of the first. Their 
‘thoughts’ in mutual intercourse (Acytcwol) are not 
identical with their ‘conscience.’ The latter is 
private conscience and individual; the former are 
social. The occurrence of cuvetSynot¢ here presup- 
poses a well-known meaning which may be found 
elsewhere. It appears clearly, in the two passages in 
Acts, where Paul, reviewing his past, expresses his 
consciousness of having always tried to preserve his 
sense of integrity before God. At this point the 
N T agrees with extrabiblical usage, except that 
the religious reference is present. But that is the 
new element which makes a great change ultimately 
in the idea of ‘conscience.’ In the remaining pas- 
sages of Romans (91, 13 5) the meaning is the same. 
In fact, it will be found that, as its fundamental 
meaning, Paul uses the word for that sense of integ- 


— 


145 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Conduit 
Conscience 





rity, or of righteous standing before God (or Christ), 
which accompanies the moral and religious conduct 
of the believer. All other new meanings of the 
word grow out of consideration of that function of 
human Christian consciousness. 


The passage where ‘conscience’ occurs most often 
(I Co 8-10) illustrates the manner in which the con- 
ception grew as soon as the fact began to live in the 
Christian environment. In the presence of a dif- 
ficult practical problem conscience appears as a 
complex fact. (1) The Christian man who recog- 
nizes God’s relation to all things and the nothingness 
of idols knows that the consecration of food to idols 
means nothing. He is, therefore, free to eat what- 
ever is set before him. His knowledge of the facts 
becomes the ground of his integrity before God 
when he partakes. His conscience is clear and sound. 
(2) But he recognizes also that his action affects 
other consciences, of which in this regard there are 
two classes. (a) The weak conscience of a brother 
‘used until now to the idol’ (8 7). This man can 
not rid himself of the feeling that in eating meat he 
continues a former heathen practise. He eats ‘as 
of a thing sacrificed to an idol.’ He therefore eats 
with a ‘weak conscience,’ because of an unclear 
judgment of the facts, and therefore with a ‘defiled’ 
(8 7) or ‘wounded’ (8 12) conscience—that is, with a 
lack of conscious integrity before God. Now Paul 
will not despise his ignorance nor merely pity his 
confused judgment; he will reverence his conscience. 
For'while the conscience is ignorant, lacking knowl- 
edge (8 7a), yet it is conscience, which if it be forced 
by example instead of being set free by insight is 
wounded, and he perishes (8 10 f.). (6) The igno- 
rant conscience of the heathen man (10 27a). If the 
Christian man purchase his food in the open market 
he must do so in his own freedom—ignoring the cer- 
-emonial connection between meat and idol-worship 

(10 25 f.). But as soon as the relation becomes 
personal, the problem is changed. If a heathen host 
(10 27) sets meat before you without remark, your 
own conscience is free. But as soon as any one 
(tt¢ 10 28) calls attention to the connection of the 
meat with idol-worship, the feast becomes a sacred 
meal, a heathen sacrament. That makes abstinence 
a duty, but only for the sake of the other’s con- 
science. To him your partaking now would be a 
denial of the very thing which you know, that this 
consecration of the meat is nothing. / From this it 
is clear that the oft-quoted verse (I Co 8 13) does 
not mean that Paul practised or enjoined permanent 
abstinence from meat. The abstaining conscience 
must keep its own dignity and rights by making ab- 
-stinence wholly relative to the good of others, and 
must not erect its act into a new law of permanent 
and universal authority. There is a dangerous ten- 
dency in the ‘weak’ conscience to become censo- 
rious (Ro 14 3b, 102) and in the strong and free con- 
science to become contemptuous (Ro 14 3a, 10b), 
and against both the Apostle utters urgent warn- 
ings. The guiding principle in this passage (I Co 
8-10) is the same as in Ro 14, altho in the latter 
for ‘knowledge’ the Apostle substitutes the word 
‘faith’ (14 22,23). In both passages the awful signifi- 
cance of conscience appears in this that, if a man 


eat who feels or thinks that it may be against the 
honor of Christ to do so, he thereby abdicates his 
own judgment and acts outside of faith. And whoso 
does this is ‘destroyed’ (Ro 14 15b) and ‘perishes’ 
(I Co 811). And in both passages any other Chris- 
tian man who by his example deliberately exerts that 
compulsion on him is held responsible for the dis- 
aster. In II Co ‘conscience’ is applied not to his own 
approval of his conduct, but to its approval by others 
(4 2, 5 11). This is a most important step in the 
growth of the general conception, for here ‘conscience’ 
is identified as an organ of moral judgment. And 
yet it came naturally through the intensely social 
Christian spirit. For it is the same inner power in 
virtue of which I appraise my own conduct and that 
of others. 

In the Pastoral Epistles conscience is named six 
times; in three cases (I Ti 1 5, 19, 3 9) with ‘faith’ 
or ‘heart,’ as if it had begun to define itself before 
Christian eyes as a fundamental element or faculty 
of human nature. In Tit 1 15 it can be, along with 
the ‘mind,’ defiled. And in I Ti 4 2 it is said that 
certain who fall away from the faith are ‘branded 
in their own conscience as with a hot iron.’ This 
does not mean that they lose the power of making 
moral distinctions, a quite un-Pauline idea; but that 
they suffer the intolerable shame of their defection. 
It is the intense pain of ineradicable guilt which is 
theirs. 


2. The Petrine Usage. The three passages in I 
Peter in which ‘conscience’ occurs yield the same 
meaning as the Pauline. In the first two (2 19, 3 16) 
the general context is similar. The believer is 
amid hostile critics and even persecutors. His 
strength and peace must be found in the possession 
of ‘a good conscience’ which must be the inner sense 
of ‘a good manner of life in Christ’ (316). The word 
is used in a startling way, however, when (2 i9) the 
author speaks of the ouvefSnotg¢ @eod, which is vari- 
ously translated. Is it ‘conscience toward God,’ 
or, as Canon Bigg (JCC. p. 144) prefers, ‘conscious- 
ness of God’? The phrase was apparently so con- 
structed because the writer saw that there is no 
consciousness of God, in the Christian sense, without 
a good conscience toward God. It marks the dawn 
of the great idea that conscience is the voice of God 
in us. But here it means that in the sense of up- 
rightness before Him a man already possesses Him. 
The very difficult passage which almost immediately 
follows (3 20 f.) repeats the word in a sentence that 
is grammatically dark. The baptized man is saved 
‘into God,’ as the eight souls into the ark. But this 
baptism is not concerned with the outward man, 
‘the flesh,’ but with the inner man. In the bap- 
tismal rite ‘the good conscience’ is the matter of 
inquiry, the decisive fact. 7 

3. Usage in the Epistle to the Hebrews. In four 
out of the five places where ‘conscience’ is named in 
the Epistle to the Hebrews the general topic is the 
subjective effect of the atonement of Christ. What- 
ever effect the gifts and sacrifices, the blood-shed- 
ding, under the old covenant produced, they did 
not reach the conscience. The worshiper remained 
in that regard unperfect (9 9); he still had the con- 
science of sins (10 2) or dead works (9 14). But 


Conscience 
Corinthians 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 146 





the blood of Christ does ‘cleanse conscience from 
dead works to serve the living God,’ and men may 
have their ‘hearts sprinkled from an evil con- 
science,’ so that they can ‘draw near with a true 
heart in fulness of faith’ (10 22). It is evident that 
in all these passages the good conscience is regarded 
as the sense of righteousness before God (cf. 13 18,) 
somewhat in the Greek sense noted above. Our 
sense of guilt prevents all approach to God; and that 
is removed only by the blood of Christ. His work 
of sacrifice has made it possible for men to enter the 
holy presence of God with bold hearts and confident 
prayer—that is, with clear consciences. The con- 
science is that in us on which forgiveness through 
atonement operates. 

4. The Philosophy of Conscience. It is evident 
that in the N T we have no clearly defined doctrine 
or theory of conscience, nor even a description of it 
Like other Greek words, ovvetSnot¢ was passing 
into a new world, to describe great facts which were 
now more clearly perceived than was possible for 
prechristian eyes. Some of these may be stated 
here. (1) The feeling of guilt or of joyous confi- 
dence before God, as in Hebrews, is the deepest fact 
in human religious experience. The work of Christ 
deals with that, and it is called ‘conscience.’ (2) 
The believer’s feeling of personal integrity and sin 
cerity in conduct before God and man, as in Acts, 
Romans, Corinthians, is traced to the same inner 
seat of authority. (8) But this feeling is so closely 
allied with and dependent upon ‘knowledge’ or 
intelligent ‘faith’ (I Co, I Ti) that the conscience 
is seen to be a moral scrutinizer of all human con- 
duct. (4) As thus conceived conscience is the 
supreme, the most sacred fact in human nature, to 
preserve which is essential and to destroy which 
can only be the doom of the individual. There can 
be little doubt that N T writers, by their emphasis 
upon this phase of human nature, by making it so 
concrete, and by attaching to it the very highest and 
most solemn significance in relation to the final 
destiny of man, presented fresh material and a new 
stimulus to ethical inquiry. It may be added with 
some confidence that no theory of conscience can hold 
its own which takes no account of those aspects of it 
which are set before us in these brief but momentous 
N T discussions. 


LITERATURE: Cremer’s Lexicon (Trans. 1878) s.v. auveldnots 
W. Herrmann, Ethik, %1904; Martensen, Christian 
Ethics (Individual), Translation, 1884, 338 ff.; H. Schultz, 
Grundriss d. Evang. Ethik, 1891; Newman Smyth, Christian 
Ethics, 1892; B. Weiss, Bib. Theol. of N T, Translation, 1893, 
I, p. 476n, II, pp. 39-41, 128; G. B. Stevens, Theol. of N T 
454-456; G. F. Barbour, A Philos. Study of Christian Et*ics 
(1911), pp. 303 ff.; H. Rashdall, Conscience and Christ (1916); 
BR. W. Hocking, Human Nature, etc. (1918), Pt. IIT. 

W. D. M. 


CONSECRATE: This term is the correct render- 
ing of the Heb. VIP, gadhésh (and cognate words), 
signifying ‘to be holy,’ z.e., ‘separate’ from that which 
is common or profane (see Hoty). But there are a 
number of passages where the Heb. or Gr. terms 


are not adequately represented by the Eng. word - 


‘consecrate.’ In Mic 4 13, ‘devote,’ in Nu 67, 9, 12, 
‘separate,’ ‘separation,’ in He 10 20, ‘dedicate,’ 
and in He 7 28, ‘perfected.’ all RV, are more correct 
renderings. In the majority of instances, however, 


where ‘consecrate’ (and consecration) occur, they 
render a peculiar Heb. expression meaning lit- 
erally ‘to fill the hand,’ or ‘filling’ with ‘hand’ under- 
stood (cf. Ex 32 29; Jg 17 5, 12 for passages where the 
force of the literal expression can still be discerned). 
The expression goes back probably to a remote an- 
tiquity when the priests’ hands were ‘filled’ with 
the offerings, etc., from which he derived his income. 
See PRimstHooD, § 2 a. E. E. N. 


CONSOLATION (xapaxAnots): The ‘consolation 
of Israel’ (Lk 2 25) was an expression derived prob- 
ably from Is 40 1 (LXX.). The comfort or con- 
solation there predicted was popularly understood 
in later times as referring to the Messianic age 
rather than to the return from the Exile. The ‘con- 
solation of Israel’ was consequently the time when 
the promises of the prophets would be fulfilled and 
all—especially the lowly—would rejoice in the rule 
of righteousness and peace. EK. E. N. 


CONSPIRE, CONSPIRACY: The only instance 
where the term ‘conspiracy’ calls for comment is Is 
8 12, where AV reads confederacy. Here the term 
gesher refers probably to the coalition of N. Israel 
and Damascus against Judah which was filling all 
minds with apprehension (cf. 7 1-2). EK. E. N. 


CONSTELLATION. See Astronomy, § 4. 


CONSULT. See Magic anp Divination, § 3; 
and Councin, COUNSEL. 


CONSUMMATION. See Escuatoutoey, § 45. 


CONSUMPTION. See Diseasz anp MeEptr- 
CINE, §§ 2 and 4 (1). 

CONTRIBUTION. See Cuurcga, § 9. 

CONTROVERSY: The Heb. word 3"), ribh, 
often translated ‘controversy,’ means ‘a case or 
suit at law’ (Dt 17 8; IT S 15 2). In the prophets 
the term is frequently used for Jehovah’s ‘case’ 
against Israel. Once (Is 34 8) for the ‘case’ of Zion 
against Edom. E. E. N. 

CONVERSATION: This word is frequently used 
in the AV to render various terms signifying ‘be- 
havior’ or ‘manner of life.’ These have had other 
expressions substituted for them in the RV. In 
Ph 3 20 the Gr. is coAttevya, ‘citizenship’ (q.v.). 


CONVERSION, CONVERT. The RV retains 
‘convert’ only in Ps 5113; Ja 519 f. The Hebrew and 
Greek originals (almost uniformly translated ‘to 
turn’) are applied to physical movements (ef. Jos 
19 12; 2 S 23 10; Ru 1 16; Mk 5 30, 8 33; Lk 2 39 Jn 
21 20; II Pet 2 22). Once émotpégerv is used of 
relations between persons (Lk 17 4). The tech- 
nical use of the English word ‘conversion’ for the 
turning of the soul to God arose from its use in cer- 
tain passages which all go back to Is 6 10. (ef. Mk 
412; Mt 13 15; Ac 28 27). This might imply only a 
change from heathen religion (1 Th 1 9; Ac 15 19), 
but when allied with the deep Christian conceptions 
of repentance and faith, it implied an inner change 
of motive and spirit which has come to be associated 
always with the word conversion (cf. Lk 22 32; 
Ac 3 19, 11 21, 26 20; Ja 5 19, 20). See also Farru, 
REGENERATION, REPENTANCE. *W. D. M. 


CONVOCATION. See AssEMBLY; and Fasts AND 
Feasts, § 1. 


147 





COOK, COOKING. See Foop anp Foop UrrEn- 
sins, § 11. 

COOL: As a noun in Gn 8 8 (Heb. riah, ‘wind,’ 
‘breeze’) it is evidently used to indicate the time of 
day when a breeze is apt to arise as the heat declines 
to its lowest degree before sunset. It was in the cool 
of the early evening that the Orientals usually roused 
themselves from their midday rest. 

COOS, ko’es. See Cos. 

COPING. See Temptp, § 9. 

COPPER. See Merats, § 3. 

COPPERSMITH. See Artizan Lire, § 10. 

COR. See Weicutrs anp Mnrasorss, § 3. 


CORAL: The rendering, which is not entirely 
certain, of the Heb. ra’méth (Job 28 18; Ezk 27 16). 
In Pr 24 7 the same word is rendered ‘too high.’ 
See JCC on Job, ad loc. See Sronns, Precious, § 3. 


CORBAN. See SacriFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 17. 


CORD: The only instance of the occurrence of this 
word in the Bible that calls for special comment is in 
Job 3011, where the sense is obscure. ICC, ad loc., 
suggests ‘bowstring,’ used figuratively for Job’s 
means of self-defense (against God.) E.E.N. 


CORE. See Koran. 
CORIANDER SEED. See Manna. 


CORINTH (Kée180s): The capital of Corinthia 


and of Rom. Achaia. Its;location was incompar- 
able strategically and commercially, as it com- 
manded the sole land route by the natural bridge 
between the continent and Peloponnesus, and was 
supplied with deep-water harbors (Lechzeum, 
Cenchress and Schceuss) on both sides of the Isth- 
mus (81 m. wide). Thessalian Minyans settled 
here c. 1850 B.c, on the northern foot of the lofty 
(1,750 ft.) and impregnable Acro-Corinthus. The 
purple-fish of Greek waters early attracted Pheni- 
cians to Corinth. These brought with them their 
traditions and gods (especially Astarte-A phrodite, 
with the hierodoult, They introduced also many 
manufactures, which made Corinth the center of in- 
dustrial art at an early period (purple dye, artistic 
weaving, cloths, rugs, bronze objects, tables, coffers, 
armor, and pottery). Later, emigrants from Attica 
became supreme. These probably changed the 
name to Corinth. They glorified the games in honor 
of Poseidon at the Isthmus, and opened them to 
other states. 

The Dorian conquest, (c. 1074 B.c.) brought a 
Dorian element to Corinth, but this did not make 
Corinth really Dorian; she detested Dorian exclus- 
_ Iveness and remained luxurious, immoral, and com- 
mercial. A new era of prosperity was introduced 
by Cypselus who reintroduced the monarchy 657- 
629 s.c. Under Periander (629-585) and Psam- 
metichus (585-582) triremes were invented, and a 
series of trading-stations (colonies) were established 
in the W. and N., and relations with Miletus, 
Mitylene, Lydia, and Egypt were cultivated. The 
Cypselids were succeeded by the old Dorian con- 
servative oligarchy, under which Corinth became 
famous for her wealth, luxury, extravagance, and 
licentiousness (abounding in hetere and religious 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





Conscience 
Corinthians 





prostitutes). Hence the proverb, ‘I do not advise 
every man to visit Corinth.’ Not only Corinth’s 
position between two seas, but the difficulty of 
circumnavigating Peloponnesus, and the easy trans- 
fer of wares and even smaller ships by a wooden 
railway (5fo0Axos) across the Isthmus made C. the 
meeting-place of Occident and Orient, and a com- 
mercial and banking center. Being a commercial 
city, C. was lukewarm in the Persian wars. Philip 
and Alexander were proclaimed leaders of the 
Greeks at the Isthmian Games (in 338 and 336). 
Corinth and Greece were declared free by Rome 
at the Games of 196. But it later became the head 


| of anewAchezan League, and at the command of the 


Roman Senate was totally destroyed by Mummius 
in 146. The art treasures were carried as spoil to 
Rome. Its subsequent checkered history includes 
the refounding as a Rom. colony by Julius Cesar in 
46 B.c.; its rapid emergence again into prominence 
(in 2d cent. A.D. C. was the richest city of Greece) ; 
embellishment by Rom. emperors; raids by the 
Goths in the 8rd and 4th cents.; the sacking of the 
Normans 1147; incorporation into the Latin 
duchy of Morea, 1210; capture by the Turks 1459; 
endemic malaria; and final destruction by earth- 
quake in 1858. A portion of the ancient site has 
been excavated by American archeologists. 

Paul, tho not originally intending (Ac 16 9 f.; 
1 Thes. 2 17 £.; cf. Ac 181) to settle in C. remained 
there for 18 months because of a revelation (Ac 
18 9, 10), the elements of which were probably the 
realization of strategic position of C. for the dis- 
semination of new religious ideas, contact with 
Priscilla and Aquila recently arrived from Rome, 
the numerous Jewish colony, the open door which he 
found for work among the Gentiles, and the protec- 
tion of Rom. law and tolerance (illustrated by the 
incident before the proconsul Gallio). Here Silas 
and Timothy joined him later. Altho C. was a 
Jewish center the membership of the church was 
predominantly Gentile (1 Co 122). J.R.S.S.*—S.A. 


CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE: 1. Criti- 
cism of the Epistles. Two of Paul’s undisputed 
letters, written, the first from Ephesus during his 
extended work there on his third missionary jour- 
ney, the second from Macedonia, preceding his last 
visit to Corinth. Both, in the year 55, or more 
probably 56 A.p. They belong to a group of Paul’s 
Epistles (Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans), 
whose authorship, apart from certain sporadic at- 
tacks, conspicuous by their failure (Evanson, 1792; 
Bruno Bauer, 1852; Dutch Critical School, 1882), 
has never been questioned. In fact, this group has 
been made by such radical critics as the Tubingen 
School the standard of Pauline _ literature, 
over against which the remainder of the canonical 
Epistles bearing his name were shown, to their 
satisfaction, to be pious forgeries. 

As a consequence, the chief matters of interest in 
these letters center, not in their authorship, but in 
the conditions of church life in the Apostolic Age and 
in the relations to that life borne by the work and 
the personality of Paul. 

I Corinthians. It is evident from 168 f. that I 
Co was written from Ephesus shortly before Pente- 


Corinthians 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


148 


A TS LL LL LL LL LLL 


cost. As to what year, it is plain that it could not 
have been that of Paul’s first visit to the city, on his 
return from his second mission tour (Ac 18 19-21, 52 
A.p.), since the Epistle was written after Apollos 
had been preaching in Corinth (1 12, 16 12), which 
was subsequent to this time (Ac 18 24-191). It must 
have been some year during the longer stay in 
Ephesus on his third mission tour (53-56 a.p.)— 
most likely at the end of the period; since it was 
written after Timothy had been sent to Corinth as 
the representative of the Apostle (4 17, 16 10) and 
after the Apostle himself had planned a journey 
soon to follow to the same place (419, 165, 7) which 
from Ac 19 10, 21 f. was after he had been two years 
engaged in his Ephesian work. The probable date 
may, therefore, be given as late in the winter, or 
early in the spring of 56, or possibly 55. 


2. Condition of Corinthian Church. The situa- 
tion disclosed by I Co is one of marked unspiritual- 
ity among the members of the Christian community 
and of distinct pastoral anxiety for their condition 
on the part of Paul. The people were returning, 
in a measure, to their old pagan habit of living, as 
shown particularly in the party spirit which seemed 
to possess them all (110-17, 3 3 f.), the sensuality which 
existed unrebuked among them (51 f.), the skeptical 
questionings to which they were giving themselves 
(15 12, 35, cf. Ac 17 32), and the general attitude of 
independency in life and worship (8 9-13, 10 27-33, 
11 1-6, 20-22, 12-14) which was threatening their 
respect and reverence for Paul himself (4 3-19, 5 
9-11, 9 1-3). 

3. Early Correspondence. Indeed before I Co 
the Apostle had been moved by their lack of sensi- 
tiveness to moral conditions to write the people 
bidding them not to keep company with fornicators 
(5 9). To this they had apparently replied that 
the command was impracticable, indicating either 
an indifferent or a designed misunderstanding of it 
as involving the general population of the city 
(510)—a misunderstanding which Paul corrects by 
showing them that his reference was to immoral 
members within the church itself (5 11). 

It was in this reply, evidently, that they laid be- 
fore the Apostle other troublesome problems in their 
church life, such as marriage and divorce (ch. 7), 
meat offered to idols (chs. 8 and 10), the exercise 
of spiritual gifts (chs. 12-14), the collection for the 
Jerusalem poor (16 1-4), and the possible return to 
them of Apollos (16 12). 

4. Oral Information as to Partizan Groups and 
Other Matters. In addition to this, oral information 
had come to him through members of the household 
of Chloe concerning the wide prevalence in the 
church of more or less clearly defined parties (1 11 f.) 
arising from the habit of factionalism which gath- 
ered around claimed excellence in certain of their 
ministers and boasted superiority in certain of their 
members. 

Doubtless through the same informants Paul 
had learned of the aggravated case of immorality in 
the membership (ch 5) and possibly also of the litig- 
ious spirit among them (ch. 6), as well as of their 
skeptical attitude of mind toward the fact of a gen- 
eral resurrection of the dead (ch. 15). 


5. Motive and Contents of I Corinthians. It was 
to rebuke this factionalism in its various forms of 
manifestation, to denounce this skepticism as to the 
truth, and to discuss the questions laid before him 
that I Co was written. 


I. The Apostle takes up, first of all, the reported factionalism. 
After telling them how he had come by the news of it, he visits 
upon it a plain and outspoken reproof, which extends practi- 
cally through the first three chapters of the Epistle. He shows 
them that this spirit is contrary to the divine purpose behind the 
ministry which he had accomplished among them (1 32-17)—in 
fact, against the spirit of the Gospel itself and God’s calling 
of them to its privileges (1 38-31); that it was opposed to the 
principle which had controlled his preaching of this Gospel, 
not only among them (2 1“) but in general (2 &-6); that it was 
against the spirit which had actuated himself and Apollos in 


their ministry to them (3 1-5) and against the true spirituality of — 


the life implanted in them by God (3 16-28), 


II. Such plainness of speech, however, calls for apology, which 
he gives (4 1-5), stating that the reason for his reproof had been 
his desire for a humbleness of life in them such as was seen 
in Apollos and himself (4 6-16), to bring which desire to realiza- 
tion he had sent to them Timothy (4 17-21), 


III. With his mind relieved on this first point of difficulty 
between them, he takes up the reported immorality (ch. 5), 
accusing them not of being themselves immoral, but of not 
being sensitive to those of their number who were, and that 
too altho the particular case which had been cited to him as 
condoned by them was one of infamous nature (51). He 
prescribes the punishment in the case, which involved exposing 
the offender to the infliction of a physical suffering (cf. II, 12 7; 
Ac 13 4), tho with the purpose of the saving of his soul in the 
day of judgment (5 **). He then renews his reproof of their 
lack of moral judgment, taking occasion to remind them of his 
commands to them on this matter in his former (unpreserved) 
letter (5 6-8), 


IV. In ch. 6 he comes to their irritating habit of going to law 
in cases of dispute among themselves. He shows them that such 
@ spirit is out of all harmony with the high dignity of their 
relationship to the world and the true fellowship of their 
relations to one another (6 1411), which leads him to a state- 
ment of the principle of Christian liberty, tho the special appli- 
cation he makes of the principle is to the matter of immoral 
relationships (6 12-20), 


V. 1. This application presents to him the first of the specific 
questions laid before him in the letter from the Church—the 
question concerning marriage. On this he takes high ground. 
He holds marriage to be wise and honorable (7 !-7)—a bond not 
to be loosened even where it involves an unbelieving com- 
panion (7 8-17), In general, he holds that existing relationships 
both in and out of wedlock should best remain as they are, 
though his personal preference is for the unmarried state 
(7 18-40), 

2. The second question concerns the eating of meats offered 
to idols, in reply to which he urges the principle of a self-denying 
regard for others’ opinion (ch. 8), as illustrative of which prin- 
ciple he refers to his own action in the matter of receiving sup- 
port from churches, answering objections to his course (ch. 9), 
and exhorting against a spirit of self-confidence (10 1-15), and 
against idolatry (10 14-22), To this he adds a fuller statement of 
the principle of Christian liberty (10 5-11 1). 

3. There then follows a rather prolonged discussion of the 
complicated question of public worship (11 714 4°). He con- 
siders first the matter of appropriate head apparel in their 
assemblies (11 2-16), from which he proceeds to the vital situa- 
tion involved in their conduct of the Lord’s Supper, which had 
grown so disorderly as not only to become a scandal but to 
bring a deadening influence on their spiritual life (11 17-34), 
Finally he takes up the confusion which had fallen upon their 
exercise of spiritual gifts, disclosing the spirit of order and 
mutual service that should actuate it (ch. 12), while he leads 
them up to a consideration of love as the greatest gift of all 
(ch. 13) and shows them the practical worth and value of the 
gift of speaking with tongues (ch. 14). 

4. With ch. 15 he apparently digresses to the orally reported 
difficulties in the Church, and takes up one of the most im- 
portant and significant of their troubles—their skeptical 
attitude of mind toward the resurrection. With great earnest- 
ness and apologetic skill he meets the objections raised against 
the doctrine, showing how it is necessitated by the historical 
fact of the resurrection of Christ (15 19) and by principles 


149 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Corinthians 





involved in Christ’s relationship to them (15 *°-%8) and funda- 
mental to their spiritual living (15 29-8), 

5. In ch. 16 he returns to the stated questions from the 
Church—first that concerning the collection ordered among 
them for the Jerusalem poor, which was evidently languishing 
for lack of proper method (16 1), and finally, after a discus- 
sion of his own and Timothy’s plans of travel (16 5-4), that con- 
cerning their request for the return of Apollos to them—a 
request which the Apostle himself had favored, but Apollos 
for the present had declined (16 1). 

This ends the Epistle’s message, and a few verses bring it to 
its conclusion (16 1-%4), 

II Corinthians. The Second Epistle was written 
after Paul and left Ephesus and had come by way of 
Troas into Macedonia (2 12 f.). He had been de- 
spondent about the Corinthian church before leaving 
Ephesus and had consequently sent Titus (by the 
short sea route) to Corinth for a betterment of its 
affairs. Titus had met him in Macedonia, coming 
north from Corinth (7 5-7; cf. 212 f.). If Paul left 
Ephesus in the spring or the summer of 55, or pos- 
sibly 56, II Co was written in the summer or the 
autumn of the same year. 

6. Condition of the Church. The situation in 
Corinth at the time II Cowas written is a develop- 
ment of that disclosed by the First Epistle. The 
moral sensitiveness of the community seems to have 
improved, but the factionalism appears to have con- 
centrated itself in an actual movement of party 
hostility against Paul (10 10 f., 11 5-12, 16, 12 11, 15-18, 
13 1 f., 5-7), emanating seemingly from the Christ 
party (10 7, 11 13, 22 f., 13 3) and in all likelihood 
possessing the spirit, if not actuated by the claims, 
of the Judaizers (11 4 f. [cf. Gal 1 6, 2 6-8], 11 13-15 
[cf. Gal 1 8 f.], 11 18-20 [cf. Gal 2 4, 4 3, 9, 51)). 

That this development endangered the relation- 
ship of Paul to the Corinthian Church of course 
needs no proof. Its seriousness, however, gives sig- 
nificance to several indications in II Co that the 
Apostle had been personally involved in the process 
by which it had come to its strength. 

7. Sorrowful Visit. There are, for example, cer- 
tain passages which seem to show that the visit to 
Corinth Paul has in mind when writing is to be his 
third visit to that city (12 14, 13 1-3), while it has 
promise of being a second visit of sorrow (12 21). 
The explanation formerly given, by which these 
passages were referred to the Apostle’s third plan 
to go to them, rather than to his third actual visit, 
is now generally abandoned, and a visit, unrecorded 
in Ac, is admitted to have been made from Ephesus 
after I Co. Its occasion was the development of 
this personal hostility which Timothy, who had been 
sent to Corinth in connection with the First Epistle, 
had apparently been unable to hold in check. Its 
result was unsuccessful (10 10 f.), and the Apostle 
returned to Ephesus in great despondency of mind, 
from which he had not recovered when he left the 
city (2 12 £., 7 5). 

8. Painful Letter. All this is borne out by cer- 
tain other passages which seem to hint at another 
letter sent by the Apostle to Corinth—a letter of 
‘many tears,’ written out of ‘much affliction and 
anguish of heart’ (2 4, 7 8-12)—a description that can 
not suit I Co which, tho a letter of censure and 
blame, was written rather in a balance between 
anger and meekness (I Co 4 21) than in the aban- 
donment of grief. Added significance to the fore- 


going description is afforded by the fact that it is 
found in the passages which refer to events evidently 
connected with this unrecorded visit (21 f. [3 f.], 5-8 
[9], 10 f.) and with Titus’ mission in the emergency 
(7 5-7 [8 £.], 10 f. [12], 13-16). 

9. II Corinthians a Composite Epistle. Apart, 
however, from all such admissions regarding a spe- 
cial letter of tears, tho gaining significant interest 
through them, there has been a growing conviction 
among scholars that the peculiar difference in tone 
and contents of chs. 1-9 from chs. 10-13 points to 
the composite character of II Co. The cheerful 
and satisfied character of the earlier chapters dis- 
closes a situation in the Church of general loyalty 
to the Apostle; the dissatisfied and anxious character 
of the latter chapters betrays one of general dis- 
loyalty to him. In fact, when we note the peculiar 
cross-references between 2 3 and 13 10, 1 23 and 13 
2, 29, and 10 6, it would seem that the states of feel- 
ing on the Apostle’s part, which in the later passages 
are considered as threatening the Corinthians, in the 
earlier passages are regarded as laid aside and re- 
moved—as tho between the situation referred to in 
chs. 10-18 and that referred to in chs. 1-9 there had 
come a change for the better. 

It is significant that in these last four chs. no men- 
tion is made of the Jerusalem collection as being 
the object of any present visit of Titus to the church, 
the reference in 12 18 being to the visit in connection 
with the beginning of the collection (cf. 8 6). This 
would go to show that Titus’ mission at the time 
of the painful letter (7 6-13) was to a situation so 
disturbed as to prevent any consideration of this 
benevolence. This contrasts with the eager urging 
in chs. 8 and 9 that the collection be completed, 
which was possible only because the trouble in the 
church had ceased. 

In view of these peculiarities it would appear not 
only that these last four chapters were written be- 
fore the first nine, but that they contain at least a 
portion of the painful letter, written after Paul’s 
return to Ephesus from the unsuccessful visit—a 
position which gains significance from the fact that 
in the foregoing cross-references those in the earlier 
chapters (1 23, 2 3, 9) are all taken from the pas- 
sages which expressly refer to this visit and the 
letter connected with it. 

This theory is strongly confirmed when the con- 
tents of these chapters are considered in the order in 
which this arrangement places them. 

In ch. 10 Paul begins abruptly with an assertion of his 
apostolic authority, over against a state of criticism and open 
hostility toward him such as is not hinted at in any of the pre- 
ceding chapters (10 1-1). In proof of the fact of his authority he 
cites three things: (a) The independence of his ministry 
(10 42-18), which united with it a jealousy of affection for them 
(11 1-15)—an affection which was all the more marked in com- 
parison with the selfishness of his opponents’ conduct (11 16-21), 
which lacked the background of the labors and sufferings that 
belonged to all his missionary life (11 2>-%3); (6) the visions 
granted him by God (12 !4), together with the infirmities laid 
upon him by the same divine hand and the contact with God’s 
strength into which these weaknesses brought him (12 51°); (c) 
the manifestation of his apostolic power in the working of 
miracles among them (12 1-18), This assertion of his challenged 
authority is then followed by a passage which, for the heaviness 
of heart and bitterness of spirit that it discloses, is unique 


among Paul’s writings (12 4-13 1°). It is burdened with anxious 
fear for the stability of his relations to them (12 14-21), while it 


Corinthians 
Cos 





is sharp with threatened action against them at his coming 
(13 1-10), With this his message closes. 

When we turn to the first nine chapters this stress and strain 
would seem to be all over. The opening chapter, to be sure, 
takes up a criticism which is being urged against him by the 
people; but the charge is a mild one, concerning simply his 
delay in coming to them as he had promised, which seemed to 
them to be a show of fickleness (1 4-17). This charge he meets 
in a spirit of abounding confidence in his own sincerity and in 
their loyalty toward him (1 12-4), showing that his delay had 
been due to his desire to spare them in giving himself time to 
recover from his sorrow over their condition and themselves 
time for a change of their condition, indicating that the case of 
hostility toward him, which they had furnished, should now be 
forgiven by them, as it practically had already been by himself 
(1 18-2 10), Then, after showing how his anxiety to hear from 
them through Titus had left him no peace of mind on his 
journey (2 12 f.), he comes, by a short transition (2 44-17), toa 
review of his ministry among them, confirming their renewed 
approval of it over against such unfriendly element as still 
remained in the Church. He shows the fruit of service to be the 
proof of a true ministry (3 1-1), while he displays before them 
the plainness and honesty of his preaching (3 12-4 6) and at the 
same time the hardship of his ministry and the secret of his 
endurance (4 7-5 1°), closing with an assertion of the absence 
from his mind of all spirit of self-glory (5 2!) and an exhorta- 
tion to them to make their lives effective in the service to 
which they were called (6 1-1%), This is evidently the end of his 
message; for there follows upon this simply the practical warn- 
ing against fellowship with unbelievers (6 '-7 1—unless 6 4-71 
be a remnant of his first letter to them, referred to in I Co 5 9f-), 
—a plea for yet closer fellowship with them, with an acknowledg- 
ment of the comfort their loyalty toward him had already pro- 
duced (7 2-18) and the urging on them of the Jerusalem collection 
(chs. 8 and 9; see above). 


It is seen from this that, while in both sections in 
our II Co there is a personal element in the motive 
for the writing, there is between them a marked 
difference of direction in which this motive proceeds. 
In chs. 10-13 it is straight toward a determination 
to meet and master the hostility which had mani- 
fested itself against the Apostle since I Co, but in 
chs. 1-9 it is all toward a desire to lay hold of and 
safeguard the loyalty which had finally shown itself 
in the church. 

With such an understanding of the contents of 
these two parts of our Epistle and of the purpose 
which lay behind them, it would seem that the 
only arrangement of them possible is that of the 
theory that chs. 10-13 belong to the painful let- 
ter written at Ephesus and chs. 1-9 to the letter 
which followed it on the journey from Ephesus to 
Corinth. 

There would thus be four letters of Paul to the 
Corinthians: (1) The initial letter of prohibition, re- 
ferred to in I Co 59 f., a fragment of which may 
probably be preserved in II Co 6 14-71. (2) The 
letter in answer to the Corinthian communication 
and preserved in our I Co. (8) The painful letter, 
preserved in part in II Co 10-13. (4) The final 
letter, preserved practically entire in II Co 1-9. 

Of these letters the second (our I Co) is the only 
one which has been preserved entire. The third 
and fourth did not become known in the church 
(as we have them in II Co) until some time after 
I Co was current. If during this time they were lost, 
they are likely to have had rough handling and 
have suffered as all MSS. do under such conditions 
—fray away at one or both ends. When they were 
discovered, one including obviously the beginning 
and the other as evidently the ending of a letter by 
Paul (11 f., 101, 18 11-14), it was natural to suppose 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


150 





they formed one letter of the Apostle, and so were 
put together as we have them now. 


10. What the Epistles Show of Paul’s Work. 
When Paul went into Europe on his second mission 
tour his work was carried on much more among the 
Gentiles and was consequently different in its char- 
acter from what it had been previously. The cities 
of his first tour, tho in Asia Minor, were much nearer 
Syria and, therefore, more likely to have in them a 
distinctive Jewish element. In fact, Ac 16 1-4 shows 
us that, while still having this near-by region in 
mind as his immediate field of labor, Paul felt the 
Jewish situation must be especially respected in the 
way his work was done. 

In Europe, however, not only was the Jewish 
element in the communities less in number and in 
influence (cf. Ac 16 13, 18 12-17), but in view of the 
agreement reached at the Jerusalem Council (Gal 
29) the Gentiles were now much more specifically 
and admittedly the object of Paul’s work. The 
Corinthian Epistles disclose the character of that 
European work as it developed in a large city center 
among people uninstructed in religious principles, 
whose difficulties and shortcomings were not so 
much in the direction of doctrinal preconceptions as 
of sheer ignorance of doctrinal truth and crude con- 
ceptions of ethical obligation. Yet it is clear this 
element was present (II Co 11 5, 13, 1211 cf. Gal 11, 10, 
15, 17, 2 6; 11 15, 22 cf. Gal 2 21, 3 7-9, 4 28). In fact 
the Christ party, who seem to have been the main 
source of opposition to the Apostle (II Co 107-u, 
11 23, 12 19, 13 3-7), is likely to have been of Judaizing 
spirit, on the basis that they were following Christ 
in His observance of the law. (See Bacon, Expositor, 
1914). Consequently, whatever Judaizing element 
may have entered into the opposition to the Apostle 
between I and II Co, it must have been of a less 
developed kind than that which animated the 
great controversy in Galatia. For, tho it is clear 
that another gospel was being preached among the 
people (II Co 11 4, 12 £.; ef. Gal 1 6) there is no evi- 
dence that the propaganda of circumcision as neces- 
sary to salvation was being carried on; it was rather 
the preliminary personal opposition to Paul’s apos- 
tleship than the central debate and controversy 
over doctrinal truth (cf. II Co chs. 10-18) taking ad- 
vantage of the Gentile critical individualism to 
break down his authority. 

The Pagan background of these letters is obvious. 

The philosophy of the Cynics and Stoics pro- 
claimed the universal rights of man, which naturally 
resulted in an unrestrained individualism. It also 
held to a worship of the instincts of nature, which 
led to a dissolution of moral distinctions. The in- 
fluence of this philosophy and life is evident in the 
condition of this church. (1) There is the individual- 
ism of their factional spirit (I 1 11-14)? of their dis- 
orderly exercise of spiritual gifts (I chs. 12-14); of 
their idea of the emancipation of woman (I 11 2-16); 
of their tendency to disputatious contests before the 
civil courts, (I 6 1-8); of their criticism of the apos- 
tolic authority of Paul, the founder of their church 
(II chs. 10-13) (2) There is the moral lack seen in 
their carelessness of intercourse with the Pagan 
world (I 6 9-11, 15 33 £., II 6 14-18); in their willingness 





to ignore the obligations of marriage (I ch. 7); es- 

pecially in their failure to rebuke the case of gross 

immorality in their midst (I ch. 5) (3) There is the 
skeptical tendency evident in their speculative de- 

nial of the resurrection of the body (I ch. 15). 
Paul’s first letter particularly is a pastor’s meet- 

ing of these difficulties. He emphasizes their ob- 

ligations in their relations to others, urging the law 
of purity (I ch. 6 cf. II 78-11); the law of self-denial 

(I chs. 8-10 ef. II ch. 9); and above all the law of 

love (I ch. 18 cf. IT 2 1-11). 

LireraturE: Among the N T Introductions accessible to 
English readers Jiilicher, 61906 (Eng. transl. 1904), may be 
consulted for the more advanced critical views, and the unex- 
ampled treasure-house of Zahn, $1906 (Eng. transl. 21917), ex- 
plored for the conservative positions. Also the Introductions 
of Bacon (1900), Moffatt (1911), and Peake (1910). Consult 
also the Comm. of Findlay, I Co, 1900; Bernard, II Co, 1903 
(these two in The Expositor’s Greek Testament); Robertson 
and Plummer, I Co, 1911; Plummer, II Co, 1915; both in 
ICC; Menzies, II Co, 1912. 

For a description of the Corinthian situation consult, besides 
Zeahn’s Iniroduction, von Dobschiitz’s Christian Life in the 
Primitive Church (chs. 2-4), 1904; Lake, The Earlier Episiles 
of Paul, 1911. 

For the composition of II Co, consult Kennedy, The Second 
and Third Epistles to the Corinthians, 1900; and art. ‘‘The 
Problem of Second Corinthians” in Hermathena, No. XXIX, 
1903, with contrary view in Introductions to Bernard’s 
and Menzies’ Comm. above. M. W. J. 


CORMORANT. See Patestinp, § 25. 


CORN. In AV and ERYV this word is used in a 
generic sense (inclusive of barley, wheat, etc.) for 
which, in accordance with American usage ARV 
substitute ‘grain.’ In Job 246 RV reads ‘provender.’ 
See also AGRICULTURE, §§ 4-7; and Foon, § 1. 


CORNELIUS, ker-ni’li-us (Koovfitoc): A Ro- 
man Official referred to in Ac 101 as a centurion of 
the ‘Italian band’ (margin ‘cohort,’ see AUGUSTAN 
Banp), and resident in Cesarea, either in connection 
with his troops stationed there—an Italian cohort 
_ being stationed in Syria, Cir 69 a.p. according to an 
inscription discovered some years ago near Vienna— 
or on detached duty from his command, or even 
possibly retired altogether from active service, his 
Roman name probably indicating that he himself 
was an Italian. 

At the same time, the terms in which he is relig- 
iously described (ver. 2, ‘a devout man and one that 
feared God,’ edceSq>o [differing from ‘devout,’ 
edAaBhc, of Jews, Ac 2 5, 8 2, 22 12] xat poBobuevoc 
toy Oedy; ver. 22, ‘a righteous man and one that 
feareth God,’ Sfxatoc xat goBobuevos toy Oecédy) 
show him to have belonged to those half-way follow- 
ers of Judaism who, tho not circumcized (cf. ver. 28 
with 11 3) and consequently not members of the 
congregation of Israel, had in their feeling after 
the true God adopted certain Jewish practises (cf. 
vs. 2, 30), in virtue of which they not only came into 
good favor with the Jews (cf. ver. 22; also Lk 7 4f.), 
but were permitted to take part in the worship of the 
Synagog (cf. Ac 13 16, 26, 43, 1717). He was thus 
of a class who were not proselytes, in the ac- 
cepted meaning of the term. (See ProsEeLyrTss). 
In these circumstances the baptized admission 
of himself and his household into the Christian 
brotherhood (ver. 47 f.) was such a breach of the 
Jewish principles which then ruled in the Church 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Corinthians 
Cos 


that upon his return to Jerusalem Peter was called 

to account for his connection with the incident 

(112 f.) His justification of his action on the basis 

of the visions received by himself and Cornelius and 

the outpouring upon the convert of the gifts of the 

Holy Spirit was accepted and the case was doubtless 

treated as exceptional, its significant relation to the 

ideal racial unity within the Church not being com- 
prehended. 

Literature: For the military status of Cornelius in Cesarea, 
cf. Ramsay, Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? (1898, pp. 260- 
269); Expos., Sept. and Dec., 1896, Jan., 1897; Rackham, 
Acts, in Westminster Comms., note, p. 146. For the relation 
‘to Judaism of the class to which C. belonged cf. Schiirer, 
HJP. Il, ii., 311-327. For the bearing of the incident on the 
development of the early Church, cf. works on Apostolic 
Age by Bartlett (1899, p. 41 f.), and McGiffert (1897, p. 
107 f.); Rackham, Acts, in Westm. Comms.; Knowling, Acts, 
in Expos. Gr. Test. M. W. J 
CORNER: The exact equivalent of the Heb. pin- 

nah, panah, zawiyyoth, and the Gr. ywvla, in the ma-~ 

jority of instances where the word occurs. The 

word is also used to render (1) pa‘am, ‘foot’ (E 

25 12, AV); (2) migtsda‘, ‘angle’ (Ex 26 24); (8) 

pé ah, ‘quarter’ or ‘side’ (Ex 25 26); (4) kandph, ‘wing’ 

(Is 11 12); (5) kathéph, ‘shoulder’ (II K 11 11, AV); 

(6) tséla‘, ‘rib’ (Ex 30 4, AV); (7) qdtsah, ‘end’ 

(Ex 27 4); (8) Hoph‘al participle of gdtsa‘, ‘turn’ 

(Ezk 46 22); and (9) the Gr. éexn, ‘beginning’ (Ac 

10 11). 


CORNER GATE, GATE OF THE CORNER. 
See JERUSALEM, § 32. 


CORNER-STONE: In Is 28 16 the ‘precious cor- 
ner-stone’ that J’’ is to lay in Zion is the great prin- 
ciple of genuine faith in Him, in contrast to the false 
confidence exhibited by the prophet’s contempo- 
raries. In Ps 118 22 it is Zion (viewed ideally) over 
against the world (its oppressor) that is the corner- 
stone of J’. Inthe N T both of these ideas are sub- 
ordinated to the application of the passages to Christ 
as fulfilling them in the widest sense possible (Mk 12 
10 and ||s; Ac 411; Eph220;IP26f.) EH. E.N. 


CORNET. See Music, § 3 (5). 


CORPSE. See Buriat AND Buriat Customs, 
§ 1; and Purirication, § 6. 


CORRECT, CORRECTION. See CHasten. 


“ CORRUPTION, MOUNT OF (II K 23 13): The 
literal meaning of the Heb. mashhith is ‘destroyer,’ 
tho it may have been taken in this passage in the 
sense of ‘destruction.’ The reference is probably 
to the S. elevation of the Mount of Olives, after- 
ward called the Mount of Offense. E. E. N. 


COS (Kis, Coos AV): A long, narrow island 
between the promontories of Cnidus and Halicar- 
nassus (Ac 211). The ancient capital, Astypalea, 
was supplanted by the town Cos (366 B.c.). Cos 
belonged to the Dorian Hexapolis and the Athenian 
Confederacy. It was declared free by Claudius. 
The island was often devastated by earthquakes. 
Cos was much favored by Herod. It was the birth- 
place of Apelles, Hippocrates, Aristo, and Ptolemy 
Philadelphus. It contained a temple of Asklepios 
and a medical school and was also a banking center. 

J.R.S. S.*—E. EL N. * 


Cosam 
Cosmogony 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


152 





COSAM (Kwcdéy): One of the ancestors of Jesus 


(Lk 3 28). 
COSMOGONY. 1. The Biblical Accounts of 
Creation. Besides a number of references in the 


poetical books (e.g., Job 26, 38; Ps 24 2, 104),the 
O T contains two chief accounts of the Creation. 
(a) Gn 1-2 42 belongs to the Priestly narrative (see 
Hexatreucn), whose regard for system is seen in the 
arrangement of the entire book under ten genera- 
tions or ‘begettings’ (2 4a, 5 1, 11 10, etc.). In the 
case of ‘the heavens and the earth,’ the term ‘gen- 
eration’ is, of course, employed mythologically; and 
2 4a probably stood originally before 1 1—.e., at the 
beginning of its section, as in the other occurrences 
of the expression. The characteristic formal ar- 
rangement of the Priestly writer is also seen in the 
recurrence of stereotyped formulas in Gn 1-2 4a: 
‘And God said,’ ‘and it was so,’ ‘and God saw that it 
was good,’ ‘and there was evening and there was 
morning, a... day.’ (6) Gn 2 4b ff. is from the 
earlier Jehovistic narrative, and differs from 1-2 4a 
not only in being more simple, concrete, and an- 
thropomorphic, but also in its content. It is con- 
cerned almost entirely with the creation of man, and 
the cosmogonic features are secondary. 

2. Gn 11-24a. Turning now to Gn 1-2 4a, we 
notice that there are eight creative works, distin- 
guished by characteristic formulas; and of these one 
falls on each day, excepting the third and sixth 
days, which have two works each. Again the six 
days are divided into two groups of three each, 
whose relation of preparation and accomplishment 
will at once be seen from the following summary: 
1. Light 4. Lights: 


stars. 
5. Living creatures in the 


sun, moon, and 


2. The waters divided by the 


firmament. waters, and birds that fly 
in front of (Heb. ‘on the 
face of’) the firmament. 
3. (a) Dry land separated | 6. (a) Land animals. (6) 
from the seas. (b) Vege- Man. 
tation. 


7. Sabbath of Rest. 

Without attempting a detailed exegesis of Gn 
1-2 4a, the following points should be mentioned for 
their bearing upon the general subject under dis- 
cussion: The Hebrew word bara’ (‘shape,’ Gn 1 1), 
while it here denotes the production by Divine power 
of something fundamentally new, does not neces- 
sarily mean ‘to create’ ex nihilo. An original crea- 
tion out of nothing is not denied by Gn 1, but the 
narrative begins no farther back than the picturing 
of a vast, dark, chaotic, watery mass, the deep, 
(ef. II P 35), upon the face (7.e., surface) of which 
the spirit (literally ‘breath’ or ‘wind’) of God was 
‘brooding,’ or ‘stirring,’ as a bird over her nest.! 
Ver. 1 is rendered incorrectly both by AV and RV; 
it should be translated: ‘In the beginning of God’s 
creating the heavens and the earth, while the earth 
was without form and void, and darkness was upon 
the face of the deep, then God said; ‘Let there be 
light.’ The primeval light is here represented as a 
substance, independent of the luminaries (cf. ver. 
14 f.). Furthermore, darkness seems to be thought 
of as having a distinct existence and abode, and not 


1 See J. P. Peters, JBL, vol. xxx (1911), pp. 44-54, and 
xxxill (1914), pp. 81 f. 


as the mere absence of light (cf. Gn 1 5, 18 with Job 
26 10, 38 19 f.) 

3. Gn 11-24, and Modern Science. Thus it 
appears that the conceptions of Gn 1-2 4a are not 
those of modern astronomy, geology, or paleontology. 
Other discrepancies might be noted, of which the 
following are perhaps the most obvious: (1) There 
is no reason for supposing that the Hebrew word 
yom in Gn 1 is used in any but its ordinary sense of a 
day of twenty-four hours; but even if the writer 
used this word figuratively, the periods there men- 
tioned could not possibly be identified with the geo- 
logical ages. (2) The sun and stars are said to 
have been created after the earth. (3) According 
to Gn 1 there is light, and evening and morning be- 
fore there isa sun. (4) Plant life precedes sunlight. 
(5) Birds precede all land animals, and vegeta- 
tion is complete in its highest forms before any ani- 
mal life appears. 

Attempts to reconcile these statements with the 
teachings of modern science haye been marked 
either by a dogmatic denial of scientific truths? or 
by a distortion of the plain meaning of Hebrew and 
English words. The efforts of the most eminent 
harmonists® are remarkable only for their uniform 
failure.4 ‘Read without prejudice or bias, the nar- 
rative of Gn 1 creates an impression aé variance with 
the facts revealed by science: the efforts at reconcilia- 
tion . . . are but different modes of . . . reading 
into it a view which it does not express’ (the italics 
are Canon Driver’s). The preeminence of the relig- 
ious conceptions of the narrative will be dealt with 
later; but we can not, and need not, escape from the 
conclusion, that here as elsewhere in the Bible, the 
inspired writer shares the ‘scientific’ beliefs of his 
contemporaries. 

The Hebrew conception of the universe or world 
may be briefly stated as follows: The earth is the 
center of all; a circular disk, consisting of the moun- 
tain-island of the dry land, surrounded by the waters 
of the ocean (cf. Is 40 22), resting upon unseen 
foundations (Job 38 6; Zec 121). 
(sky or heaven), like a thin, solid dome (cf. Job 
22 14, ‘vault’ [circuit AV]; Pr 8 27, circle [compass 
AV]; Ps 1049, bounds), restrains the waters above 
it (Gn 1 6), except when its windows are opened to 
let down rain (Gn 711). The firmament also rests 
upon mysterious foundations (II S 22 8; Job 26 11). 
In it are fastened the luminaries (Gn 1 14-17), which 
move in their fixed courses. Sometimes a plurality 
of heavens (? seven; cf. II Co 12 2; Eph 4 10) are 
spoken of (Dt 10 14; Ps 148 4), in the highest of 
which God dwells (Dt 26 15; II Ch 6 21; Am 9 6, 
upper chambers, rather than stories [7.e., ‘succes- 
sive heights’] of AV. Beneath the disk of the earth 
is the dark abode of the departed, called Sheol, 
Abaddon, Hades, or the Pit (Nu 16 33; Pr 15 u1; 
Is 38 18; ef. Rev 68, 911) which forms a bowl under 
the ground that corresponds to the vault of the sky 


2#.g., Keil, Genesis. 

3 #.g., Prof. Arnold Guyot, Creation (1893); Prof. J. D. Dana, 
in Bib. Sacra, Apl., 1885; Sir J. W. Dawson, The Origin of the 
World According to Revelation and Science (1893); Wm. E. 
Gladstone, The Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture. 

4See further H. Morton, “The Cosmogony of Genesis and 
Its Reconcilers,” in Bib. Sacra, Apl. and July, 1897. 


The firmament ~— 





153 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Cosam 
Cosmogony 





above. Beneath the dry land is the great deep 
(Is 51 10), whose storehouses and fountains (Gn 
7 11) feed the seas. 

Such a rapid generalization, however, is apt to 
give the impression that the O T portrays a rigid, 
mechanical universe; and the outlines of the pic- 
ture need to be softened by a consideration of the 
following important facts: There is no single con- 
nected passage which describes the cosmos as a con- 
sistent whole, or even brings together all the funda- 
mental conceptions just mentioned. A large pro- 
portion of the ‘cosmological references are found 


—~ 


in poetry, and ought not to be interpreted as literal 
prose; while others are in highly figurative prophecy 
or apocalypse. The inspired writers showed no 
more hesitancy in employing cosmological concep- 
tions that were shifting and contradictory than do 
we in using these same conceptions in modern poetry 
and colloquial prose.> Indeed, the whole question 
of the original creation and present structure of the 
universe is frequently stated to be beyond the com- 
prehension of human reason (e.g., Jer 31 37; Is 40; 
Job 26 14, 36 29, 37 16 f., 88). In the light of such 
an understanding of the Hebrew cosmology, one 
class of apologetic problems simply vanishes. 

4. The Babylonian Creation Epic. The narrative 
of Gn 1-2 4a has points in common with several 
ancient cosmogonies®; but archeologists are now 
agreed that its immediate source is to be found in 
the beliefs concerning the beginning of the universe 





5To compare ‘the sun rises’ with Ps 19 ¢ f- is the reductio ad 
absurdum of a too mechanical criticism. 

See Dillman, Genesis (trans. 1897), pp. 27-94; EB, s.v. 
Creation. 





which were held by the Babylonians and the 
Assyrians.’ These beliefs have long been known 
in an incomplete form through Greek-Christian 
references to the writings of Berossus, a Babylonian 
priest (c. 300 B.c.); but it was not until 1875 that 
fragments of a cuneiform account of the Creation 
were discovered at Nineveh by George Smith. 
Since then other tablets have been brought to light, 
until now we have more than enough to indicate 
the general plan of the Babylonian cosmogony.® 
The Assyrian cuneiform text just mentioned dates 
from the 7th cent. B.c., but Sumerian prototypes 


ri 
sshit Bit 


UNL ey 


SSS 


Ck 
SOS 


SY 


yeeg { fF 
Ap Wy ay We ‘ 
nes Re. Nias 
aN v.14 
i a a? 
" \ 
9 f 
y Sy R 
2 


GES 
: wz 


G4 


AP ide 
SSS 


TET 


a cs 
ie F 


have been discovered which show that the poem was 
originally composed at least as early as 2500 B.c. 
This great epic, entitled ‘When in the Height,’ 
from its opening words, consists of 994 lines, divided 
into seven sections of approximately -equal length, 
each inscribed upon a separate tablet. “The poem 
embodies the beliefs of the Babylonians and Assyr- 
ians concerning the origin of the universe; it de- 
cribes the coming forth of the gods from chaos, and 
tells the story of how the forces of disorder, repre- 
sented by the primeval water-gods, Apst and Tia- 
mat, were overthrown by Ea and Marduk respec- 
tively, and how Marduk, after completing the tri- 
umph of the gods over chaos, proceeded to create 





7¥For other parallels between Hebrew and Babylonian nar- 
ratives, see articles FLoop, Parapisn, EpEn. 

8 See L. W. King, The Seven Tablets of Creation (1902), vol. I, 
translation and notes; also his more popular Babylonian 
Religion and Mythology (1899), pp. 53-120; G. A. Barton, 
Archaeology and the Bible, 1916, pp. 235-257, with bibliography; 
S. Langdon, The Epic of Creation, 1924, which supplies the 
gaps in the tablets discovered by G. Smith from tablets re- 
cently discovered at Asshur. 


Cosmogony 
Count 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


154 





the world and man.’ Its central theme is the glori- 
fication of Marduk, the supreme god of Babylon, 
and the actual account of the creation of the world 
does not begin till near the end of the Fourth Tab- 
let. The Seventh Tablet gives the fifty titles of 
Marduk, and ends the poem with a fine hymn of 
praise. A few lines from the opening and closing 
are given to illustrate the style of the epic (King’s 
translation): 

‘WHEN IN THE HEIGHT heaven was not named, 

And the earth beneath did not yet bear a name, 

And the primeval Apsii, who begat them, 

And chaos, Tidmat, the mother of them both,— 

Their waters were mingled together, 

And no field was formed, no marsh was to be seen; 

When of all the gods none had been called into being, 

And none bore a name, and no destinies [were ordained]; 
Then were created the gods in the midst of [heaven], 


Lakhmu and Lakhamu were called into being (tay. 
Ages increased cel 
Then Anshar and Kishar were created... .’ 

EPpi.oa. 


‘Let them [t.e., the names of Marduk] be held in remembrance, 
and let the first man proclaim them; 

Let the wise and the understanding consider them together! 

Let the father repeat them and teach them to his son; 

Let them be in the ears of the pastor and the shepherd! 

Let a man rejoice in Marduk, the Lord of the gods, 

That he may cause his land to be fruitful, and that he himself 
may have prosperity!’ etc. 

A study of the entire epic reveals many remark- 
able parallels between the Hebrew and Babylonian 
narratives. The general course of the two accounts 
is the same, and the following specific agreements 
(among others) are striking: (1) Both narratives 
begin with a description of primeval chaos. (2) 
The early creation of light (Gn 1 3) is parallel in 
the original form of the Babylonian myth, according 
to which Marduk was a solar deity. In both ac- 
counts there is light before the creation of the lumi- 
naries. (3) The Deep (7¢hém) of Gn 1 2 shows even 
a verbal similarity to the Babylonian chaos-monster, 
Tidmat; and the occasional personification of the 
Deep as a sullen, crouching monster (Dt 33 13; see 
also Serpent, Dracon, Ranas, LEVIATHAN) is 
undoubtedly a survival of the Babylonian dragon 
myth. (4) The creation of a firmament to divide 
the waters (Gn 1 6) is parallel to the act of Marduk, 
who used half of the cleft body of Tidmat for a 
similar purpose. (5) The Biblical account of the 
creation of the heavenly bodies (Gn 1 14-19) finds 
an exceedingly close parallel in the beginning of the 
Fifth Tablet. (6) In each narrative the culminat- 
ing act is the creation of man. According to the 
Babylonian epic, he was made from the blood of 
Marduk, who spoke thus: 

‘My blood will I take, and bone will I [fashion], 

I will make man, that manmay.... 

I will create man who shall inhabit [the earth?], 

That the service of the gods may be established, and that 

[their] shrines [may be built]. 

5. Superiority of the Biblical Account. Finally, 
tho it is not mentioned in what has been recovered 
of the creation epic, the Sabbath (q.v.) (Gn 2 2 f.) 
was probably of Babylonian origin.® These re- 
semblances in the framework of the Hebrew and 
Babylonian cosmogonies serve only to emphasize 
the infinite superiority of the content of the Biblical 





9 In the second creation story (see EDEN) the local coloring 
is distinctly Babylonian, 


narrative. The Babylonian epic is verbose in 
language and grotesque in its polytheism; chaos is 
anterior to deity, and Marduk gains the supremacy 
only after a fearful struggle. In Gn 1-2 4a the 
language is simple yet majestic, God is from the 
beginning supreme, and the processes of creation 
are but the orderly working out of His unimpeded 
plan. 

The foregoing considerations lead to two conclu- 
sions: (1) Historically: there must have been a 
long period of naturalization in Palestine to allow 
the Babylonian cosmogony to be so refined and 
stripped of all its mythological features. The 
Babylonian creation legends were probably already 
current in Canaan when the Israelites entered the 
Promised Land. (2) While Gn 1-2 4a does not at- 
tempt to teach scientific facts which we could find 
out for ourselves, its revelation of transcendent, 
religious truths evidences the guidance of the Holy 
Spirit. The general outline of the Babylonian epic 
survived, together with the common Semitic con- 
ception of the universe; but the grossness and poly- 
theism of the earlier cosmogony were divinely 
transmuted into monotheism and spirituality. By 
a series of representative pictures we are taught that 
the universe was not self-originated, but dependent 
for its existence and present form upon the decrees 
of the one omnipotent God, whose plan penetrated 
every detail of creation; while man is shown in his 
ideal state as head and center of creation and the 
image of his Maker. 

LITERATURE: Driver, Genesis (3d ed., 1905), pp. 19-33 (with a 
large bibliography). G.T. Ladd, Doctrine of Sacred Scripiure, 
(1883), part II, ch. ii; P. Jensen, Kosmologie der Babylonier 
(1890); H.Gunkel, Schépfung und Chaos,(1895); W.F,Warren, 
The Earliest Cosmologies, (1909); W. N. Rice, Christian Fatth 
in an Age of Science, 1903; J. Skinner, Genesis, in International 


Critical Commentary. See also the works mentioned in foot- 
notes to this article. L.G.L.—L.B.P 


COTE, SHEEP-. See Nomapic AND PASTORAL 
Lirg, § 6. 


COTTAGE: (1) In Is 24 20 AV. The Heb. 
mélinah is the same word as that rendered ‘lodge’ 
in 1s. The reference is to the frail hut used by the 
watchman and easily swayed by the wind (‘hut’ 
ERV, ‘hammock’ ARV). (2) In Isis AV. A less 
correct rendering of sukkah than the RV ‘booth.’ 
(3) In Zeph 2 6 the text is probably confused, and 
the word rendered ‘cottages’ may be a mere du- 
plication of the preceding ‘pastures.’ See Boots; 
Lopas; and VINES AND VINTAGE, §1. E. E. N. 


COUCH. See Ben. 
COULTER. See Puiow. 


COUNCIL, THE: 1. Origin of the Council. The 
chief court of the Jews. Under the Romans a mea- 
sure of self-government was conceded the Jewish 
nation, both as a religious community and as a race. 
The recognized headship of the community was ac- 
cordingly vested in the council of leaders known in 
the Jewish writings as Beth-din-haggddhdl, or by the 
Greek name Luvéderov, synedrium, reduced into the 
Aramaic Sanhedrin (erroneously Sanhedrim) Xup- 
GobAtov, Mk 15 1. The original of this body 


10 The divergences between the Hebrew and Babylonian 
narratives are emphasized by Morris Jastrow, Jr., in Hebrew 
and Babylonian Traditions (1914). 





155 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Cosmogony 
Count 





lies probably, in the Persian period, altho it can 
not be traced clearly farther back than the time of 
the Greek dominion. In this early stage of its exis- 
tence, however, it was known only under the name 
Senate, yeeousta (Ac 5 21; Jos Ant. XII, 33). The 
name Sanhedrin appears first under Herod. 

2. Constitution and Membership. The member- 
ship of this court was according to the Mishna 
(Sanh. 16) fixed at 71 in imitation of the ancient 
court of elders (Nu 11 16). Those qualified to be 
members were in general of the priestly house and 
especially of the Sadducean nobility. But from the 
days of Queen Alexandria (78-69 B.c.) onward there 
were with these chief priests also many Pharisees in 
it under the name of scribes and elders. These 
three classes are found combined in Mt 27 41; Mk 
11 27, 14 43, 53, 151. How such members were ap- 
pointed is not entirely clear. The aristocratic 
character of the body and the history of its origin 
forbid the belief that it was by election. Its nucleus 
probably consisted of the members of certain an- 
cient families, to which, however, from time to time 
others were added by the secular rulers. 

3. High Priest’s Place in It. The presiding 
officer was the high priest, who at first exercised in 
it more than the authority of a member, claiming 
a voice equal to that of the rest of the body. But 
after the reduction of the high priesthood from a 
hereditary office to one bestowed by the political 
ruler according to his pleasure, and the frequent 
changes in the office introduced by the new system, 
the high priest naturally lost his prestige. Instead 
of holding in his hands ‘the government of the na- 
tion,’ he came to be but one of many to share this 
power; those who had served as high priest, being 
still in esteem among their nation and having lost 
their office not for any reason that could be con- 
sidered valid by the religious sense of the community 
- exerted a large influence over the decisions of the 
assembly. In the N T they are regarded as the 
tulers (Mt 26 59, 27 41; Ac 45-8; Lk 2313; Jn 7 26), 
and Josephus’ testimony supports this view. 


4. Functions. The functions of the Sanhedrin 
were religious and moral, and also political. In the 
latter capacity they further exercised administra- 
tive as well as judicial functions. As a religious 
tribunal, the Sanhedrin wielded a potent influence 
over the whole of the Jewish world (Ac 9 2), but as a 
court of justice, after the division of the country 
upon the death of Herod, its jurisdiction was lim- 
ited to Judea. Here, however, its power was ab- 
solute even to the passing of the sentence of death 
(Jos. Ant. XIV, 9 3, 4; Mt 26 31.; Ac 45, 612, 22 30), 
altho it had no authority to carry the sentence into 
execution, except as approved and ordered by the 
representative of the Roman government. 


5. The Law It Observed. The law by which”the 
Sanhedrin governed was naturally the Jewish, and 
in the execution of it this tribunal had a police of its 
own, and made arrests at its discretion (Mt 26 47). 
Accordingly, to the extent that the provisions of this 
law were respected in the trial of Jesus, that trial 
and execution were legal (but cf. Taylor Innes, The 
Trial of Jesus, 1899; Rosadi, The Trial of Jesus, 
1905). The trial and stoning of Stephen, however 


(Ac 6 12 ff.), appear to have been too summary and 
out of harmony with the procedure prescribed by the 
law, and therefore illegal. 

6. Taxation Among the administrative duties 
of the Sanhedrin was the collection of taxes. Under 
the procurators, the custom had been established 
throughout the empire of committing the levying of 
taxes to the local authorities of the subject countries, 
for the most part to the senates of the towns. In 
accordance with this practise the Sanhedrin became 
responsible for the collection in Judea (Jos. BJ. II, 
17 1). In carrying out this provision it sold the 
revenue to tax-purchasers or speculators (publicans) 

7. Temporary Limitations of Power. The fore- 
going holds true of the period between 6-66 A.p., 
7.e., the period of the Roman procurators. Before 
the opening of this period restrictions and restora- 
tions of the jurisdictions took place alternately. 
Gabinius, the proconsul of Syria, for instance (57-55 
B.C.), subdivided Judea into five districts, assign- 
ing each toa separate council (cuvé3erov, abyodoc, 
Jos. Ant. XIV, 54; BJ.I,85). Thus he limited the 
jurisdiction of the Jerusalem council very materially. 
This was, however, done away with by Julius Cesar 
in 47 (Ant. XIV, 9 3-5; BJ. I, 107), and the Sanhedrin 
was restored to its former supremacy. With the de- 
struction of Jerusalem the council was abolished. 

8. Extent of Jurisdiction. While the general 
authority of the Sanhedrin extended over the whole 
of Judea, the towns in the country had local coun- 
cils of their own (ouvédera, Mt 5 22, 1017; Mk 189; 
Bovrat, Jos. BJ. II, 141) for the administration of 
local affairs. These were constituted of elders (Lk 
7 3), at least 7 in number (Jos. Ant. IV, 8 14; BJ. 
II, 205), and in some of the largest towns as many as 
23. What the relation of these to the central coun- 
cil in Jerusalem was does not appear clearly. They 
were probably not inferior courts in a uniform sys- 
tem with the right of appeal from the lower to the 
higher, but rather independent judicatories with a 
definite recognized work. And yet their inde- 
pendence did not amount to absolute unrelatedness 
to one another. Some sort of mutual recognition 
existed among them; for whenever the judges of the 
local court could not agree it seems that they were 
in the habit of referring their cases to the Sanhedrin 
in Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. IV, 814; Mishna, Sanh. 11 2). 

. AY Gy, 


COUNCIL, also COUNSEL: A conference more 
or less informally held (sdédh, Ps 55 14; Pr 15 22), but 
not necessarily of those who bore no office or re- 
sponsibility. The council of leaders in Jerusalem 
(cuuBobAtov, Mt 1214; Ac 2512) included probably 
members of the Sanhedrin, as well as leading lay- 
men. The act of holding such councils (counsels) 
is called ‘consulting’ (Ps 83 3) and its finding 
‘counsel’ (GovAn, Lk 23 51). Ap Riedl 


COUNT: Besides being the usual rendering of 
minah, saphar, vyptterv, and cuudypiterv, all mean- 
ing in general ‘to calculate,’ the word renders (1) 
the Heb. hashabh=Gr. doyitecbat, ‘to think’ or 
‘impute’ (Gn 15 6; Ro 2 26; Ph 313). (2) pagadh, 
‘to inspect’ (I Ch 21 6). (3) &yev, ‘to hold’ (Mt 
14 5; Phm 17), and (4) tyetcba, ‘to account’ or 
‘estimate’ (Ph 3 7, 8; He 10 29), A. C. Z. 


Countenance 
Crete 


A NEW STANDARD 

COUNTENANCE: In most instances this is the 
rendering of words meaning ‘face’ or ‘appearance.’ 
In Dn 5 6, 9, the original z?w means the ‘brightness’ 
or ‘color’ of the face. In IS 16 12 ‘eye,’ in I § 25 3 
‘form’ is the literal meaning of the Heb. 


COUNTRY: In most instances the suitable ren- 
dering of terms meaning ‘land,’ ‘field,’ or ‘place.’ 
The following cases call for remark: In Dt 3 14 the 
original word means a ‘district marked off’; in Mk 61, 
4 and |/s; Jn 4 44; He 11 14, it means ‘fatherland’; 
in Lv 16 29, 17 15, 24 22; Nu 15 13; Ezk 47 22, the one 
Heb. word means ‘native’; in Mk 121 and ||s and Mt 
25 14, ‘went into a far country’ is simply ‘went 
away from home.’ In Jos 17 11, Jer 47 4, and Ac 4 36 
RV gives the more correct rendering. E. E. N. 


COUNTRYMAN: The translation of yévoc, ‘race’ 
(II Co 11 26), and of ovy.qudrétys, ‘of the same tribe’ 
(I Th 214). In the first instance Paul is referring 
to the Jews, in the second to the fellow citizens of 
the Thessalonian Christians. 


COURSE: This term signifies one’s way or habit 
of life (Jer 8 6, 23 10). In Eph 2 2 it renders the Gr. 
aidy, ‘age.’ In Ac 18 25, 20 24; If Ti 47 the Gr. 
is Seéuoc, ‘running course,’ 7.e., the task or mission 
of life. In Ja 36 the Gr teoxéc, ‘a running thing,’ 
‘a. wheel,’ refers to one’s natural disposition, tem- 
perament, tendencies, etc.; in other words, to the en- 
tire compass of one’s life. See Ropes’ extended note 
in ICC, ad loc. Other occurrences need no explana- 
tion. (See also Cosmocony, § 3; and PriesrHoop, 
§ 10.) HK. E. N. 


COURT. Sce Houss, § 6 (f); Pauacs; and Tem- 
PLE, §§ 6, 20, 27, 29 f. 

COUSIN: In AV of Lk 1 36, 58, for Gr. ouyyevic 
‘kinswoman’ or ‘relative’ (so RV); In Col 4 10 
(avept6¢) ‘cousin,’ RV, is preferable to ‘sister’s son,’ 
AV. 

COVENANT: 1. General Idea. (1°13, berith, 
Assyr. biritu; cf. Zimmern, Bab. Bussps. 59, 82, from 
a root barah, ‘to determine,’ Assyr. bart, Gr. 8:a0qxn, 
‘disposal’): Broadly, a compact or agreement. In 
this sense covenant is used frequently of contracts 
among men. Abimelech at Gerar entered into cove- 
nant with Abraham (Gn 21 27), and afterward under 
similar conditions with Isaac (Gn 26 28). Abraham 
entered into covenant with the Amorites (Gn 14 13 
‘were confederate,’ EV), Laban with Jacob (Gn 31 
44), Jonathan with David (IS 18 3. 23 18), Solomon 
with Hiram (I K 5 2-6), Ahab with Ben-hadad (I K 
20 34), etc. 

2. The Biblical Covenant. But in Biblical 
usage, this general conception of covenant developed 
into a much more specific one. For (1) as a contract 
includes a binding element, or creates an obligation, 
a covenant becomes a bond, imposed by two cove- 
nanting parties upon each other, or by one upon him- 
self and the other. Hence in passages such as Gn 
15 18 f. the covenant is made by J” (cf. also Jos 24, 
by Joshua in behalf of J’’; Jos 97, Joshua with the 
Gibeonites; II K 11 4 by Jehoiada, and II K 23 3 
by Josiah, in behalf of J’). The part of Abraham (or 
those who may be called the second party in the 
affair) is passive. It is quite proper to speak of it 
as voluntary; but the covenant is not in these in- 


BIBLH DICTIONARY 


156 _— 


stances entered into by God and man upon abso- 
lutely the same terms. (2) The second limitation 
of the general idea is introduced with the religious 
element in it. A covenant is not merely a contract 
as between men and before men. God is invoked 
in it as a third party. He has a share in its terms 
and results. Even when the agreement aims at 
outward material ends, it is not complete until by 
a religious service J’’ has been brought into the trans- - 
action. To this end an oath, curse, or sacrifice is an 
indispensable ceremonial accompaniment. When 
Abimelech (Gn 26 26 f.), acting for himself, Ahuzzah, 
and Phicol, proposed to Isaac that they should 
enter into covenant, he used the formula ‘Let there 
now bean oath betwixt us, even betwixt us and thee,’ 
and ‘let us make a covenant’ (ver. 28). The word 
used here for ‘oath’ may also be rendered ‘curse’ (cf. 
also Gn 31 44 ff., the covenant between Laban and 
Jacob). (3) A third limitation is the creation of a 
new relation between the covenanting parties. In 
the later development of the idea and in some ex- 
trabiblical expressions of it, this is symbolized by 
some act or acts denoting the possession of a com- 
mon life. The partaking of a sacrificial meal, of 
salt (which is in such cases the substitute of blood), 
or of blood itself, either poured out in the form of a 
libation or used in other emblematic ways (W. Rob- 
ertson Smith, Rel. of Sem., p. 451), was made to 
serve as the sign of the new and irrevocable rela- 
tionship, the object of which was mutual benefit and 
helpfulness. So far as the covenant was concerned, 
those who entered upon it were bound to regard each 
other as members of a new organic entity. So 
sacred and intimate was the new relation that noth- 
ing could surpass the enormity of the sin of cove- 
nant-breaking. ‘The sin is loathed and denounced 
by the prophets in unmeasured terms (cf. Hos 6 7, 
81, 10 4; Is 245; Jer 1110). On the other hand, it is 
a sure manifestation of God’s perfection that He can 
not and does not forget His covenants, but remains 
constant to the rights and obligations created by 
them (cf. Ro 3 1-4). 


3. God’s Covenant an Expression of His Grace. 
Accordingly, the covenant of God with His people 
is an expression of His love for them. It may be 
called the divine constitution or ordinance, which 
is designed to govern human relations with Him- 
self. As such it appears in the record of His deal- 
ings with Noah (the Noachic covenant, Gn 9 11 f.). 
Even the story of Eden has been read by some in 
the terms of the covenant idea. But it is more 
particularly the Divine mode of defining the relation 
with the Chosen People. Abraham was taken into 
covenant at the very beginning (Gn 15 18) with a 
symbolical and impressive ceremony. With Moses 
and the new stage of development in the life of the 
people, Israel as a nation is pictured’ as entering into 
covenant with J’ in an even grander and more im- 
pressive transaction (the Sinaitic covenant, Ex 34 10, 
27, 28). By a covenant with Phinehas an everlast- 
ing priesthood was established (Nu 2512f.). Other 
covenants with the same ruling idea are those with 
Joshua and Israel (Jos 24 25), David (Ps 89 4, 132 12; 
Jer 33 21), Jehoiada (II K 11 17), Hezekiah (II Ch 
29 10), Josiah (II K 28 3), and Ezra (Ezr 10 3). 





157 





4. Covenant with Collective Bodies. It was 
characteristic of the covenant idea that when entered 
into it bound not only the individual but his family 
and posterity, and as a counterpoint the benefits 
and privileges secured by it were transferred to the 
offspring of the parties to it. The covenant with 
Abraham was made with him and with his seed for- 
ever (Gn 1710). Moses was not an individual but a 
representative of the whole people before J’. The 
covenant with David was the means of blessing to 
the whole lineage of the great king (II S 23 5; II Ch 
13 5, 217; Jer 33 21). The national poetry embodied 
in glowing terms the conviction that the covenant 
with David was the ground for the unfailing care on 
the part of J’ over the royal dynasty as well as over 
the people ruled by it. 


5. The Prophetic New Covenant. Israel’s ex- 
periences with the covenant led the prophets to de- 
spair of its continuance, but its lapse would not be 
final (Hos 19 f., 2 2, 23,33). They predict its reno- 
vation and reestablishment under better conditions. 
In this form they called it the New Covenant differ- 
ing from the old (1) in spirituality. It should be a 
covenant written on the hearts of God’s people 
(Jer 31 31), and God’s people should be not a tribe 
or nation but a society of individuals who should 
know Him and keep His covenant. (2) In uni- 
versality. Through Israel the new religion of God 
should extend to other nations and the covenant 
should embrace these too (Is 49 6). (8) Its results 
would be forgiveness of sin and a new righteousness 
(Jer 31 34). 

6. Covenant in N T. The covenant conception, 
having served its purpose in the O T, disappears 
from the N T, yielding to the expression of God’s 
relation to man in the terms of an individual fellow- 
ship and indwelling. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
however, it is still made to serve as the basis of the 
difference and contrast between the better order of 
things introduced through Jesus Christ and the old 
order either under the Abrahamic or the Sinaitic 
covenants (7 22, 8 6 ff., etc.) A. C. Z. 


COVERING. See Tapernactz, § 3 (2). For 
usage in Ex 22 27; Job 31 19, cf. Dress AND ORNA- 
MENTS, § 3. 


COVERT: (1) In I S 25 20 the meaning is that 
Abigail was concealed from view as she drew near 
to David and that the meeting between them was 
sudden. (2) In II K 16 18 RV reads ‘covered 
way.’ The sense of the entire verse is obscure, and 
what is meant is not known. EK. E. N. 


COVET, COVETOUSNESS: This term ex- 
presses various ideas: (1) Desire to have. As such 
it is not only innocent, but when its object is worthy, 
commendable (I Co 12 31, 14 39, ‘desire’ RV). Also, 
however, (2) desire inordinate and without any 
ulterior purpose, in which case it is folly (Lk 12 15 #.) 
and idolatry (Eph 55; Col 35). (8) Desire to possess 
that which belongs to another. Such desire is 
contrary to the moral law (Ex 20 17, ‘lust’ AV; 
Ro 77). Possibly (4) the effort to secure what one 
has no right to possess (I Ti 6 10, ‘to reach after’ 
RV). A. C; Z. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Countenance 
Crete 


COW. See Nomapic anp Pastorat Lire, § 
4; and PauEsTINE, § 24. 


COZ. See Haxxoz. 

COZBI (312, kozbi), ‘deceitful’: A Midianite 
princess, slain by Phinehas (Nu 257 f., 15, 18). 

COZEBA. See Acuzir. 

CRACKNELS. See Foon, § 2. 

CRAFT. See Artizan Lirs, § 1. 


CRAFTSMEN, VALLEY OF. 
sHIM; and Crry, § 4. 


CRANE. See PALzstIne, § 25. 

CRAWLING THINGS. See Pauesting, § 26. 
CREATE, CREATION. See Cosmocony, §§ 1-3. 
CREDITOR. See TrapE anp Commerce, § 3. 
CREEPING THINGS. See PaumstTIne § 26. 


CRESCENS, kres’senz (Kejoxys): An early Chris- 
tian mentioned in IT Ti 4 10 as having gone to Gaul 
(Gr. Dadtatiav, or as in some MSS. [p, C], PaddAtav; 
ef. Zahn, Introd. to N T, § 38, n. 8). The fact that 
Titus was sent at the same time to Dalmatia sug- 
gests that both journeys may have been undertaken 
for the purpose of preaching the Gospel in new 
regions. According to later tradition (see Tille- 
mont, Mem. I, 585) C. was the founder of the Church 
in Vienne and Mainz. Japlees bs 


CRESCENTS. See Dress and ORNAMENTS, 
IT, 2. 

CRETE, krit (Kenrn): An island in the Mediter- 
ranean, 60 miles south of Greece, known to the 
Venetians and then to geographers of a later time 
as Candia. It is 150 m. long and from 7 to 30 m. 
wide. Crete was one of the chief seats of the wor- 
ship of Zeus, whose legendary birthplace was on 
Mt. Ida or in the cave of Dicte. Minos was the 
son of Zeus and the founder of the civilization of the 
island, which is commonly known as Minoan. The 
excavations made since 1900 by Dr. A. J. Evans 
and others have shown that there was a substantial 
basis for the ancient legends about the greatness of 
the house of Minos. The chief religious symbol was 
the double ax, or labrys; and in speaking of the great 
Minoan palace at Knossos Dr. Evans says it is 
‘probable that we must recognize in this vast build- 
ing with its maze of corridors and chambers and its 
network of subterranean ducts, the local habitation 
and name of the traditional Labyrinth.’ There was 
a considerable degree of culture with a system of 
pictographic writing as early as 2500 B.c. and by 
1500 they were using ‘a highly developed form of 
linear script, with regular divisions between the 
words, and for elegance scarcely surpassed by any 
later form of writing.’ The theory of Dr. Evans 
that the Phenicians derived the alphabet from this 
script is accepted by Moulton in his Greek Grammar 
as well as by some other scholars. (See Scripta 
Minoa, 1909, p. 86 ff.) About 1400 B.c. the great 
Minoan palace was burned and this civilization over- 
whelmed. It is thought by many that the Philis- 
tines (q.v.) were emigrants from Crete just after 
this catastrophe. The island possessed a large num- 
ber of independent cities, in some of which, notably 
Gortyna, many Jews were settled before the middle 


See Gr-Hara- 


Crickets 
Crimes and Punishments 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


153 — 





of the 2d cent. B.c. The Romans occupied Crete 
in 67 B.c., during the great war with the pirates, 
and under the Empire it was made a senatorial 
province along with Cyrene. By universal testi- 
mony the Cretans were avaricious, fraudulent, and 
sensual, as their poet Epimenides (600 B.c.), called 
by Plato a ‘divine man’ and quoted in Tit 1 12, also 
affirms. If the Gospel was first carried there after 
Pentecost (Ac 2 11), it did not apparently make 
headway until the visit of Paul and Titus (Tit 1 5). 
See also Farr Havens; and Paanix. 
R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


CRICKETS. See Pauustine, § 26. 


CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS: 1. Hebrew 
Penology. The fundamental principle of Hebrew 
penology is strict retribution. The lex talionis, in- 
cluding property as well as the person, is enunciated 
in all three sections of the Mosaic codes (Ex 21 23-25; 
Lv 24 17, 19 f.; Dt 19 21). This was a primitive 
Semitic penal custom and was common to all the 
codes of law of W. Asia that have been recovered; 
to CH [Code of Hammurabi (c. 2000 B.c.)], to AC 
[Assyrian Code (c. 1600 B.c.)], to HC [Hittitte Code 
(c 1350 B.c.)]. In the CH it is expressed in phrase- 
ology almost identical with Biblical language: son 
for son, §§ 116, 230, daughter for daughter, § 210, 
eye for eye, § 196, limb for limb, § 197, tooth for 
tooth, § 200, life for life, § 229, slave for slave, 
§§ 219, 231. The punishment of crime had two 
great purposes: (1) deterring others from similar 
offenses (Dt 17 13), (2) the extirpation of the evil 
from Israel (Dt 13 5). In reviewing this subject 
the historical development of the Hebrews must be 
kept in mind. In the nomadic state crime was re- 
venged rather than punished, and it was looked upon 
as an injury done to a tribal brother (see Buoop, 
AVENGER OF). Down to the later monarchy the 
solidarity of the family involved every member in 
the crime and punishment of the guilty individual 
(Achan Jos 7 24 f.; kinsfolk of Saul II § 21 1-9), but 
this principle was abrogated in the Dt. law (Dt 
24 16; cf. II K 14514.). When the nation passed 
into the agricultural and later to the commercial 
state of society, the object of punishment was to 
protect life and property. The Hebrews, like other 
peoples of antiquity, did not make a sharp distinc- 
tion between crime and sin, and consequently we 
find religious laws included in the same code with 
civil and criminal enactments (cf Law anp LEGAL 
Practise, § 1.) Under the ethical influence of the 
religion of Jehovah, crime came to be regarded as a 
violation of the righteousness and holiness of God, 
and was punished in order to vindicate these Divine 
attributes. The N T reflects Roman as well as 
Hebrew ideas in regard to both crimes and punish- 
ments. 

2. Crimes. The more serious infringements of 
the Law may be grouped into three classes: (a) 
Injuries to property. Under this group falls theft, 
which is absolutely prohibited in the Decalog (Ex 
20 15). The CH is more severe than the Biblical 
codes in its treatment of this evil. In the former, 
stealing is a capital crime—the receiving, purchas- 
ing, and selling of stolen goods, man-stealing, the 
detention of a slave, brigandage, looting at a fire, 


appropriating state levies—all being punishable 
with death (cf. Ex 21 16, 22 2; Dt 247; Jos 7 25). 
The owner of a vicious bull was liable for any injury 
inflicted on the slave of another by the goring of 
the animal (Ex 21 28 f.). The CH, §§ 250-252, in- 
flicts a fine for a similar case. The practise of 
extortion was no doubt common enough in O T 
times (Ps 109 u1, ‘extortioner’ =‘usurer’), but in 
the N T (Mt 23 25; Lk 19 8) it refers to a form of 
blackmail levied by the publicans (q.v.). 


(b) Injuries to person or life. Bribery, also 
termed a gift, not only might prevent justice, but 
place the person of the accused in jeopardy. The 
Biblical codes have the former evil in mind (Ex 23 8; 
Dt 16 19), while the CH contemplates the latter: ‘If 
@ man in a case bear witness for gain or money, he 
shall himself bear the penalty imposed in that case’ 
(§ 4). Lying, forswearing, and bearing false 
witness also resulted in the miscarriage of justice 
and were fraught with danger to the accused person. 
They were prohibited (Ex 20 16; Liv 19 12; cf. Mt 
5 33), and the guilty party was to be punished ac- 
cording to the lex talionis. In the CH the false 
charge of a capital crime makes the accuser lable 
to the death penalty (§1), and the slanderer of a 
priestess or of a married woman was to be branded 
on the forehead (§ 127). The breaking of a vow that 
had been strengthened by an oath was not per- 
missible (Nu 30 2; cf. Lv 5 1-6; Jg 17 2 #.). The 
oath of purgation is required in seven instances by 
the CH (§§ 131, 227 et al.). The O T regards hu- 
man life as sacred, because it was created in the Di- 
vine image (Gn 9 6). Manslaughter is carefully 
distinguished from murder, the latter being the re- 
sult of premeditation and malice, the former of acci- 
dent (Ex 2113; Dt 194). In the case of manslaugh- 
ter the offender could find an asylum (Nu 35 11, 15; 
Dt 195), but murder was always a capital crime and 
the penalty could not be commuted by a ransom or 
blood-money (Nu 35 31 ff.). Parricide and infanti- 
cide are not mentioned in the Mosaic codes, but 
there are many instances of assassination and suicide 
in the O T (Jg 3 20 f.; 1S 314 #.). The tribal cus- 
tom of blood revenge (see BLroop, AVENGER OF) 
which is entirely unknown to the CH, prevailed 
among the Hebrews in the earlier periods of history, 
but the attempt was made later to regulate it (Dt 
24 16; Nu 35 12-34). 


(c) Offenses against the moral order and the fun- 
damental ‘aws of the theocracy: Every improper 
use of the Divine name (Lv 24 11), speech derogatory 
to the majesty of God (Mt 26 65), and sins with a 
high hand—+.e., premeditated transgressions of the 
basal principles of the theocracy (Nu 9 13, 15 30; Ex 
31 14)—were regarded as blasphemy; the penalty 
was death by stoning (Lv 24 16). The Mosaic 
codes dealt with the improper relation of the sexes in 
detail. To lie carnally, and fornication are gen- 
eral terms for illicit sexual intercourse (Lv 18 20). 
The prevalence of prostitution, at a later date in 
Israel as well asin the Greco-Roman world, was ap- 
palling (Pr 7 6-19; Ro 1 26), but it was strictly pro- 
hibited (Lv 19 29; Dt 23 17 £.). See also Hartor. 
The abominable Canaanitie practise of having tem- 
ple prostitutes (gdhéshdth) was forbidden (Dt 23 17). 


159 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Crickets 
Crimes and Punishments 





The devotee, or sacred prostitute, enjoyed the privi- 
leges of special legislation in the CH (§§ 110, 178, 181, 
182). The Mosaic codes, however, debarred a son of 
harlotry or of fornication from the congregation (Dt 
232). Adultery is a capital crime in the CH (§ 129). 
Incest in its various forms Is prohibited in Lv 18 6-18. 
The CH, §§ 154-158, deals severely with this crime, 
in one case—a man with his son’s wife—drowning 
being the penalty, in another—a man with his moth- 
er—death at the stake. Sodomy, common enough 
among the Canaanites, is looked upon as an abomina- 
tion and absolutely prohibited (Lv 18 22; Dt 23 17). 
It may be noted that AC has numerous barbarous 
penalties for sexual crimes, §§ 18, 19, 39, 50, 51, et 
al. 

3. Punishments. The purpose of punishment has 
been noted above. Torture and barbarous methods 
of inflicting penalties—e.g., blinding, maiming, tear- 
ing out the tongue, and suffocating, which were 
common in antiquity, a prominent feature of AC— 
are foreign to the spirit of the O T. Torture was 
first introduced by the Herods. (a) Capital pun- 
ishment was administered in various ways. Stoning 
was the ordinary method of inflicting the death pen- 
alty among the Hebrews (Ex 19 13; Lv 20 27, 24 
10-23; Dt 13 5, 10, 21 21; Ac 7 59). The stoning took 
place outside of the camp and in the name of the 
congregation (Lv 24 14), the witnesses casting the 
first stones. Beheading was not known as a judicial 
penalty in the Mosaic codes, and when death by the 
sword is mentioned in the O T we are to think 
of thrusting rather than decapitation. The latter 
was first introduced among the Jews in the Roman 
period (Mt 1410 #.). The hanging of the living was 
introduced by the Romans; the Hebrews some- 
times impaled or hung the lifeless body on a tree (Dt 
21 23; Gal 3 13), the exposure of the body being in- 
tended as an added indignity. The Heb. ydaga‘ 
(translated ‘hang’) is uncertain in meaning (Nu 
25 4; 11S 216). Gallows are mentioned as a Persian 
institution in the story of Haman (Est 2 23, 7 9). 
According to the CH, § 153, a woman who murders 
her husband is to be impaled; in AC, § 51, the same 
penalty is imposed on a woman who brings on a mis- 
carriage. The Babylonian code imposes burning 
as a penalty for incest (§ 157; cf. Lv 20 14, 21 9), 
for theft at a fire (§ 25), and upon a priestess for 
entering or conducting a wine-shop (§ 110). The 
oft-recurring phrase cut off is not a designation for 
the death penalty, but signifies excommunication 
(Ex 12 15, 19; Lv 7 20 #., 23 29; Nu 913). Crucifixion 
was a terrible method of punishment adopted by the 
Romans from the Orient, and used by them only on 
slaves and the vilest criminals (Cicero: extremum 
summumque supplicium). Roman citizens were al- 
_ Ways exempt. The method of administering this 
punishment was, immediately following condemna- 
tion, to scourge the prisoner. (The fact that Jesus 
was scourged before the sentence [Jn 191 £.] may 
have been due to a desire on Pilate’s part to offer this 
milder punishment as a compromise between the 
full penalty and release). Then the transverse 
beam of the cross was laid upon his shoulders and 
borne by him to the place of execution (Mk 15 21 
and ||s), while the tablet on which was written the 


accusation against him was either hung around his 
neck or carried before him. (See SUPERSCRIPTION). 

On arrival at the place of execution, the prisoner 
was stripped of his clothing by the soldiers detailed 
to carry out the sentence, who appropriated it as 
their booty (Mk 15 24 and ||s). The beam was then 
placed on the ground and the victim laid upon it, 
his hands being fastened to its ends, sometimes with 
cords, usually with nails (Jn 20 25). After this the 
beam with the victim was raised up and securely 
fixed to the upright stake, already permanently 
planted in the ground, the body resting astride a 
projecting piece of wood nailed to the upright. By 
this means the strain on the hands was relieved and 
they were prevented from being torn from their 
fastenings. As a last act the feet were securely 
fastened to the lower part of the upright, either with 
nails or with cords, and the victim was left to die 
from exhaustion, which did not issue sometimes for 
days. 

The upright being a stake rather than a tall pole, 
the doomed man was fully exposed to the insults of 
the populace, who out of curiosity or malice might 
be present. There was, however, in Jerusalem at 
least, a humane custom of alleviating the torture 
of the final hours by giving the sufferer a stupefying 
draft (Mk 15 23 and |/s), and at times an end was 
put to the agony by breaking the sufferer’s legs 
(Jn 19 31 £.). (The different treatment in Jesus’ 
case (vs. 33 f.), may have been due to brutality, 
or a desire to make doubly sure of his death). 
(See Cross, I.) 


(b) Physical punishments other than capital: 
From its frequent mention in the O T (Ex 21 20; Pr 
10 13, 17 26, 26 3; Jer 20 2, 37 15, Is 50 6), we infer that 
beating was a very common punishment among the 
Hebrews. According to Dt 25 2f. the penalty was 
inflicted before the judge, with the culprit in a recum- 
bent position. The phrase ‘cause him to lie down’ 
(Dt 25 2) suggests the bastinado. The humane 
spirit of the Deuteronomic legislation mitigated the 
severity of this penalty by restricting the number of 
strokes to forty. The words chasten and chastise 
sometimes refer to corporal punishment (Dt 22 18; 
I K 1214). The scorpion is mentioned as a terrible 
instrument of castigation; it consisted probably of 
thongs armed with pieces of lead (I K 12 14; II Ch 
10 14). In the N T the terms stripe and scourge 
have a twofold signification. In some passages the 
writer had in mind the Jewish form of punishment 
which was administered with a whip of three lashes 
(II Cor 11 24; cf. Jos. Ant. IV, 8 21). Again the 
reference may be to the Roman custom of beating 
slaves and criminals (Ac 16 22, 22 25;IICo1125). At 
Philippi Paul alludes to the Porcian law, which ex- 
empted Roman citizens from this penalty (Ac 16 37). 
This is not to be confused with the scourging of 
Jesus, which was flagellation with thongs. The 
branding of slaves was a common custom (Is 44 5; 
CH, §§ 226, 227), and, according to Babylonian law, 
the slanderer of a woman was to be branded on the 
forehead (§ 127). Imprisonment is a penalty un- 
known to both the CH and the Mosaic codes, but 
it is mentioned toward the close of the monarchy 
(Jer 32 2, 37 16), and implied in the mention of prison 


Crimson 
Curse 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


160 





garb (II K 25 29), and use of chains, fetters, and 
stocks (II S 3 34; Jer 20 2, 29 26; Ac 16 24). The so 
called law of jealousy was really an ordeal for a 
woman suspected of adultery (Nu 5 11-31). In the 
CH the ordeal by water was employed as a test for a 
sorcerer and a suspected wife (§§ 2, 132). 

(c) Penalties in means or money: Fines in our 
modern sense were unknown, but the injured party 
received an indemnity for loss or injury from the 
guilty person. Three instances are given in the 
O T (Ex 21 32; Dt 22 19, 29), while the CH punishes 
twenty-one offenses in this way. The restoration 
of things lost, stolen, or injured in a fundamental 
principle in the Mosaic codes, and is quite prom- 
inent in the CH, which contains forty-eight enact- 
ments exacting restitution in some form. The 
restitution of a stolen ox must be fivefold, of a 
sheep fourfold (Ex 221; cf. Lk 198);in the CH, § 112, 
goods lost by carrier in transportation must be re- 
stored fivefold. For other O T instances see Ex 
22 1-9; Lv 6 4 f., 24 21. A Roman jailer or guard 
allowing a prisoner to escape made himself liable to 
the penalty imposed on the criminal (Ac 12 19, 16 27). 
The CH, in fifteen enactments, punishes with for- 
feiture, which is twice mentioned in the O T (Dt 
229; Ezr 108). Confiscation was not practised by 
the Hebrews, but is referred to as a Persian custom 
(Ezr 7 26). 


LITERATURE: Schiirer, History of the Jewish People, II, 11 
90 ff.; JH separate articles on various crimes and punish- 
ments; for The Code of Hammurabi, see edition of R. F. 
Harper and article by C. H. W. Johns in HDB, Vol. V; 
Jastrow, An Assyrian Law Code, JAOS, vol. 41, pp. 1 ff. 
(1921); Hrozny, Code Hittite, (1923); in German, the works 
of Benzinger (2nd ed., 1907) and Nowack (1894) on Heb. 
Archdologie. J.A. K—M.W.J. (part of § 3). 
CRIMSON. See Cotors, § 2, and Dress anp 


ORNAMENTS, § 5. 
CRIPPLE. See Disease anp Mepicine, § 6. 


CRISPING PINS. See Baa (1); and Dress anp 
ORNAMENTS, § IT, 2. 


CRISPUS, kris’pus (Kefoxrocs): The ruler of the 
Jewish synagog in Corinth who with his household 
accepted Christianity on hearing Paul’s preaching 
and was himself baptized by Paul (Ac 18 8; I Cor 
1 14). J.M. T. 

CROOK-BACKED. See Disease anp MeEpt- 
CINE, § 5. 


CROSS (ctaveés, probably a ‘stake’ or ‘pole,’ 
radically cognate with {-orn-vt): The N T word 
for the instrument on which Jesus was put to death. 

I. Physical: The early usage of the term otavedc 
corresponded to its primary meaning (cf. Odyssey, 
14 11, ‘poles for fencing’; Xen. Anab. V, 2 21, ‘stakes 
for fortification’; Hdt.5 6, ‘foundation piles’). Asa 
means of execution it was first used in the form of a 
stake (crux simplex) for impaling the victim—the 
custom being practised by the Assyrians, Persians, 
Phenicians (Carthaginians), and Egyptians, and 
passing from the Persians and Carthaginians to the 
Greeks and Romans. This form was later elaborat- 
ed into the crux compacta, of which there were, in the 
times of Christ, two varieties—the crux commissa 
(‘St. Anthony’s cross’) shaped like a T, and the cruz 
immissa (the ‘Latin cross’) shaped, as we generally 
know it, likea +. The ‘St. Andrew’s cross’ (crur 


decussata), shaped like an X, was of much later 

origin and of a usage much disputed. The cross used 

at Jesus’ death was almost certainly the cruz im- 

missa, not only because this is the testimony of the 

oldest tradition, but because it is impossible other- 
wise to understand the setting ‘up over his head’ 
of His ‘accusation’ (Mt 27 37; cf. also ||s). 

The upright (staticulum) was of some strong wood 
and, after implanting in the ground, did not stand 
more than 9 ft. high. This was left permanently 
erected outside the walls of the city, only the cross- 
bar (patibulum) being carried by the criminal to the 
place of execution, where it was affixed to the up- 
right. On this upright there was placed a short 
piece of wood (sedile or cornu) on which the body 
rested as on a saddle. Whether there was also a 
support for the feet (suppedaneum lignum; cf. Greg. 
of Tours, De Glor. Martyr. vi) is still in question. 
See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, §3. 

II. Religious: The infamy of such a punishment, 
together with the primary significance of Jesus’ 
death in His redemptive work, quickly brought the 
crucifixion into prominence in the thought and 
preaching of the Apostolic Church (cf. Peter’s early 
references to it, Ac 2 23, 36, 410, 10 39). The Cross 
thus became not only in its suffering and shame a 
mark of the self-sacrificing love of Jesus (Ph 2 8; He 
12 2), but also in its infamous indignity an assertive 
symbol of the disciples’ faith, in which they gloried 
(Gal 6 14), for which they were willing to be perse- 
cuted (Gal 6 12; cf. He 13 13), to which those of un- 
christian living were counted enemies (Ph 3 18; cf. 
He 66), and in which, because of its infamous charac- 
ter as a penalty, the unbelieving were scandalized 
(Gal 5 11) and found nothing but ridicule and con- 
tempt (I Co 118). From this it easily grew to be the 
term in which the work of Christ was most strikingly 
presented in its triumph over the condemnation of 
the Law (Col 2 14) and its consequent reconciliation 
of sinners to God (Col 1 20) and thereby to each 
other (Eph 2 13-16). In fact, with Paul it came to 
stand as the symbolic term for the Gospel of God 
in Jesus Christ, the proclaiming of which was his 
consecrated life-work (I Co 1 17; ef. ver. 23, 2 2, Gal 
3 1; also vs. 10-13); 

Altho Jesus’ allusion to the manner of His 
coming death was unintelligible to the Jews (Jn 12 
32 ff.) and to his disciples until they realized its neces- 
sity (Mk 8 31f. and ||s.), His warning to His disciples 
of the necessary cross-bearing which their following 
of Him would involve (Mk 8 34 and ||s; Mt 10 38; 
Lk 14 27) was perfectly clear, in view of the cruci- 
fixions inflicted by Antiochus Epiphanes, Alexander 
Jannzeus, Varus, and Titus. There is, therefore, no 
anachronism in the statement; while to Jesus Him- 
self it was part of His prophetic consciousness of 
His death. See Jesus Curist, § 16. 

LITERATURE: Besides works on the Life of Christ and com- 
mentaries on the passion narrative in the Gospels, cf. Zéckler, 
D. Kreuz Christi (1875 [Eng. transl. 1878]). M. W. J 
CROSSWAY. The Heb. pereg., Ob 14, indicates 

the ‘parting,’ rather than ‘crossing’ of the ways. 


CROW. See Timp, § 1. 


CROWN: 1. Linguistic Usage. An ornamental 
head-dress symbolic of unusual honor or prerogative. 





161 A NEW STANDARD 


Crown, diadem, and fillet are used in the Bible with- 
out very strict regard to different shades of mean- 
ing. In general, the first of these terms takes the 
most conspicuous place among them. It is applied 


- (1) in a literal sense: (a) to the round border or edge 


of objects like the ark or the altar (Ex 25 11, 30 3, zér, 
‘rim or molding’ RVmg.) and (b) to the headgear 
of persons distinguished from the ordinary as kings 
and queens (nézer, II K 11 12; kether, Est 1 11, etc.; 
‘Gtarah, ILS 12 30; 8&3yuc, AV Rev 1912; otépavoc, 
Mt 27 29, etc.); also to the emblem of priestly office 
worn upon the miter (Ex 29 6; cf. also Zec 6 11. 
Wellhausen and Nowack, however, think Zerub- 
babel and not Joshua must be meant). Brides 
and bridegrooms also wore crowns as they do at the 
present day in Asia Minor (Ezk 16 12; Is 61 10, ‘gar- 
land,’ RV, but cf. mg.). Victors in athletic con- 
tests were crowned (I Co 9 25; cf. Prizm). (2) 
Metaphorically, ‘crown’ is the head as that mem- 
ber of the body on which the literal crown is worn 
(godhqodh, Job 27) and also any cause of justifiable 
pride (Pr 12 4, 16 31, 17 6; Is 285; Ph 4.1; Ja 1 12). 
2. The Royal Crown in Israel. The Egyptian 
and Assyrian kings wore crowns of definite shape, the 
former combining the two emblematic head-dresses 
of the upper and the lower country, and the latter 
using a truncated cone with a low projecting point 
onitssummit. That the Hebrews had something of 
a similar nature distinguishing their kings is prob- 
able, but no data have survived as to itsform. The 
material of crowns was generally some precious 
metal (Zec 6 9-15). The date of the introduction of 
crowns is fixed by Nowack (Hebr. Arch., 1894, 
I, p. 307) as the reign of Solomon. But if so, II 
S 110 must be regarded as due to a later working 
over of the narrative. On Zec ch. 6 see Driver in 
New Cent. Com. ad loc. A. C. Z, 


CRUCIFIXION. See Jesus Curist, §§ 15-17. 


CRUCIFY: 1. As a mode of punishment see 
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (a). 2. The term is 
used figuratively by Paul (Gal 2 20, 5 24, 6 14) to de- 
note his own moral unity with Christ’s death as a 
death unto sin, and by the author of He (6 6) to 
show the terrible nature of the sin of apostasy. (See 
Cross, IT). E. E. N. 


CRUSE: The rendering of three different Heb. 
terms: (1) bagbig (I K 14 3) means a small earthen- 
ware jar or flask. (2) tslohith (II K 2 20), an 
earthenware dish. (3) tsappahath (1S 2611 #.;1 K 
17 12 #f., 19 6), a bottle-shaped vessel, probably of 
metal, used on journeys for carrying drinking-water, 
or for oil, etc. Inthe N T, RV substitutes ‘cruse’ 
for AV ‘box’ in Mt 267; Mk 14 3; Lk 7 37. A 
small jar or flask of alabaster is meant. 


CRYSTAL: In Ezk 1 22 read ‘ice’? (RVmg.). See 
Guass; and Stones, Precious §§ 2, 3. 

CUB, kiib (235, kiibh, Chub AV): Probably a mis- 
take in the Heb. text of Ezk 305 for Lud (so LXX.), 
t.e., Lydia. 

CUBIT. See Weicuts anp Measures, § 2. 

. CUCKOO, CUCKOW. Sce Patzesrine, § 25 
, CUCUMBER. See Foon, § 3; and PALEstINE, 
23. 


Crimson 
Curse 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 

CUD. In Lev113f. || Dt 146 #. the statement 
that the cony and hare ‘chew the cud’ is not in ac- 
cord with the fact, but only with the appearance of 
so doing, as these animals chew their food. 


CUMI. See TauirHa-Cumt. 


CUMMIN. See Pauxstine, § 23; and Foon, 
§ 4. 

CUN, kin (35, kin, Chun AV): An Aramean city 
belonging to Hadadezer, taken by David (I Ch 18 8). 
In the || II S 88 Berothai is given as the name of the 
city. The identification is uncertain, but Kuna 
between Laodicea and Heliopolis, may be the place. 


CUNNING: The various words rendering ‘cun- 
ning’ in the AV all have the general meaning ‘skil- 
ful’ or ‘able to plan and execute’ and are accordingly 
rendered usually in the RV by ‘skilful.’ In Is 3 3 
the Heb. means ‘wise’ (‘expert? RV). In Dn 14 
RV renders yédh*é (pl.), ‘knowing,’ by ‘endued with.’ 
In Job 5 13 the Heb. niphtdlim has in it the idea of 
fraud or deceit (‘cunning RV, ‘froward’ AV). 

E. E. N. 


CUP, CUPS: The exact form and size of some of 
the vessels called ‘cups’ in EV are uncertain. The 
ordinary drinking-cup was the kés (Gn 40 11; IT'S 
12 3) or xotnoroyv (Mt 10 42; Mk 14 23). The 
gaswah (I Ch 28 17; Nu 47) seems to have been a jug 
(cf. Ex 25 29 ‘flagons’). The gabhia‘ in Benjamin’s 
sack (Gn 44 2) was probably a large goblet (cf. Jer 
35 5 ‘bowls’). The ’aggdn (Is 22 24) and saph (Zec 
12 2) are both elsewhere translated ‘basin’ (q.v.). 

L. G. L.—E. E. N. 


CUPBEARER (literally ‘drink-giver’; in Gn 40 1- 
41 9 translated butler; cf. ‘butlership,’ Gn 40 21): 
On account of frequent intrigues and attempts at 
poisoning, the office of cupbearer to an Oriental 
monarch was one of considerable responsibility and 
honor. The loyalty of the persons who served the 
king’s wine had to be above suspicion, and they 
often, like Nehemiah, enjoyed the esteem and con- 
fidence of their royal masters. The O T mentions 
the cupbearers of Pharaoh (Gn 501), Solomon (I K 
10 5=II Ch 9 4), and Artaxerxes (Neh 1 11). 

L. G. L.—E. E. N. 


CURE. See Dismase aND MEDICINE, 3. 


CURIOUS: To devise ‘curious’ (‘skilful’ RV) 
works (Ex 35 32) means to plan works requiring 
thought. In Ps 139 15 ‘curiously’ means ‘woven 
together’; the ‘lowest parts of the earth’ being the 
womb. For Curious Arts see Macic anp Drv1- 
NATION, § 9. KE. E. N. 


CURSE: 1. In General. In the Bible ‘curse’ 
means in general an expressed wish or prayer for 
evil, i.e., an imprecation. It may be pronounced 
with reference to all sorts of beings, such as the day 
(Job 38). When its object is God it is tantamount 
to blasphemy (bdrakh [in Piel] Job 1 5, 11, 2 5, 9, AV 
[‘renounce’ RV]). More frequently, however, it is 
a prayer addressed to God for some evil toward 
another person or thing. As such it may be as 
vague as a mere oath or invocation of the Divine 
name, and is properly translated by the English 
oath (Jg 17 2; Is 65 15 [‘oath’ RVmg}). 

2. The law of the ban. More specifically a curse 


Curtain 
Cyrus 
is an act of dedication. Anything (primarily ob- 
jects taken in war) may be devoted to God. Such 
an act carried with it the prohibition of appropriat- 
ing things thus devoted to private uses (herem Ly 
27 28, etc.). According to a primitive Semitic cus- 
tom, the inhabitants and goods of a city or territory 
in time of war were vowed to God as the Lord of 
Battles and when conquered devoted to Him, each 
according to its nature. Men and animals were 
slaughtered in sacrifice (Dt 20 12-14; Jos 6 25 f..). 
But virgins and children were redeemed (Nu 31 
7 f.; Dt 2111 #.). Things capable of being burned 
were consigned to the flames (Dt 7 25), and incom- 
bustible objects such as metals were taken into the 
Temple (Jos 6 24). Whoever violated the law of the 
curse (‘devoted thing’) was himself made a curse 
(cf. Achan, Jos 6 18, 71 ff.). 

3. Destruction of the Accursed. From the de- 
struction which followed the ban the accursed thing 
(Jos 6 17, 7 12) was viewed simply as that which was 
consigned to destruction. The Canaanites were 
thus put under the ban of extermination (Jos 2 10, 
6 17, ‘devoted,’ RVmg.). The conception in this 
form is transferred to the N T as anathema (Gal 
18f.; Ro93). When Christ is said to have become 
a curse (Gal 3 13) it is because according to the Law 
(Dt 21 23) the mode of death which He suffered ren- 
dered its subject accursed (devoted his body to 
destruction). ‘Curse’ and ‘accursed’ seem to be 
used here as exact synonyms. ALAS Zi. 


CURTAIN: The curtain was a much more nec- 
essary and familiar piece of household furniture in 
Oriental life than elsewhere, especially in the trans- 
ition from the tent of the nomad to the house of a 
more settled condition of society. Accordingly it is 
of frequent occurrence in poetic composition as the 
symbol of that which either hides or adorns. Of 
the latter use Is 40 22 ‘gauze’ RV; Ps 104 2, and of the 
former Jer 4 20, 10 20, are illustrations. See also 
TABERNACLE, § 3. A. C. Z. 


CUSH, kush (wip, kiish): I. 1. A descendant of 
Noah, the eldest son of Ham (Gn 106, etc.; I Ch 
1 8). See ErnnocrapHy AND Erunouoey, §12. 
2. The name of a Benjamite (Ps 7, title) supposed 
to be the enemy (of David) referred to in the 
Psalm. fe Ope Zp 

II. The name of a country. Until recently it 
was thought that all the occurrences of this word 
in the Heb. O T (except possibly in Gn 2 13) referred 
to the same country, viz., Ethiopia, consequently it 
is often so translated (e.g., Is 11 11, 181, etc.). But 
recent researches (especially by Winckler; cf. KAT.® 
p. 144 ff.) have made it probable that two districts 
were known both to the Assyrians and to the He- 
brews under the same name, ‘Cush.’ One of them 
was Ethiopia (q.v.). The other was in the W. and 
S. of Arabia, not always exactly defined. Winckler 
considers that the Arabian Cush is meant in the fol- 
lowing passages: Gn 2 13, 106 f.; Nu 121; IIS 
18 21; II Ch 14 8 ff., 21 16; Is 20 3, 43 3, 45 14; Hab 
37; Ps 87 4. EK. KE. N. 


CUSHAN-RISHATHAIM, kii’’Shan-rish’’e-fhé’im 
(NYY Vi, kushan rish‘athayim): King of Meso- 
potamia, Aram-Nahdrayim (AVmg. and RVmg.), 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


162 





who oppressed the children of Israel for 8 years 
when a rebellion under Othniel, the son of Kenaz 
and younger brother of Caleb, of the tribe of Judah, 
put an end to his rule (Jg 3 8-10). It has been 
questioned whether there is a foundation in tradi- 
tion for the story as thus given. The grounds for 
the doubt are (1) the improbability of the sub- 
jugation of Canaan at this time by an enemy from 
such a distance, and (2) the equal improbability 
that Othniel, a Kenizzite clan in the extreme &., 
should be the liberator (cf. Moore on Judges, in [CC 
1895, and Burney, Judges, 1918). But the improb- 
ability of an Aramean conquest of Canaan is not 
conceded in view of the inactivity of Assyria just 
before the reign of Tiglath-pileser I (1120 B.c.). 
(Cf. McCurdy, HP and M. I, p. 230). As to the 
Kenizzite clan of Othniel, it is not certain that it 
was so insignificant. If there be no corroboration 
from without of the substantial correctness of the 
story, there is, on the other hand, nothing to com- 
pel its being set aside as untrustworthy. But see 
JUDGES. {A Co 

CUSHI, kii’shai (W35, kishi): 1. ‘The Cushite’ 
designates the woman whom Moses married (Nu 
121); also of the messenger sent by Joab to report to 
David the death of Absalom (IIS 18 21). Probably 
both persons were of Ethiopian origin (see Cusu, 
II). 2. The great-grandfather of Jehudi (Jer 36 14). 
3. The father of Zephaniah (Zeph 1 1). 


CUSHION: This term does not occur in the AV. 
It has been introduced into the RV (Mk 4 38) as 
the rendering of xpooxepkratov, ‘a rest for the 
head,’ (‘pillow’ AV), perhaps a rower’s cushion. 

EH. E. N. 


CUSTOM. See Tax; and Law ann Lzeaau 
Practisx, § 1 (1). 


CUT, CUTTING. See Movrnine Customs, 
§ 3; and Semitic Retiaion, § 20. 

CUTH, CUTHAH, kuth, ku’tha (35, kath; 
‘N12 kiithah): A place whence the Assyrians deported 
colonists to plant them in Samaria (II K 17 24, 30). — 
The same place is mentioned on the Assyr. in- 
scriptions as Kutt. It was an ancient city 20 m. 
NE. of Babylon and was the chief center of the wor- 
ship of Nergal, a god of war, hunting, pestilence, and 
of the realm of the dead. (Cf. KAT.3 p. 412 ff.) 


CUT OFF. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 
§ 3 (a). 
CYMBAL. See Music, § 3 (1). 


CYPRESS. See Pauesrine, § 21; and Hovsz, 
§ 4. 


CYPRUS (Kizpoc, ‘copper’): An island of 3,584 
sq. m., 45 m. from the coast of Asia Minor and 
60 m. from that of Syria. A very fertile plain run- 
ning EK. and W. is bounded on the N. and S. by two 
mountain ranges in which there were formerly rich 
copper-mines that gave the island its name. There 
was also a valuable export of timber, which, to- 
gether with other productions, made a large trade. 
In the O T its inhabitants were called Kittim (Gn 
10 4; Is 23 1, 12; Ezk 27 6) from Kitté (Kition= 
modern Larnaka) on the S. coast. In very early 
days there were Mycenzan settlements on theisland, 





163 


but afterward the Phenicians took possession, 
altho side by side with them Greeks were found, 
who, isolated by the Persian rule, organized them- 
selves, in dependence upon Egypt, in autonomous 
cities according to Greek polity (Mommsen), their 
coinage being very well known. Paphos, at the W. 
end of the island, was the home of the wide-spread 
cult of the Phenician Astarte, the Greek Aphrodite. 
After the time of Alexander the Great, Cyprus be- 
came one of the most valuable possessions of Egypt. 
Taken by Rome in 58 B.c. it first came under im- 
perial administration, but was transferred a few 
years later to the control of the Senate (see Prov- 
INCE) and was in the time of Paul governed by the 
_ proconsul Sergius Paulus (Ac 13 7, 12), whose name 
has been with probability identified on an inscrip- 
tion. Jews had settled in Cyprus in early times and 
were there in large numbers at the beginning of the 
Christian era; in the reign of Trajan they massacred 
thousands of the native Cypriotes and were there- 
after forbidden to live on the island. Soon after the 
persecution that arose on the death of Stephen, 
Christianity secured a foothold in Cyprus. This 
island was the first place visited by Saul and Barna- 
bas, a native of Cyprus (Ac 4 36), on their first mis- 
sionary journey. They landed at Salamis on the E., 
the largest city of the island, and traversed its entire 
length to Paphos, the capital, about 100 m. to the W. 
(Ac 18 4-12). Later, Barnabas, with Mark, returned 
to the island, evidently to carry on the work already 
begun (Ac 15 39). It was men of Cyprus and Cyrene 
who first preached the Gospel to Greeks in Antioch 
(Ac 11 19 f.), and the early disciple Mnason, with 
whom Paul lodged in Jerusalem, was a Cypriote (Ac 
21 16). Nothing further is known regarding the 
history of Christianity in Cyprus in the Apostolic 
Age. R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


CYRENE, sai-ri’ni (Kueyvy): The rich and pow- 
erful capital city of Cyrenaica, founded 631 B.c. by 
people from the island of Thera under Battus. C. 
was situated on a lofty hill 10 m. from the sea and 
was a center of Greek learning and culture. It was 
the birthplace of Aristippus, Carneades, and Calli- 
machus. Its kings took part in the games of Greece 
(cf. the Charioteer of the group at Delphi). While 
C. fought successfully against the Libyans and 
Egyptians, it was worsted by Carthage and became 
tributary to Cambyses 524 B.c. The Cyrenaic 
Pentapolis under the protectorate of the Ptolemies 
was founded in 321 B.c. Under the Ptolemies C. 
became the home of large numbers of Jews (cf. Ac 
6 9). It became an independent kingdom in 117; 
was bequeathed to Rome in 96 and with Crete was 
‘made a Roman province in 67 B.c. Its ruins are vast 
in extent. Excavations have been conducted in the 
region by the Italians ( Notiziario Archeologico, IT; 
Not. arch. sulla Tripolitana). J. R. 8. S.*—S. A. 


CYRENIUS, sai-ri’ni-us. See Quirinivs. 


CYRUS, sai’rus. In Persian the name is Kurush, 
and in Elamite, Assyrian and Babylonian it is 
Kurash, in Hebrew Koresh (¥})>), in Greek Kopoc. 
The origin and meaning of the name are alike un- 
known. It has been supposed by some to have been 
of Elamite origin, but there is no positive proof. The 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


- 


Curtain 
Cyrus 


Greeks preserved a tradition that the great king’s 
name was originally Agradates, which is certainly 
Persian. If this were his name originally we know no 
reason for the change to Kurush, or Cyrus. By this 
name, in any case, was he known in ancient times, 
and still is. It is the only ancient Oriental royal 
name which has come into common modern use, 
perhaps partly because it appears in the Bible and 
partly because it makes no unpleasant sound in our 
ears. Whatever his name may be in origin or sig- 
nification he claimed direct descent from one line of 
the ancient Persian dynasty of Achamenes. He was 
probably born about 598 or 599 B.c., in the kingdom 
of Anshan or Anzan, a small state under the su- 
zerainty of Astyages, the Median king. There, in 
559 B.c., he succeeded his father as king. In some 
way, to us unknown, war began soon thereafter with 
Media. In 550 Cyrus took Ecbatana the capital of 
Media and sacked it. He had at one stroke become 
ruler of a very considerable kingdom, and in Western 
Asia had only two serious rivals. These were 
Croesus, king of Lydia beyond the river Halys in 
Asia Minor, and Nabonidus, king of Babylon. When 
Cyrus had become king of the Medes, and inherited 
by this portions of the Assyrian empire which they 
had conquered, the outer fringes of his empire ex- 
tended into Asia Minor as far as the Halys. Croesus 
perceived the danger of proximity to such a neighbor, 
and took what steps he could to protect himself 
against it. He formed alliances with Amasis king of 
Egypt, with Nabonidus king of Babylon, and with 
Sparta for the addition of her fleet. Cyrus decided to 
strike before the allies could combine. Battle with 
Croesus was at first indecisive, but in a second move- 
ment Croesus went down to defeat. The winter pre- 
vented further operations, but in the early spring 
Sardes was taken and Crcesus was a prisoner (546 
B.c.). From this year until 5389 Cyrus marched and 
countermarched, fought, conquered, organized and 
solidified the greatest empire the world had then 
beheld. Cyrus had now become a figure of world 
dimensions. The Hebrews knew him and were con- 
fident of his future. To one of their mightiest 
prophets (Isaiah 45 1-4) he was the Lord’s anointed, 
‘though thou hast not known me,’ and the end of 
Babylon was predicted (Isaiah 46 1, 2 and 47 1-5). 
Nabonidus was much more concerned for the safety 
of his gods than of his kingdom or people, and when 
Cyrus struck he had no adequate defense. Babylon 
was readily and quickly taken. With it (538 B.c.) 
there had come into the hands of Cyrus also the 
Phenician and Philistine coasts with their hinter- 
land, Syria and Palestine. He was, therefore, king 
of the Jews, and showed his friendly temper by the 
issue of a decree which permitted the exiles in Baby- 
lonia to return to their homes, and tho the. per- 
mission was not universally accepted the influence 
of it was great and far reaching. Babylon was now 
one of the chief capitals of his empire, and the city 
acquired a new position of honor and power. Cyrus 
appointed his son Cambyses king of Babylon, and 
took for himself the title ‘king of the lands,’ signify- 
ing thereby the wide extent of his rule. For ten years 
he held undisputed sway from Ecbatana or from 
Babylon, the summer season in the former, the 


Dabareh 
Dance 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 164 





winter in the latter. In a campaign against the 
Parthians and Massagetz on a great steppe east of 
the Caspian Sea Cyrus fell wounded and there died. 
Brought by faithful hands, his body was finally laid 
away in a stately and dignified tomb upon the great 
plain of Pasargade. The world could not soon 
forget his deeds, for it had not seen his equal. 
Humane to the conquered, as a strategist and com- 
mander in the field supreme, none that preceded 


DABAREH, dab’a-re. See Dapwrata. 

DABBESHETH, dab’1-sheth (N¥24, dabbesheth, 
Dabbasheth AV) ‘hump.’ A place on the border of 
Zebulon (Jos 19 11). Perhaps the modern Dabsheh, 
Map IV, C 5. 

DABERATH, dab’i-rath (N12, dabherath, Dab- 
areh AV), the mod. Deburieh, Map IV, D 7: A 
town of Issachar on the borders of Zebulon (Jos 
19 12) and also a Levitical city (Jos 21 28; I Ch 672). 
Its position is strategic and possibly here the 
Israelites under Barak gathered for their attack on 
Sisera (Jg 414, 5 15). BE. EL. N. 

DAGGER. See Arms anp Armor, § 2. 


DAGON, dé’gen: A Philistine deity. See Sr- 
MITIC RELIGION, § 20. 


DALAIAH, dal’’a-ai’d. See Deatan. 
DALE. See Kina’s Date. 
DALMANUTHA, dal’’ma-nii’fha. See Maaapan. 


DALMATIA, dal-mé’shi-a (AadAuatia): A prov- 
ince on the eastern shores of the Adriatic Sea, 
originally a part of Illyricum. It became indepen- 
dent 180 8B.c., but was made tributary to Rome in 
156 B.c. Augustus made it a Roman province. It is 
mentioned once by Paul (II Ti 4 10), but nothing is 
known of the nature of Titus’ mission thither. 

J.R.S. S.*—E. E. N. 


~ DALPHON, dal’fen (11227, dalphon): One of the 
sons of Haman (Est 9 7). 


DAMARIS, dam’e-ris (Agéy.aerc—possibly Aguadts 
(‘heifer’], a frequent feminine name): One of Paul’s 
converts in Athens (Ac 17 34). The title tule, 
‘honorable,’ given her in one N T MS. (E), may 
have been due perhaps to a desire to save her reputa- 
tion, in view of the fact that a respectable woman of 
Athens would not have been present in such a public 
gathering. Her association with Dionysius may be 
intended to imply that she was a woman of rank. 

J. M. T. 

DAMASCUS, da-mas’kus (P¥D1, dammeseq, but 
also darmeseg, I Ch 18 5, II Ch 28 5, and dummeseg, 
If K 1610.) 1. Name and Location. In the Egyptian 
lists of the 16th cent. the city is called timasqu and 
of the 13th cent. ti-ramaski [W. Max Miller, Asien 
u. Eur., 1893, pp. 162, 234]. Assyrian, dimaski. 
(Etymology obscure): A well-known city located in 
the NW. end of a fertile plain which the rivers Abana 
(the modern Barada) and Pharpar convert into a 
beautiful garden spot. (See Map I, 1H.) The whole 


him, whether Sargon or Thotmes, could vie with 
him, and it would be long ere any to rival him would 
be seen among men. 


LiteRATURE: Besides the general histories of Meyer, and of 
Breasted one may still consult E. Lindl, Cyrus, Munich, 
1903. For Old Testament relations the books of Isaiah and 
Ezra are most important with the commentaries by Skinner 
and Ryle respectively. The relevant Babylonian and 
Persian inscriptions are in Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the 
Old Testament (1912). 


plain is exceptionally rich in natural features, and - 


must from the first have offered attractions to 
travelers between the Mediterranean seaboard and 
the Mesopotamian valley as a convenient place for 
rest, and also to the merchants as a suitable site for 
a center of distribution. Consequently a commercial 
center of much importance and a prosperous town 
grew up at this point as early as the country on either 
side was fairly settled. See Aram § 4 (8). 

2. Early History. The origin of the city is un- 
known, altho the belief prevailed among the later 
Jews that it was founded by Uz, grandson of Shem 
(Jos. Ant. I, 6 4). It is mentioned as existing in the 
days of Abraham (Gn 14 15). Eliezer, Abraham’s 
steward (Gn 15 2), is called a Damascene. It is 
very probable that between the 15th cent. B.c. and 
the 13th Damascus was a subject of warfare between 
the Egyptians and the Hittites; but it was about the 
year 1200 that the Syrians (Arameans) secured pos- 
session of it and made it the capital of their king- 
dom. In the days of David the city as well as the 
kingdom of which it was the capital was made sub- 
ject to Israel (IIS 85). But this relationship could 
not have lasted very long, for soon afterward (c. 
950) Rezon (Hezion), son of Eliada, established a 
strong dynastic rule at Damascus (I K 11 23-25), 
which lasted until the complete collapse of Syria 
under the irresistible blows of the Assyrian power 
in 732. 

3. Later History. Rezon was succeeded by Tab- 
rimon (I K 15 18), of whom, however, nothing 
more is known than that he was the father of Ben- 
hadad I (ec. 900). Ben-hadad helped Asa against 
Baasha and later made war against and defeated 
Omri of Israel (I K 20 34). Ben-hadad II (870-844, 
Hadadezer in the inscriptions of Shalmanezer IT) 
came into conflict with Ahab and was by him de- 
feated at the battle of Aphek and compelled to 
yield the king of Israel the right to ‘make streets’ 
(7.e., bazaars) for himself in D. Shortly after this, 
Ben-hadad put himself at the head of a confederacy 
including Israel and other neighboring states, 
which was designed to stem the growing power of 
Assyria in Western Asia. But in this plan the con- 
federacy completely failed, being defeated at the 
decisive battle of Karkar (854). These reverses un- 
doubtedly rendered Ben-hadad unpopular in his 
own realm. Finally he was slain by Hazael, who 
assumed his place on the throne (II K 815). Under 
Hazael (844-813) the prestige of D. revived in spite 
of two defeats sustained at the hands of Shalmanezer 
IT (843 and 840). In his wars with Jehu, this king 





165 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Dabareh 
Dance 





succeeded in wresting from Israel the territory E. of 

the Jordan and S. as far as the river Arnon (II K 

10 32f.; Am13) and threatened Judah into paying 

him a large tribute (II K 12 17f.). Hazael’s son and 

successor (Ben-hadad III, or Mari, 812-770) was 
obliged to abandon the war agiinst Israel and defend 
himself against Assyria. In the twenty years be- 
tween 773 and 753, Damascus suffered five separate 
attacks, all of which resulted in the exhaustion of its 
resources. The immediate successor of Mari is not 
certainly known. The names of Tabeel and Tabri- 
mon II both occur (770-740). It was under Rezon 

(740-732) that Damascus finally succumbed to the 

attacks of Tiglath-pileser III. Its beautiful territory 

was devastated, its people taken into captivity, and 

its king put to death (Schrader, COT. I, 252). 

4. Damascus from 732 Onward. For the next 
five centuries Damascus was simply the residence of 
Assyrian, Babylonian, or Persian governors. Biblical 
allusions to it are scarce and doubtful (Jer 49 23- 
27; Exzk 47 16 ff., 481). In the Greek period it even 
ceased to be the capital of Syria and was supplanted 
in that capacity by Antioch, altho the Seleucids kept 
possession of it throughout. In 85 B.c. it was 
captured by the Nabatean king, Aretas (Jos. Ant. 
XIII, 15 2), and in 65 acknowledged the sovereignty 
of Rome. When the Apostle Paul fled from it, it 
was under command of an ethnarch. In N T times, 
there were evidently many Jews in D. (Ac 9 2; 
II Co 11 32; Jos. BJ. II, 20 2, VII, 87). That one of 
its streets which has acquired fame as the ‘street 
which is called straight’ (Ac 9 11) was probably 
flanked by pillars. The houses of Judas and Ana- 
nias (Ac 9 10 f.) and the window in the wall through 
which Paul was let down (II Co 11 33; Ac 9 25) are 
still shown in the modern city, which has been under 
Mohammedan rule since 624 a.p. 

Literature: G. A. Smith, HGHL, 1897, pp. 641 ff. R. W. 
Poinder, St. Paul and His Cities, 1913, p. 58; and on recent 
archeological discoveries, see PEFQ, 1911, sqq. A.C. Z. 
DAMNATION. See Escuatotoay, §§ 18-21, 

30, 39, 48, 49. 

DAMSEL. See Famity AND Famity Law, § 6; 
and MARRIAGE AND Divorce. 


DAN (11, dan), ‘judge’: I. A son of Jacob and 
Bilhah, Rachel’s maid, and the ancestor of one of 
the tribes of Israel. See Tripus, §§ 2 and 4. II. 
A city in the extreme N. of Israel’s territory, once 
called Laish (Jg 18 29, ‘Leshem’ by mistake in Jos 
19 47), but changed to Dan after its capture by a 
large section of the tribe of Dan that emigrated 
thence in the early days of the occupation of Canaan 
by Israel (Jg 17 f.). The exact site is a matter of dis- 
- pute, opinions being divided between Tell el- Kadi, 
a mound from which flow two of the streams that 
unite to form the Nahr Leddan, or ‘Little Jordan,’ 
and Banias, the ancient Paneas, also called Caesarea 
Philippi. See Map IV, E 4, F 4. The fact that the 
Arabic KGdi is the equivalent of the Hebrew dan is 
strongly in favor of the site of Tell el- Kadi, and with 
this agree express statements in Jos. Ant. I, 101, V, 
31, VIII, 84; BJ. IV, 11 and in the Onomasticon of 
Eusebius and Jerome which locate Dan at the 
source of the ‘lesser’ Jordan and about 4 m. from 
Paneas. For the argument for the site of Paneas see 





G. A. Smith, HGHL, p. 472 f. Dan was counted 
the northern limit of Israel’s territory, ‘from Dan to 
Beersheba,’ meaning the whole extent of Israel N. 
to 8. (I S 8 20, ete.). At Dan was one of the most 
ancient sanctuaries in Israel, over which Jonathan, 


_ a grandson of Moses, was said to have first presided 


(Jg 18 30). As situated near a large spring (the 
mound being that of an extinct volcano), it was 
probably always considered a sacred spot. Here, at 
a later time, was placed one of the two golden calves 
made by Jeroboam I (I K 12 29). HK. E. N. 


DAN, DANITE. See Trisss, § 4. 


DANCE: Throughout the O T period down to the 
Greek era, the dancing in vogue among the Hebrews 
was predominantly a religious exercise. In very an- 
cient times it 
was customary 
for worshipers to 
engage in a joy- 
ous religious pro- 
cession around 
the sacred tree 
or other sacred 
symbol. (See 
accompanying 
illustrations. ) 
The common 
word for dance, 
mahol, m*holah 
(from hil, ‘to 
move in a Clir- 
cle,’ ‘to twist’) refers to such circular rhythmic move- 
ment (Ex 15 20, 3219; Jg 11 34, 21 21; IS 2111, 29 5). 
This dancing was generally accompanied by music 
and song. It was engaged in by men, or more often 
women, or both together (cf. Ps 68 25), frequently 
in two antiphonal companies (cf. Song 613 RVmg.). 
Other words for dancing as ké@rar, ‘to turn’ (II S 6 





A Dance Around as Sacred Tree. 


Bora 
j 





m, » 


Kh 


as h rk W i ma 
ff 19 a {Att i i 
SD YL |W LIPS 






h 


‘ \ 






A Sacrificial Ceremony. 
The dancers move toward the altar, behind which is seated a 


woman holding a flower to her nose. Behind her are 


female musicians. 


14, 16), ragadh, ‘to leap’ indicative of joyful emotion 
(L Ch 15 29; Job 21 11; cf. Is 13 21), and pdzaz, ‘to 
spring’ (II S 6 16), reveal the fact that the motion 
was violent rather than graceful. The verb hdghagh 
(I S 30 16, from which hagh, the ordinary word for a 


Daniel 
Daniel, Book of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


1G 





religious ‘feast’ [cf. Ex 5 1], is derived) is evidence 
for the original religious character of dancing. 
During the Greek period the Jews became acquainted 
with professional dancing women, and sometimes 
did not hesitate to imitate them (cf. Mt 146). But 
the dances most loved by the people retained their 
primitive character of pure and joyous simplicity. 
Social dancing, as practised to-day in the Occident, 
was unknown to the Hebrews. For a general dis- 
cussion see art. ‘Processions and Dances’ in HERE 
Vol: X, EH. E. N. 

DANIEL (OND, déniyyé l), ‘God is my judge’: 
1. Son of David and Abigail, the Carmelitess (I Ch 
31). 2. Son of Ithamar, one of those who sealed the 
covenant with Nehemiah (Ezr 8 2; Neh 106). 3. A 
sage whose reputation entitled him to be classed 
with Noah and Job (Ezk 14 14, 20). In addition to 
his exemplary piety, he had also acquired a great 
name for his exceptional wisdom (Ezk 28 3). There 
is no valid reason for distrusting the traditional 
identification of this Daniel with the Daniel of the 
book bearing that name. Neither is there any other 
man of the name mentioned by an earlier writer 
(except 1 and 2 as above). Outside the book, how- 
ever, the three references in Ezekiel are the only ones 
made to him until a very much later time (I Mac 2 
50 f.; Mt 2415 [Mt 13 14]; Jos. Ant. X, 27). But the 
name of Daniel became the rallying-point of apocry- 
phal and pseudepigraphical writings (Bel and the 
Dragon; History of Susannah; Prayer of Azariah; 
Song of the Three Children; cf. also Fabricius, Cod. 
V. T., i, 1124). A. C. Z. 

DANIEL, BOOK OF. 1. Contents. Part I. 
This book consists of two parts easily distinguish- 
able. The first part (chs. 1-6) is narrative in form 
and has for its theme Daniel as a Jew loyal to the 
Levitical law, a sage and interpreter of dreams; the 
subject of the second (chs 7-12) is a series of visions 
seen by him. The first part opens with a portraiture 
of D. and of three young Jewish nobles, who because 
of ceremonial scruples refused at Babylon to eat the 
king’s food and were prospered for their fidelity to 
the ceremonial law (ch. 1). This incident is followed 
by an account of Daniel’s successful interpretation 
of Nebuchadrezzar’s dream of the composite image 
(ch. 2). Next comes the story of the refusal of 
D. and his three associates to worship the image 
set up by the king and their subjection to the ordeal 
of the fiery furnace (ch. 3). D. is then pictured as 
interpreting the king’s dream of a tree (ch. 4). 
He also plainly explains the meaning of the hand- 
writing on the wall at Belshazzar’s banquet (ch. 5), 
and is promoted by Darius the Mede, but on account 
of envy is subjected to the ordeal of the lions’ den 
(ch. 6). 

2. Part II. The second part of the book contains 
an account of four great visions seen by D. The 
first is an apocalyptic representation of the four 
great world powers (Babylonian, Medo-Persian, Per- 
sian and Macedonian or Greco-Syrian) in the form 
of four beasts, followed by the establishment of 
the ‘people of the saints of the Most High, whose 
kingdom is an everlasting kingdom’ (ch. 7). The 
second vision (also apocalyptic) pictures Alexander 
the Great in the form of a he-goat who overcame 


the ram (the Persian Empire). From one of the 
four divisions of the Greek Empire a king arises 
who proceeds to desecrate the sanctuary (ch. 8). 
The third vision is given in answer to a prayer of 
penitence and is cast in the form of a Divine com- 
munication through the angel Gabriel, which con- 
cerns the Messianic Kingdom to come in 70 weeks 
(ch. 9). The fourth vision is given by direct angelic 
visitation assuring D. of God’s love for His faithful 
people and detailing the course of events under the 
tyrannical and sacrilegious king of the N., Antiochus 
Epiphanes (c. 175-165 B.c., chs. 10-12). 


3. Language. One striking feature of the book is 
its bilingual character. Chs. 2 4-7 28 is in Aramaic, ~ 
all the rest in Hebrew. To account for this fact, 
some think (Meinhold, Kom. z. B. Dn, in Strack- 
Zockler, pp. 261, 262) that Dn is drawn from sources 
of which the first, an Aramaic document of c. 300 
B.c., furnishes the basis of chs. 1-6, and the second, 
a Hebrew work of the Maccabean Age, makes up 
chs. 7-12. Another explanation is to the effect that 
the original Hebrew of this portion of D. was lost 
and the gap filled up by the adoption of a later 
Aramaic version. A third attempted explanation is 
the theory that the speech of the Chaldean magicians 
in 2 4 is given in their own language. But as the 
conversation with the Chaldeans is so brief, the 
continuation of the narrative in the Aramaic dialect 
is on this theory unaccounted for. As against these 
grounds a more satisfying explanation may be found 
in a comparative use of the two languages at the 
time of the composition of the book. If this be fixed 
in a period when Hebrew was being largely sup- 
planted by Aramaic in popular usage, the author 
resorted to the more intelligible dialect in portraying 
affairs in Babylonia and turned to the less familiar 
Hebrew when desirous of limiting the circle of those 
who could understand his meaning; 7.e., in the more 
purely apocalyptic sections of his book. As this 
dealt with current affairs, the risk of incurring the 
displeasure of the Syrian authorities would be thus 
lessened. At the same time the encouragement and 
confidence in a speedy relief would be imparted to 
the narrower circle of the faithful. . 


4. Date and Authorship. Strictly speaking Dn is 
anonymous. In this it differs from Is, Jer, and Ezk. 
So far as it contains any traces of the date of its 
origin and its authorship, the proper use of these 
data will depend upon a correct conception of its 
literary form. The difficulty of the problem con- 
cerning the date and authorship of the book is much 
relieved when it is realized that Dn is an apocalypse, 
written according to the current methods of com- 
position governing the writing of apocalyptic pro- 
ductions. It is characteristic of apocalypses in 
general that their authors transfer themselves back 
to the times of great God-fearing ‘men and by 
impersonating them endeavor to convey their mes- 
sages to their own generation. In so doing they 
embody such knowledge as they possess of the age 
and environment of their heroes. In no case, how- 
ever, do they, on this supposition, aim to produce 
the impression that their work is that of the sage 
himself. 

This is the conclusion reached in recent times 





167 A NEW STANDARD 


from the study of Apocalyptic literature (q.v.). 
It has led to the belief that Dn is the work of a 
Jewish patriot of the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, 
who aims to address his contemporary fellow- 
Israelites in an apocalypse. 


5. The Exilic Date. The earlier understanding 
of Dn was that a prophet of the name had written 
during the Exile. The argument for this view 
is based chiefly on the alleged traditional ac- 
ceptance of it as such from the earliest days. 
It is, however, also supported by such features 
of it as come into view in the effort to defend this 
traditional theory against attacks from the critical 
view-points. The weakness of the argument is that 
the tradition, when traced to its earliest date, be- 
comes quite uncertain. The Baba-Bathra (146) 
ascribes the writing of Dn not to D. but, along with 
that of some other books, to ‘men of the great 
synagog.’ ‘The first portion of the book, at least, 
bears out the assertion that D. is rather the hero 
and subject of it than the author. Even the second 
part lays no claim to have been written by Dn 
but is incorporated as a report of Dn’s words by the 
author (cf. 7,1 f.). Of the latest advocates of this 
position the ablest are C. H. H. Wright, Daniel 
and his Prophecies (1906); Kennedy, Daniel from 
the Christian Point of View (1898); R. Dick Wilson, 
Stud. in the Bk of Dn. (1917). 


6. The Maccabean Date. External Evidence. 
The Maccabean date of Dn is supported by con- 
siderations both external and internal. Of the 
former (1) the place of the book in the Hebrew 
eanon between Esther and Ezra in the group of 
Hagiographa, and not with the prophets, shows that 
it was composed after the second group of the canon 
(the N*bhi’im) had been closed. The effort to break 
the force of this fact by pointing to the Psalter, which 
is also put among the Hagiographa, altho com- 
pleted before the second division of the canon 
had been closed, is unavailing, because from the 
nature of the case the Book of Psalms could not have 
been put either in the first division (Pentateuch) or 
in the second (Prophets). A better analogy is fur- 
nished by the Book of Jonah, which, altho in every 
respect exactly like Dn, found a place among the 
prophets simply because it was composed before the 
collection of the N¢bhi’im had been completed. (2) 
The silence of Ben Sira (c. 180 B.c.) regarding 


the prophet indicates that D. was not promi- | 


nently before the mind of the faithful Hebrew, 
as would have been the case had such an account 
of him as Dn presents then been published 
(cf. Sir ch. 49). According to Ben Sira no man 
has arisen like Joseph since Joseph’s day, but as 
Koenig points out (Hinl., p. 386) D. is such a per- 
fect analog to Joseph, especially in the matter of 
rising to a first place in a foreign realm because of 
the successful interpretation of dreams, that the 
failure to recognize him is unaccountable upon the 
Exilic dating of the book. (3) The total absence of 
any trace of the influence of Dn upon subsequent 
affairs is also a fact not accounted for by the theory 
of its Exilic date. 

7. Internal Evidence, Historical Aspects. The 
internal grounds for the Maccabean date may be 


Daniel 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Daniel, Book of 


grouped as (1) those which are drawn from the 
nature of the historical details included in the book. 
These show that to the author the conditions of the 
Exile were not the familiar environment of his own 
day but an atmosphere and surrounding into which 
he had mentally transferred himself. On the other 
hand, the history of the Maccabean Age as reflected 
in the book is minute and accurate (cf. Farrar on Dn 
in Expositor’s Bible, pp. 38-62). (2) The fact that 
the author touches upon the conditions of the Exile 
passes over the entire period between Cyrus and 
Alexander, and, glancing at that conqueror as a 
landmark, proceeds at once into a minute descrip- 
tion of events during the reign of Antiochus Epiph- 
anes is accounted for best by the Maccabean dating 
of the book. The historical conditions of the Exile 
were necessary as the literary framework for this 
great hero. The intermediate period was irrelevant 
and therefore omitted. The details of the Maccabean 
Age were introduced because they were of all-ab- 
sorbing interest. Upon the theory of an Exilic date 
such a selection of historical material is unexplain- 
able. 

8. Internal Evidence: Linguistic Aspects. The 
linguistic aspects of Dn point to the Maccabean 
Age. The language of the Hebrew section affiliates 
it with that of Esther and Chronicles, the latest 
books of the O T (Driver, LOT, p, 504 ff.). Its 
Aramaic is not the Babylonian but the Palestinian 
variety of that language (cf. Koenig, Hinl., p. 387; 
Driver, op. cit., p. 502; see also ARAmMaAtc LAN- 
GUAGE). Certain Persian words (about 10 to 15) fix 
the earliest limit for the composition of the book as 
c. 500 B.c., while the Greek terms for musical instru- 
ments used in 3 4f. point to a date subsequent to 331 
B.c. The explanation sometimes offered for the 
intrusion of these words in a book of the 6th cent. 
B.c. which assumes that they might be stray names 
introduced through occasional intercourse between 
Babylonia and the Greeks of Asia Minor is inade- 
quate, inasmuch as two of them at least belong toa 
much later age. Stmpényah (‘dulcimer,’ cuygw- 
ya) is first found in Plato, and psantérin (‘psal- 
tery,’ Yadrthorov) by its change of / into n betrays 
the influence of the Macedonian dialect and must 
therefore be later than the conquest of Alexander. 


9. Internal Evidence: Type of Religious Thought. 
The type of religious thought which prevails in the 
the book confirms the conclusion pointed to by the 
considerations already adduced. The theology of 
the book is akin to that of the Books of the Macca- 
bees and quite different from that of the Exilic pro- 
ductions or even from that of the writings of Haggai, 
Zechariah, Ezra, and Nehemiah. 


10. Authenticity. If Dn was not intended to be 
taken as the work of the man whose name it bears 
but as an apocalypse in which the prophet’s figure 
was used as the vehicle of a Divine message to the 
persecuted generation of Jews who lived in the 
middle of the 2d cent., there can be no question of 
its authenticity. For the question of authenticity 
can arise only when facts are discovered that point 
to a conclusion contradicting the claim of authorship 
made by a book for itself. As a book cast into the 
apocalyptic form, Dn could not but be put, in ac- 


Daniel, Book of 
Darling 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


168 





cordance with the legitimate literary principles 
governing such forms, into the mold in which it is 
found. Even such a statement as 12 4 belongs to 
the literary framework, and does not constitute a 
claim of Danielic authorship. 

11. Canonicity. Whether Dn deserves a place in 
the canon of Scripture does not depend either upon 
the personality of the author or the species of litera- 
ture he may have chosen for his message, but upon 
the recognition of the book by the spiritual con- 
sciousness of God’s people as containing a real 
message of permanent value. This recognition was 
accorded to the book in the days of Jesus and by 
Jesus Himself. It has been concurred in by almost 
the unanimous body of believers. No investigation 
of a literary historical character can shake its place 
in the rule of faith. 


12. Interpretation and Modern Use. The use of 
Dn as an apocalypse rather than as a book of history 
does not involve the denial either of the truth of 
such historical facts as underlie the composition or 
of the possibility and actuality of prophetic pre- 
diction in the Bible. Surely no believer in the 
oimniscience of God will adopt Porphyry’s negative 
position on the subject. An apocalypse, however, 
incorporating the point of view of an ancient devout 
man, may very well give an explanation of events 
already past as included and provided for in the plan 
of God. From the view-point of the ancient sage, 
such events, because they are as yet in the future, 
must be given in the form of predictive prophecy. 

The chief teachings of the Book are: (1) The 
supremacy of the God of the Jews over all other 
powers human or supposedly divine. (2) The 
existence in the world of tendencies towards brutaliz- 
ing and debasing human life and the breaking out 
of these tendencies especially in the sphere of civil 
government. Hence the great governments of the 
past are all symbolized by great and monstrous 
brutes. (3) The inevitable struggle against the evil 
forces and the consequent testing of the faithful. 
Such testing may occasion intense sufferings, as it 
did in the case of Daniel, was doing in the case of 
the faithful in the days of Antiochus Epiphanes and 
was bound to do in other cases in the future. (4) 
The ultimate triumph upon earth of God and the 
establishment of a universal and eternal Kingdom 
of God, which in contrast with the brutal empires of 
the world is to come with the Son of Man. (5) The 
reward of the faithful in this hfe, but if not in this 
life in a future readjustment of affairs (resurrection, 
ch. 12 2). 


LireratureE: Driver, LOT®; J. D. Prince, A Crit. Comm. on 
the Book of Dn, 1899 (1913); Driver, Camb. Bib. for Schools 
and Coll., Dn, 1900; Behrmann, Hand-Kom. z. Dn, 1894; 
C. H. H. Wright, Dn. and His Prophecies (1906); Kennedy, 
The Bk. of Dn. from the Christian Standpoint (1898); Bevan, 
The Book of Dn. (1892); R. Diek, Wilson, Studies in the Book 
of Dn. (1917); Charles, Dn. in New Century arte ED 


DANIEL, BOOK OF, APOCRYPHAL ADDI- 
TIONS TO: In the Greek text of the Book of 
Daniel are found the following additions: (1) The 
Prayer of Azariah and the Thanksgiving of the 
Three Children in the Fiery Furnace. (2) The 
History of Susannah. (8) The Story of Bel and 


the Dragon. The first of these has a much closer 
relation to the Book of Daniel than the other two. 


1. The Song of the Three Children. This is an 
apocryphal addition of 67 verses to the Book of 
Daniel inserted after 3 23. The title does not fully 
express all the contents of the section, for it contains 
also the Prayer of Azariah (1-22), and a brief narra- 
tive (23-27) of the heating of the furnace, and of the 
coming of the Angel of the Lord to the rescue. 
Codex B has the heading ‘The Prayer of Azariah’ 
and ‘Hymn of the Three.’ It has been often noted 
that the prayer, which is really as if a nation was 
speaking, confessing its past sins and seeking mercy, 
is singularly inappropriate to the circumstances. So 
too the Hymn is quite as unlikely in such a situation. 
It is more like a litany, and seems to be modeled 
after Ps 136. Both are unauthentic amplifications 
of the story in the canonical Dn, that are meant to 
fill out the account of the miraculous deliverance of 


- the three Hebrews by giving the prayer which one of 


them offered, beseeching God for deliverance, and 
the hymn of praise which they sang when they saw 
that this prayer was answered. It is entirely un- 
known who composed them. Their date also is 
unknown. They have been preserved for us in the 
Greek Bible and in the versions made from it. It 
has been much discussed whether the original of this 
section was Hebrew or Greek. The question is not 
easy of settlement, since every extant version is 
based on the LXX. As yet there is no unanimity in 
the matter. 


2. The History of Susannah. This apocryphal 
addition to the Book of Daniel is entitled in some 
MSS. ‘The Judgment of Daniel.’ In Greek MSS. 
and in the Old Latin version it is placed before Dn ch. 
1; in the Vulgate it stands at the end as Dn ch. 13. 
The Greek text is extant in two recensions, the LXX.., 
and that of Theodotion, which differ from each 
other in some details. There are also several 
Syriac versions. The story is as follows: Susan- 


nah, the wife of a wealthy Babylonian Jew, was_ 


accustomed to walk daily in her garden. Two 
elders, who had been recently appointed judges, be- 
coming enamored of her beauty, concealed them- 
selves one day in the garden and when Susannah 
was taking her bath suddenly appeared and made 
shameless proposals to her. Her outcry discovered 
them, and to save themselves they publicly accused 
Susannah of adultery with a young man whom they 
had found in the garden. The innocent woman was 
condemned to death, but was saved by Daniel, who 
by sharp cross-questioning exposed the falsity of the 
elders and secured their punishment. 

This narrative can not be regarded as historical. 
It is full of improbabilities. Ball (Speaker’s Bible, 
Apoc. ITI: 325) following Briihl finds the origin and 
motive of the Susannah story in a’ tradition of two 
elders of the time of the Captivity, who by promising 
women that they would become the mothers of great 
prophets led them astray, and he suggests that in 
the time of Ben Shetach (100 B.c.) we can find rea- 
sons for the presentation of the story in the form in 
which it here appears with the trial attached. If 
this theory be correct, several important teachings 
are exemplified in the story. Julius Africanus was 





169 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Daniel, Book of 
Darling 





the first to dispute its canonicity. It is still re- 
garded by the Roman Catholic Church as canonical. 

3. Bel and the Dragon. These are two distinct 
stories which have been added to the Book of Daniel 
in the Greek and other versions. They both have as 
their aim, along with the glorification of D., the 
exhibition of the emptiness and deception of idolatry. 
In the story of Bel, Cyrus the Persian king discovers 
that D. does not worship the Babylonian idol Bel, 
and calls him to account for his conduct. D. denies 
that. Bel is a living god, and offers to prove it. 
The test is to be made in reference to the daily offer- 
ings of meat and drink which Bel was supposed to 
consume. If it should be found that these were 
made away with by other means than by the god 
himself, then D. was to be honored. Upon the 
floor of the temple D. had spread a thin coating 
of fine ashes and after the food had been deposited 
before the god, the king himself shut and sealed the 
door. The next morning when the door was opened 
the food was gone, but the marks of human feet were 
upon the pavement. This led to the discovery of a 
secret door, through which the priests with their 
wives and children had entered the room. The 
proof was irrefutable, the false priests were slain, 
and D. was honored. 

In the story of the Dragon the same question was 
at issue as to whether it was a living god. Daniel 
denied it and offered to slay him. The king gave 
him permission to try, and D. making lumps ‘of 
pitch, and fat, and hair’ gave them to the dragon 
to eat, whereupon he burst asunder. Babylon was 
indignant at the death of their god and compelling 
the king to give up D. cast him into the lion’s den, 
where he was miraculously kept unharmed. The 
king’s wonder at this led him to honor the prophet 
and to acknowledge the prophet’s God. 

Neither of these stories, of course, is authentic, 
but each is framed from material taken from current 
legends and ideas. The dragon myth had wide cir- 
culation. As in the case of the History of Susannah, 
the two Greek recensions, that of the LX X, and that 
of Theodotion, differ in details. The original lan- 
guage of these stories has generally been considered 
to be Greek. Gaster’s discovery of an Aramaic text 
of the Story of the Dragon in the Chronicles of 
Jerahmeel gives strong support to the few who have 
stood for an Aramaic original and has started again 
the question of Aramaic originals for them both, 
but as yet a clear decision is not possible. Prof. 
Witton Davies in Charles, Apocrypha and Pseud- 
epigrapha of the O.T.I (1913), gives reasons for reject- 
ing Gaster’s view and favors a Heb. original. 

The Roman and Greek Churches accept these 
stories as canonical; the Protestant Church holds 
them to be apocryphal. J.S. R.—W. G. J. 


DANJAAN, dan’”jé’en (192 3, daénah ya‘an) 
(II S 24 6): The text here seems to be corrupt. 
The LXX. is unintelligible, but indicates that ‘Dan’ 
occurred twice. Some would amend: ‘And from Dan 
_ they went round to Sidon.’ Others would read ‘and 
to Ijon’ for ‘Jaan.’ E. E. N. 


DANNAH, dana (7131, dannéh): A city in the hill- 
_ country of Judah (Jos 15 49). Map II, D 2. 


DARDA, dar’da (¥ 171, darda‘): A person famous 
for his wisdom (I K 4 31). He is called a son of Mahol, 
but in I Ch 26, where the same set of names occurs, 
he is called Dara and counted as a son of Zerah, 
son of Judah. Mahol may have been the name of 
a family of the clan of Zerah, a subdivision of the 
tribe of Judah. HK. KE. N. 

DARIC. A Persian coin. See Money, I, § 5. 

DARIUS, da-rai’us (02.11 ,daryadwesh): 1. Darius 
Hystaspes, King of Persia (521-485 n.c.), the restorer 
of the empire of Cyrus, who followed the policy of 
the founder in his treatment of the subject states, 
and acted generously toward the Jewish settlement 
in Palestine which had been made under Cyrus. He 
commanded by a special decree, in his second year, 
that all those who had hindered the rebuilding of 
the Temple of Jerusalem should cease their obstruc- 
tion, and that money and material for sacrifice 
should be granted from the revenue of the province 
(Ezr 6 6-12; cf. Hag. 11, 15, 210; Zech 11,7). ‘Darius 
the Persian,’ whose reign is mention in Neh 12 22 as 
the date of registration of certain priests, was prob- 
ably also the great Darius. 2. Darius the Mede is 
named in Dn 5 31 as succeeding Belshazzar, at the 
age of sixty-two, on the throne of Babylon. In 91 he 
is said, in addition, to have been ‘the son of Ahas- 
uerus of the seed of the Medes’ (cf. 111). Both of 
these alleged personages are unhistorical; and, judg- 
ing from the character of the other references to 
matters of history in the Book of Dn, it is perhaps 
not necessary to assume that the author, writing 
nearly four centuries after the fall of Babylon, had 
any definite individuals in mind. Fortunately, the 
cuneiform inscriptions have given us the history of 
the Babylonian succession after the fall of the native 
dynasty. The last Chaldean ruler was Nabonidus, 
not Belshazzar, who was the crown prince. After 
the surrender of Babylon, and the formal entry of 
Cyrus three months later, his son Cambyses, as it 
would appear, was made king, but only for less than 
a year; thereafter Cyrus himself assuming the title 
and function. It is barely possible that some tradi- 
tion of Gobryas, the Median general of Cyrus who 
occupied the city till his sovereign came to take 
possession, may have lain at the foundation of the 
references in Daniel. But this hypothesis would at 
best be only another illustration of the author’s 
notion of the relative unimportance of the minute 
details of history. RaW Rs 

DARKNESS: In figurative language darkness 
often appears as the symbol of mystery (Ps 139 12; 
I Co 45), of ignorance (Is 427; Ps 82 5), and oftener 
of moral evil or sin (Is 5 20; Mt 416; Jn 319). Cases 
of physical darkness are alluded to in connection 
with the creation, the plagues in Egypt, and cruci- 
fixion of Jesus (Mt 27 45), and the last day (cf. 
Escuatouoay, § 39). 

DARKON, dar’kon ())P'71, darqin): The ances- 
tral head of a subdivision of ‘Solomon’s servants’ 
in postexilic days (Ezr 2 56; Neh 7 58). 

DARK SAYING. See PROVERB. 

DARLING: The rendering of the Heb. TM, 
yahidh, ‘only,’ ‘only one,’ in Ps 22 20, 35 17, where it 
is used poetically for one’s life or soul. 


Dart 


David A NEW STANDARD 


DART. See Arms anp Armor, § 1. 
DART IN THE LIVER. See Liver. 


DATHAN, dé’than (J, dathén): In Nu 16 two 
stories, one from JH, the other from P, are fused. 
In the former, Dathan and Abiram, Reubenites 
oppose Moses’ leadership of the people accusing 
him of having failed to fulfil his promises. At M.’s 
prayer to J” the rebels and their families are swal- 
lowed up by an earthquake (Nu 16 Ih, 3, 12-15, 25-31, 
32-34 in part). See also Mosss, § 9. E. E. N. 


DAUGHTER. See Famity anp Faminy Law, 
§§ 5, 6. 

DAVID. 1. Name. The name David (117-7, 
déwidh) is probably related to -\7, dddh, ‘beloved 
one.’ Some take it to mean ‘paternal uncle’ (cf. 
Gray, Heb. Pr. Names, p. 83). Others refer it to 
Dodo, the name of a deity. | 

2. Sources for the History of David. In the 
Biblical material relating to D. later and earlier 
narratives have been fused together in the accounts 
in the Books of Samuel and I K chs.1-2. The account 
in I Chronicles is based for its main facts on the 
earlier Books of Samuel and Kings. While the 
Chronicler may have had some access to other an- 
cient sources of information, most of the remark- 
able differences between his narrative and that in 
the earlier books must be laid to his unhistorical 
imagination. He projected back into D.’s time the 
fully developed liturgical and other arrangements of 
the Temple service in his own day. Compare, e.g., 
I Ch ch. 15 with the earlier account in II § ch. 6, 
and the differences in point of view will at once be 
apparanet. See CHRONICLES. 

We are thus practically limited to the accounts 
inI andIIS and I K chs. 1-2 for our knowledge of D. 
This material consists, in the main, of excerpts from 
older narratives combined by the addition of edi- 
torial notes of various kinds. See Samuxrt, Booxs 
OF. 
D. is introduced, for example, inI Sch. 16. The 
account in 16 1-13 is a natural sequence to ch. 15. 
But at 16 14 a new strand of narrative appears. 
Saul is persuaded to send for D., already famous 
as ‘skilful in playing, a mighty man of valor, and a 
man of war,’ etc. as one who by his playing on the 
harp might soothe the troubled spirit of the king. 
D. comes to Saul, who likes him, makes him his 
armor-bearer, and provides for his permanent stay 
at court. The sequence to this narrative is certainly 
to be found in such a passage as 18 6 ff. (note that in 
ver. 6 the correct reading is ‘Philistines’ [plural] and 
the reference originally may not have been to the 
Goliath story). But instead of this we have inter- 
vening the account of D. and Goliath, 17 1-18 5, in 
which D. is introduced, as if for the first time. 
Here D. is very young (vs. 14, 33), knows practically 
nothing about war (33 ff.), is unknown to Saul (33 ff., 
55 ff.), and his place at court is due to his great deed 
of valor in slaying Goliath (18 1-5). Similarly 20 2 
is irreconcilable with 191 ff., and ch. 24 is practically 
a duplicate of ch. 26. Such clear indications prove 
on close examination, to be supported by so many 
others that little difficulty is experienced in making 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


170 


out several separate strands in the composite 
account of D.’s career. 


(1) One of these (A), the one beginning (so far as 


D. is concerned) with 16 14, is a sober, straightfor- | 


ward narrative, a fine example of Hebrew prose, in 
which the facts are left largely to speak for them- 
selves. No attempt is made to idealize D., and the 
religious motif is not unduly conspicuous. Its out- 
line is as follows: D.’s introduction to Saul (16 
14-23). Saul, jealous because of D.’s success and 
popularity (18 6-8), attempts to kill him, first pri- 
vately (18 9-11), then through the dowry demanded 
in the offer of Michal to D. as wife (18 20-29). D. 


now flees (19 11-17) after revealing Saul’s murderous 


intent to Jonathan, who is surprized, but finds that 
it is so and takes an affectionate farewell of D. 
(20 1b-42). D. secures bread at Nob (211-7) and then 
becomes the head of a band (221-2). Saul slays all 
the priests at Nob but Abiathar (22 6-23) and hunts 
for D. from place to place (23 1-14). During these 


‘experiences D. marries Abigail, the rich widow of 


Nabal of Carmel, SE. of Hebron (25 2-42), also 
Ahinoam (25 43 f.) and on one occasion spares Saul’s 
life (26 1-25). D. finally seeks the protection of 
Achish of Gath and is given Ziklag, on the SW. bor- 
der of Palestine (27 1-12). Summoned by Achish to 
march against Saul (28 1-2), he is sent back because 
of the opposition of the Philistine nobles (29 1-11). 
Returning to Ziklag he finds it plundered by 
Amalekites whom he overtakes and routs and makes, 
a shrewd use of part of the spoil by sending presents 
to leading men in Judah and elsewhere (80 1-31). 
An account of Saul’s defeat and death follows 
(31 1-13) and of D.’s grief at the news (IIS 11-16), 
also the beautiful elegy he composed on the occasion 
(1 17-27). D. now moves to Hebron and is chosen 
king of Judah (2 1-4). A message to Jabesh-gilead 
has no immediate effect (2 5-7). Abner gradually 
regains control of N. Israel for the house of Saul 
(2 8-10). War breaking out between D. and the 
house of Saul, D. is victorious and Abner capitulates 
(2 11-3 21). 
and of Ishbosheth, Saul’s son (4 1-12), does not pre- 
vent the crowning of D. as king of all Israel at He- 
bron (5 1-2). The Philistines now attempt to crush 
D., but are defeated (5 17-25). A brief account of 
D.’s other wars follows (8 1-14) and the narrative 


The murder of Abner by Joab (8 22-39) _ 


closes with a summary statement regarding D.’s 


government (8 15-18). 

(2) Interwoven with A is another account (B), 
in which D., a mere lad, is anointed by Samuel 
(I S 16 1-13) after Saul’s rejection. D. comes into 


public view, still a mere youth and unknown to the | 


king, by his triumph over Goliath (17 1-58). At the 
court he and Jonathan become fast friends (18 1-5), 


but Saul becomes jealous and tries in various ways 


to kill D. (18 12-19, 30). Jonathan brings about 
a reconciliation (19 1-7), but when Saul again at- 


tempts to kill him (19 8-10) D. flees to Samuel — 
(19 18-20 1a), then goes to Nob and gets the sword of 


Goliath (21 8 f.) and thence flees to Achish (21 10-15), 


Taking his parents to Moab, D. next finds refuge — 


in the forest of Hereth (22 3-5, 23 15-18). Later, D. 
spares Saul’s life in the wilderness of Ziph (23 19- 
24 22). 


| 
: 
| 
| 
| 


After Samuel’s death (25 1), Saul, hard . 





i7i 


pressed by the Philistines, has recourse to the witch 
of Endor, in order to get a message from Samuel, 
from whom he hears his doom (28 3-25). These 
passages are marked by the tendency to idealize 
D. and to show how it was the Divine will to take 
the kingdom from Saul and give it to his successor. 
See SamuEL, Books or; and Sauvt. 


(3) The most of II Samuel is from an ancient 
history of D. as king in Jerusalem (symbol Da’), 
perhaps the oldest piece of consecutive historical 
narrative inthe OT. This began, perhaps with 5 3, 
telling of the union of the tribes under D. The 
capture of Jebusite Jerusalem follows (5 6-10), then 
a notice of D.’s palace and family (5 11-16). The 
basis of ch. 6 (the Ark brought to Jerusalem) and 
of ch. 7 (the Divine promise regarding D.’s dynasty) 
belonged to this source. Chs. 9-20, practically en- 
tire, constituted a large section of this ancient his- 
tory, concerned mainly with internal affairs. Only 
in ch. 10 (the parallel to 8 3-12) and 12 26-31 is any 
notice given to foreign affairs. Here 10 6-19 awaken 
suspicion as perhaps being a later insertion. The 
points included are D.’s kindness to Jonathan’s 
son Mephibosheth (ch. 9), the trouble with the 
Ammonites (10 1-5, 111) mainly as a setting for the 
story of D.’s sin with Bathsheba (11 2-27), the rebuke 
of D. by Nathan (12 1-15), the death of Bathsheba’s 
child (12 15-23), the birth of Solomon (12 24 f.), 
the successful issue of the war with Ammon (12 
_ 26-31), and the story of Absalom’s rebellion which is 
traced from its beginnings in the trouble between 
Absalom and Ammon to its conclusion in the death 
of Absalom and D.’s restoration to his throne 
(chs. 18-19). Asa sequel we have the story of Sheba’s 
unsuccessful rebellion (20 1-22). The notice (20 
23-26) concerning D.’s cabinet seems to have closed 
the account of D.’s active reign, while I K chs. 1-2 
(in the main) probably formed the closing section 
of this history. 

(4) Finally we have a little collection of material in 
IIS chs. 21-24 of various dates and inserted by the 
compilers of II S in their present position. It con- 
tains (a) an old notice of a famine and the execution 
of the sons of Saul to satisfy the Gibeonites (21 
1-14); (b) a group of stories of heroic deeds by D. and 
his men in the Philistine wars, in which Goliath’s 
death is accredited to Elhanan, not D. (21 15-22); 
_ (c) a psalm of praise attributed to D. (ch. 22=Ps 
18); (d) an ancient poem, ‘the last words of David’ 
(23 1-7); (e) an old list of D.’s heroes (23 8-39); (f) 
the story of the census, with its diastrous result, and 
its sequel, the purchase of the threshing-floor of 
Araunah as a place of sacrifice, the site of the later 
Temple-altar (ch. 24). 

Of these sources Da’ is probably the oldest. It 
was written out of full information, in a spirit of 
impartiality, D.’s faults and limitations being set 
forth with no apologies. It was compiled not long 
after D.’s death and before the dominance of the 
tendency to idealize him, so marked in later Hebrew 
literature. Narrative A is of almost equal antiquity 
and impartial objectivity. Most of the material in 
IIS chs. 21-24 isalsoold and historically trustworthy. 
On the other hand, narrative B is late and belongs 
- tothe time when D. was looked back to as the ideal 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


i 


Dart 
David 


man and king. See the discussion of this narrative 
in SAMUEL, Books or. We possess, therefore, an 
abundance of good material wherewith to construct 
a history of the life and work of D. 


3. David’s Life. D.was borne. 1040 (see CHro- 
NOLOGY OF OT), the son of Jesse, a farmer of Bethle- 
hem. His early life, that of a shepherd lad, gave 
him opportunity to develop his musical talents. 
The border warfare with the Philistines early at- 
tracted his daring spirit, and he had already gained 
some renown when he was called to quiet the spirit 
of the afflicted king by his skillonthe harp. At the 
court (such as it was) D. soon became popular. 
Between him and Jonathan, Saul’s eldest son, a 
warm friendship grew up. In war D. performed 
such deeds of valor that in popular song his name 
was placed above Saul’s. These things at last 
aroused Saul to a violent jealousy, and he saw in D. 
an enemy to his house and felt that his death was a 
public necessity. D. acted with forbearance and 
magnanimity in this trying situation. At last D. 
saw that he must leave court and bade an affection- 
ate farewell to Jonathan. Gradually a band of like- 
minded spirits gathered about him, some of them 
wild, lawless men, a condition of affairs made pos- 
sible only through Saul’s inefficient government. 
These years gave D. lessons in war and strategy, in 
command of others, and in self-reliance that proved 
valuable in later years. At the end of this period 
D. had a strong hold on the affections of the clans of 
Judah, had materially increased his personal pos- 
sessions, and was head of a band of about 600 trusty 
followers who placed allegiance to him above that 
to any other person or cause. 


D.’s recourse to Achish of Gath was the only so- 
lution of a difficulty. Otherwise he would have be- 
come involved in civil war with Saul. By taking a 
position in theS. at Ziklag, under a nominal vassal- 
age to Achish, D. was free from entanglements and 
could await the issue of circumstances. 

With the defeat of Israel by the Philistines and 
the death of Saul and his sons on Mt. Gilboa came 
D.’s opportunity. But he moyed cautiously. 
He was still the vassal of Achish. The move from 
Ziklag to Hebron, there to be recognized by the tribe 
of Judah as king, was not significant enough in the 
eyes of the Philistines to provoke hostilities. The 
Philistines were concerned with controlling Central 
Israel rather than Judah. The court at Hebron was 
not a magnificent establishment, nor did the power 
of D. at first appear formidable. N. Israel was not 
yet ready to accept D. asking. But when Abner, 
after five years of patient effort, had partially suc- 
ceeded in putting N. Israel on an independent basis 
and had placed Ishbosheth, Saul’s youngest son, 
on the throne, a civil strife was inevitable. The 
conflict lasted about two years and the inevitable 
goal of the whole course of events in Israel for ten 
or more years was reached when the elders or repre- 
sentatives of the tribes met at Hebron and there 
constituted D. king of all Israel. This was done on 
the basis of a covenant or agreement, the particulars 
of which are not given. Of this we may be sure, 
that N. Israel accepted D. as king not because he 
was king of Judah, but for what he was in himself, 


David 
Dead Sea 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


172 





There was no recognition of a suzerainty of Judah 
over the other tribes in this transaction. The Phil- 
istines now attempted to crush David before he had 
fully organized his kingdom. ‘Two signal defeats 
(II S 5 17-25; cf. 23 13-17), followed by others (II S 
8 1, 21 15-18, 23 9-12), taught them that Israel under 
David was supreme in Palestine. Excavations on 
Philistine sites are revealing that this people were 
very formidable; which only emphasizes the energy 
and ability of David in conquering them. 


Unlike Saul, D. saw the need of a strongly cen- 
tralized government. To this end a capital, cen- 
trally located and capable of being strongly fortified, 
was a necessity. Such a location was at hand in the 
old Canaanite fortress of Jerusalem (q.v.), still un- 
conquered and occupied by the Jebusites. One of 
D.’s first acts was the capture of this strong position 
and the establishment here of his seat of govern- 
ment. See JERUSALEM §§ 19-24. Here he built a 
palace, otherwise improved and more strongly for- 
tified the city, and, as adding both dignity and 
sanctity to his capital as well as doing honor to 
the national religion, to this place he brought the 
Ark, the most ancient symbol of the national faith. 

D.’s wars with neighboring nations all occurred 
probably in the first decade of his reign. The 
occasion of the war with Ammon is explicitly given 
(II S 101-5). The Syrian wars were an outgrowth 
of the Ammonite war (10 6-19; cf. 8 3-12). The 
reasons for the conflicts with Moab and Edom are 
not stated. The outcome of these campaigns was 
to give Israel the foremost place among the small 
nationalities between the Euphrates and Egypt. 
The overlordship of Israel, involving the payment of 
annual tribute, was recognized by Edom, Moab, 
Ammon, and a number of the petty Syrian king- 
doms to the NE. 


Following these wars was a period, probably of 
ten to fifteen years’ duration, of peace and prosper- 
ity. The central government was strong and effi- 
cient. The king was a supreme court of appeal, open 
to every Israelite, where impartial justice was sure to 
be decreed. The spoils of war and the tribute of 
conquered nations brought in a revenue more than 
sufficient to meet all demands without heavy internal 
taxation. The king was popular, the people happy 
and contented. Seeds of future trouble indeed were 
being sown, but that harvest was not all to be 
reaped in D.’s day. It was in this period that 
Nathan the prophet declared the unique significance 
of D.’s dynasty, a prelude to the prophetic view of 
the Messianic significance of that dynasty (IIS ch. 
7). 

Absalom’s rebellion, altho prompted mainly by 
his own ambition, was made possible only through 
the presence of certain elements of disaffection in 
Judah, D.’s own tribe. That Absalom won over 
to his cause Ahithophel of Giloh in Judah and that he 
organized his rebellion in Hebron, David’s old capi- 
tal, shows that it was in Judah that the opposition to 
D. was strongest, tho at no time was the majority 
of the population on Absalom’s side. D.’s strict 
adherence to the terms of the covenant arrange- 
ment, in not favoring Judah unduly at the expense 
of Israel, may have caused resentment in Judah. 


Into the details of the story so fully told in II § 
chs. 13-20 we do not need to enter. Nowhere else do 
D.’s greater qualities appear so conspicuously. 
The story of the quarrel between N. Israel and Judah 
after the defeat of Absalom’s forces, while it reveals 
the jealousy between these two parts of Israel, also 
shows the strong affection felt for D. in the nation 
as a whole. 

Absalom’s rebellion occurred probably in the last 
decade of D.’s life. It was a severe ordeal and after 
his restoration D, entrusted most of the duties of 
government to others. This gave Adonijah his 
opportunity for his unsuccessful attempt to prevent 
the succession of Solomon, whom D. had already 
designated his successor. With the installation of 
Solomon, son of Bathsheba, as his successor, D.’s 
public life closed. Not long after he died, 70 years 
old. 


4. Estimate of David’s Reign and Work. D.’s 
work for Israel was of greatest importance. In a 
sense he but completed what had been partially 
accomplished by Samuel and Saul. But even with 
this reservation his fame will endure as Israel’s 
greatest ruler after Moses. He not only reunited 
Israel and gave it for the first time a strong, well- 
organized, and well-administered government, but 
he gave it a new national consciousness. Under him 
Israel attained to a true sense of her national signifi- 
cance among the small nationalities of SW. Asia. 
It was due to D. that Israel emerged from the con- 
dition of a body of loosely confederated tribes to 
that of a nation acting as a unit along well-defined 
lines of national policy. The Davidic Age was an 
age of awakening for Israel, and D. was its incar- 
nation. Under him for the first time Israel had a 
capital city, a central government, a standing army, 
a court, and a supreme court of justice. 

That all this was without influence upon Israel’s 
religion is unthinkable. D. himself was sincerely 
loyal to Jehovah, Israel’s God. His battles were 
fought and his victories won in the name of J”. 
None of his public acts was marked by any dis- | 
loyalty or unfaithfulness to J’’, as such things were 
understood at the time. In his royal sanctuary at 
Jerusalem the most ancient and revered symbol of 
the national faith was highly honored and carefully 
guarded. It is probable that the worship at this 
sanctuary was somewhat elaborate and dignified, 
and that the later view of D. as the founder of the 
Temple liturgy was not entirely without foundation. 
Through D. the popular conception of the power of 
J’’ must have been greatly strengthened. 

Of the personal character of D. an estimate found- 
ed mainly on the objective account of Da! and of the 
old elements in A and in IIS chs. 21-24 can not be 
far from correct. He was a child of his age, and his 
faults, as they appear to us, were mainly the faults 
of his age. This is the only just way to judge of his 
readiness to accept Saul’s stipulations regarding his 
marriage to Michal (I S 18 25 ff.); of his harsh treat- 
ment of conquered enemies (II § 12 31, mild in com- 
parison with those of Assyria at a later date); of his 
yielding to the demands of the Gibeonites for blood 
revenge on Saul’s house (IIS ch. 21), since by refus- 
ing he would bring the same nemesis upon his own 





173 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


David 
Dead Sea 





house; or of his charge to Solomon to see that Joab 
paid the just penalty for his murders of innocent 
men (I K 25f.). For his criminal connection with 
Bathsheba there is no excuse. D. sinned griev- 
ously and knew that he was doing wrong. But the 
real nature of the man is best seen in his sincere 
repentance at the rebuke of Nathan. That D. 
was a man of strong natural passions the narrative 
makes clear. But he was not a man of unbridled 
lust. * His large harem was altogether in harmony 
with an age when all rulers had many wives, mainly 
from motives of state policy. 

D. was a man of strong feelings. He was a musi- 
cian and a poet. His lament over Saul and Jonathan 
(II S 1 19-27) is one of the gems of the world’s litera- 
ture and perhaps more truly reveals the real D. 
than anything else we know of him. One who 


could thus write of the man who had sought his | 


life was a rare spirit indeed. Altho none of the 

Psalms was certainly written by him, he was capable 

of writing some of those attributed to him. (e.g. Ps 

18). 

D. was brave, generous, and magnanimous. 
He was a master-spirit who drew others to him and 
for whom they would gladly lay down their lives (cf. 
II S 23 13-18). He was a discerner of men and knew 
how to use each in the place for which he was best 
fitted. As a king he showed a kingly dignity and 
bearing, but was withal affable and approachable. 
Politically he was shrewd and far-seeing, and his 
military skill gave him victory in all his wars. His 
people trusted and loved him asa just ruler. In his 
family life his affection for his children often got the 
better of his judgment, and yet his bitter cry ‘Would 
I had died for thee, O Absalom, my son, my son!’ 
must touch every parent’s heart. 

It was then not without reason that later Israel 
looked back to D. as the ideal man and king, and 
made him the type of the ideal Head of the Messianic 
Age. 

LirerRATuRE: Kittel, Geschichte der Wolkes Israels, 5th ed. 
(1922); McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monumenis, vol. 
II (2d ed. 1897), § § 518, 522, 523; vol. I (3d ed. 1898), pp. 
238-253; Guthe, Geschichte Israels (1899), pp. 74-109 (a 
most excellent discussion); Wade, Old Testament History 
8th ed., 1907 (a very complete account). Peritz, O. T. History 
(1915); I. G. Matthews, O. 7. Life and Literature (1923); 
Driver, LOT¢ (1913). The art. on David by H. A. White in 
HDB. is of high merit. K. E. N 


DAVID, CITY OF. See Jerusaumm, § 15. 


DAY. ‘The uses other than literal of the term day 
are: (1) A period of time (Dt 16 3b; pl. I K 10 21). 
(2) Some outstanding single day, such as the birth- 
day of an individual (Job 31; Hos 7 5) or the day of 
death or .destruction (Ps 37 13; Jer 50 31) or of a 
great battle (Is 9 4; Ps 1877). (3) An apocalyptic 
measure of time (Dn 12 11, etc.; Rev 210, etc.), and 
(4) figuratively (Jn 9 4; I Th 55, 8). 

DAY OF ATONEMENT. See 
Feasts, § 9. 


DAY OF JUDGMENT. See Escuatotoey, §§ 
5, 36, 49. 
ee OF THE LORD. See Escuarouoey, 

4-7. 

DAY’S JOURNEY. See Weicuts anp Mras- 
URES, § 2. 


Fasts AND 


DAY’S MAN (Job 9 33, Umpire RV): The Heb. 
term (1212) means ‘one who judges’ or ‘decides.’ 
Job longs for some one to come between him and 
God and decide the case impartially (cf. the same 
expression in Gn 31 37). 


DAYSPRING (10, shahar): Literally, ‘the 
dawn,’ in Job 38 12. The Gr. dvatory (i.e, the 
‘rising’ of the sun or a star) is applied in Lk 178 figur- 
atively to the new light of the Messianic Era, full of 
spiritual comfort. 


DAY-STAR: This term is applied to (1) the 
king of Babylon, because he had exalted himself to 
the highest heights (Is 14 12 hélél, Lucifer AV); and 
(2) to Christ, as the light-giver (II P 1 19, pwapde0s). 
The heavenly body underlying the figure of speech 
may be Venus as implied in the LXX rendering 
(‘Ewooép0c), or the moon (as seen at dawn in its 
last quarter). K. E. N. 


DEACON, DEACONESS. See Cuurcu, §§ 3 
and 8. 


DEAD, THE. See Buriat anp Buriat Cus- 
Troms; and Escuatoutoay, §§ 15-21, 37-389, 42-44, 
and 49. 


DEAD BODY. See Buriat anp Buriat Cus- 
TOMS, §$§ 1-5. 

DEAD SEA. 1. Name. (}, yam, ‘sea’ [Am 8 12; 
Mic 7 12]; n2ni DY, yam hammelah, Salt Sea [Gn 143; 
Nu 3412]; 13097 0}, yam ha‘drabhah, ‘the sea of 
the Arabah,’ ‘sea of the plain,’ AV (Dt 317, 4 49); 
"NOP 0}, yam hagqadhmoni, east sea, former sea 
AV [Ezk 47 18; Jl 2 20; Zec 14 8]. -In extrabibli- 
cal sources ’AopaAtitts, ‘Sea of Asphalt’ (Pliny, 
HN. V, 1515; Diod Sic. 2 48, 19 98; Josephus 
often; also Yodouits, ‘Sea of Sodom’ Ant. V, 1 22). 
Modern name (Arab.), Bahr-Lut, Sea of Lot (?). 
The name ‘Dead Sea’ is not Biblical; and in its 
N T there is no reference to it whatever. 

2. Physical Features. The Dead Sea is the most 
striking of the geographical features of Palestine, 
or at any rate the most remarkable of its inland bod- 
ies of water. It is 47 m. in length and 9 to 10 
m. in width. It is divided into two unequal parts 
by a small peninsula projecting from the E. shore in 
its southern part. This peninsula is called lisadn 
(‘tongue’), but offers no specially interesting fea- 
tures. The lake is surrounded by high cliffs on the 
W. side, rising sometimes to the elevation of 1,500 
ft., and by mountains on the E. side, the highest of 
which reach up to 2,500 ft. above the water. It has 
no outlet to the S., and receives the waters of the 
Jordan from the N. The constant evaporation 
caused by the intense heat and the great depth of 
the valley is so rapid as to counterbalance the acces- 
sion of water from the Jordan and the other affluents 
and to maintain the level. The basin of the Dead 
Sea is made up by the junction of two valleys run- 
ning respectively from N. to 8. and from S. to N., 
and becoming deeper as they approach each other. 
The soil of these valleys abounds in certain saline 
substances (chlorides of sodium, calcium, and mag- 
nesium, to which must be added certain compounds 
of bromium). These give the water its bitter and its 
salt taste and its oily consistency, as well as its 


Deaf 
Defilement 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


174 





great density. Owing to this last feature, eggs will 
float on the surface of the sea, and the human body is 
borne up, only the head showing a tendency to sink, 
which makes swimming difficult. 

3. Incorrect Notions. It is an error to imagine 
that the shores of the Dead Sea derive their barren- 
ness from the quality of its waters. The truth is 
rather that the characteristics of the water are due 
to the nature of the soil. As this furnishes so much 
mineral material for solution in the water, it is im- 
possible for any form of life to flourish within the 
sea or on the shores about it. 
are unable to live in these waters. For the same 
reason, the mineral ingredients of the soil around 
the Dead Sea basin make it impossible for vegeta- 
tion to flourish. The idea, however, that there is 
anything preternaturally pestiferous either in the 
atmosphere or in the water of the Dead Sea is an 
unfounded superstition. See also PALESTINE, § 12. 
(c). A.C. Z 


DEAF, DEAFNESS. See Diszasz, III. 
DEARTH. See PAuzstTine, § 20. 


DEATH. See BurtaL AND Buriat Customs, 
§ 1; Escuaronoay, § 15 ff.; and Mournine Cus- 
TOMS. 


DEATH, SECOND. See Escuatouoey, §$ 48. 


DEBIR, di/bir (727, debhir): I. An Amorite, 
king of Eglon, one of the five who formed a con- 
federation against Israel, and were defeated at 
Makkedah and put to death by Joshua (Jos 10 3 f..) 

II. 1. A city in the S. of Judah (Jos 10 38), also 
called Kiriath-sepher ‘book-city’ (Jos 15 15; Jg 1 11), 
supposed to be in the neighborhood of Hebron, but 
its exact identification with any modern site seems 
impossible (cf. Map II, D 3). In history it figures 
as captured by Othniel, in the forward movement of 
Judah led by Caleb (Jg 1 11-15). The account in 
Jos (10 38) contradicts the older tradition of Jg 1 and 
is of no historical value. 2. Another city of the 
name appears in Jos 157, located in the NE. section 
of Judah, but the text seems confused and the LXX. 
translates as if from an original n’y3n, instead of 
yan. 3. For the Debir in Jos 13 26 (‘Lidebir’ 
RVmg.) see LODEBAR. ALG. Zs 


DEBORAH, deb’o-ra (17137, debhdrah), ‘bee’: 1 
The associate and inspirer of Barak in the conflict 
with the Canaanites under Jabin and Sisera (Jg 4). 
She is described as the prophetess who judged Israel 
during the period, holding her court at a place named 
after herself between Ramah and Bethel in the hill- 
country of Ephraim. When the oppression became 
intolerable, Deborah sent for Barak and together 
they planned the campaign which culminated in the 
overthrow of the Canaanites at the battle of Kishon. 
The victory won by Israel in this battle is the sub- 
ject of a poem of great fervor and vivid imagery 
entitled ‘The Song of Deborah’ (Jg 5). (Cf. G. A. 
Cooke, The History and Song of Deborah, 1892. and 
C. F. Burney, Judges (1918), pp 85-176). 2. The 
name of Rebecca’s nurse (Gn 35 8). A. C. Z. 


DEBT, DEBTOR. See TrapE AND COMMERCE, 
§ 3. 


Even salt-water fish 





DECALOG (Aéxa Aéyot, the Ten Words, EVmg. 
Ex 34 28; Dt 4 13, 10 4, more commonly the Ten 
Commandments): 1. Two Versions. The moral 
code prefixed to the Book of the Covenant (Ex 
21-23). The account of the giving of the Decalog 
is recorded in Ex ch. 19, and need not be recounted. 
The text as given in Ex 20 3-17 has been called the 
Classic Decalog and has always been regarded as 
the summary of O T ethical teaching. Another 
version of it appears in Dt 5 6-21. 


2. Arrangement. The arrangement of the moral 
precepts in the form of ten commandments was 
neither demanded by the nature of the subject nor 
suggested by logical or philosophical considerations. 
It is the result of deference to the popular regard and 
conventional value of the number ten, recognized at 
the time. There are traces of the use of this num- 
ber in the construction of similar decalogs, e.g. Ex 
34 10-26, the decalog pointed out by Guthe and fur- 


ther defined by Wellhausen (Comp. d. Hez., p. 331; 


Smend, A 7Iche. Religionsgeschichte, p.47, and Stade, 
GVI.I, p. 457, and called the Jahvistic Decalog. 
Ten such decalogs are pointed out by Paton, J BLE. 
1893, pp. 79-93). The ten words were inscribed 
upon two tables of stone, but just how many upon 
each table does not appear. It has been customary 
since the days of Philo and the Christian Fathers to 
make one pentad of the first five commandments 
under the head of ‘Precepts of Piety’ and another 
of the last five under that of ‘Laws of Probity.’ 
There has been further a difference of practise as to 
the numbering of the commandments. The Roman 
Catholic Church, following Augustine, includes the 
one prohibiting the making of images with the first 
and preserves the original number by subdividing 
the last commandment. Among the Jews, whom the 
Greek Church and Protestants (except Luther) 
generally follow, the arrangement naturally suggest- 
ed in the EVV is held to be correct. 

3. Original Form. The Classical and Deuter- 
onomic versions of the Decalog differ mainly in 
the reasons annexed to the fourth and fifth, and in 
the arrangement of the tenth commandment. Upon 
the ground of these differences and the historical sit- 
uation reflected, which shows not a ritualistic but 
an ethical setting, some have judged that the Classi- 
cal Decalog was not a product of the Mosaic, but 
of the early Prophetic Age. The pre-Prophetic 
Age could produce only the ritualistic decalog of 
Ex 34 16-26 (so Wellh., etc.). Midway between this 
and the traditional views les the theory that a 
rudimentary decalog was given in the Mosaic 
Age as follows: 


1. Thou shalt have no other gods besides me. 
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any (graven) 
image. 
3. Thou shalt not take the narde of J’’ thy God 
for a vain end. 
Remember the Sabbath-day to hallow it. 
Honor thy father and thy mother. 
Thou shalt not kill. 
Thou shalt not commit adultery. 
Thou shalt not steal. 
Thou shalt not bear false witness. 
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s home. 


= ted PSL A 


io 





| 


175 A NEW STANDARD 


This simple decalog was then enlarged to its 
present form between 800 and 6258.c. This view is 
supported by the considerations (1) that an original 
of this compass would best account for the textual 
variations of the Classical and Deuteronomic Deca- 


logs, (2) that it may best be divided into two 


nearly equal pentads as inscribed on two tables, and 

(3) that it was best calculated to be remembered as 

a fundamental law. See also IskaArL RELIGION OF, 

§ 6. 

4. The Decalog in the N T. In the N T the 
Decalog is recognized as of Divine authority. But 
Jesus called attention to the vital element in it 
both by his interpretation of some of its parts (Mt 
5 17 f.) and by identifying the substance of its con- 
tent with the positive commandments of love (Mt 
22 36-40, cf. Ro 13 8, 10; Ja 28). He thus lifted it 
from the level of a small collection of rules for a 
special people in a definite environment to that of a 
standard expression of the highest ethical ideal for 
all mankind. And the Christian Community has 
consistently used it as the condensed form of its 
comprehensive code for conduct (along with the 
Apostles’ Creed as its symbol of faith and the Lord’s 
Prayer as its symbol of worship). 

Lirerature: Driver, Deut. in ICC (1895); W. R. Smith, 
Decalogue in Enc. Brit.; R. H. Kennett, Di. and the Decalogue 
(1920); and (expository and homiletical); R. W. Dale, The 
Ten Commandments; George Jackson, The Ten Command- 
menis (1898); R. L. Ottley, The Rule of Love (1912); J 
Oswald Dykes, The Law of the Ten Words (1912); Driver on 


Ex (Camb. Bible 1911); G. A. Smith on Dt (Camb. Bible, 
1918); R. H. Charles, The Decalogue (1924). A.C. Z. 


DECAPOLIS, di-kap’o-lis (Aexé¢xoAtc): The name 
applied in Roman times to a region E. of the Jordan 
including parts of Gilead, Golan, and Ammonitis, 
with Scythopolis (W. of the Jordan). The bound- 
aries of D. were never defined geographically, as 
it was not a geographical unit with connected ter- 


_ritory, but consisted of city districts, most of which 


were contiguous. In the wake of Alexander’s 
conquest Greek colonies were planted E. of the Jor- 
dan on those high plateaus which Israel had used 
for pasturage. These Hellenistic colonies had a 
common history: that of independent civic communi- 
ties under the Seleucids and Ptolemies, to whom they 
owed nominal allegiance, and paid taxes and con- 
tributions. 

Most of them were annexed to Judea by Alex- 
ander Jannzus (104-78 B.c.). When Pompey con- 
quered and reorganized Palestine in 63 B.c. he re- 
stored freedom to these cities, which about this time 
formed a league consisting originally of ten cities 
(3éxa, ‘ten,’ m4Atc, ‘city’). As the term Decapolis 
appears only in Roman times, and as the era of most 
of these cities began in 63 B.c., the League dates 
probably from the reorganization by Pompey. 
The cities were subject to the Roman Senate, but 
administered their own affairs, had the right of 
coinage, their own courts, financial budgets, and era. 
The number and names of the cities composing the 
Decapolis are variously given and the title was pre- 
served even after other cities were added to the list. 
Pliny gives (perhaps the original ten): Damascus, 
Philadelphia, Raphana, Scythopolis, Gadara, Hip- 
pus, Dium, Pella, Gerasa, Canatha. Ptolemy’s list 


Deaf 
Defilement 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
omits Raphana and adds Abila, Abila Lysanize, Cap- 
itolias (perhaps Raphana), Saana, Ina, Samulis, 
Heliopolis, Adra, and Gadora. Other sources 
mention Canata and Bosra (Bostra). Scythopolis 
commanded the trade-route and was the outlet to 
the sea for the Decapolis. Hippus and Gadara 
were given to Herod by Augustus, Abila to Agrippa 
II by Nero, but the League was not dissolved until 
the third century, when Philadelphia, Gerasa, Cana- 
tha, Canata were incorporated into the Provincia 
Arabia. Gadara was the birthplace of Philodemus 
(Epicurean), Meleager (epigrammatist), Menippus 
(satirist), and Theodorus (rhetorician). In the 
time of Christ the Decapolis was a great intellectual 
and commercial center, Greek being everywhere 
spoken. J.R.S.S.*—S. A 


DECISION, VALLEY OF: See JerusaeM, § 5. 

DECREE: (1) In Dn 6 7-15, ’ésdr, ‘decree’ AV, is 
rightly changed in RV to ‘interdict.’ (2) In Dn 
4 17-24 g°zérah means ‘decision.’ (3) In Dn 29, 13, 15, 
and in Est, chs, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, dath means ‘law.’ (4) 
In Ezr 5 13, etc., and in Dn 3 10, 29, 4 6, 6 26, t¢ém; 
in Est 1 20 pithgam; in Jon 37 ta‘am; in Lk 21; 
Ac 17 7, 36yua mean ‘edict.’ (5) In all other in- 
stances but two the term rendered ‘decree’ has the 
sense of ‘statute,’ t.e., something fixed by authority. 
In II Ch 30 5 dabhar means no more than ‘agree- 
ment,’ and in Est 9 32 ma’dmar refers to Esther’s 
letter (‘commandment’ RV). 


DEDAN, di’dan (1/71, ddhan [pl. DEDANIM, 
ded’a-nim, DEDANITES]): A Cushite or N. Arabian 
people and the district inhabited by them (Gn 107, 
25 3; Is 21 3, etc.) See ErHNOGRAPHY AND ETH- 
NOLOGY, § 13. 


DEDICATE, DEDICATION. See Sacriricre AnD 
OFFERINGS, § 18. 


DEDICATION, FEAST OF. See Fasts Anp 
Feasts, § 2. 


DEED: In the account of the transference of a 
piece of property to Jeremiah by his cousin (Jer 32 
6 ff.), there is a reference to the ‘deed’ (vs. 10 f., 
Heb. sépher, ‘writing,’ ‘evidence’ AV) which was 
signed by Jeremiah and witnessed by competent 
witnesses. As there is no statement as to an official 
record or register of the deed, it is probable that no 
such custom was in vogue, the deed alone properly 
witnessed being sufficient evidence of ownership. 
Deeds, with their signatures and seals were com- 
monly inscribed on a soft clay tablet or block which 
was then dusted with sand and enclosed in an en- 
velop of soft clay. The whole was then dried or 
baked. In the case of a clay deed the copy was in- 
scribed on the outer surface of the envelop and 
duly signed and sealed like the original enclosed 
within. 

This is the only instance in the O T where such de- 
tails are mentioned, but it may be taken as a fair il- 
lustration of common procedure. EK. E. N. 


DEEP, THE. See Cosmocony, §§ 2 and 3. 
DEER, FALLOW. See Patesrine, § 24. 
DEFENSE, DEFENSED CITY. See Crry, $3. 
DEFILEMENT. See Pore. 


Degree 


Deuteronomy A NEW STANDARD 





DEGREE. See Diai. 
DEGREES, SONGS OF: A title applied in AV 
to Psalms 120-134 (Song of Ascents, RV). See 
Psaums, § 4. 

DEHAITES, di-hé’aits (S11, dehdwé’, Deha- 
vites, di-hé’vaits, AV): Apparently the name of a 
people (Ezr 49). No satisfactory identification has 
been reached. Perhaps we should take dehdwé as 
a corruption of the Aram. dihiw’ = ‘that is’ and read 
with LXX. (B) ‘Shushanchites, that is Elamites.’ 

E. E. N. 

DEKAR, di’kar. See Ben-DEKER. 

DELAIAH, di-lé/ya (77227 27, delayah), ‘J” 
has drawn out’ (?): 1. A descendant of David, I Ch 
3 24 (Dalaiah AV). 2. The ancestral head of the 23d 
course of priests (I Ch 24 is). 3. The son of She- 
maiah and one of the princes who entreated King 
Jehoiakim not to burn the roll on which the prophe- 
cies of Jeremiah were written (Jer 36 12, 25). 4. 
The ancestor of a postexilic family (Ezr 2 60; Neh 
762). 5. The father of Shemaiah and son of Mehet- 
abel (Neh 6 10). 

DELILAH, di-lai’la (72°27, delilah): A Philistine 
woman, Samson’s mistress (Jg 1648.). EH. E. N. 

DEMAS, di’mas (Anuéc): A companion and fel- 
low worker of Paul, mentioned in the salutations of 
the Epistles to the Colossians (4 14), and to Phile- 
mon (ver. 24) and, consequently, known in Christian 
circles in Asia. At the writing of these Epistles he 
was with Paulin Rome. Later, at the time of Paul’s 
second imprisonment, he forsook him and apparently 
gave up his faith (II Ti 4 10). Nothing more is 
known of him. HK. E. N. 


DEMETRIUS, di-mi’tri-vs (Anyntetoc, 2.e., ‘be- 
longing to Demeter’): 1. The name of two Seleucid 
kings of Antioch. D. I, 162-150 B.c., and his son D. IT, 
145-138 and 129-124 s.c. (cf. I Mac 7 1-4, 10 67 ff.; 
Jos. Ant. XIII, 13 4). 2. A silversmith in Ephesus, 
one of the chief instigators of the movement against 
Paul, on the ground that his preaching interfered 
with the sale of miniature silver models of the great 
temple of Artemis in Ephesus (see Drana), Ac 19 
24, 3. A Christian mentioned in III Jn (ver. 12), 
where it is said that he is ‘commended by all and by 
the truth itself.’ He may have been the bearer of 
the Epistle. J Vi TY 


DEMON, DEMONOLOGY. 1. Early Hebrew 
Belief. Belief in the existence of superhuman good 
and malevolent spirits is probably as old as any form 
of religious belief, and is very possibly the survival 
of primitive religion. This is doubtless true in the 
case of the earlier Hebrews. The oldest form of such 
belief seems to have included ‘hairy s*‘trim’ (ren- 
dered ‘wild goats’), which correspond in a way to the 
satyrs of the Greeks and the jinn of the Arabs (cf. 
Ly 177;1s 13 21). These demons were believed to in- 
habit the deserts. Another class was composed of 
the storm-demons, the shédhim (Dt 32 17), who were 
supposed to bring destruction to the people. Most 
of these demons were malevolent and were supposed 
to have come from the underworld rather than from 
heaven. Belief in such was probably inherited by 
the Hebrews from their Semitic ancestors, if not 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


176 





from the ancient Sumerian religion. There was 
early a further tendency among the Hebrews to 
identify various diseases with demons, as in the case 
of the evil spirit that troubled Saul in I S 16 14-16. 
Generally, however, in the O T diseases are con- 
ceived of as sent from J’ and are not attributed to 
demons. 

2. Influence of Babylonian and Persian Beliefs. 
A new period of belief in demons began when Israel 
came into contact with the Babylonians and the 
Persians. All such survivals of primitive religion 
among the Hebrews were given new significance 
through the influence of the highly developed demon- 
ology of Babylonia of this period. Thanks to this 
influence the supernatural beings came to be sharply 
separated into two classes, the good, or angels, and 
the bad, or devils. ‘There was, in fact, a tendency 
to associate with each the mythology of Babylonia. 
(See Dragon.) 

3. Development in the Greek Period. In the 
Grecian period, particularly in the two centuries 
immediately preceding the Christian Era, demon- 
ology developed very rapidly because of the general 
polytheistic spirit of the day. The Jews of this 
period, altho uniquely monotheists, saw no incon- 
sistency in a highly developed belief in an unseen 
world peopled with angels and demons. They came 
to believe also more distinctly in the influence of 
these superhuman beings upon men. Angels 
watched over the birth and subsequently cared for 
the welfare of individuals (cf. Mt 18 10 and see 
ANGELS). The popular belief that demons (devils 
AV) caused sickness of various sorts, both physical 
and psychical, is well illustrated in the story of 
young Tobias (To 37 ff., 67, etc.), and in the state- 
ments in the Gospels of their entering into men and 
possessing them (cf. Mt 8 28 ff.). Diseases attributed 
to such possession were to be cured by exorcism (cf. 
Ac 19 13-16; Mt 12 27). This was particularly the 
case in nervous affections. The rabbinical method 
of healing was in accordance with the general pre- 
cesses of magic and involved the use of various 
noxious materials and magical names and formulas 
(cf. Jos. Ant. VIII, 25). While it is not true that 
all diseases were regarded by the Jews of Jesus’ 
day as caused by evil spirits, there can be no doubt 
that such a belief formed a very large, if not a con- 
trolling, element in therapeutics. Similar beliefs are 
still common among primitive peoples and among 
those nations like the Chinese which have not come 
under the influence of modern scientific conceptions. 


4. Satan. These evil spirits came to be regarded 
as forming a kingdom by themselves with a supreme 
ruler, Satan. .To cast evil spirits out from those 
whom they possessed was therefore an attack upon 
the kingdom’of Satan (Mk 3 23 f.). It was believed 
that when the Messiah finally came to judge the 
world and to save his people, he would be involved 
in a final struggle with this kingdom of Satan and 
would destroy it and the demons who with Satan 
would be cast into the lake of fire (ef. Mt 25 41; Hth. 
Enoch, 55 4; Test. Levi, 18). 

5. N T Conceptions. The Christianity of the 
N T does not materially modify the belief in demon- 
ology of the people of its time. Jesus is represented 





177 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Degree 
Deuteronomy 





as struggling with Satan in His casting out of de- 
mons (cf. Mk 3 27), and the power to perform the 
latter act was made coordinate in His instruction 
to the Apostles with the injunction to preach the 
coming of the kingdom of God (Mk 6 7). The 
demonology of the N T is not concerned with the 
moral character of an unfortunate man or woman. 
The demoniac was not necessarily a bad man. He 
was rather a diseased man, one to be cured rather 
than to be converted, altho the victim of Satan; 
in many cases the moral recovery followed the phys- 
ical. The early Church believed that a man could 
come under the possession of an evil spirit as well as 
under that of the Holy Spirit. Sometimes so similar 
were the phenomena of the two possessions that it 
was impossible to tell just which spirit wasin control 
of the personality until it was tested by the question 
as to the lordship of Jesus (I Jn 41; I Co 12 3, 10). 
In all this there is no evidence that Jesus and His 
disciples consciously accommodated themselves to 
current beliefs they knew to be erroneous. They 
seem rather to have shared in the popular demon- 
ology, altho they never committed themselves 
to the absurdities which marked some of the rab- 
binical teachers. In this fact may be seen another 
illustration of the survival of elements of Judaism 
in early Christianity. See also UNCLEAN SPIRIT. 
S. M. 


DEN: Palestine was hilly and abounded in caves 
and rocky fastnesses where wild beasts and robbers 
could make their hiding-places. References to such 
places abound in the O T. The den of lions, in 
Dn ch. 6, was a pit or cave where the royal lions 
were kept. EK. E. N. 


DENOUNCE: In Dt ch. 30 18 this word is used 
in the sense of ‘declaring fully or plainly’ the real 
meaning of the Lat. denuntiare. 


DEPTH, DEPTHS: In AV often used to render 
t#hdm, which RV renders by ‘deep’ or ‘deeps.’ See 
Cosmogony, §§ 2 and 38. 


DEPUTY: An officer of lower rank than the gov- 
ernor of a province (satrap), whose exact functions 
are, however, not clearly to be defined from the data 
available. The word renders nitstsdébh (I K 22 47) 
and pehah (Est 89,93 AV; Ezk 236 RVmg.). See 
also Proconsut for N T references. ALS. Zs: 


DERBE, ddor’bi (Aée8y): A city of Lycaonia on 
the frontiers of Isauria. It is first known as the 
residence of the robber-prince Antipater (friend of 
Cicero, about 54 B.c.), who was killed by Amyntas 
who annexed Derbe to Galatia (36 B.c.). After the 
death of Amyntas, Derbe (in 25 s.c.) passed to 
Rome. It received the title Claudio-Derbe in 
41 a.p. The location was first identified by Sterrett 
(Wolfe Exped. p. 22f.). The early site is to be 
sought in the mountains of Hadji Baba Dagh, the 
later site at Giidelissin. (Cf. Ramsay, Cities of 
Paul, p. 385 f.). D. was a center of early Christian 
activity, being visited by Paul, c. 46 a.p. (Ac 
14 6, 20) and later (Ac 161). It was probably the 
birthplace of Gaius (Ac 204). J.R.S.S.*—S. A. 


DESCRY: A term that means ‘to catch sight of,’ 
especially from a distance, as does a scout or spy: 


used in Jg 1 23 AV in the sense of ‘to investigate,’ 
‘spy out,’ or ‘explore’ (‘spy out’ RY). 
DESERT. See WILDERNESS. 


DESIRE (noun): On Ec 12 5, see DiseASE AND 
MEDICINE, § 3; and also PauustInp, § 21. 


DESOLATE, DESOLATION: In the O T, 
especially in the Prophets, these terms occur fre- 
quently. In the great majority of cases they stand 
for Heb. words signifying literally ‘terror or ‘as- 
tonishment,’ 7@.e., at awful waste and deserted 
condition. Only in two instances does the original 


term mean literally ‘desolate,’ 7.e., ‘solitary’ or 


‘forsaken’ (Job 15 28; Is 27 10). In a number of 
cases the Heb. means ‘dry’ or ‘waste.’ For all 
these ‘desolate,’ ‘desolation’ are satisfactory ren- 
derings. 

The following instances need explanation: In Is 
7 19 the meaning is ‘cut off,’ 2.e., ‘steep’ valleys. 
In Job 15 34, Is 49 21, the Heb. means ‘unfruitful,’ 
‘barren.’ In Ps 34 21f., Is 246, Hos 13 16, and Jl 118, 
the AV is wrong, for the Heb. means guilty,’ cf. 
RV. In Is 13 22 and Ezk 197 ‘palaces’ is the correct 
rendering. 

In the N T passages the idea is that of a ‘waste,’ 
‘desert’ condition, except in I Ti 5 5, where the Gr. 
means ‘to be alone.’ See also ABOMINATION OF 
DESOLATION. EK. E. N. 


DESTINY: As used in Is 65 11 (RV) the word 
refers possibly to a Semitic deity (see Smmitic 
RELIGION, § 21). 


DESTRUCTION. See Asappon. 


DETESTABLE THINGS: The rendering of shiq- 
quts (often translated ‘abomination’), in Jer 16 18; 
Ezk 5 11, 7 20, 11 18, 21, 37 23. The term is always ap- 
plied to idol-worship as something utterly abhorrent 
to the true Israelite. See also ABOMINATION. 


DEUEL, diti’el (NV, deel): A Gadite, the 
father of Eliasaph, a prince of Israel (Nu 1 14, 7 
42, 47, 10 20, called Reuel in 2 14). 


DEUTERONOMY: 1. Name.The fifth book of the 
Bible, called by the Jews ’élleh hadd*bharim or d*bhar- 
im (from its first words). The name Deuteronomy is 
from the Grk. deutepovéutov, ‘second law-giving,’ the 
erroneous LXX. rendering at 17 18 of the Heb. 
which means simply ‘a copy of’ the existing law. 
It was applied to the whole book by the Alexandrian 
Jews, probably because they considered it to be a 
restatement of the whole preceding legislation (in 
(Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers). 

2. Synopsis of Contents. The questions of the 
authorship, dates, etc., of Dt can be discussed only 
on the basis of a clear view of the contents of the 
book. These can be exhibited as follows: 

I. Introductory, chs. 1-4 43 

1. Narrative—a résumé of Israel’s experiences from 
Horeb to the Plains of Moab (chs. 1-3) ; 
2. A hortatory section, somewhat reminiscent, urging 
whole-hearted loyalty to Jehovah (4 1-40) 
3. A minor notice as to cities of refuge (4 41-48) 
Il. The Law given to Israel by Moses, 4 44-26 (also 28 1-29 1) 
Introductory statement as to the place and time (4 44-49) 
1. The Ten Commandments, with an exposition and 
application, especially of the first two (chs. 5-11) 
(1) The Commandments stated, the circumstances 
of their promulgation recalled, with an urgent 
plea that they be obeyed (ch. 5) 


Deuteronomy 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


178 


nnn nnn ce EEE EEIESEESSESSSSSSEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Sa TL 


(2) The fundamental principle that Jehovah is one 
God to be supremely loved and honored and 
obeyed (ch. 6) 

(3) No compromise whatever with the Canaanite 
worship (ch. 7) 

(4) Promises,. warnings, reminiscences, and appeal 
(chs. 8-11) 

2. The Code, chs. 12-26 
The arrangement of the Code is unsystematic. 
There are a number of long sections dealing with 
important subjects, and on the other hand there 
are many brief sentences, each dealing with a 
specific subject. The following analysis is based 
upon that given by Carpenter-Harford (Comp. of 
the Hez., p. 474 ff.): 

A. Laws Governing the Main Theocratic Institutions 
(chs. 12-18 and ch. 26) 

(1) Centralization of worship (12 1-97) 

(2) Apostasy (12 29-13 18) 

(3) Ceremonial Purity (14 }*!) 

(4) Tithes (14 22-29) 

(5) Debtors and Slaves (15 1-18) 

(6) Firstlings (15 19-28) 

(7) A Sacred Calendar (16 1-17) 

(8) Administration of Justice (16 18-2) 

(9) Offenses against Religion (16 #-177; cf. (2) 
above) 

(10) Judgment and Rule (17 89) 

(11) Priests and Prophets (ch. 18) 

(12) The Offering of First-fruits and the Tithe 

(ch. 26; cf. (4) above) 

B. A Miscellaneous Collection of Laws (chs. 19-25) 

(1) Administration of Justice (19 1-21, 21 1-9. 22.) 

(2) Warfare (20 1-20, 2] 10-14) 

(3) The Family and Purity (21 15-21, 22 18-80, 23 17 t.) 

(4) Kindness and Humanity (22 18, 23 19 f., 24 10, a1) 

(5) A large number of other laws difficult to classify 

(cf. the passages not included above) 

3. Concluding peroration, with solemn warnings against 
disobedience (28 1-29 1) 

III. Additional Material, not Closely Connected with the 
Foregoing (27 and 29 2-34 12) 

1. The directions by Moses and the elders (ver. 1) or 
the priests (ver. 9) regarding the blessing and the 
curse (ch. 27) 

2. A supplementary discourse, reminiscent and hor- 
tatory, with warning and promise (29 2-30 2°) 

3. The last words and work of Moses (31 1-34 !2) 

(1) Encouragement (31 1-8) 

(2) Direction to teach the Law (81 9-1) 

(3) Moses and Joshua at the Tent to receive a charge 
(B1 14 f-, 23) 

(4) The Song of Moses, with directions concerning 
it (31 16-22, 4-80, 39 1-47) 

(5) Moses commanded to ascend Mount Nebo to 
die (32 48-52) 

(6) The Blessing of Moses (ch, 33) 

(7) Moses’ Death (34 1-12) 


3. The Unity of Deuteronomy. With the exception 
of the last four chapters D. is marked by a generally 
uniform style throughout. But this fact is not in 
itself sufficient to establish the unity of the book as 
altogether the work of one hand. The analysis given 
above, would seem to justify, as a first result, the 
following points: (1) In the first place there are 
evidently two introductions to the Code. One (4 44- 
11 32) is very closely linked to the Code, while the 
other (11-4 43) is not. (2) Ch. 27 breaks the connec- 
tion between chs. 26 and 28. (3) The whole section 
from 29 2 to the end of the book is marked by many 
abrupt transitions and changes and by much con- 
fusion as to the order of thought and events. (4) If 
small sections, such as 2 10-12, 20-23, 39, 11, 10 6f., are 
evidently later insertions, it is a priort probable that 
other material in the book is also due to editorial 
work on it subsequent to its original publication. 

It might easily be concluded from the above that 
in 4 44-26, with ch. 28, we have the kernel of the orig- 


inal book. Until recently this was considered a well 
‘established result’ of criticism. But minute in- 
vestigations by a number of scholars have shown 
that within this apparent unity there are many 
cross-lines, indicating originally separate strands, or 
blocks, of material, now put together in new con- 
nections; and also that some of the material in chs. 
1-4 has close literary affinity with that in chs. 9-10. 
No clear solution of this intricate problem has yet 
been proposed. The ‘Kernel’ spoken of above may 
never have existed in that precise form. It is still 
perfectly justifiable, however, to say that D. in its 
original form purported to give the fundamental 
law of Israel together with a hortatory address of - 
Moses urging loyal obedience to this law with warn- 
ings as to the danger of apostasy. 

To this nucleus there were added from time to 
time the material which brought the book to the 
form it had when it was combined with JE (see 


‘Hexateucn, § 20). When this took place excerpts 


from JE or other sources (27 5-7a, 31 14 f., 23, 33, 
34 1b-5a, 6, 10) were inserted in its text. When JED 
were finally combined with P (see Hexatrucs, § 30) 
a few additional statements from P were added 
(1 3, 32 48-52, 34 1a, 5b, 7b-9). 

4. The Relation of Deuteronomy to the Preceding 
Books of the Pentateuch. The Book of Deuter- 
onomy, whether we think only of the original kernel 
or of its final form, is a distinct work only loosely 
connected with the preceding Book of Numbers or 
the following Book of Joshua. At Nu 27 12 ff. Moses 
is ready to ascend the mountain to die just as in the 
case at Dt 31 14 ff., 32 48 f. It is in only the few 
extracts from JE and P (see the preceding section) 
that the connection is made between the history in 
Numbers and that in Joshua. 

The book, as a whole, makes no claim to Mosaic 
authorship, but the addresses and the law are re- 
ferred directly to him. The nature of this reference 
must be estimated in the light of the following facts: 
(1) The lack of unity in the book, which limits the 
question to the portions assigned directly to Moses. 
(2) The peculiar literary style of these portions, 
which is very marked and such as to strongly 
distinguish D. from the other books of the Pen- 
tateuch. This is apparent, even in a translation 
such as we have in the English Bible, and is more 
apparent in the Hebrew. The hypothesis of the 
actual Mosaic authorship of both the material in 
Genesis-Numbers and that in D. involves an in- 
soluble literary puzzle. A satisfactory solution is 
possible only when actual Mosaic authorship is 
posited in neither case. (3) There are discrepancies 
between the narrative of Exodus-Numbers and 
that in D. Compare, e.g., Dt 1 9-13 with Ex 18 
13-26; Dt 1 22-23 with Nu 13 1-3; or Dt 10 1-4 with 
Ex 25 10 f., 36 2, 371 (as to the time ‘of the making 
of the Ark). These are only a few of a number of 
such discrepancies (see the list in Driver, Int. Crit. 
Com., pp. xxxv ff.). (4) The narrative in D. 
presupposes the JE but not the P portions 
of the Pentateuch. This is true notwithstanding 
the discrepancies just alluded to, which only tell 
against identity of authorship. The general view of 
the Exodus-wilderness history and the events noted 


179 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Deuteronomy 





are just such as would be expected from one who 
knew JE, but felt at liberty both to quote it verbatim 
and to handle its contents somewhat freely. But in 
no case is any dependence on P evident, and the 
general view of D. is decidedly not that of P. 
(5) The kernel of D. is an expansion of the 
code of JE (Ex 20-23 and 34 12-26). The whole of 
this code (with the exception of the long section on 
penalties, Ex 21 15, 17-22, and 20 25 f., 22 29b) is taken 
up, enlarged, commented on, and added to in D., in 
such a way as to cteate the impression that in 
D. we have a revision of ancient law in order to 
adapt it more perfectly to changed conditions, 7.e., 
to a more advanced social and economic stage of 
national life. The relation of D. to the code of P 
is very different. D., indeed, touches many points 
which are also included in P. But in many of these 
eases the legislation of D. is different, both in letter 
and spirit, from that of P. Cf., e.g., the law as to 
the place of sacrifice, Dt 12 1-28 with Lv 17 1-9 (in 
this same connection note the different views as to 
ordinary slaughter and sacrifice) or the law concern- 
ing the eating of the firstlings, Dt 15 19-23 (where 
the worshipers eat them) with Nu 18 17 ff. (where 
the priests have the flesh as a part of their revenue). 
In D. all Levites are priests and there is no reference 
(except in the insertion in 10 6) to the Aaronic 
priesthood, while in P only the sons of Aaron are 
priests and the Levites are their assistants. The 
elaborate cultus-system of P with its emphasis on 
the Tabernacle (only mentioned once in D. [and 
then as the ‘Tent’] in the JE passage 31 14 f.), the 
priesthood, the sacrificial system, finds no emphasis 
in D. In its sacred calendar (ch. 16 the Day of 
Atonement (cf. Lev 16 and 23) is not mentioned. 
These and many other similar facts lead to the 
inference that D. has no knowledge of the fully 
developed code of P and stands midway between 
the ancient legislation in JE and the later code in 
P, in which, naturally, much of the previous legisla- 
tion would be embodied 


5. Date of Deuteronomy. Indications serving to 
give us a general date for D. (in its original form) 
may be found, in addition to the inference just 
noted, (1) in the relation of D. to the other litera- 
ture of the O T. There is no definite trace of the 
presence or influence of D. in the literature of the 
O T before Jeremiah. The early writing prophets, 
Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah, show no acquain- 
tance with the book, nor do the early narratives 
embodied in Judges-II Kings, or the J and E 
elements of the Pentateuch. On the other hand, 
Jeremiah and the editorial material of Joshua-II 
Kings are full of traces of the influence of D. both 
in phraseology and in ideas. (2) In connection with 
the narrative in II K 22 8 #., where we read of ‘the 
book of the law’ being found in the Temple and of 
the reform of Josiah (621 B.c.) based on that book. 
Tit has long been recognized that the reforms of 
Josiah were of just that character that D. might 
have inspired and that the warnings and exhorta- 
tions of D. were just such as might have aroused 
the king to action. No other part of the Pentateuch 
answers to the demands of the situation in II K 


22 8-23 25as D. does. (3) In the religious conditions i 


of Manasseh’s reign (c. 690-640 B.c.), a period of 
religious decline, which must have caused much 
anxious thought on the part of many who were loyal 
to the religion of Jehovah. Such conditions would 
naturally lead to an attempt to restate and reenforce 
the fundamental principles of Israel’s religion. It 
is likely, therefore, that the original draft or nucleus 
of D. was written in the reign of Manasseh, some 
time near 650 B.c. 

6. Purpose and Sources of Deuteronomy. The 
purpose of D. was to set forth the true nature of 
Israel’s religious foundation, and thus counteract 
the disintegrating and corrupting influences then so 
powerful. The prophetic teachings of Amos, Hosea, 
Isaiah, and Micah had both broadened and deepened 
the views concerning the religion of Jehovah and 
Israel’s true character. D. sought to combine the 
teaching of prophecy with the traditional practises 
of religious and social life. It was an earnest, serious, 
worthy purpose. Since Moses was traditionally con- 
sidered the source of all Israel’s law, and as there 
was probably a tradition of a farewell address by 
Moses, it was natural that the whole presentation 
was not only made in the name of Moses, but that 
he was represented as actually speaking it. In 
antiquity the standards of literary usage were not 
the same as they are to-day. 

The sources at the disposa. of the author (or 
authors) of D. were: the JE history (or histories); 
the traditional law, especially as it had been de- 
veloped at the great sanctuary at Jerusalem; and 
the teachings of prophecy. All these sources were 
handled with freedom in consonance with the 
fundamental purpose to produce a comprehensive 
national constitution rather than a priestly manual 
or law-book. 

7. Author. Naturally the author of. D. is no 
longer known. It may have been the joint product 
of several writers, altho the uniformity of style is 
more favorable to single authorship. It is also 
impossible to say to what class the author belonged. 
He was well-acquainted with priestly law, but may 
not have been himself a priest. 


8. Ruling Ideas. The religious value and sig- 
nificance of Deuteronomy are very great. Its ruling 
ideas can perhaps be summed up as follows: (1) 
The absolute unity and supremacy of Jehovah. 
(2) The centralization of all formal worship at one 
sanctuary (i.e., Jerusalem). (3) The heinousness 
and dangers of all Canaanite forms of worship and 
of all familiar intercourse with Canaanites (under 
these terms the pressing religious dangers of the 
times were indicated). (4) The definite regulation 
of the whole moral and religious life of the people by 
the principle of loyalty to Jehovah. These ideas are 
urged upon the conscience of the people with a 
fervor and earnestness that are truly remarkable. 


9. Influence of Deuteronomy. After its discovery 
and sanction by Josiah, the ‘book of the law,’ 7.e., 
the kernel of D., at once seems to have become very 
influential. It was probably studied by Jeremiah, 
altho he was not in agreement with allitsideas. It 
profoundly influenced also the historians who worked 
up the ancient records into the historical books now 
known as Judges, Samuel, and Kings (see above 


Devil 
Dinah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


180 





§5 (1)). In its later enlarged form it was the most 
influential book of exilic and postexilic Judaism, 
until the ‘priestly’ school supplanted it with a 
new and more comprehensive presentation of Is- 
rael’s law, now known as the ‘Priest’s Code’ (P). 
LITERATURE: Driver, ICC. on Deuteronomy (1902); Carpen- 
ter-Harford, The Composition of the Hexateuch (1899, 1904); 
G. A. Smith, in Camb. Bible (1918). EAH, ON, 
DEVIL. See Demon, Demono.oey, § 3; and 
SATAN. 
DEVOTED THINGS. See Curss, § 2. 


DEVOTIONS (AV for t& ceBkcuata, Ac 17 23): 
The Gr. term does not designate ‘religious ser- 
vices,’ but ‘objects of worship’ (cf. II Th 2 4); there- 
fore, the AVmg. ‘gods that ye worship,’ tho a para- 
phrase, conveys the right meaning. 

J. R.S. S.*—E, E. N. 


DEW. See Pauestine, §$§ 19, 20. 


DIADEM, dai’a-dem (from &:a-deiv, ‘to bind 
around’): A band or fillet worn around the headgear 
by the kings of Persia; hence a badge of royalty. The 
term is used in the O T (AV) to render (1) tséniph, 
‘turban,’ in general (Job 29 14 [cf. RVmg.]; Is 62 3). 
(2) Mitsnepheth, the high priestly turban, in par- 
ticular (Ezk 21 26, ‘mitre’ RV), and ts¢phirah, 
‘chaplet’ (Is 28 5). In the N T the Gr. &é&dyuz, 
‘diadem’ (‘crown’AV)’ occurs in Rey 12 3, 131, 19 12. 

DIAL (ni2yD, ma‘aléth), ‘steps’: The word several 
times rendered degrees (AV) and steps (RV) is ex- 
actly the same as that rendered ‘dial’ in II K 20 8-11 
and Is 38 8 (sundial, AV). The shadow is spoken 
of as ‘going up’ or ‘down’ the ‘steps,’ which were at 
least ten in number. 
pillar on a pedestal graduated into a number of 
successive steps was meant. E. E. N. 


DIAMOND. See Sronzs, Precious, §§ 2, 3. 


DIANA, dai-an’a (Gr. "Apteuts, Artemis): A 
goddess of Ephesus, worshiped under the form of a 
meteoric stone (Ac 19 23-40). Originally a representa- 
tive of the ‘Earth-Goddess’ type (familiar to the 
Aryans and to Mediterranean primitive religions), 
she was the great Asiatic nursing mother, the 
patroness of the sexual instinct, and the mother 
and nurse of gods, men, animals, and plants. She 
was worshiped under various names: Ishtar, Ma, 
Cybele, Anaitis, Artemis Ephesia. Her identifica- 
tion with the Greek Artemis was appropriate only in 
that Artemis was protectress of men and animals. 
But as the Artemis of historical times was always a 
virgin, never a mother, the identification proves that 
in prehistoric times the Greek Artemis was a mother- 
goddess, not a virgin, and that the virginity dogma 
arose with the worship of Apollo. The representa- 
tions of the Ephesian Artemis in art and her entire 
cult were in no sense Greek, but persistently Asiatic. 
The famous statue of the Ephesian Artemis, with its 
many breasts and symbols, is an Asiatic idol, not 
conceivable by a Greek brain, for Greeks detested 
the ugly. Her cult was equally un-Greek, equally 
Oriental, wild, orgiastic, and impure. Girls gained 
dowries by religious prostitution in her temple, in 
which there was an army of eunuch priests, also 
priestesses of three grades (who gave rise to the 
Amazon myth), and hierodouli (male and female). 


Some have thought that a | 


The priests’ titles were also Asiatic (Mey&@uloc, 
’Ecowy). Associated with the chief of eunuchs, or 
archpriest, was an archpriestess. This Artemis was 
never really Hellenized, tho her priests and the 
Greeks of Ephesus tried hard to effect it, by associa- 
ting the Greek Apollo with their goddess, by claiming 
that Apollo and Artemis were born and nurtured on 
the outskirts of Ephesus, by building Greek temples 
in her honor, by decorating them with the works of 
Greek art, and by introducing Greek games; but 
the goddess and her worship remained Asiatic. Still 
less appropriate was her identification with the 
Roman Diana. The Hphesia or Artemisia in the 
spring was her chief festival. J.R.S.S.*—S.A. — 

DIBLAH, dib’la (7237, dibhlah, Diblath, dib’lath, 
AV) (Ezk 6 14): No such place is known and the true 
reading may be ‘to Riblah’ in the extreme N. of the 
Lebanon region, making the whole expression mean: 
‘from 8. to N..,’ z.e., from one end of the land to the 
other. E. E. N. 

DIBLAIM, dib-lé’im (0°23%, dibhlayim): Father 
of Hosea’s wife, Gomer (Hos 1 3). 

DIBON, dai’ben (})2"7, dibhén): 1. A city of Moab, 
Map II, J 3, situated on two knolls covered to-day 
by ruins of no small extent and significance. D. was 
in the territory wrested from Moab by Sihon, which, 
when Israel conquered Sihon, became the posssesion 
of the tribes of Reuben and Gad (Nu 82 3, 31-34; Jos 
13 8 f.,17). The presence of the Gadites in Dibon is 
witnessed to not only by the name Dibon-Gad (Nu 
33 45 f.), but also by the Moabite stone (see Mrswa). 
It again came into the possession of Moab in the days 
of Mesha (q.v.) and was one of the prominent cities 
of his kingdom, as its extensive ruins still testify (cf. 
Is 15 2,9; Jer 4818, 22). See the interesting account 
in PEFQ 1913, pp. 57 ff. It was here that the 
famous stone of Mesha was discovered. In Is 15 9 
Dimon is evidently a mistake for Dibon. 2. A city 
of Judah (Neh 11 25), probably the same as Dimonah 
(Jos 15 22). Site unknown E. E. N. 

DIBRI, dib’rai (13, dibhri): The father of 
Shelomith (Lv 24 11). 

DIDYMUS, did‘1-mus. See THomas. 

DIKLAH, dik’la (72P7, diglah), ‘date-palm’: A 
region of Arabia (Gn 10 27; I Ch121). See Erunoc- 
RAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. 

DILEAN, dil’i-on, (1997, dil‘an, Dilan ERV): A 
town of Judah in the Shephelah (Jos 15 38). Site 
unknown. 

DIMNAH, dim’na (ANP, dimnah): A Levitical 
city in Zebulon (Jos 21 35), perhaps the same as 
Rimmono (I Ch 677). See Rimmon. 

DIMNESS (Is 8 22, 91 AV, but ‘gloom’ RV): 
The idea of dimness is in the original quite secondary 
and incidental. 

DIMNESS OF EYES. See Disrasze anp MeEpt- 
CINE, § 7. 

DIMON, dai’men, DIMONAH, di-m6’na. 
DisBon. 

DINAH, dai’na (77, dinah): According to the 
text of Gn (80 21) as it now stands, D. was a daughter 
of Jacob by Leah, and after Jacob moved from Aram 


See 


; Dinaites 
Disease and Medicine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


182 





into Canaan she was violated by Shechem, son of 
Hamor (ch. 34). On hearing of this the sons of Jacob, 
but more particularly Simeon and Levi, avenged the 
deed by slaying the inhabitants of Schechem and 
rescuing their sister. Nothing further is said of her. 

The narrative in ch. 34 is composite, the oldest 
elements, in which the personal rather than tribal 
or political features are prominent, being from J 
(see GrnzEsIS and Comm. on Genesis). The majority 
of modern scholars are inclined to view the Dinah 
incident as a piece of tribal rather than personal 
history, told in personal form. According to this 
view Simeon and Levi—tribes—had trouble in 
early days with the Schechemites because of some 
wrong done to ‘Dinah’—a small Israelite clan. In 
the attempt to avenge this wrong, Simeon and Levi 
were not supported by the rest of Israel (84 30 f.; 
ef. 49 5 ff.). Some scholars are inclined to rule out 
all the references to Dinah as unhistorical (see 
Driver, Genesis, pp. 302-308, and HB. s.v. Dinah). 

oA. KK: 


DINAITES, dai’na-aits: The older commentators 
regarded the Dinaites as colonists who were trans- 
ported by Osnappar (Asshurbanipal) to Samaria 
from Din-Sdrru, a city near Susa. Recent writers, 
both historians and exegetes, are generally agreed 
that the word is an official title. The Aramaic 
term, which should be pronounced dayydnayy@’, 
means ‘judges,’ and consequently the Dinaites were 
Persian officials who attempted to hinder the re- 
building of the Temple by writing to Artaxerxes 
(Ezr 49). For another interpretation of the whole 
passage (vs. 7-11) which eliminates this and the 
other obscure terms, see Batten in JCC., ad. loc. 

J. A. K. 


DINE, DINNER. See Mzats, § 1. 

DINHABAH, din’ha-ba (131121, dinhabhah): Cap- 
ital city of Bela, King of Edom (Gn 36 32). No such 
place has yet been identified in Edom. 


DIONYSIUS, dai’’o-nish’i-vus, THE AREOPA- 
GITE, ar’1-op’a-gait (Atovictog & ’Apeoxaytrys): 
One of Paul’s converts in Athens mentioned in Ac 
17 34 with Damaris (q.v.). The writer of Ac is fond 
of magnifying the influence of Christianity among 
men of rank (cf. Ac 13 12, 26 28, 29, 28 8), which may 
account for the mention of D. here as a member of 
the Areopagus Council. According to Eusebius 
(HE. III, 4, IV 23), quoting Dionysius of Corinth 
(about 170 a.p.), D. was the first bishop of Athens. 
In the later tradition he is confused with St. Denis, 
the patron saint of France. In this way, perhaps, 
his name came to be associated with the Neo-Pla- 
tonic Psuedo-Dionysian writings, which exerted 
such wide influence in the early Middle Ages. 

434% Rape 

DIOTREPHES, dai-ot’ri-fiz (Arotpépyns) De- 
scribed in IIT Jn 9 as one ‘who loveth to have the 
preeminence among them.’ He had evidently re- 
fused to heed the Elder’s written instructions and 
to ‘receive’ the brethren. From the fact that he 
‘forbids’ and ‘casts out’ of the Church, it is evident 
that he occupied some position of authority which 
might bring him into conflict with his brethren and 
the Elder. Je iVioods 


DIP. See Muats, § 2; and SacriFicE AND OF- 
FERINGS, § 16. 


DIPHATH, dai’fath. See RipHara. 
DISCERNING OF SPIRITS. See Cuurcga, § 6. 


DISCIPLE (uadyrys, ‘learner’, uxbqtera, fem. Ac 9 
36): Predominantly a N T word (but cf. ‘learner,’ 
limmiadh, Is 8 16 and Is 50 4, 5413, Rvmg.). In the 
N T the conception of learner is maintained, but 
broadened so that it expresses the relation of learner 
to teacher as one of companionship and dependence; 
hence the accessory meaning of ‘follower,’ ‘partizan’ 
(Mt 10 24; Jn 9 28, ‘disciples of Moses’; Mt 9 14, of 
John; Mt 22 16, of the Pharisees). A. C. Z. 


DISCIPLINE: This word occures only once in 
the AV, Job 36 10, where it is the translation of 
muisdr. (See CuHasten.) In the RV it is found 
II Ti 17, where it is more properly ‘self-discipline,’ 
and in the margin of II Ti 3 16, as aa alternative for 
“nstruction.’ E. C. L. 


DISEASE AND MEDICINE. I. Ancient Know- 
ledge and Practise. 1. Oriental Ideas regarding 
Disease. (1) Ancient peoples regarded disease as a 
direct sending from the gods or God; as something 
aside from the regular working of nature. To them 
disease was the expression of disfavor or hostility 
on the part of the god, and in the nature of punish- 
ment; or was even the result of jealousy of human 
prosperity on the part of the god. 

As a consequence the treatment of disease in the 
early days lay in the hands of the priests (cf. Lv ch. 
13), and in cases of illness they were consulted as to 
prognosis, and as to the method to be followed by 
which the anger of the god might be averted. In 
such medical practise diagnosis could be disregarded 
and medication naturally played a minor part. In 
these matters the Israelite belief followed that of 
the surrounding peoples. The anger of Jehovah was 
the cause of disease, and by the placation of his 
anger was disease averted. The prophets also were 
consulted in case of illness. . 

The anger of God was often considered the cause 
of disease, e.g., The plague on Pharaoh for his treat- 
ment of Sarah (Gn 12 17); the plagues of Egypt 
(Ex 9 12); punishment threatened for disobedience 
(Lv 26 16, 21; Dt 28 22-35); Miriam became leprous 
for finding fault with Moses (Nu 12 10); plague as 
punishment for complaining of restricted diet (Nu 
11 33); pestilence threatened for disobedience (Nu 
14 12); plague as punishment forthe spies’ evil 
report (Nu 14 37); David’s son smitten for David’s 
sin (II S 12 15); pestilence as punishment for census- 
taking (I Ch 21 14). 

Diseases might be averted by repentance, e.g., 
Jeroboam’s paralysis cured (I K 13 4-6); Hezekiah’s 
illness cured (II K 20 5); Miriam’s leprosy healed 
(Nu 12 14); plague checked by Aaron’s use of in- 
cense (Nu 16 47); plague stopped by killing of man 
and Midianite wife (Nu 25 9). 

Holy men were consulted for disease, e.g., Ahijah 
consulted by the wife of Jeroboam for sick child 
gives unfavorable prognosis (I K 14 17); Ahaziah 
after a fall sent to consult the god of Ekron. His 
messengers were met and sent back by Elijah with 
@ fatal prognosis (II K 11); Benhadad ill sent to ask 





183 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Dinaites 
Disease and Medicine 





Elisha, Shall I recover? (II K 88); Hezekiah was 
treated by Isaiah (II K 20 7). 


To-day in the East disease is still generally 
attributed to influences from the unseen world, often 
directly from God. The common name for an insane 
person is majntin, which means ‘possessed by the 
jinn or an evil spirit.’ Such a person is also sometimes 
said to be mamsids, which signifies ‘touched’ (by an 
evil spirit). Many deformities and defects are 
attributed to the ‘evil eye.’ By it is intended the 
eye of envy. If one looks on a beautiful child, and 
wishes it were his, it is believed that the child will 
be smitten by some disease or die. If some object 
of value is looked upon by another with covetous- 
ness, its value to its owner is believed to be lost. To 
avert this he who speaks of an object of desire, first 
utters the name of God, to signify that His protec- 
tion is invoked against envy and covetousness. Thus, 
instead of saying to a mother, ‘What a pretty child!’ 
one should say, “The name of God upon him, how 
beautiful he is!’ Rupture is known as ‘a wind.’ 
Rheumatism bears the same name. Epilepsy is 
known by the name ‘wrestling,’ as if one had been 
overcome in a struggle. Certain catarrhal and 
inflammatory troubles are called nizel, which 
signifies a ‘descent’ from somewhere in the regions 
above. If you see a man eating, you should say 
‘two healths!’ meaning, ‘may God give you two 
healths!’ If you see him working, you say, ‘rest,’ 
that is ‘may God give you rest!’ It is generally be- 
lieved that God strikes men blind for their sins. 
One of the most common curses is the word ‘blind- 
ness!’; that is, ‘may God strike youblind!’ Also it 
is believed that God punishes by sudden death. So 
there is the curse, ‘may he cut off your age!’ Ina 
general way Orientals are disposed to look for occult 
causes for diseases. When none can be found, they 
say that the affection is ‘from God.’ And when 

disease is supposed to be incurable, or is very in- 
tractable, one says ‘may God cure you!’ If a 
person is asked how he recovered from a disease, he 
is apt to reply ‘God,’ that is, ‘God cured me.’ 

(2) This belief in occult and supernatural causes of 
disease leads to superstitious practises among people 
of the Near East to-day; practises many of which are 
inheritances from extinct and forgotten heathen 
rites. Such customs are: pilgrimages to certain 
shrines renowned for healing; offerings of a jar to be 
broken; a candle to be burned; a rag tied on a sacred 
tree; a chicken, goat or sheep sacrificed; passing an 
emaciated child under a tree root, perhaps as a feint 
of burial to cheat the destiny that has determined 
his death. 


_In ancient times charms were much used in Bible 
lands to guard against the evil eye, against barren- 
ness, and against death. Such were scarabs, imita- 
tions of frogs, of the hand and of the phallus. In 
modern days charms are often strung as a necklace 
around a baby’s neck or tied on his wrist to protect 
him from disease. Among these are found the ver- 
_ tebra of a bear (for strength); a blue bead (against 
the evil eye); a piece of alum (astringent, against 
ophthalmia); package of antimony powder (against 
ophthalmia); a wooden cylinder (against cough); a 
Miniature hand (the ‘hand of God’); a sealed tin 


case containing on a tiny scroll a verse from the 
Torah, or the Koran, or a papal blessing (cf. Pr 6 21). 
The use of the sacred scroll is often continued in 
adult life. 


(3) Conditions which were plainly attributable to 
natural causes were treated by those whose circum- 
stances rendered them peculiarly suited for such 
services. This is the case in the East to-day. The 
barber does the blood-letting, cupping and lancing, 
because he has the keen razor. The blacksmith 
extracts teeth, because he has the pincers for pulling 
nails out of horses’ feet. The goatherd is called in as 
bonesetter because of his experience with broken 
bones among his goats on the rocks. The midwife 
has a recognized specialty. Skill in nursing is sup- 
posed to be an attribute of the ‘wise women.’ There 
is a self-trained specialist who operates for stone in 
the bladder, a trade so ancient and so discreditably 
performed, that Hippocrates forbade it to his pupils 
in his oath for physicians. 

Charlatanism has always been practised by those 
claiming special gifts. A popular one to-day is the 
gipsy woman who shakes a worm out of a hollow 
stick so cleverly that her dupe believes she has 
extracted it from his eye. Biblical instances of the 
same character are: Saul and the witch of Endor 
(IS 28 7-25), and the numerous other cases of those 
who claimed to have ‘familiar spirits’; Simon the 
sorcerer (Ac 8 9), The sorcerer Bar-Jesus (Ac 138 6); 
the seven sons of Sceva who tried to imitate Paul 
(Ac 19 13-16). 

2. Diseases of the Near East. (1) The diseases 
prevalent in the Near East to-day differ not greatly 
from those found elsewhere in the world. The great 
common diseases of mankind are found here as else- 
where. Such are tuberculosis, malaria, dysentery, 
bronchitis and pneumonia, venereal disease, cancer, 
rheumatism, heart disease, nephritis, insanity. 

In the irrigated plains and fields, or in cities with 
uncovered cisterns mosquitoes propagate malaria 
and dengue fever. The swarms of flies in summer 
time, together with polluted water sources, favor 
the spread of typhoid, dysentery, and, in times of 
epidemic, cholera. In the ill-ventilated and ill- 
drained cities tuberculosis (consumption) is dread- 
fully common; while conditions are favorable for the 
rapid spread of contagious diseases, as measles and 
smallpox. Epidemics of plague are carried by the 
rat flea. As a consequence of the lack of soap and 
cleanliness that follows in the wake of war and 
famine, lice and bedbugs spread epidemics of typhus 
and intermittent fever. Subtropical diseases occur- 
ring in Syria and Palestine are the eruption desig- 
nated Leishmaniasis (here known as the ‘Aleppo 
Button’); trachoma (an infection of the eyelids); 
intestinal parasites; venereal diseases; scabies (or 
the itch) and other parasitic skin-diseases. Renal 
calculus is common; whether attributable to pe- 
culiarities of water or diet is disputed. Cancer, while 
prevalent, is less common than in the west; while 
scarlet fever, diptheria, goiter and appendicitis are 
relatively rare. 

(2) Diseases known to have existed in ancient 
times. Autopsies performed on Egyptian mummies 
have shown some of the diseases of ancient days. 


Disease and Medicine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


184 





Tuberculosis, arthritis deformans (or rheumatic 
gout), thickening and calcification of the arteries, 
gall-stones, indications of inflammations of the 
pleura and of the peritoneum, and an eruption 
resembling smallpox, have all been found. It is 
interesting to note that syphilis, cancer, and rickets 
were apparently unknown in ancient Egypt. 


3. Knowledge of Anatomy and Physiology; 
Medical Practise. Anatomy before the time of 
Vesalius (16th cent. A.D.) was a thing of shreds and 
patches, and the anatomy known to Biblical writers 
was no exception to the rule. Only a very few parts 
of the body are mentioned in the Bible, and these 
references are vague and general. 

In Egypt a considerable knowledge of anatomy 
had been obtained through the process of embalm- 
ing, and the Israelites possibly carried with them in 
their exodus some of the Egyptian learning. Some- 
thing was learned of comparative anatomy by the 
examination of the animals slaughtered in sacrifice, 
e.g., ‘The shoulder and the two cheeks and the maw, 
belong to the priest’ (Dt 18 3), or ‘The two kidneys, 
and the fat that is upon them, and the caul above 
the liver (or midriff over the liver) and over the 
kidneys, and his inwards’ (Lv 3 10; cf. also 8 17). 
Inspection of the viscera of sacrificed animals was 
an essential part of augury (cf. Ezk 21 21) and, among 
the Babylonians, soothsaying was concentrated in 
the liver. The liver, as the source of blood, was re- 
garded as the seat of the soul; and, as the god 
identified himself with the sacrificial animal, to 
inspect the liver was to see into the soul of the 
animal and the mind of the god. Terra-cotta models 
of the liver, about 3000 years old have been found, 
divided into squares and studded with prophetic 
nscriptions. 

More accurate knowledge of the anatomy of the 
human body to be obtained from dissection was for- 
bidden by the rule, ‘Whoso touches. . . a dead body 
or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven 
days (Nu 18 16). In the Talmud, knowledge is dis- 
played of the esophagus, larynx, trachea, the mem- 
branes of the brain, and the generative organs. The 
pancreas is called the ‘finger of the liver,’ and the 
spleen, kidneys, and spinal cord are mentioned. In 
the O T the blood is held to be the vital principle, 
identical with the soul. ‘Ye shall not eat the blood, 
for the blood is life’ (Dt 12 16, 23). The heart is 
essential to life. It is located by its apex beat as 
being ‘under the fifth rib’ where a blow is fatal (IIS 
2 23, 3 27, 4 6, 20 10, AV). 

Physicians were recognized as a distinct class in 
Egypt. Joseph commanded his servants the physi- 
cians to embalm his father (Gn 50 2) 

There were physicians in Gilead (Jer 8 22). Orien- 
tal tradition makes Solomon a master of the healing 
art. King Asa consulted physicians, instead of J’’ 
which is mentioned with evident disapproval 
(II Ch 16 12 f.). 

There are several allusions to medical matters in 
Proverbs (17 22, 20 30). 

Job said of his comforters, ‘Ye are all physicians of 
no value’ (Job 13 4). Other references to physicians 
are Mt 912; Lk 4 23; Mk 5 26; Col 414. Howhighly a 
physician might be esteemed by the Jews may be 


gathered from the impressive language of Jesus, son 
of Sirach, (180 B.c.): 
‘Honor a physician according to the need of 
him with the honors due unto him, 
For verily the Lord hath created him; 
For from the Most High cometh healing; 
And from the King he shall receive a gift. 
The skill of the physician shall lift up his head; 
And in the sight of great men he shall be 
admired.’ (Sir 38 1-3). 

Preventive Medicine. The Mosaic laws enforcing 
public and personal cleanliness were of great hy- 
gienic value. Their purpose was, however, not to 
render a man clean hygienically, but clean cere- 
monially. The two were not always synonymous; 
for example, ‘if a leprosy cover all the skin of him 
that hath the plague, from his head even to his foot, 
wheresoever the priest looketh. . . . He shall pro- 
nounce him clean that hath the plague: it is all 
turned white: he is clean’ (Lv 1312f.). Bathing and 
washing was frequent, and ceremonially obligatory 
(Gn 35 2; Ex 1910; Lv 155; Nu 1919). Circumcision 
may be of great hygienic value, and the same may be 
said for the rules for the sex life such as are found in 
Lv 15 19-24. Incest, adultery, sodomy and sex per- 
versions are prohibited (Lv 18 1-23). Garrison says 
that ‘the rigorous Hebrew regulation of sexual 
hygiene, which, however severe, enforced exogamy, 
put a ban upon perversions, and invested the figure 
of a good and virtuous woman with that peculiar 
halo of respect which has been preserved by all 
highly civilized nations down to the present time.’ 

Sanitation. Mention may be made of the use of 
shovels or paddles on the weapons of the soldiers for 
the disposal of excreta which was an excellent pre- 
caution for the sanitation of camp life (Dt 23 13). 
The forbidding of swine flesh (Lv 11 17) is defended 
as a hygienic measure against trichinosis. The insti- 
tution of the Sabbath day of rest was perhaps the 
most distinctive and beneficial of all the Mosaic 
provisions for the physical and moral well-being of 
the Hebrew people. 

Legal Medicine. It is worthy of note, that the 
Mosaic mandates against sex perversion (Ex 22 19; 
Lv 18 22 f.), sexual inversion (Lv 18 6-21) are early 
instances of medical jurisprudence. Other examples 
are seen in the rule for indemnity for time lost and 
medical expenses involved in case of injury (Ex 
21 19); penalty for the accidental causing of abortion 
(Ex 21 22); trial of a woman suspected of marital 
infidelity (Nu 5 11-31); and the regulation for produc- 
ing proofs of virginity in a suspected bride (Dt 2217). 

It is clear that medicines were largely used. ‘A 
cheerful heart is a good medicine’ (Pr 17 22). “Thou 
hast no healing medicines’ (Jer 3013). ‘In vain dost 
thou use many medicines (Jer 46 11). ‘The leaf 
thereof for healing’ (Kzk 47 12; ¢f. Rev. 22 2). 
Dioscorides gives 90 mineral, 700 vegetable, and 
166 animal substances used as remedies. Moses was 
learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and 
among the other branches of this knowledge medicine 
was largely cultivated. Assyria and Babylon were 
learned in the medical science of that day. There 
was a legal provision for the surgical care of the 
wounded Hebrew (Ex 21 19). Asa had medical treat- 


185 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Disease and Medicine 





ment for his feet (II Ch 1612). King Joram went 

back to be healed of his wounds (II K 8 29). Of 

details of treatment and materia medica we have 
the following: 

Balm used for the treatment of wounds (Jer 8 22), 

Caperberry (RVmg for desire) was used as aphrodisiac (love- 
philter) (Ec. 12 5), as was also the Mandrake (Gn 30 "). 
Ointments, are mentioned (Is 1 6) and Eyesalve (Rev 3 143) 
as a remedy against the prevalent diseases of the eye (see No. 
7 below). Oil was used in dressing wounds, and in anointing 
the sick (Lk 10 *%4; Ja 5 14). Wine was used as a stimulant 
for. gastric disturbance, and as a dressing for wounds. (Pr 
31 6; Lk 10 4; 1 Ti 5 28), Weread of a poultice of figs (II K 
207) and of vinegar and hyssop (origanum?) as a sedative 
(Jn 19 2%), Mint, anise, cinnamon, cloves, were used as car- 
minatives Lk 8 5), Honey, figs and dried fruits were used 

as laxatives. 

Antidotes. An indication of the knowledge of the use of 
antidotes for poison is given in II K 4 3341, Here the bitter 
fruit of the poisonous colocynth had been mixed in the pot 
with the stew. Elisha neutralized its effect by meal thrown into 
the pot. Interesting experiments have recently been made to 
show the neutralizing effect of the protein of the meal, when 
cooked, upon the poisonous alkaloid of colocynth. 


II. Diseases in the Bible. 4. General Diseases. 
(1) The general diseases recognized by the ancient 
Hebrews are listed for those who should disobey 
Jehovah in Lv 2616. ‘Consumption and the burning 
ague that shall consume the eyes and cause sorrow 
of heart.’ And in Dt 28 21f., ‘The Lord shall make 
the pestilence cleave unto thee...Shall smite thee 
with a consumption and with a fever, and with 
inflammation, and with fiery heat (extreme burning, 
AV), and with the sword and with blasting and 
with mildew.’ Also in ver. 27, ‘The Lord shall smite’ 
thee with the boil (botch AV) of Egypt, and with 
the emerods (tumors or buboes of plague) ‘and 
with the scurvy, and with the itch, whereof thou 
canst not be healed. The Lord shall smite thee 
with madness and blindness and astonishment of 
heart.’ In ver. 35: ‘The Lord shall smite thee in 
the knees and in the legs with a sore boil whereof 


thou canst not be healed, from the sole of thy foot 


unto the top of they head.’ Ver. 39: ‘And those 
that are left’ shall pine away (from lack of vitality). 


(2) Epidemics of diseases are repeatedly men- 
tioned: The great epidemics of the East are cholera, 
bubonic plague, small pox, typhoid, typhus and 
measles. We read of ‘boils breaking forth with 
eruptions (blains) upon man and upon beast’ (Ex 
99; Dt 28 27). Following a plague of cattle, this may 
have been malignant pustule which is the result in 
men of the infection with the anthrax bacillus of 
splenic fever of cattle (murrain EV). Other refer- 
ences to plague or pestilence are Nu 11 33, 14 37, 
16 47, 21 27, and 25 1-9. The last, the ‘plague’ of 


‘Baal-peor, has been cited as probably a plague of 


venereal disease, as the story implies that it was the 
Sequence of promiscuous intercourse with the 
Moabite women. The point of the story is that the 
Israelites in marrying Moabite women had also ac- 
cepted their god Baal-peor, and had thus incurred 
the anger of Jehovah. The women are referred to in 


_ causal relation to the plague, merely on the ground 


that they enticed the Israelites from the worship 
of God. 
The plague that followed the ark captured by the 
hilistines in their cities of Ashdod, Gath, and Ek- 
ton, may well have been the bubonic plague. It is 


said that ‘many died, and the men that died not 
were smitten with the emerods of tumors.’ The 
LXX. adds: ‘and in the midst of the land thereof, 
mice were brought forth, and there was a great 
and deadly destruction in the city.’ (IS 56-6 21), 
When the offending ark was returned, it was accom- 
panied with a trespass offering in the form of a box 
containing five gold images of tumors, and five gold 
mice. Bubonic plague is characterized by inguinal 
buboes, or swelling in the groin. Multiplication of 
rats and the appearance of disease among them,is a 
precursor of an epidemic of human plague, as the 
epidemic is transmitted from the rat to man by 
fleas. Perhaps the ancient observers fail to differ- 
entiate the species of rodent involved. An ancient 
Brahminical authority of the 7th century a.p. 
warns people ‘to desert their houses, when rats fall 
from the roofs above, jump about and die,’ pre- 
sumably from plague. 

As it is said that 50,070 of the Hebrews were 
smitten ‘because they looked into the ark.’ (IS 
6 19), it would seem that contagion from the Ark was 
still possible and it was not without reason that the 
ark was quarantined, as it were, at Kirjath-Jearim 
for 20 years. 


Of the Assyrian army against Ethiopia 185,000 
died in one night, smitten by ‘the angel of the 
Lord.’ (II K 19 35). Such sudden mortality suggests 
either cholera or plague. An Egyptian account of 
a similar event states that the repulse of Sennach- 
erib’s army was effected by the Egyptian deity 
who sent rats (or mice) and crippled the Assyrian 
soldiers by eating all their leather bowstrings in a 
single night. The same rats that ate the bowstrings 
may have introduced bubonic plague. A _ pesti- 
lence of 70,000 mortality is recorded in I Ch 21 14. 
Reference to the ‘pestilence that walketh in dark- 
ness’ and the ‘plague’ that enters ‘thy dwelling’ 
is made in Ps 91 5-10). 

(3) Leprosy. The symptoms of ‘leprosy’ are 
given (Lv 13 1-17). The main points are: (1) Pe- 
culiar whiteness of the skin. (2) White hairs in the 
affected area. (3) Lesion or Scab darker than the 
surrounding skin. (4) Presence of raw granulation 
tissue. (5) Its continued spread (asa Scab). The 
outstanding feature is its abnormal pallor. Moses’ 
hand became ‘leprous as snow.’ (Ex. 47). Mir- 
iam became leprous ‘white as snow’ (Nu 12 10). 
Gehazi went out ‘a leper as white as snow.’ (II 
K 5 27). This is not the disease which we term lep- 
rosy to-day. It israther an enumeration of conditions 
of the skin which are to be regarded as rendering 
the sufferer ceremonially unclean. The outstand- 
ing diseases which it includes are psoriasis and leuco- 
derma. The Hebrew conception applied the condi- 
tion to clothing and the walls of houses as well. 
The association of whiteness and leprosy persists in 
the Oriental mind to-day. A harmless house-lizard 
of peculiar pallor is given the name ‘father-of-lep- 
rosy,’ and regarded with peculiar abhorrence. Dr. 
Adams, the professor of skin diseases in Beirut, 
Syria, reports a case sent to him as ‘white leprosy,’ 
which proved to be leucoderma covering almost the 
entire body. The leprosy of the O T did not dis- 
able its victim, and is never spoken of as a fatal 


Disease and Medicine 
Dispersion 





disorder. Naaman was able to exercise the func- 
tion of a general while a leper (II K 73). Azariah, 
the king, was a leper (II K 155). In his case the 
affliction was severe and his son Jotham acted as 
regent. 

On the other hand it is quite probable that the 
leprosy of the N T (Mt 81-14; Lk 17 11-19), is identical 
with the modern leprosy, the elephantiasis Gre- 
corum of medicine. This is a contagious disease, 
characterized by nodes under and in the skin; by 
a dusky, lurid hue, by a leonine expression of the 
countenance, by deep ulcerations, caries of the bones, 
destruction of joints, dropping off of fingers and toes, 
deformities of the limbs, and fever. These grave 
symptoms cripple the patient, and destroy his life. 
Only of late has the remedy been found by which 
ultimately this disease may be healed. 

The differential diagnosis of ‘leprosy’ is given; 
from a burning boil (Lv 13 18-23); from a hot burn- 
ing (erysipelas, cellulitis, or eczema) (Lv 18 24-28); 
from trychophytosis, or favus (Lev 18 29-37 scall 
AV) from tetter RV (freckles AV) or chloasma (vs. 
38, 39); and from alopecia (vs. 40-44). 

(4) The ‘running issue of the reins’ (Lv 15 2) with 
the accompanying rules of its uncleanliness may re- 
fer to a discharging sinus or fistula, or to gonorrhea. 
Its juxtaposition to the rules of uncleanliness regard- 
ing sexual discharges, suggests the ancient confusion 
of ideas by which gonorrhea gained its name as a 
sexual discharge. (5) Sores are ulcers, or tubercu- 
lar, cancerous, or syphilitic lesions of the skin and 
tissues beneath it. They are very common in the 
Kast and often very disgusting and distressing, and 
frequently fatal. Putrifying sores (cf. Is 1 6 AV) 
are gangrenous areas. 


5. Individual cases of disease cited: Insanity 
was feigned by David (I Sam. 21 13, mad, EV). 
God threatened with madness those who should 
forsake Him (Dt 28 34). Festus charged Paul with 
being mad (Ac 26 24). Nebuchadrezzar was insane 
(Dn 4 33). Saul was afflicted with homicidal melan- 
cholia (IS 16 14, 18 10-11, 199, 24, 20 33, 2217). 


Dwarfism is mentioned (Lv 21). The Egyptian statue which 
represents the god Bes and Phtah is an image of achondro- 
plasia. Giantism is instanced in Dt 4 1; I$ 17 1; II § 21 16-20, 
The giant with supernumerary digits (II 8 21 2°) has been 
mentioned as a possible case of acromegaly or hyperpituit- 
arism. Hezekiah’s illness was a boil of such severity as 
to justify the diagnosis of carbuncle or malignant 
pustule (II K 201). Alcoholism is described (Pr 23 30-35), 
See also the instances of Noah (Gn 9 ), Lot (Gn 19 33), 
Uriah (II § 11 13), Ben-hadad (I K 20 1%) and others. Sea- 
sickness is evidently referred to in Ps 107 2”. Heart-disease 
is probably meant by ‘trembling of heart’ (Dt 28 ®&). This 
might merely denote timidity, were it not coupled with the 
concrete phrase, ‘failing of eyes.’ 

Dysentery and Prolapse. Jehoram’s dysentery (II Ch 21 18 t.) 
was very likely due to the ameba histolytica, a common cause 
of dysentery in the Near East. Thesame is to be said of the 
case mentioned in Ac 28 8 (bloody-flux, AV). 

Worms, probably maggots, devoured Herod alive (Ac 12 28). 

The dry throat (Ps 69 *) would be caused by strain of the vocal 
cords from too vehement wailing, resulting in inflammation 
and hoarseness. 


Children’s Diseases are occasionally mentioned. 
Jonathan’s son, Mephibosheth, lame at 5 years of 
age may have had infantile paralysis, altho the 
narrative mentions only a fall (II S44) (Infantile 
paralysis is represented on an Egyptian stele of the 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


186 





18th dynasty in a museum at Copenhagen). The 
child that Uriah’s wife bare to David was very sick, 
and died on the seventh day (II S 12 15-18). The 
crisis on the seventh day is suggestive of pneu- 
monia. Abijah, the young son of Jeroboam, fell 
sick and justified the gloomy prognosis of the 

Prophet Ahijah (I K 141, 17). The Shunammite 

woman’s son cried, ‘My head, my head,’ and died at 

noon (II K 418 #.). As he was in the harvest 
field sunstroke seems likely, but it might have been 
meningitis (cf. also Ps 121 6; Jon48). Pernicious 
malaria also may cause such symptoms and sudden 
death, and it is common to-day in the valley of Jez- 
reel where lay the village of Shunem. 

6. Surgical Diseases. A list of recognized path- 
ological diseases is given in the blemishes which are 
forbidden to priests (Lv 21 18-19), e.g. blindness, 
lameness, flat nose, superfluous parts, badly united 

(broken EV) fractures of hand or foot, hump-back 

(crooked back Lv 21 20; it may be noted that Elliott 

Smith and Ruffer have described Potts disease in a 

mummy about 1000 B.c.), dwarfism, eye blemish, 

scurvy, eczema, orchitis. 

Light is thrown on ideas of comparative pathology by the list 
of blemishes which render a sheep unfit for sacrifice (Lv 22 22 
f.), e.g. blindness, fractures, severe wounds, tumors, ulcers, 
mange, superfluous or lacking parts. Trauma of the testicle 
or amputation of the sex organ debarred from the congrega- 
tion (Dt 23 1). Wounds, bruises and putrefying sores are 
referred to in Is 1 6 and boils in Ex 9% and Job 27. The se- 
vere itching in the case of Job’s boils (2 8, 7 4 f-) suggests the 


probability of itch with secondary infection caused by 
scratching. 

Dislocations are referred to (Job 31 22; Ps 2214; Pr 2519) Diseases 
of the bones, also figuratively, are referred to in Ps 31 19; 
Jer 20 9; Is 38 18; Hab3 16, The hollow of Jacob’s thigh was 
out of joint (Gn 22 %5), Mention is made of fracture of the 
skull (Jg 4 21, a compound fracture of the temporal bone, and 
9 35); and of the neck (I S 4 38), 

There is a reference to the roller bandage in the treatment of 
fractures in Ezk 30 22: ‘Son of man, I have broken the arm 
of Pharaoh, king of Egypt; and so, it shall not be bound up to 
be healed, to put a roller to bind it, to make it strong to hold 
the sword.’ Asa’s disease of the feet (II Ch 16 12) may have 
been senile gangrene (cf. II Ti 2 !7, canker AV) or elephan- 
tiasis. By Cripple (Ac 14 8) or lame (Ac 3 2) any one of vari- 
ous types of disablement may be meant. 

Wounds were produced by arrows, darts, javelins, spears, 
swords, knives, stones, clubs, and bones. Frequent allusion 
is made to the pain, bleeding, inflammation, putrefaction, 
and healing of wounds, and to death resulting from them. 
The maimed (Lv 22 22; Mt 15 59; etc.) were those who had 
suffered mutilation or loss of some part of the body. 
Circumcision is the only surgical procedure men- 

tioned in the Bible. The use of the primitive chipped 

flint (Ex 4 25; Jos 5 2) in ritual circumcision implies 
that the antiquity of the custom of circumcision ex- 
tends back to the pre-bronze, or neolithic age. 

Flint knives were used by the Egyptians in embalm- 

ing, and such sacred knives are found mounted with 

gold handles, indicating that the use of the flint 
was preserved for sacred rites, long after the intro- 
duction of the use af metals. : 


7. Eye Diseases. Diseases of the eyes are num- 
erous and common in the East. This is largely 
due to the presence of trachoma and of gonorrheal 
ophthalmia. Instances of blindness are numerous. 
Senile cataract dimness EV) is referred to in the 
case of Isaac (Gn 27 1), Eli (IS ch. 4), and Ahijah 
IK 144). Leah was tender-eyed, probably the re- 
sult of trachoma (Gen 29 17). The blindness of 


canst.’ 


187 





Saul (Ac 98.) was cured when something like scales 
fell from his eyes. This might have been the crusts 
of dried discharge fom some inflammatory condition. 
Redness of eyes (Pr 23 29) was due to alcoholism. 


8. Women’s diseases are mentioned, e.g. leu- 
corrhea issue, EV. (Lv 15 19-24), and metrorrhagia 
issue of blood, EV. (Lv 15 25-30; Lk 8 43-48). Ster- 
ility was regarded as a great calamity e.g. by Sarah 
(Gn 18 11), Abimelech’s harem (Gn 2017f.), Rebekah 
(Gn 25 21), Hannah (IS 15), Michal, wife of David, 
(II S 6 23), the Shunammite woman (II K 4 14). 
In the law it is a penalty as well as a curse (Lv 
20 20 f.). 

Obstetrics. The suffering of child-birth is the 
penalty for the sin of Eve. (Gn 316). Midwives 
in the Near East from the earliest time have con- 
ducted deliveries upon the obstetric chair (Ex 1 16) 
and continue to do so to-day. The obstetric chair 
is mentioned by ancient Greek authors. Rachel 
offers the use of her knees in lieu of an obstetric 
chair, as a symbol that the child borne by her maid 
is her own. (Gn 30 3). Miscarriage from injury 
by another is dealt within the law (Ex 21 22). 

Conceptions of maternal impressions are set forth 
in Jacob’s method of raising speckled and spotted 
livestock, which are hardly explicable by Mendel’s 
Law. Two fatal cases of delivery are recorded, 
altho in each the baby was saved (Rachel Gn 33 16-18 
and Phineas’ wife I S 419-22). Twotwin births are re- 
corded, one a shoulder presentation (Gn 38 27-30), the 
other a head presentation (Gn 25 22). A case of a 
new-born child suffocated by over-lying is cited 
(I K 3 19). 


If. Tar Heatina Ministry or Jesus. Jesus, 
in sharing the frailties of the human body, appar- 
ently shared also the limitations of human secular 
knowledge. His conceptions of the cause of disease 
seem to have been those of the people of his time. 


Insanity, hysteria, and epilepsy were treated as due 


to occupation or seizure by an ‘unclean spirit.’ 
Even fever was ‘rebuked’ as if it were an evil per- 
sonality (Mt 814f.; Mk 1 29 #.; Lk 4 3gf.). With re- 
gard to the causes of many psychical disorders, our 
knowledge has as yet made no great advance be- 
yond the time of Jesus. So far as effective treat- 
ment of many cases of insanity is concerned, unfor- 
tunately it still makes little difference in the prac- 
tical results, whether the attributed cause be given 
the ancient names of ‘demons,’ or ‘humors,’ or the 
modern ones of ‘autotoxins’ or ‘germs.’ 

Among the specific cases recorded as treated by 
Jesus, the predominance of psychopathic and ner- 
vous diseases is noticeable. While Matthew states 
that ‘all manner of sickness and disease were cured,’ 
he considers especial ones worthy of mention. 

These are insanity, epilepsy (lunatick, Mt 4 24 
AV) and paralysis palsy (Mk 2 3, etc). Prayer 
and the laying on of hands was commonly, if not 
always, used. The crowds believed in the healing 
of the touch of Jesus. Multitudes sought to touch 
him (Mk 3 10). The importance of faith as an 
agency of healing is repeatedly stressed. This is 
particularly emphasized by Jesus in Mk 9 23 where 
He says to the father of the epileptic boy: ‘if thou 
Again in Nazareth (Mk 6 4-6) ‘he could 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Disease and Medicine> 
Dispersion 


there do no mighty work . . . and he marveled be- 
cause of their unbelief.” The use of saliva is men- 
tioned three times (Jn 9 6; Mt 8 23; Mk 7 33) and 
washing (Jn 97), perhaps as a test of faith, once. 
The accounts of Jesus’ healings contain many 
general comprehensive statements, in which cures 
of a number of sick persons afflicted with various 
diseases are mentioned, without describing any case 
in particular. A number of individual cures are also 
related comprising such diseases or afflictions as: 
fever, two cases (Jn 4 46-54; Mk 1 30 f. and |ls); 
atrophied or withered hand, one case (Mk 3 1-6 and 
ls); Leprosy, eleven cases (Mk 1 40 ff. and |/s; Lk 
17 11 #.); Metrorrhagia, one case (Mk 5 25 ff. and ||s); 
Arthritis deformans of the spine, one case (Lk 
13 10 ff.); Ascites or dropsy, one case (Lk 14 1-8); 
general paralysis, three cases (Mk 2 1-12 and ||s; 
Mt 85 ff. =Lk 71 #.; Jn 51 ff.); Unclean spirits (in- 
sanity?), two cases (Mk 51 ff. and ||s; Mk 7 24-30 
and ||/s); Epilepsy (Mk 1 21 ff. = Lk 4 31 f.; Mk 914 f. 
and |/s); dumbness, which is most commonly due 
to hysteria, two cases (Mt 9 32 ff.; Mt 12 22=Lk 
11 14); deafness, with impediment in speech (which 
is a natural result of deafness), one case (Mk 7 31 = 
Mt 15 29 ff.); blindness, six cases (Mt 9 27 f.; Mk 
8 22 ff.; Jn 91-41; Mk 10 46 ff. and ||s); and three cases 
of raising the apparently dead (Lk 17 1 #; Mk 
5 21-43; Jn 11 1-46). G. E. P.*—H. G. D 
DISH. See Foon, § 11; and Mrats, § 2. 
DISHAN, dai’shan, DISHON, dai’shen (j¥7, 
dishan 1¥°1, dishén) ‘mountain goat’: A name (or 
names) occurring several times in the list of Horite 
clans (Gn 36 21 #.;1 Ch 138#.). Inall cases probably 
the same clan (represented genealogically as an in- 
dividual) is meant. 
DISPENSATION. See Kinepom or Gop. 


DISPERSION, DISPERSED: The Eng. transl. 
of the Gr. d:éonopa, used in the N T period for the 
Jewish population living outside of Palestine. In 
the new Greek-speaking world resulting from Alex- 
ander’s conquest the surplus population of the small 
and crowded Judza found inviting fields to which to 
migrate. And first (and mainly) into Egypt, par- 
ticularly the new city of Alexandria, and then into 
the other lands lying in and around the Mediter- 
ranean Sea, a steady stream of Jewish immigration 
poured forth from the little motherland of Judea. 
Then ‘Hellenistic Jews, (cf. Ac 61) as they were called 
by their Palestinian kinsmen were organized, wher- 
ever possible, around their synagog (q.v.). For, 
while they adapted themselves readily to their new 
environment, and ceased to use their native Hebrew 
or Aramaic and spoke the vernacular Greek (the 
xotvn, see GREEK LANGUAGE) they remained loyal 
to their religion and thus constituted one religiously 
united people, sharing the same hopes, and looking 
to Jerusalem as their spiritual capital and to the 
Temple as their one house of worship. Each com- 
munity had, if possible, a synagog building. They 
observed their Sabbath by a synagog service in 
which the Scriptures (the O T in the Greek transla- 
tion, see Versions I) were read and expounded. 
Many pagans were attracted by this service and the 
faith it stood for, so different from the bewildering 


Disposition 
Dress and Ornaments 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


188 





polytheism and the low morality of the current 
paganism. Thus the ‘Dispersion’ was preparing 
the way, tho unconsciously, for the later proclama- 
tion of the Gospel to the Gentiles. 

It is in its broad sense that the term is used in 
Jn 7 35. In Ja 11 it is evidently applied to Jewish 
Christians in Palestine and Syria not members of 
the motherchurch in Jerusalem; but in the remain- 
ing passage, I P 11, it is apparently used in a spirit- 
ual sense of Gentile Christians as constituting the 
true Israel, who as pilgrims in this world (1 17, 2 11) 
are journeying toward their heavenly home. 

E. E. N. 


DISPOSITION (8tatayn) (only in Ac 7 53 AV 
[‘as it was ordained by angels’ RV ‘as the ordi- 
nance of angels’ RVmg.]): The meaning is that 
the law given by God in its essence was put into 
orderly form by angelic mediation. A. C. Z. 


DISTAFF. See Arrizan Lirs, § 11. 
DISTRIBUTION. See Cuurcu, § 2. 


“ DIVIDE (épGotouetv, ‘handling’ RV): Used in II 
Ti 2 15 of the skilful application of parts or aspects of 
the truth adapted to affect persons specially in need 
of such instruction. 

DIVINATION. See 
DIVINATION. 

DIVORCE, DIVORCEMENT. See Marriace 
AND DIVORCE. 

DIZAHAB, diz’a-hab (AP, dizahabh), ‘of gold’: 
One of the five places that define the territory within 
which Israel is said to have rested when Moses de- 
livered the discourses recorded in Dt (11). Burk- 
hardt suggests that the modern Mina-edh-Dhahab 
ismeant. But any identification is open to question. 

A. C, Z. 

DOCTOR. See Epucation, § 8; and Law anp 
LEGAL PractIsE, § 2 (5). 

DOCTRINE. See Cuurcu, § 2; and Epvuca- 
TION, § 10. 

DODAI, DODO, dé’dai, dd’do CTT ATT TIF, d5- 
dhay, dodhé): 1. The grandfather of Tola, one of the 
‘judges’ (Jg 101). 2. Father of Eleazar, one of David’s 
heroes (II S 239; I Ch 1112), in command of one of 
the divisions of the army, according to I Ch 27 4 
(correct text). 3. Father of Elhanan,one of David’s 
mighty men (see II S 23 24; I Ch 11 26). Here there 
has been, possibly, some confusion with David in 
connection with the Goliath episode (cf. II S 21 19). 

The name Dodo appears to be an old Canaanite 
name (of a deity?), being found on the Tel el- 
Amarna tablets and on the Moabite stone, line 12. 
See Musua, STONE OF. HK. E.N. 


DODANIM, do’da-nim (O°274, dédhainim): A 
Japhetic people (Gn 10 4). See ErHnoarapyy 
AND Erunovoey, § 18. 


DODAVAHD, do’da-va’a (TIN, dédhGwaha, 
Dodavah AV): Father of Eliezer (II Ch 20 37). 

DODO. See Dopat. 

DOE. See Pauestine, § 24; and Foon, § 10. 

DOEG, do’eg (87, do’égh): An Edomite, a servant 
of Saul, who executed Saul’s command to slay the 


in general Macic AND 


priests of Nob (IS 217, 22 9-18, 22). The account is 
obscure at two points: (1) As to the position held 
by D. The Heb. of I S 217 reads ‘the mightiest 
of Saul’s shepherds’—a most unusual expression. 
The conjecture that ‘runners’ be read instead of 
‘shepherds’ has been widely accepted. The LXX. 
reads ‘tending the mules,’ 7.e., in charge of Saul’s 
mules or asses. (2) As to the reason why D. was 
at Nob ‘detained before Jehovah,’ the most natural 
supposition is that D. was ceremonially unclean and 
was at Nob for purposes of purification. Or he 
may have been awaiting an oracle. 

The reference to D. in Ps 52 (title) has no histori- 
cal value. BE. E.'N. - 


DOG. See Patustring, § 24; Crry, § 4. 


DOK, dek (Awx): A small fortress 4 m. NW. of 
Jericho, built by Ptolemy, son-in-law of Simon the 
Maccabee. Here Simon and two of his sons were 
treacherously murdered by Ptolemy (I Mac 1615 f.). 
The modern ’Ain Dak. Map III, G 5. 


DOMINION. See Kinapom or Gop, § 3; and 
ANGEL, ANGELOLOGY, § 4. 


DOOR. See Housn, § 6 (k). 


DOORKEEPER: In Ps 84 10 ‘doorkeeper’ is 
not a technical term. It means simply one who is 
‘at the threshold,’ presumably in a humble attitude. 
See also PorTER. 


DOOR-POST: Only in Ezk 41 16 AV, where 
‘threshold,’ RV, is more correct. See also Houss, 
§ 6 (m). K. BE. N. 


DOPHKAH, def’ka (7P)1, dophqah): A station 
on the Exodus-route between the Red Sea and Sinai 
(Nu 33 12 f.). Not identified. 


DOR, dér (a), dr): An ancient Canaanite town 
on the Mediterranean coast a little S. of Carmel. 
The first historical notice of Dor we find in the 
Papyrus Golenischeff (c. 1050 B.c.), which shows that 
it was then occupied by the Ta Kara, a subdivision 
of the sea-people whom we know later as the Phil- 
istines who had taken possession of the coast land 
S. of Carmel a century or so earlier. The Israelites 
did not gain control of Dor until Solomon’s day 
(Jg 1 27 [which shows the unhistorical character 
of the later notices, Jos 11 2, 12 23]; I K 411). It 
was counted as belonging to Manasseh (Jos 17 11). 
Dor retained its importance during the checkered 
history of the following centuries. It was closely 
allied with the Phenician towns and was given to 
Kshmunazar, King of Sidon, by one of the early 
Ptolemies (c. 300 B.c.). Its prosperity declined 
after the first century a.p. The modern village 
Tanturah is small and insignificant. E. E. N. 


DORCAS, dér’kas (Acpx&s): The Greek name of 

a Christian disciple in Joppa whom Peter, accord- 

ing to Ac 9 36-43, raised from the dead. The Ara- 

maic original, which is recorded in the same passage 

for the benefit of Gr. readers is Tbitha’ (Eng. 

Tabitha) =‘a roe,’ which is sometimes used in the 
O T as a term of endearment (cf. Song 2 9 ts*bh7). 
Ja MGT 

DOTHAN, do’thon (107, dothan and 1205, doth- 

ayin): The name both of a plain and a town. See 

Map III, F 2. The town was old, being on the list 


189 A NEW 


STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Disposition 
Dress and Ornaments 





of Canaanite towns taken by Thotmes III, (see 


Eeyrt, § 7). The plain is a convenient pass from 
the coast plain to the Plain of Esdraelon, and is 
traversed by an ancient and still-used caravan 
route. Its pasturage is very fine (Gn 37 17; II K 
6 13). K. E. N. 


DOUGH. See Foon, § 2. 


DOVE. There is no positive evidence that the 
dove was regarded as a sacred bird among the Is- 
raelites; but from shght indications it may be in- 
ferred that some sort of distinction was given it in 
its class. It was offered in sacrifice (Ly 1 14 here 
‘turtle-dove’). Jesus calls it harmless (Mt 10 16) 
and it is made the symbol of the Divine Spirit at 
His baptism (Lk 3 22). See also PaLestine, § 25. 

A. C. Z. 


DOVE’S DUNG (II K 6 26): This appears to be 
the meaning of the Heb. text. A slight change 
would permit the rendering ‘carob-pods,’ the ‘husks’ 
of Lk 15 16). K. E. N. 


DOWRY. See MarriaceE AnD Divorce, §§ 
2 and 5; and Famity anp Famiry Law, § 38. 


DOXOLOGY. See Praiss, § 5. 
DRAG. See Fisu. FIsHine. 


DRAGON: The word ‘dragon’ frequently in AV 
renders tannim and tannin, (more correctly in RV 
jackals’ and ‘monster.’) The latter term, however, 
often has a semimythological significance (cf. Ps 74 
13; Is 271, 519). The dragon was a figure of fre- 
quent occurrence in the mythologies of all nations. 
Considering the relation of Jewish to Babylonian 
life, it was natural that such a figure should be 
adopted and used in the Biblical portraiture of non- 
material realities. But the figure of the dragon or 
‘monster’ was developed strictly within Biblical 
limits, first as a symbol of enmity against J’ and 
His people (cf. Ezk 29 3, etc.), and then, with much 
greater definiteness of outline and color, as an 
apocalyptic conception of Antichrist (Rv 12 3 ff.). 
Here he is finally identified with the arch-enemy of 
God, ‘the old serpent’ (20 2). See also PaLEstine, 
§ 26; and Cosmoagony, § 4. 1G OMY 


DRAGON’S WELL. See Jerusatem, § 10. 


DRAM, dram (AV): A Persian coin, the same as 
the Daric (RV). See Money, § 8. 

DRAUGHT-HOUSE: A place of refuse or gar- 
bage (iI K 10 27). Baal’s temple was converted 
into such a place to make it altogether unclean and 
contemptible. 

DRAWER OF WATER. Sce WELL. 


DREAM, DREAMER. See REvELATION, § 8; and 
Maaic anp Divination, § 6. 


DRESS AND ORNAMENTS. I. Dress. 1. 
Earliest Form. The clothing, lbhish, malbish, be- 
ghedh, of the Israelites can not have been essentially 
different from that of the Syrian peasantry of to-day. 
The earliest known piece of wearing-apparel was the 
‘girdle,’ z.e., the hip or loin apron, hdghdrah (Is 3 
24, etc.) or ’ezdr (cf. Jer 13 1 #.), whose origin is as- 
eribed to the awakened feeling of shame in primi- 
tive man (Gn 37). Frequently it was the only 
article of clothing worn while at work. Among the 


nomads it was made of the skin of an animal, ’ézdr 
‘or (II K 18), and was often longer than the ordi- 
nary apron; consequently we have in Gn 25 25 the 
expression ‘hairy garment,’ ’addereth séar. Such 
was the mantle worn by Elijah and Elisha (II 
K 18, 28), who wished thereby to symbolize a return 
to the ancient shepherd life approved by J” (Gn 
4 2-4, 25 27). 

2. The Tunic. From the apron was developed 
the ordinary peasant’s garment, kthdneth, or 
kuttoneth, ‘coat’ or ‘garment’ (N T yrdv, ‘coat’; 
cf. Lk 6 29), which in some respects corresponds to 
the modern ¢6b. It was a sleeveless woolen or linen 
garment reaching down to the knees and worn next 
to the skin (Gn 9 21; ITS 6 20). With the wealthier 
class it was made of fine white linen, badh, later 
buts (cf. Targ. and Syr.) or of Egyptian material, 
shésh. In Is 3 23, Jg 14 12, mention is also made of 
garments of ‘fine linen,’ (s¢dhinim, sheets, AV). A 
girdle, haghdrah, ’ézor, or m*ziah (Job 12 21 belt, AV), 
of linen (Jer 13 1) or of leather (II K 1 8) held it to- 
gether. Into this the garment was tucked in rapid 
walking or at work. In the girdle also (Cavyn, Mk 
68, purse EV) money was kept. At night it was taken 
off (Song 5 3). Inasmuch as in quick motion such 
as leaping and dancing, or in case of accident, one 
was liable to be exposed (Gn 9 21; II S 6 20), those 
who were well-to-do adopted a garment reaching 
down to the ankles and provided with sleeves, 
kethoneth passim (Gn 37 3). One clothed only with 
this tunic was considered naked ‘arom (Is 20 2 f.; 
Abs 4 a 


3. The Cloak. Ordinarily another garment, the 
simlah (‘clothes,’ ‘garment,’ ‘raiment’), was worn 
over this, corresponding substantially to the 
‘abaye of the present day. This consists of a rect- 
angular, seamless piece of coarse woolen so folded 
and sewed together that the front is left open on 
either side and large holes provided for the free 
movement of the arms. This garment was used as 
it is to-day for a cover at night (Ex 22 25 f.; Dt 24 
12 f.), or as a saddle in riding (Mt 217), or as a rug 
(II K 913), or as a general receptacle in which things 
may be bundled and carried (Ex 12 34; II K 4 39; 
Hag 212). Probably in ancient times amulets were 
hung on the hems, which in later days were adorned 
with fringes, g¢dhilim, tsitsith (Dt 22 12; Nu 15 38 f.). 
Upon the breast the garment formed a puffy fold, 
héq, bosom or lap (Ex 4 6), in which all kinds of ar- 
ticles were placed (II K 4 39; Hag 212). At work the 
simlah was taken off (Ac 7 58, 22 23), or left at home 
(Mt 24 18). On account of the importance of this 
piece of apparel, common law prescribed that, if 
taken as a pledge, it should be returned to the own- 
er before nightfall (Ex 22 25 f.; Dt 2412f.). It is 
this garment that is probably referred to in the word 
tudctroy, ‘cloak’ (Lk 6 29). 

4. The robe. Men of means wore over the tunic 
a more dressy garment—the robe, m*‘il (I 8 18 4, 
24 5), which is mentioned as worn also by women 
(II S 13 18, perhaps the same as the mantle, ma‘dta- 
phah, referred to in Is 3 22). Female slaves carried 
the train of such a dress (cf. Ad Est. 15 3f.). Ac- 
cording to Ex 28 4, 31, the priests wore a robe of 
dark purple, and on account of the shortness of the 


Dress and Ornaments A NEW STANDARD 





tunic, also linen breeches (mikhndsim, Ex 28 42; Lv 
16 4), which were peculiar to the priesthood. 

5. The Material. The simlah and the tunic were 
made of the same material, 7.e., wool, tsemer, linen, 
pishtim, and byssus, shésh, or bits. After Ezekiel’s 
time silk, mesh? (Ezk 16 10), variegated materials, 
rigmah (Ezk 16 10), and purple cloth (also called 
crimson and scarlet), shantm, also gold embroidered 
cloth, mishb¢tséth (cf. Ps 45 13), were used. 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


190 


(Lk 7 38) any more than in holy places (Ex 35; Jos 
5 15). Accordingly priests were required to perform 
their work barefoot (yahéph). Ordinarily walking 
without sandals was a sign of great poverty (Dt 25 
10), or of deep mourning (II S 15 30; Ezk 24 17, 23). 

8. Head-dress. As to the head-gear of the Israel- 
ites there is almost no information in the earlier 
writings. Only in I K 20 31 is mention made of 
ropes upon the head in connection with sackcloth on 


Various Forms 
OF SANDALS. 





The wealthy preferred pure white garments (cf. 
Est 8 15) and, therefore, had several changes, hali- 
photh (Gn 45 22; Jg 1412). Probably also expensive 
garments, rich in colors, such as are found portrayed 
on the Egyptian monuments as worn by the Syrians, 
were known. Inasmuch, however, as they were 
worn only on public and special occasions and taken 
off at home, they were called festival robes (mahd- 
ldtsdth, Is 3 22). Kings and princes kept them in a 
special room, meltaéhah, robe-chamber, or ward- 
robe (II K 10 22) over which a special officer had 
charge (II K 22 14). At the same iime it is not 
improbable that the custom of festival apparel had 
its primitive root in worship. It was felt that one 
should not appear before the Deity in ordinary 
garments. 

6. Dress of Women. The dress 0 the women 
correspond essentially to that of the men, altho, 
according to Dt 22 5, there must have existed some 
difference. Probably the garments of women were 
longer (cf. the train or skirt, shdbhel, shilim, Nah 
3 5; Jer 13 22; Is 47 2), provided wi h sleeves, also 
broader and, therefore, better designed to conceal 
the form. Furthermore the clothing of wealthy 
women was distinguished by a greater richness and 
ornamentation than that of men, and also scented 
with expensive perfumes (Ps 45 9; Song 4 11). In 
Is 3 16 f. there is a long list of such costly female 
garments, an exact knowledge of some of which— 
particularly the robes, p*thighil, the sashes, qish- 
shirtm, and the shawls, mitpahéth—can no longer 
be recovered. To the present day a similar luxury 
in the matter of clothing has been preserved among 
women of the Orient. 

7. Footwear. For the protection of the feet san- 
dals were worn in traveling, na‘dlayim, made of 
wood or leather strips, which were tied about the 
feet with thongs or shoe-latchets (s¢rakh, Gn 14 23; 
Mk17). These, however, were not worn indoors 





the loins. This suggests the portraiture of Syrians 
on Egyptian monuments, who appear with a cord 
tied about their long flowing hair. Inasmuch, 
however, as this would afford no protection against 
the rays of the sun, to which the peasants were much 
exposed, this probably very old custom did not sur- 
vive. It is likely that the Israelites used a head-' 
covering similar to that of the modern Bedouin. | 
It consisted of a rectangular piece of woolen keffiye, 
which is folded into triangular form diagonally and 
placed over the head in such a manner as to let the 
middle portion hang over the neck and thus pro- 






tect it, while the two 
ends are drawn under 
the chin and thrown 
behind the head. A 
thick cord of wool, 
‘akdl, holds the piece 
upon the head. In 
later times it was 
the custom of the Israelites, both men and wo- 
men, to wear a head-covering more like the tur- 
ban of the fellahin of to-day. These wear a piece © 
of cotton, folded twice or thrice and worked into the 
form of a small cap, takiye, which protects the other 
parts of the head-gear from perspiration. 

Over this is laid one, sometimes two, felt caps 
(lobbade) and the Turkish national headwear of a red 
tarbush or fez. About this finally is wound a piece 
of unbleached cotton cloth with red stripes and 
fringes, or a colored flowered kerchief, or a yellow 


Modern Boot. 





191 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Dress and Ornaments 





and red striped keffiye, or a black cashmere shawl, or 
a piece of white muslin, or a piece of green cloth. 
Such a piece of head-wear not only protects the head 
from the rays of the sun, but serves asa pillow 
and is a hiding-place for all sorts of valuables. 
This sort of head-covering is referred to in the 
turban, tséniph, hood, RV of Is 3 23 (cf. Job 29 
14 ‘diadem’). For the act of putting on, the 
term ‘cover,’ habhash (Ezk 16 10; Ex 29 9; Jon 
2 6), is ordinarily used. But this properly sig- 
nifies nothing more than ‘to bind about,’ while 
tsinaph means ‘to roll up after the fashion of 
a ‘coil’ (cf. Is 2218). How the winding of the 
miter, tsiniph (Zec 3 5), of the high priest differed 
from the common process is not known. 

The bridegroom was distinguished by a decoration 
of the head called head-tire, p’ér (Kzk 24 17, 23; 
Is 3 20, bonnet AV 61 3; garland RV), which con- 
sisted of kerchiefs wound together and was probably 


Signet Ring. 





worn over the turban (Ex 39 28, ‘bonnet’ AV). In 
ancient times the veil was used by women only in 
certain cases. In fact, the only mention of it is 
when the bride veiled herself before the bridegroom 
(Gn 24 65, 29 22 f.). In later days, the veil and simi- 
lar articles of apparel under foreign influences became 
more customary among the upper classes (Is 3 16 ff.). 
The veil, tsa‘tph, is properly nothing but a square 
piece of cloth (Gn 2465). Mufflers, re‘aldth (Is 3 19), 
are probably veils consisting of two pieces, of which 
the one began over the eyes and was carried back- 
ward over the head, thus falling on the neck, 
while the other began under the eyes and hung 
down over the breast. 

9. Mourning Garments. Sackcloth, saq, was 
the distinctive apparel of mourners in all ages. 
It was a garment woven from either goat’s or 
camel’s hair and was worn next the skin (Job 
16 15), either as the only piece of clothing (I K 
20 31, 21 27; Is 3 24, 32 11) or as an undergar- 
ment (II K 6 30). It was held together by a 
girdle (Ezk 7 18; Is 20 2). See also MouRNING 
Customs. 

Il. OrnAMeENts. 1. Worn by Men. From the 
earliest days, it was the habit of men for the pur- 
pose of display to carry a staff (matteh) and a signet- 
Ting (hdtham). According to Herodotus (I, 195) 
and Strabo(XVI, i, 20) every Babylonian carried a 





seal-ring and a staff, the head of which was orna- 
mented with a carved flower. From Gn 38 18 the 
same may be inferred regarding the ancient Israelite. 


Amulets Collected in Cyprus. 





The signet-ring, hothdm or tabba‘ath, was important, 
because the imprint of the seal took the place of the 


personal signature. It was not worn, as among 
the Egyptians, on the finger, but in the earlier days 
hung by a cord from the neck (Gn 38 18). Only 
later was it put on the finger of the right hand 
(Jer 22 24). 

2. Worn by Women. Much more numerous 
were the articles of personal adornment among wo- 
men, as to-day in the 
Orient. Specially com- 
mon is the mention of 
ear- and nose-rings (nez- 
em, Pr 25. 12; Is 3.21). 
Earrings, on account of 
their round form, are 
called ‘dghil (Nu 3150) and 
on account of their drop- 
like shape, n*ttphéth (pen- 
dants Is 3 19, chains AV; 
Jg 8 26, collars AV). For 
these pearls were used. 
According to Gn 35 4, 
Jg 8 24 f., men also wore 
suchearrings, whichserved 
as amulets (I¢hdshim, Is 3 20), as did also other ar- 
ticles of adornment. The term hah (Ex 35 22) 
‘bracelet’ AV, ‘brooch’ ARV, indicates some sort of 
ornamental hook or ring (so BDB.), but just what is 
unknown. The nose-ring, or nose-jewel, was fastened 
to the nose as at present in the Orient, where either 
one of the nostrils or the partition between them is 





Female Head with Nose- 
Ring. 


pierced for this purpose (cf. Gn 24 47; Is 3 21; Ezk 
16 12; Pr 11 22). 
Necklaces, halt (Pr 25 12; Song 7 2, earrings RV), 


Dress and Ornaments 
Earthquake 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


192 





helyah (Hos 2 15, ‘earring’ RV), and ‘dndg (Song 
49; Pr 19, chains RV), were worn by women (Ezk 
16 11; Song 4 9) and by men (Pr19, 33). These 
were often not simply single silver or golden rings, 
but chains and cords, adapted to neckwear (cf. 
Song 49). More frequently pearls or corals, also 
disks of metal, were strung on a cord (cf. Song 
110). On such neck-chains other articles of adorn- 
ment were fastened, e.g., perfume-boxes or flasks, 
batté nephesh (Is 3 20), crescents, sahdrénim (Is 
3 is round tires like the moon AV), and 
perhaps miniature suns, cauls RV, _ sh*bhi- 


SSS ET 
TST ee LI a IE ENT OE SINT reg 

RS ESL eee OY POSEY 
SOE ana RES 
oD 


a>Any 
Ee 
SIS 





sim. ‘These are found also in the decoration of 
camels (Jg 8 21, 26). They evidently served the 
purpose of amulets. Probably the armlets, kimaz, 
of Ex 35 22, Nu 31 50, were also neck-ornaments— 
possibly beads of gold strung together in a chain. 
What was the appearance of the neck-chain, r¢- 
bhidh (Gn 41 42), we do not know. 

Bracelets, tsémidh, are mentioned several times 
(Gn 24 22f., Ezk 16 11, 23 42). How these differed 
from the ’ets‘ddhah (Nu 31 50; II S 110) isnot known. 
Probably the latter encircled the upper arm and ‘the 
former the wrist. The bracelets or ‘chains’ of Is 
3 19 (RVmg.) were in any case an adornment of the 
arms like the shéréth of the present day. Finger- 
rings, fabba‘oth, were also worn by women (Is 3 21). 

On the girdle were often carried all sor s of ar- 
ticles of adornment such as perfume-flasks and 
purses or Satchels (Is 3 22, crisping-pins AV), hd- 
ritim, which, how- 
ever, more often 
served an ornamen- 
tal rather than a 
useful purpose. 

On the feet were 
worn spangles, 
‘dkhasim (Is 3 18, 
anklets). These 
were fastened to the ankles and hung over the feet. 
The spangles of the two feet were linked together 
by a chain (ts*‘ddhah, Is 3 20, ornament of the legs 
AV, ankle-chains RV) in order to measure off the 
steps taken by the wearer. The tinkling of these 
chains is referred to in Is 3 16 (cf. I K 14 8). 
LiteraTuRE: Cf. Schroeder, De Vestitu Mulierum, Lugd. 

Batav., 1745; Hartmann, Die Hebrderin am Putztische u. als 

Braut, 3 Bde., Amsterd., 1809, 1810; H. Weiss, Kostiimkunde, 

Erste Abt. Die Vélker d. Ostens, Stuttg., 1860; W. Reimpell, 

Geschichte der babylonischen und assyrischen a p 





DRINK. See Foon, II. 


DRINK, STRONG. See Drunxenness; and 
Foop, § 13. 


DRINK OFFERING. See Sacririce AND OF- 
FERING, § 14. 


DROMEDARY. The ARV rendering of kirka- 
roth, Is 66 20 (‘swift beasts’ AV). See also Pauzs- 
TINE, § 24; and CAMEL. 


DROPSY. See Disnass, III. 
DROUGHT. See Pauzstine, §§ 19, 20. 


DRUNKENNESS: This was not an uncommon 
vice in ancient Israel. Noah, Lot, and Nabal are 
mentioned as being drunken, and in Isaiah’s day 
prophets and priests seem to have been addicted to 
too free a use of intoxicants (Is 287). That Eli 


should accuse Hannah of being drunk implies that~ 


women did not escape the allurements of this vice 
(IS 113). The many warnings of the Wise man (Pr 
20 1, 23 31) and the figures of speech based upon the 
staggering of the drunken man (Ps 107 27; Job 12 25; 
Is 19 14) are evidences of the frequency of the evil 
and its power in Hebrew society. That the Savior 
was termed a wine-bibber, that the Apostles should 
be accused of being drunk with new wine on the Day 
of Pentecost, indicate that this vice prevailed also in 
N T times (Ac 213). Among the Hebrews the rich 
rather than the poor seem to have fallen easy victims 
to this evil (Is 511). The intoxicant is usually termed 
strong drink (Heb. shékhadr, Gr. otxéoa, Lk 1 15), 
altho wine is also mentioned as an inebriating 
beverage. The shékhér was usually made from 
fruits—grapes, pomegranates, apples, and dates; 
but also from grain and honey. A Nazirite was 
strictly forbidden to use any form of strong drink 
(Nu 6 3, 8), and the priests were not allowed to use it 
while on duty (Lv 10 9; cf. Ezk 44 21). Under cer- 
tain circumstances it could be used as a libation (Nu 
28 7; Dt 14 26). In a similar manner the Babylo- 
nians used $zkaru (strong drink) in their ritual. 
J. A. K. 

DRUSILLA, dru-sil’a (ApotstAAa): Granddaugh- 
ter of Herod the Great and wife of Felix (Ac 24 24). 
See Huron, § 9. . 


ee THROAT. See Dispasp anp Moppicina, 
DUKE: The chieftain of a tribe (see TrrBus, § 1). 
DULCIMER, dol’si-mer. See Music, § 3 (5). 
DUMAH, dii’ma (977, dimdh), ‘silence’: I 

A son of Ishmael (Gn 25 14; I Ch 1 30), regarded 

commonly, however, as a tribal or geographical 


designation. See ErHNoGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, 
§ 13. 


II. 1. In Is 21 11, Dumah is rendered by LXX. as | 


’ISouynata, and may be either an undesigned cor- 
ruption of Edom or more probably a mystic name of 
the land. According to still another view, the word 
in this passage is not a proper noun hut an appella- 
tive, Massa’ dim&h=‘Oracle of Silence’ (Dillmann). 
2. A city in the mountains of Judea (Jos 15 52). 
According to Eusebius (Onomast., 250) a large village 
in the Daroma, 17 m. from Eleutheropolis (Beit Ji- 
brin), modern Daume, where important ruins, foun- 
dation-walls, rock tombs, and cisterns are to be 
found (Guérin, Judée, iii. 359 f.). Map II, D 3. 
A. 


. ° 





198 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Dress and Ornaments 
Earthquake 





DUMB. See Disbasn AND Mepicrnp, III. 


DUNG: This term is frequently used as express- 
ing contempt, worthlessness, or humiliation (e.g., II 
K 9 37; Ps 83 10; Mal 2 3; and cf. AV rendering of 
Ph 3 8, ‘refuse’ RV). The reference in Hzk 4 12 ff. 
is to the common use of the dung of cattle as fuel in 
the East. 


DUNGEON. See Prison. 
DUNG GATE. See Jerusatem, § 38. 


DURA, di’ra (N71): The name of the plain 
where Nebuchadrezzar set up his golden image (Dn 
31). 


= a 7a) 


The word daira’ may be the same as the Assyr. 
diru, ‘wall.’ Three places of this name are men- 
tioned in the Assyr. inscriptions. There is also a 
small river Dura about 6 m. 8. of Babylon, on the 
banks of which are some mounds called the Mounds 


EAGLE (7¥), nesher, Gr. detéc): The word is used 
without discriminating between different varieties. 
Even vultures appear to be called eagles sometimes, 
ef. Mic 116. When strictly used the eagle is made the 
figure of rapidity of motion (II S 1 23; La 4 19; Rev 
12 14), of pride and indomitable spirit (Job 39 27; Pr 
30 19), and of strength (Ps 103 5). It appears also in 
apocalyptic passages symbolically embodying the 
ideas of strength and keenness of vision (Ezk 10 14; 
Rev 47). See also PALESTINE, §25. ARC. 


EAR: The ear was often made the symbol of will- 
ingness to obey God’s law. In the ceremony of the 
consecration of the priest the tip of the ear was 
annointed with oil in token of readiness to listen to 
the voice of God (Lv 8 23f.) The opposite of will- 
ingness to receive God’s will and to do it is called 
the ‘uncircumcised ear’ (Jer 610; Ac 7 51), or the 
‘heavy ear’ (Is 6 10). To ‘incline the ear’ (Ps 17 6) 
or ‘bow down the ear’ (Ps 31 2) is to show a favor- 
able disposition toward a petitioner. See also 
SLAVERY. Al Co 2. 


EAR OF GRAIN (Gn 41 5; Mk 2 23 and |ls, 
etc.): Since the grain of Bible lands was not corn, as 
this word is commonly used in America (7.e., maize), 
_ but barley, rye, or wheat, the ‘ears’ spoken of are 
the heads containing the grains. E. E. N. 


_ EAR, TO, and EARING: Terms that are used 
several times in the AV (e.g., in IS 812; Dt 21 4; Is 
30 24; Gn 45 6; Ex 34 21) in their old sense of ‘to 
plow’ or ‘till’; cf. RV and see AGricuLTuRE, § 4; and 
also Timm, § 4. HK. EH. N. 

EARLY: To ‘rise up early’ is a favorite phrase 
in Jer (7 13, 117, 25 4, etc.; cf. also Pr 27 14), and 
is used (of God) to express great eagerness and dili- 
gence in effort. 

EARLY RAIN. See Pauestinp, § 19. 

EARNEST: This represents éeeabdv, a Semitic 
word, ]i392 with the general meaning of ‘pledge’ or 
‘surety’ (cf. Gn 3817 f.), later introduced into Greek 
and Latin, probably through the Phenicians, as a 
term of trade, and meaning the portion of purchase 


of Dura. No closer identification of the place men- 
tioned in Dn is as yet possible. EK. E. N. 


DUST: Ina few passages (Ex 99; Dt 28 24 [‘pow- 
der’]; Is 5 24, 29 5; Nah 1 3; Ezk 26 10) the Heb. 
means literally ‘fine dust.’ In most O T instances 
the Heb. word is ‘Gphdar, the fine soil of the earth’s 
surface, often used figuratively. To ‘shake off the 
dust of one’s feet’ was symbolical of freedom from 
further responsibility or intercourse (Mt 10 14, etc.). 
See also Mournine Cusroms, § 2. E. BE. N. 


DWARF. See Disnass anp Mepicine, § 5. 


~DWELL, DWELLING-PLACE. See Hovssg; 
TABERNACLE; and Hwaven, § 4. 


DYE, DYEING, DYER. See Artizan Lirs, § 15. 


DYSENTERY. See Dispase anp Mabspicina, 
§§ 2 and 4 (5). 


money in commercial transactions which is given in 
advance as a pledge for the payment of the remainder, 
English ‘caution-money,’ ‘arles penny.’ Cf. II Co 
1 22,55, Eph 114, where it is used of the Holy Spirit 
as the ‘foretaste and pledge’ of the Christian’s 
heavenly inheritance. In ecclesiastical Greek it is 
sometimes used also of baptism and betrothal. 
S. D.—E. E. N. 


EAR-RING. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § II, 2. 


EARTH, EARTHEN, EARTHY: The terms ren- 
dered are: (1) ’erets, which is the most comprehen- 
sive term, meaning ‘the earth’ as distinct from the 
heavens (Gn 11), but also used in a great variety of 
applications. (2) ’ddhamdéh, the earth as tillable, or 
habitable, often used in a more general sense, and 
also of the soil or ground. (8) ‘a@phdr, ‘soil’ or ‘dust’ 
(in only a few passages). (4) y (in the N T), which 
combines the usage of (1) and (2). (5) heres, 
‘earthenware,’ and ydtsdr, (lit. ‘of the potter, cf. 
II S 17 28), are sometimes rendered ‘of earth’ or 
‘earthen’ in the O T, as is also the corresponding 
Greek term in the N T (II Co 47; II Ti2 20). In 
Dn 210 the Aram. means ‘dry land.’ In RV ¢ébhél, 
‘world,’ is occasionally rendered ‘earth.’ In I Co 
15 47 ff., xotxéc, ‘earthy,’ means ‘of the material of 
the earth.’ See also Cosmocony, §38. EE. E.N. 


EARTHQUAKE! (ra‘ash, setoy.4c): Palestine and 
Syria have always been subject to frequent seismic 
disturbances, ranging from the grand convulsions of 
prehistoric ages to slight shocks in recent years. 
The recorded earthquakes have usually been most 
violent in the N.; so that while Antioch, Aleppo, 
Baalbek, Beirfit, and other cities of Syria have often 
been overthrown with fearful loss of life, Jerusalem 
has suffered comparatively little. Josephus (Ant. 
XV 5 2) describes an earthquake in Judea in 31 B. c. 
in which about ten thousand men perished by the 
fall of houses. G. A. Smith (Jerusalem I, 74) thinks 
that the ‘dragon well’ of Neh. 2 13 was a spring 
caused by an earthquake, which afterward disap- 


nk eg a idk le ED RR a ie abt 
1The noun occurs much less frequently than the verbs 
‘quake,’ ‘tremble,’ ‘shake,’ etc, 


East 
Ecclesiastes 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


194 





peared. The most terrible earthquake that Pales- 
tine has known during modern times occurred Jan. 1, 
1837, when Safed was wholly destroyed with a loss 
of 4,000 lives, and the shocks traveled, with decreas- 
ing force, as far as Hebron. 

An earthquake is mentioned in I § 14 15, and there 
was also a famous one during the reign of Uzziah 
(Am 11; Zec 145). There were miraculous earth- 
quakes at the Crucifixion (Mt 27 54) and Resurrec- 
tion (Mt 28 2), the former being accompanied by 
darkness (Mt 27 45) and fissures (Mt 27 51; cf. 
Nu 16 31f.). A ‘great earthquake’ shook the prison- 
house at Philippi (Ac 16 26). Possibly the subsidence 
of the Vale of Siddim (q.v.) was due to seismic 
action. Most of the Biblical earthquakes, however, 
either accompany theophanies (Ex 19 18; cf. Jg 5 4f.; 
Ps 68 8; I K 1911), or else are used as terrible symbols 
of the Divine majesty and judgment (Ps 18 7; 
Is 29 6; Mt 247; Rev 8 5, etc.). Probably all earth- 
quakes were thought to be directly caused by God 
(Job 9 6; Jer 10 10). L. G. L.—E. C. L. 


EAST (as the determinative point of the compass) 
With the Hebrews, as with other Orientals, the E. 
was the determining point of the compass, probably 
because it was the place of the sunrising. While the 
E. is often called mizrah, ‘the sunrising,’ it is also 
called gedhem—i.e., ‘before’ or ‘the front.’ To 
look toward the place of the sunrising was to look 
‘before’ one. 

The West was ‘behind one,’ tho, since the Med- 
iterranean Sea lay W. of Palestine, the usual expres- 
sion for W. was ‘seaward’ (cf. Ezk 47 20 with Dt. 
11 24). 

The South lay on the ‘right hand’ (cf. I S 23 24), 
tho other terms for S. were used, as dérém and 
neghebh (the ‘South’ in RV [e.g., Gn 129], lit. the 
dry, waste land S. of Judah). 

The North was occasionally called ‘the left,’ as in 
Jos 19 27, ete., but the usual word for N. is tséphon, 
‘the hidden,’ as the northern regions were the most 
unknown and full of mystery. In Job 23 8-f. will be 
found a complete illustration of the Heb. usage of the 
terms ‘before,’ ‘behind,’ ‘left,’ ‘right’ as equivalent 
to E., W., N., S. (ef. also Ezk 47 15-20). See also 
GEOGRAPHY, § 3. E. E.N. 


EAST, EAST COUNTRY, CHILDREN OF THE 
EAST: These terms were often used in a somewhat 
loose sense, politically, to designate (1) the inhabi- 
tants of the country E. (and NE., cf. Gn 29 1) of 
Palestine, especially the nomadic tribes (Ezk 25 4; 
Jer 49 28) of the Syrian Desert, which correspond to 
the modern Bedouin. Some, if not all, of these 
peoples were regarded as descending from the con- 
cubines of Abraham (Gn 25 6), and therefore closely 
related to the Israelites. The Bené-gedhem (‘children 
of the East’) including Kedar (Jer 49 28), are coupled 
with Midian and Amalek (Jg 6 3 ff.), and were 
neighbors and conquerors of Ammon and Moab 
(Ezk 25 4, 10). They were famous for their wisdom 
(I K 4 30), and the scene of the Book of Job is there- 
fore laid among them (Job 13). (2) The farther East 
beyond the Euphrates, the seat of the Assyrian, 
Babylonian, and Persian monarchies (cf. Is 48 5; 
Zec 87; Dn 11 44; Mt 21). L. G. L.—E. E. N. 

EAST GATE. See Tremp te, § 20. 


EAST SEA. See Dean Ska. 


EAST WIND: The hot, dry wind from the des- 
ert, that fills the air with dust and is exceedingly 
unpleasant for man and often fatal to young vegeta- 
tion. It blows generally in the spring. It is fre- 
quently referred to in the O T. On Hab 19 (AY) 
cf. RV. E. E. N. 


EASTER. See Fasts anp Frasts, § 7. 


EAT: The moral aspects of eating are taken ac- 
count of in a series of prescriptions and prohibitions 
on the manner, time, and articles to be eaten (cf. 
PuRIFICATION). ‘Eating together’ was a sign of 
community of life, and symbolized either adoption 
into the household (II S 97; Jer 52 33), or entrance 
into irrevocable covenant (Jer 41 1). This concep- 
tion underlies the sacrificial meal in which God is 
taken as a participant (Ex 2411). It was the worst 
form of treason, therefore, to break a covenant en- 
tered into through the ceremony of eating together 
(Ps 419; Jn 13 18). Another moral bearing of eating 
was seen in the unsatisfying nature of it when not 
connected with a righteous life (Mic 6 14; Ezk 12 18). 
Figuratively, to ‘eat up’ is to destroy (Ps 58 4). 
See also Mzats. AJOOZ: 


EBAL, i’bal (22, ‘bhal): 1. A ‘son’ of Joktan, 
son of Eber (I Ch 1 22, called Obal in Gn 10 28); see 
ETHNOGRAPHY AND ErHnotocy, § 13. 2. The 
ancestral head of a Horite clan (Gn 36 23). 

EBAL, i’bal, MOUNT. See Grerizim, Mount; and 
PaALEsTINE, § 7 (d). 


EBED, i’bed (13¥, ‘ebhedh), ‘servant’: 1. The 
father of Gaal (Jg 9 26 ff.). 2. A leader of the ‘sons 
of Adin,’ who returned from Babylon with Ezra 
(Ezr 8 6). 


EBED-MELECH, i’bed-mi'lek (122712Y, ‘ebhedh 
melekh), ‘servant of the king’ or, possibly, ‘ser- 
vant of Melech’ (a name for deity): An Ethiopian 
(Cushite) who was in the service of Zedekiah. 
He took compassion on the prophet Jeremiah, who 


had been thrown into a cistern to die of starvation, — 


and obtained permission from the king to rescue him. 
For his faith in J’’ he was promised a safe escape in 
the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 38 7-12, 39 15-18). 
KE. BE. N. 
EBENEZER, eb’1-ni’zar (WY 138, ’ebhen ha 
‘azer), ‘stone of [the] help’: A stone set up by Samuel 
to commemorate a victory over the Philistines upon 
the site of the battle where it was obtained (IS 7 12). 
It was situated a few miles N. of Jerusalem between 
Mizpah and Shen, and became a familiar landmark 
in local descriptions. The other two occurrences of 
the name (I S 41, 51) necessitate a locality much 
further west. A. C. Z. 


EBER, i’bar (13, ‘ébher): 1. The legendary an- 
cestor of one of the (geographical) divisions of the 
Semitic race (Gn 10 21, etc., also Nu 24 24). See 
ETHNOGRAPHY AND Erunouoey, § 13. 2. The an- 
cestral head of one of the Gadite clans (I Ch 5 13; 
Heber AV). 3. A son of Elpaal, a Benjamite (I Ch 
812). 4. A son of Shashak, a Benjamite (I Ch 8 22; 
Heber AV). 5. A priest, head of the family of Amok 
(Neh 12 20). 





195 


EBEZ, i’bez (Y28, ’Gbhéts; Abez AV): A town in 
Issachar (Jos 19 20) not certainly identified. 

EBIASAPH, 1-bai’a-saf (J9!38, ’ebhydsaph), ‘the 
father gathers’ (or ‘adds’). The correct form is 
Abiasaph as in AV at Ex 6 24: A Korahite Levite, 
represented in Ex 6 24; I Ch 9 19 as ‘son’ of Korah, in 
other passages (I Ch 6 22 f., 37) as a more remote de- 
scendant. He was probably considered the ancestor 
of a division of Levites of postexilic days. 

EBONY. See Pauzstine, § 21. 


EBRON, i’bren (11939, ‘ebhrén): A town of Asher, 
wrongly called Hebron in AV (Jos 19 28); perhaps 
the same as Abdon. MapIV, B5d. 


EBRONAH, eb-rd’na. See ABRONAH. 


ECCLESIASTES, ek-li’’z1-as’tiz: 1. Title. ‘Ee- 
clesiastes, or the Preacher,’ is derived from the 
LXX. translation. The Hebrew title is ‘Qdhéleth,’ 
or, in full, ‘The words of Qdhéleth, son of David, 
king in Jerusalem.’ The LXX. translators regarded 
Q. as meaning ‘one who is a member of, or who ad- 
dresses an Ecclesia (éxxAnol«),’? an assembly of 
people of any kind, and therefore named the book 
Ecclesiastes (’ExxAnotactys). The real meaning of 
Q. is unknown. Its root suggests the assembling of 
persons. It is used in the book as a masculine 
proper name, a nickname, for Solomon, and was 
certainly meant to be intelligible in that sense to the 
first readers. Probably it alludes to some story 
about Solomon now lost. The different renderings, 
‘collector of sayings,’ ‘convener,’ ‘Wisdom’ personi- 
fied in Solomon, ‘great orator,’ have no real basis. 

2. Plan of Book. Ecclesiastes is unique in the 
extant literature of the Hebrews in that it is a self- 
communion on the part of the author, something 
between reflections jotted down as they arose and 
an ordered philosophy of life, much as in the ‘Two 
Voices’ of Tennyson or Fitzgerald’s ‘Omar Khay- 
yam.’ Evidently it was written in the first place 
by the author for himself, or, perhaps, his friends, 
and came to the wider public only through some 
accident. Thus it falls in the class of the ‘Pensées’ 
of Pascal, the ‘Religio Medici’ of Sir Thomas 
Browne, and the ‘Meditations’ of Marcus Aurelius. 
But it goes beyond these in that it has a dramatic 
element, and tries to reconstruct a historical charac- 
_ ter. The author takes the figure of Solomon, who 
had asked of God wisdom and had had added thereto 
riches, whom the unchanging tradition of the East 
describes as a preeminently successful man, what- 
ever the religious might say of him, and he asks what 
such a man, in the end, got out of life. So he creates 
for us Solomon philosophizing, reciting what he had 
done, how much had been really worth while, and 
how the scheme of the universe struck him. But 
Solomon, speaking thus from the dead (‘I . . . was 
king,’ I 11), is only a mask for the author himself, and 
after the first two chapters he takes off the mask and, 
except for an occasional ‘Qohéleth,’ speaks of him- 
self, his own times and vicissitudes. Apart from 
this, the book is planless; one idea suggests another, 
but there is no orderly development. Yet, toward 
the end, as often in Hebrew books, come a couple of 
chapters which hold fairly together with some con- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


East 
Ecclesiastes 


tinuity of thought, leading naturally to a finish in 
the same phrase as that at the opening. 


3. Date. One or two allusions seem historical 
(4 13 ff., 9 14 f.), but have not been satisfactorily 
identified. The general atmosphere suggests a time 
of oppression and the overturning of old things when 
the wise man will find safety in quiet withdrawal; 
but also to be remembered are the aristocratic aloof- 
ness and philosophic disdain of the author. Finally, 
the language is unique in the O T, resembling its 
latest parts, and even post-Biblical Hebrew of the 
time of the Mishna. Sometimes it is very clumsy, 
simply scribbled; at others it is handled with elabor- 
ate and loving literary skill. Here, too, the strongly 
subjective personality of the author must be con- 
sidered; he may easily have been an antiquarian in 
language, or a lover of the phrases of the market- 
place. Possible dates range from the later Persian 
through the Greek period, perhaps even down to 
Herod the Great in the Roman period. It is cer- 
tainly after Malachi (Mal 27; cf. Ec 5 6), and most 
probably before Ecclesiasticus (c. 200 B. c.); almost 
certainly before the Maccabeean revival (168-142 
B.c.). There may be general Greek influence, but 
specific philosophical influence is still unproved. The 
bases of his thought are Semitic and Hebrew. 


4. Fundamental Ideas. (a) Theoretical. (I) The 
author does not dream of questioning the existence 
of a personal Being, a Will, omnipotent, omniscient 
who is absolute ruler of the universe. This, for him, 
is beyond question. This Being he calls God 
(Elohim), not Yahweh (Jehovah), and His rela- 
tions are with the entire human race; there is no 
thought of an elect family or of any process of 
revelation. In one or two places the author gives 
advice expressly opposed to the Mosaic code (6 9, 
99; cf. Nu 15 39; Dt 29 19). His references to public 
religious functions are general and suggest that men 
should rather refrain therefrom (51ff.). (II) Between 
Genesis and Paul he is the only Biblical writer to 
refer to the Fall. It and its consequences were, for 
him, of the first importance. Through the Fall man 
became an object of apprehension to God. The fear 
of God had to be impressed upon him lest he climb 
further. Thus it was not a Fall to the author but 
a step upward which brought loss of tranquility. 
So God has arranged all the workings of the universe 
in circles, and appointed to each event its due season 
in which it is ‘beautiful,’ z.e., into which it fits. The 
circles are too great for man to trace them, but they 
negate all real progress, and explain how good things 
and bad come each in their turn. Thus all life is 
transitory (vain), is recurrent, and is incalculable. 
Judgment is the turning of the wheel, with its op- 
posites, and the coming of each thing in its turn 
(317,119). But still further to confuse the scheme 
of the world for man and thus keep him down, God 
has put something in his heart (311). What this is is 
obscure. One rendering is ‘eternity,’ another is the 
‘world’; a probable conjecture is ‘toil.’ Man has 
become like God, knowing good and evil, and to 
prevent him going further he is put under the curse 
of toil. So man can not help toiling, altho against his 
primary nature, and must puzzle himself over the 
problems of the world; such puzzling is in his blood. 


Ecclesiastes 
Ecclesiasticus 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


196 





God made men simple, but they have made for 
themselves many reckonings of life (7 29; cf. 25, 27). 
(III) The rule of God is non-moral. The circlings 
bring now good, now bad; each from God. Sin is a 
mistake in one’s attitude toward God, by which He 
is angered; the good man is he who is good before 
God. Whence comes the absolute moral sense in 
man which revolts against this, the author does not 
state. The question had never apparently occurred 
to him just as it had not to the Poet of Job. 

(IV) With this world life is over. This, too, is 
based on the early stories in Genesis. Man is dust 
out of the ground; God breathed into him the 
breath of life; at death the dust returns to the dust 
and the breath sinks back into God; all is over (12 7). 
There is no difference in this between man and the 
beasts (3 18 ff.). Yet in his time there evidently 
existed a doctrine of spiritual existence after death 
which he did not accept. 


5. (b) Practical. (I) It is for man to accept the 
universe, including all this, as he finds it. He can 
not change it. Above all, he must fear God, who, if 
angered, may destroy him. His attitude should be 
that toward an absolute earthly monarch; compare 
51f. and 81ff. (II) It is for man to make the best of 
this—that is, to enjoy in a temperate, decent manner 
the good things which life offers, and, above all, to 
work and find pleasure in working; he will never 
have any in the results of working. Work, and joy 
in the working is his gospel; also not to worry over 
the government of things, over good and evil. That 
way lies madness, and the wise man must shut his 
eyes and take what God sends him, happy if God 
grants him with it the power to enjoy. Thus he may 
overcome the curse in a fashion, but he can never 
escape from his prison-house. (III) For all this wis- 
dom is an advantage, if only that the wise man sees 
the path he treads and the end to which he goes. It 
teaches him to beware of excess and to meet each 
situation with the fitting action, good or evil. All 
life is of God, and the fearer of God will do his duty 
by all (7 13-18). But we have always to remember 
what he means by ‘God’ and what by ‘the fear of 
God.’ 


6. The Man and His Book. He is intensely per- 
sonal; the last product of the old Wisdom School; 
deeply impressed by the older wisdom writer who 
molded the stories of the Fall in Genesis. Only 
sympathetic reading will make him and his book 
intelligible. To some both will always be repellent. 
But probably no other book of the O T creates so 
friendly a relationship with those who care for it. 
For them he is a great-hearted gentleman who faced 
life steadily, even such a nightmare as was his 
theology, and who did his duty bravely by the 
élan vital of which he was equally sure. So we feel 
that this man is real; he is talking out himself. He 
has the gift, too, of charm in his style. He could not 
have written to publish. How that came about we 
ean not tell. For all this Sir Thomas Browne is his 
nearest parallel. Very possibly 12 9-14 were added 
by his editor; they can not be by himself. Apart 
from this epilog the text is generally sound. In 317 
read, ‘for he hath appointed a time.’ In 5 20 read, 
‘God busies him with.’ In 6 3 read, ‘even though he 


have a burial.’ In 111 read margin; the reference 

is to prudent business enterprise. In 12 1 read 

‘remember thy well,’ compare Pr 5 15-18 and 9 9. 

Throughout understand ‘vain,’ ‘vanity,’ as ‘transi- 

tory,’ ‘transitoriness.’ 

LITERATURE: For exegesis the English reader will find most 
trustworthy the translation of Delitzsch’s commentary. But 
through theological prepossession he completely misunder- 
stood the author’s broad position. That by Plumptre in the 
Cambridge Bible is a still unsurpassed treasury of literary 
and philosophical parallels. For the book as a whole and 
for further bibliography he should use Davidson’s article in 
EB. Most English commentaries are unsatisfactory. The 
best is by Barton, ICC. (1908). 


ECCLESIASTICUS: 1. Title. The Book of 
Ecclesiasticus, in some respects the most important 
of the O T Apoc, has been known by various names, 
In the Greek MSS. (A and x) it is entitled Wisdom 
of Jesus, Son of Sirach, in B Wisdom of Sirach. The 
Latin Church Fathers, beginning with Cyprian, 
referred to it as ‘Ecclesiasticus,’ 7.e., the ‘church 
book,’ because of its frequent use in the churches for 
catechetical instruction. The Greek Church Fathers 
called it “The All-Virtuous Wisdom’ (Ilavéeetos 
Loota). In the Talmudic period, the Jews spoke of 
it as the ‘Book of Ben Sira.’ 


2. The Author. Near the close of the book 
(50 27) the author says of himself: ‘Jesus the son of 
Sirach of Jerusalem hath written in this book the 
instruction of understanding and knowledge.’ Very 
little is known of this ‘Ben Sira’ as he is called in 
later Jewish writings. The opinions that he was a 
priest or that he was a physician have not been 
clearly established. Certainly he was a man of 
culture and wide experience. This we learn not only 
from the statements of the prolog, but from the book 
itself. From this latter source we know that he 
traveled quite extensively (384 11), and that he was 
exposed to danger (5112). While faithful to the Law, 
he shows sympathy with some customs which he 
encountered in his travels, and reveals his contact 
with Hellenistic thought. He was a Jewish philoso- 
pher firmly convinced of the superiority and worth — 
of his own faith, and yet liberal enough to recognize 
what was strong and worthy outside the bounds of 
Judaism (39 1-5). 

3. Date. The two data used in determining the 
date of Ecclesiasticus are: (a) the reference to Simon, 
the high priest, the son of Onias (50 1), and (b) the 
statement in the prolog that the translator of the 
book arrived in Egypt ‘in the eighth and thirtieth 
year when Euergetes was king.’ The first datum 
has been the subject of much discussion, owing to 
the fact that there were two high priests—each of 
them ‘Simon the son of Onias.’ The first was Simon 
‘the Just,’ who flourished ec. 310-291 B.c.; the 
second was Simon II, son of Onias II, 219-199 B.c. 
The balance of evidence brought out in this discus- 
sion seems to favor Simon II. The second datum is © 
much more definite. The Kuergetes referred to in | 
the Prolog was Ptolemy VII, Physcon, called — 
Kuergetes II. Ptolemy III (247-222 8.c.), who also | 
bore the title of Euergetes, reigned only 25 years, — 
while Physcon reigned 54 years in all, being coregent _ 
with his brother for 25 years (170-145 B.c.). In the | 
thirty-eighth year of Physcon’s reign (this seems the - 





197 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ecclesiastes 
Ecclesiasticus 





more natural application of the reckoning) the 
grandson went to Egypt, and shortly after made the 
translation of his grandfather’s work, perhaps in 
c. 131 B.c. Two generations carry us back to the 
early part of the 2d cent. B.c. as the probable date of 
the book. Schiirer fixes the time as 190-170 B.c. 


4. Contents. The great theme of the book is Wis- 
dom. It is therefore to be classified with the Wis- 
dom literature, whose purpose was to give ‘a uni- 
versal moral-religious criticism of life.’ The book 
may be divided into two great divisions. Part I, 
including chapters 1-43, is devoted to the considera- 
tion of Wisdom in both its doctrinal and practical 
aspects. Part II, including chapters 44-50, is 
given to the praise of famous men. There seems to 
be no special definite plan controlling the material. 
The writer seeks to set forth the bearing and value 
of Wisdom in every relation of life. The most con- 
venient division of Part I is that suggested by Deane 
(Expos. 1883), in accordance with which chapters 
1-22 form the first subdivision and the prayer in 
23 1-6 brings it to a close. The second subdivision 
extends to 35 20 and also closes with a prayer, 36 1-17. 
The third ends with the hymn of praise on the works 
of creation, 42 15-43. The first verse of the book is 
virtually the text for the whole. ‘AIl wisdom 
cometh from the Lord and is with him forever.’ In 
the mind of the author Wisdom begins in the fear 
of the Lord and continues in the constant recogni- 
tion of man’s twofold relationship—to God and to 
man. No life can be wise that is not in accord with 
the Divine commandments. There is no earthly 
condition or relationship where Wisdom should not 
manifest itself, and so the author traverses in 
thought every human situation—sorrow, joy, for- 
tune, misfortune, poverty, riches, sickness, health, 
the family, business, government—telling what 
Wisdom should be and aceomplish in them all. It 
is in these particulars that we catch a view of the 
customs and culture of his time. He speaks as a 
man oi his time who, with ripe culture and earnest 
spirit, seeks to lift the life about him. Nor is it 
alone on the human side that he considers this great 
reality, Wisdom. Wisdom is ever with God, the 
first-born of His creatures, the archetype for all the 
works of God. Wisdom is from the beginning and is 
immanent in God. Because God is Wisdom, man 
_ €an not comprehend Him. Wisdom is the creative 
power of the world (24 3) and is eternal (11). Asin 
the Book of Wisdom, so here Wisdom is personified 
and hypostatized. For man there could be no 
higher setting forth of this Wisdom than in the Law, 
hence man must be faithful to the Law. Thereby 
he can and will manifest the fruits of Wisdom. When 
it comes to the consideration of the problems made 
by the conception of Divine Wisdom, and the ine- 
qualities of life, little attempt is made at explanation. 
The writer is a predestinarian (16 26, 23 20, 33 10-13). 
He does not fail, however, to emphasize both the 
justice and mercy of God. He has nothing to say of 
the immortality of the soul nor of the resurrection 
of the body. While he accepts the facts of sin, he 
estimates its punishment as well as the rewards of 
righteousness chiefly in terms of this life (11 28, 
21 4, 23 24-27). Forgiveness of sin is dependent 


chiefly on almsgiving and prayer (3 30, 17 25, 29 12). 
Despite what might be expected from the declaration 
that Wisdom begins in the fear of the Lord, there is 
in the book a certain external satisfaction of the 
demands of righteousness which does not accord with 
a truly wise life. Observances of rites, expectations 
of earthly gain, and personal comfort are considered 
at times apart from any real spiritual association. 
It may be justly said that with all its exalted teach- 
ing, the book lacks in spiritual tone. In this way 
it presents some striking contradictions. It extols 
purity, sympathy, truthfulness, and kindness, and 
yet note the author’s aversion to women (9 2), his 
treatment of an enemy (12 10-11), and how he would 
punish a servant (42 5). These are but samples of 
the Wisdom which has not yet learned the deepest 
meaning of ‘fearing the Lord.’ Widely varying 
estimates have been made of the tone of the book, 
but it may with truth be said that the general tone 
‘is worthy of the first contact between the two great 
civilizations of the ancient world (Jewish and 
Hellenistic), and it breathes a spirit which an 
Isaiah would not have condemned nor a Sophocles 
or a Theophrastus have despised.’ 


5. The Text. Until a few years ago Ecclesiasticus 
was known only from the Greek and Syriac versions, 
and such translations as were made from them. The 
original was in Hebrew, as the translator in the 
Prolog declares. Jerome knew a Hebrew text and 
in rabbinic writings there are citations from the He- 
brew. Until recently this original was lost. In 
1896 came the good news that a fragment of it had 
been discovered among manuscripts brought by Mrs. 
Lewis and Mrs. Gibson, two English ladies, from the 
East. This discovery was followed by another of 
nine leaves from the same volume to which the Lewis 
fragment belonged. As these came from Cairo, 
means were taken to make further search and as a 
result to-day about two-thirds of Heb. text has 
been recovered. The textual value of this Heb. 
material is very great, in spite of the fact that it by 
no means always represents the actual original text. 
With the aid of this new material in many places 
where the Greek and other versions are obscure or 
incorrect we can now be sure of what the original 
Heb. was and an intelligible reading is secured. 

6. Recognition of Ecclesiasticus. Altho never 
regarded as canonical by the Jews, Ecclesiasticus was 
held by them in high esteem. It is often cited in the 
Talmud, and in one passage (Bab. Talmud, B*rakh- 
oth, 48a), with the formula ‘it is written’ applied 
elsewhere to acknowledged books. ‘There are,no 
citations from it in the N T. Resemblances of 
thought are found between it and the Epistle of 
James, but direct quotation from it on the part of 
James can not be established. Direct quotations 
begin with Clement of Alexandria, who uses the 
formula 4 yeaoh Agvet. Origen uses the same. 
Augustine and Jerome both distinguish it from 
canonical books, but give it a high place for purposes 
of moral instruction. 

From the end of the 2d cent. the book has been 
much used in the Church. By some its authorship 
was given to Solomon; by all it was cited with re- 
spect. The numerous versions of it testify to the 


Ecstasy 
Education 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


198 





honor in which it was held. In the MSS. of the 
Greek Bibles 1t was generally grouped with the 
other poetical works of the O. T. Soin the Western 
Church it was at an early date grouped with Prov- 
erbs, Ecclesiastes, Canticles, Wisdom, and attri- 
buted to Solomon. The Councils of Hippo (893) and 
Carthage (397) included it in the Hebrew canon. 
The Council of Trent (1546) declared it canonical. 
While in Protestantism it has been reckoned uncan- 
onical, its worth has always had full recognition. 

7. Its Real Value. Apart from the high moral 
instruction which it contains the book has an 
especial value for the following reasons: (a) It gives 
us a picture of manners, customs, and thinking in a 
time otherwise not much known. (b) It shows us 
how a broad-minded Jew looked upon the questions 
which a complex civilization brought. The book 
shows traces of Greek influence. Nestle speaks of 
the book as ‘the chief monument of primitive Sad- 
duceeism’ (HDB IV, 549). (c) It contributes testi- 
mony to the formation of the Hebrew canon, espe- 
cially in the arrangement of the ‘Hymn of the Fa- 
thers.’ Chs. 44-50. 


LiTERATURE: Commentaries: Cowiey and Neubauer have pub- 
lished a translation of the Hebrew text, 3915-4911 (Clar- 
endon Press, Oxford). R. Smend, Die Weitsheit des Jesus 
Sirach Text (Heb.), translation (German), Glossary and 
Commentary, 2 vols. (1906). W. O. E. Oesterley, Ecclesias- 
ticus, in Camb. Bible (1912), very good. Box and Oesterley, 
in Charles’ Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the O. T., I 
(1913). J.S. R.—W. G. J. 


ECSTASY. See Trance. 

ED (1¥, ‘édh), ‘witness’ (Jos 22 34): The Hebrew 
text here is not inorder. It reads literally, ‘They 
called the altar ‘it is a witness between us that J’”’ is 
God.’ The Syriac reads, ‘and they made an altar 
of witness,’ using the Aramaic expression we find 
in Gn 381 47. K. E. N. 

EDAR, i’dir. See Eprr. 

EDEN, i’dn (119, ‘édhen), ‘delight’: I. 1. The origi- 
nal residence of the first human pair (Gn 2 8, 15, 3 23, 
24); called also ‘the garden of God’ (Ezk 28 13, 319), 
‘the garden of Jehovah’ (Is 51 3), and in non-Biblical 
usage, Paradise. According to Gn 28¢. J’’ Him- 
self prepared it and it was abundantly irrigated, 
furnished with a luxuriance of vegetation, and made 
the home of all the animals created by J’’, which 
here recognized man as their lord. The location of 
K. has been the subject of many speculations, some 
of which have nothing but their grotesqueness to 
give them interest. Palestine, Syria, Armenia, 
Mongolia, Kashmir, Merv, Australia, Mesopotamia, 
and even the North Pole have all been suggested as 
the site. Of these Lower Mesopotamia and Ar- 
menia alone deserve consideration (cf. W. F. Warren, 
Paradise Found, 1886), and the former seems to 
correspond more nearly to the description in Gn 2 
(cf. Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies?, 1881). The de- 
scription must, however, in any case be regarded’as 
conceived more or less ideally. There is no spot on 
earth from which one vast river branches into four 
channels that encircle such tracts of land as are here 
named. The fact that the Gihon is said to compass 
the whole land of Cush may be taken as a reason for 
thinking that the Nile was meant, especially as the 
sources of the Nile were supposed by many to be 


located in Asia (cf. Pausanias, II, 5 2; and Strabo, 
XV, 1 25). The identity of the Pishon is involved 
with that of the land of Havilah, and as Havilah 
is said to yield the best quality of gold and precious 
stones, either India or Arabia could be taken for it. 
If it were the former, the Pishon must be the Indus; 
otherwise it is the sea around the Arabian peninsula, 
which was supposed to be a very wide river (cf. 
Worcester, Genesis in the Light of Modern Know- 
ledge, 1901; A. R. Gordon, Early Traditions of 
Genesis, 1907; Driver or Skinner on Genesis, ad loc.; 
Albright, AJTh, Oct., 1922.). 2. An Aramean 
kingdom on the right bank of the Euphrates, SW. 
of Haran (II K 1912; Is 37 12; Ezk 27 23; Am15). It 
was conquered by Asshurbanipal, King of Assyria 
(668-626 B.c.). A, C. Z. 

II. A Levite in the days of Hezexiah (II Ch 29 12, 
31 15). E. E. N. 

EDER, i’der (11¥, ‘édher), ‘flock’: I. 1. The head 
of a Levite family (I Ch 23 23). 2. A Benjamite 
family head (I Ch 8 15). 

II. 1. An ancient town of Judah near the south- 
western frontier (Jos 15 21). 2. Tower of Eder, or 
‘flock-tower’ (Gn 35 21), lying between Bethlehem 
and Hebron. Its name indicates that it was used as 
a watch-tower to protect the flocks against robbers. 

I. M. P. 

EDOM, i’dom (O78, ’édhdm), ‘red’: The name 
given to the land SE. of Palestine (Jer 49 17; Ezk 25 
12); also called Seir (Gn 32 3; Nu 2418; Dt 1 44, etc.). 
The inhabitants were called Edomites (I S 21 7). 
Its boundaries are somewhat vaguely designated, 
but at the time of its greatest extension it reached 
from the Dead Sea S. to Elath and Ezion-geber, 
while on the E. the Arabian Desert and on the W. 
the River of Egypt furnished its natural limits. Its 
length from N. to 8S. was about 100 m. It is slightly 
higher at the central portion, sloping on one side 
toward the Dead Sea and on the other toward the 
fflanitic branch of the Red Sea (Gulf of Akabah). 
At the highest point it rises to 600 ft. above sea- 
level. It derives its name from the color of the red 
sandstone of its precipitous hills. 

With Israel Moab and Ammon, Edom formed a 
group of kindred peoples (see ETHNOLOGY AND 
ErHnoGrapnHy, § 9). The knowledge of the kinship 
between the Israelites and Edomites persisted in 
tradition from the earliest days, as is shown by the 
story of their descent from twin brothers(Gn 25 21 ff.). 
Edom became organized as a kingdom in its own 
land before this took place with Israel (Gn 36 31-39). 

The earliest known contact of E. with Israel is 
that mentioned in Nu 20 14 ff.; Jg 11 17, when the 
kings of the country refused the Israelites permission 
to go through their land, thus compelling them to 
take the circuitous route to Palestine through Moab. 


David reduced E. to a tributary of Israel (IS 814; | 


Ps 60, title). After the division of the kingdom, 
Judah maintained its supremacy over E.: for the 
most part, however, through vassal kings of Edomite 


stock (II K 39; but cf. I K 22 47). Under Joramill| 


(849) E. obtained independence (If K 8 20 f.), but 
lost it again fifty years later when Amaziah routed 


an army of Edomites and captured their city, Sela 


(II K 147). In 775 Uzziah extended his authority 





199 A NEW STANDARD 


farther south, taking even the harbor city, Elath 
(II K 14 22). At this point the Biblical narrative 
fails us for a period. The cuneiform inscriptions, 
however, furnish data from which it appears that 
Tiglath-pileser III (734) subjugated its king, 
Kaushmalaka, and in 701 Sennacherib conquered 
Malikrammu and annexed E. to the Assyrian em- 
pire. Tho making common cause with Judah 
against Nebuchadrezzar in 609 (Jer 27 3), the 
Edomites broke out in a new flame of hatred against 
their former allies, at the time of the destruction of 
Jerusalem (La 4 21; Ob ver. 8 ff.; Ezk 25 12 ff.; Is 34 5, 
63 1 ff.). In the postexilic period the Edomites, 
probably due to the pressure of the Nabatzan 
Arabs moved into the Southern half of the old terri- 
tory of Judah, including the region around Hebron. 
This old Judean territory and the adjacent district 
S. was now known as Idumza. The old Edomite 
land was seized by the Nabateans, with Petra as 
the capital. Idumza was attacked by Judas 
Maccabeeus (I Mac 53) in 1648B.c. In 109B.c. John 
Hyrcanus conquered it, and compelled its inhabi- 
tants to be circumcised (Jos. Ant. XIII, 91; BJ I, 
26). By this act the race of Esau was absorbed into 
that of Jacob. In the N T Idumea is mentioned 
only in Mk 3 8; but it was noted as the native land 
of the Herodian dynasty. In Roman times it was 
accounted one of the eleven toparchies of Judea 
(Jos. BJ III, 35). See also Esau. 
LiteRATuRE: Buhl, Geschichte der Edomiter (1893); Hoskins 

and Libbey, The Jordan Valley and Petra (1905). 

A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 

EDREI, ed’ri-ai (YTS, ’edhre%): 1. One of 
the residences of Og, King of Bashan (Jos 12 4; Nu 
21 33), now the large town of ed-Der‘dt, between 
el-Mezeirib and Bosrah. Map I, H 5. Numerous 
ruins and inscriptions have been found at Edrei, be- 
sides a remarkable series of ancient subterranean 
dwellings, apparently excavated to serve as a refuge 
in time of siege (Schumacher, Across the Jordan, 
pp. 121-148; Baedeker, Palestine,s p. 152; G. A. 
Smith, HGHL', p. 576). 2. A city of Naphtali 
(Jos 19 37, P), perhaps identical with 1. See D111- 
MANN on Dt 3 10. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


EDUCATION: 1. In the Earliest Times. In pre- 
Deuteronomic Israel, the training of the young ap- 
_ pears to have been entirely in the hands of their 
parents, especially the fathers. No trace of any in- 
stitution resembling the modern school is to be found; 
nor is there evidence of any help available to the par- 
ent in the form of a familiar method, model, or means 
of instruction. Both the subject and the method of 
ecucation were absolutely at his discretion. But 
from the earliest days the instruction of the young 
included the inculcation, first of religious ideas, and 
second, of the traditions of the nation (chiefly the 
story of the Exodus); and its aim was preeminently 
to train character. The discipline of chastening 
inflicted by the parent is an image of that inflicted 
on Israel by J’’ (Dt 85). 

2. From Deuteronomy to the Exile. With the 
promulgation of Deuteronomy, a crystallized body 
of precepts could be put into the hands of the 
parent to pass over to his children, and a definite 
injunction was placed upon him to be faithful in this 


Ecstasy — 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Education 


task (Dt 49,67). The method of instruction was 
naturally oral, and the times and conditions, as 
well as the effectiveness with which the task was 
performed, depended on the circumstances of each 
case. It was a great gain, however, to have a 
definite substance of teaching to impart. 

3. Under Ezra. This condition of things lasted 
with very little practical change until after the 
Exile. Reading and writing were during this period 
the accomplishment of the few (II K 57, 22 8 f.., 
23 2). When Ezra undertook to render the Law 
(Torah) the organic principle of the national life, he 
gave the whole subject of education a new impulse. 
In order to accomplish his end, it was necessary 
very largely to extend the circle of those who could 
read the Law, and further to make provision for the 
circulation of copies of it among the people. Ezra 
himself was a ‘ready scribe’ (Ezr 76). The number 
of accredited teachers was greatly increased (Ezr 
8 16). 

4. The Wise Men as Teachers. Meantime, in the 
preexilic period, a class of men had appeared who 
under the name of ‘the Wise’ (Sages) cultivated a 
type of erudition with results that survive in the so 
called Wisdom Literature of the O. T. These, 
together with the copyists and expounders of the 
Torah (the Scribes), now became the teachers of 
Israel. While the substance of the teaching de- 
veloped into three parts, 7.e., the Law, the Tradi- 
tions (History), and Wisdom, it was all generally 
under the direction of the same class of teachers. 
See WIspoM. 


5. Proverbs and Its Light on the Subject. The 
Book of Proverbs, of which the Wisdom of the Son 
of Sirach is a later reflection, furnishes, under the 
name instruction, misdr (1 2, etc.), a mass of details 
of the educational ideas of this period. First of all, 
the instructors of the children were still in the main 
their parents (Pr 1 8, 4 1-4, 6 20, 13 1, 3017). The 
chief substance of the teaching concerned religious 
matters. The fear of J’ is the beginning (‘the 
chief part? RVmg.) of knowledge (Pr 17). Educa- 
tion is of the greatest importance. It means the 
expulsion of an innate folly (Pr 22 15, cf. 147, 18). It 
is, therefore, a source of great delight to have one’s 
offspring come under its influence (Pr 10 1, 23 24). 
As a means of enforcing the lessons of life the rod 
may be used (13 24, 23 13), but with moderation 
(Pr 19 18 RV). 


6. Postexilic Period. In the postexilic period 
professional teachers made their appearance, and 
also a place for the meeting of groups of children 
for instruction was found in the synagog (to-day 
called Schule in Yiddish, and Scola by the Portu- 
guese Jews). But details as to the beginning of the 
system are scanty. It is probable that after the 
synagog-school was organized the children in it 
were made to memorize the precepts of the Torah 
verbatim. To this end resort must have been had, 
as in all primitive countries and in the Orient to-day, 
to mnemonic helps, such as acrostics and numerical 
proverbs (cf. Pr chs. 30 and 31). 

7. School System Established. The fullest devel- 
opment of the educational system of Palestine, 
however, is to be found in the Roman period, 1.e., 


Education 
Egypt 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


200 


re LL et LtAAAL  — 


from 75 B.c. to 70 a.p. It isa question as to whether 
Simon ben Shetah or Joshua ben Gamla (Gamaliel) 
deserves the credit of inaugurating the new system 
(Schiirer stands for the latter, Kennedy [in HDB] 
and Box [in EB] for the former). Whoever intro- 
duced it, it was based upon compulsory attendance 
of all children. It is certain that under Gamaliel the 
age for attendance was fixed at from six to seven. 


8. The System at Work. The school was held 
either in the synagog-room or in a separate building 
on the same premises (Berakh. 17a). The further 
expansion of the system involved the separation of 
the students of higher branches from high schools 
and colleges. Of the synagogs of Jerusalem it is said 
that each had a Beth Sepher and a Beth Talmud, 7.e., 
a primary and a higher school for the more ad- 
vanced scholars who might wish to become learned 
in the Law; a still higher institution (professional) 
was developed, known as the Beth hammidrash 
( Yalkut Jes. 257; Jos. Ant. XVIII, 105; BJ, I, 372). 
Similarly, teachers were classed in three groups, the 
highest grade being that of Sage (Hakima), the 
second that of Scribe (Saphir), and the third the 
Master (Hazzan). All together are evidently in- 
cluded in the N T terms doctor (Lk 2 46, teachers), 
or ‘doctors of the law’ (Ac 5 34). These were found in 
every village (Lk 5 17) and were called Rabbis 
(Jn 3 2). The method of procedure in such schools 
could not have been different from what may be 
witnessed in the great Moslem universities at the 
present day (cf. Ac 22 3). Here scholars seated on 
the ground in a circle face the teacher, who occupies 
a seat raised slightly above the pupils. From this 
position he imparts instruction which the pupil is 
required to repeat accurately over and over again 
until he is thoroughly familiar with it. Repetition 
was so thoroughly identified with this process that 
both teaching and learning came to be called 
Mishna, ‘repetition.’ That the home, however, con- 
tinued a means of religious training is evident from 
expressions such as ITI Ti 3 14. 


9. ‘Schoolmaster’ or ‘Tutor.’ The task of taking 
children to school primarily devolved on the parent 
(Kidd. 30a); but in certain communities the fear 
that on account of lukewarmness the parents might 
neglect this duty led to the choice of special officials 
to perform it (maphtir kenessidth [Cholin 51a]). 
Among the Greeks the same duty devolved on a 
special servant who, from the nature of it, was 
called the ‘child-conductor’ (Gal 3 24 tutor, school- 
master AV). 

10. Doctrine. The substance of instruction was 
from the earliest days viewed as something to be 
seized hold of (legah, ‘doctrine,’ Dt 32 2; Job 11 4; 
Pr 4 2); also what is heard (shemi‘ah, Is 28 9), but 
‘message’ RV, ‘report? RVmg. But in the N T 
the Gr. d:8ay%7H and 88acxmAtz, probably ‘teaching,’ 
are rendered by ‘doctrine’ in AV (also in RV in 
I Ti 517; Mt 7 28). 

11. Non-Jewish Learning. The question of in- 
struction in other than the Hebrew language, or in 
other subjects than the wisdom of the Fathers is not 
a simple one. Officially, nothing but the tradi- 
tional system was recognized; and yet there are 
traces of the introduction of Hellenic methods and 


even of the existence of an institution in Jerusalem 
which was designed to convey and disseminate 
Greek philosophy and Greek ideals. In one of these 
Herod the Great was a student (Jos. Ant. XV, 105). 
At any rate, many Jews did certainly acquire a con- 
siderable amount of Greek learning. Some famil- 
iarity with it was a necessary qualification for mem- 
bership in the Sanhedrin, and the Apostle Paul 
seems to have been versed in it. The distinctive 
feature of Greek education, which involved the ap- 
pearance of the pupils in public gymnasia in nude 
form, was distasteful and offensive to the Jewish 
sense of modesty (I Mac 1 14 #.; II Mac 4 10). 

12. Education of Women. When education passed 
out of its household stage its development was al- 
most exclusively with reference to the male members 
of society. The training of girls remained a task of 
the mother and had for its main object their prepara- 
tion for ideal motherhood (Pr 31 27-29). 


Lirerature: Art. Erziehung in Hamburger, RH.; Edersheim, 
LTJM. (1896), I, p. 225; Schiirer, HJP., II, ii, pp. 46-52; art. 
by Kennedy in HDB., and by Box in ZB; Cornill, The Culture 
of Ancient Israel, E. T. (1914); J. A. Maynard, A Survey of 
Heb. Education (1924). AICI! 


EGGS. See Foon, § 10. 

EGLAH, eg’la (7229 , ‘eghlah), ‘heifer’: One of 
David’s wives, mother of Ithream (II S 3 5; I Ch 
3 3). The expression ‘David’s wife’ in these pas- 
sages awakens the suspicion that originally the name 
of a former husband was read, as in the case of Abi- 
gail, ‘wife of Nabal’ (II S 3 3). EK. E. N. 

EGLAIM, eg’la-im (0238, ’eghlayim): A city of 
Moab (Is 15 8), not yet identified. 


EGLATH-SHELISHIYAH, eg”lath-shel’’1-shai’ya 
(™B?y nay ‘eghlath sh¢lishiyyah): A term used in 
Is 15 5; Jer 48 34, apparently as a place-name as in 
RY, altho ‘the third Eglath’ would be a very unusual 
form for a proper name. Many scholars suspect a 
corruption of the text. See Gray in ICC, ad loc. 

EK. E. N. 


EGLON, eg’len (S72y, ‘eghl6n), ‘circle’: I. A king © 


of Moab who formed an alliance with Ammon and 
Amalek against Israel in the period of the Judges, 
and held the Israelites in subjection for 18 years 
(Jg 3 12-14). When his tyranny became intolerable, 
Ehud, the left-handed Benjamite, upon the pretext 
of bringing him the annual tribute, secured a private 
interview and assassinated him (Jg 3 15-25). Cf. 
Moore in ICC. 

II. A city of the Amorites in the Shephelah. Its 
king, Debir, joined the alliance of the five cities 
against Joshua (Jos 10 3). With the collapse of the 
allies, it fell into the hands of Joshua and was de- 
stroyed (Jos 10 16-27). The mod. Khirbet ‘Ajlan pre- 
serves the name, altho as to the identity with ancient 
city there is no certainty. See Map IT, C 2. 

A. C. Z. 


EGYPT: I. Inrropuctrory.—The word Egypt is 
from the Gr. 4 Atyurtos (whence the modern Copt, 


through the Arab. Kzbt). IntheOT it corresponds — 


geographically to the Hebrew %271¥D (English, 
Mizraim as in Gn 10 6, etc.), which is the common 
Semitic word for E. with an old Hebrew locative 
ending. 











31 












een 
ene are Wins 


SS 









°Pelusium 







=e 













¥ eS wr Le 

Om = Xe 

% Mi remanence We 009 os ésh-barnea. (7) 
le gritty, ‘ 

ons mc 













% 
“ns 


~ 































sae Pans, Zi Ye 
ion ees Ny ° re) Pe eal SABI VA 
hed 8, On i 
0 ie) anit May re Mme iS 
80 ‘ wy 1 Fe 





vu 
= wer 


1 








Nuttin 














el-Behneseh, 
Oxyrhynclhus 











‘Ns it jem 
Soa fs 
Jebel Katrina, 
- R43} ye 
Me E s E ate Ub» Tes 4 
| 2 s a Sis ¥ 























nw 
So 
. 











nie 





Hye 


ey Mims 





ANH, Hs 














SCALE OF MILES 





Uh % 


Longitude Fast 32° from Greenwich 


bs ano - 
d _—_ so 31° 











201 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Education 
Egypt 





1. The Territory. Each of the above names desig- 
nates the region stretching northward from the first 
Cataract of the Nile at Assouan (Syene) to the Medi- 
terranean coast-line, a distance of over 600 miles by 
the river. The division into Lower and Upper E. 
(the former including the Delta and the region of 
Memphis), which is known to have existed even in 
prehistoric days, is marked in Hebrew literature by 
the use of the name Pathros to designate the latter 
(Is 11 11; Jer 441, 15; Ezk 29 14, 3014), the inhabitants 
being called Pathrusim (Gn 10 14). This name is 
Egyptian, meaning the ‘Land of the South.’ The 
breadth of the Nile valley which forms the real 
Egyptian country as marked off from the desert, 
varies from 3 to 10 m. 8. of the Delta, which near the 
sea attains a breadth of 120 m. The soil of the 
valley is of great fertility. The dark-colored mud 
brought down by the Nile suggested the native 
Egyptian name of the country, Kemt, the ‘black 
land,’ as distinguished from the bright-colored soil 
of the desert. 


2. The Inhabitants. It is now generally agreed 
that the ancient Egyptians had close Semitic 
affinities. The points of contact that are surest are 
the linguistic. The languages of both races have 
nearly the same set of pronominal suffixes, the same 
endings for genders, and also most of their numerals 
alike. They have besides in common the use of a 
construct state, as well as several analogies in verb- 
inflection. More fundamental still is the practical 
identity of the consonants, including the peculiar 
Semitic gutturals. The vocabularies, however, are 
disappointing, showing very few close resemblances 
It is also very questionable whether the original 
ideographic systems of writing have a common 
origin. But grammatical analogies are the surest 
test of relationship, and they point here to a kinship 
radical even if very remote. But both the physiog- 
nomy of the monumental sculptures and the racial 
peculiarities betray the presence of an additional, 
non-Semitic element in the population, which is 
neither negro nor negroid. We are forced to the 
conclusion that the missing components are to be 
sought among some of the vanished races of North- 
ern Africa, of which the Libyans NW. of E., and the 
Cushites to the 8., may be regarded as representa- 
tive. These are representatives of the widely 
extended Hamitic family, which produced no people 
so distinguished in ancient times as the Egyptians. 
See ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 7. 


3. Chronology. On the very difficult subject of 
chronology the chief sources of information are the 
ancient lists of kings with more or less definite 
notations of time attached to them. The current 
division of historical time is that of Manetho, an 
Egyptian priest who wrote in Greek about 270 B.c., 
and whose work has been only partially preserved 
in summaries or references by Josephus, Africanus, 
and Eusebius. He made out 31 dynasties of kings, 


with the length of each dynasty in years. A supple- 


ment is afforded by monumental lists in temples, in 
tombs, or on papyri. These do not give the regnal 
years. Annals of kings inscribed in temples or in 
tombs give important data. In spite of these helps, 


there is no agreement among scholars as to the 


lengths of the earlier dynasties. Consequently also 
the total length of Egyptian history is still a matter 
of conjecture. A table of ‘minimal dates’ compiled 
by Eduard Meyer makes the first dynasty to have 
begun in 3180 B.c. Petrie puts it at 4777 B.c. 
Perhaps the beginning of the history of E. as a 
unified state may be put a century or two after 
4000 B.c. Back to the 16th cent. B.c. a reasonable 
degree of accuracy has been gained, and astro- 
nomical calculations have aided in fixing a few im- 
portantepochs. Astronomical calculationsoften, how- 
ever, prove disappointing and produce frequently 
doubt rather than certainty. Much more useful in 
many cases are the cross references to contem- 
poraneous rulers in Babylonia or Assyria, altho 
even these require caution in the using. 


II. Hisrory.—Two stages may be inferentially 
traced in the antecedents of the history proper. At 
first there was the formation of numerous small 
communities, each with its own tutelary deities. 
Then the natural division of the country (§ 1) 
favored for a time the existence of two dominant 
kingdoms. 

4. The Old Empire. Ancient authorities agree 
unanimously that the first historic dynasty of united 
KE. was that of King Menes (c. 3500 B.c.), whose 
tomb is thought to have been discovered just N. of 
Thebes in 1897. Already the political center was 
established at Memphis in Lower E. In the fourth 
dynasty the civilization of E. comes before us as a 
finished product. This is the dynasty of the great 
pyramid-builders, the largest pyramid being that 
of Cheops (Chufu) (c. 3000 B.c.), the second of the 
line. The fifth dynasty was little distinguished. 
The sixth has left written and artistic memorials 
all through E., with records of expeditions to 
Nubia and NW. Arabia. Of the dynasties from 
the seventh to the twelfth we know little directly. 
It is clear, however, that the rulers of Memphis 
were unable to hold that city as their capital, since 
they transferred their residence to Heracleopolis, 8S. 
of the Fayim. Here they failed to maintain 
themselves against the princes of Thebes, to whom 
they at length gave their allegiance. 


5. The Middle Empire (c. 2375-1580 B.c.). With 
the tenth dynasty the ‘Old Kingdom’ came to an 
end. The ‘Middle Kingdom,’ which lasted from 
the eleventh dynasty to the fourteenth, showed 
great vigor and enterprise in its earlier stages. 
The period is signalized by the predominance of 
Thebes. Of the twelfth dynasty monuments are 
found everywhere as far up the Nile as the Second 
Cataract. A complete conquest of Nubia was 
now effected, with a great increase of wealth in 
gold, slaves, and fighting men. The greatest 
glory of this dynasty is, however, to be found’ 
in its material and artistic achievements. No 
previous dynasty ever did so much for Egyptian 
human prosperity as this which built great works 
to save the overflow and destruction of cities by the 
Nile, which has issued in the splendid oasis of 
Fayoum, while in the artistic handicrafts, especially 
in gold, no later dynasty ever equalled it. 

6. The Hyksos. In the thirteenth dynasty (c. 
1800 z.c.) began that steady influx of the Asiatics 


Egypt 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


202 





which resulted finally in the rule of the Hyksos, 
as Manetho terms them. Their origin is not yet 
fully made out. ‘The invaders were, it is certain, 
largely Semites from Palestine and Syria; but they 
possibly may have been impelled by non-Semites 
from Asia Minor. It was in the eastern part of 
the Delta that the strangers had their headquar- 
ters, whence at length they made their authority 
felt throughout E. proper. A marked result of their 
sway was the introduction of Semitic words into 
the language of the Egyptians and of Semitic gods 
into their worship. Upper E. was naturally least 
contented under the foreign rule, and long resis- 
tance on its part gradually changed into aggres- 
sion, so that finally, under the leadership of Ah- 
moses I, the first king of the eighteenth dynasty, 
the Hyksos were almost wholly expelled from the 
country. 


7. New Empire. Eighteenth Dynasty. With 
this dynasty (c. 1580-1400 s.c.) begins the ‘New 
Kingdom,’ Thebes being again the capital. E. now 
attains to the summit of its power. It was found 
that the only sure means of excluding the trouble- 
some Asiatics was to occupy their territory, and so 
campaigns in Western Asia became the order of the 
day. Two of the greatest conquerors of the time 
were Thothmes I, the third ruler of the dynasty, 
and Thothmes III, the sixth of the line. The latter 
extended his sway as far as the Euphrates. In the 
first 20 years of his rule he conducted fifteen cam- 
paigns in Asia; but the remainder of his long reign 
(1501-1447 B.c.) was mainly devoted to the arts of 
peace. He was the most powerful of all the Pha- 
raohs. It was really a new E. that he ruled. Horses 
and chariots, imported from Asia, had changed the 
aspect of war and made it a new profession. Asiatic 
Wives, customs, and gods became fashionable. The 
closest relations were maintained with all Western 
Asia. Wealth and luxury increased enormously. 
The official class grew at the expense of the tillers 
of the soil, and of that class the priesthood was the 
greatest gainer. At length, the fourth ruler after 
Thothmes III, Amenophis IV, (1375-1358 B.c.) ‘the 
heretic king,’ being tired of the priestly yoke, 
determined to found a new and more manageable 
religion—the sole worship of the sun’s disk (Aten) 
To this end he chose a new capital on the site of the 
modern Tell el-Amarna, half-way between Thebes 
and the old capital Memphis. The attempt was 
unsuccessful, and soon after his reign ended Tut- 
ankh-aten (‘the living image of Aten’) changed his 
name to Tut-ankh-Amen and returned to Thebes to 
restore the ancient faith of Amen. The discovery of 
his tomb in our own day has roused the interest of 
the whole world. A few years later the dynasty 
itself came to an end with Thebes once more the 
seat of government (c. 1350 B.c.). A great discovery 
has made known to us the Asiatic relations of this 
dynasty. At El-Amarna were found in 1887 over 
300 letters, on tablets bearing cuneiform characters, 
from Babylonia, Assyria, N. Mesopotamia (Mitani) 
Syria, and Palestine. From the two countries last 
named native governors, appointed by the Egyptians 
court, describe the precarious condition of their 
garrisons during the reigns of Amenophis III and 


IV. Among the familiar localities from which 
letters were written were Tyre, Beirit, Accho, 
Gaza, Askalon, and Jerusalem. 

8. Nineteenth Dynasty. The no less famous 
nineteenth dynasty had not only to set E. right 
internally but also to reestablish its power in Asia. 
The Hittites, now a strong confederacy, completely 
occupied Syria and were threatening Palestine. 
Seti I, the third king of the line, after much fighting, 
was fain to treat with the Hittite king. They agreed 
that the Egyptians might rule as far as Lebanon 
and the Hittites thence northward. Seti’s successor, 
Rameses II (c. 1292-1225), spent the first 21 of the 


67 years of his reign in desperate conflicts with the 


Hittites, which left him very nearly where he began. 
A treaty with the Hittites, a very elaborate affair, 
was then made, which was long faithfully kept on 
both sides. Rameses spent the most of his reign in 
beautifying and strengthening his kingdom. To 
carry out his designs he made use of the populations 
of the conquered tribes. Among others were the 
Hebrew people who had settled and prospered on the 
E. of the Delta. During the Asiatic invasions their 
lot was naturally grievous. Rameses in particular 
pressed them hard with his rigorous system of 
forced labor. Pithom (q.v.) and Raamses (q.v.) 
were two of the millitary stations which they helped 
to construct in order to make sure the hold of 
E. upon N. Arabia and Palestine. But the most 
dangerous enemies did not come from the old roving 
tribes of the eastern desert and its oases. Merneptah, 
the son of Rameses IT, found his reckoning with the 
western Libyans the most serious business of his 
reign. With them were allied pirates and land 
robbers from various parts of the eastern and 
northern shores and islands of the Mediterranean, 
who had already wrought much destruction on the 
Syrian and Phenician coast. The combination was 
defeated, and E. was saved for a time. In Palestine 
Merneptah had no very secure dominion. Among the 
peoples whom he claims to have subdued in that 
region Israel is given a place—the only mention of 
the name, so far as is yet known, upon the Egyptian 
monuments. It is probable that the Hebrew 
‘Exodus’ had then (c. 1225 B.c.) taken place. The 
closing years of the dynasty were marked by con- 
fusion and anarchy. 


9. Loss of Palestine. Something like order was 
effected by Rameses III (c. 1198-1167), the founder 
with his father of the twentieth dynasty. He had 
to repel renewed attacks from the Libyans; also a 
more formidable incursion of the maritime bar- 
barians, who were defeated near the very border of 
E. Their devastations broke up the remnants of the 
Hittite empire in Syria and made Palestine more 
insecure than ever for the Egyptians. 

10. The Libyan Régime (945-712 B.c.). The New 
Kingdom now gave place to foreign domination, 
which lasted from the twenty-second to the twenty- 
fifth dynasty. The founder of the new order was 
Sheshonk (Shishak, cf. I K 14 25 ft.) (945-c.924 B.c.), 
a Libyan who had been commander of the army. It 
was he who gave shelter to Jeroboam as a fugitive 
from King Solomon. But in the reigns of Jeroboam 
and Rehoboam he made a raid upon the two king- 














203 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Egypt 





doms of Israel. Altho Jerusalem was occupied and 
plundered, the Egyptians soon disappeared. Not 
long thereafter, the Ethiopians began the invasion 
which made them masters of the whole of E. The 
end of the Libyan régime found 20 independent 
princes in the Delta. These were subdued by 
Pianchi, the Ethiopian king, who wisely left to them 
their petty realms on condition of vassalage. Hence 
the twenty-third and twenty-fourth dynasties are 
named after Egyptian kings. But the twenty-fifth 
under Sabako, grandson of Pianchi, is titularly 
Ethiopian (712-663 B.c.). 

11. Ethiopian Dynasty. The princes of the Delta 
accordingly followed the lead of the Ethiopians 
altho seeming often to act an independent part. 
Thus one of them, named Seve (‘So,’ II K 17 4) 
allied himself with the Philistines of Gaza and 
Hoshea of Israel against Assyria. As a result 
however, E. narrowly escaped invasion. When the 
Assyrian Sennacherib came against Palestine (701 
B.c.) his first attempt resulted only in the destruc- 
tion of outlying cities and villages, but failed to 
take Jerusalem. In what appears to have been a 
second attempt upon the city the Ethiopian Tirhaka 
q.v. (afterwards king 688-663 B.c.) marched to the 
relief of Hezekiah, King of Judah, and was defeated, 


12. Assyrian Domination. But Tirhaka remained 
a constant obstacle to Assyria until Esarhaddon, son 
of Sennacherib, carried the war into Africa, and in 670 
B.C. annexed the country as far as Thebes. A rebellion 
against his successor, Asshurbanipal, was put down 
with great severity. Thebes was taken (661 B.c.) 
and met with a cruel fate at the hands of the Assyr- 
jans (cf. Nah 38 ff.). A final defeat in Nubia itself 
made an end of the Ethiopian dynasty. The 
Assyrian triumph was promoted by Necho I, a 
powerful prince of the Delta, who after the flight and 
death of Tirhaka went over to the conquerors. But 
the son of Necho, Psamtik(Psammetichus 1), with the 
help of troops sent by Gyges, King of Lydia, rebelled 
against Assyria, and by 645 B.c. Asshurbanipal had 
to relinquish E. where his people had been in control 
&@ quarter of a century. 

13. Revival of Native Rule. Thus Psammetichus 
(663-609) became the founder of the twenty-sixth 
dynasty, under which the power of E. revived 
greatly. He and his successor, Necho II, (609-593) 


_ favored the immigration of Greek settlers and 


developed a great maritime commerce. The decline 
of Assyria encouraged the hope that E. might 
found a new Asiatic empire. Just after the fall of 
Nineveh (612 B.c.), Necho struck into Palestine 
and Syria (608 B.c.). Josiah of Judah, as a vassal 
of Assyria, intercepted his march and was slain at 
Megiddo. His kingdom came under Egyptian con- 
trol. Syria was also soon subdued by Necho. But 
the whole country had to be given up after his de- 
feat at Carchemish (604 B.c.) by Nebuchadrezzar, 
the Chaldean crown prince. Yet Egyptian intrigues 


‘in Asia were still continued. Jehoiakim of Judah, 


once an Egyptian vassal, and the last king, Zedekiah, 
were induced to revolt against Babylon. The prom- 
ised help was precarious, and the two captivities of 
Judah were the result. Some time after the fall of 
Jerusalem, E. was overrun by Nebuchadrezzar (ef. 


Jer 45 13 f.), but was not long occupied by him. 
Generally E. prospered until after the rise of Persia 
under Cyrus the Great. In his time Amasis (Ahmes 
II) was on the throne. To check the progress of 
Cyrus he made a futile league with Croesus, King of 
oe and Nabonidus, the last native king of Baby- 
on. 

14. Persian Régime, Followed by Brief Native 
Rule. Cambyses, son of Cyrus, subdued E. and 
Ethiopia in 525. The Persian dominion thus es- 
tablished lasted for more than 100 years. The great 
statesman Darius Hystaspes (521-486) tried with 
success to administer E. on its old religious and, lo- 
cally, on its old political lines. A few revolts at inter- 
vals failed; but an outbreak against Darius II in 
414 made the country once more independent. It 
maintained itself under three nominal dynasties 
(twenty-eighth to thirtieth) till the vigorous Artax- 
erxes III of Persia (Ochus) subdued it after a des- 
perate struggle (about 349 B.c.). The brief reigns 
of Ochus and Darius Codomannus are reckoned as 
the thirty-first dynasty. 


15. Egypt Hellenized. Alexander of Macedon, 
after the final defeat of Darius (331), went over into 
E. With the founding of Alexandria he established 
also that Hellenic culture which tolerated and at 
length superseded the old Egyptian civilization. 
Hence when E. again became independent under the 
Ptolemies (323-31 3B.c.) its ancient form and spirit 
were changed forever. 


16. Religion of Egypt. The religion of E. is in 
its early stages very obscure. It is also mysterious 
all though the dynastic ages. The basis of the pop- 
ular religion was, as elsewhere, partly animistic and 
partly mythological. The former element is rela- 
tively much stonger than in the purely Semitic relig- 
ions. That is to say, the worship of spirits—in men 
and animals —had practically more sway than had 
the personification of objects of nature, as in myths 
of the sun-god, darkness, clouds, and rain, or in the 
deification of the hidden powers residing in trees or 
rivers and fountains or in haunted or uncanny 
neighborhoods. Thus the doctrine of immortal- 
ity early took hold of the people and gave charac- 
ter to their religion everywhere. The polythe- 
ism of E.—originally to a great extent a polyde- 
monism—arose from the combination of many 
local cults. This in its turn was due to the po- 
litical alliance and ultimate union of the ‘nomes’ 
or the districts into which the country was very 
early divided (§ 4). Further back we see in each 
of the surviving divinities a tribal deity which 
was doubtless in many cases the totem of a family or 
clan. At the other extreme we see how Ptah, the 
deity of Memphis, became, with the rise of that city, 
a great national god; and a like honor was conferred 
later upon Amon as the god of Thebes'(‘No-amon,’ 
Jer 46 25; cf. Nah 3 8). Again, the various leading 
deities are grouped about one or the other of the two 
imperial gods Ra and Osiris; the one giving and con- 
trolling life, the other ruling the world of the dead. 
Along with those four was Hapi, the god of the Nile. 
Other famous deities, not easily classified, were 
Horus, Hathor, Nest, Isis, and Set. The rampant 
animism of the religion is shown in the prevailing 


Egypt, River of 
Election 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


204 


er 





notions as to human existence. Besides the soul, 
the spirit, and the shadow of the man, there was the 
most important of all, his Ka, or ‘double.’ The coun- 
terpart of each individual was held to survive with 
him after death as long as the body remained incor- 
rupt. Hence the need and practise of embalming 
the dead. The various divinities were worshiped, 
we may presume, partly as emblems, partly as sur- 
vivals of primitive totem superstition, and partly 
because certain sacred objects, beneficent or malefi- 
cent, had to be propitiated. The religion of Egypt, 
like its language and political system, was too sin- 
gular and unsympathetic to exercise any appreciable 
influence on the people of any other country or race. 


LiITBRATURE: The most useful general works on Egypt are 
Erman, Aegypten u. aegyptisches Leben, 1885 (Eng. tr., 
Egyptian Life, 1894, a new ed. in German is now appearing 
in parts under the editorship of H. Ranke); and Baedeker’s 
Handbook (7th ed., 1914). Excellent histories have been 
written by Ed. Meyer, 1887; Wiedemann, 1891 (valuable 
for O T study); Petrie, 1894, 1896; Breasted, A History 
of Egypt; also an abridged ed. under the title A History of the 
Ancient Egyptians (1908, new ed., 1922). Also see his His- 
torical Records of Egypt, 5 vols., 1906-7; Budge, A Short His- 
tory of the Egyptian People (1914); and for the earliest period, 
The Cambridge Ancient History, vols. I (1928) and II (1924). 

There are also two good primers of Egypt, one by Wendel, 
1887, and the other by Murison, in Bible Class Primers, 1902. 
The articles by Crum in DB and W. M. Miiller in FB are 
very valuable summaries. All these have much to say about 
the religion and art of Egypt. The latter is dealt with in 
the special work of Perrot and Chipiez, Histoire de UArt, 


vol. I, 1882. J. F. McC.—R. W. R. 

EGYPT, RIVER OF. See River or Eaypr. 

EGYPTIAN, THE: The Egyptian Jew mentioned 
in Ac 21 38 is also mentioned by Josephus (Ant. XX 
8 6, BJ II 13 5), who gives more details with some 
minor differences (e.g., 30,000 followers vs. 4,000 in 
Ac); but as Jos. is not altogether consistent with 
himself in his two accounts, the significance of the 
divergence between him and Ac should not be 
exaggerated. E. E. N. 

EHI, i’hai (M8, ’éhz): The ancestor of a Benjamite 
clan (Gn 46 21). _But the text here is corrupt and 
should be changed according to Nu 26 38 f., so that 
for Ehi we should read Ahiram (q.v.). E. E. N. 

EHUD, i’hod (M8, ’éhidh), ‘strong’: 1. A great- 
grandson of Benjamin (I Ch 7 10, 86). 2. A son of 
Gera, a left-handed Benjamite leader of Israel, one 
of the earlier judges. He delivered Israel from the 
oppression of Eglon, the Moabite tyrant (Jg 3 15-4 a : 
by assassinating him. 

EKER, i’kar (RY, ‘éger): A grandson of Jerah- 
meel (I Ch 2 27). 

EKRON, ek’ran (])7P¥, ‘egrén), gentilic Ek- 
ronite (Jos 13 3): The northernmost of the five chief 
cities of the Philistines, Map III, C 5. In the division 
of the land under Joshua it was assigned to Judah 
(Jos 15 45), but also later to Dan (Jos 19 43), but it 
never was possessed by Israel. It was about 25 m. 
SW. of Jerusalem and 9 m. from the sea (mod. Akir). 
It had a shrine of Baalzebub (II K 1 2, 3, 6), where the 
Ack of J’ was for a time held by the Philistines 
(IS 510, 616). The city is mentioned in the Egyptian 
records as a Canaanite town captured by Thotmes 
ITI (c. 1475 B.c.). In the Assyrian inscriptions, how- 
ever, from Sennacherib and later (cf. Schrader, 
COT, II, 164), its kings are often named. A.C. Z. 


EL, ELI: The Hebrew 7%, ’él, means God, i.e., 
deity. It is frequently a part of compound proper 
names, in some instances prefixed, in others post- 
fixed to the other element. It is often found in the 
form ’éli, e.g., Eliab (see also Abi, names with) 
which may mean ‘my God is father’ or simply ‘God 
is father’-—the i being merely connective. These 
names express a great variety of relations. See 
Gray, Hebrew Proper Names, and the article Names 
in EB, 24-39. E. E. N. 


ELA, i’la (82%, ’ela’; Elah AV): The father of 


Shimei, one of Solomon’s prefects (I K 4 is). 
ELADAH, el’a-da. See ELEADAH. 


ELAH, i'la (728, ’élah): I. 1. The son and suc- 
cessor of Baasha, King of Israel (I K 16 6-14). After a 
reign of a little more than a year he was murdered 
while in a state of intoxication by Zimri, one of the 
officers of his army. 2. One of the chiefs (‘dukes’ AV) 
of Edom (Gn 36 41). 3. The father of Shimei (I K 4 
18). 4. The father of Hoshea, last king of Israel (II K 
15 30). 5. Ason of Caleb, the son of Jephunneh (I Ch 
415). 6. A Benjamite (I Ch 9 8). 

II. A valley where David slew Goliath (I 8 17 2), 
near Shocoh, Map II, D1. A. C. Z. 


ELAM, i’lam (Dy Y, lam), Babyl. EHlamtu, Gr. 
"EAvupats, Hlymais: 1. The Hebrew name of a region 
lying to the E. of Babylonia and extending, in the 
days of its greatest prosperity, well up into the lower 
ranges of the mountains of Media to the NE., and 
along the Persian Gulf to the borders of the ancient 
Persis in the 8. The chief divisions were E. proper 
in the N., and Anzan or Anshan in the §., the latter 
at first being an independent kingdom, then long 
incorporated with E., and finally annexed by the 
rising power of Persia (about 600 B.c.; cf. Jer49 34 f.), 
Cyrus the Great being hereditary ‘Prince of Anshan.’ 
The capital of E. was Susa (Shushan, q.v.). The 
Elamites were a non-Semitic people of uncertain 
racial affiliation. In Gn 10 22 they are called children 
of Shem, apparently on account of their close rela- 


tions with the Babylonians (see Arpachshad, under 


ETHNOGRAPHY AND ErHNoLoey, § 18). 

E. was normally a rival of Babylonia, and in 
2280 B.c. under Kudur-Nanhundi reduced the latter 
to subjection, occupied the country, and gained 
therewith the suzerainty of the western Semites (cf. 
Gn 141 #.). This dominion was subverted by a 
subject prince, the great Hammurabi (Amraphel 
Gn 141 ?), about 2120 B.c., and the Elamites never 
again became lords of all Babylonia. After the 
Assyrians began to subdue Babylonia E. was drawn 
into sympathy with the latter for self-preservation, 
and became for a time its steadfast ally. With the 
complete subversion of Babylonian autonomy by 
the Assyrian Ashurbanipal E. fell a prey to the 
conqueror (645 B.c.). Susa was taken, and many of 
the people deported to Samaria (Ezr 49f.). Upon 
the breaking up of the Assyrian empire N. Elam 
fell to the Medes, and Anshan, as already mentioned, 
to the Persians. In Is 21 2 E. is made equivalent to 
the rising kingdom of Persia. . 

J. F. McC.—L. B. P. 


II. 1. A son of Shem (Gn 10 22; I Ch 117), ances- 


tor of the Elamites (see 1, above). 2. A Benjamite 


| 


205 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Egypt, River of 
Election 





(I Ch 8 24). 3. A Korahite doorkeeper of the time 
of David (I Ch 26 3). 4. The name of a family, of 
which 1,254 returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 27; Neh 
7 12) and 71 with Ezra (Ezr 87). One of this family 
urged Ezra to put an end to mixed marriages (Ezr 
10 2); as a result, six of the family put away their 
wives (Ezr 10 26). In Neh 1014 a chief of the family, 
who sealed the covenant. 5. ‘The other Elam’ 
(Ezr 2 31; Neh 7 34), probably the same as 4. 6. A 
priest who assisted in the dedication of the wall of 
Jerusalem (Neh 12 42). _C. Sail’, 

ELASAH, el’a-sa. See Evpasan. 

ELATH, iloth (N?°S, ’élath), also ELOTH: A 
town on the NE. arm of the Red Sea (cf. I K 9 26). 
The name, meaning ‘palms’ or ‘oaks’ (7.e., large 
sacred trees), probably indicates that it was a very 
ancient seat of worship. By El Paran (Gn 146) and 
Elah (Gn 36 41) perhaps the same place is meant. 
Its commercial importance, which lasted through the 
Roman period, is attested by the notices inI K 9 26; 
II K 14 22, 16 6 (where read ‘Edomites’ for ‘Syr- 
ians’). From the Greek names AiAdy, Aidd&y, etc., 
due to the Aram. ’tlané (=Heb. ’élath), comes the 
name of the Allanitic Gulf. The modern name is 
‘Akabah. See Guthe, PRE?, vol. 5, pp. 285-287. 

K. E.N. 


* EL-BERITH, el’’-bi’rith. See Baat-Berira. 


\ 


EL-BETHEL, el-beth’el. See Bruen. 

ELDAAH, el-dé’a (TY TP, ’elda‘ah): The ancestor 
of a Midianite tribe (Gn 25 4; I Ch 133). See also 
ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. 

ELDAD, el’dad (T7198, ’eldadh), ‘God is a friend’: 
One of the two elders who exercised the prophetic 
gifts thought to be the exclusive privilege of Moses 
(Nu 11 26 f.). While there doing so was an occasion 
of suspicion to others, Moses rejoiced in it. 


ELDER: The unit of primitive Semitic society 
was the clan, or large family, whose eldest represen- 
tatives constituted the ruling element of the clan. In 
primitive Israel the elders of the clans represented 
the nation as a whole. When Israel conquered 
Canaan and adopted the agricultural mode of life, it 
was an easy transition for the clan-elders to become 
the elders of the city or town communities, which 
were composed (at first) mainly of members of the 
same clan. It was this fundamental element of the 
ancient Hebrew society that formed the basis of the 
later extension of the significance of the term to in- 
dicate the chief men of a community, the wise men, 
the leading men of the synagog, or of the local 
church, the influential leaders of the Jewish nation, 
etc. See Cuurcn, §§ 3, 8; Crry, § 5; Famity anp 
Famity Law, §§ 4, 8; Ispart, Soctan DrEvELoP- 
MENT OF, §§ 13, 26, 27, 31, 32; and Law anp 
Leeat Practise, §§ 1 (1), 2 (1). E. E. N. 


ELEAD, el’-1-ad (1Y?8, ’el‘adh), ‘God has wit- 
nessed’ or ‘God is witness’ (I Ch 7 20 f.): The passage 
1s very interesting—a specimen of the fragments of 
ancient folk-lore which occur here and there in the 
genealogical lists of the O T. E. was evidently an 
Ephraimitic clan that was destroyed by the men 
of Gath—probably in the days of the Judges, its 
fate causing great sorrow inthe tribe. E.E.N. 


ELEADAH, el’i-0’da (71Y?8, ’el‘adhah): The 
head of an Ephraimite family (I Ch 7 20; Eladah 
AV; cf. Exrap). 

ELEALEH, i’li-d’le or 8/le-d'le (M292, ’el‘alzh): 
A town of Moab, near Heshbon. Map II, J1. It 
became the possession of the Reubenites at the time 
of the Conquest (Nu 32 3, 37), but the Moabites after- 
ward reoccupied it (Is 15 4, 169; Jer 48 34). 

EK. E. N. 

ELEASAH, el’’1-é’sa (mipy' ars, ’el‘Gsah). More 
correctly Elasah, ‘God has made’ or ‘done’: 1. An 
official under King Zedekiah, entrusted with a mes- 
sage to Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 29 3). 2. A descendant 
of Judah (I Ch 2 39). 3. A descendant of Jonathan 
(I Ch 8 37, 9 43). 4. One of the ‘sons of Pashhur’ 
who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 10 22). 


ELEAZAR, el’’1-é’zor (IY ?8, ’el‘Gzdr), ‘God has 
helped’: 1. The third son (Ex 3 23) and successor of 
Aaron in the high-priestly office (Nu 20 25 ff.) which 
he held under Moses and Joshua (Jos 24 33). 2. Ason 
of Abinadab, appointed guardian of the Ark of the 
Covenant in the days of Samuel (IS 71#.). 3. Ason 
of Dodai the Ahohite and one of David’s three heroes 
(II S 289). 4. One of the sons of Merari of the tribe 
of Levi (I Ch 23 21). 5. A priest and musician in 
Nehemiah’s time (Neh 12 42). 6. A priest in Ezra’s 
time (Ezr 8 33). 7. One of the ‘sons of Parosh’ who 
had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 10 25). 8. One of the 
ancestors of Joseph, the husband of Mary (Mt 115). 


ELECT. See Execrion; also Prter, Firsr 
Epistte oF, §§ 2, 3. 


ELECTION: The religion of revelation regards 
God as active from the beginning and throughout 
the whole course of history. The notion that man 
has been employed, on the religious side, in seeking 
out an otiose deity or that deity is a universal im- 
personal principle, to discover which is the acme of 
human effort, has no place in the whole course of his- 
tory described by the Bible. There God is constantly 


presented as the One whose action is the cause of re- 


ligious experiences, as truly as of the natural world 
itself. That human nature is active, too, goes with- 
out saying. But this human activity, the life of a free 
spiritual being, does not abolish, it merely deter- 
mines the form of the Divine action. Hence the 
fully developed view of God in the later prophets of 
the O T looks upon Him as the actual Lord of all 
peoples. Egypt and Assyria no less than Israel and 
Judah, a Pharaoh (Gn 41 25-32; Ex 61, 73) and Cyrus 
(Is 44 28, 451) no less than Moses and David, are the 
servants of His will. But this universal authority 
and power of God are not characterized by mere 
sameness of interest and operation toward all. The 
Divine will defines its purpose with each race and 
with each man. This definiteness of God’s will, this 
selective action, has appeared most clearly along one 
central line of history, viz., in His dealings with Is- 
rael and above all in the person and gospel of Jesus 
Christ. The will of God is set forth as the continu- 
ous working out of a purpose of grace, which at last 
is to include all nations within its sweep (Gn 12 3; Is 
45 6, 49 1-7, 66 19; Mal 1 11; Acts 3 24 f.; Gal 3 8, etc.). 
But, as in the consummation God’s grace must ap- 


Election 
Eliasaph 


A NEW STANDARD 
prehend and perfect each man, so in its whole his- 
torical course it operates deliberately, selectively. 
It is God’s will which directs all the steps 
toward that far-off goal. 

1. Inthe O T. These steps appear, as to the O T, 
(1) in the choice of a people through whom the end 
is to be achieved (Dt 4 37, 7 6-8, 10 15, 14.2; I K 3 8; 
Is 141; Hag 2 4, 5). Hence Israel is even called ‘my 
chosen’ (Is 421, 45 4, 659, 22), and we speak of them 
as ‘the Chosen People.’ (2) In the choice within that 
people of individuals, etc., as the special organs of 
revelation or execution of the Divine purpose (as 
kings, 1S 10 24, 1213; ITS 6 21; I K 8 16; I Ch 285, 
291; prophets, 1S 348.; 1s 68,9; Jer 14 #.; Ezk 21-3; 
Am 7 15; place of worship, Dt 12 11; etc.). (8) In the 
dealings of God with each soul, as to its own rela- 
tions to Him. This aspect of experience is of course 
described with special fulness in the Psalter and in 
Jeremiah. There the sense of relationship with J” 
is always as of one who depends wholly upon the 
Divine righteousness, mercy, and encompassing wis- 
dom and power. 

The idea of the Divine initiative is expressed by 
the use of two words, bahar, ‘to choose,’ and gara’, 
‘to call’; the one looking at the matter from the side 
of God’s will and the other from the side of that 
overt act in which His will becomes known to the 
human mind. But some of the references given 
above, especially as to the prophets, show that this 
Divine initiative is often most powerfully set forth, 
where neither word is used, but where the circum- 
stances are stated through which the Divine will 
became manifest. 

In the N T this aspect of God’s relations to men is, 
if possible, made still more prominent. Again, two 
words are used to describe the fact in its two ele- 
ments, of choice (éxAé¢yecbat, éxAoyn, éxAextbs) and 
call (xaAetv, xATatc, xANTS>). 

2. Teaching of Jesus. Of Jesus it is never said 
that He was ‘called,’ except in a quotation (Mt 2 15; 
ef. Hos 111). But He is said to have been chosen 
(Lk 9 35; cf. I Pet 2 4). Jesus again is said to have 
both chosen (Lk 613; Jn 670, 13 18, 15 16, 19) and called 
(Mt 4 21; Mk 1 20) His disciples. The famous saying 
‘Many are called [‘invited,’ Moffatt] but few chosen’ 
(Mt 22 14) is so difficult because it seems to contrast 
the words in a manner quite unparalleled in Scrip- 
ture. Our Lord says of Himself that He came to call 
sinners to repentance (Mt 913 and ||). In His parables 
He freely represents God as inviting (or calling) men 
into the kingdom, under the picture of a host inviting 
his guests (Mt 22 1-14; Lk 14 7-24). This call some 
accept and some even contemptuously reject. As a 
whole, the teaching of Jesus represents God as mov- 
ing toward every human soul to whom salvation 
comes. There is no suggestion (unless we so inter- 
pret Lk 15 17) that the initiative is to be found in 
the human heart. 

3. Pauline Usage. When we turn to the Epistles 
we find that the words under discussion have as- 
sumed an almost startling importance. For the 
apostolic consciousness two facts stand out above 
all others: that in Christ God has saved the world, 
and that every individual believer in Christ has been 
directly approached, and dealt with, by this deter- 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 206 


minate will and authoritative purpose of God. The 
idea of the Divine initiative reaches its climax here. 
The whole work of determining a man’s salvation, in 
its method, inception, and outcome, is in the hands of 
the living God. No man can account for it, either as 
a universal gospel or a personal experience. It flows 
from the inexplicable nature of mercy. Hence, when 
speaking out of this new consciousness, the obvious 
words are that a man has been ‘called’ of God and, 
if called, he has beyond doubt been ‘chosen.’ The 
‘called’ are those who have responded to the call; on 
calling there follows not only hearing but obedience, 
for from the point of view of experience ‘calling,’ 
like justification (Rom 8 30), is a presupposition of 
his Christian sonship which the believer can not but 
recognize as he looks back. The familiar and fluent 
terms begin to assume a technical character quite 
naturally and inevitably. Those who are in Christ 
are ‘the called’ (xAntof, Ro 1 6,7, 8 28; I Co 11, 2; 


- Jude ver. 1; Rev 17 14), and ‘elect’ (éxAextol, Ro 


8 33, 1613; Col 3 12; Tit 11; 1 P11, 29; II Jn vs. 

1, 13; Rev 17 14); and derivatives are used for the 

Divine act and the resulting human condition 

(éxAoyh, Ac 9 15; Ro 911; II P 1 10; xAjorc, Ro 

11 29; I Co 1 26; Eph 41, 4; He 31; IT P 110). There 

is in the N T no attempt to discuss the metaphysics 

of this view of the relations of God and man. Once 
the idea of election is carried up into eternity (Eph - 

1 4), and thus for later minds the great and anxious 

problem was raised. It is taken for granted through- 

out the whole of Scripture that the call of God can 
be and is rejected by the choices of men. The 
election is conditioned by its material. Nowhere 
does this appear more clearly than in the Apostle’s 
profound and passionate discussion of the position 

of Israel after the rejection of Christ (Ro chs. 9-11). 

Here alone, if anywhere in the N T—for ‘reprobate’ 

means simply ‘incurably bad’—the idea of election 

to something other than life and blessing may 
possibly be found. The original election seems to 
have been frustrated, the Divine will overthrown. 

Not so, the Apostle affirms. The Divine will must 

reach its end, if not in one way, then in another. The 

material may be recalcitrant, but it can not finally 
defeat that eternal wisdom and power. Thus we are 
brought face to face with theological attempts to 
understand the fact of election in its relation to the 
fact of freedom. Compare the article PREDESTINA- 

TION. 

LireERATURE: For fuller list see HDB, article Predestination, 
also articles, Election (by Dr. J. O. F. Murray) and Reproba- 
tion (by Dr. J. Denney). Vischer’s article on Predestination 
in Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart, vol. IV, is also 
useful. On the N T, Sanday and Headlam on Romans 
(pp. 225-350) in ICC, is indispensable. See also the various 
works on N T Theology by Weiss (Eng. transl.), Holtzmann, 
Stevens, Weincl, Feine (3d ed., 1919); also Bruce, St. Paul’s 
Conception of Christianity, ch. 17; Ed. Reuss, Hist. de la 
Théol. Chrétienne, livre V, ch. 12; and Otto, The Idea of the 
Holy (1924), ch. 11. W. D. M. 


ELECT LADY. See Joun, Episrins or, § 7. 

EL - ELOHE - ISRAEL, el” - el’ 0- hi - iz’ ra - el 
Ose abd ss by), ‘God, the God of Israel’: The 
name of an altar near Shechem, whose erection was 
ascribed in Israel’s tradition to the patriarch Jacob 
(Gn 33 20). 

EL, ELYON. See Mosr Hiax. 





207 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Election 
Eliasaph 





ELEMENT, ELEMENTS (ororyeiov, literally 
‘belonging to a row’ [ototyoc], pl. ctoryeia, ‘the 
letters of the alphabet,’ the ‘A B C’ [elements] 
of anything): (1) In II P 3 10, 12, the reference is 
probably to the physical elements. Others, how- 
ever, prefer here (3) below. (2) In He 5 12 the phrase 
Tx ototyela tHS aexts is translated by AV ‘the 
first principles,’ and by RV more literally, ‘the 
rudiments of the first principles.’ Since the reference 
is to ‘the oracles of God,’ these translations are 
practically correct, altho ‘primary elements’ would 
be simpler. (8) In Gal 4 3, 9 (elements AV rudi- 
ments RV), and Col 2 8, 20 (rudiments AV and 
RY), the sense is more doubtful. In recent years it 
has usually been explained as a reference to those 
elemental spirits which, according to conceptions 
found in a few late Jewish writings, animated 
everything, especially the heavenly bodies, according 
to whose movements the feasts and seasons of both 
Jew and Gentile were calculated. (See especially 
Deissmann in HB) This meaning of otoryeioy is 
favored by the fact that the word is used by By- 
zantine writers for ‘genius,’ ‘talisman,’ etc., and has 
survived in modern Greek with the sense ‘ghost,’ 
‘spook,’ ‘sprite,’ ‘fairy,’ etc. But Burton in IC C., 
Galatians (pp. 510-518) holds that the phrase, ‘the 
elements of the world’ should be interpreted as ‘the 
rudimentary religious teachings possessed by therace.’ 
That is, the Jewish system which the Galatians are 
being urged to adopt is like the idol worship which 
they have given up, only fitted for the infancy of 
the race. But while it is true that no exact parallel 
for tx orotyeta in the sense of deities or other like 
beings can be adduced from the literature of the 
first century, the whole atmosphere of the time and 
the general religious ideas of Paul make it likely 
that he would use the phrase in some such sense. 
His belief in a hierarchy of intermediate spiritual 
beings can be seen from Ro 8 38; I Co 2 6-8, 8 4-6, 
10 20 ff., 15 24 f., 40; Eph 1 21, 2 2, 310; Col 116, 2 15. 

In Gal 4 3,9 Paul apparently refers to the bondage 
of the Jew to the Law and therefore to the angels 
by whom it was ordained (3 19), and of the Gentiles 
to their heathen divinities who ‘by nature are no 
gods’ (4 8), and in comparison with the true God 
are ‘weak and beggarly’ (ver. 9). 

Similarly in Col 2 8, 20 the ctotysia are angelic 
beings who are contrasted with Christ (the ‘princi- 
palities and powers’ of vs. 10 and 15) and whom per- 
haps the Colossians were in danger of mistakenly 
worshiping (ver. 18). S. D.—E. C. L. 


ELEPH, i'lef (1288, ’eleph, with article): A town 
in Benjamin, mentioned just before Jerusalem (Jos 
18 28). Probably the modern Lifia, about 2 m. 
NW. of Jerusalem. Gust, 


ELEVEN. See Arosrie. 


ELHANAN, el-hé’non (1928, ’elhdndn), ‘God is 
gracious’: 1. A son of Jair, a Bethlehemite, who 
slew Goliath the Gittite (II S 2119). InI Ch 205 the 
text has been altered, apparently to avoid contra- 
dicting I S ch. 17. 2. Another Bethlehemite, also 
one of David’s heroes, son of Dodo (II S 23 24; 
1Ch 11 26), perhaps the same as 1, since the reference 


of both to Bethlehem awakens suspicion. See also 
GOLIATH. EK. E. N. 
ELI, i'lai coy, li), ‘high’: The priest of the 
important Sanctuary at Shiloh, in Samuel’s child- 
hood (IS chs. 1-4), reckoned in the late genealogies 
to the line of Ithamar (cf. I Ch 24 1-3). He com- 
bined with his priestly office that of judge. No facts 
of his earlier life are recorded. He appears in the 
composite narrative of chs. 1-4 (see SAMUEL, 
Booxs or, § 3) in different lights—favorable in 
chs. 1 and 4, less so in chs. 2 and 3. There were 
doubless many priests at many different sanctuaries 
in Israel in Eli’s day, and the story of the rejection 
of Eli’s ‘house’ as it stands in chs. 2-3 is a late 
working up of fragments of early tradition to en- 
force the legitimacy of the priestly line of Zadok 
vs. that of Abiathar (Eli’s heir). 
A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 


ELI, ELI, LAMA SABACHTHANI. 
Exo1, LAMA SABACHTHANI. 


ELIAB, i-lai’ab (28°78, ’lr’abh), ‘God is father’: 
1. A son of Helon, a Zebulonite leader (Nu 1 9, 2 7, 
etc.). 2. A son of Pallu, and father of Dathan and 
Abiram, a Reubenite (Nu 161, 12). 3. The eldest 
son of Jesse and brother of David (IS 166). 4. A 
Levite musician (I Ch 15 18, 20). 5. A Gadite war- 
rior in the reign of David (I Ch 129). 6. An ancestor 
of Samuel the prophet, son of Nathan the Kohathite, 
also called Eliel in I Ch 6 34, and Elihu in IS 11. 


ELIADA, ELIADAG, 1-lai’s-da, -da (Y VPN, ’elya- 
dha‘), ‘God knows’: 1. A son of David (II S 5 16; 
I Ch 38), called Beeliada in I Ch 147 (since Baal was 
used in the sense of God at one time in Israel, Baali- 
ada may have been the original form). 2. The father 
of Rezon of Zobah (I K 11 23). 3. A Benjamite chief 
captain in Jehoshaphat’s time (II Ch 17 17). 

E. E. N 


See Exot, 


ELIAH, 1-lai’a. See Exisau, 2. 

ELIAHBA, i’lai-d’bo (N272?8, ’elyahda’), ‘God 
hides’: One of David’s heroes (II S 23 32; I Ch 
11 33). 

ELIAKIM, 1-lai’s-kim (0°P2?8, ’elyagim), ‘God 
establishes: 1. A son of Hilkiah and steward of the 
palace under Hezekiah (II K 18 18; Is 86 3, 37 2). 2. 
A son of Josiah, whom Pharaoh Necho put on the 
throne of Judah after the death of Josiah, changing 
his name to Johoiakim (q.v., cf. II K 23 34). 3. A 
priest in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 12 41). 4. An 
ancestor of Joseph, the husband of Mary (Mt 1 13). 
5. An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 30). 


ELIAM, 1-lai’am (02°28, ’élc‘am), ‘God is kins- 
man’: 1. The father of Bath-sheba (II S 11 3), the 
same as Ammiel (I Ch 35). 2. A son of Ahithophel 
the Gilonite, and one of David’s thirty heroes (IIS 
23 34); possibly the same as 1. This identity may 
explain the disloyalty of Ahithophel. Ce Saka 


ELIAS, 1-lai’as. See Exiyan. 
ELIASAPH, v-lai/a-saf (19228, ’elydsaph), ‘God 
adds’: 1. One of the census-takers, representing 


the tribe of Gad (Nu 1 14, etc.). 2. The head of the 
Gershonite Levites (Nu 3 24). 


Eliashib 
Elisha 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


208 





ELIASHIB, i-lai’a-shib (298, ’elyashibh), ‘God 
brings back,’ or ‘God returns’: 1. The ancestral 
head of a priestly family in the reign of David (I 
Ch 2412). 2. A son of Elioenai, and descendant of 
the royal line of Zerubbabel (I Ch 3 24). 3. The high 
priest in the days of Nehemiah (Neh 31, 20f., 13 4,7). 
4. A Levite singer who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 
10 24). 5. One of the ‘sons of Zattu’ who had taken 
a foreign wife (Ezr 10 27). 6. One of the ‘sons of 
Bani’ who had taken a foreign wife (Ezr 10 36). 7. 
The father of Jehohanan (Ezr 10 6), probably iden- 
tical with 3. 

ELIATHAH, v-lai’e-tha (TON?8, '8h’athah), 
‘God comes’: The ancestral head of one of the 
courses of Temple singers (I Ch 25 4, 27) 

ELIDAD, 1-lai’dad (1128, ’élidhadh), ‘God has 
loved’ (or ‘God is uncle’?): The representative of 
Benjamin in the allotment of tribal lands (Nu 34 21). 

ELIEHOENAI, -lai1-ho’a-nai CPYIMPS, ’ely*ho- 
‘énay), ‘to J’’ are my eyes,’ a proper name of frequent 
occurrence in the postexilic lists of Ch, Ezr, Neh: 
In most instances the form is Elioenai, once Elienai 
(I Ch 8 20). The passages designate: 1. One of the 
descendants of David through Zerubbabel (I Ch 3 
23f.). 2. The head of a Simeonite family (I Ch 4 36). 
3. The ancestral head of a Benjamite family (I Ch 
78). 4. The ancestral head of a Benjamite family 
(I Ch 8 20). 5. The son of Meshelemiah (I Ch 26 3). 
6. A priest who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 22 
=Neh 12 41). 7. A leader of 200 of the ‘sons of 
Pahath-moab,’ who returned with Ezra from Baby- 
lon (Ezr 8 4). 8. One of the ‘sons of Zattu’ who 
married a foreign wife (Er 10 27). E. E. N. 

ELIEL, 1-lai’el (78°78, ’él7’él), ‘El is God,’ or ‘my 
God is El’: 1. A chief of the half-tribe of Manasseh, 
E. of the Jordan (I Ch 5 24). 2. A Kohathite (I Ch6 
24) =Eliab (I Ch 6 27)=Elihu (I § 1 1), the great- 
grandfather of Samuel. 3, 4. Two chiefs of Ben- 
jamin (I Ch 8 20, 22). 5, 6, 7. Three of David’s 
mighty men (I Ch 11 46 f£., 12 11). 8. A Levite who 
assisted in bringing the Ark from the house of Obed- 
Edom to Jerusalem (I Ch 159, 11). 9. A Levite in 
the time of Hezekiah (II Ch 31 13). O25 aL: 

ELIENAI, el’-i/nai. See ELIEHOENAI. 

ELIEZER, i’lai-i’zer (AIy??k, *éli‘ezer), ‘God is 
helper’: 1. A native of Damascus who was the stew- 
ard of Abraham (Gn 15 2). 2. The second son of 
Moses and Zipporah (Ex 18 4; ef. I Ch 23 15).3 A 
son of Dodavahu of Mareshah, a prophet of Jehovah 
in the days of Jehoshaphat (II Ch 20 37). 4. The 
head of a Benjamite family (I Ch 78). 5. One of the 
priests that accompanied the Ark on its removal to 
Jerusalem (I Ch 15 24). 6. A Reubenite ruler (I Ch 
27 16). 7. A messenger of Ezra (Ezr 8 16). 8-10. A 
priest, a Levite, and one of the ‘sons of Harim,’ each 
of whom married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 18, 23, 31). 
11. An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 29). E. E. N. 

ELIHOREPH, el’i-hd’ref (VVON, *echoreph): 
One of Solomon’s scribes or secretaries (I K 4 3). 

ELIHU, 1-lai/hia (28 [for NTS] cha), 
‘my God is he’: 1. An Ephraimite, the great-grand- 
father of Samuel (I S 11) =Eliel (I Ch 6 34) =Eliab 
(I Ch 6 27). 2. A man of Manasseh, captain of a 


thousand, who joined himself to David at Ziklag (I 
Ch 12 20). 3. A Korahite doorkeeper (I Ch 26 7). 
4. The eldest brother of David (I Ch 27 18, instead of 
Eliab, asin I§ 166). 5. The youngest of the four 
friends of Job, who speaks in chs. 32-37. Not being 
mentioned in the prolog or epilog, he and his words 
are thought by some to be a later addition to the 
Book of Job (q.v.). LOL ~ Mag by 

ELIJAH (28, ’éliyyahi, Elias in the AV of 
N T): ‘J” is God’: I. 1. Introductory. The greatest 
prophet of the N. kingdom, and the first after Moses 
to combine fervor of spiritual and ethical con- 
viction with keen insight into the practical 
bearing of it on national destiny, and hence 
eventually the preserver of Israel’s distinc- 
tiveness. The story of his unique work is con- 
tained in I K chs. 17-19, 21 17-28; II K ch. 1 f., which 
are probably excerpts from one or more fuller ac- 
counts of the period. The prophet made his ap- 
pearance before Ahab the king (876-854 B.c.). 
His message was a clear and uncompromising dec- 
laration that J’’ was the sole God of Israel, and 
paved the way for the later development of ethical 
monotheism by the great prophets of the following 
century, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah. 

2. The Sources of the History. That the Elijah 
narratives in their present form are of considerably 
later date than the prophet is hardly open to ques- 
tion. But from the fact that in one case (chs. 17-19) 
the thought of the prophet is presented as of a more 
primitive type than that of Hosea and Amos, for 
instance, as well as from some historical allusions 
(19 3), it may be inferred that the historian of this 
section was a man of the beginning of the 8th cent. 
at the latest. As to II K ch. 1f., these chapters are 
of later origin, but efforts to date them from the 
exilic period (Rosch, Stud. u. Kr., 1892), or give 
them a totally different character from I K chs. 
17-19, 21 (Well., Kuenen), are based on unsatis- 
factory reasons (cf. Kénig, Hinl., p. 266). 

3. Elijah the Man. The narratives furnish no — 
data as to E.’s ancestry or tribal connections. 
only item they give is contained in the adjective 
‘The Tishbite’ which introduces him. This makes 
him either a native or former resident of Tishbeh 
in Gilead. Later traditions assign him a priestly 
connection, but do not appear to be trustworthy. 
The rest of his biography is interwoven with the 
account of his work. 

4. The Conditions of the Time. The appearance. 
of E. on the scene coincides with a crisis in the his- 
tory of Israel. Ahab had taken for a wife Jezebel, 
the daughter of Ethbaal, King of Tyre, and ex-priest 
of Astarte. Under the demonic influence of this 
princess, he had not only introduced Baal worship 
into the realm in its most blatant form, but had gone 
to the extreme of subjecting the prophets of J” to 
bloody persecution. 

5. The Early Ministry of Elijah. The first re- 
corded act of the prophet is that of confronting the 
apostate king, charging him with his sin before J”, 
and predicting that as a consequence the land should 
suffer from a complete drought, not to be ended ex- 
cept by his word as a prophet of J’. Having ut- 
tered this prophecy, E. left the king’s presence and 


The ¥ 





209 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Eliashib 
Elisha 


lived in a deep and picturesque ravine (gorge) 
through which the brook Cherith made its way to 
the Jordan. From this refuge he removed to 
Zarephath near Zidon, where he performed the 
- miracle of perpetuating the contents of the widow’s 
jar of meal and cruse of oil, and of restoring her son 
to life. 

6. The Contest on the Kishon. On appearing 
before Ahab the second time, the prophet put an 
end to the drought, but brought about a spectacular 
and impressive contest between himself and the 
prophets of Baal, whose outcome was the exposure 
of their impotence and their slaughter. The reac- 
tion which followed this event sent the prophet into 
solitude and despondency on Mount Horeb. 

7. Later Ministry. From the retirement at Ho- 
reb E. came forth with the commission to anoint 
Hazael as king of Syria, Jehu as king of Israel, and 
Elisha as his own successor. Of these he accom- 
plished the last. He then came before Ahab for a 
third time to denounce the king’s sin in the affair 
of Naboth’s vineyard (I K 21 17-29). After Ahab’s 
death it was the prophet’s duty to rebuke Ahaziah 
for sending to Baalzebub, the god of Ekron, to in- 
quire regarding the issue of injuries received in an 
accident (II K 1 2-17). The last accounts of the 
prophet are those connected with his ascension 
(II K 2 1-11). 

8. Elijah’s Letter to Jehoram. According to II 
Ch 21 12-15, E. sent ‘a writing’ to King Jehoram of 
Judah pronouncing the judgment of J” on him for 
his failure to live up to the standard set by his an- 
cestors David, Asa, and Jehoshaphat. But as the 
ascension of EK. precedes the accession of Jehoram to 
“the throne, the statement in Chronicles must mean 
either that sucha letter was sent the king in the name 
of E., or it is based on a confusion, textual or other- 
wise. 

9. Elijah’s Place and Character. In the history 
of Hebrew prophecy, E.’s place is at the head of the 
earlier group. His method is that of the destroyer. 
His most striking characteristics are simplicity, di- 
rectness, fearlessness, and sternness. His con- 
temporaries required firm handling and unmistak- 
able language, and he gave them both. See fur- 
ther on E. in IsraArL, RELIGION or, § 13. 

10. Elijah in the N T. In the later history of 
Israel, the expectation that E. himself would re- 
turn and herald, as well as prepare, the way for the 
ideal king became an integral part of the Messianic 
hope (Mal 45f.). In the N T he is looked upon as 
the prototype of John the Baptist, whose mission 
was to break down an evil condition of things and 
restore a better one (Mt 1711). See also IsRAEL, 
RELIGION oF, § 18. 


Literature: For further discussion cf. Cornill, Proph. Isr., 
pp. 12, 15, 20, 29-36; Kittel, Hist. of Heb., 1st ed., II, pp. 
213, 266 ff., 275, 5th ed. untranslated (1922); Montefiore, 
Hibbert Lectures, p. 91 f.; Milligan, Elijah (in Men of the 
Bible Series). 


II. 1. A son of Jeroboam, a Benjamite (I Ch 8 27, 


Eliah AV). 2. One of the ‘sons of Harim,’ a priest 
a 10 21). 3. One of the ‘sons of Elam’ (Ezr 
0 26). 


ELIKA, 1-lai’ka (822%, ’8lqa’): One of David's 
heroes (II S 23 25). 


ELIM, i’lim (O98, ’élim): The second station 
of the Israelites after crossing the Red Sea (Ex 15 
27; Nu 339), identified with the Wady Ghurundel, 63 
m. from Suez and 7 m. from Ain Hawwara (Ord- 
nance Survey of Sinai, I, 151), as this is an oasis 
whose natural features agree with those described 
in the text. A. C. Z. 


ELIMELECH, +lim't-lek (122°28, ’éimelekh), 
‘God is king’: A Bethlehemite, husband of Nao- 
mi, who migrated to Moab in a time of famine, and 
died there. One of his sons married Ruth, ances 
tress of David (Ru 1 2 ff.). . 

ELIOENAI, el’’i-o-i‘nai. See ELreHoEnat. 

ELIPHAL. 1-lai’fal. See ELipHEer. 

ELIPHALET, 1-lif’a-let. See EnipHe er. 

ELIPHAZ, el’i-faz (IDO ’éliphaz), ‘God is fine 
gold’ (?): 1. In the Edomite genealogy (Gn 36 4, 10, 
15; I Ch 1 35 f.)., E. appears as the ‘son’ of Esau by 
Adah (Gn 36 4, 10), and ‘father’ of Teman and others. 
2. The first-mentioned and perhaps the oldest friend 
of Job (2 11), called ‘the Temanite.’ Teman, a dis- 
trict of Idumea (Jer 49 20), was noted for its wisdom 
(Jer 49 7). Crs. LT: 

ELIPHELEHY, vlifa-li’hi (2D, ’éliphelahi 
Elipheleh, 1-lif1-le, AV): A musician of the Temple 
choir (I Ch 15 18, 21). 

ELIPHELET, rlif/i-let (022°28, ’élzphelet), ‘God 
delivers.’ Other forms of the same name are Eliphal 
(I Ch 11 35), Eliphalet, Elpalet, and Elpelet (I Ch 
145): 1. Asonof David (IIS 516; I Ch36, 8, 145,7 
[the double occurrence is probably a mistake]). 
2. One of David’s heroes (II § 23 34; I Ch 11 35). 
3. A son of Eshek, descendant of Saul (I Ch 8 39). 
4. One of the ‘sons of Adonikam’; returned from 
Babylon with Ezra (Ezr 813). 5. One of the ‘sons 
of Hashum’ who took a foreign wife (Ezr 10 33). 

ELISABETH, 1-liz’a-beth (HietokBer, “EAtok Ber, 
WH): The wife of Zacharias (q.v.), and herself of 
priestly lineage (Lk 1 5). She was the mother of 
John the Baptist (Lk 157) anda kinswoman (ouyyevis 
Lk 1 36) of the mother of Jesus. There is nothing 
to indicate the degree of relationship. J. M. T. 

ELISEUS, el’’i-si’us. See Exiswa. 

ELISHA, 1-lai’sha (YW, *élisha’), ‘God is sal- 
vation,’ Eliseus in the AV of N T: 1. Prophetic 
Call. The successor and perpetuator of Elijah’s 
work, by whom he was ordained and anointed to this 
end (I K 19 16, 19) (854-802 B.c.). He was a native 
of Abel-Meholah, situated on the southern side of 
the plain of Beth-shean, not far from the Jordan. 
Here his father Shaphat was evidently the owner 
of an extensive landed estate. He ‘was plowing 
with twelve yoke of oxen before him, and he with the 
twelfth’ when Elijah found him and by the symbolic 
throwing of his mantle on him called him to the 
work of the prophet. Henceforth E. became Elijah’s 
disciple and servant (II K 311). After a ministry 
covering the reigns of four Kings of N. Israel, in 
his last sickness he was visited by King Joash, (799- 
784 B. c.) to whom he showed in a symbolic transac- 
tion, through the shooting of arrows, that he was 
to conquer Syria three times and might have in- 
flicted on her a crushing defeat, had his faith been 


Elisha 
Emmaus 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


210 





stronger (II K 13 14-19). The last mention of his 
name relates to the case of a man brought for burial 
and cast hastily into the grave in which he had been 
buried whereupon the dead was restored to life 
(II K 13 20-21). 


2. Sources of History. The narratives upon 
which knowledge of E.’s life and work is based are 
given in II K 21-25, 4 1-44, 51-6 32, 71-85, and 13 14-21. 
They bear marks of diversity of origin and of some 
chronological displacement. In view of the healing 
of Naaman’s leprosy (II K ch. 5), it does not seem 
likely that the war between Israel and Syria men- 
tioned in 68 f. can be given inits true order. Gehazi 
too is represented (8 4) as familiarly conversing with 
the king, altho smitten with leprosy (5 26). These 
narratives were probably found in an early collec- 
tion of incidents relating to the prophet. Their 
approximate date of origin may be set as later than 
the Elijah fragments, and possibly 700 B.c. See 
also Kines, Books or, § 5. 

3. Elisha’s Work within Israel. In the main, 
E.’s work is that of the prophet as a patriot. To 
him the cause of Israel, e.g. vs. Syria was the cause 
of J’’ vs. Syria. While within Israel he did not by a 
hair’s breadth abate the opposition to Baal worship 
preached by Elijah, he gave attention to the inter- 
national relations of Israel. This was due partly, 
no doubt, to the fact that during the most of E.’s 
career Israel was engaged in a desperate struggle, 
in which its very existence was at stake, with Syria. 
Even Jehoram, the last of the dynasty of Ahab, was 
constrained to recognize his prophetic influence, and 
sent for him for advice in the campaign against 
Mesha of Moab (II K 312). But E. sternly declined 
to have personal dealings with Jehoram (II K 3 14), 
and it was in the overthrow of the dynasty which 
this king represented that his influence is most 
clearly seen. Sending one of the ‘sons of the proph- 
ets’ to Jehu, a restless and ambitious warrior, he 
symbolically intimated to him, through the act of 
anointing with oil, that he was called to wrest the 
scepter from the hands of the descendants of Jezebel 
(II K 91-10). The task was one committed to him 
by Elijah (I K 19 16), and its accomplishment proved 
the end of official Baal worship in Israel. 

Through the reign of Jehoram, and more prom- 
inently in the reigns of the first three kings of the 
House of Jehu E. acted the patriot’s part in all the 
wars of Israel with Moab and Syria. In the few 
incidents recorded of the campaign of Ben-hadad IT 
against Samaria, he rendered indispensable aid to 
the cause of Israel (II K 6 8 #.). His fame as a 
‘man of God’ extended beyond Israel, and as a ‘man 
of God’ he appears to have been welcomed even in 
Damascus; and it was on the occasion of a visit 
thither that he fulfilled the commission originally 
given to Elijah, 7z.e., the changing of the ruling 
dynasty in Damascus by informing Hazael that he 
was to be the successor to Ben-hadad (cf. I K 19 15; 
II K 87#.). 

4, Elisha’s Miracles. The miraculous element is 
quite prominent in the accounts of Elisha. He 
first healed with salt the waters of Jericho (II K 
219f.). Next he brought sudden punishment upon 
the 42 children who mocked him (II K 2 23-5). 


_IsRaBL, RELIGION oF, § 13. 


During a famine he increased oil, saving a poor widow 
from distress (II K 41-7), cured some gourds of poi- 
sonous effects (II K 4 38-41), multipled bread (4 42-44), 
and caused an ax head to ‘swim’ in water (6 1-7). 
He restored to life the child of the Shunamite woman 
(4 8-37) and cured the leprosy of Naaman (ch. 5), 
These miracles constitute a group, and altho differ- 
ing from those of Elijah (I K 17 14, 17; II K1 4), may 
be taken with them as making up an exceptional 
period in the history of prophecy. 

5. Elisha and Elijah. E. not only inherited the 
task of Elijah, but he undertook to perform it in 
perfect loyalty to his master as shown in the parting 
scene between the two prophets. The chief differ- 
ence between them was that the first, as a 
pioneer, showed greater originality. But to balance 
this E. was in nearer touch with the people, being 
accessible to them (cf. II K 4 23, ch 5) and in better 
position to have his influence diffused. See also 
A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 


ELISHAH, 1-lai’sha. See EraHnoGRAPHY AND 


Erunouoey, § 13. 

ELISHAMA, 1-lish’o-ma (YOU'S, ’*slshama’), 
‘God has heard’: 1. One of the chiefs of Ephraim 
(Nu 110, etc.) 2. A son of David IIS 516;1 Ch3 
8, 147, confounded with Elishua inI Ch 36). 3. A 
Judahite, son of Jekamiah (I Ch 2 41), 4. A priest, 
teacher of the people in Jehoshaphat’s time (II Ch 17 
8). 5. A scribe of King Jehoiakim (Jer 3612 ff.). 6. 
The grandfather of Ishmael the rival of Gedaliah (II 
K 25 25; Jer 411). EK. E. N. 

ELISHAPHAT, 1-lish’a-fat (UBW’28, ’élishaphat), 
‘God has judged’: One of the captains assisting, 
Jehoiada in deposing Athaliah (II Ch 231). 

ELISHEBA, 1lish‘-bo (YIW98, élishebha‘) 
‘God is an oath’: The wife of Aaron (Ex 6 23). 

ELISHUA, el/i-shii’a (VIX, *elishia'), ‘God is 
help’: A son of David (IIS 515; I Ch 145; by mistake 
called Elishama in I Ch 3 6). 

ELIUD, 1-lai’od (Edtodb8=O T Elihud): 
ancestor of Joseph (Mt 1 14 f.). 

ELIZAPHAN, el’i-zé/fon (1D¥°28, *élttsaphan), 
‘God hides’ or ‘protects’: 1. The ancestral head of 
one of the main divisions of the Levites (Nu 3 30; 
I Ch 15 8; II Ch 29 13; also called Elzaphan, Ex 6 22; 
Lv 104). 2. A ‘prince’ of Zebulun (Nu 34 25). 

ELIZUR, vlai’zor (WP, ’elitsar), ‘God is a 
rock’: ‘Prince’ of Reuben (Nu 1 5, etc.). 

ELKANAH, el-ké’na (TB, ’elganah), ‘God has 
possessed’: 1-4. The name of four individuals in the 
Levi-genealogy of I Ch 6 16 f.: (1). A grandson of 
Korah (I Ch 6 23; ef. Ex. 6 24). (2). A descendant 
of (1) and son of Joel (I Ch 6 25, 36) (3). A descen- 
dant of (2) (I Ch 6 26,33). (4) A descendant of (3) and 
the father of Samuel (I Ch 6 27, 34;1811). 5.A 
doorkeeper of the tent in which David placed the 
Ark (I Ch 15 23). 6. A Levite, the grandfather of 
Berechiah (I Ch 9 16). 7. One of David’s heroes (I 
Ch 126). 8. A high official under Abaz, slain in Pe- 
kah’s attack on Jerusalem (II Ch 287). E. E. N. 

ELKOSHITE, el’kesh-ait: The designation of 
Nahum (Nah 11). See Nanum, Book oF. 


An 





A NEW STANDARD 





ELLASAR, el’lé[or -la'sar (199%, ’ellasar) Babyl. 
La-ar-sa(?). The city of which Arioch, one of the 
confederates of Chedorlaomer (Gn 14 1), was king. 
Larsa of the Babylonian inscriptions, the modern 
Senkera of lower Babylonia, of which Rim-Sin, a 
Semitic ruler, was king for sixty-one years (?) 
M. P. 

ELM: Properly an oak or terebinth (Hos 4 13 AV; 
ef. RV). See PALEsTIngE, § 21. 

ELMADAM, el-mé’dam (’Eduaddy, 
AV): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 28). 

ELNAAM, el-né’om (OYI78, ’elna‘am), ‘God is 
graciousness’: One of David’s warriors (I Ch 11 46). 


ELNATHAN, el-né’than (19)?%, ’elnathan), ‘God 
has given’: 1. The father of Nehushta, mother 
of Jehoiachin (II K 248). 2. A prince of Judah in 
the reign of Jehoiakim—possibly the same as 1 
(Jer 26 22, 36 12, 25). 3-5. The name of three men 
sent by Ezra on a mission after Levites (Ezr 8 16). 
The text here may be corrupt, due to dittography. 

E. E. N. 

ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI, 1-10’ai, 
lG’ma sa-bac’tha-nai (éAuwt, ¢rAwl, Anw& oa BayOavet): 
Jesus’ cry on the cross, according to Mk 15 34. In 
Mt 27 46 the form is Eli, Eli, etc. The ex- 
pression in Mk is altogether Aramaic. In Mt the 
first two words are Hebrew and not Aramaic. The 
Markan form is the Aramaic equivalent of the 
Hebrew of Ps 221, and shows incidentally how fa- 
miliar Jesus was with the vernacular Aramaic ver- 
sion of the O T. EK. E. N. 

ELON, i’len (1178, elon), ‘terebinth’: I. 1. A Zeb- 
ulunite, one of the minor judges of Israel (Jg 12 11f.). 
2. A ‘son’ of Zebulun (Gn 46 14), head of the family 
of Elonites (Nu 26 26). 3. A Hittite, the father- 
in-law of Esau (Gn 26 34, 36 2). II. A town in the 
territory of Dan (Jos 19 43), See next title. 


ELON-BETH-HANAN, -beth”hé/non (M2 78 
129, ’@ldn béth handn) (I K 49): Possibly two names, 
Elon and Beth-hanan, were the original reading. If 
one place was meant, it must have been the same as 
Elon (q.v.). No satisfactory identification has been 
proposed. EK. E. N. 

ELOTH, i‘lefth. See Exaru. 

ELPAAL, el-pa/al (?YB?%, ’elpa‘al), ‘God has 
done’ ‘ An ancestor of a Benjamite family (I Ch 8 
11 f., 18). 

ELPARAN, el-pé’ran (1182 Dk, él pa’rdn): A 
place in Edom (Gn 146). See Exarn and Paran. 

ELPELET, el-pi'let (ODD 2A, ’elpelet, Elpalet AV). 
See ELIPHELET. 

EL SHADDAI. See Gop, § 1. 

ELTEKEH, el’ti-ke (NPN? and APA?PY, ’eltega’ 
and ’eli‘géh): A city of Dan, mentioned after 
Ekron (Jos 19 44) and a Levitical city (Jos 21 23). 
Near Eltekeh (Aliaku) Sennacherib won a victory 
over the combined forces of Palestinians, Egyp- 
tians, and others (cf. IT K 1813 f., 19 8 f.) and after- 
ward despoiled E. and its neighboring town Timnath 
(Prism inscrip. of Sen. Col II 69 ff.). Consequently 
KE, must have been situated near Timnath, probably 


Elmodam 


Elisha 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Emmaus 





between Timnath and Ekron. The identification 
Map III, E 5, is probably incorrect. E. E. N. 


ELTEKON, el’ti-kon (IPM?8, ’elteqon): A city 
in the highlands of Judah (Jos 15 59), Not yet 
identified. 

ELTOLAD, el-tdl’lad (121728, ’eltdladh): A city 
in the extreme S. of Judah (Jos 15 30), also as- 
signed to Simeon (Jos 19 4). Elsewhere called 
Tolad (I Ch 4 29). Not yet identified. 


ELUL, i’lol: The sixth month of the Jewish 
year. See Timp, § 3. 

ELUZAI, v-la’zai (DY?28, ’el‘azay): ‘God my 
refuge’ (?): One of those who deserted Saul for 
David (I Ch 12 5). 

ELYMAS, el’i-mas. See Bar JEsus. 


ELYON, EL ELYON. See Gop, § 1; and Mosr 
Hiau. 


ELZABAD, el-zé/bad (13128, ’elzabhadh), ‘God 
has given’: 1. A Gadite who attached himself to 
David (I Ch 1212). 2. A doorkeeper of the Temple 
(I Ch 26 7). 

ELZAPHAN, el-zé’fan (1P¥?¥, ’eltsaphan), ‘God 
protects,’ also called Elizaphan: 1. A son of Uzziel, 
kinsman of Moses and Aaron, and servant in the 
Tabernacle (Ex 6 22; Lv 10 4; Nu 3 30). 2. See Ext- 
ZAPHAN, 1. 3. The head of a family of Levites (II 
Ch 29 13). 


EMBALM, EMBALMING. 
Buriau Customs, § 2. 


EMBROIDER, EMBROIDERY. See Anrizan 
Lirg, § 14. 

EMEK-KEZIZ, 1i’’mek-ke-ziz’ (YR PPY, meg 
gtstts) (Valley of Keziz AV): A vale in the terri- 
tory of Benjamin, near the Jordan Valley (Jos 18 21). 
Site unknown. 


EMERALD. See Sronss, Precious, § 2. 

EMERODS. See Diszas— anp MEDICINE, § 
4 (2). 

EMIM, i’mim (0°28, ’émim, Emim AY, ‘terrible 
men.’ The name given to the prehistoric race that 
once occupied the land E. of the Jordan. They were 
called also Rephaim. According to traditicn they 
were of gigantic stature (Gn 14 5; Dt 210 A r 


EMINENT PLACE: The Heb. gabh, rendered 
‘eminent place’ (Ezk 16 24, 31,39 AV; ‘lofty’ RV), 
is rendered ‘high-place’ (q.v.) in other passages. 
Here it indicates a place on which an altar for illicit 
worship was built. In Ezk 17 22, as the AV trans- 
lation of another Hebrew word, édlul, it means 
lofty,’ so RV. Gaba, 

EMMANUEL, em-man’yu-el. See IMMANUEL. 

EMMAUS, em’o-us (Eyyaots): A village men- 
tioned in Lk 24 13. According to the best read- 
ing (ABD) 60 stadia distant from Jerusalem. An 
Emmaus (Apyaotc, 60 stadia from Jerusalem) is 
mentioned by Josephus (BJ, VII, 6 6), who says 
that Titus had a colony of soldiers there. This sug- 
gests the modern Kuldnieh, which is approximately 
that distance from Jerusalem. Map II, E.1. 


See BurRIAL AND 


Bee shinee A NBW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


212 





E. has also been identified with Nicopolis (I Mac 
3 40, 57, 4 3-25), the modern’ Amwas in the Shephelah, 
160-180 stadia from Jerusalem, Map III, D 5, but 
this distance is too great. = Bei ah it A 

EMMOR, em’ar. See Hamor. 

EN- (72, ’én): The prefix ‘En’ in Hebrew proper 
names stands for the word meaning ‘spring’ or ‘foun- 
tain,’ in opposition to a well or cistern. Places with 
names compounded with ‘En’ were almost certainly 
located near a spring. BE. E. N. 

ENAIM, 1-né’/im (5°79, “nayim): 'A town of 
Judah (Jos 15 34, where it is spelled Enam). Ac- 
cording to Gn 38 14 it was situated on the road to 
Timnah and was the scene of Judah’s incest with 
Tamar. Driver locates it in the Shephelah; Conder 
identifies it with Kh. Wddy Alin. Map II, D1. 

J. A. K. 

ENAN, i’nan (122, ‘éndn): The father of Ahira 
(Nu 1 15 etc.). 

ENCAMP. See WARFARE, § 3. 


ENCAMPMENT BY THE SEA: A station on 
the Exodus route named after Marah and Elim (Nu 
33 10), not to be confused with the place mentioned in 
Ex 142. It lay on the E. shore of the sea. 


ENCHANTER, ENCHANTMENT See Maaic 
AND DIvINATION, § 3. 

ENDOR (77 7?Y¥, ‘én dér), ‘fountain of dor’: 
A city in the territory of Manasseh, (Jos 17 11; Ps 
83 10) 4m. S. of Tabor, made famous as the residence 
of the witch to whom Saul resorted (I S 287). Its 
modern successor, indir, is built upon a rock full 
of caves (cf. Socin, in Baedeker, Palestine?, p. 460 f.). 
Map III, G 1. fet ORY A) 

ENEAS, i-ni’as. See AINEAS. 

EN-EGLAIM, en-eg’lo-im (0°29 PY, ‘en ‘egla- 
yim), fount of the two calves’ (Ezk 47 10): From the 
context it is likely that En-eglaim lay N. of En-gedi, 
near the mouth of the Jordan. It has not been 


identified. Some suspect an error for Beth-hoglah 
(q.v.). EK. E. N. 
EN-GANNIM, en-gan’im (0°32) ]?Y, n gannim), 
‘fountain of gardens’: 1. A city of Judah (Jos 
15 34). Map II, D1. 2. A Levitical city of Issa- 
char (Jos 19 21, 21 29), called Anem in I Ch 6 73. 
The modern town Jenin is characterized by numer- 
ous gardens watered by a spring near by. Map 
III, F 2. H. E.N. 
ENGEDI, en-gi’dai (7i1Y, ‘én gedhi), ‘spring 
of the kid’: The name of a fertile region on the Dead 
Sea located about the middle of its W. shore. Map 
II,G38. It wasso called from a warm spring which 
issues out of the cliffs at this point. The earlier 
name of the spot was Hazazon-tamar (II Ch 20 2). 
The modern Ain Jidi is the Arabic equivalent of the 
Biblical term. It was famous as the place where 
David took refuge when fleeing from Saul, and also 
for its natural beauty and fertility (I S 23 29; Song 
1 14; cf. G. A. Smith, HGAL, p. 269 ff.; - Sayce, 
Patriarchal Palestine, p. 40). A. C. Z. 


ENGINE OF WAR: A general term to desig- 
nate the heavier implements used in siege-work, 
both offensive (Ezk 269) and defensive (II Ch 26 15). 


ENGRAFTED: Only in Ja 1 21 AV. The Greek 
Zugutog means usually ‘inborn,’ ‘innate.’ The 
RV ‘implanted’ is better. The ‘word,’ like seed 
(Mt 13 3-23), ‘roots’ itself in the heart and life (cf. 
Mt 15 13; I Co 8 6). S. D.—E. E.N. 


ENGRAVE, ENGRAVER, ENGRAVING. See 
ARTIZAN LiFs, § 3. 


EN-HADDAH (770 YY, ‘én haddah): A place in 
Issachar (Jos 19 21). Perhaps the modern Kefr 
Addn. Map ITI, F 2. 


EN-HAKKORE, en-hak’o-n (SUPI7Y, ‘én hag- 
qoré’), ‘spring of the partridge.’ The context, how- 
ever, gives the meaning ‘spring of him who called’: 
The name of a spring in Lehi, from which Samson 
quenched his thirst after slaying the Philistines 
with the jaw-bone of an ass. Location unknown 
(Jg 15 19). ORS EY be 


EN-HAZOR, en-hé’zer (VST. 1Y, ‘en hdatsér), 
‘spring of Hazor’: A town in Naphtali (Jos 19 37). 
The site is not certain, but may be the same as the 
modern Kh. Haztreh (Map IV, D 5). E. E.N. 


EN-MISHPAT, en-mish’pat. See Kapzsu. 


ENOCH, i’nek (719, handkh, Henoch AV, I Ch 
13). The name would suggest, if it did not mean, 
‘Initiation,’ or ‘dedication’: I. 1. The eldest son of 
Cain, (Gn 417.) the builder of a city which he called 
after himself. This points to a place that bore the 
name, which can not now be identified. 2. Son of 
Jared and father of Methuselah, descendant of Seth 
(Gn 5 18-24). The substitution in v. 24 of ‘And he was 
not because God took him,’ for the usual formula 
‘And he died’ gave occasion to a great number of 
speculations and comments in later times (cf. Shiirer, 
HJP, Il, i. 342, 11. 70). Most of these are given 
in the apocalyptic books bearing his name. The 
translation of Enoch is paralleled in Babylonian 
mythology by the translation of Ut-Napishtim). 
II. A city (ef. 1, above). A.C. Z. 


ENOCH, BOOKS OF: Enochistheseerand hero — 
of two apocalyptic books, called respectively from 
the languages in which they are extant the Ethiopic 
and the Slavonic Enoch (more recently calied by 
Charles 1st and 2d Enoch). 

I. THe Eruiopic Enocn. 1. History of the 
Modern Editions. This book first became known 
in modern times through copies brought from 
Abyssinia in 1773 by J. Bruce, the traveler. It was 
known to the Fathers from Jude 14 f. that certain 
prophetic utterances were attributed to Enoch (cf. 
also Ep. Barn. 4 3, 16 5), but all traces of books bear- 
ing his name had disappeared until the date above 
named. It was not until 1821, however, that the 
Ethiopic text of Enoch was translated by Bishop 
Lawrence into English; and not ‘till Dillmann’s 
studies and translation into German (1851-53) that 
its nature, contents, and significance for Bible study 
were realized. In 1886-87 a portion of the Greek 
text of the book was made public by H. B. Swete. 

2. Literary Analysis. This book contains 107 
chapters, but is not a unit. It consists of at least 
three primary works, worked over and combined 
by a redactor: (1) The original Book of Enoch, em- 





213 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Emmor 
Enoch, Books of 





bedded in chs. 1-86 and 72-105; (2) The Book of 
Similitudes, comprising chs. 37-71, and (8) The Apoc- 
alypse of Noah, or, more correctly, certain fragments 
of a book which probably existed as a whole under 


some title ascribed to Noah. These fragments are 


inserted within the other two parts of Enoch, and 
are to be found in chs. 547-55 2, 60, 65 1-69 25, and 
chs. 106-107. 

3. Contents of the Original Enoch. The original 
Book of Enoch has its starting-point in Gn 6 2 f. 
First it recounts the punishment of the sinning 
angels. In the course of giving information about 
the places of this punishment, Enoch narrates his 
extensive travels throughout the universe (1-36). 
Asecond section is called The Book of the Luminaries 
of Heaven, and consists of chs. 78-82, treating of 
geographical and cosmological matters such as the 
course of the sun and the stars, of the winds and the 
four quarters of heaven, and the changes which are 
destined to come over these things in the last days. 
A third section, consisting of chs. 88-90, narrates 
two visions of Enoch, both prophetic in form, but 
together known as the historical part of the book, 
because they portray in a general way the history 
as it transpired and is recorded in the O.T. The 
first vision is a picture of the Deluge; the second 
covers the whole course of Israel’s career under the 
symbolical form of a warfare of the clean animals 
(sheep, lambs, and goats=Israel) with unclean ani- 
mals (dogs, swine, foxes, and birds of prey =Israel’s 
enemies). From the fact that Israel was put under 
the care of 70 angels, this portion of the work has 
been also called the Vision of the Seventy Shepherds. 
At the close of the section the Messiah appears born 
in the form of a white bull. The last section (chs. 
91-105) is called the Book of Exhortations and seems 
to bring the story to a practical conclusion. Enoch 
commits matters into the hands of his son Methu- 


_ selah preparatory to his ascension, Another special 


section occurs toward the beginning of this part and 
is called the Ten Weeks (91 12-17, 93). 


4. Book of Similitudes. The Book of Simili- 
tudes (chs. 37-71) is Messianic or Christological. 
It takes its name from the fact that it consists of 
three parables (similitudes): (1) Chs. 37-44; (2) 45- 
54, and (3) 55-71. All these are vividly apocalyptic 
and eschatological. It is in this section that the 
Messiah is pictured (chs. 46, 47) under the name ‘the 
Son of Man,’ standing beside the ‘Head of Days,’ 
and that his character and task as the conqueror of 
the heathen are plainly set forth. 


5. Noachic Fragments. In the Noachic frag- 
ments, the subject of the flood is ‘pictured as an 
event in the future (from the view-point of Enoch, of 
course), including accounts of Leviathan, Behemoth, 
and various nature-elements which come into play 
in the great catastrophe. To this is added a revela- 
tion to Noah of the punishment of the fallen angels 
and of the judgment of men by the Son of Man. 
The last of these fragments (chs. 106, 107) contains 
an account of the marvels which should accompany 
the birth of Noah himself, and is made as a revela- 
tion to Enoch. 

6. Dates of the Several Sections. That the first 
of these three documents of which the Ethiopic 


Enoch consists was composed during the period 
200-175 B.c. is not generally disputed. As to the 
third, its fragmentary character gives very little 
ground for a successful investigation of the circum- 
stances and date of its origin. The Book of Simili- 
tudes has naturally furnished a bone of contention 
for critics. Its undoubted relation to the N T and 
its importance from this point of view have called 
forth careful study; but no definite consensus has 
yet been reached. It is contended on one side that 
it must have been written in the Maccabean Age 
(Ewald). Others date it from 95 B.c. (Dillmann, 
Charles); others from the days of Herod (Balden- 
sperger, Beer); still others from the 2d cent. a.p., 
and others, finally, claim that it may have been pub- 
lished as a Jewish apocalypse before the Christian 
Era, but that it was revised by a Christian who 
interpolated into it the Son of Man passages. The 
truth probably lies nearer the view which makes 
it a pre-Christian writing. The occurrence in it of 
the phrase ‘Son of Man’ does not interfere with this 
conclusion, as this phrase is not altogether a distinc- 
tively Christian expression and should not be re- 
garded as the sign of a Christian author or redactor 
(cf. Baldensperger, Selbstbewusstsein Jesu?, p. 90; 
Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 234 f.). The best edi- 
tion, with introduction and notes for English read- 
ers, is by Charles Book of Enoch, 2d Ed. (1912), also 
The Apoc. and Pseudepigr. of the O T (1918) Vol. II. 

IJ. Tur Stavonic Enocw. 1. Recovery in Mod- 
ern Times. Under this name has come to be known 
a book first made accessible in modern times in 1896 
by Professor Charles and Mr. Morfill. Its exstence 
in a Slavonic text was hinted at by Russian scholars 
and seized upon as a subject of investigation with 
the result that the book was fully recovered. 


2. Contents. The Slavonic Enoch is divided into 
68 chapters, which may be grouped under three 
large sections as follows: (1) Chs. 1-38. This 
section gives an account of the ascension of Enoch 
into the seven heavens and his travels and experi- 
ences there. (2) Chs. 39-56 describe Enoch’s return 
to earth and give his admonitions and instructions 
to his children. (3) Chs. 57-68 contain a rehearsal 
of some additional instructions, closing with the 
account of a solemn scene in which before an as- 
sembly of 2,000 people Enoch is taken up into heaven 
(Gn 5 24). But just before this took place, a thick 
darkness fell upon the earth, so that the manner of 
his assumption was accomplished unwitnessed by 
mortal eye (ch. 67). 


3. Origin. The original language of the Slavonic 
Enoch was undoubtedly Greek. This is clear from 
the explanation of the name Adam given in it, which 
depends altogether upon the Greek spelling of the 
name.! The date of the composition can not be 
earlier than that of the Ethiopic Enoch (Book of 
Similitudes), or later than 70 a.p. The former date 
is established by the evident references to the Ethi- 
opic Enoch, the latter by the fact that the Temple 
was still standing when this book was written. 
There are also evidences that the author was an 


1 The letters of the name are the initials of the four points 
of ee compass: ’A(vatoAnH), A(bats), ’A(extos), M (eonu- 
Reta). 


Enosh : 
Ephesians 


A NEW STANDARD 
Alexandrian Jew. Further than this, little is known 
of its origin or history. 

4. The Seven Heavens. The most interesting 
feature of the book is the explicit form in which 
there is presented in it the doctrine of a plurality of 
heavens (in Slav. En seven in number). This doc- 
trine not only became a fixed article of faith in later 
medieval lore, but is implied in some forms of N T 
expression, and has left its traces even in the thought 
of the Apostle Paul (II Co 12 2). The best edition 
of the book is that by Charles and Morfill The 
Book of the Secrets of Enoch, (1896) see also Apoc. 
and Pseud. of the O T (1918) Vol, IT). Al G.Z. 


ENOSH, i’negh (18, ’éndsh, Enos, Lk 3 38 AV), 
man’: The son of Seth (Gn 4 26, etc.). 


ENQUIRE. See Maaic anp Divination, § 3; 
and REVELATION, § 7. 

EN-RIMMON, en-rim’en (O77Y, ‘en rim- 
mon), ‘spring of pomegranates’: A town in Judah 
(Neh 11 29), probably the Rimmon of Zech 14 10. 
‘Ain and Rimmon’ in Judah (Jos 15 32) and ‘Ain, 
Rimmon’ in Simeon’s territory (Jos 19 7; I Ch 4 32) 
should probably be read En-Rimmon. Called 
‘Ain’ in Jos 21 16 and ‘Ashan’ in I Ch 6 59 [44]. It 
is nine miles N.E. of Beer-sheba. Map II, D3. 

CR hd 


EN-ROGEL, en-ro’gel. See JERusALEM, § 10. 


ENROLMENT (aroyeaon), taxing AV, literally 
‘registering’ for any purpose, hence a census: The 
Romans made such censuses for the purpose of taxa- 
tion periodically (Lk 2 2; Ac 5 37; cf. Ramsay, Was 
Christ Born at Bethlehem? 1898). See also CHro- 
NOLOGY OF THE N T. 


EN-SHEMESH, en-shi/mesh (V2Y7'Y, ‘én she- 
mesh), ‘fountain of the Sun’: A place on the border 
of Judah between En-rogel (near Jerusalem) and 
Adummim (Jos 15 7, 18 17). The usual identifica- 
tion (Map II, F 1) is far from certain. 

ENSIGN. See Banner; and Sarps anp Navi- 
GATION, § 2. 

ENSUE: InI P311 AV. The correct rendering 
is ‘pursue,’ as in RV. 

EN-TAPPUAH, en-tap’yu-a (MBD)Y, ‘en tap- 
ptuah), fountain of Tappuach.’ See Tapruaca. 


ENTERING IN: In AV (1) the approaches to a 
town (cf. Jg 3 3; Am 6 14, ‘entrance’ RV); (2) the 
gate of any enclosed place (cf. Ex 35 15, ‘door’ RV); 
or (3) by Paul of his initial experiences at Thessa- 
lonica (I Th 19). 


EPANETUS, 1-pi’ni-tus (’Exatvetoc, Epenetus 
AV), ‘approved,’ ‘praised’: A Christian brother 
mentioned by Paul in Ro 16 5 as ‘my beloved, who 
is the first-fruit of Asia unto Christ,’ probably, 
therefore, one of the first converts of Paul at Ephesus. 


EPAPHRAS, ep’a-fras (’Exagpac): An early 
Christian active in Colossae and neighboring cities, 
possibly commissioned by Paul to the work of 
evangelization in those regions (ire bud Siexovoc 
Col 17) He was perhaps one of Paul’s own con- 
verts, and also a faithful friend and possibly a fellow- 
prisoner of the apostle (Phm ver. 23). J. M. T. 


‘ 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


214 


EPAPHRODITUS, ep-af”ro-dai’tus ('Exageé- 
3ttoc): A messenger of the Philippian Church by 
whom their gifts were delivered to Paul (Ph 4 18). 
He fell sick in Rome (Ph 2 25-30) and upon recovery 
was sent back with the Philippian Epistle. 

J. M. T. 


EPHAH, i’fa (79°, phah): 1. A concubine of 
Caleb (I Ch 2 46). 2. A ‘son’ of Jahdai (I Ch 2 47). 
3. A ‘son’ of Midian (Gn 25 4, etc.). See Eranoa- 
RAPHY AND Erunouoay, § 13. 4. (739°S ’éphah) 


A measure. See WriautTs AND Merasurss, § 3. 
Gi .aks 


EPHAI, i’fai A Netophathite 


(Jer 40 8). 


EPHER, i’for (12¥, ‘épher), ‘young deer’ or 
‘fawn’: 1. The ancestral head of a Midianite clan 
or tribe (Gn 25 4; I Ch 1 33). See ErHNnoGrapHy 
AND Erunouoey, § 13. 2. The head of a family of 
Judah (I Ch 417). 3. The head of a family of Ma- 
nasseh (I Ch 6 24). 


EPHES-DAMMIM, 1’fez-dam’/im (0°27 DDS, 
’ephes dammim): The place where the Philistines 
encamped in the Valley of Elah, between Socoh 
and Azekah ([S 171), Map II, D1. The name is 
given as Pas-Dammim in I Ch 11 13. The exact 
site is uncertain. 


EPHESIANS: One of Paul’s disputed letters 
written in connection with the Epistle to the Colos- 
sians during his first Roman imprisonment between 
59 and 61 a.p. The theory that Col., Eph and Phm 
were written during Paul’s imprisonment in Cesarea 
is frequently revived but never receives wide accep- 
tance. The recent suggestion that they were written 
during an imprisonment at Ephesus (Deissmann, 
Light from the Ancient East) has been given inter- 
ested attention. 

1. Introductory. From the time of the Reforma- 
tion (Erasmus, 1516) Ephesians has attracted atten- 
tion because of its peculiarities of diction and its 
unusualness of thought, from a Pauline point of 
view. In fact, it was definitely rejected as the work 
of the Apostle (De Wette, 1826) even before the ad- 
vent of the Tiibingen School (1835), whose critical 
presupposition that all the N T writings which 
lacked the note of controversy attributed to the 
Apostolic Age must have been produced in the 2d 
cent. made the Epistle’s characteristic presentation 
of the idea of church unity an easy mark for attack. 
In spite of the failure of this school to maintain its 
views, this Epistle is still quite generally disowned 
as Paul’s, altho scholars like Jiilicher (N 7’ Introd.) 
balance in an opinion for and against, while Harnack 
( History of Dogma) considers the weight of external 
evidence in its favor sufficient to offset the unfavor- 


(DY, ‘ephay): 


able evidence from the letter itself.» 


2. Contents. Few letters of the N T consequently 
demand a more careful study of their contents. 


After a brief greeting (1 1 f-) the Apostle begins his main 
thought"(1 3-6 18) with a long and involved doxological passage 
(15-4) embodying a thanksgiving for the spiritual blessings ofthe 
the plan of salvation. At the head of this plan is the great fact 
of our election and redemption by the death of Christ (1 4-8) 
and through it is revealed the mystery of His will (1 9), the con- 
summation of which is the establishment of the Headship of 





| 








215 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Enosh 
Ephesians 





Christ (1 1°), in whom God’s people are secured in their inheri- 
tance through faith—the Gentile equally with the Jew (1 1-4). 

In view of all this, as it applies to the readers, Paul gives 
thanks for their Christian life and prays for their progress in 
spiritual knowledge (1 15-18)—especially in the knowledge of the 
Divine Power exercised toward them in spiritual things, the 
greatness of which is illustrated in the results accomplished by 
it in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ (1 19-%8), and the 
actuality of which is recognized in their experience of their own 
former spiritual death (2 1) and their present spiritual life 
with Christ (2 4-1), 

He reminds them, accordingly, of their former and present 
spiritual relations to the Covenant People of God (2 11-18), the 
change involved in which had been secured by the work of 
Christ (2 4-18), and of the fact that this change should lead them 
up to a fuller appreciation of the ideal unity within the mem- 
bersbip of the Church (2 19-22), 

In order to the realization of such unity he prays for the read- 
ers’ growth in spiritual grace and in the knowledge and the love 
of Christ (3 43-19), prefacing it with a fuller statement of the mys- 
tery of the Gospel and his own relation to it as an Apostle 
(3 1-2) Gn order to remove the prejudice which might arise in 
their minds from the fact that it was the preaching of his Gospel 
that had brought him into his imprisonment—showing that his 
chains were not the fault of his Gospel, but of the Jews’ failure 
to grasp his Gospel’s truth), and following it with a doxology 
(3 20 f.), 

After a sustained plea that they should walk worthy of their 
calling (4 1-16) and perform the duties of their new life by con- 
quering their old sin (4 17-4), and special exhortations within 
the field of the social and the domestic life (4 25-6 %), the message 
closes with an urgent call to watchfulness and strength in their 
spiritual struggle (6 19-18), while a brief personal conclusion 
(6 19-24) brings the letter to its end. ; 

3. Peculiarities of the Epistle. It is perfectly 


evident from these contents that this Epistle displays 
peculiarities unusual in Paul’s letter-writing. (1) 
Particularly is there noticeable a lack of local color, 
a trait characteristic of Paul’s letters and especially 
to be looked for in a: letter to a church with which 
he had been in active service for the greater part of 
three years (Ac 19 8-10). He must have made many 
friends in Ephesus during this time, but no saluta- 
tions of any sort are given in the letter (cf. in con- 
trast Col 410 f.). He had with him in Rome workers 
who were known to the Ephesians (e.g., Timothy), 


but no one is associated with him in the letter’s 


opening address (1 1 f.; cf. in contrast Col 11,7 f.; 
Phm ver. 1). (2) Equally marked is the absence of 
personal tone, a habit of the Apostle’s correspon- 
dence and one to be confidently expected in a message 
to such a well-known church. With the trivial excep- 
tion of the request for prayer and the reference to 
Tychicus’ commission to acquaint the readers with 
his affairs—all confined to four verses in the con- 


clusion (6 19-22)—the entire letter is general in its 


references, even where the personal pronoun is used 
(cf. 115 #., 31 ff., 14 f., 41 ff., 17 ff., in contrast with 
Col 1 24 f., 21#.). (3) There is also this particular 
emphasis upon Christian unity within the Church— 
already referred to. It appears in the opening 
doxology (1 12-14), in the passage explanatory of the 
Apostle’s commission (3 5 f.), in the exhortation to 
their Christian living (4 3-5, 13-16), and is specially 
evident in the passage where the Epistle’s theme 
comes toits expression (211-22). Thereisnosuch un- 
folding of this thought in any other of the Apostle’s 
letters—not even in the Pastorals, which have so 
much to do with the organized life of the Church. 
(4) At the same time a detailed study of the vocab- 
ulary and phraseology of the Epistle makes evident 
that, with all these differences, it stands in specific 
literary affinity with the Epistle to the Colossians. 


Paul manifestly not only wrote these two letters at 
the same time, but in very much the same train of 
thinking, reproducing in Ephesians what he had 
already written in Colossians, in spite of the altered 
setting in which he placed it in the latter Epistle 


4. Relation to Paul’s Work. Obviously these 
peculiarities call for explanation, and just as ob- 
viously the only explanation which will satisfy the 
conditions is one that comes from something more 
than the literary habits of the Apostle. In propor- 
tion as these peculiarities go beyond word and phrase 
their reason must be sought for in the Apostle’s 
life and work. 

It is consequently worth while to call to mind the 
effect produced upon Paul by the situation to which 
he addressed his Roman Epistle (q.v.). It gave him 
his first realization of the significance of the racial 
dualism (the Jew vs. the Gentile) in the Church 
and the importance which attached to the harmony 
and fellowship between the two elements which 
constituted it. From Ph 1 12-20 it is evident that this 
was confirmed to him by his personal experience 
after reaching Rome (see Romans, § 6). It should 
not be surprizing, therefore, if his desire to see such 
unity consummated grew upon him during his 
imprisonment and voiced itself increasingly in the 
letters he wrote. Especially should it not seem 
strange if this great theme came to the emphatic 
presentation given it in our Epistle, when we re- 
member that the absence of local color and personal 
tone in this letter is due to the fact that it was not 
addressed exclusively to any one community, but 
formed in all likelihood an encyclical letter to the 
churches of the region which to a large measure was 
only indirectly ministered to by Paul during his 
three years’ stay in Ephesus. A letter so addressed 
to a sisterhood of churches would specially invite 
such a fellowship theme, while the general character 
of its recipients would render unlikely a specific 
personalness of address, or locality of reference. 

Finally, when we remember that Colossians, ad- 
dressed as it is to a local church troubled with the 
speculative errors that tended to subordinate Chris- 
tianity, gathers its thought around the theme of 
Christ’s supremacy, the fact that Ephesians, ad- 
dressed to a circle of churches troubled more or less 
with the same errors, simply advances its thought 
upon that of Colossians, and discloses as its theme 
the unity of the Church in Christ supreme—this 
fact shows how natural it was that Ephesians should 
be so similar to Colossians and yet at the same time 
so different and distinct. 

Ephesians stands thus as an almost necessary 
letter for Paul, in view of the lines along which his 
thought was developing and the increasingly sig- 
nificant problems presented by his work. It is 
consequently interesting to note how he presents 
the moral and spiritual needs which confront the 
readers in the situation. There is the need (1) of an 
intelligent appreciation of his message (1 9 f., 17 f., 
3 2-4, 18 f., 417 f., 20f., 517); (2) of a realizing sense of 
the moral mission of their religion against the un- 
speakable things of the pagan world around them— 
distinctively of that truthfulness, peaceableness, 
honesty and purity of speech and act, which must 


Ephesus 
Ephraim 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


216 





not merely characterize their living in contrast to 
this evil life, but be their protest against and con- 
quest of it (4 17-29, 5 3-16); (3) of an application of the 
principles of Christian brotherhood to the larger 
unity of the Church (chs. 2-6). This last point 
would have added significance in proportion as the 
readers were influenced by the exclusive tendencies 
which threatened the unity of the local church at 
Colosse. (See CoLossians, § 3). 


5. Recipients of Letter. The question as to tne 
specific group of churches to which the Epistle was 
addressed and the further question as to the men- 
tion of a specific locality (év ’Egéow, 11) in the 
address of a letter intended for a general group of 
churches are more or less complicated, altho they do 
not affect the position above assumed. The details 
of the discussion may be found in the Introduction 
of Zahn (§ 28), the Biblical Essays of Lightfoot (X), 
and the introductory portions of the Comm. of 
Abbott, Ewald, and Salmond. 

LirnRATURE: Among the English Introductions to the N T, 
Jilicher (Eng. trans. 1904) presents the most balanced views 
regarding the Ep; while Zahn (Eng. trans. 1917) gives the 
most thorough study of its problems. In their N T Intro- 
ductions Bacon (1900) supports its Paulinity; Peake, (1910); 
holds its spuriousness unproven; Moffatt (1911) favors an 
un-Pauline source. See critical summary in Jones’ N T in 
20th Century (1914). Consult also the Comm. of Abbott 
(ICC 1897), Salmond (Expos. Grk. Test., 1903), Robinson 
(1903), Westcott (Posth., 1906), Murray (Camb. Grk. Test. 
for Schools and Colleges, 1914). For detailed discussion of 
the Ep’s problems consult Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser und 
Kolosserbriefe (1872), Lightfoot, Biblical Essays (Posth., 
1893), especially Hort, Prolegomena to St. Paul’s Epp. to the 
Romans and Ephesians (1895, 1896). M. W. J. 


EPHESUS. 1. History Prior to 11th Cent. B.C. 
Ephesus (’Egeco¢), originally situated at the mouth 
of the Cayster, is now 6 m. inland. The name (of 
Asiatic origin) referred originally to the sanctuary 
of the Asiatic Mother-goddess, wrongly identified 
later by the Greeks with Artemis. This sanctuary, 
probably founded by the Hittites (Kara Bel), was 
a mere tabernacle in a grove on the shore of the sea 
with a spacious harbor. The cult was the same as 
that of all anterior Asia. Its territory was inviolable 
and had the right of asylum. It was situated at the 
junction of natural trade-routes—advantages which 
induced settlers (Carians, Leleges, Lydians) to flock 
thither in prehistoric times. They dwelt on a hill 
(originally the island Syria) overlooking the sanc- 
tuary, afterward called the Artemisium, which long 
before the Greek immigration had an organized 
hierarchy of eunuch priests and virgin priestesses, 
the chief priest later having the Persian title of 
Megabyzus (Longimanus, ‘Mighty One’), the priest- 
esses were called Melisse (‘bees’), and the sacrificial 
priests Hssenes (‘king [=our queen] bees’). The 
armed guards of male and particularly female 
hierodouli gave rise to a tradition that E. was 
founded by Amazons. 


2. From Ionian Settlement to Cession to Persia. 
Such was E. in times prior to 1087 B.c., when 
Ionian adventurers under the leadership of Andro- 
clus came from Athens, settled the eastern foot of 
Mt. Coressus, and gave the name of Samorna 
(Smyrna) to the settlement. They conquered the 
earlier inhabitants and made a treaty with the 


priests of the Artemisium. The Artemisium was 
burned by the Cimmerians 678 or 669 B.c., but the 
town defied them. This aristocratic republic was 
overthrown in the 7th cent. by the tyrant Pytha- 
goras, who, to atone for excesses, was instructed by 
the Delphic oracle to build a temple on the site of 
the tabernacle. This temple was the so called 
‘columnless temple,’ with three courts. In the center 
stood the shrine of green stone which, because of its 
sanctity, formed the center of all successive temples. 
Creesus of Lydia attacked E. in 568 B.c., but its 
ruler Pindarus bound the city to the Artemisium by 
a rope (a mile long), thus dedicating the city to the 
goddess. Croesus is said to have withdrawn out of 
respect for the goddess, but really he effected his 
purpose. Pindarus was banished, and the Greeks 
forced to abandon their town on Coressus, to settle 
in the plain about the Artemisium, and pay tribute 
to Croesus, while the tyranny gave place to a de- 


-mocracy. Croesus tried to make amends by favor- 


ing the priests, and by contributing to the first great 
temple—then under construction on the site of the 
‘columnless temple’—some sculptured columns and 
golden bulls. This colossal dipteral temple, planned 
by Cherisiphron, a Cretan, was 120 years in building; 
indeed, before completion it was remodeled—prac- 
tically rebuilt—by Peonius and Demetrius. Frag- 
ments of Croesus’ columns are now in the British 
Museum, one containing a dedicatory inscription and 
the name of Cresus. In 546 B.c. E. became subject 
to Persia. The Artemisium was burned in 356 by 
Herostratus. 


3. From Freedom from Persia to Establishment 
of Christianity. E. was freed from Persia by the 
battle on the Grancius in 334 and given a democratic 
constitution by Alexander, who assigned the Persian 
tribute to the Artemisium and fixed the limit of the 
right of asylum at one stadium. His offer, however, 
to rebuild the temple then under construction at his 
own expense was rejected. Ladies contributed their 
jewelry to the temple. Its architect was Chirocrates. 


The pavement was 1.5 meters above that of the 
It was four times as large as the © 


burned temple. 
Parthenon, and was one of the seven wonders of the 
world. HE. came under the control of the Romans 


with their conquest of Antiochus III of Syria (192- 


189 B.c.). 


In 190 3.c. the Romans gave it to Eumenes of Per- 
gamun. Attalus II (Philadelphus), in an attempt to 
improve the harbor, ruined it by building a mole. In 
133 E. was incorporated into the Provincia Asia. In 
88 it sided with Mithridates. In 86 it fought against 
Rome and in 84 was sacked by Sulla. In 73 Lucullus, 
in 51 Cicero, and in 48 Cesar governed it. In 44 it 
aided Brutus and Cassius. It became the capital of 
Provincia Asia in 6 B.c. Augustus built the Augus- 
teum (Sebasteum) for the worship of Rome and Au- 
gustus and for meetings of the provincial assembly 
(Kotydy’ Aclac). 
earthquake, and restored by Tiberius. In 53-55 
Christianity was planted there by Paul (Ac 18 19-21), 
whose later stay of three years (Ac 19 1-22) was 
brought to a sudden end through the riot caused by 
the goldsmith Demetrius (Ac 19 23-201). Ephesus 
was a stronghold of Magic. Some magical formula 


In 29 a.p. E.was destroyed by an > 


aN 


NOAMNAAOdT AHL 


NI YWALVAHL AHLI—SASAHdA AO SNINY AHL 














217 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ephesus 
Ephraim 


a 


were called ‘Ephesian letters,’ which perhaps illus- 
trates Ac 19 19. 

4. Its Christian History. E. had now become the 
third city of Christianity (after Jerusalem and 
Antioch). It was next to Alexandria (800,000) the 
most populous city of the East (225,000). In 92 a.p. 
a great library was constructed by Celsus. In 120 
A.D. Hadrian visited E., embellished the city, 
cleared the harbor, built a commercial hall on the 
quay, changed the bed of the Cayster, built the 
Olympieum, and instituted the games ‘Adoerdvetc. 
Later (from the 3d cent. onward) E., as the metro- 
polis of the churches of Asia, became a shrine to 
which Christians made pilgrimages because of its 
association with Paul, Timothy, as its first bishop, 
and John (Apostle or Presbyter), who, according to 
early tradition, made E. the headquarters of Chris- 
tianity and died there (100 a.p.). According to 
popular tradition John was followed thither by the 
Virgin Mary (who died and was buried there), 
Mary Magdalene, Andrew, and Philip. 

5. Language, People, Government, and Life. 
The language of the Ephesians was nominally Ionic 
Greek, but from earliest times the population was 
very mixed; so that the Hellenism was not pure, 
and the Greek blood was further adulterated by the 
worship of the Asiatic goddess with its attendant 
religious prostitution; for people who came as pil- 
grims to the sanctuary, as caravaneers from the 
Orient, as refugees enjoying right of asylum, as mer- 
chants engaged in commerce and slave trade, as 
financiers on business with the Bank of the Arte- 


- misium, begat children by the female devotees at 


the shrine, without loss of reputation to mother or 
child. The money belonging to the goddess was 
stored in the Artemisium. This resulted in the es- 
tablishment of the Bank of the Artemisium, which 
lent money and received deposits from cities, kings, 
and private persons. The Megabyzus was president 
of the Bank, whose books were audited by the yeap- 
wateic (Clerk) of the Bourn (Council). In Roman 
times the members of the Council numbered 450; 
they met in the theater; the president was entitled 
‘Boularch,’ next after whom ranked the “Town 
Clerk’ (cf. Ac 19 35) and the Council Clerk. The 
civil magistrates were entitled otpatyyot (see SER- 
JEANT), while generals were entitled jyeydvec. The 


-*Ayopoavéyot administered the commercial affairs. 


The chief of police was called clenvdexne. 

In early times E. was a home of literature; Hera- 
clitus and Callinus were Ephesians. It had famous 
works of art by Rhcecus, Endceus, Myron, Phidias, 
Cresilas, Phradmon, Polyclitus, Timanthes, Zeuxis, 
Parrhasius, Dedalus, Scopas, Praxiteles, Apelles, 
Timaretes, Thrason, Menestratus, and others. Its 
theater seated 24,500. There were two datduera 
and 60 rows of seats, with a portico above the top 
row. It dated from Lysimachus, was remodeled in 
the 1st cent. A.p., and often renovated down to the 
4th cent. a.p. The present theater, therefore, is not 
absolutely identical with that of Paul’s day. Ruins 
of many Christian churches are still extant. 

J. R.S. S.*—S. A. 


EPHLAL, ef’lal (775%, ’ephlal): A Jerahmeelite 
(I Ch 2 37). 


EPHOD!, i’fed (158, ’éphddh): The father of 
Hanniel (Nu 34 23). 


EPHOD? (7158): In connection with worship, the 
word ephod appears to have designated two quite 
different things. (1) An article of priestly apparel 
(see PrirstHoop, § 10 (b). 

(2) Something else, the exact nature of which is 
not easy to determine, the references to it being 
found in the old narratives in Judges and Samuel. 
The plainest statements are in I § 23 69 and 30 7, 
where we read of Abiathar the priest being in David’s 
camp with the ephod ‘in his hand,’ ‘carrying it’ and 
being told by David to ‘bring it’ for purposes of 
oracle-consultation. It is clear that here the ephod 
is not a garment but something that was carried 
about by the priest and used by him in obtaining 
answers from deity. ‘This sense is also suitable in 
IS 2 28, 14 3 (where ‘wearing’ should be ‘bearing’) 
and 18 (where we should read ‘ephod’ with the LXX. 
instead of ‘Ark’). We are left in entire ignorance of 
the form of this object, and of what it was made. 
It may well have been made of costly material and 
possibly was a box (some would say bag) of some 
sort containing the sacred stones (see URIM AND 
Tuummim). If it was usually hung up in the sanc- 
tuary, we have a suitable explanation of IS 219. 

In Jg 8 27 Gideon is said to have made an ephod of 
gold, which he put(no special emphasis need be laid 
on this verb; cf. the usage of the same word in 6 37) 
in his town Ophrah, where it became a center of wor- 
ship. In Jg 17 5, 18 14 ff. Micah the Ephraimite is 
said to have made for his sanctuary an ephod, tera- 
phim, and a graven (and a molten?) image. That in 
these passages in Judges ephod is to be understood 
as an image is a widely held opinion—but there is no 
direct proof of this, and the expressions in 18 14, 18, 
20, seem to make a distinction between ephod and 
image. The ephod both of Micah and Gideon may 
have been instruments of divination similar to those 
spoken of in I Samuel. 

LireraTUuRE: Moore, ICC. (1901) on Jg 17 © and especially 
Burney’s Com (1918) on Jg 8 27; Driver in HDB; Gesenius- 
Buhl, Heb. Handwérterbuch, 14* Aufl., 1905, or Oxf. Heb. 
Lex; Lotz in PRE’, vol. 5, pp. 402-406 (very complete). 


Arnold, Ephod and Ark (1917); Kittel, Geschichte d. V. Is. 
(4th Ed. 1921) Vol. II, p. 40 n. E. E. N. 


EPHPHATHA, ef’s-fha (ép9a6%) (Mk 7 34): 
The transliteration of an Aramaic word spoken by 
Jesus. The Greek here may not perfectly represent 
the original form, which, may have been marked 
by some dialectic peculiarity. (Cf. Dalman, Aram. 
Gram.? p. 278; and Kautzasch, Gr. d. bibl. Aram. 
p. 10). E. E. N. 


EPHRAIM; ifro-im (2178, ’ephrayim): I. 
The youngest son of Joseph. See Trisxs, §§ 3, 4 
II. The term is frequently used, especially in the 
Prophets, to designate the Northern Kingdom of 
Israel, since the tribe of Ephraim was the most 
powerful element in that kingdom. III. A city of 
Judea mentioned only in Jn 11 54 as the place to 
which Jesus retired after raising Lazarus. The town 
near which Absalom had his sheep range (II S 18 23) 
and the ’Agatoeeua« of I Mac 11 34 are possibly to be 
identified with the same place; also called Ophrah 


Ephraim, Forest of 
Esau 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


218 


een NINN NRL tN ECCT tL NTL CN LC A 


(Jos 18 23, etc.) and Ephron (II Ch 1319). Map III, 
F 5. See nie PALESTINE, § 7 (5). E. E. N. 
EPHRAIM, ifra-im, FOREST OF (87198 792 
ya‘ar ’ephrayim, wood of Ephraim AV): The 
scene of the decisive battle between the forces of 
David and those of his rebellious son Absalom (II 
S 186). From the account in II § chs. 17 and 18, 
the place was E. of the Jordan. Possibly it was so 
named from a colony of Ephraimites, EH. of the Jor- 
dan (cf. Jos 17 14-18), to which there may be a refer- 
ence in Jg 12 4. Cat ite 


EPHRAIM, GATE OF See JmervusaLeM, § 32. 
EPHRAIN, i’fra-in. See Epuron, II. 


EPHRATH, ef’rath (D128, ’ephrath), or EPH- 
RATHAH (70798, ’ephrathah): The second wife of 
Caleb, son of Hezron (I Ch 2 19), and the mother 
of Hur (I Ch 2 50, 4 4), the ancestor of Beth-lehem, 
Kiriath-jearim, and Beth-Gader. Perhaps this means 
that Beth-lehem was one town of a district Ephra- 
thah. Ephrathah (Ephratah AV) and Beth-lehem are 
parallel (Ru 4 11), and we read also of Beth-lehem 
Ephrathah (Mic 5 2). Jesse is called an Ephrathite 
of Beth-lehem-judah (I § 17 12). Naomi’s sons are 
Ephrathites of Beth-lehem-judah (Ru 1 2). Ephra- 
thah (Ps 132 6) probably means Beth-lehem or the 
surrounding district. Perhaps in Ps 132 6b we 
should read ‘field of Jaar,’ 7.e., Kiriath-jearim (so 
RVmg.). In Jg 125,18 11, andI K 11 26, the Heb. 
‘Ephrathite’ should be read ‘Ephraimite,’ as in RV. 
Ephrath (Gn 35 16, 19, 487), the place where Rachel 
was buried, near Bethel, in the border of Benjamin 
(IS 10 2), was probably not the same as Bethlehem 
(‘the same is Beth-lehem’ is a later addition). See 
BETHLEHEM. ENTS a We 


EPHRON, i’fren (li098, ’ephrén): I. A Hittite, 
the son of Zohar of Hebron, from whom Abraham 
purchased the cave of Machpelah (Gn 23 ff., 25 9, 
etc.). II. 1. A city which with others King Abijah 
wrested from Jeroboam (II Ch 1319). (Ephrain AV 
and RVmg., the same as EpuratM, III [q.v.]). 2. A 
mountainous ridge, forming the northern boundary 
of Judah between Nephtoah and Kiriath-jearim 
(Jos 15 9). 


EPICUREANS, ’Extxoterot (Ac 1718): The fol- 
lowers of Epicurus (341-270 B.c.), whose tenets op- 
posed those of the Stoics. He started from hedon- 
ism and the atomistic theory, and contended that 
happiness consists in pleasure by which man arrives 
at virtue through absence of pain. Epicurus en- 
couraged friendship and discouraged engaging in 
business and politics, which disturb serenity of 
mind. He placed the doctrine of the swerving of 
atoms in the forefront of his doctrine of the genesis 
of the world and of cognition and therefore exalted 
Chance to supreme power. There are either no gods, 
or else they do not care for man. The Epicureans 
were very dogmatic, and claimed infallibility for 
their doctrines. They bound their adherents to 
defend certain fundamental principles. They held 
that ethics and morals are of more importance than 
knowledge, which should be sought mainly to banish 
the disturbing elements of fear and superstition. 
Epicureanism reflected the elegance and freedom of 


Athens, and was therefore regarded by the early 
Christians as embodying the essence of paganism. 
See H. Sidgwick, History of Hihics V, s.v. ‘Epi- 
cureans’. J. R.S. S.#—S. A. 
EPILEPTIC. See Disnasn anp Mepicinz, III. 


EPISTLE: The literary form of the greater por- 
tion of the N T writings. In their main construction 
the N T Epistles correspond generally to what was 
customary in the age in which they were written— 
consisting of an opening greeting, a body containing 
the message, and a closing salutation. In the con- 
struction of these several parts, however, they differ 
largely from the classical form, being more elaborate 
in both greeting and salutation, while the message is 
cast usually in a discussional form. The Epistles dif- 
fer considerably also among themselves. Taking the 
letter of the Council, Ac 15 23-29, as a sample of 
classical form (see also letter of Claudius Lysias to 
Felix 23 26-30) the Epistle of James approximates 
most closely to literary usage in its employment of 
yaipety in its greeting, altho it has no salutation; 
while III John resembles this classical usage in the 
brevity of its greeting, altho it is of the usual N T 
type in its salutation. On the other hand, Hebrews 
and I John have no greeting, and the latter has no 
formal salutation. The remaining Epistles are of a 
peculiar Semitic form of greeting, in their wishing to 
the readers grace, mercy, and peace from the 
Divine source, I and II P Jude, and II Jn intro- 
ducing the verbal form (I, II P, Jude, rAnbuvbety; 
II Jn, gotat), which is lacking in Paul’s letters. 
The form of the closing salutation varies greatly, 
altho in several (IP, Ro, I and II Co, I Th) appears 
the idea of the holy kiss, which was a common form 
of salutation among the Hebrews, and in many (Ro, 
I and II Co, Gal, Ph, Col, I and II Th, He, II Ti, 
Tit, Phm, I P, III Jn) there is added, or substituted 
(Eph, I Ti), a renewal of the benedictory wish of 
grace, or peace from above; while in some (Ro, I Co, 
Col, I Th, II Ti, He, I P, III Jn) there are added 


or substituted (Phn, IT J n), personal remembrances _ 


or requests from the writer himself, or salutations 
from his companions, or the Christians of the place 
or the region from which he is writing. A few (Ja, 


wy 


II P, I Jn, Jude) can not be said to have any ‘ 


farewell salutation. 


The messages of the N T Epistles are naturally — 
determined as to their contents by the peculiar re- — 
ligious and spiritual condition of their readers. The — 
usual form which the message assumes is that given — 


characteristically by Paul—a discussion of the 


- 


reader’s situation from a doctrinal point of view, — 


followed by a series of exhortations based upon — 
the previous discussion and applied to the various — 


phases presented by the situation. The best illus- 


trations of this form are given by Ro, Gal, Eph, and © 


Col. In Ph this form is modified Somewhat by the 
personal cast of its contents,which is seen most dis- 


tinctively in Phm. InI Co the form is constrained by © 


the’seriatim discussion of questions raised in the cor- — 


respondence between the church and the Apostle, 
and of information given to the Apostle by members 
of the church. The composite character of II Co 


(q.v.) makes any classification of its message form 
difficult, while I and II Th are so peculiarly pastoral, _ 


= 
—_ 


<i>as 


Ss. fous 











219 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ephraim, Forest of 
Esau 





and are determined so largely by the religiously un- 
developed character of their readers as to lack for- 
mality of discussion. This informality is seen in its 
extreme form in the personal letters to Timothy and 


Titus. 


Outside of Paul’s letters, the variety is more 
marked. I P and He are the only ones which can be 
said to reproduce the general Pauline form, and in 
Hebrews the homiletic quality of the discussion so 
dominates it as to reduce to a minimum its resem- 
blance to that form. II P and Jude resemble each 
other, but only feebly suggest the Pauline cast. Ja 
is a homily, after the style of the O T wisdom writ- 
ings; while the peculiar literary relation of I John 
to the Fourth Gospel makes it practically throughout 
a spiritual application of the Gospel’s narrated facts, 
and the specifically personal character of II and III 
Jn places them in the category of Phm. 

To the character of their contents is due the desig- 
nation of Iand II Tiand Tit asthe ‘Pastoral Epis- 
tles.’ The name ‘Catholic,’ however, as applied to Ja, 
IT and II P, I, II, and III Jn, and Jude, while origi- 
nating in the conception of them as circular or ency- 
clical letters, was applied at the first only to certain 
of the group and came later to have the more eccle- 
siastical sense of ‘generally accepted’ (see CaTHoLic 
EpistLes and Pastorau EpPIsr.Es). 

In general, it is clear that these N T writings took 
their epistolary form in the way of natural cor- 
respondence and not as pure literary productions. 
They were written for their respective readers, with 
no thought of a general literary public; so that 
Deissmann’s contention that they are letters rather 
than Epistles is justified (ET, Dec., 1906). 

Besides the formal epistolary writings of the N T 


_ there are to be found in the O T and the N T ref- 


erences to individual letters, with more or less re- 
production of their contents, such as (O T) the letter 
of David to Joab (IIS 11 14f.), Jezebel to the elders 
of Naboth’s city (I K 21 8f.), Jehu to the rulers of 
Jezreel (II K 101-7), Ben-hadad to the king of Israel 
(II K 55-7), Sennacherib to Hezekiah (II K 2012; Is 
39), Hiram to Solomon (II Ch 2 11), Jeremiah to the 
Exiles in Babylon (Jer 29 [Shemaiah to the rulers of 
Jerusalem, vs. 25, 31]), Elijah to Jehoram (II Ch 21 
12-15). Hezekiah to the remnants of the Northern 
Kingdom (II Ch 301, 6), between officials at the Res- 
-toration (Ezr 47 #., 55 #.; Neh 27-9, cf. 6 5-7, 17, 19), 
Ahasuerus to the royal provinces (Est 3 12 f.), 
Mordecai to the Jews (Est 8 9-14, 9 20-22) Esther 
and Mordecai to the Jews (Est 9 29), and (N T) the 
letter of the High Priest to the Synagog of Damascus 
(Ac 9 2 [ef. 22 5], 28 21), the Council to the Gentile 
Converts of Syria and Cilicia (Ac 15 22-29), Claudius 
Lysias to Felix (Ac 23 26-30). Notice also reference 
to letters of introduction in II Co 3 1; Ac 18 27; 
I Co 16 3 (cf. Ro 161 .), and to letters from the 
churches to the apostle (I Co 7 1); while the Book 
of Revelation, apocalyptic tho it is in its contents, 
is cast in the form of a letter from the Seer ‘to the 
seven churches which are in Asia’ (1 4; cf. 2 1, 8, 12, 18, 
3 1, 7, 14). M. W. J. 


ER, or (1Y, r): 1. A son of Judah by the Ca- 
haanitess Shua (Gn 38 3 f., etc.). Er married Tamar, 
but was slain by J” for his wickedness. The whole 


story in Gn ch. 88 probably represents tribal (or clan) 
rather than individual experiences. Er was thus a 
small clan that was lost (by conquest or absorption) 
in the larger clan of Tamar or Shelah. See Skinner’s 
comment in JCC. 2. ‘Son’ of Shelah (I Ch 4 21). 
3. An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 28). EK. E. N. 


ERAN, iran (11¥, ‘éran): The ancestral head of 
the Ephraimite clan of Eranites (Nu 26 36, cf. I Ch 
7 20). 

ERASTUS, 1-ras’tus ("Eeactos): 1. One of those 
ministering (of S:axovodytes) to Paul (Ac 19 22) who 
was sent on in advance from Ephesus to Macedonia. 
2. The ‘treasurer of the city (oltxovéuec),’ probably 
Corinth (Ro 16 23), especially if this Erastus is 
identical with the companion of Paul mentioned in 
II Ti 4 20 who remained in Corinth, presumably 
because it was his home. JeDEaT. 

ERECH, i’rek (118, ’erekh): A city of S. Baby- 
lonia to the E. of the lower Euphrates, the modern 
Warka, the inscriptional Uruk and Arku, whose im- 
mense ruins indicate the site of a large city with a 
very long history. It is mentioned in Gn 10 10 as one 
of the four cities founded by Nimrod. Its antiquity 
is attested by its having been the center for 8. Baby- 
lonia of the worship of the goddess Ishtar (cf. Asx- 
TORETH), the Semitic Venus. It was also the prin- 
cipal scene of the Bab. Gilgamesh Epic. See BaBy- 
LONIA, § 7. Archevites are named in Ezr 49 f. as 
among the peoples settled in Samaria by Osnapper 
(Ashurbanipal). According to the usual explanation 
inhabitants of the territory of Erech are meant. 

J. F. McC.—L. B. P. 

ERI, i’rai (1¥, ri): The ancestral head of the 
Erites, a clan of Gad (Gn 46 16; Nu 26 16). 

ESAIAS, 1-zé’yas. See ISarAu. 

ESARHADDON, i”sdr-had’an (J7708, ’ésar 
haddon = Assyr. ASur-ah~iddin [a]), ‘Assur has given 
a brother’: A son and successor of King Sennach- 
erib (705-681 B.c.) on the throne of Assyria, 681- 
668 B.c. He came to his throne after a revolution in 
which his father was slain (cf. Is 37 38; II K 19 37). 
As soon as he was established he rebuilt Babylon, 
which his father had ruthlessly destroyed (689 B.c.). 
He restored Eshargubanna, the holy place of Nana 
in the temple of Eanna in Erech. His most notable 
and far-reaching campaign was that in which he 
invaded Egypt, 674 s.c. In 673 he repeated the 
attack and in 670 his army victoriously reached 
Memphis, captured it, and Egypt became a vassal 
to Assyria. While on the way to put down revolt 
in Egypt in 668, Esarhaddon died. I. M. P. 

ESAU, i’sd (WY, saw), ‘hairy,’ according to the 
popular etymology of Gn 25 25, which, however, 
is pronounced unsatisfactory by Buhl and others: 
The name of the first-born of the twin sons of Re- 
bekah and Isaac (Gn 25 21 #.). The story of E. in Gn 
is made up of several strands (J, E [?], and P. See 
Genesis, § 4). The notice in 25 25 seems to be com- 
posite, as in it emphasis is laid upon his ruddy color, 
whence his name Edom, and upon his skin being like 
a ‘hairy’ (sé‘ar) garment, a play upon the name Seir, 
with which the name EH. is connected without ex- 
planation. But the origin of his name Edom is given 


Eschatology 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


220 





later (25 29-34, as ‘red,’ in connection with the red 
pottage). Seir is used often interchangeably with 
Edom for the country inhabited by Esau’s de- 
scendants, and the descendants of Seir are given 
in the genealogy of Esau-Edom, probably as a par- 
allel table (Gn 36 20-30). In JE the interest centres 
about the relations between Esau and Jacob. In 
these old stories Jacob is represented as gaining the 
advantage over E. in connection with the question 
of inheritance (the birthright, 25 29-34 E [?], the 
blessing, ch. 27 E (2?) and J. But on his return 
from Aram, Jacob is constrained to sue for favor 
from E., who is represented as meeting him gra- 
ciously and forgiving all past offenses (chs. 32, 33 
mainly J). In P the interest is mainly in Esau’s 
marriages to Hittite (26 341.) and Ishmaelite (28 8 f.) 
wives, which is the reason for sending Jacob to 
Paddan-Aram (28 1-7). 

In JE the stories are told with remarkaoue impar- 
tial objectivity. While E. is a ‘hunter,’ ‘a man of 
the field,’ and therefore a contrast to the ‘quiet,’ 
businesslike, crafty Jacob, little is said that shows 
that the writers condemn him. If Jacob well rep- 
resents Israel’s national traits, E. may also repre- 
sent those of Edom. For, after all, it is the story of 
two peoples, the elder of which (Esau-Edom) was 
at last compelled to give way to the younger (Israel), 
that gives these stories their real historical signifi- 
cance, as is plainly indicated in the oracle in 25 23; 
cf. Skinner’s careful comments in JCC. See also 
Epo. E. E. N. 


ESCHATOLOGY. 


OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. 


1. Definition 

2. Development 
I. Oxup TEestTaMENT EscHATOLOGY 

1. The Nation, §§ 3-14 

2. The Individual, §§ 15-23 
IJ. Tuer INTERTESTAMENTAL PeErRiop, §§ 24-31 
"II New TrEstaMent Escuatro.oey 

1. Eschatology of Jesus, §§ 33-39 

2. Eschatology of the Apostles, §§ 40-49 


1. Definition. Eschatology (from é%oyara, ‘last 
things’) is strictly the systematic presentation of 
ideas regarding the ultimate condition of the world 
and of mankind. Broadly, it includes also ideas 
regarding events leading to the end. Further, it 
includes not only the absolutely last things but 
also all that relatively to the present may be regarded 
as last, 7.e., all that follows the present life of the 
individual and all that attends and follows the 
present dispensation, as far as the world is con- 
cerned. In a religious system its importance is 
even greater than that of the systematic presenta- 
tion of origins (Cosmogony). 


2. Development. Biblical eschatology, at least as 
much as any other department of the Biblical 
system of thought, shows signs of gradual develop- 
ment, and may, therefore, be properly subdivided 
into the eschatology, I, of the O T; II, of the inter- 
testamental period, and III, of the N T. These 
three sections represent three periods of unequal 
duration. The first covers more than 1,000 years 
and ends with the 2d cent. B.c. The second lasts 
for approximately 200 years, and the third for 
somewhat less than one century. 


I. Oup TesTaAMENT ESCHATOLOGY. 
1. The Nation. 


3; Genta Features of O T Eschatology. The 
central subject in the O T is the Chosen People. 
In eschatology, therefore, the destiny of Israel 
furnishes the starting-point of the develop- 
ment of thought. And in the portraiture of the 
future of the Chosen People two things are dis- 
tinguished: a final future glory reserved for it and 
an intervening period of judgment, called ‘the Day 
of Jehovah.’ Both of these are comprehended 
under the eschatological phrase latter days (last 
days, also ‘end of days,’ Is 2 2; Ezk 38 16). 

4. The Day of Jehovah. The ‘Day of Jehovah’ 
(‘Day of the Lord’ AV), as a phrase, was first used 
in the 8th cent. and is represented as a consumma- 
tion to which the people were eagerly looking 
forward (Am 5 18-20). Before it became a popular 
expression, however, the phrase must have been 
used by the prophets in oral encouragements and 
warnings. At any rate, in its first appearance it had 
already attained a misleading content, and Amos 
aims to correct the misconception. To the expectant 
people the Day of J’’ conveyed the meaning of a 
time of indefinite duration (cf. Day) when J’ would 
show His favor to His people by delivering them 
either from foreign oppression or from social irregu- 
larities and injustices. ‘This conception takes its 
name, no doubt, from J’”s special manifestation at 
the time, just as ‘day of Midian,’ ‘day of Tempta- 
tion,’ etc., are times distinguished by these features. 
It is, however, often spoken of also as ‘that day’ 
(Is 17 7, 30 23; Mic 4 6; Zec 9 16, etc.). 

5. A Day of Righteous Judgment. The prophets 
of the preexilic period, true to their character as 
ethical teachers, develop the idea by calling atten- 
tion to the fact that, if Jehovah reveals Himself at 
any time, it must be as the God of righteousness, 
in order to visit punishment upon sin. With the 
preaching of this idea the Day of Jehovah became ~ 
the Day of God’s appearance to judge the nations _ 
of the earth for their unrighteousness (Zeph 1 7; 
Is 13 6, 9; JI 3 14 [spectacular judgment in the Valley 
of Jehoshaphat]). But God’s justice is from the 
nature of the case set against unrighteousness in all — 
places with equal rigidity. Israel is no exception, — 
and, therefore, both branches of the Chosen People — 
must submit to the visitation of justice. The thought 
is enunciated with considerable emphasis by Amos — 
(5 18). But the idea of judgment upon all nations 
opposed to the will of Jehovah is not bound up in- 
the single phrase ‘Day of Jehovah.’ It appears 
independently as the constant refrain of the pro-— 
phetic discourses; it is given eschatological dis- ; 
tinctiveness only through its association with the — 
Day. The usage of the exilic and postexilic period — i 
is best understood upon the basis of this free applica- ; 
tion of the term (Ezk 13 5, 30 3; Jl 115, 21, 11, 31; Ob- 
ver. 15). 

6. Precursors of the Day. The specific characte 
of such a period is more distinctly emphasized by 
placing between it and what precedes it certain — 
events of exceptional or preternatural aspect. These 
were conceived as affecting not only the inner social — 
and moral life of nations, but also the world of 





' 221 





physical nature. They included portentous con- 
vulsions and changes in the order and movements 
of the heavenly bodies as well as in the earth itself 
(Is 241; Jl 2 2, 10). 

7. A Day of Israel’s Glory. But behind the Day 
of Judgment the eschatological prospect of the 
Israelite beheld a day of glory. This too was rooted 
in the character of J’’, as a God exercising mercy 
and keeping faith with His covenant people. At 
this point eschatology coalesces with the vaguer 
forms of the Messianic hope (see MrsstauH). Trito- 
Isaiah portrays the prospect of the renovation and 
restoration of the nation (Is ch. 60). It is an age of 
perfection which needs no further change and under- 
goesnone. The characteristics of it are the gathering 
together of all Israelites from all parts of the world 
(Is 43 6), the bestowment of all earthly blessings 
upon them (Am 9 11-15), the passing away of sorrow 
and sighing (Is 35 10, 65 19), and the change of all 
into righteous servants of J’ who glory in Him (Is 
45 25). 

8. Supremacy of Israel. The other nations are in 
this prospect brought into subjection to Israel either 
by conquest as a consequence of the warfare which 
they themselves have brought on by their attack on 
God’s people (Ezk 38 18; Jl 2 20; Zec ch. 14 [passim]; 
Ob ver. 18), or by the voluntary adoption of the God 
of Israel as a God, because they shall recognize Him 
as the righteous King of the whole earth (Is 2 2-4). 
To this they will be led either by the manifestation 
of His great and fearful power (Zeph 3 8,9; Is 168 f..), 
or by the teaching of Israel, especially by the Servant 
of J” (Is 42 6, 496, 505f., 514f.,603). This, how- 
ever, means that Israel is to rule over them and not 
merely take a primacy among them, as the first 
among equals (Dn 7 27). 


9. Ezekiel’s Ideal Israel. Of this ideal condition 
Ezekiel draws a general picture, as far as it concerns 
the internal conditions and arrangement of the land 
together with its laws and the ritual provisions that 
should prevail in the restored Israel (chs. 40-48). 

10. National Resurrection. This is the restitution 
and resurrection of Israel. It is the new era ushered 
in by a new covenant under which all the imperfec- 
tions of the old pass away. To use a term derived 
from pagan lore, it is the ‘Golden Age.’ In this 


_ Yenovation even the material creation and the 


animal kingdom will have a share. The earth shall 
increase her fruitfulness (Is 29 17, 30 25; 32 15). 
Prosperity will extend through all the departments 
of life (Jer 31 18; J1 3 18; Am 913). Noxious beasts 
and birds of prey will change their natures; so that 
man shall no longer fear them (Is 11 6-8, 65 25), or 
else they will be exterminated (Ezk 34 25, 28). The 
age of man will be prolonged, and none shall die in 
youth (Is 65 20). Physical infirmities will be re- 
moved, as will also disease (Is 29 18). The light of 
the moon will be equal to that of the sun, and that 
of the sun will be sevenfold greater (Is 30 26), or J” 
Himself will take the place of both sun and moon 
(Is 60 19). In fact, this will be a new world with 
new heavens and a new earth (Is 65 17, 66 22). 
11. Literal and Figurative Blended. All these 
_ representations could not have been meant literally; 
but that some of them were so meant there can be 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Eschatology 


little doubt. Yet, however meant and however 
understood, they are in themselves evidences of an 
expectation of a deeper and more essential trans- 
formation affecting the character of the people, 
which is grounded in God’s love for and work in 
His Chosen People. 

12. The Remnant. As to the method of the reali- 
zation of this ideal, it was understood that it would 
be by the separation of a nucleus of righteous mem- 
bership in the nation. How large this nucleus should 
be at the outset is not clear. Isaiah believed that it 
would include the main body of the state, or at least 
as much of it as could control the whole body. More 
frequently, however, the name ‘remnant,’ applied 
to it, carries with it the conception of a small be- 
ginning (see Remnant, and cf. Is 37 4; Zeph 3 13; 
Zec 8 12). 

13. Transition to Individualism. The moral line 
of distinction between the sound and unsound parts 
of the Chosen People is the link of connection 
between the collectivism and individualism of the 
O T. For the Remnant is after all constituted of 
persons who sustain independent relations with J’, 
not shared in by the general body. Their course is 
not determined by the whole body, else they must 
be of the same character and under the same con- 
demnation. 

14. Individualism in Jer and Ezk. In this transi- 
tion to the individualistic view of religion Jeremiah 
served as a pioneer. Every one shall die for his own 
iniquity is his dictum (81 29f.). The collapse of the 
national life with the Captivity no doubt helped to 
bring into view the importance of a change of basis. 
At any rate, Ezekiel closely follows Jeremiah’s 
individualism (Ezk 18 4). All souls stand in direct 
relation to God (‘the soul that sinneth, it shall die’). 
Therefore one may raise himself out of the evil into 
which he is born and in which he lives (Ezk 18 21-24) 
and enter a new community. 


2. The Individual. 

15. Death. To the individual the fact of pri- 
mary importance in eschatology is death. The 
thought of death was from the very beginning 
present to the mind of the Hebrew, as it was 
not among some other races. As to the nature 
of death itself, however, there is no discussion or 
explanation of it as a physiological or physical 
reality. It is certain that it is viewed not as the end 
of all existence but simply as an end of earthly life. 
Death is caused by the escape of the soul from the 
body; and soul and life are practically synonymous. 
As the life is in the blood (Lv 17 11; Gn 9 4f.; Dt 12 
23), the shedding of the blood is the liberation of the 
soul. If unjustly forced out of the body, the life 
could cry out to God for vengeance (Gn 4 10). 

16. Immortality. Thus expelled or left to escape 
from the body, life does not become extinct nor lose 
its personal continuity. Personal continuity and 
life in the body are not identical. The spirit of life 
is indeed necessary for existence on earth; but the 
person may continue to exist in another form after 
it has left the body. This doctrine, however, is 
quite different from the idea of inherent immortality 
in the Greek sense, which involves the indestruc- 
tibility of the essential being of man. The Hebrew 


Eschatology 





notion involves simply the belief that death does 
not end all for the individual. The prohibition of 
necromancy, the sharp distinction between man and 
other animals, and belief in resurrection, altho 
distinctly enunciated only in the latest times 
(Dn 12 2), put this conclusion beyond doubt. 

17. State After Death. Just what becomes of the 
person at death is a question answered variously. 
According to the popular conception he is ‘gathered 
to his fathers’ (Jg 2 10; II K 22 20, or ‘his people,’ 
Dt 3250). Butthisis very vague. A more developed 
answer is found in the doctrine of Sheol. 


18. Sheol (Hell AV). The O T Sheol! (Hell AV) 
and the N T Hades must be distinguished from the 
grave. Abraham, Moses, Jacob, and Aaron are 
buried in graves far from the sepulchers of their 
ancestors, and yet they are gathered to their fathers, 
or pass into Sheol. Sheol is then a distinct place in 


the depths of the earth (Pr 15 24; Ps 8613). It is 
a region of darkness (La 3 6; Ps 148 3). It is the 
land where light is as midnight (Job 10 22). It is 


a vast place, for it receives all and is never full (Pr 
27 20; Ezk 32 21). It is known also by other names, 
such as the pit (Ps 28 1, 30 3; Ezk 32 18); Abaddon, 
z.e., ‘destruction’ (Job 26 6, 28 22; Pr 15 11; Ps 88 11); 
‘the lower parts of the earth’ (Is 44 23; Eph 4 9); 
also poetically a ‘place of silence’ (Ps 94 17, 115 17), 
‘the land of forgetfulness’ (Ps 88 12); and in a still 
more imaginative description it is compared to a 
huge monster with wide-open mouth swallowing 
those who come near (Is 5 14). 


19. Mode of Existence in Sheol. The mode of 
existence in Sheol is certainly inferior to that upon 
earth. It is shadowy and dim, owing to the absence 
of the spirit of life. But it is not a mere disembodied 
soul or spirit existence. The terms soul and spirit 
are not used of those who dwell in Sheol. The only 
exception is Job 14 22, and here the person in Sheol 
is conceived of as being there in soul and body. 
More frequently those in Sheol are called ‘stiff’ or 
‘weary’ ones (Rephaim, ‘weak,’ Is 149 f., so also in 
the Phenician inscription of Eshmunazzar, who are, 
however, not to be confused with the Rephaim 
named as primitive giants in Gn 145, 15 20). Hence 
their state is one of privation. They have done with 
all activity and feel neither pain nor the thrill of 
excitement (Job 3 13-19); and yet in Is 14 10 they are 
poetically said to be roused up to meet the king of 
Babylon who is about to join them. In any case, 
they lack all comfort and joy (Job 17 16). 


20. Consciousness in Sheol. To what extent even 
consciousness was believed to continue in the state 
after death is uncertain. That some degree of 
mental activity must exist in any condition in which 
the distinctiveness of man is preserved goes without 
saying; but it is possible both to exaggerate the 
amount of feeling implied and to minimize it. It is 
not safe to infer from the use of the term ‘knowing 
ones’ (Lv 19 31; Is 19 3, ‘familiar spirits’ RV) that 
the dead appealed to in necromancy were regarded 
as more than usually gifted in knowledge (I S ch. 28) 





1The word ‘Sheol’ should be derived not from shd’al, ‘to 
ask,’ as if it denoted ‘one who demands’; nor from shil, ‘to 
be limp,’ or ‘slack’; but from shd‘al, ‘to dig up,’ ‘to hollow,’ 
But ef. the Lexicons, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


222 


or that there is an earlier and a later doctrine on the 
subject. The more legitimate inference is that the 
thought of the superior wisdom of the departed was 
entertained among the heathen, but that in Israel 
it was especially repudiated as contrary to the 
principles of Jehovah worship. Nevertheless it is 
true that the later thought of the O T is more con- 
sistent on this point to the effect, namely, that the 
departed pass a dreamlike incoherent semiconscious 
existence (Job 10 22). 

21. Separation from J’’ in Sheol. The most im- 
portant aspect of existence in Sheol to the Israelite 
was its separation from J’. This caused him great 
regret (Ps 6 5, 88 10-12; Is 38 18); therefore the dead 
are mourned (II S 1 17), and the prospect of future 
reunion with them affords no comfort (II § 12 23). 
Whatever differences between dwellers in Sheol may 
exist, they are based not on moral grounds but on 
racial distinctions. The idea of translation to 
heaven, as in the case of Enoch and Elijah, does not 
seem to have formed an appreciable factor in the 
religious thought of the Hebrews. 


22. Individual Resurrection. That the dead 
should be raised from the grave, reclothed in bodily 
life, and rewarded or subjected to punishment is a 
conception which appears only in the latest genera- 
tions of the O T period, and plays an important part 
in ministering comfort to the surviving comrades 
and kinsfolk of martyrs (Dn 12 2). The question of 
the return from Sheol is, however, suggested with a 
decided negative bias by Job (14 14). In 19 25-29 of 
the same book (a most obscure passage, ‘in my flesh’ 
AV, ‘from my flesh’ ERV, ‘without my flesh’ 
ARV), the testimony for a belief in a bodily resur- 
rection is quite doubtful. 

23. The Eschatology of Ecclesiastes. The type 
of thought in Ecclesiastes (q.v.) does not allow itself 
to be fused with that of the other O T books. That 
in this book there are two inconsistent systems is 
very clear. Whatever the occasion and cause may 
be, the pessimistic system is more nearly allied to 
the materialistic view of man’s nature and future. 
Evidently, however, this was felt to be incom- 
patible with the spirit of the Israelite. Either the 
author himself, or some one else for him, explains 
the eschatological correlatives (cf. 12 13 £.). See also 
EccuEsiastss, § 4 (iv). 


II. Tae INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD. 
(EscHATOLOGY OF JUDAISM.) 


24. Formative Influences. In the interval between 
the close of the O T and the opening of the N T, 
eschatology assumed very great prominence. This 
was due to (1) the distressing circumstances of the 
period, in which, however, the conviction that all 
was well, and should ultimately issue in an aus- 
picious consummation, never failed or faded; (2) 
fresh and great interest in the individual and the 
contemplation of the problems of religion from that 
view-point; and (8) contact with the Greek world 
with its doctrine of immortality, which was carefully 
wrought out upon philosophical grounds. The three 
branches of eschatology (the world, the nation. and 
the individual) are, however, still held in view. 

25. Literary Sources: Apocrypha. 


Of the three — 








223 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Eschatology 





classes of writings of the period (the Apocrypha, the 
works of Josephus and Philo, and the apocalyptic 
literature) the first furnishes nothing distinctive. 
In II Maccabees the latest development of O T 
eschatology (especially the idea of the bodily resur- 
rection of the faithful) is acutely presented; but the 
other Apocrypha contain either no eschatological 
data or only such as are duplicated in the canonical 
pt, 

26. Philo and Josephus. Jewish eschatology, as 
far as reflected in Philo and Josephus, shows the 
development of a difference between Palestinian and 
Alexandrian types of thought; but essentially its 
general outline and fundamental position are the 
same in both. The Messiah and the Messianic 
restoration of prosperity are quite prominent (Philo 
De Exec. 8-9; De Pram. et Pen. 15-20; Jos. Ant. 
IV, 65; X, 117). Philo believed in a final state for 
the individual at death without subsequent judg- 
ment and resurrection, but with everlasting rewards 
and punishments; and in a special place of punish- 
ment (Tartarus, as among the Greeks, De Ezec. 6). 
Josephus, on the other hand, held to the very safe 
idea of an intermediate condition for both righteous 
and wicked and a resurrection for the righteous only 
(Ant. XVIII, 8 14; BJ, II, 1 3). 


27. Apocalyptic Literature. The most prolific 
source of eschatological notions for this period is the 
apocalyptic literature. So large a place is given to 
the last things in these writings that some use the 
terms ‘apocalyptic’ and ‘eschatological’ as inter- 
changeable. It is the chief feature of this literature 
that it divides the whole history of the world into two 
sections called eons, or ages, separated bya sharpline. 
All that precedes the moment of separation is the 
‘present age’ (6 aidyv oSto>) all that follows is the ‘age 
to come’ (6 aidy 6 geyéduevoc). They differ from each 
other in moral character and also in outward condi- 
tions. The present age is controlled by brute forces; 
it is the world-kingdom, symbolized under the figures 
of beasts. The future is the age of the Divine king, 
presented under a human aspect (Dn 7 27). The 
duration of the evil age is absolutely fixed, and 
altho reckoned differently (Eth. En. 16 1, 18 16, 
10,000 years; Assump. Mos. 5,000 years) it is near 
its end, and the question with those living is whether 
they shall continue through it and witness the 
advent of a new eon. 

28. Messianism in Apocalyptic Literature. The 
future age is naturally characterized by the setting 
up of the Messianic kingdom and the coming of the 
Messiah. In both these matters, the thought is 
rooted in the O T, but developed into a diversity of 
form not always capable of reduction into a sys- 
tematic unity. But for the most part these develop- 
ments are subsequent to the beginning of the N T 
and influenced by it. More emphasis, however, is 
laid in the Apocalypses upon the dolores Messia, i.e., 
the disturbances which are to precede and introduce 
the Messianic Age, and on the appearance of an 
anti-Messianic personality representing all enmity 
against God (Antichrist, cf. Sib. Or. 3 63). 

29. Expansion of Ideas. The individual escha- 
tology of the Apocalypses carries out the O T 
conception on the various phases of the subject to 


their fuller outline, especially those which cluster 
about judgment, resurrection, and retribution. On 
all these subjects, ideas were more clearly outlined. 
Belief in the resurrection took into its scope the re- 
embodiment of all men with a view to their being 
judged either individually or in a great and common 
assize and being assigned to their respective destinies 
of reward or penalty. Sheol was also developed into 
the conception of a place subdivided into two 
caverns, separated by a wall or chasm (gulf, Lk 
16 26), one occupied by the departed just and the 
other by the unjust. 

30. Gehenna. Furthermore, the growing use of 
the Valley of Hinnom (gé-hinném) as the figure of 
everything suggestive of disgust and abhorrence 
furnished a ready mold for the thought of a place 
of punishment for the wicked. Gehenna (and in a 
simpler form, ‘the Valley,’ Jer 2 23, 31 40) is clearly 
identified with Sheol in Assump. Mos. 10 10 (cf. also 
Eth. En. 99 11, 103 7 £.).? 

31. Paradise. A counterpart of Gehenna, a place 
for the righteous after death, was found in the idea 
of Paradise (a Persian word meaning ‘park,’ ‘gar- 
den’). But the location of Paradise is uncertain. By 
some it was thought to be a portion of Sheol sepa~ 
rated by a chasm from the abode of the wicked, by 
others it was made a place in the presence of God 
Himself (Heaven, so the Pharisees, Jos. Ant. XVIII, 
1 3; BJ, II 8 14; Wis 3 14, 4 10, 5 5,7). Finally the 
Essenes regarded it as a place on the renovated earth 
in the future. In the Apocalypses, so far as the sub- 
ject is touched upon, Paradise is located on the 
earth (Hih. En. 32 8-23; Jub. 398.; but cf. IV Esd 
6 51-76). 

III. New TresraMent Escuatouoecy. 


32. General Aspects. True to its essential char- 
acteristics, N T thought completely eliminates from 
eschatology the national phase and distributes the 
interest on the individual and universal aspects of 
the subject. The problem of the destiny of a spe- 
cial community, however, is not totally left out of 
consideration. ‘The Christian brotherhood cluster- 
ing around Jesus Christ assumes a place among the 
subjects of thought. The struggles and the final 
victory of the Church are very largely in the fore- 
ground; and yet they come into view as features of 
a world dispensation rather than as experiences of a 
limited circle of human beings. 


1. Eschatology of Jesus. 


33. Eschatology in the Teaching of Jesus. All 
N T teaching naturally begins with the words of 
Jesus. And in this realm the establishment and 
growth of the Kingdom of God upon earth forms the 
starting-point. There can be no doubt that in 
speaking of the Kingdom of God Jesus used the 
phraseology current in his day. Neither can 
there be any doubt that He was far more vitally 
interested in the Kingdom of God as an inner spiri- 
tual reality. Just how His language and His thought 
harmonize has been the subject of much difference 
of view. On the one hand, it is stoutly contended 
that by the Kingdom, He could only mean a visible 


2 This is the purely Palestinian form of what Philo clothes 
under the Greek term Tartarus, 


Eschatology 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


£24 





organization, which would be divinely established 
for Him by a sudden manifestation of power (Bous- 
set, Die Predigt Jesu in threm Gegensatz zum Juden- 
thum; Shailer Mathews, The Mess. Hope in N T, 
1905). Onthe other hand, there is abundant ground 
for the position that Jesus viewed the Kingdom as 
already established while He was teaching His 
disciples, and that He expected it, while starting 
with small beginnings, to attain through natural 
processes unto a world wide diffusion and growth. 


34. The Kingdom of God in the Future. The 
Parousia. Whichever of these two antagonistic views 
may be correct, it remains true that for the disciples 
of Jesus the essential portion of the foundation and 
organization of the Kingdom layin the future. Only 
when His earthly work should be ended and Jesus 
should return again to earth as the glorified Messiah 
would the Kingdom be in full manifestation. Hence 
the promise of His second coming (rapouscta, Mt 243, 
27, 39) of which the time is concealed from all, even 
from the Son (Mk 13 32), but of which He gives cer- 
tain signs that they may recognize it. This thence- 
forth is the central factor in all N T eschatology. 

35. Sources of the Material in the Parousia Dis- 
course. ‘The parousia, however, is in the eschato- 
logical discourse of Jesus (Mt chs. 24, 25; Mk ch. 13) 
associated with the end of the world, and with the 
collapse of the Jewish community, and it has been 
impossible to extricate the matter from the obscu- 
rity which has‘surrounded it on this account. The 
assumption that there is a double coming spoken of, 
or that a Jewish Apocalypse has been adopted into 
the teaching of Jesus and given as a discourse of 
His, and other assumptions of the same kind are 
arbitrary and improbable. But there is, on the 
other hand, a considerable amount of vagueness in 
the evangelic reports of what Jesus said, indicating 
that perhaps from the very nature of the case the 
reporters of the discourse were not able to grasp 
His thought with clearness. 


36. Parousia and Judgment. Closely associated 
with the declaration of the parousia is the other 
declaration that its object would be the Judgment. 
This is clearly an indication of the whole setting and 
trend of the discourses in Mt chs. 24 and 25. A judg- 
ment is more explicitly foretold also in other con- 
nections (Mt 10 15, 11 22, 24). In this Judgment 
Christ Himself is the Judge; those who are judged 
are all classes of men, including peoples of the past 
ages, such as the Queen of Sheba, Sodom and 
Gomorrah (Mt 11 20, 24), and Nineveh; hence also 
the Gentiles, the twelve tribes of Israel (Mt 19 28), 
and His own adherents. The rule of Judgment is 
the ethical one of the exercise of love (Mt 25 31 f.). 

37. Immortality and Resurrection. The question 
of resurrection comes into view as a point of con- 
troversy between the Sadducees and the Pharisees, 
on which His teaching is sought. And Jesus un- 
hesitatingly places Himself on record (Mt 22 23 f.; 
Mk 12 18 £.; Lk 20 27; ef. also Mt 811; Lk 13 28) in 
favor of the essential truth of the belief. The diffi- 
culties of the Sadducees upon the subject have no 
existence for Him, because it belongs to a different 
order of reality from those of common experience. 
But to the same order belongs also immortality. In 


fact, the latter is in the conception of Jesus based 
upon the former, and both are rooted in man’s re- 
lation to God as the object of God’s paternal love. 
Jesus appeals to the fact that J’’ calls Himself the 
God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Mt 22 32). 
This was the ground for believing that the patriarchs 
were not dead. For whom God attaches to Himself 
in the relation implied in such an utterance, the ex- 
perience of death can not be the end of all. This is 
an explicit assertion of the immortality only of some 
men; but it does not exclude the doctrine of the im- 
mortality of all. Further, to the Jewish mind at 
least, the fact that the patriarchs were living carried 
with it the implication that they must some time be 
raised out of their graves. For in mere bodiless 
existence they could not be ideally perfect. 

38. Intermediate State: Hades. The question, 
then, what becomes of men at death, was never 
asked of Jesus or taken up by Him independently. 
Belief in an intermediate state, however, connecting 
the present dispensation with that which shall be at. 
His second coming (and the Judgment) underlies as 
an assumption and unifies the two parts of His 
teaching. And as a substructure for this idea the 
belief in an underworld (‘Sheol,’ ‘Hades’) appears in 
a transformed and spiritualized aspect. Hades is 
no longer a place distinctly and per se, but the figure 
of a place, or a place as the figure of a moral reality. 
This is undoubtedly true also of such other terms as 
were designed to give a notion of the hereafter. 
Abraham’s bosom (Lk 16 22) can not be regarded as 
anything more than the name of a fellowship with 
the righteous and faithful (cf. Paradise, above, § 31). 
Similarly, the statement that a gulf is fixed between 
those who are in Abraham’s bosom and those in tor- 
ment (ver. 26), altho perhaps reflecting the inter- 
testamental notion that a chasm (gulf) separates the 
two compartments of Sheol, can be given here only 
a figurative significance. 

39. Rewards and Penalties Hereafter. The re- 
wards and punishments of moral conduct in this life 
are measured out at the Judgment and become per- ~ 
manent. ‘The wicked are cast down into Gehenna 
(Mt 5 29 f., 10 28; Mk 9 43). Sometimes, however, 
the place of punishment is called outer darkness 
(Mt 8 12), or a place where there are wailing and 
gnashing of teeth (Mt 22 13, 24 51), a place of tor- 
ment (Lk 16 23) and of unquenchable fire. (Mk 9 43, 
45). Of the duration of this punishment, all that 
may be said is that it is eternal (eonian, or age-long), 
just as its counterpart is eternal life for the righteous 
(Mt 25 46, everlasting AV). There is, however, an 
intimation of the modulation of penalty according 
to the amount of knowledge of the sinner (Lk 12 — 
46, 48). The righteous enter into the joy of their 
father; they inherit the kingdom, they possess trea- 
sures in heaven; they live like the angels in a state 
above need and care (Mt 25 31-46). 


2. Eschatology of the Apostles. 

The apostolic treatment of these subjects com- 
bines adherence to current Jewish views with an 
unfolding of the germs given in the thought of Jesus. 
In general, it may be included under the four types 
(the Early, the Pauline, the Deutero-Pauline, and 
the Johannine). . 





225 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY | 


Eschatology 





40. Early Apostolic Eschatology. The first phase 
of apostolic eschatology (that of James, Peter, and 
the Acts) revolves about the conception of the Pa- 
rousia. It forecasts some trials and persecutions 


- but also an impending restoration (énoxatkotacte, 


Ac 3 21, restitution AV). The belief in the under- 
world, with its corollary the intermediate state, also 
comes to the surface (I P 3 19-21, 4 6); but the inter- 
pretation of the passages in which it is expressed is 
beset with great difficulty. The ‘spirits in prison’ 
alluded to in them may be either men in Hades or 
the fallen angels of II P 2 4 and Jude 6; and, so long 
as it is impossible to say what they are, nothing 
definite can be built on these expressions. 

41. Pauline Eschatology. The Pauline eschatol- 
ogy is presented in a variety of forms which do not 
blend into an altogether perfect unity. Especially 
is this true of the necessary inferences that may be 
drawn from them. An important place in it is 
occupied by the establishment of God’s kingdom 
through the second coming of Jesus (described as 
‘the day of the Lord Jesus Christ,’ ‘his revelation,’ 
I Co 17, ‘his coming,’ ‘presence,’ I Th 219, RVmg.). 
This coming, however, has for its end the judgment 
of men by Christ Himself. It is to introduce a uni- 
versal crisis which would include in its scope the 
heathen as well as the Jews, and to consist in the 
revelation of the depths of men’s moral character 
(it is a day of the manifestation of God’s wrath, Ro 
25; 11 Co 510). But it is to be characterized also 
by the manifestation of the Antichrist as a single 
person (IJ Th 28). (See ANTICHRIST). 


42. Pauline Idea of Resurrection. But the | 


eschatological idea most fully elaborated by Paul 
is that of the resurrection. His relation with Greek 
thought, and his desire to conquer it for Christ led 
him to consider the prejudice against the conception 
as it ruled the Greek mind, and to make a synthesis 
of it with the Platonic doctrine of immortality. 
Paul thus stands as the connecting-link between 
the Jew to whom immortality in any sense worth 
considering was, apart from the body, unthinkable 
and the Greek to whom the resurrection of the body 
was a grotesque Oriental superstition. 

43. The Spiritual Body. In working out the 
problem of this synthésis, Paul found the concep- 


_ tion of a spiritual body a great help, but not much 


more than a help; for he does not exactly define what 
the spiritual body is, ¢.e., whether it is made of a 
third substance partaking of the qualities of matter 
and of spirit, yet free from those characteristics of 
either which offer difficulties to the idea of resur- 
rection, or whether it is a symbol or picture of a 
reality not otherwise to be appreciated. The 
analogy by which he brings it to the mind (I Co 
15 36 f.) is after all only an analogy. 

44. The Resurrection of Jesus. In any case, 
Paul’s belief in the resurrection is intimately con- 
nected with the historic fact of the resurrection of 


Jesus. The fact indicates the existence of a law of 


resurrection whose operation at the last day will be 
universal (I Co 15 20). The application of this law, 
however, must be limited by his view that it is 
through the implanting of a Divine life in them that 
Christ secures the resurrection of those who belong 


to Him (cf. Ro 811). But if so, a resurrection for 
unbelievers, if it take place at all, must be secured 
in some other way; and just what this way is the 
Apostle does not say. Hence it has been said, but 
not convincingly, that his idea does not include the 
resurrection of unbelievers (Kabisch, Eschatol. d. 
Paulus, 1893, p. 267 ff.). 

45. The Consummation. Another cardinal point 
in the Pauline eschatology is the doctrine of the con- 
summation. Here Paul passes into the realm of the 
cosmic application of Biblical ideas. The Gospel 
which originates with the creation of man bears also 
upon the destiny of man, to the uttermost end. But 
if it does this for man, it can not stop there; it must 
have its sweep through the whole sphere of intelli- 
gent beings; hence the Apostle looks forward to 
the time when all things shall be headed and ruled 
by the Creator alone (I Co 15 24). 

46. Deutero-Pauline Eschatology. The Deutero- 
Pauline eschatology, as given in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, altho not so explicit as that of the Pauline 
writings, moves along the same lines. The single 
feature of it which may be said to introduce a strik- 
ingly new form is the summing up of all the portents 
and convulsions foreshadowed in the old prophets 
under the figure of a shaking of all things (He 12 28, 
‘make to tremble’). i 


47. The Johannine Eschatology. The Johannine 
eschatology includes the two forms given in the 
Gospel and Epistles on the one side, and in the 
Apocalypse on the other. Altho differing in form, 
these two are in substance the same. The differ- 
ence in form is the result of the use of such diverse 
methods of presentation as the direct and the apoca- 
lyptic. The first of these (in the Gospels and Epis- 
tles) shows the parousia at the center. Judgment, 
resurrection, rewards, and punishments are grouped 
about that main conception. The Apocalyptic, 
taking the author’s times as a basis, views the ex- 
perience of the Christian community as one of 
struggle, culminating in a final crisis, out of which the 
Church emerges victorious, purified, and renewed. 
Its view of the Messianic Kingdom, of the resur- 
rection and judgment, and of all other points of 
interest, is determined by this thought (cf. also 
REVELATION, Book oF). 


48. Eschatology of the Apocalypse. The Millen- 
nium. The salient points of its forecast are: (1) 
The sceond coming of Christ for judgment; (2) a 
first resurrection, with the establishment of a mil- 
lennium of peace under Messianic rule; (3) a second 
or general resurrection; (4) the final overthrow of 
Satan and punishment of the wicked; and (5) the 
reconstitution of the world with new heavens and a 
new earth and a heavenly Jerusalem. The Mil- 
lennium ( a period symbolically limited to a thou- 
sand years) is to be ushered in by the casting of 
Satan into the abyss (q.v., 201, bottomless pit AV), 
and to be characterized by the prevalence of ideal 
righteousness, peace, and prosperity. It is to end 
with the release of Satan, and the renewal of the 
struggle and its final stage. The general resurrec- 
tion issues in the judgment of the wicked and their 
being cast into the lake of fire together with Hades 
and Death. This is the Second Death (20 14, 21 8). 


Eschew 
Esdras, Books of 


49, Summary. ‘The essentials of Biblical escha- 
tology, as they appear when all that was formal and 
temporary in the process of their gradual revelation 
is laid aside, include the following: 

(1) A continuity of conscious existence for the 
individual (personal immortality). This, however, 
viewed as life, is so much richer and fuller for those 
who are identified with Christ that comparatively 
speaking they only may be said to be immortal 

(2) An intermediate state of pure psychical exis- 
tence, whose nature must necessarily be incapable 
of explanation. (8) Bodily resurrection for all. 
But neither is the reassumption of the material of 
the body necessary to the conception of such resur- 
rection, nor is any mode of revivification included 
in the doctrine. (4) A new world dispensation, or 
order of being, ushered in by a remanifestation of 
the Incarnate and Risen Savior. (5) The judgment 
of all men by the Risen Christ, issuing in the separa- 
tion upon spiritual and moral principles of those 
who are in living fellowship with God through 
Christ from those who are not. (6) The award of 
eternal blessedness to the former and of eternal loss 
to the latter (perdition), because of persistence in 
alienation from God. 

LirPRATURE: Salmond, The Christ. Doct. of Immortality (1897) ; 
Charles, A Crit. Hist. of the Doct. of a Future Life in Israel, in 
Judaism and in Christianity, (1913); Volz, Juddische Eschatol., 
(1903); H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul’s Conception of the Last 
Things, (1913); L.A. Muirhead, The Eschatology of Jesus, (1904); 
C. F. Burney, Israel’s Hope of Immortality (1909); Oesterley, 
The Doct. of the Last Things, Jewishand Christian (1908) ; also 
Immortality and the Unseen World (1921); Leckie The World 
to Come and the Final Destiny (1918); C. T. Wood, Death and 
Beyond (1920). AAO: 
ESCHEW: An AV term (Job 11, 8, 2 3; 1 P3 11), 

for which the RV has ‘turn away from,’ which is the 

sense of the original. Eschew is an old English 


word meaning ‘to shun,’ related to ‘shy.’ 
ESDRAELON. See PAueEsrinp, § 9. 


ESDRAS, ez’dras, BOOKS OF: 1. Name. The 
books that bear the name of Ezra (Gr. form, Esdras, 
"Kadpac) are found variously numbered in the an- 
cient codices. The Vatican MS. of the LXX. gives 
three books under two titles, 7.c., Esdras A (the apoc- 
ryphon) and Esdras B (embracing the canonical 
books Ezr and Neh). The Vulgate separates Ezr 
and Neh and gives them the titles of I Es and II Es 
respectively, thus placing Es A of LXX. as III Es 
and another book (the Apocalypse of Es) as IV Es. 
Of the English translations the Genevan initiated 
the usage according to which the canonical books 
are called Ezra and Nehemiah and the apocryphal 
I Esdras and IT Esdras respectively. Other names 
given to the apocryphal books are the Priest (é 
‘Ieoedc) and the Greek Esdras for I Es and the 
Apocalypse of Ezra (Westcott) and the Prophet 
(6 xeogntns, Hilgenfeld) for II Es. Common usage 
predominantly favors I Es and IV Ezra (II Es) for 
these books. In the English Revision of 1894 they 
are called I and II Esdras. 


I Espras 
2. Contents of I Es. The contents of I Es are 
parallel, with the exception of one section, to certain 
sections of the canonical books II Ch, Ear, and Neh, 
as may be seen by the table following: 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


~ 


226 





I Hs 118=JI Ch. ch. 35 and 36 1-21 (Josiah’s Passover and the 
fall of Jerusalem). 

I Es 2 1-5=KEzr 1 (Cyrus’ decree and the preparations for the 
Return. The Temple treasures delivered to Sheshbazzar 

the leader of the Return). 

I Es 2 16-00=Hzr 4 7 (6 omitted)-* (The decree of Artaxerxes 
forbidding the building of the walls and city of Jerusalem). 

I Es 3 1-5 6 (no parallel in Ezr-Neh. The story of the contest 
of the Three Pages and Darius’ award to the victor, the Jew 
Zerubbabel, by a decree authorizing the building of Jerusalem 
and the Temple). 

I Es 5 7-%=Ezr 2 1-45 (The list of those who returned, the re- 
sumption of worship at the altar at Jerusalem, the laying of 
the foundation of the Temple, the opposition of enemies and 
the cessation of the work [for two yrs. in I Es] until the 2d 
year of Darius). 

I Fs chs. 6-7 = Ezr chs. 5-6 (Resumption of work on the Temple, 
Opposition, the Appeal to Darius and the favorable reply, 
the completion and dedication of the Temple). 

I Es 8 1-9 36=Ezr chs, 7-10 (Ezra’s visit to Jerusalem and the 
trouble over the mixed marriages.) 

I Es 9 37-55 = Neh 7 73-8 12 (The public reading of the Law.) 

3. The Relation of I Es to the Canonical Ezr-Neh. 
This remarkable identity of so much of I Es with 
sections of IJ Ch-Ezr-Neh naturally calls for ex- 
planation, but on investigation proves to be one of 
the most perplexing problems of O T criticism. The 
problem is a twofold one: (1) that of the text of 


I Es in comparison with the text of the canonical 


| sections, and (2) that of the sequence of events. 


The text of I Es exhibits many divergences from 
the Heb. text (as we now have it) of the parallels 
in II Ch-Ezr-Neh. The simplest solution would 
seem to be that, where these divergences are not 
due merely to the fancy or taste of the Greek trans- 
lator of the canonical material, they may be due to 
his having had a slightly different, and at points 
better, Heb. text of our canonical books before him. 
But a number of modern scholars feel compelled to 
go much further than this and say that ‘I Es is not 
a translation of the present MT (Massoretic [Heb.] 
Text)’ but of a Heb-Aramaic original of which our 
present MT is another but divergent form. That 
is to say, back of both the Greek text of I Es and the 
present Heb. text of the canonical parallels is an 
earlier text of which these two are independent and 
divergent representatives. 

And essentially the same conclusion is reached as 
to the order and contents of the two divergent 
stories: namely, that the original story of Ezra was 
not told in the form we now find it in either I Es or 
Ezr-Neh, but that both of these represent the re- 
sults of different editorial revision and re-working of 
the same original material. The particular theory 
in which these conclusions as to the text and con- 
tents of I Es are embodied is presented differently 
by different scholars, who are, however, at one in 
their main contention, For the numerous details 
of this very complicated problem the reader must be 
referred to the literature noted below. 

4. The Reliability of I Es. It is generally agreed 
that our canonical Ezr-Neh gives in places a confused 
and even mistaken account of the event which it 
relates. It is impossible e.g. to make Ezr ch. 3 agree 
with the more primary evidence we have in Hag and 
Zech. Also Ezr 4 6-23 is evidently out of place where 
it is and many also hold that Neh chs. 8-10 should 
follow immediately on Ezr ch. 10. Does I Es give a 
better, a more historical account of the same period 
and is it therefore to be followed rather than the 


 , ~*~ 


227 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Eschew 
Esdras, Books of 





canonical account? Certainly not as its text now 
stands. It also puts the section Ezr 4 7-23 in a 
wrong, historically impossible, place, altho a differ- 
ent one from that in which the canonical Ezr places 
it. And its story—peculiar to itself, altho probably 
drawn from an Aramean source, of the Three Pages, 
hardly commends itself as reliable. Yet a very re- 
spectable number of modern scholars hold that I Es 
must be seriously taken into account along with 
Ezr-Neh in any attempt to reconstruct the actual 
history of the very obscure and yet very important 
period of reconstruction after the Exile. On the 
whole it seems necessary to consider I Es on the one 
hand and Ezr-Neh on the other as originally two 
independent attempts at writing, on the basis of frag- 
mentary information, some of it written and some 
merely oral tradition, the history of the period. 
Each of the accounts became subject to later edi- 
torial alteration so that we have neither of them in 
their original form. The one we know as I Es was 
translated into Greek first and was therefore the 
version used by Josephus. The Greek version of 
Ezr-Neh was made later, possibly not until the 2d 
cent. A.D. 

I Es should then be considered a parallel witness 
with Ezr-Neh to original sources no longer extant. 
The divergences should in each case be tested on 
their own merits irrespective of theories as to the 
books as a whole in their present form. Both con- 
tain many inaccuracies and only the most careful 
sifting and testing can yield satisfactory results. 

5. Original Form. ‘The present text of I Es breaks 
off rather abruptly leaving the impression that the 
latter portion may have been lost. The text Jo- 
sephus had before him was not the text in its pres- 
ent form and the evidence seems to show that the 
present text has been made to conform more nearly 
with that of the canonical Ezr-Neh. It is possible 
if not probable, that the original book, as Josephus 
had it, may have been longer than the present one, 
containing extracts from Nehemiah’s memoirs 
{as our Ezr-Neh does). In this case the original 
I Es was more similar to our Ezr-Neh in scope and 
content than its present form would indicate. The 
main differences between the original I Es and our 
Ezr-Neh were (1) the place of the section Ezr 4 7-23 
and (2) the inclusion in I Es of the story of the Three 
Pages and its immediate consequences. 


6. Date. From the considerations just noted it 
is evident that the date of the original I Es (i.e. 
the Heb. or Aramaic original) can only be con- 
jectured. The book was translated into Greek be- 
fore Josephus used it and perhaps before the be- 
ginning of the Christian era. More than this can 
not be said with certainty. 


7. History of I Es. While I Es was used by 
Josephus in preference to its canonical parallels, and 
the Christian writers of the first three centuries 
quote from it freely (cf. Clem. Alex. Strom., I. 392; 
Origen, in Jos., hom. ix. 10; Eus. Com. in Ps. 76 19; 
Tertull. De coron. milit. 9; Cyp. Ep. 749; Athan. 
Contr. Arian., 11 20), Jerome (Praef. in Ezr.) clearly 
and decidedly rejected the book (together with II 
Es) as apocryphal, and declined to translate it. 
This is probably the ground for the exclusion of 


both of these books from the Roman Catholic Canon 
by the Council of Trent (1546). The book is found 
in the Vatican and Alexandrian MSS. of the LXX.; 
also in two ancient Latin translations (but not in the 
Vulg.), and in the Syro-Hexaplar of the early part 
of the 7th cent. (but not in the Peshitta). The best 
editions in English are those by Bissell (in Lange’s 
Com., 1880), Lupton (in the Speaker’s Com., Apocr. 
I, 1888); in German the one by Guthe (in Kautzsch’s 
Die Apocr. des A. T., 1900). 
LITERATURE: See the Bibliography given by Cook in Charles, 
Apoc. and Pseudep. of the O T (1913) Vol. I and, in addition, 
L. W. Batten in ICC, Ezra-Nehemiah (1913) pp. 6-12 (very 


judicious) and T. W. Crafer, in Camb. Bible, Ezra-Neh. 
(1916) pp. i-xix. See also Ezra-NEHEMIAH. 


II Espras (IV Ezra). 


8. Contents of II Es. II Es is an apocalypse in 
form, containing, however, an introduction (chs. 
1 and 2), and an appendix (chs. 15 and 16), which 
are not by the same hand. The introduction is 
manifestly a Christian writing, and justifies the re- 
jection of the Jews and the substitution of the Gen- 
tiles in the Divine favor. The Apocalypse (chs. 
3-14) consists of seven visions vouchsafed to HWzra 
in the Babylonian exile. In the first of these Ezra 
is represented as suffering great distress of mind on 
account of his failure to understand the meaning of 
sin and suffering in the world. An angel reminds 
him that God’s ways are inscrutable, and that a new 
age (eon) is about to begin, in which all wrongs shall 
be righted (3 1-519). The second vision is intended 
to quiet the disturbing thought that God had given 
over His Chosen People into the hands of the hea- 
then. Here, too, the ground of the reassurance is the 
imminence of the new age (5 20-6 34). The third 
vision finds Ezra speculating as to why Israel is not 
in possession of the land which God had given it. 
The answer is long and indirect; but it culminates 
in the assurance that the end of the world is nigh 
(6 35-9 25). The fourth vision presents in a symbolic 
figure the sorrow of Zion followed by her glory 
(9 26-10 58). The fifth depicts the fourth world- 
empire (Rome) under the figure of an eagle 
coming out of the sea (10 60-12 51). The sixth, 
the ‘Son of Man’ vision, portrays the Messiah 
under the form of a man who comes out of the 
stormy sea, is attacked by a countless multitude of 
enemies, whom, however, he overcomes, and gains 
a great number of followers (13 1-58). The seventh 
vision consists of the familiar legend of Ezra’s re- 
storing the lost Scriptures. Ezra prays for the priv- 
ilege of rewriting the sacred books, lost before his 
day. His prayer is answered. He makes arrange- 
ments for the writing down of what he shall dictate, 
and is given a liquid which when drunk by him im- 
parts the power of reproducing the contents of the 
lost writings. These together with seventy other 
books he dictates, but publishes only those at pres- 
ent contained in the O T Canon (141-50). The last 
portion of the book (chs. 15 and 16) contains a long 
and tedious arraignment of sinners, together with 
predictions of wars and calamities, similar to those 
foretold by Jeremiah. 

9. VEzr. Chs. 1, 2, 15, 16 of IL Es are not in- 
cluded in the Latin versions, which serve as the basis 


Esdras, Books of 
Esther 





of the chapter divisions in the book, and also of the 
text in the English editions by C. J. Ball (Variorum 
Apocrypha) and Lupton (Wace’s Holy Buble). 
These four chapters are evidently later additions. 
The other versions do not containthem. They have 
been detached and published together as V Ezr by 
Fritzsche (Lib. Apoc. Vet. Test., Liber Esdrae 
Quintus, pp. 640-653). But if the separate origin 
of these chapters is to serve as the ground of their 
being put forth as numerically a different book, the 
same reasoning would require that instead of V zr 
they should be made into V and VI Ezr, inasmuch as 
these four chapters are not a unit but fall into two 
groups (1 and 2 and 15 and 16 respectively). It 
seems best, upon the whole, to adhere to the custom 
of attaching the chapters to the Apocalypse as sim- 
pler and less confusing. 

10. Date, Author, and Design. The problem of 
the unity of the Apocalypse of Ezra (chs. 3-14) is a 
difficult one. There are many indications of differ- 
ent points of view and other divergencies between 
different parts. Is the work that of one author 
drawing freely from traditional sources, but weaving 
the whole into what may be considered his own 
product; or is the work a compilation by an editor 
or redactor from several distinct literary sources? 
The latter theory is worked out in great detail by 
Box. The author was a devout Jew who lived not 
earlier than the fall of Jerusalem; for he distinctly 
refers to that event (8 2, 10 48, 12 48). He knows 
also of the death of Titus (11 35). Conclusions as to 
the date of II Es largely depend upon the interpre- 
tation of the Eagle-Vision (chs. 11-12). and of 3 
i1and 29. On the whole a date not much earlier than 
100 a.p. seems necessary. A final revision may have 
been made some years later. The author’s purpose 
was manifestly to infuse courage into the hearts of 
the faithful by holding up to them the dawn of the 
coming age as the end of all their misfortunes. 
The history of the reception of the book and of its 
translation and publication is the same as that of 
I Es (see § 6, above). For a separate treatment of 
the religious content see Schieffer, Die religidsen 
und ethischen Anschauungen des IV Ezra-buches 
(1901). The best English edition is that of G. H. 
Box, The Hzra-Apocalypse (1912), reproduced in 
the main in Charles, The Apoc. and Pseudipigrapha 
of the O.T. (1913). For the text see Violet, Die 
Ezra-Apokalypse (1910). A.C. Z.—E. BE, N, 


ESEK, i’/sek (PYY, ‘éseq), ‘strife’: A well near 
Gerar (Gn 26 20). Site unknown. 

ESHAN, i’shan (1YU8, ’esh‘Gn, Eshean AV): A 
city of Judah (Jos 15 52), probably in the neighbor- 
hood of Hebron. 

ESH-BAAL, esh’-bé’’al. See IsHBOSHETH. 


ESHBAN, esh’ban (]2¥8, ’eshbdn): The head of 
a Horite family or clan (Gn 36 26; I Ch 1 41). 

ESHCOL, esh’kel (20x, ’eshkol), ‘cluster’ (of 
grapes, etc.): I. The ‘brother’ of Mamre (Gn 14 13, 
24). II. The Valley of Eshcol, noted for its grapes, 
mentioned in the story of the spies (Nu 13 23 £., 
32 9; Dt 1 24). It was, apparently, not far from 
Hebron, but this is not certain. The personification 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


‘ : 


228 
of Mamre and Eshcol in Gn 14 13 is puzzling, put 
apparently tells against the early date of the com- 
position of Gn 14 (see Skinner in JCC). Was there 
a clan ‘Eschol,’ the name being borrowed from this 


place of habitation, the Valley of Eshcol? 
EH. E. N. 


ESHEAN, esh’1-an or i’shi-on. See EsHan. 
ESHEK, i’shek (P¥Y ‘ésheq): One of Saul’s 
descendants (I Ch 8 39). 


ESHKALONITES, esh’ko-len-aits. 
KELON. 

ESHTAOL, esh’té-ol (78NON, ’eshia’ol): A town 
assigned to Judah in Jos 15 33, but to Dan in 19 41. 
That it was occupied by Danites is ceztain from the 
old stories in Jg (13 25, 16 31, 18 2 #.). A later occu- 
pation by Judah is indicated by the notice in I Ch 
2 53 of the Eshtaolites (Eshtaulites AV) as Caleb- 
ites. See Map II, E 1. E. E. N. 

ESHTEMOA, egh’ti-md’a (YIDNYS,’ eshtemoa‘), 
and ESHTEMOH, egh’ti-m6 (TOAYS ’eshtemoh): A 
town in the Judean hill-country (Jos 15 50; 1S 30 28) 
assigned to the Levites (Jos 2114). See Map I, E3. 
The statements in I Ch 4 17, 19, must be interpreted 
as relating to places (indicative of origin, depen- 
dency, etc.), not individuals. E. E. N. 


ESHTON, esh’ton (MVS, ’eshtdn): Probably a 
place, not an individual (see I Ch 4 11 f.). 

ESLI, es’lai (EcAet): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 
3 25). 

ESPOUSE, ESPOUSAL. See MarRIAGE AND 
Divorce, § 2. 


ESROM, ez’rem. See Hnzron. 


ESSENES, es’sinz: An important Jewish religious 
sect at the beginning of the Christian era. Both 
Philo Quid Omnis Probus Liber, XII, XIII, and 
Apologia, quoted in Eusebius, Prep. Hv. VIII, 11) and 
Josephus (especially in Ané. XVIII 1 5 and BJ II 
8 2-13) have left us extended descriptions of their 
beliefs and customs. They were a semi-monastic 
organization, with distinctly communistic and 
pacifistic principles. They lived in communities, 
were celibates, and were subject to quite rigid rules. 
Women did not belong to the Order. They worked 
with other men at various trades or occupations, 
but after working hours they withdrew to their own 
communal abodes. Their ethical principles were 
pure and noble. They were strict Sabbatarians and 
vegetarians. They appear to have reverenced the 
Scriptures and given themselves much to their 
study; but nevertheless they rejected the Scripture 
teaching as to animal sacrifices and hence they were 
not allowed to participate in the Temple-worship. 
Yet they sent gifts to the Temple. With their 
Jewish beliefs they mingled others of a mystical 
character and some, possibly, of pagan origin. They 
believed firmly in the immortality of the soul. 

They numbered about four thousand members 
and they lived for the most part in the region of the 
Dead Sea. They appear to have been highly 
respected. Whether they were confined to Palestine 
is a question. A somewhat similar order having its 
home in Egypt is described by Philo in his De Vita 


See AsH- 


229 A NEW STANDARD 
Contemplativa. Philo does not say expressly, how- 
ever, that these were Jews. Much has been said 
conjecturally as to the possibility of John the Bap- 
tist and Jesus having had some connection with the 
Essenes, but of this nothing is definitely known. 
See Lightfoot’s Dissertation in his Epistle to the 
Colossians (1890) pp. 347-417, and Schiirer, GV J. 
(4th ed., 1909) Vol. II pp. 651-680. E. E. N. 


ESTHER (Person and Book): 1. Contents. The 


Book of Esther, according to 1 1, is an episode from 
the reign of Ahasuerus. Since Grotefend’s decipher- 
ment of the proper names in the Persepolis inscrip- 
tions it has been generally recognized that this 
monarch is Xerxes. The Hebrew form’ Ahashwérésh 
corresponds to the Babylonian and Aramaic spelling 
of the Persian Khshayarsha, Xerxes. The common 
recension of the Gr. version reads Artaxerxes, and 
this text is followed by Josephus and by most 
Roman Catholic commentators. J. Hoschander 
(1923) adopts it, and identifies the king with 
Artaxerxes II; but the Gr. text is notoriously 
corrupt in comparison with the Hebrew, and the 
Lucianic recension reads Assueros or Xerxes, so that 
there is no reason to prefer Artaxerxes as a better 
reading than Ahasuerus. 

The book narrates how Esther, a Jewish maiden, 
became Xerxes’ queen; how she delivered her 
people from the destruction planned by Haman, 
the king’s favorite; and how, in commemoration of 
this deliverance, the feast of Purim was instituted. 

2. Text. MSS. of the Hebrew E. are more 
numerous than of any other portion of the O T. 
All are descendants of a single standard codex 
that was adopted by the Scribes about 100 a.p. 
From this codex are descended also a larger number 
of targums and midrashes than are attached to any 
other Biblical book (see J #, article, Esther). These 
are too late to be of any text-critical value. Their 
additions to the Massoretic text rest upon no docu- 
mentary authority, but only upon legendary oral 
tradition. 

For the restoration of the pre-Massoretic text our 
most important aid is the Greek version (1st cent. 
B.c.). This has come down in five main recen- 
sions: that of the Uncials, of Origen, of Hesychius, of 
Lucian, and of the old Latin. All agree in present- 
ing a text that differs from the Massoretic text 
more widely than any other book in the LXX. 
Many verses have long additions, and there are 107 
new verses not found in the Hebrew. Jerome, in the 
Vulgate, translated the longer additions, but re- 
moved them from the body of the book and placed 
them at the end. This senseless arrangement is per- 
petuated in the English Apocrypha. In Swete’s 
edition of the LXX. they are given their proper 
place, and are designated by the letters A, B, ete. 
The attempt has been made at various times to show 
that these additions have been translated from a 
Hebrew or Aramaic original that stood in a larger re- 
cension of E; but modern critical authorities are 
agreed that there is no trace of them in Hebrew or 
Aramaic literature, and that they are not translated 
from a Semitic language, but are interpolated to 
correct the lack of religion in the Hebrew book in its 
original form. 


Esdras, Books of 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Esther 


3. Unity. In regard to the unity of the book in 
general no doubt can be felt. Only the section 9 20- 
10 3 presents difficulties which have suggested to a 
number of critics that it comes from a different 
hand. Possibly it is a quotation by the author of E. 
from the book mentioned in 10 2. 


4. Date. The book makes no claim of age or 
authorship for itself. The statement of 9 20, ‘Mor- 
decai wrote these things,’ does not refer to the fore- 
going book but to the letter that follows. The 
‘book’ mentioned in 9 32 is not E., but the letter 
mentioned in 9 29. EH. is never quoted by any pre- 
christian writer. The earliest literary evidence of its 
existence is the LXX. version. Purim is first men- 
tioned in II Mac 15 36. The external evidence, 
accordingly, does not demand an earlier date than 
the Ist cent. B.c. 

The internal evidence leads to a similar conclusion. ' 
In 11, 13 f., 411, 8 8, the author speaks of the times 
of Xerxes as long passed. In 38 the Diaspora of the 
Greek period is known, The conversion of multi- 
tudes to Judaism (8 17, 9 27) was not true of the Per- 
sian period, but was characteristic of the proselyting 
zeal of the Greco-Roman period (cf. Mt 23 15). 

The intellectual standpoint of the book also indi- 
cates a date in the late Greek period. There is no 
trace of the Messianic hope that characterized the 
early days of the return from captivity. The bitter 
hatred of the Gentiles, and the longing for their de- 
struction that this book discloses, were first induced 
by Antiochus’ determination either to Hellenize or to 
exterminate the Jews. Mordecai’s refusal to bow 
before Haman (3 2) is not in accord with old Hebrew 
usage, but shows a Greek spirit of independence. 
The prominence given to financial considerations 
(3 9) is also indicative of a commercialism that 
developed in the Greek period. The national pride, 
bereft of religious enthusiasm, indicates that the 
book was not written at the time of the Maccabean 
struggle, but in the period of worldliness and self- 
complacency that followed the attainment of inde- 
pendence in 142 B.c. 

With this conclusion the language of the book is in 
accord. The Hebrew is as late as any in the O T. 
There are a number of words that are found else- 
where only in the Mishna and other Rabbinical 
writings. Aramaic influence is conspicuous in dic- 
tion and construction. 


5. Historical Character. In regard to the his- 
torical character of the book the following facts 
may be noted: (1) Ahasuerus is a historical per- 
sonage, and the picture of his character in E. cor- 
responds with that of Xerxes given by Herod., vii. 
ix; Ausch. Pers. 467 ff., Juv. x. 174-187. The incidents 
of E. can be fitted into the life of Xerxes without 
great difficulty. Apart from this there are no co- 
incidences with the Greek account of Xerxes. 

(2) The chief personages of the book, Vashti, 
Haman, E., and Mordecai, are unknown to history. 
Ezra, Nehemiah, the later Psalms, Sirach in his list 
of Hebrew worthies (Sir chs. 44-49), say nothing of 
the Jewish queen who saved her nation, or of the 
mighty Jewish chancellor. Greek writers show us 
that during the period between the 7th and the 
12th years (2 16, 37) Xerxes’ queen was not E, but 


Esther 


A. NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


230 





Amestris, the daughter of a Persian general (Herod. 
xvii. 114; ix 112). 

(3) The Book of E. gives many proper names 
€.g., 110, 14, 2 3, 5, 8, 14 f., 21,31, 45,510, 79 97-9, 
29. Not one of these persons appears in the Greek 
account of Xerxes’ reign, and their names can not 
even be shown to have been in use in the time of 
Xerxes. A number are certainly Persian, but it 
is not clear that they are old Persian. Some are 
probably of Babylonian, Aramaic, or even Hebrew 
origin. They might all have been picked up in 
the Greek period by an author who knew something 
about Persia. 


(4) Some of the statements in regard to Persia 
and Persian customs are confirmed by classical his- 
torians, é.g., 1 6-8, 14, 3 2, 7, 13, 42, 514,68, 810. All 
that this proves is that the author had some famili- 
arity with Persian life which he used for local 
color. It is offset by statements which show that the 
had no first-hand knowledge of the Achwmenian 
Empire, e.g., 127 satrapies (11, 89; ef. Herod. ili. 98), 
the veiling of women (1 9-12; cf. Herod. x. 110 f.), the 
unchangeability of the laws of the Medes and Per- 
sians (1 19, 8 8), the idea that no person could ap- 
proach the king without summons on pain of death 
(411). 

(5) There are a number of incidents in E. which 
altho they can not be shown to be unhistorical, 
are yet so contrary to Persian law and custom 
as to be improbable. Thus 2 2, 4, 8, 10, 17, are con- 
trary to the law of the Avesta and the testimony 
of Herod. iii. 34 that the queen might be selected 
only from seven of the noblest Persian families. 
Mordecai’s free access to E. (2 11, 4 2-17) is con- 
trary to the custom of Oriental harems. The ap- 
pointment of two foreigners, Haman the Agagite 
(cf. Nu 247; I S 15 8) and Mordecai the Jew, as 
prime ministers (3 1, 10 3) is not consistent with 
Persian national pride. The issuing of decrees in 
the languages of all the provinces (1 22, 3 12) was 
not the usual practise of the Persian Empire. 


(6) The book contains a number of inconsistencies 
with itself. In 2 6 Mordecai is one of the captives 
carried away with Jehoiachin in 596 B.c., but in 
37, 8 2, he becomes prime minister in the 12th year 
of Xerxes, 474 B.c. In 3 2, 4, 41, Mordecai parades 
the fact that he is a Jew, but in 2 10 he forbids E. 
to make her kindred known. E. successfully con- 
ceals the fact that she is a Jewess from the king, 
Haman and everybody else (2 10, 7 3 f.), and yet 
Mordecai, who is well known to be a Jew, is her 
cousin, and comes to the palace every day to inquire 
after her (2 11), and all the Jews in Susa fast for her 
before she ventures to go to the king (416). Haman 
obtains an edict to destroy all the Jews because 
Mordecai the Jew will not do obeisance to him (3 6), 
but Haman’s friends and family are ignorant as to 
Mordecai’s race (613). Xerxes delivers the Jews to 
destruction (3 11), yet heaps honors upon Mordecai 
the Jew (6 10 f.). Haman is still the royal favorite, 
but he is given the menial task of conducting Mor- 
decai through the streets (6 10 f.). Xerxes author- 
izes the act of Haman (3 11), yet he is much sur- 
prized at the information that E. gives him of 
Haman’s plot (7 5 f.). 


(7) The book contains a number of details which 
can not be proved to be untrue, but which are so 
intrinsically improbable that one has difficulty in 
believing that they are historical, e.g., 1 1-5, 12, 13-15, 
16-22, 2 1-4, 12, 16, 31 (cf. Ex 17 8; Nu 247; 18 158), 
25 (cf. IS ch. 15), 2 23, 3 6-9 (cf. II Targ. 39, 41), 
3 8-15, 5 4,7, 14, 61, 4, 7 5, 8, 811, 9 2f., 18 f. 

(8) The account of the origin of Purim given by 
this book is historically improbable. It represents it 
as instituted by EK. and Mordecai, and as adopted 
by the Jews in commemoration of their deliverance; 
but Purim is not a Hebrew word, and it is unnatural 
that a Jewish commemoration should be called by 
aforeignname. In 37, 9 26, it is said that the feast is 
so called because ‘Haman cast Pur, that is, the lot’; 
but it is unlikely that the trivial circumstance of the 
way in which Haman determined the day of de- 
struction should give its name to the day of deliv- 
erance. Moreover, there is no Persian word pur 
with the meaning ‘lot.’ If Purim had originated in 
the time of Xerxes, as E. represents, and had 
been enjoined upon all the Jews in all provinces 
of the empire (9 20), and had been accepted by the 
Jews for themselves and for their posterity (9 27), 
there is no reason why it should not have been 
included in the Priestly Code as promulgated by 
Ezra. 

In view of these facts the conclusion seems to be 
inevitable that the Book of E. is not historical, 
and that it is doubtful whether even a historical 
kernel underlies its narratives. 

J. Hoschander, The Book of Esther (1923), 
attempts to solve all these difficulties by following 
the Gr. text Artaxerxes instead of the Heb. text 
Ahasuerus, and identifies this king with Artaxerzes 
II, Mnemon. He maintains that the incidents of 
the Book of E. will fit into the life of Artaxerxes II 
as they do not into the life of Xerxes, that Artax- 
erxes tried to establish the worship of the goddess 
Anahita throughout the empire, that Jewish opposi- 
tion to this measure led to Haman’s attempted 
massacre, and that the historical deliverance of the 
Jews was the origin of the feast of Purim. In reply 
to this it may be said, that text-critically there is no 
support for the Gr. reading Artaxerxes, that accord- 
ing to 26 Mordecai was carried away with Jehoiachin 
in 596 B.c., and if he became prime minister in the 
12th year of Artaxerxes IT (393 B.c.) he was at least 
203 years old at this time, that there is no trace in 
of the Book of E. of religious persecution or religious 
victory, and that it is questionable whether the 
incidents of E. really fit any better in the reign of 
Artaxerxes II than they do in the reign of Xerxes. 


6. Origin of Purim. All the objections urged above 
against the historicity of the account of Purim in the 
Book of E. apply with equal force to any theory that 
assigns it a Hebrew origin. A feast that the Jews 
had invented would not be called by a foreign 
name for which no rational explanation can be 
given. Purim must be a holiday adopted by the 
Jews from their neighbors, just as Independence 
Day and Thanksgiving Day have been adopted by 
them in America. The only question is: From which 
nation was this feast borrowed? 

A Persian origin is naturally suggested by the 


231 A NEW STANDARD 


facts that the scene of the book is laid in Persia, and 
that it has a strong Persian color (so Hitzig, Meier, 
First, Zunz). Lagarde (Purim, 1887) pointed out 
that in the Lucianic Greek recension Purim appears 
as Phourdaia, which he conjectured was the same as 
the Persian Farwardigdn, a sort of All Saints’ Day. 
This theory has found wide acceptance, but labors 
under the difficulties that Farwardigdn does not fall 
on the 14th of Adar, and that the Greek form Phour- 
daia is less likely to be correct than the Hebrew 
Purim. 

Of late the theory of Babylonian origin has become 
dominent. In WZ KM, vi (1892), p. 70 ff., Jensen 
shows that Esther is the regular Syrian form of the 
name of Ishtar, the Babylonian goddess. Her other 
name Hadassah, is the Babylonian hadashatu, 
‘bride,’ used as a title of goddesses. Mordecai 
(Gr., Mapdoxatoc) is the same as Marduk (Mero- 
dach), the chief male divinity of Babylon. Heisthe 
cousin of E. as Marduk is of Ishtar. Haman, 
the adversary of Mordecai, is the same as Hamman, 
or Humman, the chief divinity of the Elamites, in 
whose capital, Susa, the action of this book takes 
place. Vashti 1s an Elamite deity, probably 
feminine. Zeresh (in some Gr. MSS. Geresh), 
the wife of Haman, may be the same as Kirisha, 
another Elamite goddess, apparently the consort 
of Humman. The conflict of E. and Mordecai 
against Haman, Vashti, and Zeresh is the con- 
flict of the gods of Babylonia against the gods of 
Elam, which is a reflex of the 1,000 years struggle 
for supremacy between Babylonia and Elam, ending 
with the victory of Babylonia. Jensen, Winckler 
(AOF, 11 274 f.), and Zimmern (KAT®, 514 f.) point 
out other mythical parallels, and create a strong sus- 
picion that the story of E. isa euhemeristic Jewish 
version of Babylonian legends learned at the time 
of the Captivity. This view has found the approval 
of Néldeke, Wildeboer, Smend, Cornull, and most 
recent writers. If the story of E. is Babylonian, 
then the feast which it aims to explain must be Baby- 
lonian also, but thus far it has not been identified 
with certainty. Zimmern (ZATW, 1891, pp. 157- 
169) suggests that Purim=puhru, ‘assembly,’ a 
name of Zagmuk, or the New Year Feast of Marduk. 
Jensen identifies it with the Jshtar feast, in the 
month Ab. It is more likely that with Johns (ZB, 
3979) we are to connect Purim with the Babylonian 
observances in the month Adar. The 13th of this 


_ month is known to have been unlucky, and the 14th 


and 15th lucky. The eponyms entered upon their 
office on the first of Nisan, and they must have been 
chosen during the preceding month. The word 
puru, or buru, means ‘stone,’ then ‘lot,’ ‘inheritance,’ 
and ‘eponymate,’ and may easily have been applied 
to the day in Adar on which the officials for the new 
year were selected. On this theory Purim was the 
Babylonian Election Day, a time of feasting and 
sending of presents, that the Jews adopted from their 
neighbors during the Exile and continued to observe 
long after they had forgotten its real origin. The 
decision of this interesting question depends upon 
the publication of further Babylonian material in 
regard to the religious observances of the month 
Adar. 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Esther 


7. Religious Value. Canonicity. The Alexan- 
drian Jews were so conscious of the religious deficien- 
cies of EK. that they tried to remedy them with the 
apocryphal additions noted above (§ 2). This free 
treatment shows that no sacred character was yet 
attached to the book. In Palestine there was long 
opposition before it was admitted to the Canon. 
It is never quoted by Christ, nor by any of the N T 

writers. The early Christian Church made no use 
of it, and no Church Father attempted an exposi- 
tion of it. Melito (c. 170 a.p.) omits it from his 
Canon, and Origen (c. 225) does not include it among 
the historical books. The Syrian Christians re- 
garded it as apocryphal, and the Nestorians never 
had it in their O T. 

In significant contrast to this attitude of early 
Judaism and early Christianity stands the high 
esteem of this book in later Judaism. The Synod of 
Jamnia in the 1st cent. decreed it to be canonical. 
Later writers sought to explain away the opposition 
of their predecessors, and praised the book in most 
extravagant terms. Rabbi Simeon b. Lakish (ce. 
300 4.p.) ranked it next to the Law. Maimonides 
declared that altho the Prophets and the Writings 
should pass away when the Messiah came, yet 
this book and the Law should remain. ‘This is the 
attitude of orthodox Judaism. Esther is inserted 
with the Law in the synagog rolls and is treated with 
the highest reverence. More targums and mid- 
rashes are based upon it than upon any other por- 
tion of the O T. 

With this verdict of late Judaism modern Chris- 
tians can not agree. The book is so conspicuously 
lacking in religion that it should never have been 
included in the Canon of the O T, but should have 
been left with Judith and Tobit among the apocry- 
phal writings. God is never once mentioned in the 
book. The author doubtless believes that there is a 
God (cf. 4 14, 16, 9 31 f.), but he has no consciousness 
of His nearness. He alone of all the writers in the 
O T and Apoc ascribes deliverance to men. Fasting 
is the only religious rite that henames. He has not 
one noble character in his book. Xerxes isasensual 
despot. E., for the chance of winning wealth and 
power, takes her place in the herd of maidens who 
become concubines of the king, She wins her 
victories not by skill or by character, but by her 
beauty. She conceals her origin, is relentless to- 
ward a fallen enemy (7 8-10), secures not merely 
that the Jews escape from danger, but that they 
fall upon their enemies, slay their wives and chil- 
dren, and plunder their property (8 11, 9 2-10). 
Not satisfied with this slaughter, she asks that Ha- 
man’s ten sons may be hanged, and that the Jews 
may be allowed another day for killing their ene- 
mies in Susa (9 13-15). The only redeeming traits 
in her character are her loyalty to her people, and 
her bravery in attempting to save them (4 16). 
Mordecai sacrifices his cousin to advance his inter- 
ests, advises her to conceal her religion, displays 
wanton insolence in his refusal to bow to Haman, and 
helps E. in carrying out her schemes of vengeance. 
All this the author narrates with interest and ap- 
proval. He gloats over the wealth and the triumph 
of his heroes, and is oblivious to their moral short- 


Etam 
Ethnography 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


232 





comings. Religiously E. falls far below the general 
level of the O T and even of the Apoc. Its lesson 
of hatred toward one’s enemies and of bloody ven- 
geance upon them is irreconcilable with the teach- 
ing of Christ. The verdict of Luther is not too 
severe: ‘I amso hostile to this book that I wish it 

did not exist, for it Judaizes too much, and has too 

much heathen naughtiness.’ 

LireERATURE: Bertheau-Ryssell, Esther (1887); G. Wildeboer, 
Esther (1898); C. Siegfried, Esther (1901); L. B. Paton, 
Esther, in International Critical Commentary (1908); J. 
Hoschander, Esther (1923); P. Haupt, Purim, in BASS, II, 
ii (1906); M. Jastrow, ‘Purim’ in Hastings’ Enc. Rel. Eth. 
(1919). eA) Sa ae 
ETAM, i’tam (O8'Y, ‘étam): 1. A rocky district 

in the W. of Judah (Jg 158, 11), near 3, below. 2.A 

town of Judzea which Rehoboam rebuilt and fortified 

(II Ch i116). The Etam of I Ch 4 3 is probably the 

eponym of this place. MapII,F1. 3.A village in 

Simeon, according to Conder the modern Beit-Attab 

(others Aitun) 11 m. SW. of Hebron (I Ch 4 32). 

Map II, D 8. 


ETERNAL: ‘Time whose limits on account of 
their remoteness are hidden from view. The word 
may be applied to the past or to the future (Dt 33 27; 
Is 60 15). Inthe N T eternal (cidvioc, Mt 19 16, 
etc.) denotes that which belongs to the coming age 
{atwv) and is strictly equivalent to age-long (Mt 
19 16; Ro 27). For this and Eternal Life see also 
EscHaToLoey, § 39. Beds, 


ETHAM, i’tham (O)8, ’éthém): A station on 
the Exodus route, reached after leaving Succoth, in 
the W. edge of the wilderness (Ex 13 20; Nu 33 
6 f.), called ‘the wilderness of Shur’ (Ex 15 22), and 
‘the wilderness of Etham’ (Nu 33 8). It lay on the 
E. border of Egypt, perhaps N. of Lake Timsah. 
Cf. the Egyptian word hetem, the name of a fortress 
on the E. boundary of Egypt. COIS eb 


ETHAN, i’then (28, ’éthdn): 1. A wise man, 
‘the Ezrahite’ (I K 4 31), designated as the author 
of Ps 89 (title). According to I Ch 2 6, 8, a son of 
Zerah (=Ezrafhite]?). 2. An ancestor of Asaph 
(I Ch 6 42), called Joah in ver. 21. 3. A ‘son of 
Kishi, like Heman and Asaph, the eponymous an- 
cestor of a gild of temple-singers (I Ch 6 44, 15 17, 19). 
Identified with Jeduthun (cf. I Ch 16 41, 2516; II Ch 
5 12, 35 15). Cees 


~ ETHANIM, efh’s-nim: The old name of the 
seventh month of the Jewish year. See Timm, § 3. 


ETH-BAAL, eth-bé’al (79208, ’ethba‘al), ‘man of 
Baal’: A king of Sidon, father of Jezebel (I K 16 31). 
Eth-baal (or Ithobaal) was priest of Astarte in Sidon. 
He murdered Phelles, King of Sidon, and usurped 
the throne c. 887 B.c. (Winckler); cf. Jos Contra Ap., 
I, 18. See Curonotoey or O T (Table). 

EK. E. N. 

ETHER, i’fher (199, ‘ether): A town of Judah 


near Libnah (Jos 15 42), assigned to Simeon in 19 7. 
Site unknown. 


ETHIOPIA, i’’thi-d’pi-a: 1. Name and Bound- 
aries. In the EV of the O T this term represents 
directly the N T Gr. word At@fod, which in the 
LXX. is the equivalent of the Hebrew Cush (q.v.). 


The Gr. word originally meant ‘dark-skinned,’ and 
was employed both of the population to the south of 
Egypt and of dark-hued southern peoples gener- 
ally. The equivalent Cush in the EV is used only of 
one of the sons of Ham (Gn 10 6-8=I Ch 1 8-10), ex- 
cept in Is 1111, where it appears in place of the usual 
‘Ethiopia.’ Cush is the common Semitic name of 
the Ethiopian country and people, being borrowed 
from the Egyptian, in which Kosh is their regu- 
lar designation. Cush, as a country, corresponds 
roughly to the modern Nubia, and the Cushites ap- 
pear to have been the principal ancestors of the Nu- 
bians. Their extreme northern boundary was the 
first cataract of the Nile at Assuan; but, as Cush 
was normally subject or tributary to Egypt, no defi- 
nite limit was regularly maintained. The southern 
boundary was still more indefinite, depending on the 
extent of the Egyptian conquests and trade at dif- 
ferent periods. The people were not of the negro 
type, but essentially Hamitic (cf. Gn 10 6). The 
Egyptians themselves, however, seem to have classed 
them with the negroes, as the Greeks and Romans 
did the Ethiopians. Their dark-brown color, due 
to their southern habitat, is referred to in Jer 13 23. 


2. History. In the reign of the 12th dynasty 
(c. 2000 B.c.) northern Ethiopia became indepen- 
dent, but was again subdued along with much south- 
ern territory in the 16th cent. B.c. The new prov- 
ince, extending at length to the third cataract of the 
Nile, was made thoroughly Egyptian in manners and 
religion. Under the 22d or Libyan dynasty, native 
rulers threw off the yoke of Egypt, and about 711 
B.c. the new Ethiopian kingdom gained control of 
Egypt itself, altho the princes of the Delta retained 
their autonomy and some freedom of action. This 
situation explains the alliance of Tirhakah, ‘King 
of Ethiopia,’ with Hezekiah of Judah (II K 19 9). 
The Ethiopians were still in control when Egypt 
was subdued by the Assyrians (668 B.c.). After the 
subjugation of Ethiopia itself in its final struggle 
the country ceased to exercise any influence abroad. 
Royal authority, however, was frequently wielded 
by powerful native chiefs, and at the beginning of 
the Christian era Meroe, in southern Nubia, was the 
seat of a kingdom whoserulers held their title through 
the female line. Hence the queen-mother, who 
seems to have borne officially the name Candace 
(q.v.), was often the virtual ruler. The chamber- 
lain of one of these quasi-queens is mentioned in Ac 
8 27 ff. 


3. The Arabian Cush. Some of the references to 
the southern ‘Cush’ in the O T can hardly be ex- 
plained of the African Ethiopia, and it,has been con- 
jectured that, as the Assyrians seem to have under- 
stood Cush as including southern Arabia as well, 
the Hebrews may have had a similar usage. Upon 
this hypothesis the invasion of Judah by ‘Zerah the 
Ethiopian’ in the time of Asa (II Ch 14 9-15) is ex- 
plained; since at this date the Ethiopians were con- 
fined to their own proper territory, while the South- 
Arabian kingdom of Ma‘in was flourishing and ag- 
gressive. The ‘Cushites’ of II Ch 21 16 may also 
be plausibly referred to the same region. Cf. 
Winckler in KAT®%, p. 148 ff. See also Cusu. 

J. F. McC.—L. B. P. 


233 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Etam 
Ethnography 





ETH-KAZIN, efh”ké’zin (]’$P TAY, ‘ittah qatsin, 
Ittah-Kazin AV): A town on the E. border of Zeb- 
ulun (Jos 1913). Site unknown. 


ETHNAN, efth’nan (]208, ’ethnan): 
of a Judahite family (I Ch 47). 

ETHNARCH, eth’nark. See areras. 
_ ETHNI, eth’nai (28, ’ethni): 
Asaph (I Ch 6 41). 


ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY. 1. 
Treatment of the Subject. In this article the racial 
stocks and races that are prominent in the Bible will 
first be considered systematically; and the peoples 
mentioned in Scripture will then be taken up in 
alphabetical order, and referred to their places in 
this system. 

2. Geographical Limits. The geographical sphere 
of chief interest in the O T was the region extending 
from the Mediterranean Sea to the Mountains of 
Persia, and from the southern mountain boundaries 
of Asia Minor and Armenia to the First Cataract 
of the Nile on the SW. and to the estuary of the 
Euphrates and Tigris on the SE. These lmits 
include the lowlands of Western Asia along with 
Egypt Proper. Beyond this region many countries 
were known to the O T writers and mentioned by 
them, but their inhabitants were to the Hebrews 
strange and remote, at least until the Persian su- 
premacy. Within this region, from remotest times 
down to the present, the dominant race has been the 
Semitic; but the lowlands of Western Asia have been 
repeatedly invaded by Aryans and Turanians; and 
Egypt has always been predominantly Hamitic. 

The Semites have their current name from Shem, 
the eldest son of Noah. Their chief Biblical sig- 
nificance is that the Hebrews, the people of Revela- 
tion, belonged to that race. The Hebrews did not, 
however, form one of its principal divisions. They 
were, in fact, a very composite people, that came into 
existence late in the history of the Semites. 

3. Classification. No satisfactory basis for the 
classification of races and peoples has been discov- 
ered. The most convenient one, language, rests 
upon cultural and political facts which do not al- 
ways correspond with biological ones; and the bio- 
logical or physical bases which have been proposed 
have not led to definite results. But, since language 
is the best basis which we have, and since cultural 
relationships are more important than merely physi- 
-cal ones, the linguistic classification remains still 
the one most employed. The psychological classi- 
fication of races rests upon a very insecure founda- 
tion, but may some day become very important. 

4. The White, Yellow, and Black Races. The 
Western Hemisphere having been peopled from NE. 
Asia, we have to look for racial origins in the Eastern. 
Here, in very remote times, there arose three well- 
differentiated human strains, corresponding to the 
three great continental areas: a white race in Eu- 
rope, a yellow race in Asia, and a black race in Africa. 
Within historical times, however, these strains have 
always been blended in an infinite variety of com- 
bination. By Europe we mean Eurafrica, or Eu- 
rape plus the NW. corner of Africa; and by Africa 
we mean Austafrica, or central and southern Africa 


The head 


An ancestor of 


plus Madagascar and lands far to the east of the 
Indian Ocean. 


5. The Indo-Europeans and the Hamito-Semites. 
In very remote times the white race of Eurafrica came 
to be differentiated into several groups. One of 
these, located somewhere in eastern Russia, spoke a 
type of language only very remotely, if at all, re- 
lated to the languages spoken by the group which 
occupied SW. Europe and NW. Africa. The first 
of these was Indo-European; the second was Hamitie. 
Other groups are represented by the Caucasic and 
Basque. The Indo-Europeans migrated in all direc- 
tions, beginning about 3000 B.c. The Hamites 
made their way gradually through continental 
Africa—which had meanwhile become a unit, and 
separated from Europe—blending with the races 
which they met and conquered. They also crossed 
over into Arabia, where, after great lapse of time, a 
differentiated type of speech arose which we know 
as Semitic. Within Arabia itself—the cradle of all 
the Semitic peoples—there must have been two 
separate and well-defined centers, where the North 
Semitic type and the South Semitic type of speech 
developed. From the northern center Semitic 
nomads are known to have migrated into Assyria 
and Babylonia at about 3500 B.c., probably via 
Palestine, Syria, and the Euphrates valley; and 
again at about 2500 B.c., into the same countries 
by the same route, settling in Palestine and Syria 
as they went, and also invading Egypt; and into all 
the countries around the Syrian Desert, simulta- 
neously, at about 1500 8B.c. From the southern cen- 
ter a movement took place at about 500 B.c.which 
reached only the eastern frontier of Palestine and 
Syria, and, via Bab-el-Mandeb, the Hamitie land 
of Abyssinia. Lastly, at about 500 a.p. began the 
great movement of Arabs which carried their lan- 
guage and their new religion clear across north Africa 
and over all the Near East. These migrations of 
prolific nomads, occurring roughly every thousand 
years, out of the inhospitable steppes of Arabia, are 
similar to the migrations of Indo-Europeans from 
the steppes of Russia, and of the Turanians from 
the steppes of northern Asia, and were due to the 
same causes. 


The Indo-European race, corresponding to the 
descendants of Japhet, is comparatively of little 
Biblical significance. Its various races were of 
interest mainly to the later prophets, and that by 
reason of their influence, direct or indirect, upon the 
fortunes of Israel, or because they became involved 
in one way or another with peoples that were the 
subject of prophetic discourse. The Indo-Euro- 
peans that are thus distinguished are the Medes and 
Persians (q.v.), various branches of the Scythian 
race (e.g., Ashkenaz, Gomer) and of the Hellenes 
(Javan) (see § 11, below). The N T has naturally 
much more to say of Indo-European peoples. These 
are usually referred to however, not as races but 
according to the political and geographical divisions 
in vogue under the Roman Empire. Outside the 
great races already mentioned the Bible writers 
rarely step. Elam, for example, is neither Semitic 
nor Indo-European, but it is assigned to the family 
of Shem ir Gn ch. 10. 


Ethnography 
and Ethnology 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


234 





The Hamites and Semites have very strongly 
marked characteristics—linguistic and social, if not 
physical—which justify grouping them in this man- 
ner. Both Hamitic and Semitic languages have 
consonantal roots—the former predominantly bi- 
literal and quadriliteral, the latter triliteral—and 
certain peculiar laryngal and velar sounds; and show 
indubitable agreement in inflection, if not in vo- 
cabulary. Many obscure phenomena in Semitic 
languages, such as the odd uses of the feminine, the 
reversal of gender with certain numerals, and the 
so called broken plurals, are easily explained from 
Hamitic. Circumcision is a persistant character- 
istic of Hamites and Semites, and, to a less extent, 
the tabu against pork. 


6. The Persians and the Greeks. The Persians 
first appear north of the Persian Gulf, vassals of 
their kinsmen, the Medes. In 612 they assisted 
the Chaldeans to overthrow Assyria and establish 
the Neo-Babylonian Empire; and in 539 B.c. they 
destroyed the same, and set up the Persian Empire 
in its stead. Cambyses conquered Egypt in 525. 
The Persian Empire then included Persia, Media, 
Babylonia, Assyria, Armenia, Asia Minor, Thrace, 
Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, from Assuan to the 
Mediterranean, and Cyrene. The Persians took 
over much from old Babylonian civilization, and 
gave this to their successors, together with many 
ideas and institutions of their own. They are cur- 
iously associated throughout with Semitic languages: 
in the oldest period borrowing the idea of cuneiform 
writing; in the next, employing the Aramean lan- 
guage and alphabet; in the last, adopting the Arabic 
alphabet and the religion of Islam. 

The Greeks took possession of their peninsula 
and of the Aigean world between 2000 and 1000B.c., 
displacing an older population of which the Philis- 
tines were a fleeing remnant of unknown origin, 
which reached Palestine about 1200 B.c. Alex- 
ander the Great took possession of the Persian Em- 
pire in 333 B.c., and by 3825 had restored it to its 
former maximum. He realized his dream of ex- 


tending Greek civilization and speech over the then | 


known world. Even after the appearance of Rome, 
the Greek language—in the Kotvi dt&Aextoc, the 
common dialect—continued to spread; and it re- 
mained the common tongue of the Roman Empire 
until the 4th cent. A.p. 


The Romans and their Byzantine successors car- | 


ried the period of Indo-European supremacy in the 
Near East, down to the Arab conquests in the 7th cent. 
A.D. But the Romans themselves exerted little in- 
fluence upon race, language, and religion, in the 
Near East. 


7. The Egyptians and the Lybians. The Egyp- 
tians, inhabiting the valley and the delta of the Nile, 
were a mixture of Cushitic-Hamitic stock from 
Nubia, and Lybian-Hamitie stock from the delta. 
The latter were the more purely Hamitic of the two, 
and the greater civilizing force. Beginning about 
3000 B.c., the Pyramid Age lasted about five hun- 
dred years, the Feudal Age about one thousand, and 
the Imperial Age about four hundred years. The 
Archaic Period was brief, and the age of greatest 
engineering skill lies immediately after it. 


centuries and a half before the erection of the great 
pyramid of Cheops only sun-dried brick were used; 
and later times show nothing to equal it. The 
world’s first alphabet was invented by the Egyp- 
tians before 3000 B.c. With active minds and skilful 
hands, they nevertheless lacked the power to in- 
terpret and apply what they knew, and the courage 
to depart from trodden paths. They were not 
eager to travel, colonize, or wage wars of conquest. 
In religion, the Lybian element may perhaps be 
seen in the spiritual conceptions of sin, rewards and 
punishments, and immortality; the African element 
in the veneration of animals. The monotheism of 
Amenophis IV (1375-1358 B.c.) is supposed to have 
been an intrusion from Asia. 

The Lybians are found in Egyptian inscriptions 
and pictures from earliest times, and especially after 
1600 s.c. They are called Themheu, later Phaiat 
and Thehnu. A subdivision, the Rabu or Luby, per- 
haps furnished the common name of Lybians. 
They are mentioned in inscriptions of the nineteenth 
and twentieth dynasties. Cf. the Libhim of Nah. 
39; Dan 11 43; II Chron 12 3, 168; Lehabhim in Gen 
1013; I Chron 111. The Greeks used the name Lib-. 
oué for all the country west of Egypt. Lybians are 
pictured upon the tombs of Beni Hassan as tall and 
beautiful, with light complexion, blue eyes, and 
blond hair. They invaded the western frontier of 
Egypt in the nineteenth and twentieth dynasties 
(1350-1090 s.c). After 1100 B.c. they appear as 
mercenaries, reaching generalship and finally the 
throne in the twenty-second, twenty-fourth and 
twenty-sixth dynasties. 


8. The Babylonians, Assyrians, and Chaldeans. 
The Babylonians and Assyrians were closely related 
in race, language and culture. They entered the 
valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates probably from 
the north. The Babylonians settled in the alluvial 
plain between the lower courses of these rivers, 
uniting with an older, highly civilized Sumerian 
population, probably Turanian-Caucasian. The 
Assyrians remained farther north on the Tigris, and 
were less mixed with the Sumerians, altho dominated 
by their institutions. About 2750 B.c. Sargon the 
Great, a leader of Semitic tribesmen, conquered the 
Sumerians and set up an empire. About 2200 B.c. 
the Semitic Amorites came from Palestine and Syria 
and founded the famous dynasty of Hammurabi. 
In 1800 B.c. the Assyrians took Babylon, and in 
1100 B.c. reached the Mediterranean. The Assyrian 
general who took Samaria in 722 B.c. declared him- 
self king, under the name of Sargon (II), and found- 
ed the Assyrian empire. This gave place to the 
Chaldean in 612 B.c., little more than ‘a new Semitic 
dynasty, which lasted till 539 B.c. 

The Babylonian-Assyrian-Chaldean civilization 
and language are strongly Sumerian. Their re- 
ligious ideas were essentially polydemonistic and 
magical. Their writing, and perhaps their speech, 
show profound influence from a population which 
could not pronounce Semitic sounds. 

9. The Canaanites, Phenicians, and Hebrews. 
Canaan, like most other racial terms, was originally 
a local name, the designation of a district and com- 


Two | munity in Phenicia, so that, roughly speaking, the 


ee . 


235 


Canaanites originally were practically equivalent to 
the Phenicians, who, down to the end of their his- 
tory, called themselves by this synonym. They 
had kindred in the highlands of Palestine, of whom 
the several smaller local tribes, Perizzites, Hivites, 
Jebusites, and Girgashites, were doubtless subdi- 
visions. It is quite possible that the Canaanites 
were originally a branch of the Amorites, the Ca- 
naanites tending at first to the seacoast, while the 
Amorites were attracted to Anti-Lebanon and its 
eastern slopes, whence they spread southward, E. of 
the Jordan. There is some reason to suppose that 
the Canaanites (and Amorites) were preceded in 
Palestine by non-Semitic peoples, who are perhaps 
represented indistinctly by the more or less legendary 
Anakim, Rephaim, Emim, and Zamzummim of Dt, 
chs. 2 and 3. 


The Hebraic division comprised, besides the He- 
brews, the peoples lying nearest to them to the S. 
and E.: the Edomites, Moabites, and Ammonites. 
The chief evidence for the relationship is found in 
the personifying genealogical traditions of the He- 
brew literature, according to which Edom was the 
brother of Israel, and Moab and Ammon were his 
second cousins. Language gives but little help 
here, for altho the Moabites spoke Hebrew, this was 
learned from the Canaanites by both peoples alike. 
(Is 19 18). The Hebrews and their kindred were, in 
fact, the most composite of all the ancient Semitic 
families. The two names Hebrew and Israel are 
themselves indicative of a dual origin. Israel was 
proximately Aramean (cf. Dt 26 5), and there is 
reason to suppose that the Hebrews are identical 
with the Chabiré, a small aggressive tribe in S. 
Palestine in the 15th cent. B.c. A remote Baby- 
lonian derivation seems also to be claimed in Gn 11 
28, 31, tho their ancestors in the district of Ur on 
the lower Euphrates may have been nomadic Ara- 
means. Like the Edomites, tho to a less degree, 
the Hebrews received an Arabian admixture, not 
merely in the old tribal days (Kenites, Kenizzites, 
etc.) but all through the period of their abode in 
Canaan. 


10. The Arameans. The Arameans were more 
widely extended in their permanent settlement than 
any other branch of the Northern Semites. They 
were found on both sides of the lower Tigris and 
Euphrates, in Lower and Upper Mesopotamia, and 


through the whole of Syria, not merely as shep- 


herds and traveling merchants, but as the control- 
ling inhabitants of large cities, such as Charran 
(Haran), Aleppo, and Damascus. The Euphrates 
was the most important dividing-line between them, 
yet they did not migrate to the W. of that river in 
any numbers till the 13th cent. B.c. Later they be- 
came dominant there until, long before the Christian 
era, their language was spoken by most of the in- 
habitants of Syria, where it continued to prevail 
until after the Mohammedan conquest. We, there- 
fore, make a very general division upon these lines 
into E. and W. Arameans. The ubiquity of this 
branch of the Semites, as well as their inability to 
consolidate into large communities, is illustrated by 
she fact that more ancient dialects of Aramaic have 
turvived than of any other Semitic language. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


| 


Ethnography 
and Ethnology 


Arameans are still found in considerable numbers 
in the region of ancient Assyria, in Kurdistan, and 
in Urumiah in Persia. The Aramaic dialect em- 
ployed by these survivors, the modern ‘Syriac,’ is 
not derived from the ancient classical Syriac; and 
the latter is itself an incorrect designation, since it 
was properly the language of a people in Meso- 


_ potamia proper, divided from Syria by the Euphrates 


and is, therefore, a dialect not of W. but E. Aramaic. 
Again, the Aramaic portions of the O T, which are 
written in a dialect of W. Aramaic, are still often 
improperly called ‘Chaldee,’ tho the Chaldeans 
did not speak Aramaic at all, but Babylonian or 
‘Assyrian’ (see ARAMAIC LANGUAGE). 


11. The South Arabians and Arabs. The Bible 
has little interest in the Southern Semites. Hence 
a formal classification is of minor consequence here; 
but a few words of explanation are necessary to pre- 
vent confusion. In one sense all the S. Semites are 
‘Arabian,’ all having had their origin and earliest 
home in the great peninsula, for Sabean (from the 
Gr. form of the Biblical Sheba) is a term roughly 
including the peoples of S. and SW. Arabia, and the 
ancestors of the ancient Abyssinians crossed over 
the Red Sea from the same region. On the other 
hand, the term Arabia has immensely enlarged its 
signification since early Bible times. The Arabs 
of the O T were merely the most important tribe of 
north-central Arabia and are to be coordinated with 
Ishmael, Midian, Kedar, and the other desert tribes 
extending from Palestine and the peninsula of Sinai 
to the borders of lower Babylonia. Another re- 
mark must be made as to the character of the tribal 
aggregations. They were very numerous, and many 
of them wealthy and powerful, some of them being 
ruled by kings, or oftener by queens. Their habitat 
was much more fertile than at present, the oases 
being more numerous and extensive. It was from 
their population that the more settled communities 
to the W., N., and E. were constantly replenished. 


The oldest South Arabian power was Ma‘an, with 
its base in the extreme SW. corner of the peninsula; 
and its trade route via Mecca, al-Medina, al-Oela, 
and another Ma‘dn in the N., to the Mediterranean 
port of Gaza. It flourished about the time of Saul 
and David, or about 1000 B.c. Under the name of 
Ma‘in or Ma‘én (Meunim, Maonites, EV) it is 
mentioned in I Chron 4 41, II Chron 201 (LXX), 
267, Judg 1012. The ordinary form, Mineans, is 
derived from the Greek through the Latin. 

The Minzeans were succeeded in the seventh cen- 
tury B.c. by the people of Sheba (English, Sabeans, 
from the Greek), whose kingdom seems to have con- 
trolled the same territory. Their northern vassals, 
who alone were in contact with Israel, were the 
Midianites; and contemporary writers use that name 
instead of the name of the older people of Ma‘an 
(Ma‘in, Ma‘én). The Sabeans themselves were a 
remote and legendary folk, a ‘nation afar off’ 
(Joel 3 8), as distant as Tarsish and the Isles of the 
Sea (Ps 7210), whose wealth was proverbial (Ps 7215). 
The mythical Queen of Sheba (I Kings 10 1-10) isa 
figure of the popular imagination, three centuries 
after Solomon, in whose day there were no Sabeans. 

After the days of the Sabeans and Midianites we 


Ethnography 
and Ethnology 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


236. 





hear of Kedar and Nebaioth, wild tribes which plun- 
dered Judah, Edom, Moab, and Ammon, in the lat- 
ter days of the Southern Kingdom, and after its 
fall. These tribes represent the fourth of the great 
Semitic emigrations from Arabia (vid. supra). 
They pushed the Edomites out of their old lands and 
into S Judah; and brought in the stock which even- 
tually occupied the entire E. Jordan land, from their 
great city of Petra, in the S., tothat even greater 
city, Palmyra, inthe N. The Shalem (not Solomon, 
Song of Songs 1 5) and the Nabatzans (I Macc 5 25) 
are a part of this people. Nabatwan kings are 
known, from the first, Aretas I (169 B.c.) to the 
last, Rabil II (70-95 a.p.). A great many of the 
kings of Ma‘aén are known, and to some extent their 
succession; but their dates are still entirely unknown. 
Cf. many names in § 138. 


12. The Ethnological Lists. The genealogical 
tables of Gn ch. 10 (and the summary in I Ch ch. 1) 
make a composite document drawn from the two 
sources J and P. The framework (vs. 1a, 2-7, 20, 22, 
23, 31, 32) was taken from P by a redactor, the re- 
mainder being excerpted by him from J. These 
component parts are accordingly of different ages 
as regards their first compilation: but this does not 
affect their general character. The lists of names 
are often not directly those of races, but of persons, 
of countries, and even of cities. This is due to the 
fact (1) that both social and political communities 
were regarded by the early Semites as the direct 
descendants of individuals, (2) that a race and its 
dwelling-place were identified in ordinary speech, 
and (8) that the city was the ultimate political unit, 
not easily separated in thought from the founder, 
who himself was the quasi-head or ‘father’ of his 
community. Thus the cities Tarshish, Kittim, and 
Sidon appear explicitly as persons and implicitly 
as tribes orraces. A good illustration of the general 
principle is afforded by Gn 25 12-16, where the ‘sons 
of Ishmael’ are expressly said to be named ‘by their 
villages (cf. Is 42 11) and their encampments’ (cf. 
also Gn 36 40-43). 


Another important feature of the tables is that 
their compilers did not take account of the inhabited 
world as a whole, of which they were profoundly 
ignorant, but only of the peoples of their own ac- 
quaintance. These were, primarily, their own 
Semitic kindred and neighbors, and, secondarily, 
the peoples of which they learned, directly or indi- 
rectly, through political association, trade, or migra- 
tion: t.e., the Egyptians and Cushites, the Persians, 
Medes, and Elamites, the most noted islands and 
coast-lands of the Mediterranean, and the best 
known peoples of Asia Minor. The widening of the 
outlook was due mainly to the extension of the 
Assyrio-Babylonian régime and the ubiquitous 
traffic of the Phcenicians. The most significant step 
taken beyond the primitive style of genealogies was 
the remarkable attempt to group the families, cited 
according to genetic principles, in comprehensive 
and exhaustive divisions. The tables are thus 
‘a first essay in ethnography...made at the 
point where the narrators close the history of early 
mankind and turn to that of the ancestors of Israel. 
They are prompted by the scientific impulse to de- 


clare something as to the origin of the peoples of the 
world, by the artistic motive to round off completely 
the primitive history, and especially by the desire to 
make it clear how Israel was divinely chosen from 
out of the general mass of humanity,’ (Gunkel, 
Genesis, 2d ed., p. 76 f.). . 

Criticisms of the lists in Gn ch. 10 on the score of 
accuracy are not a necessary part of this article. 
Certain inconsistencies will be noted below under the 
individual names. A general remark must be made, 
however, as to the degree in which the classification 
is in agreement with the well-established modern 
racial divisions. ‘The ‘sons of Japheth’ (vs. 2-5) are, 
as far as we can identify them, wholly Indo-Euro- 
pean, and the compiler (P) uses in their case the most 
recent knowledge of his time (5th cent. B.c.). But 
the same writer is strangely in error as to the ‘sons 
of Ham.’ Ham is really an old name of Egypt, 
and the Hamites were doubtless at first intended to 
include by synecdoche all North-Africans (cf. § 5, 
above). But either political and religious antago- 
nism or some fanciful association led him, as well as 
J, to place among the Hamites many who were of 
pure Semitic stock. Cush, properly meaning Ethi- 
opia (q.v.), isrightly a ‘son of Ham’ (ver.6). But he 
is made, for reasons not yet quite clear, to include 
several of the Arabian tribes, as well as the great 
Semitic race of Babylonians and Assyrians (vs. 
8-12, J). More striking still is the assignment of the 
Canaanites to the race of Ham (cf. Gn 9 18, 25-27, J), 
apparently on account of the long and bitter struggle 
for the possession of the ‘land of Canaan.’ Of 
course, consistency throughout the lists was im- 
possible; and we find, for example, that while P 
assigns Sheba and Havilah to Ham, J correctly in- 
cludes them (ver. 29) among the descendants of Shem. 
On the other hand, Shem is made by P the ancestor 
of the Elamites, altho these were non-Semitic, 
probably on account of their close relations with 
Babylonia; and for some obscure reason, of the Lyd- 
ians also. 

13. Minor Ethnological Terms. The following names of 
minor importance occur in the genealogical lists of the early 
historians: Abida, a ‘son’ of Midian, 7.e., a tribe of Midianites 
(Gn 25 4; I Ch 1 38). Otherwise unknown. Abimael, a S. 
Arabian people descended from Joktan (Gn 10 28; I Ch 1 22), 
Otherwise unknown. Adbeel, a ‘son’ or tribe of Ishmael (Gn 
25 13; I Ch 1 29), is mentioned also in the inscription of Tiglath- 
pileser III under the form Idiba’il as one of the tribes ‘among 
the western countries whose dwelling-place is remote.’ ‘He 
names also a chief of the same region, Jdibi’tl. Inthe LXX. of 
Gn 25 8 he appears in the form ‘ Nabdeel,’ as an additional son 
of Dedan. Almodad, a ‘son’ or tribe of Joktan in S. Arabia 
near Hadramaut (Gn 10 26; I Ch 1 2°). Exact location not 
known. Amorites. See § 9, above. Anamim, a people de- 
scended from Mizraim (Gn 1018; I Ch 1 44), lotated somewhere 
near Egypt, but the precise region is not known. Arkite, de- 
scendants (‘sons’) of Canaan, the singular with Gentile names 
being generally used in Hebrew for the plural (Gn 10 17; I Ch 
115), were the inhabitants of Arka, a town and district of Phe- 
nicia about 12 m. N. of Tripolis, probably referred to in the 
Amarna Letters under the name IJrkaia, and taken by Tiglath- 
pileser in 738 B.c. Arpachshad, the third son of Shem and the 
second in line of descent from Shem to Abraham (Gn 10 23, 
11 1°), This word-form is a monstrosity, and has defied all 
attempts at identification with any known people. Occurring 
with Asshur and Aram, it is natural to think of the people of 
Babylonia. Since the second half of the name is the singular 
form of Chasdim (Kasdim), or Chaldees, it almost certainly 
forms here a separate word with that significance. The re- 


mainder of the word still awaits a satisfactory explanation. 
Arvad, Arvadite. The Pheenician city of Arvad, the mod. 
4 


237 





Ruad, was the most important of the northern coast settle- 
ments. It was built on an island 70 m. N. of Beirfit with an- 
other town on the opposite mainland. In trade and general 
enterprise it ranked after Tyre and Sidon. In Ezk 273% u 
it appears as contributing oarsmen and warriors for the service 
and defense of Tyre. Ashkenaz, the eldest son of Gomer (Gn 
10*;ICh1°6), This implies that the name represents a people 
akin to the Kimmerians, who appeared in force in and about 
Armenia in the 7th cent. B.c., and who, followed by the Scyth- 
ians, helped to put an end to Assyrian domination in the N. 
Jer 51 97 associates A. with Ararat and Minni. The old com- 
parison with the Homeric Ascanios, a Phrygian hero, must be 
given up. Probably the traditional form of the word arose 
through a misreading for Ashk@z (cf. the Ashguz of the Assyr. 
inscriptions), allies of the Kimmerians, who gave trouble to the 
latest kings of Assyria. It has been further suggested that the 
Skuthoi (Scythians) represent the same famous people. The 
medieval and some modern Jews have made the word equiv- 
alent to the Teutonic race. Asshurim, the eldest son of Dedan 
(Gn 25 8), Inthe parallel I Ch 1 32, the sons of Dedan are en- 
tirely lacking. The exact location of none of them is known. 
See Dedan, below. In Gn 251!8 and Ps 83 8 read the singular 
form ‘Asshur,’ instead of ‘Assyria’ (EV), but not in Nu 24 34, 
where the reference is to the Assyrian Empire, or rather to its 
surviving elements. We should perhaps read instead ‘Ashur’ 
and ‘Ashurim.’ Canaan, the fourth son of Ham, according to 
P (Gn 10 6; I Ch 1 8), whose name is substituted by J for Ham 
in Gn 9 25, probably also in ver. 22, where the words ‘Ham the 
father of’ are apparently repeated from ver. 18. The list of 
Canaan’s descendants (Gn 10 15-19; I Ch 1 18-16) is from J and the 
Redactor. See §§ 9 and 12, above. Caphtor, Caphtorim, chil- 
dren of Mizraim (Egypt), son of Cush (Gn 1014). Am97 and 
Jer 47 4 declare that the Philistines came from Caphtor, which 
in the latter passage is called a maritime country, and Dt 2 2% 
informs us that the C. expelled the Avvim as faras Gaza. Of 
the many attempts made to locate this original home of the 
Philistines, is that which identifies it with Kefté or Kafto, 
which in the Egyptian inscriptions stands for the S. coast of 
Asia Minor. Among the invaders of Syria and Palestine from 
the N. in the time of Rameses III (c. 1200 B.c.) were the Puru- 
sati, the Egyptian form of the Hebrew Pelishti, Philistine. 
Much more likely is the identification with those Cretans who 
fled before the invading Greeks between 2000 and 1000 B.c. 
(vid. supra § 6), especially in the light of I Sam 30 4, Ezek 
2516 Zeph 2 5, where "NID kerétht seems to be a synonym for 


Philistine. Casluhim, a people of unknown location named in 
Gn 10 as descendants of Mizraim, and, therefore, related to 
the Egyptians. The words which follow in the traditional text, 
“Whence went forth the Philistines,’ should properly come after 
‘Caphtorim’ in the same verse. Dedan was a somewhat widely 
spread Arabian people assigned in Gn 107 to the race of Cush 
(see § 12, above), while in Gn 252 and I Ch 1 2 he appears as 
a son of Jokshan (son of Keturah), and a brother of Sheba. 
He is grouped with Sheba (q.v.) and Tarshish in Ezk 38 8 as 
a@ wealthy trading people, indicative of his rank among the 
tribes of Arabia. In Ezk 27 2° he is one of the chief customers 
of Tyre in similar company. In Ezk 25 }3 he is said to extend 
to the borders of Edom. With this agrees Jer 49 8, while Is 21 
13 f. associates him with Tema (q.v.). We, therefore, infer that 
D. occupied a large region SE. of Edom, stretching into central 
Arabia. The combination in Gn 25 3 with Sheba does not 
necessarily imply a S. Arabian origin, but merely illustrates 
the fact that Sheba had trading settlements in the N. In 
Ezk 27 15 read ‘Rodan’ for ‘Dedan.’? Diklah (Gn 10 27; I Chl 
21), one of the ‘sons’ of Joktan, and, therefore, a S. Arabian 
tribe. Location unknown. Dodanim, a son of Javan (Gn 
10 4; ‘Rodanim’ in I Ch 17, and also in Gn 10 4, LXX.). For 
a similar interchange of letters in Ezk 27 15 see Dedan, above. 
See also Ropanim. Dumah, a son of Ishmael (Gn 25 4; I Ch 
1 39), Probably the region in N. Arabia, formerly called Damat 
el Jendel, and now known as el J6/, is referred to. It is a large 
oasis on the way from Damascus to Medina. See Map of 
Ancient Semitic World. The‘ Dumah’ of Is 21+ is a misreading 
for ‘Edom’ (so LXX.). Eber, ‘son’ of Shelah and great-grand- 
son of Shem. He was counted the eponymous ancestor of the 
Hebrew race (Gn 10 *% f-, 11 4 ff-; IT Ch 1 18 f-), The name 
coincides in form with the word ‘ébher, ‘the other side,’ and it 
has been assumed that it is the same word, alluding to the fact 
that the Hebrews came from the other side of the Jordan. 
- But the fact is that E. is derived from ‘ibhri, ‘Hebrew,’ not 
vice versa, and the origin of ‘Hebrew’ is as yet uncertain. 
The Hebrews were probably the same as the Chabiri of the 
Amarna Letters, a small warlike tribe in S, Palestine, whose 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ethnography 
and Ethnology 


earlier history is obscure. E. was considered the ancestor not 
only of the Hebrews, but of a vast number of eastern and 
southern Arabians (Gn 10 %-%), whose relations with the 
Hebraic peoples are unknown. Eldaah, a ‘son,’ or tribe, of 
Midian (Gn 25 4; I Ch 1 %).. Otherwise unknown. Elishah, a 
‘son’ of Japheth (Gn 10 4; I Ch 17). The people, or region, 
meant is not certain. Perhaps the combination with Elissa, or 
Elisa, the traditional foundress of Carthage, is the most 
probable, as this name was also used for Carthaginian territory 
by Roman writers. The statement in Ezk 27 7 that Tyre 
imported ‘blue and purple from the sea-lands of Elishah’ is 
in harmony with this view. Equally so is an identification 
with Sicily and lower Italy, which is indicated by the Tar- 
gum; but the similarity of the names may be urged in favor of 
the N. African locality. Ephah, a ‘son’ of Midian (Gn 25 4; 
I Ch 1 38), and, therefore, the name of a people of NW. Arabia. 
In Is 60 © it appears as being engaged in the caravan trade, 
bringing gold and incense from Sheba. Apparently the Chaydpa 
mentioned in cuneiform inscriptions of the 8th cent. B.c. is 
the same name, being really phonetically equivalent to the 
original Hebrew form. Epher, ‘brother’ of the foregoing, not 
yet identified with any known people or region. Perhaps the 
word is merely an erroneous repetition of Ephah. Gether, a 
‘son,’ t.e., tribe, of Aram (Gn 10 28), In I Ch 17 wrongly given 
as a ‘son’ of Shem. Otherwise unknown. Girgashite, See 
Canaan, § 9, above. Gomer, the eldest ‘son’ of Japheth (Gn 
102f;1Ch15!-), The name, originally Gamer (so LXX.,), is 
the same as the Assyrian Gimirrai (the Kimmerians of the 
Greeks), who in the 7th cent. B.c. came from N. of the Black 
Sea, settled in Asia Minor in large swarms (‘hordes,’?’ Ezk 
38 *), and, followed and reenforced by the Scythians, did much 
to hasten the downfall of the Assyrian Empire. As preceding 
the Scythians, G. is called the ‘father’ of Ashkenaz (q.v.). 
Gamir, the Armenian name of Cappadocia, is probably a 
memorial of the Kimmerian invasion. Hadad, the eighth ‘son’ 
of Ishmael (Gn 25 ¥, Hadar AV; I Ch 1 3°, ‘Hadar’ AVmg.). 
Otherwise this N. Arabian tribe is unknown. Hadoram, a 
‘gon’ of Joktan (Gn 10 27; I Ch 1 8°), Otherwise this S, Arabian 
tribe is unknown. Ham, see § 12, above. Hamath, Hamathite. 
H. was the most important city of central Syria, on the great 
bend of the Orontes, and the chief emporium of the trade be- 
tween the middle Euphrates and Damascus. The modern 
name is Hamah. It had close relations with the N. Phenician 
cities. For this reason, perhaps, the Hamathites are named 
among the descendants of Canaan (Gn 10 18). The center of 
a powerful state, its capture by Tiglath-pileser III of Assyria 
in 738 B.c. was long regarded as a notable achievement (Is 10 
9; II K 18 *, 19 18). Some of its inhabitants were deported 
to Samaria after the fall of N. Israel. In Am 6 ? it is called 
‘Hamath the great,’ in distinction from Hamath on the border 
of Palestine. See also ARAM. Hanoch, the third ‘son’ of Midian 
(Gn 25 4; I Ch 1 88). Handkia, three days’ journey N. of 
Medina, may represent the tribe and region. Havilah, a region 
of Arabia somewhat difficult to locate. According to P (Gn 
107; I Ch 1%), H. was a son of Cush and, therefore, of African 
origin, while in J (Gn 10 ?®; I Ch 1 28) he is a son of Joktan of 
the.line of Shem., In Gn 2 !! H. is encompassed by Pishon, one 
of the four rivers of the country of Eden, which favors a NE. 
situation. Gn 25 }8 also places H. on the E. border of the Ish- 
maelites. Yet the descendants of Joktan were, as far as we can 
locate them, dwellers in SE. and S. Arabia. The probable 
explanation of the apparent contradiction is that, like Sheba 
and Dedan (q.v.), H. was properly not the name of a wells} 
defined territory, but of a tribe or people, whose settlements 
stretched over a wide range of country, both in the N. and in 
the S. of the peninsula. The mention of H.in I$ 157is probably 
merely an echo of Gn 25 18, Hazarmaveth, a‘son’ of Joktan 
(Gn 10 2%; I Ch 1 %), the modern Hadramaut or Hadramit, 
an extensive region east of Jemen in S. Arabia, running parallel 
to the Indian Ocean. In ancient times when its productiveness 
was maintained by the people and its rulers, it was prosperous 
and populous, a fact attested by the abundant ruins of its former 
civilization, which have been explored and described by modern 
travelers, Its inhabitants are called Chatramitote by Strabo, 
who gives the name Sabata to their capital city. See Sabtah, 
below. Heth, the name of the Hittite patronymic, given as a 
‘son’ of Canaan (Gn 10 }§; I Ch 1 1%) along with Sidon, the 
Pheenicians, the Jebusites, and other Canaanite tribes. See 
Hirtites. Hivite, a collective term for Hivites, named as a 
son’ of Canaan (Gn 10 17; I Ch 1 15) along with other tribes 
inhabiting Palestine. The name occurs also in most of the fre- 
quent enumerations of these Canaanite communities (Ex 3 
8,17, etc,). A comparison of Jos 97 with II S 21 2 shows that the 


Ethnography 
Euodia 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


238 





Hivites were of the ancient Amorite stock. They lived, accord- 
ing to Jos 9, in central Palestine (see Gisron). In Jos 11 3, 
which apparently places them farther N., the words ‘Hittite’ 
and ‘Hivite’ have exchanged places in the Massoretic text. 
The LXX. gives the right order. II S 247 throws no light on 
the question of the northern location. Hul, a ‘son’ of Aram 
(Gn 10 3; in I Ch 1 erroneously a son of Shem). <A desert 
people not yet identified. Ishbak, a ‘son’ of Abraham and 
Keturah (Gn 25 3; I Ch 1 3%). An identification with Yasbuk, 
a district of N. Syria mentioned by Shalmaneser III, is very 
improbable, since the descendants of Keturah seem to have 
lived wholly to the S. or SE. of Palestine. Japheth, the third 
‘son’ of Noah, according to the regular order of enumeration 
both in P and J (Gn 5 82, 6 1°, 101, 9 18), but perhaps originally 
regarded as the second (cf. Gn 9 24 and 10 21). He was the re- 
puted ancestor of the peoples on the northern highlands of 
W. Asia, and of thecoasts andislands ofthe Mediterranean mostly 
of the Indo-European stock. See § 9, above. Javan, the fourth 
son’ of Japheth (Gn 10 2; I Ch1 45), and the ancestor of ‘the 
isles of the nations,’ that is, the peoples inhabiting the coast- 
lands and islands of the Mediterranean Sea (Gn 10 4 f-), 
The word (]]}, yawan) is identical with Ién (originally 


Iawén), the eponym of the [Ionian Hellenes. ‘The 
sons of Javan,’ however, were scattered far beyond 
the limits of the MHellenic race; see Elishah, above, 


and Tarshish, Kittim, Rodanim, below. Apparently, J. has this 
place in the lists of P because of the importance of the Ionians 
in the trade and navigation of the Mediterranean, in which 
they competed with the Phenicians, and because of their close 
relations with the Persian Empire in the 5th cent. B.c., during 
which time this portion of Gn ch. 10 was written. In no Biblical 
text is it clear that a distinction is made between the Ionians 
proper and the Greek peoples as a whole, altho as it appears 
from Assyrian inscriptions of Sargon II and Sennacherib, 
Ionian pirates and sailors were busily employed onthe 
Phenician coast as early as the 8th cent. B.c., before any other 
Greeks came upon the scene. In Ezk 27 18 J. appears as furnish- 
ing slaves and copper to the markets of Tyre. A similar re- 
ciprocal trade is alluded to in J1 3° In Is 66 }9, another late 
passage, setting forth the subjection of the world to Zion, the 
citation of names is probably a gloss. Zec 9 !3 predicts the 
successful insurrection of the Jews against the Hellenized empire 
of the Seleucide in the 2d cent. B.c., and the same general 
situation is implied in Dn 8 21, 10 2 In Hzk 27 19 ‘Javan’ is 
clearly out of place and a false reading. Jebusite, a ‘son’ of 
of Canaan (q.v.) (Gn 10 16; I Ch 114), The Jebusites were the 
ancient inhabitants of Jerusalem and the neighborhood, and 
are named usually last in the lists of the early peoples inhabiting 
Palestine (Gn 15 41, etc.). Jerah, a ‘son’ of Joktan (Gn 10 29; 
I Ch 1 2°), was a tribe or district, probably in SE. Arabia, as 
yet unidentified. Jetur, a ‘son’ of Ishmael (Gn 25 15; I Ch 1 31), 
According to 1 Ch 5 !® war was waged against J. by Reuben, 
Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. His territory, therefore, 
lay to the E. of Jordan, and it may very well have been the 
same as Iturea (q.v.). Jobab, a ‘son’ of Joktan (Gn 1029; 
I Ch 1 23), a tribe, or region, of S., or SE., Arabia. Locality un- 
known. Jokshan, a ‘son’ of Abraham and Keturah, and father 
of the two Arabian peoples Sheba and Dedan (Gn 25 ? f.), 
Apparently an ancient people of central Arabia,that can not 
be certainly identified. Joktan, one of the two ‘sons’ of Eber 
and the father of thirteen tribes, or peoples, in J’s list of the de- 
scendants of Shem (Gn 10 25-39), The ‘sons’ of Joktan seem tobe 
wholly S, Arabian, as those of Abraham by Keturah and Hagar 
(Gn ch. 25) are N. Arabian. The exact limits of the Joktanites 
can not be ascertained, since we do not know the location of the 
boundary districts given in Gn 10 39, Kadmonite, named 
along with Kenite and Kenizzite in the most comprehensive 
list left to us of the early inhabitants of Palestine (Gn 15 19- 
31), The last two are from the Sinaitic peninsula, and the 
Kadmonites are naturally to be grouped with them. All three 
contributed to the growth of the people of Israel through their 
settlement in S. Canaan. The word signifies ancients or dwellers 
to the east; and the latter sense suggests the general meaning 
‘wild nomads on the eastern frontier of Palestine.’ Cf. infra 
KepemMau. Kedar, a ‘son’ of Ishmael (Gn 25 3; 1 Ch 1%), An 
important nomadic tribe of the Syro-Arabian desert, probably 
lying to the E. of Nebaioth and N. of Dedan (q.v.). The people 
of K. were noted for their wealth in flocks and herds (Is 60 7; 
Ezk 27 7), and are a favorite type of tent-dwellers (Jer 2 1°, 
49 28 f.; Song 1 5), of seminomadic life (Is 42 11), and of the love 
of war which marked the Arabian tribes (Ps 120 5). (Vid. 
supra § 11). Kedemah, a ‘son’ of Ishmael, 7.e., a N. Arabian 
tribe (Gn 25 15; I Ch 1%), Perhaps equivalent to Kadmonite 


(q.v.). Kittim (Chittim AV, except in Gn and Ch). The third 
*son’ of Javan (Gn 10 4; I Ch 17). The connection with Javan 
(the Ionians) is not quite evident, for the name, as generally 
understood, is derived from Kition (Cilium), a settlement on 
the SE. end of the island of Cyprus, the modern Larnaka, and 
the first settlers on Cyprus were not Hellenes at all. The prob- 
able explanation is that when these lists of P were written 
(5th cent. B.c.) Hellenic influence in Cyprus was paramount. 
In the 8th cent. B.c. Greek settlers were already beginning to 
rival the earlier Phenicians who had founded Kition and given 
its name, as equivalent to Cyprus, currency in Palestine. In 
the 5th cent. B.c. Greek kings ruled in the neighboring city of 
Salamis. Ezk 27 § (6th cent. B.c.) illustrates the importance of 
the place as the supposed mother-city of the westward islands. 
In Nu 24 24; I Mac 11, 8 5 the word is applied to the Mace- 
donians and in Dn 11 2° even to the Romans. See also Japheth, 
Javan, above, and Cyprus. Lehabim (only in Gn 10 13; I Ch 
1 11) is perhaps the same as Lubim and should be read ‘ Lehu- 
bim.’ Lubim (q.v.) seems to be almost necessary here as 
associated with Mizraim or Egypt. Cf. § 7. Letushim, the 
second ‘son’ of Dedan (Gn 25 8), and, therefore, an Arabian 
tribe SE. of Palestine, located by some (doubtfully) in the 
district of Sinai. See Dedan, above. Leummim, a son of Dedan 
(Gn 25 3), that is, a tribe in N. Arabia, not yet identified. 
Lubim (so correctly transliterated in Nah 3 ; If Ch 12 3, 16 8, 
but changed to‘ Libyans’ in EV in Dn 11 48). The Libyans were 
a people of Hamitic stock living to the W. of Egypt, to which 
country they long furnished mercenary soldiers. They at 
length subdued Egypt itself and, under the Biblical Shishak 
(I K 14 25), founded an important dynasty. See also Ludim, 
below. Cf. § 7. Lud, Ludim, apparently the singular and plural 
forms of the same word, generally held to mean the Lydians 
and their country. See Lydia. While Lud appears in the list 
of the sons of Shem (Gn 10 22; I Ch 1 1”), the historic Lydians 
were not of Semitic descent, but neither were the Elamites in 
the same list. The latter, however, were always closely 
associated with the Babylonians, while no plausible explanation 
has yet been given why the very remote Lydians are not assigned 
to Japheth, who is the theoretical ancestor of the northern and 
northwestern nations. Ludim is given among the descendants 
of Mizraim, 7.e., Egypt (Gn 10 18; I Ch 1 4) in a list of peoples 
all clearly African. The only solution of the difficulties thus 
involved is that we should read ‘Lubim’ instead of ‘Ludim.’ 
The same reading would also be an appropriate substitute in 
Jer 46 °, and it would also be a gain to exchange ‘Lud’ for 
‘Lub’ in Is 66 19; Ezk 27 1°, and 30 5. Cf. § 7. Madai, the 
Heb. word for the Medes and their country. In Gn 10 2; I Ch 
1 5, M. is the third ‘son’ of Japheth. See Mrpzs and also 
also § 6, above. Magog, the second son of Japheth (Gn 10 2; 
I Ch 1 5). In Ezk 38 2 the word appears as the name of a 
country, and in 39 § as the name of a people (cf. Rev-20 8). No 
attempt made to identify the racial name has been successful. 
It is quite possible that the word is a mistake for ‘Gog’ in Gn 
ch. 10, due to the scribe having intended to write ‘Gog’ and 
having then written the first syllable of the following ‘Madai’ 
at the beginning without erasing it. The words ‘of the land 
of Magog’ in Ezk 38 2 would then have been a gloss, as the 
ungrammatical combination with ‘Gog’ in the original Hebrew 
suggests. In Ezk 39 § the word should be ‘Gog,’ as the LXX. 
has it, and as the parallels 38 14, 16, 18, 39 ! make probable. See 
Goa. Mash, the youngest ‘son’ of Aram (Gn 10 23), Inthe 
parallel passage I Ch1 17‘ Meshech’ takes its place, but wrongly, 
since Meshech was a son of Japheth. The favorite indentifica- 
tion with Mons Masius (the mod. Tur ‘ Abdin) in N. Meso- 
potamia gives perhaps a too remote situation, and it is possible 
that the people of the‘ desert of Mash’ on the E. side of the Syro- 
Arabian desert is meant—a region often mentioned in the 
Assyrian inscriptions. Massa, a ‘son’ of Ishmael (Gn 25 14; 
I Ch 1 %), and, therefore, a tribe of N. Arabia. Its exact 
location is unknown, but it appears to be mentioned in an 
inscription of one of the later Assyrian kings under the Gentile 
name Mas’@’a, ‘the Mas’aites.’? These tribesmen were in con- 
flict with the people of Nebaioth (q.v.), from which we infer 
that they lived not far from E. Palestine. This supposition 
would agree with the fact that in Pr 31 ! mg. we read ‘the 
words of Lemuel, king of Massa.’ The sayings given in Pr 
chs. 30, 31 (cf. RVmg.) are part of the wisdom of the border- 
land of the Hebrews. The supposed reference to Massa in 
Pr 30! is perhaps a gloss. Medan is mentioned among the sons 
of Abraham and Keturah (Gn 25 3; I Ch 1 32). There can be 
little doubt, however, that the word is here merely a doublet 
for ‘Midian,’ which immediately follows, just as in Gn 37 36, 
‘“Midianites’ has been replaced by ‘Medanites’ (cf. RVmg.). 
Hence the existence of Medan is more than questionable, Cf, 


ar “i. 


239 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ethnography 
Euodia 





§ 11. Meshech, a ‘son’ of Japheth, named along with Tubal 
(Gn 10 2). It occurs only in conjunction with Tubal, except in 
Ps 120 5 (where Kedar is joined with it as a type of warlike 
barbarians). ‘The same combination is found even in Is 66 9, 
where we should read ‘Meshech’ instead of ‘that draw,’ and 
omit ‘the bow’ as being a gloss to the supposed reading. In 
Assyrian inscriptions we find in like fashion the Tabalé (= 
Tubal) and Mushké (=Meshech) mentioned together. They 
were determined opponets of Assyria in the 12th cent. B.c. 
The former lay to the NE. of Cilicia, the latter between them 
and the upper Euphrates. The same two peoples are repre- 
sented by the Tibarent and Moschi of the classical writers. In 
Ezk 27 18 they are mentioned as traders in slaves and bronze 
articles. For ‘Meshech’ in I Ch 117 see Mash. Mibsam, a ‘son’ 
of Ishmael (Gn 25 18; I Ch 1 29), not otherwise known. Obal, 
a ‘son’ of Joktan (Gn 10 28; Ebal in I Ch 1 22), AS. Arabian 
tribe, or district, of which the place-name‘ Abil, found to-day in 
Yemen, may be a survival. Ophir, a ‘son’ of Joktan (Gn 10 9; 
I Ch 1 2%), and hence some district connected with S. Arabia. 
It was famed for its commerce (I K 9 28, 10 11), especially for 
its gold (I K 10 !!, 22 48; Job 22 24, 28 16; Pg 45 9; Is 13 12), 
Much has been written and many theories advanced as to the 
site of O., but it still remains uncertain. The theory that places 
it on the S. or SE. coast of Arabia, where it may have been a 
center of trade from India, and elsewhere has much to com- 
mend it. Pathrusim, descendants of Mizraim (Gn 10 4; I Ch 
11%), The people of Pathros are mentioned in Is 11 "; Jer 
441, etc. Pathros was a designation of Upper Egypt. Peleg, 
one of the ‘sons’ of Eber (Gn 10 2°, 11 16-19; IT Ch 1 19. 25), Prob- 
ably an ancient place-name, but unidentified. Tradition 
assigned the ‘division’ of the earth to his days, probably a 
fanciful etymological deduction from his name (pdlag=‘to 
divide’). Put, a ‘son’ of Ham (Gn 10 6; I Ch 1 8). Frequently 
mentioned as a source of supply for soldiers, especially for the 
armies of Egypt (Jer 46 9; Nah 3 9; Ezk 30 5; cf. also Ezk 27 1°, 
38 °), always with Lud, or the Lubim, or Cush. Probably the 
land of Punt, the region along both sides of the Red Sea, fre- 
quently mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions. Raamah is named 
by P (Gn 107; I Ch 1°) as a‘son’ of Cush and ‘father’ of Sheba 
(but cf. ver. 28) and Dedan. He is also associated with Sheba 
as a trading people in Ezk 27 22. A suitable identification has 
been found with the Rammaniie of Ptolemy, a tribe living 
NW. of Hadramaut (see Hazarmaveth) and therefore E. of 
Sheba. A combination with the Regma of Ptolemy on the Per- 
sian Gulf has also been proposed, but the locality is not so 
suitable. Riphath, a ‘son’ of Gomer (Gn 10 3; in I Ch 1 6 
Diphath). Otherwise unknown. Sabtah, a ‘son’ of Cush (Gn 
10 7; I Ch 1 %). Perhaps the same as Sabotah, the capital of 
Hadramaut (cf. Hazarmaveth, above). Sabtecah, a ‘son’ of 
Cush (Gn 107; I Ch 1 9). Not identified, perhaps a variant 
for Sabtah. Seba, a‘son’ of Cush (Gn 107; 1 Ch 1%). Some part 
of Arabia is probably meant, or an Arabian people on the W. 
coast of the Red Sea. S. is mentioned also in Ps 72 !; Is 43 3, 
Cf. § 11. Sephar, a place in Arabia mentioned in Gn 10 ®9, as 
showing the general location of the Joktan tribes. Identifica- 
tion uncertain, altho the modern Dhofar on the S. coast of 
Arabia has much to commend it. Sheba, a ‘son’ of the Cushite 
Raamah (Gn 107; I Ch 19), but in Gn 10 28, I Ch 1 2? of Joktan, 
of the line of Shem, while in Gn 25 8, I Ch 1 82, he is a ‘son’ of 
Joktan, ‘son’ of Keturah. These variant traditions represent 
various ways of accounting for the same people (or possibly 
different sections of it), the inhabitants of the Sheba in SW. 
Arabia so frequently mentioned in the O T (I K 101-18; Job 6 
19; Ps 72 19; Is 60 6; Jer 6 9; Ezk 27 22f-, 38 13, etc) and famous 
_ for its wealth and commerce. See Dedan, above, and SFEBA 
QuEEN or., Cf. § 11. Shelah, Salah AV, a ‘son’ of Arpachshad 
(Gn 10 74, 11 12f-; IT Ch 1 18), Unidentified. The LXX. makes 
S. a son of Cainan, son of Arpachshad. Sheleph, a ‘son’ of 
Joktan (Gn 10 26; I Ch 1 %), Probably a S. Arabian tribe, 
as the place-name Salf is common in that region. Shuah, a 


‘son’ of Abraham by Keturah (Gn 25 2; I Ch 1 32), An Arabian: 


tribe, or region, to which Bildad the ‘Shuhite,’ Jok's friend 
(Job 2 11, 81, etc.), belonged. Perhaps “the land of Suhu,” of 
the Assyrian inscriptions, a region on the Euphrates near its 
junction with the Belik, is meant. Sidon, reckoned genea- 
logically as the ‘first-born’ of Canaan (Gn 10 15; I Ch 1 18), 
It stands here for Phenicia, as the oldest city of Phenicia. 
See Puenicra and Srpon. Sinite, a ‘son’ of Canaan (Gn 
10 17; I Ch 115), The inhabitants of Siannu, a place mentioned 
by Tiglath-pileser III as near Arka. See Arkite, above. Tar- 
Shish, a ‘son’ of Javan (Gn 10 4; I Ch 17). T. is frequently 
mentioned in the O T, and is probably to be identified with 
the ancient Tartessus in S. Spain. In Ezk 27 !2 (cf. Jer 10 9) it 
18 mentioned as a source whence Tyrian merchants procured 


silver, iron, tin, and lead (see also I K 10 22, 22 48; Ps 48 7, 
72 19, Is 23 6. 10, 66 19; Jon 1 3, etc.). Tiras, a ‘son’ of Japheth 
(Gn 10 2), perhaps the Tugcnyol, a piratical sea-folk of the 
Afgean Sea, mentioned in Egyptian inscriptions of the 13th 
cent. B.c. Togarmah, a ‘son’ of Gomer (Gn 10 3; I Ch 1 8), 
located (Ezk 38 6) in the extreme N., and spoken of in Ezk 27 14 
as a place whence horses and mules were procured by Tyrian 
merchants. Probably the same as the Assyrian Vilgarimmu, 
N. of the Taurus Mts. and near the river Halys. Tubal (Gn 
10 2). See Meshech, above, Uzal, a‘son’ of Joktan (Gn 10 27; 
I Ch 1 21), Probably a S. Arabian district. Its commerce was 


_ famed, as its exports of steel and spices are mentioned in Ezk 


27 19 RVmg. (the correct reading). It is perhaps to be identified 
with San‘a, the capital of Yemen, whose old name was <Azal, 
according to Arabian tradition. Zemarite, a ‘son’ of Canaan 
(Gn 10 18; I Ch 1 16), The people of Simirra (of the Assyrian 
inscriptions), the same as the Sumur of the Amarna letters, a 
place S. of Arka, between it and Gebal. Zimran, a ‘son’ of 
Abraham by Keturah (Gn 25 2; I Ch 1 32) and therefore a tribe, 
or district, of Arabia. Perhaps the region of Zabram, an 
Arabian city W. of Mecca, on the Red Sea. 


LITERATURE: (on §§ 1-10): Delitzsch, Wo lag das Paradies? 
(1881); Hommel, Die Semit. Vélker und Sprachen (1883); 
Sayce, The Races of the Old Testament (1891); the Commen- 
taries on Gn, especially those of Ball, Gunkel, Driver, and 
Skinner (ICC, 1910). Glaser, Skizze der Geschichte und 
Geographie Arabiens (1890); Barton, A Sketch of Semitic 
Origins (1902); the articles on Races of the Old Testament by 
M. Jastrow, and on Semites by J. F. McCurdy in HDB, Ex- 
tra Volume (1904), and on Geography by Francis Brown in 
EB, Vol. II (1901). Brinton, Races and Peoples, (1901); 
Breasted, Ancient Times, a History of the Early World (1916); 
Meinhoff, Die Sprachen der Hamiten (1912); Meinhoff, The 
Study of African Languages (1915). 

J. F. McC.—E. E. N.—W. H. W. 
EUBULUS, yu-biti’lus (Et@ouroc): A Roman 
Christian from whom greetings are sent in IT Ti 4 21. 


Nothing more is known of him. Ae Coad Ne 
EUCHARIST. See Lorp’s Supper. 


EUNICE, yi/nis (Edvixn): The mother of Tim- 
othy (II Ti15). According to Ac 161 she was a 
Jewess, whose home was in Derbe or Lystra, and who 
had probably been converted to Christianity as a 
result of Paul’s first missionary journey. J. M. T. 

EUNUCH (0°70, sdris, edvotyoc, Ac 8 27): An 
emasculated person. Such were commonly em- 
ployed in Oriental courts as a measure of safety 
against possible intrigues with inmates of harems. 
There is no clear evidence, however, that such per- 
sons were used by the kings of Israel. The term 
sGrzs seems to have a double derivation and signifi- 
cance (‘officer,’ Gn 37 36 AVmg. ‘word doth signify 
also chamberlain’). Pharaoh’s eunuch was married 
(39 1). One of the meanings of the word is asso- 
ciated with the Assyrian sarit (cf. Rab-saris, [1 K 
1817). But if there is doubt about the eunuchs of 
II K 9 32, etc., being mutilated men, there is no doubt 
as to the employment of such men by the Herods 
in their palace (Jos. Ant. XV, 7 4,168). Mt 1912, 
altho based on the practise of self-emasculation at 
the time, points to the principle of renouncing the 
married state for the sake of service, and is not di- 
rectly concerned with the physical feature of the 
case. A. C. Z. 

EUODIA, yu-d/di-o (Evodia): A Christian woman 
in Philippi whom Paul urges to live in harmony 
with Syntyche (Ph 4 2), both of whom labored with 
Paul in the Gospel (Ph 4 3) presumably at the time 
when the church in Philippi was being established, 
or possibly during a second visit of the Apostle in 
Macedonia. See Zahn, Int. to N T, sree Ls 


Euphrates : 
Excavation and Exploration 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


240 





EUPHRATES, yu-fré’tiz (118, p*rdth), Assyr. 
Pu-rat-tu (=Sum. Bura-nunu = ‘great water vessel’): 
It is mentioned as early as 2450 B.c. by Gudea (Cyl. B 
10 20). The largest river of Southwestern Asia, and 
one of the two arterial streams of Babylonia. It has 
two main sources in two valleys of the highlands of 
Armenia, 6,000 to 6,500 ft. above sea-level. One 
rises in the Anti-Taurus, and the other near the 
SW. slopes of Mount Ararat. They meet near 
Keban Maden, at an elevation of about 2,000 ft. and 
jointly flow toward the Syrian plain. Thence, in- 
stead of emptying into the Mediterranean Sea, 
which at places is no more than 50 m. away, it flows 
southeastward, falling 1,000 ft. in the 700 miles to 
the Persian Gulf. Its entire length is about 1,780 
m., of which about 1,200 are navigable for small 
boats. It is named as one of the rivers of Eden 
(Gn 2 14), and is variously designated as ‘the river,’ 
‘the great river,’ and was viewed as the ideal but not 
actual NE. boundary of Israel. By irrigating canals 
it supplied the greater part of lower Babylonia with 
its fertility. It has been a highway for maritime 
commerce from times immemorial. In primitive 
days it emptied its water into the Persian Gulf by 
its own mouth, but the deposit of silt from the Ar- 
menian mountains has so filled in the head of the 
gulf that the Euphrates and Tigris now join waters 
far above their common mouth. See Map under 
Babylonia. TMP. 


EURAQUILO, yu-ra@’kwi-l6 (EdeaxtAwy, from Gr. 
Eipoc, ‘east wind,’ and Lat. Aquzlo, ‘northeast 
wind’). The popular name of the wind that beat 
down upon the ship on which Paul was making his 
voyage to Rome (Ac 27 13 f.). It showed itself in 
a sudden change from the mild south wind under 
which the ship had been sailing, taking the form of 
a typhonic squall (&vepwog tupwyxés, ver. 14) from 
the mountainous heights of the island, the precursor 
of a long-continued NE. gale. The AV Euroclydon 
(found in H, L, B®) is one of the many variants 
which arose from the fact that the name was not in 
common use and thus lent itself easily to corruption. 

M. W. J. 


EUTYCHUS, yi'’ti-kus (Ettvyocs): A lad in 
Troas, otherwise unknown, the name, however, not 
being uncommon. While asleep, seated in a window 
of the room where Paul was preaching at some length 
he fell from the third story and was taken up for 
dead. Paul stretching himself upon him declared 
‘his life is in him’ (Ac 207-12). R.A. F.—E. E.N. 


EVANGELIST. See Cuurcg, § 6. 


EVE (30, hawwah): Adam’s wife (Gn 8 20, 41; 
II Co 11 3; I Ti 213). The popular etymology in 
Gn 3 20is doubtful. A possible meaning of hawwah 
is ‘serpent,’ and we may have here an instance of 
the primitive cult association of women and serpents 
(Proc. Amer. Philiosoph. Soc. 50, 5, 11). But cf. 
Skinner’s note on Gen 3 20 in JCC. The story of 
the Fall indicates a stage of culture wherein woman 
was already subordinate, hence it is probably sub- 
sequent to the hypothetic matriarchate period. 

A.S.C.*—O.R:S. 


EVEN, EVENING, EVENTIDE, See Timp, § 1. 


EVER, EVERLASTING, EVERMORE, FOR- 
EVER: In the O T these words usually render one 
of the following Heb. terms: (1) netsah—with the 
idea of ‘abiding,’ ‘enduring.’ (2) ‘dlam—.e., ‘age,’ 
‘age-long’ (the most common term). (3) ‘adh—.e., 
‘continuous,’ ‘continuity.’ (4) Another term of more 
limited meaning is tamidh, ‘continually’ (Ps 25 15, 
51 3, 105 4). In two instances the Hebrew means 
‘for length of days’ (Ps 23 6, 935). On Ly 25 23, 30 
cf. RV. In Pr 8 23, Hab 1 12, the Hebrew means 
‘from beforetime’ in reference to the past. In Ps— 
77 8 it means ‘from generation to generation.’ 

In the N T, with a few exceptions, the Greek term 
is atwyv, ‘age’ (often in such expressions as ‘to the 
age’ or ‘to the ages of the ages’), or the adjective 
alovtoc, ‘age-long,’ derived from aidy. In He 
10 12, 14, the original means ‘continuous’ or ‘per- 
petual,’ z.e., the sacrifice has perpetual validity. In 
Jude ver. 6, the Greek means literally ‘everlasting.’ 
See also EscHarouoey, § 39. K. E. N. 


EVI, i’vai ()8, ’éwz): A Midianite chieftain (Nu 
31 8; Jos 18 21). 


EVIL-MERODACH, 1’vil-mi-ré’dak (177) 208, 
"Ewil m*rodhakh), Babyl. Amél-Marduk. ‘Man of 
Marduk’: The son and successor of the great 
Nebuchadrezzar (II) on the throne of Babylon, 
562 B.c. He reigned two years and in the first one is 
said to have promoted Jehoiachin (II K 25 27-30), 
the captive king (of 597 B.c.), of Judah to special 
favors in his court. So unrestrained was he by law 
and decency that the priestly party induced his own 
brother-in-law, Neriglissar (Nergalsharezer), to 
rebel against and to slay him, and to seize the 
throne in 560 B.c. boo id ba 8 Eye 


EVIL ONE, THE. See Saran. 


EVIL SPIRIT. See Demon, Demonotoey, § 
3 ff. 


EVIL THING: The term is used (1) of material 
conditions, involving destitution and suffering, as in 
the case of Lazarus (Lk 16 25). (2) Of utterances, as 
expressions of evil thoughts and passions (ra‘, Pr 
15 28; xovnedc, Mt 12 35; Mk 7 23, also gatdoc, Tit 
28). (3) Of moral purposes and aims (Ro 1 30; I Co 
10 6). A. C. Z. 


EWE. See SacriFIcE AND OFFERINGS, § 8. 


EXACTOR (Is 60 17 cf. Zech 9 8, 10 4;, Dn 11 20, 
‘raiser of taxes’ AV) The same Hebrew word is also 
rendered ‘oppressor’ (Is 3 12) or ‘taskmaster’ (Ex 
5 6 etc.). In Dn 11 20 we probably have a veiled 
reference to Heliodorus, the agent of Seleucus IV, 
who tried to get possession of the Temple treasure 
(II Mace ch. 8). A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 


EXALT: In this term the general idea of raising 
or being raised above the ordinary level predomi- 
nates—(1) Metaphorically, ‘to exalt the gate’ (Pr 
17 19 gabhah) is to claim superiority, or arrogate to 
oneself prerogatives above the ordinary (also nasa’ 
Hos 131). This sense is expressed by the reflexive 
(Ob ver. 4 cf. RV; Ezk 3114). (2) To esteem highly 
(rim), especially in the phrase ‘exalt J’” (Ex 15 2; 
Ps 99 5,9). (3) To raise morally or socially (I K 


| 16 2; Ps 8919; also sagabh, Job 36 22 cf. RV). Inthe 


241 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Euphrates 
Excavation and Exploration 





N T all these shades of meaning are included in the 
comprehensive Svodyv (Mt 11 23, 23 12; Ac 2 33). 
Al Ors 


EXAMINE, EXAMINATION. See Law AND 
Leaau Practiss, § 4. 


EXCAVATION AND EXPLORATION. During 
the past century exploration has been carried on in 
all the lands of the Near East, and a number of 
ancient sites have been excavated. These investiga- 
tions have resulted in the discovery of an immense 
number of objects which throw light upon the Bible. 
The purpose of this article is to give a survey of the 
chief archeological discoveries, and of the historical 
results that they have yielded. 


I. Tue Sources oF INFORMATION. 
1. Egyptian Discoveries. 


1. Early Exploration. A large number of Egyp- 
tain monuments have remained above ground; and, 
owing to the dryness of the climate, have been re- 
markably preserved. These have attracted the 
attention of European travelers in all ages. In the 
17th cent. Egyptian antiquities began to be brought 
back by Europeans, and deposited in museums and 
private collections. R. Pococke (1704-1765), F. L. 
Norden (1704-1742), and J. Bruce (1730-1794) identi- 
fied a number of ancient sites, and described the 
ruins. In 1798 Napoleon invaded Egypt, and took 
with him nearly one hundred archeologists and 
artists to study the monuments. The results of this 
expedition were published between the years 1809 
and 1822 in seven sumptuous folio volumes, con- 
taining introduction, texts, and plates, entitled 
Description de V Egypte. 

2. Decipherment of the Inscriptions. Among the 
antiquities discovered by Napoleon’s expedition 
was the ‘Rosetta Stone,’ so called from its dis- 
covery at Rosetta (Ar-R&shid), near Alexandria. 
This contained an inscription in honor of Ptolemy V 
in Hieroglyphic Egyptian, Demotic (a later cursive 
development out of the ancient picture-writing), 
and Greek. From this in 1822 J. F. Champollion, 
by a comparison of the Greek text with the Coptic, 
a descendant of ancient Egyptian, succeeded in de- 
termining the phonetic values of the Hieroglyphic 
and Demotic signs. 

3. Later Scientific Excavations. The enthusiasm 
aroused by the decipherment of Egyptian led to a 
systematic exploration of the country, and search 
_ for texts by all the nations of Europe. Champollion 
and Rosellini (1828), Perring and Vyse (1837), 
Lepsius, Erbkam, the Weidenbachs, Mariette (since 
1850) gathered a rich harvest of antiquities, and 
published important editions of texts. The British 
Egypt Exploration Fund was founded in 1888, and 
has carried on excavations under the leadership of 
Naville, Gardner, Griffith, and Petrie. France has 
been represented by Gautier and Jequier (1894-95), 
Amélineau, Schafer, and De Morgan (since 1850), 
and the Mission archéologique francaise. In 1896 
W. M. Flinders Petrie organized the Research 
Account, which since 1905 has been called the 
British School of Archeology in Egypt. The German 
Orient Gesellschaft began work in 1901. Breasted and 
Reisner also have conducted expeditions for several 


American museums. Numerous individuals have 
secured concessions from the Egyptian government, 
and have carried on private excavations which have 
frequently yielded remarkable results. 


2. Elamite and Persian Discoveries. 


4. Early Exploration. The ruins of Persepolis, the 
capital of the ancient Persian kings, were visited by 
the monk Odoric in 1320, and by a number of later 
travelers who brought back copies of the strange 
inscriptions in three kinds of cuneiform, or wedge- 
writing, that were to be seen on the walls of the 
palace. In 1765 the Danish explorer Carsten 
Niebuhr made careful copies of a large number of 
these inscriptions. 

5. Decipherment of the Persian Inscriptions. In 
1802 G. F. Grotefend, a German mathematician, 
with extraordinary genius succeeded in deciphering 
one of these inscriptions, and reading the names of 
Darius, Xerxes, and Artaxerxes. His work was 
carried forward by E. Burnouf, C. Lassen, I. 
Léwenstern, and E. Hincks. About 1835 Sir Henry 
Rawlinson, a young British officer in Persia, copied 
at the risk of his life the great trilingual rock- 
inscription of Behistan. Independently of Grote- 
fend, he hit upon the decipherment of the Persian 
portion of the inscription, and read the name 
Darius. In 1846 he was able to publish a complete 
translation of this inscription. The language turned 
out to be Old Persian, an Aryan dialect similar to 
the language of the Avesta, the sacred book of the 
Parsees, and to the language of the later alpha- 
betic inscriptions of the Sassanian kings (see 
PERSIA). 

6. Later Excavations. The earlier discoveries 
concerned only the Achemenian Persian kings from 
Darius onward (521 B.c.). Nothing was known of 
the ancient kingdom of Elam, which was contem- 
porary with the earliest Babylonian and Egyptian 
kingdoms, and which was conquered by the Per- 
sians in the 6th cent. B.c. (Jer 49 34-39; see ELAM). 
In 1890 a French expedition under the leadership of 
J. de Morgan excavated Susa, the Biblical Shushan, 
the capital of ancient Elam (see SHusHAN). Here a 
complete record of the early civilization was un- 
earthed, and along with it a number of early Baby- 
lonian monuments that had been plundered by the 
Elamites, among these a long inscription of Manish- 
tusu (c. 2770 B.c.) and the famous code of Ham- 
murabi (c. 2120 B.c.) (see Bapyztonta, § 16; J. 
de Morgan, Délégation en Perse, 9 vols., 1899-1906). 

7. Decipherment of the Elamite Inscriptions. 
The excavations at Susa revealed numerous in- 
scriptions in a complicated variety of cuneiform 
that was identical with the second column of the 
trilingual inscriptions of Persepolis. The decipher- 
ment of these Elamite inscriptions has presented 
peculiar difficulties, because the language belongs 
to no known group; but a beginning was made by 
Westergaard and Norris, and considerable progress 
has been made during the last few years by F. H. 
Weissbach, G. Hiising, and F. Bork. 


8. Babylonian and Assyrian Discoveries, 


8. Early Exploration. About 1160 a Jewish 
traveler, Benjamin of Tudela, visited and described 


Excavation 
and Exploration 


the ruins of Nineveh and of Babylon. Between the 
sixteenth and the eighteenth centuries, a number of 
travelers brought back reports of the ruins that they 
had seen, and of the peculiar wedge-writing on 
bricks. In 1801 a case of inscribed bricks and 
tablets arrived in London, and was deposited in 
the East India House. C. J. Rich (1787-1820) 
surveyed several of the largest mounds, and collect- 
ed numerous inscriptions. Further information was 
gathered by J. 8. Buckingham (1816), R. K. Porter 
(1818), R. Mignan (1837), G. B. Fraser (1884), 
F. R. Chesney (1835-37), and J. F. Jones (1846-55). 

The first excavations were those of the French 
vice-consul at Mosul, P. E. Botta, and of his suc- 
cessor V. Place (1842-55) at Nineveh; which re- 
sulted in the discovery of the palace of the Assyrian 
king Sargon in the mound of Khorsabad, and of the 
reliefs and inscriptions now in the Louvre at Paris. 
A. H. Layard discovered (1845-49) the palaces of 
Ashurnasirpal, Sargon, and Shalmaneser at Nimrud 
(the Biblical Calah, see CaLan), and the palace of 
Sennacherib at Kouyunjik, and discovered priceless 
treasures of scupltures, reliefs and inscriptions, 
which are now to be seen in the British Museum 
(see A. H. Layard, Nineveh and its Remains, 2 vols., 
1851-52). W. K. Loftus (1854) excavated at Warka 
(Erech, see Erecnu), J. E. Taylor (1855) excavated 
at al-Muqayyar (Ur, see Ur), and H. Rassam 
(1854) had the rare good fortune to unearth for the 
British Museum the library of Ashurbanipal, con- 
taining thousands of Assyrian documents of all 
periods, and transcripts of numerous ancient Baby- 
lonian records. 


9. Decipherment of the Babylonian-Assyrian In- 
scriptions. The key to the problem was furnished by 
the trilingual inscriptions of Persepolis and Be- 
histan. The third column in these inscriptions 
was written in the same characters that were 
found in tablets from Babylonia. By 1851, H. 
Rawlinson, the decipherer of the Persian portion 
of the Behistan inscription, was able to translate 
the Babylonian duplicate. Since that time, through 
the labors of E. Hincks, H. Rawlinson, E. Norris, 
G. Smith, E. Schrader, F. Delitzsch, and many 
later students, the Babylonian-Assyrian language 
has been thoroughly mastered. This language is 
Semitic, and is closely allied to Aramaic and He- 
brew. In 1860 Rawlinson began the publication of 
the great corpus, Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western 
Asia, 5 vols.; and this has been followed by nu- 
merous volumes of Cuneiform: Texts of the British 
Museum. Many other editions of texts have ap- 
peared, and the body of Babylonian-Assyrian litera- 
ture that has been published is quite as voluminous 
as the O T (see O. Weber, Die Literatur der Baby- 
lonier und Assyrer, 1907). 


The earliest inscriptions from Babylonia are 
written in Sumerian, a different language from the 
later Semitic Babylonian. The decipherment of 
these inscriptions has been possible through the 
fact that the later Babylonians and Assyrians pre- 
served the ancient language in religious liturgies, 
and prepared word-lists and interlinear translations 
for its study. Through these bilingual texts the 
Sumerian language has at last been deciphered, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


242 


10. Later Excavations. After the decipherment 
of Babylonian-Assyrian, the work of excavation 
began again with new ardor. G. Smith (1873-76) 
and H. Rassam (1877) dug at Nineveh; E. de 
Sarzec (1877-1901) at Telloh, in southern Babylonia. 
where he found numerous remains and inscriptions 
of the primitive Sumerian civilization; J. P. Peters, 
W. H. Ward, J. H. Haynes, and H. V. Hilprecht 
(1884-1900) excavated Nippur, and found many 
monuments and inscriptions of the earliest period, 
and a large temple-archive of tablets; R. Koldewey — 
(1899-1914) worked at Babylon; W. Andrae (1902- 
14) at Ashur, where many tablets of the early 
Assyrian period were discovered; E. J. Banks 
(1903-04) at Adab, one of the oldest cities of Baby- 
lonia; H. de Genouilac (1914) at Kish. All work 
was interrupted by the great war, but has been 
begun again by R. C. Thompson (1918) at Eridu; 
H. R. Hall (1919) in Mesopotamia; C. L. Wooley 
(1922-25) at Ur. 


4. Palestinian Discoveries. 


11. Early Exploration. The spread of Christianity 
in the Greco-Roman world created great interest 
in the Holy Land, and led multitudes of pilgrims 
thither in all ages. The reports of these travelers 
have little scientific value, but the Onomasticon of 
Eusebius of Cesarea (died c. 349 a.p.) is still im- 
portant for the identification of ancient sites. Early 
modern exploration was limited to the study of 
objects that remained above ground. The American 
professor E. Robinson (1838-52) succeeded in identi- 
fying many modern Palestinian villages and ruins 
with ancient towns. (See E. Robinson, Biblical 
Researches?, 1856). These topographical researches 
were continued by TT. Tobler, V. Guérin and 
EK. Renan. In 1865 the British Palestine Explora- 
tion Fund was organized. Its first undertaking was 
the excavation of the eastern hill of Jerusalem by 
C. Warren (see C. Warren, Jerusalem, 1889). The 
next undertaking was the survey of Western Pales- 
tine by C. R. Conder and H. H. Kitchener. This 
resulted in the publication in 1880 of the Great Map 
of Palestine, on the scale of one inch to the mile, 
on which all modern Arabic names of localities are 
recorded with the utmost detail. This map is of 
inestimable value for the identification of ancient 
sites. It was accompanied with seven volumes of 
explanatory memoirs. In 1881 C. R. Conder sur- 
veyed the region east of the Jordan, and in 1889 
published his results in The Survey of Eastern 
Palestine. The explorations of C. S. Clermont- 
Ganneau in Southern Palestine during the years 
1873-74 were published in Archeolcgical Researches 
in Palestine, 2 vols. (1896, 1899). : 

12. Decipherment of the Inscriptions. The earlier 
explorations in Palestine resulted in the copying of 
a large number of inscriptions in Hebrew, Phenician, 
Aramaic, Greek, and Latin. The decipherment of 
these offered no such difficulties as the Egyptian or 
the Babylonian inscriptions, since all were in known 
languages. Only Phenician departed sufficiently 
from Hebrew to present a number of problems. 
These were successfully solved by W. Gesenius, 
Scripture lingueque Phenicie monumenta (1837); 
M. A. Levy, Phénizische Studien (1856-64); Phé- 





— 


243 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Excavation 
and Exploration 





nizisches Wérterbuch (1864); P. Schréder, Die phé- 
nizische Sprache (1869). The Phenician and other 
old Palestinian inscriptions were collected and pub- 
lished by the French Academy in Corpus Inscrip- 
tionum Semiticarum, I (1881). Modern editions of 
the more important inscriptions with translations 
and commentaries have been published by M. 
Lidzbarski, Handbuch der nordsemitischen Epi- 
graphik (1898); and by G. A. Cooke, A Textbook 
of North-Semitic Inscriptions (1903). 

13. Modern Excavations. In 1890 there began a 
systematic excavation of the mounds of Palestine 
that has been uninterrupted down to the present 
time. In this year W. M. Flinders Petrie made an 
exploratory survey of the mound of Tell el-Hesy, 
the Biblical Lachish (Tell el-Hesy, 1891). Between 
1891 and 1893 F. J. Bliss excavated about one 
quarter of this mound (A Mound of Many Cities, 
1894). From 1894 to 1897 F. J. Bliss carried on 
excavations at Jerusalem (Excavations at Jeru- 
salem, 1898). In 1898 F. J. Bliss and R. A. S. 
Macalister ran exploratory trenches into the mounds 
of Tell Zakartya (Azekah ?), Tell es-Safi (Gath ?), 
Tell ej-Judeideh, and Tell Sandahanna (Excavations 
in Palestine, 1902). From 1902 to 1909 R. A. S. 
Macalister excavated in a very thorough fashion 
the great mound of Tell ej-Jezer, the Biblical Gezer 
(The Excavation of Gezer, 3 vols., 1912). This is 
our best source of information in regard to the pre- 
Hebrew civilization of Canaan. In 1902-03 E. Sellin 
excavated Tell Ta‘anek, the Biblical Taanach (Tell 
Ta‘anek, 1904). In 1903-05 G. Schumacher exca- 
vated Tell el-Mutesellim, the biblical Megiddo (Tell 
el-Mutesellim, 1908). In 1907-09 E. Sellin exca- 
vated Jericho (Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen zu 
Jericho, 1913). In 1908-10 G. A. Reisner excavated 
Samaria (Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 2 vols., 
1924). In 1909-11 M. Parker made some private and 
unscientific excavations on the temple-hill in Jeru- 
salem which, however, yielded certain archeological 
results (see Revue Biblique, 1912, pp. 86-116; 
Biblical World, 1912, pp. 295-306). In 1911-12 
D. Mackenzie and F. E. Newton excavated ‘Ain 
Shems, the Biblical Beth Shemesh (Hzcavations at 
‘Ain Shems, 1913). In 1913-14 R. Weil made some 
excavations on the temple-hill in Jerusalem (La 
Cité de David, 1920). In 1920-21 J. Garstang under- 
took the excavation of Askalon (see Palestine 
Exploration Fund, Quarterly Statement, 1921-23). 
In 1921 C. S. Fisher began work at Beisan, the 


-. Biblical Beth-Shan (see Univ. of Penna., Museum 


Journal, 1921 sq.). In 1922 W. F. Albright exca- 
vated at Tell el-Fil, Gibeah (see Bulletin of Ameri- 
can School at Jerusalem, 1922 sq.). Finally, in 1923, 
R. A. 8. Macalister and J. G. Duncan began ex- 
cavations on the temple-hill in Jerusalem which 
have continued down to the time of writing (1925). 


II. Resuurs or Excavation AND ExPLORATION. 
1. Chronology. 

14. Babylonian. An accurate chronology is the 
first need of scientific historical research but prior 
to 1884 no such chronology of the ancient Orient 
existed. The only bases for calculations were the 
Ptolemaic Canon, a list of kings of Babylon, Persia, 
Greece, and Rome, with the years of their reigns 


from Nabonassar (747 B.c.) to Antoninus Pius (137 
A.D.); and the figures in the O T. Since the decipher- 
ment of the Babylonian-Assyrian records a wealth 
of new material has come to light which gives us 
an accurate chronology from 3000 B.c. onward. 

The Babylonian List of Kings, discovered by G. 
Smith, and first published by T. G. Pinches (PSBA, 
May, 1884), contains the names of the kings of 
Babylon and the years of their reigns from Sumu- 
abum, the first king of the first dynasty of Babylon, 
down to the fall of Babylon.. This overlaps the 
Ptolemaic Canon from Nabonassar onward, and 
agrees with its figures. By means of these two 
documents it is possible to fix the beginning of Sumu- 
abum’s reign in 2225 B.c., and this date is con- 
firmed by astronomical observations recorded in the 
reign of Hammurabi, 2123 B.c. 

The Assyrian Eponym Canon was discovered by 
G. Smith at Nineveh in 1875. It is a list of digni- 
taries of the Assyrian Empire who were chosen to 
give their names to a series of 227 consecutive years. 
This list overlaps both the Babylon List and the 
Ptolemaic Canon, so that the precise date of each 
year can be determined. For the year which, accord- 
ing to these calculations, should be 763 B.c. the 
Canon adds the remark, ‘In the month Sivan the 
sun was eclipsed.’ Modern astronomy calculates 
that on June 15, 763 B.c. an eclipse of the sun occurred 
at Nineveh. Thus the strict historical accuracy both 
of the Ptolemaic Canon and of the Eponym Canon 
is demonstrated, and it becomes possible to date 
exactly all the events of Assyrian history from 889 
B.c. onward. This puts the chronology of the con- 
temporary Hebrew kings and prophets on a sure 
footing. 

Within the last few years lists of twenty dynasties 
of Babylonian kings and their reigns before the first 
dynasty of Babylon have been discovered, and the 
dates of these kings have been determined approxi- 
mately back to 3000 B.c. (see A. T. Clay, J AOS, 
xli, pp. 244 ff.; A Hebrew Deluge Story in Cuneiform 
1922, p. 84). 

15. Egyptian. Until recent times the only source 
for Egyptian Chronology was Manetho’s list of 
kings preserved in the quotations of Julius Africanus 
and Eusebius. Since the decipherment of Egyptian 
a number of ancient lists similar to Manetho’s have 
been discovered, and also astronomical observations 
which make it possible to determine the dates of the 
kings with great precision from the Twelfth Dynasty 
onward. These results are confirmed by the fact 
that we learn from the Tell el-Amarna letters that 
Amenhotep IV, king of Egypt, was contemporary 
with Burnaburiash, king of Babylon, and Ashur- 
uballit, king of Assyria. As in Babylonia, so also in 
Egypt we now have a reliable chronology from 3000 
B.c. onward. 

2. Historical Results of Discoveries. 

As a result of all the archeological discoveries it 
is now possible to reconstruct the history of the 
ancient Orient for several millenia before the be- 
ginning of the Hebrew history in the O T 


A. Stone Age. 


16. Eolithic Period. The earliest human remains 
are eoliths, or natural stones that were used as 


Excavation 
and Exploration 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 244. 





implements by primitive man in the Tertiary age 
before 500,000 B.c. These have been found in 
northern Europe, but have not yet been discovered 
in the Near East. It is highly probable, however, 
that the Paleolithic period, which is known to have 
existed in the Orient, was preceded by an Eolithic 
period. 

17. Paleolithic Period (500,000 B.c. to 10,000 
B.c.). In this period men chipped flints to produce 
implements of any desired shape. Remains of this 
period have been found at many sites in Egypt and 
in Palestine (see R. A. S. Macalister, PEF, Quart. 
Stat., 1912, pp. 44 ff., 82 ff.; P. Karge, Rephaim, 
1917). Paleolithic man had fire, but no metals or 
pottery, textile fabrics, or domestic animals. He 
lived by hunting and fishing, and had considerable 
artistic skill both in modeling and in sketching. He 
believed in the continued existence of the spirit 
after death, and kept up a cult of the dead, and 
probably of other spirits also (see M. Blanckenhorn, 
Die Steinzeit Paldstina-Syriens und Nordafrikas, 
1921). 

18. Neolithic Period (10,000 B.c. to 5000 B.c.). 
In this period men polished their stone implements, 
and fitted them with handles. Remains of this 
period are abundant both in Egypt and in Palestine. 
The lowest strata in the mound of Gezer and other 
mounds of Palestine consist of caves hewn in the 
soft limestone rock. The remains found in these 
caves show that the inhabitants possessed polished 
stone implements, baskets, hand-molded pottery, 
textile fabrics, and that they cultivated cereals of 
various sorts, and bred cattle, goats, and swine. 
They cremated their dead, and maintained a cult 
of the dead. They erected megalithic monuments, 
and excavated ‘cup-marks’ on their monuments and 
around their dwellings. They modeled figures in 
clay, and executed drawings of animals on the walls 
of their caves. Their diminutive stature, and the 
fact that they burned their dead, show that they 
were not Semites. 

B. Bronze Age. 

19. Sumerian Period (5000 to 3500 B.c.). About 
5000 B.c. a race appeared in Babylonia that is 
called Sumerian from Sumer, the ancient name of 
South Babylonia. In their statues and reliefs they 
represent themselves with smoothly shaved heads 
and faces, and features very different from those of 
the later Semitic conquerors of the land. They 
used bronze implements, cultivated grain, bred 
domestic animals, lived in houses of unburned clay 
bricks, and wore a short kilt of flocks of wool. 
They invented the cuneiform writing, and developed 
an extensive literature of prayers, psalms, magical 
texts, omens, liturgies, laws, astronomical observa- 
tions, and historical traditions, which were preserved 
by the later Semites as a sacred literature. The 
cosmogony and astronomy of the later Hebrews, 
their traditions of the creation, Garden of Eden, 
fall, antedulivian patriarchs, and flood, the types of 
their religious poetry, and the fundamental principles 
of their religious and social legislation, are now 
known to have come from the ancient Sumerians 
by way of the later Semitic Babylonians and the 
Canaanites (see CosmMoGcony, EprEn, Faux, Fioop, 
PATRIARCHS), 


Contemporary with the Sumerian period in Baby- 
lonia was the predynastic period in Egypt, in which 
hieroglyphic writing was developed, and the begin- 
ning of the first Sothic cycle of 1460 years was 
fixed in 4240 B.c. Beautiful works of art in bronze, 
stone, wood, and ivory were already executed in this 
period (see Breasted, History of Egypt, Chap. III). 

20. Akkadian Period. (8500 B.c. to 2500 B.c. 
As early as 3500 B.c. a Semitic people, speaking a 
language closely akin to Hebrew and Aramaic, 


pushed out of Arabia into Akkad, or North Baby-- 


lonia, and gradually dispossessed or absorbed the 
older Sumerian population, altho the Sumerians still 
maintained themselves for a thousand years in the 
south at Lagash (Telléh). The inscriptions of the 
kings of this period found at Nippur and Telloh 
have been published and translated by Thureau- 
Dangin (Die sumerischen und akkadischen Kénigs- 
inschriften, 1907). 

From these inscriptions the astonishing fact has 
been made clear that Palestine was ruled by South 
Babylonia between 3500 and 2500 B.c. and that 
active trade was kept up between Babylonia and 
Syria all through this period. Ur-Nina, who, on 
the minimum calculation, lived c. 3000 B.c., brought 
cedar-wood for his temples and palaces from Mount 
Amanus and Mount Lebanon. Lugalzaggisi, who 
reigned c. 2870 B.c., has recorded that he subdued 
all the lands from the Sea of the Rising Sun to the 
Sea of the Setting Sun, and that he set up his 
statue on the shores of the Mediterranean as a 
symbol of his sovereignty. Sargon, king of Agade, 
who reigned about 2840 B.c., not only subdued 
Syria, but even crossed the sea in ships and estab- 
lished his authority in Cyprus. Gudea, king of 
Lagash, about 2575 B.c., brought cedars from 
Mount Amanus, building stone and alabaster from 
Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, copper from Mount 
Hermon, and gold from Arabia to adorn the temple 
of the god of his capital city. 

Contemporary with the Akkadian period in Baby- 
lonia was the Old Kingdom (dynasties I-VI) in 
Egypt. The kings of this period were the pyramid- 
builders and worked the copper-mines at the 
traditional Mount Sinai, where they have left nu- 
merous inscriptions (see W. M. Flinders Petrie, 
Researches in Sinai, 1906). Under Pepi I of the 
Vith dynasty a certain Uni led an Egyptian military 
force into Palestine, and inscribed the record of this 
campaign on his tomb. This is the earliest historical 
document we possess in regard to Palestine (see 
Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, i, pp. 142-144; 
Paton, Egyptian Records of Travel, i, table ITI). 

During both the Sumerian and the Akkadian 
periods Palestine still remained in the Neolithic 
stage of civilization. 

21. Amorite Period (2500 sB.c. to 1760 B.c.). 
About 2,500 B.c. a second wave of Semitic migration 
overflowed Babylonia, Palestine, and Egypt. These 
people called themselves Amorites. In Babylonia 
they put new dynasties on the thrones of Ur, Nisin, 
Larsa, and Babylon. The famous Hammurabi, the 
sixth king of the Amorite first dynasty of Babylon 
(2123 B.c.) united all Babylonia under his rule, and 
extended his conquests as far as the shores of the 
Mediterranean. His law-code in 282 sections was 


L_———— 


245 A NEW STANDARD 


discovered by de Morgan at Susa. It contains many 
remarkable parallels to the Hebrew Legislation. By 
many Hammurabi is identified with Amraphel of 
Gn 141 (see AMRAPHEL; Baspytonta, §16; Law, 
$1). Under the kings of the first and of the second 
dynasty Palestine was a Babylonian province, and 
was penetrated by Babylonian civilization. Cuneiform 
became the script of the country, and lasted down 
to the time of the Tell el-Amarna letters in 1400 
B.c. (see below, § 22). Along with writing came 
knowledge of the Babylonian literature and religion. 
The Babylonian elements in the O T (see above, 
§ 19) are probably due to the fact that 
during this period these elements were absorbed by 
the Amorites, and by them were passed on to the 
Hebrews after the conquest of Canaan. In the 
Amorite level at Gezer a zodiacal tablet of Baby- 
lonian type was found (Hzcavation of Gezer, ii. pp. 
347 sq.), and at Taanach a seal-cylinder of native 
workmanship was discovered with a cuneiform 
inscription in honor of the Babylonian god Nergal 
(Sellin, Tell Ta‘anek, p. 105). In tablets of the 
first dynasty the names Abram, Jacob, and perhaps 
Joseph appear (Barton, Archeology and the Bible, 
pp. 290-298). 

In Egypt the Amorites overthrew the Old King- 
dom, and caused a period of anarchy from the VIIth 
to the Xth dynasty. Then, contemporaneously 
with the first dynasty of Babylon, arose the brilliant 
Middle Kingdom of dynasties XI-XII. From this 
period comes the Tale of Sinuhe, which narrates how 
a certain Sinuhe fled from Egypt in the reign of 
Sesostris I and traveled in Palestine. This gives an 
extraordinarily interesting account of the conditions 
that then prevailed in that country (see Breasted, 
Ancient Records, i, pp. 237 ff.; Barton, Archeology 
and the Bible, 307 ff.). From the same period come 
the Tale of the Eloquent Peasant and the Ad- 
monitions of Ipuwer, which show remarkable re- 
semblances to the Hebrew Wisdom Literature (see 
Barton, Archeology and the Bible, pp. 419-422). 

Amorite remains in Palestine are found in the 
mounds just above the caves of the Neolithic in- 
habitants. Their skeletons show that they belonged 
to the Semitic race. They cultivated the soil, and 
bred sheep, goats, and camels. They dwelt in houses 
of mud or of undressed stones. They used bronze 
as well as stone implements, and fashioned vessels 
on the potter’s wheel. They lived in towns sur- 
rounded with walls of dressed stone. They buried 
their dead, instead of burning them, as was the 
earlier pre-Semitic practise, using as tombs the 
caves of their Neolithic predecessors; and with the 
dead they deposited implements, ornaments, food, 
and drink. Their chief divinity was the primitive 
Semitic mother-goddess Ashtart (Astarte) (see 
ASHTORETH), since hundreds of clay plaques de- 
picting her naked figure have been found in the 
first Semitic level. They worshiped in open air high 
places, surrounded with a wall, and provided with 
matstsébhoth, or sacred stones, and with ’dshérim, or 
sacred posts (see H1gH Puiacn, Pituar, ASHERA). 
A very remarkable high place with ten standing 
stones was discovered at Gezer (see Macalister, 
Excavation of Gezer, ii, p. 381 sq.). Under the floors 
of the high places many large earthenware jars were 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Excavation 
and Exploration 


discovered containing the bones of new-born in- 
fants. These were unquestionably offered as sacrifices 
to the mother-goddess (cf. Ex 22 29; I K 16 34). 
Foundation-sacrifices, and other human sacrifices 
were common. Sacrifice of animals, of course, was 
universal. A remarkable engineering enterprise of 
this period was the excavation at Gezer of a tunnel 
through the solid roek to a spring, in order to secure 
an abundant supply of water in time of seige (see 
Macalister, Hxcavation of Gezer, i, 156 sq.). Similar 
tunnels have been found at Jerusalem and at 
Gibeah. 

22. The Aramean Period (1760 B.c. to 1200 B.c.). 
About 1760 B.c. the Kassites appeared in Babylonia 
and overthrew the Amorite dynasty. Gandash, 
their leader, founded the IIId, or Kassite dynasty, 
which ruled Babylonia from 1760 to 1183 B.c. This 
was a period of incessant wars with Assyria, in which 
Assyria gradually gained the supremacy. Con- 
temporary with these great changes in Asia was the 
rule of the Hyksos, or ‘Shepherd Kings,’ in Egypt, 
which brought the Middle Kingdom to an end. 
Under Ahmose (1580 B.c.), the founder of the 
famous XVIIIth dynasty, the expulsion of the 
Hyksos was effected, and Egypt of the New Empire 
began a career of conquest in Syria and Palestine 
which lasted for over three centuries. This was the 
period of the Thutmoses and Amenhoteps of the 
XVIIIth dynasty, and of Seti, Ramses and 
Merneptah of the XIXth. During this period 
the great Aramean-Semitic migration out of Arabia 
occurred, and menaced Babylonia, Assyria, Meso- 
potamia, Palestine, and Egypt. To this migration 
the forefathers of Israel belonged (Gn 22 24, 25 20; 
Dt 26 5; see ARAMEANS). 

The chief sources for this period are the inscrip- 
tions of the Egyptian kings of the X VIIIth, XI Xth, 
and XXth dynasties, which they have carved on 
the walls of their temples. They are published 
in accurate English translation in Vol. II-IV in 
Breasted’s Ancient Records of Egypt, 1906. 

In 1888 there were discovered at Tell el-Amarna 
in Egypt about 350 inscribed clay tablets. These 
proved to be chiefly letters from Syrian and Pales- 
tinian ‘kings’ to the Egyptian monarchs Amen- 
hotep III and Amenhotep IV (ec. 1400 B.c.). If 
these letters had been written in Egyptian, it would 
not have been remarkable, since Syria and Palestine 
stood at this time under the rule of the Pharaohs; 
instead of this, however, they were written in 
Babylonian. The use of Babylonian in these letters 
is explicable only as a survival of an earlier state of 
affairs, when Egyptian influence in Palestine counted 
for nothing, and when Babylonian influence was 
supreme. These letters speak of the Habhiru, or He- 
brews, as menacing Canaan; and give a marvelously 
complete picture of that land before the Hebrew 
conquest (see Winckler, The Tell el-Amarna Letters; 
Barton, Archeology, pp. 344-351). 

The Babylonian and Assyrian records are scanty 
during this period in comparison with the previous 
period, still they yield some information in regard 
to the conditions in Babylonia, Assyria, and Meso- 
potamia. They are published in German translation 
in Schrader’s Keilinschrifiliche Bibliothek, Vols. I 
and III. 


Excavation 
and Exploration 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


246 





The Hittite Inscriptions are written in a character 
that has not yet been deciphered, but in the archives 
at Boghazkoi, the Hittite capital in Asia Minor, 
numerous records in Babylonian cuneiform that can 
be read were discovered by Winckler. 

In Ex 1 11 (J) we read that the Hebrews built for 
the Pharaoh the store-cities of Pithom and Raamses. 
In 1883, in excavating the mound of Tell el-Mas- 
khuta, in the land of Goshen, E. Naville found the 
name of the place Pi-Tum and the cartouche of 
Ramses II. This, together with Raamses, the name 
of the other store-city, seems to indicate that 
Ramses IT (1292-1225 n.c.) was the Pharaoh of the 
oppression of Israel in Egypt, and this conclusion is 
confirmed by an inscription of Ramses II, recently 
discovered by C. S. Fisher at Beisan in Palestine 
which states: ‘I have collected the Semites that they 
might build for me my city of Ramses.’ 

The famous stele of Merneptah (1225-1215 B.c.), 
discovered by Petrie at Thebes in 1896, contains 
the first and only mention of Israel found as yet in 
the Egyptian records: ‘Wasted is Lybia, the Hit- 
tites are pacified. Canaan is plundered with every 
evil, Askalon is carried off, Gezer is seized, Yenoam 
is made nonexistent, Israel is desolated, his seed is 
not; Palestine has become a widow for Egypt.’ This 
seems to indicate that some Israelites at least were 
settled in Canaan as early as the reign of Merneptah, 
but whether the exodus had yet occurred is un- 
certain (see Breasted, Ancient Records, ili, p. 264; 
Barton, Archeology, p. 311). 

The Egyptian records of this period have also 
shed much light upon the Biblical story of Joseph. 
The Tale of the Two Brothers has close analogies 
with the story of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife, and 
other features of the story of Joseph have Egyptian 
parallels (see Barton, Archeology, pp. 300-306). 

The picture of Palestine about 1400 B.c. that we 
gain from the inscriptions of the Egyptian kings of 
the XVIIIth dynasty and from the Tell el-Amarna 
letters is supplemented by the discoveries made in 
Palestine itself. In the second Semitic level the 
people lived in better houses than in the preceding 
period, and protected their cities with strong stone 
walls. They imported from Crete choice pottery of 
the type known as Minoan. Egyptian scarabs, 
amulets, and images were frequent. Gold and silver 
ornaments of beautiful workmanship and engraved 
gems were also produced. Cuneiform tablets like 
the Tell el-Amarna letters have been discovered at 
Lachish and at Taanach, and show that the alphabet 
had not yet entered Canaan. The high place cult 
continued as in the previous period, but lamp and 
bowl deposits began to take the place of the infant 
jar-burials. 


C. Iron Age. 


23. Hebrew Period (1200 to 1000 B.c.). This 
was the period of the decline of Babylon under 
dynasties IV-VIII, and of the decline of Egypt 
under dynasties XX-X XII; but the rise of Assyria 
to the position of the leading power in W. Asia. 
About 1200 8.c. Canaan was invaded simultaneously 
by the Philistines from the west, and by the Israelites 
under Joshua from the east. Ramses III narrates 
in his inscriptions how he fought with the Philistines 


and their kinsmen the Zakkala. The Papyrus 
Golenischeff (c. 1100 B.c.) gives a most interesting 
account of the visit of Wen-Amon, an Egyptian 
ambassador, to Dor, a city of the Zakkala (see 
Breasted, Ancient Records, iv, pp. 278 ff.; Barton, 
Archeology, pp. 352 ff.). The Philistines were 
Aryans from the island of Crete. They first brought 
iron into Palestine (cf. I S 13 19-23). They also 
probably introduced the alphabet, which is not 


found in the mounds of Palestine before 1000 B.c. - 


It was probably developed out of one of the linear 
scripts of Crete. The Philistines also were re- 
sponsible for the introduction of ‘Late Minoan’ art 
into Canaan. Five shaft-graves at Gezer show 
kinship with the shaft-graves at Knossos and 
Mycenex, and are probably Philistine. The objects 
that they contained are far in advance of ordinary 
Canaanite or Hebrew art. It is noteworthy also that 
the only temples mentioned in the O T prior to 
Solomon’s temple are Philistine edifices. Such a 
temple was excavated by Macalister at Gezer. 

The Hebrew remains of this period show the adop- 
tion and debasement of Canaanite civilization. 
Houses, pottery and implements are similar, but 
inferior to those of their predecessors. The nu- 
merous statements of the O T that Israel served the 
ba‘alim are abundantly confirmed by archeology. 
Plaques and statuettes of Ashtart and images of 
other gods are numerous. The high places of the 
Canaanites continued to be used by the Hebrews, 
and infant-sacrifice was still kept up. The Hebrew 
tombs of this period show the continuance of the 
custom of placing offerings with the dead and of 
sacrificing to them. 

24. Period of the Hebrew Monarchy (1000 B.c. 
to 626 B.c.). About 1000 B.c. alphabetic writing 
first makes its appearance in the mounds of Pales- 
tine. Jar-handles, seals, and weights with brief 
inscriptions in the so called Phenician alphabet are 
found. The oldest known Phenician inscription is 
one found in Cyprus which mentions Hiram, king 
of Tyre, the contemporary of David and Solomon. 
The oldest Hebrew inscription of any length is the 
so called Calendar Inscription from Gezer (see 
Excavation of Gezer, ii, 24 ff.). This is followed by 
the Inscription of Mesha (q.v.), king of Moab, (e. 
850 B.c.), and by the inscription of the time of 
Hezekiah in the Siloam tunnel at Jerusalem (see 
JERUSALEM, § 34.) 

Jerusalem was captured by David and was made 
the capital of the Hebrew monarchy. Remains of 
the Jebusite wall of the citadel on the eastern hill 
and of David’s and Solomon’s new, fortifications 
have been discovered by the expedition of the 
Palestine Exploration Fund that is now working in 
Jerusalem (see JERUSALEM, §§ 15-20). The line of 
Solomon’s wall that enclosed the western hill has 
also been determined archeologically (see Jeru- 
SALEM, § 31). The site of the altar of burnt offering 
in Solomon’s temple may still be seen in the Sakhra, 
or sacred rock, that stands under the dome of the 
Mosque of Omar. 

From Ashurnasirpal III (885 B.c.) down to the 
fall of Nineveh in 612 B.c., the annals of the 
Assyrian kings found at Nineveh furnish us with a 
precise history of the period. Ashurnasirpal marched 


eS “s Pal . * 


tty, 
ys 


ee ee 





247 


as far as the shores of the Mediterranean, and erected 
a monument at the Dog River near Beirit which still 
remains. His son, Shalmaneser III, mentions Ben- 
hadad I, Benhadad II, and Hazael, kings of Da- 
mascus, who are named so often in the Books of 
Kings. Shalmaneser records that he fought with 
Ahab, king of Israel, in 854 B.c., and that he received 
the tribute of Jehu in 842. These dates are of the 
utmost importance for reconstructing the chronology 
of the Hebrew kings. The excavations of the Har- 
vard expedition at Samaria have disclosed in the 
lowest level of the mound the remains of the palace 
of Omri and Ahab. (See Samaria). In this a num- 
ber of potsherds were found on which were written 
in black ink the business accounts of the king’s 
household. The proper names in these inscriptions 
are of the familiar O T type. Some are compounded 
with initial Jeho- or with final -iah. Others are com- 
pounded with ba‘al. A beautiful seal was found by 
Schumacher at Megiddo, bearing the inscription ‘to 
Shama servant of Jeroboam.’ This was doubtless Jer- 
oboam II (784-744 B.c.). Thespirited lion engraved 
on it is a unique specimen of early Hebrew art. 

The inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser IV, Sargon, 
and Sennacherib are contemporary with the proph- 
ets Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah. They make possible 
the chronological rearrangement of the sermons of 
these prophets, and throw a flood of light upon their 
meaning. Assyrian tablets of the time of Esar- 
haddon were found at Gezer, and show that that 
place was occupied by an Assyrian garrison (see 
Excavation of Gezer, i,.22-29). A newly discovered 
tablet fixes the date of the fall of Nineveh in 612 
B.c. (see C. J. Gadd, The Fall of Nineveh, 1923), 
and helps to determine the chronology of Nahum 
and of some of the prophecies of Jeremiah. 

25. New Babylonian Period (626 B.c. to 539 B.c.). 
In 626 B.c. Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, threw 
off the yoke of Assyria; and his son Nebuchadrezzar 
conquered all the provinces of the Assyrian empire. 
His inscriptions throw light upon the Books of 
Kings, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel. The inscrip- 
tions of Nabonidus, the last king of Babylon, have 
an important bearing on the historical character of 
the Book of Daniel (see DAantet). 

26. Persian Period (539 B.c. to 333 B.c.). In 
this period the O T is supplemented by the inscrip- 
tions of Cyrus, Darius, and the other Achemenian 
kings. The line of Nehemiah’s wall at Jerusalem 


has been established by excavation (see JERU- 


SALEM, § 37). The most interesting archeological 
discovery of this period was numerous records of a 
Jewish colony at Elephantine (Assuan, See SEVENEH) 
at the First Cataract of the Nile. Theseshow that they 
had a temple, where they worshiped J” along with 
two goddesses. One papyrus mentions Sanballat, 
the Samaritan contemporary of Nehemiah, and 
thus proves that Nehemiah lived under Artaxerxes I 
and not Artaxerxes II (see Cowley, Aramaic Papyri 
of the Fifth Century B.C., 1923). Coins were first 
struck in the Persian period. From this time on- 
ward they are numerous in Palestine, and are an 
important aid for the dating of archeological levels 
and for the reconstruction of history. The Phenician 
sarcophagi and inscriptions of the dynasty of Esh- 


-Mmunazar belong to this period. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


‘in the interior of the land. 


Excavation 
and Exploration 


27. Greek Period (333 B.c. to 60 B.c.). Palestine 
was conquered by Alexander in 332 B.c., and stood 
under the rule either of the Greek Seleucids of 
Antioch, or of the Greek Ptolemies of Alexandria, 
until its conquest by Pompey in 63 B.c. During 
this period flourishing Greek colonies were estab- 
lished along the shore of the Mediterranean, in the 
Decapolis east of the Jordan, and at several points 
Splendid temples, 
theaters and baths still remain at Philadelphia 
(Amman) and at Gerasa (Jerash) in the old land 
of Ammon, and excavations in many places have 
revealed works of Greek art. Among the most 
notable are-the Alexander Sarcophagus and Sar- 
cophagus of the Mourners discovered at Sidon. On 
remains of the Greek period in Jerusalem, see JERU- 
SALEM, § 39. Throughout the whole of Palestine 
Greek civilization exerted a profound impression 
upon pottery, furniture, implements, and domestic 
arts of all sorts. The characteristic tombs of the 
Greek period are kékim, or niches cut into the rock 
vertical to the walls of the tomb-chambers. Into 
these the bodies were shoved head-first. The 
doors of the tomb-chambers were frequently closed 
with rolling stones. Many such tombs, some of 
them highly ornamented, are still to be seen in 
all parts of Palestine. In such a tomb doubtless the 
body of Jesus was laid. 


28. Roman Period. The chief archeological re- 
mains of the Roman Period are the temples and 
palaces erected by Herod the Great. His temple 
at Samaria has been discovered by the Harvard 
expedition, and his temple and basilica at Askalon, 
by the recent excavations of the Palestine Ezx- 
ploration Fund. On his constructions in Jerusalem, 
see JERUSALEM, § 39. Other important Roman 
remains in Palestine are the paved military roads 
with their mile-stones, which aid in determining the 
location of ancient cities. Numerous Latin inscrip- 
tions also have been found in all parts of the land. 
The Egyptian papyri of the Roman period throw 
much light upon the language of the N T and upon 
the history of N T times, and among these papyri 
was found a collection of sayings of Jesus (see C. 
M. Cobern, The New Archeological Discoveries, 
7th ed. 1924). 


Lirerature: Archeology and the Bible in General: H. A. 
Harper, The Bible and Modern Discovery (1890); F. Vigoroux, 
La bible et les découvertes modernes en Palestine, en Egypte, 
et en Assyrie, 4 vols, (1869); H. V. Hilprecht, Recent Re- 
search in Bible Lands (1897); T. Nicol, Recent Archzxology 
and the Bible (1899); D. G. Hogarth, Authority and Arche- 
ology (1899); C. J. Ball, Light from the East (1899); H. V. 
Hilprecht, Explorations in Bible Lands during the Nine- 
teenth Century (1903); I. M. Price, The Monuments and the 
Old Testament (1907); A. Jeremias, The Old Testament in 
the Light of the Ancient East (19112); G. A. Barton, Arche- 
ology and the Bible (1916). 

History of the Ancient Orient: G. Maspero, The Dawn 
of Civilization (1894), The Struggle of the Nations (1897), 
The Passing of the Empires (1900); J. F. McCurdy, History, 
Prophecy and the Monuments, 3 vols. (1894-1901); Hon: 
Hall, The Ancient History of the Near East (1913) sas 
Bury, 8. A. Cook, and F. E. Adcock, The Cambridge Ancient 
History, vols. I and II (1923, 1924). 

Babylonian’ and Assyrian Archeology and the Bible: 
E. Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament 
(1885-88); 3d ed. by H. Zimmern and H. Winckler, Die 
Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament (1902); F. Delitzsch, 
Babel and Bible (1903); T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament 
in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria 


Excel 
Exodus 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


248 


$$$ a 


and Babylonia (1905); A. T. Clay, Light on the Old Testament 
from Babel (1907); J. E. Thomas, The Old Testament in the 
Light of the Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (1909); R. W. 
Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the Old Testament (1912); 
M. Jastrow, Hebrew and Babylonian Traditions (1914); 
M. Jastrow, The Civilization of Babylonia and Assyria (1915); 
P. 8. P. Handcock, Mesopotamian Archzology (1912). 

History of Babylonia and Assyria: G. S. Goodspeed, A 
History of the Babylonians and Assyrians (1902); H. Winckler, 
The History of Babylonia and Assyria (1907); L. W, King, 
A History of Sumer and Akkad (1910), A History of 
Babylon (1915); R. W. Rogers, Hisiory of Babylonia and 
Assyria, 2 vols. (1915); A. T. Olmsted, History of Assyria 
(1923). 

Egypt and the Bible: J. H. Breasted, A History of Egypt 
(1905); G. A. F. Knight, Nile and Jordan (1921). 

For illustrations showing results of excavation see AsH- 
KALON, BABYLON, GEZER, JERUSALEM, NINEVEH, SAMARIA; 
and see also the Maps of Babylonia (p. 89) and the 
Ancient Semitic World (p. 817). See also Hes. ArcHzE- 
oLoey, and IsranLt, SocraL DEVELOPMENT OF. 

tits eas 


EXCEL, EXCELLENT, EXCELLENCY: The 
original Hebrew and Greek terms translated (more 
often in AV than in RV) by these words represent 
the following general ideas: (1) Of elevation, exalta- 
tion, in Ex 157; Dt 33 26, 29; Job 13 11, 20 6, 37 4, 40 10; 
Ps 47 4, 62 4, 68 34, 14813; Pr 8 6, 31 29; Is 4 2, 125, 
13 19, 60 15; Ezk 24 21; Dn 2 31, 4 36, 5 12, 14, 6 3; Am 
68,87; Nah22. (2) Of excess or abundance, Gn 49 3; 
Job.4 21; Pr. 17 7; Ke 2 13, 712; I Co 21, 12 31; Ph3s. 
(3) Of greatness or largeness, I K 4 30; Job 37 23; Ps 
81,9, 16 3, 76 4, 150 2; Is 28 29; He 114. (4) Of beauty, 
Est 14;1s352. (5) Of difference, Ro2i8; Phi 10; He 
14,86. (6) Choice or selected, Song 515. In Lk 13; 
Ac 23 26, 24 3, 26 25, it is an honorary title. In the 
following passages the RV gives the more correct 
rendering—Gn 49 4 (AmRV); Ps 367, 103 20, 141 5; 
Pr 12 26, 17 27, 22 20 (mg.); Ezk 167 (mg.); Ro 2 18 
(mg.); I Co 1412; II Co 310, 47; II P 117 (AmRY). 
In I Ch 15 21 (AV) the text is obscure. 

E. E. N. 


EXCHANGER. See TRADE AND COMMERCE, § 3. 


EXECUTE, EXECUTION, EXECUTIONER: 
‘Execute’ in EV is the rendering of words meaning 
simply ‘to do,’ except in Jer 21 12; Zec 7 9, 8 16, 
where the Hebrew means ‘judge.’ For ‘executioner’ 
AV (Mk 6 27) cf. RV, which gives the correct render- 
ing. EH. E. N. 


EXERCISE: (noun and verb): The translation 
of several different Hebrew and Greek terms (1) of 
yuuvacta, training in the gymnasium (I Ti 4 8); (2) 
of the verb yuyvdterv, meaning literally ‘to strip 
naked’ (for physical exercise), then ‘to exert oneself 
vigorously’ or seriously (I Ti 47; He 514, 12 11; II P 
2 14); (3) of ‘ana@h (III), ‘to toil’ or ‘work hard’ 
(Ec 1 13, 3 10); (4) of Adlakh, ‘to walk’ (Ps 1381 1); 
(5) of ‘asGh and cotetv, ‘to do’ or ‘make’ (Jer 9 24; 
Rev 1312); (6) of doxeiy, 7.e., ‘to train’ or ‘discipline’ 
[oneself] Acts 24 16). In other cases ‘exercise’ is 


added (in the EV) to express more clearly the main | 


idea (e.g. Ezk 22 29; Mt 20 25; I Cor 9 25). 
EK. E. N. 


EXILE. See .srart, History or, §§ 7and 8; 
Special DEVELOPMENT oF, §§ 42 and 43; RELIGION 
oF, §§ 23 ff. 


1These Roman figures refer to the 3d root under these 
cousonants in the Hebrew lexicon. 


EXODUS. 1. Name. Exodus, the second book 
of the Bible, was so named by the Alexandrian Jews, 
because the first part narrates the exodus (€&03oc, 
‘going out’) of Israel from Egypt. In the Hebrew 
Bible the book is called ninw abs, w%lleh sh¢moth 
(‘now these are the names’), or simply ninw, sh¢méth 
(‘names’), from its opening words. 

2. Contents. Exodus is but a part of the larger 
history known as the Hexateuch (q.v.). It begins 
with the story of the oppression of Israel in Egypt 
and ends with the account of the setting up of the 
Tabernacle at Sinai. A brief outline may be given 
as follows: 


I, The deliverance of Israel from Egypt through Moses, chs. 
1-18. 
1, The changed status of Israel in Egypt (ch. 1). 
(1) The great increase of the Israelites (1 2-7). 
(2) The measures taken by the king of Egypt to 
oppress and diminish them (1 8-22), 
2. Moses commissioned to be the leader of Israel (2-7 7). 
3. Jehovah’s deliverance of His people (7 8-15 2). 
4. From the Red Sea to ‘Sinai (bitter water, manna, 
war with Amalek, etc.) (15 22-17 16), 
5. Visit of Jethro (ch. 18). 


II. The organization of Israel at Sinai (chs. 19-40). 
1. The announcement of the Covenant (19 1-23 38). 
(1) The great Theophany, with the Ten Command- 
ments (19 1-201"). 
(2) A code of civil and religious law (20 18-23 18). 
(3) Promise and warning (23 20-8), 
. The ratification of the Covenant (24 1-11), 
Moses receives the tables of stone and the commands 
concerning the Tabernacle (24 12-31 18), 
The apostasy and reorganization (32 1-34 28), 
. The construction of the Tabernacle (34 29-39 43), 
. The Tabernacle set up (ch. 40). 


3. Complex Character of the Narrative. As in 
the other books of the Hexateuch, so in Exodus 
there are many evidences that the narrative at 
present consists of several threads (J, E, P) with 
editorial additions of various kinds (see HeExa- 
TEUCH, §§ 5, 10-15, etc.). Of these J and E were 
very similar in the main. The account of P, on the 
other hand, was quite different. The result of the 
combination of P with JE, in which P was taken as 
furnishing the main outline, was that not only a 
much more lengthy, but a very confused narrative 
was produced. 

4. The Narrative of P was as follows: 


(1) An introductory genealogical statement (a) of the 
heads of the tribes in Egypt (11%) and (6) of 
the lineage of Moses and Aaron (6 14-27 perhaps a 
later insertion.) 

(2) A brief account of the oppression (1 7, 13, 4b) intro- 
ducing the intervention of God (2 23b-%5), 

(3) God reveals Himself in Egypt to Moses as Jeho- 
vah, and commissions him and Aaron to demand 
Israel’s release (6 2-7 7). 

(4) The wonders done by Aaron fail to convince Pha- 
raoh (7 8-13), ; 

(3) The plagues, mostly worked by Aaron (blood, frogs, 
lice, boils, 7 19-20a, 1b, 22, g 5-7, 15b-19, 98-12), all fail to 
persuade Pharaoh (11 9: 19), 

(6) The Passover instituted; its time, its ritual, its law, 
also that of the unleavened bread and the first- 
lings (12 1-20, 24, 28, 40.51, 43 1-2, 20), 

(7) Notes of the itinerary from Egypt to the sea and the 
wonderful passage of the sea (141-44, 8, 9b, 15b, 16b-18, 
2la, 2lc-23, 26-27a, 28a, 29), 

(8) Notes of the itinarary from the sea to Sinai. 
manna and its law (16 1-3, 5-86, 17 18, 19 1-2), 

(9) Moses ascends Mt. Sinai to meet God (24 15-188), 

(10) Moses given directions regarding a Sanctuary 
(25 1-31 17); also the two tables of the testimony 
(31 18a), 


Qop wr 


The 


ce al 


249 





(11) Moses descends the Mount with the tables (34 29-35) 
and proceeds to the construction of the Sanc- 
tuary (chs. 35-39). 

(12) The Sanctuary completed and set up on the first 
day of the second year (ch. 40). 


In P’s narrative special emphasis is laid (a) on 
the name Jehovah (Jahwehor Yahweh), as unknown 
to the patriarchs (6 2 f.); (b) on Aaron, as playing 
an important part in the transactions of the Exodus; 
(c) on the cultus-significance of the Passover, un- 
leavened bread and firstlings, of the Sabbath, and of 
the manna; (d) on the Tabernacle, as the main 
subject of the revelation to Moses on the Mount; 
(e) on the miraculous character of the whole series 
of events. 

5. The Narratives of J and E. The narratives of 
J and E are woven together quite closely in Exodus 
and in many places a sure analysis is very difficult, 
if not impossible. The following table presents in the 
main the consensus of critical studies, but in many 
cases the results are tentative rather than certain. 
In one or two instances the writer has ventured to 
set down his own independent judgment. 


J. EK. 


1 6 Death of Joseph. J] 15-208, 21 Command to the 
midwives to slay the male 


children. 
1 8-12, 14a, 20b, 22 Oppression of 
Israel. 
2 1-14 Moses kills an Egyp- | 2 1° Moses, his birth and 
tian. preservation. 


215-22 Mf. flees to Midian and 
marries the daughter of a 
priest-chieftain. 

2238 The death of the king 


of Egypt. 
314 Theophany at the bush 31-3 Theophany at the bush 
(also in E). (also in J). 


3 4b, 6, 9b-15, 19-22 God com- 
missions M. and reveals 


3 da, 5, 1-9a, 16-18 Jehovah com- 
missions M. to deliver 


Israel. 

4116 The objections of M. 
are overcome. Aaron ap- 
pointed his spokesman. 
(vs. 18-16 a later insertion?) 

4 18-208 M. commanded to re- 
turn to Egypt. 

4 %-26 An incident on the 
way. 

4 27f. A, meets M. [E?] 

4 29-31 M. and A. do the won- 
ders and are accepted as 
leaders. 

5 3, 5-61 The demand made on 
Pharaoh refused and the 
bondage made worse. 

714, 16, 17a, 18, 21a, 2, 26 

- fiver made foul. 

§ 1-4, 8-15a Frogs. 

8 20-82 Flies. 


9 1-’ Murrain on cattle. 
Q 13-21, 23b, 24b, 25b-80, 83 f. 


The 


Hail. 
10 1-11, 13b, 14b, 15a,c-19 Locusts. 


10 24-26, 114-8, 10 8 f. Final in- 
terview of M. with Pha- 
raoh, 

12 21-28, 25-27 The command 
to slay the Passover. 

12 28-& The death of the first- 


born of Egypt. Hasty de- 
parture of Israel. 
1237-9 The route. Unleav- 


ened bread made. 
13 3-0 Law of wunleavened 
bread. 


Himself as Jehovah. 
417f. M. givenarod. Says 
farewell to Jethro. 


4 20b-23 MM. takes the rod of 
God and returns to Egypt 
(vs. 21-23 out of place? Per- 


haps originally in J at 10 
24-29?) 


5 1-2,4 M. demands the release 
of Israel. Pharaoh refuses. 


715, 17b, 20b, 28 
turned to blood. 


The river 


Q 2-280, Ma, 2a, S91 f., 35 Hail, 
thunder, and fire. 

10 12, 18a, l4a, 16b, 20 Locusts. 

10 21-23, 27 Darkness. 

11 1-3 M. informed of the 
final visitation on Egypt. 


12 3-86 Tsrael asks and re- 
ceives presents from the 
Egyptians. 


13 17-18 The route. 
bones taken. 


Joseph’s 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


J. 


13 4-16 Law of firstborn and 
firstlings. 

13 21. The pillar of cloud and 
fire. 

14. 5f., 10a, 11-14, 19b, 20b, 21b, 
Ma, 25, 27b, %b, 80 The 
passage of the Red Sea. 
(The sea driven back by 
wind. Cf. the account in 
iP) 

15 22-2, 27 Marah and Elim. 


17 1b-7 Water at Massah (cf. 
Nu 11‘ff-), Partly E. 


(18 1-1 Visit of M.’s father-in- 
law.] 


19 3-9 (JE) 12-18a, 20-218 The 
great theophany on Mt. 
Sinai. J” speaks. M. 
alone near J’. 

[Possibly a version of the 
Decalog stood here in 
J. Also the Covenant 
terms now found in 34 10-27 
may have stood here orig- 
inally in J’s account. If 
so, 19 21b-23 are due to the 
compiler, who also trans- 
ferred J’s covenant terms 
from here to their present 
place in ch. 34; if so, then 
34 2-3 would belong here as 
introducing 34 19-27,] 


19 24-25, 24 1-2, 9-11 Ratifica- 
tions of the Covenant by 
M. and A, and elders of 
Israel at a covenant-meal 
with God on the Mount. 


32 7-14 [based on J] J” tells M. 
that the people have apos- 
tatized (mutinied in J orig- 
inally?) and declares that 
He will destroy them. M. 
intercedes. 

32 5-29 M. comes to the camp. 
Calls for loyal volunteers. 
Levites respond and are 
rewarded with the priest- 
hood. 

33 1,3, 56d J” nromises to send 
His angel to guide them. 
33 12-17 M. pleads for J’’s 
own presence to go with 

them. 

33 18-23 M. now pleads for a 
fuller revelation to himself. 

341-9 The great revelation in 
the name of J” and the 
reconciliation of J’ to His 
people. See opposite col- 
umn. 

For vs. 2-3 and 10-26 see above. 





14 7, 9a, 10b, 15a, 16a 16a, 20a, 24b, 81 
The passage of the Red 
Sea. (The angel of God 
overthrows the Egyptians.) 


15 1-1 The Song of Triumph. 

15 %b-26 164 [and other verses?] 
Fragments of E’s manna 
story. 

17 1>-7 Water at Meribah (cf. 
Dt 25 17-19), Partly J. 

17 &16 War with Amalek. 

18 1-1 M. visited by Jethro. 


18 27 Appointment of ap- 
sistant judges (cf. Dt 19- 
18) 

19 8-9 (JE) 10-11, 13be19 The 
great theophany. M. leads 
the people out to meet 
God, God speaks, 

201-7 The Ten Command- 
ments spoken by God. 


20 18-21 The people are afraid 
and ask M. to go and 
receive the rest of God’s 
message. 

20 2-226 Religious laws. 

211-239 A code of ‘judgments.’ 

23 19-19 Religious laws. 

23 20-88 Promises and warn- 
ings. 

24 3-8 Ratification of the 
Covenant by the people at 
a sacrifice. 

24 12-14, 18 M. with Joshua 
goes up again to the Mount 
to receive the tables. Stays 
40 days and nights. 

31 18 M. receives the tables. 


32 1 The people make a 
calf and worship it. 

32 1-544 M. with Joshua, on 
the way down hears the 
singing, etc., is very angry, 
breaks the tables, and 
grinds the calf to powder. 


32 30-3 On the morrow M. 
pleads with J’ to forgive 
the sin. 

33 2 J” promises to send His 
angel, 

33 5ac, 6-11 The people told 
to take off their ornaments. 
The tent with Joshua as 
its minister. 


(34 1, 4, 23 Fragment; mainly 
from E’s account of Moses’ 
final interview with J’ at 
Horeb.] 


6. Differences Between E and J. The main 
differences (in Exodus) between these two ancient 
histories relate to these points: (1) In J the name 
Jehovah is used without explanation (continuing 
the use in J in Genesis), emphasis being laid on 
J’’s action rather than on the significance of the 
name, which, however, is interpreted later in the 
wonderful passage 345-9. In Ethe name is revealed to 


Exodus 
Ezekiel 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


250 





Moses andits significance indicated at the bush. (ch.3). 
(2) In J Aaron plays an important part as Moses’ 
spokesman to Israel (cf. P). In E Aaron is not given 
any special prominence, and on one occasion is 
severely rebuked (82 21). (3) In J the Israelites are 
conceived of as dwelling mainly in Goshen. In E 
they seem to be living in the midst of the Egyptians. 
(4) In J the plagues and wonders are wrought by J” 
either immediately or by the use of nature forces 
(such as the wind). In E Moses’ rod plays an im- 
portant part in thesé matters (cf. P). (5) In J, at 
the great theophany on Mount Sinai, Moses alone 
draws near to J’’ to hear His words and later the 
Covenant is ratified on the Mount by a few chosen 
individuals representing the people. In E both 
Moses and the people draw near the Mount to meet 
God and only later is Moses asked by the people 
(who are afraid) to go and receive the message alone. 
The Covenant in E is ratified by the people as a 
whole after its terms were written in a book. (6) 
In J the apostasy is more like a mutiny, to be put 
down in blood, and the loyal Levites receive the 
priesthood as their reward. Moses is forewarned of 
of the trouble before he descends, and acts at once 
as soon as he reaches the gate of the camp. In E the 
trouble is idolatry and Moses is ignorant of it until 
he draws near the camp. (7) In J the promise of an 
angel to guide them does not satisfy Moses, who 
wants the presence of J’’ Himself. In E the angel is 
considered the same as J” Himself. 


7. Changes in the Order of Events. The editor 
who combined J with E, or some later editor, often 
thought it necessary to alter the order of the 
original documents, so that the combined narrative 
might read satisfactorily. Minor instances of this 
are 4 19, which seems out of place; 4 22 f., which 
seems to belong with 10 26-11 8; 17 2-7, which in part, 
may have been transferred from Nu 11 4 ff.; 18 1-11, 
which, in part, may have belonged to an account of 
a visit of Hobab, presupposed in Nu 10 29 f.; and 
possibly 18 12-27, which in Dt 1 9-18 comes after the 
giving of the law. But the most important trans- 
position affected J’s account of the Covenant. It is 
evident that at 19 21a there is a break (for vs. 21b-23 
are in the main only an editor’s repetition of vs. 
12-13) and the continuation is not apparent in the 
immediate context. What did J’’ speak to Moses 
when he went up to Him to the top of the Mount? 
According to E, God spoke the Ten Commandments 
and also certain fundamental principles as the basis 
of a covenant (20 1-17, 22-26, 23 10-33). Now, it is 
remarkable that in J (in 34 10-27) exactly the same 
ground is covered, and partly in the same words, as 
in E in 20 22-26, 23 10-33. But in the present arrange- 
ment this material is placed after the apostasy while 
in E is comes before it. It is likely, therefore, that in 
J after 19 21a there followed something similar (10 
‘words,’ possibly, and especially certain covenant 
terms) to what we have in E; 7.e., the editor simply 
used E here and transposed the material in J to a 
later place. If this reconstruction of J is correct, it 
furnishes an additional proof of the fundamental 
unity of Israel’s tradition of the Mosaic Age. 


8. Comparison of J and E with P. As compared 
with P the narratives of J and E are marked by a 


closer touch with the real progress and development 

of events. In P the interest centers mainly about the 

cultus, as the most important aspect of Israel’s life. 

Consequently, the emphasis is placed on Aaron, the 

Passover ritual, the Sabbath in connection with the 

manna, and, above all, upon the Tabernacle, as the 

main thing revealed to Moses at Sinai. In both 

J and E there is a recognition of the cultus elements 

of Israel’s ancient religion, but all is of a more simple, 

undeveloped character. It is also likely that in the 
original form of J or E more was said about the 

Ark, the Tent of Meeting, and the Levitical priest- 

hood than now appears. The final editor preferred 

P’s account of these things and left only mere frag- 

ments of the older accounts. But in both J and E 

the emphasis was placed on the spiritual and moral 

aspects of the Covenant rather than on the merely 
formal. 

9. The Importance of Exodus. The history con- 
tained in Exodus is of the highest importance. In J 
and E we have the oldest and fullest accounts of the 
Mosaic constitution we possess. Altho these differ 
in details, they are fundamentally at one in repre- 
senting this as due to a great spiritual awakening in 
the soul of one man, who had a vision of God and 
who was enabled to translate that vision into terms 
of actual life; who gave the tribes of Israel a principle 
of unity of unique and far-reaching significance; who 
brought about the existence of a religion of moral 
and spiritual import and tendency among men. It is 
in the basis of fact in the Exodus narrative that we 
find the explanation of Israel and of Israel’s sub- 
sequent history. Criticism, by analyzing this narra- 
tive into its component parts, has only enabled us to 
get closer to the facts, firmly recorded in Israel’s 
national traditions, which lay at the basis of the 
account. 

LirERATURE: Carpenter-Harford, The Comp. of the Hex.(1902); 
Moore in EB, II; Driver, LOT, 8th Ed. (1913); and Com. 
on Exodus in Camb. Bible (1911); A. H. McNeille, The Book 
of Exodus (1908); A. T. Chapman, Int. to Pent. in Camb. 
Bible (1911). E. E. 
EXODUS, THE. See Isrant, History oF, § 3; 

SocraL DEVELOPMENT oF, § 17; RELIGION oF, §$§ 3 

and 4. 


EXORCISM, EXORCIST. See Macic aAnp 
Divination, § 9. 


EXPIATE, EXPIATION. 
OFFERINGS, § 16. 


EXPLORATION AND EXCAVATION. 
under EXCAVATION AND EXPLORATION. 


EXTORTION, EXTORTIONER. See Crimes 
AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2, a. . 


EXTREME BURNING. 
Mepicine, § 4 (1). 


EYE: The eye is regarded in the Bible from the 
point of view of its importance as the chief organ of 
perception. It is of priceless value (Ps 17 8); but 
it is the avenue through which allurements reach the 
soul and sensation is born (Ezk 69; I Jn 2 i6; II P 
214). Hence, too, it often denotes the whole man. 
It is the eye that spares or withholds pity (Is 13 18; 
Ezk 16 5); mocks (Pr 30 17); is satisfied or not (Pr 
27 20). It is the light of the body (Mt 6 22). The 


See SACRIFICE AND 


See 


See DISEASE AND 


251 A NEW STANDARD 


expression ‘evil eye’ is used in a superstitious sense 
in the modern Orient; but it is questionable whether 
it is so to be taken in Pr 236 or Mt 2015. A.C. Z. 


EYE-PAINT: It was, and still is, the custom of 
Oriental women to stain their eyebrows and eye- 
lashes with a dark paint (pukh, II K 9 30; Jer 4 30; 
kahal, Ezk 23 40) usually composed of oil mixed with 
powder of antimony, which was thought to add to 
their luster and beauty, especially by making them 
appear larger. The ointment was kept in small 
horn-like vases (cf. ‘Keren-happuch,’ ‘horn (i.e., 
‘flask’) of eyepaint,’ the name of one of Job’s 
daughters, Job 42 14). E. E. N. 


EYE-SALVE, See Diszase AND MEDICINE, § 3. 


EZBAI, ez’bai (3!8, ’ezbay): Father of Naari 
(I Ch 11 37; cf. II S 23 35). 


EZBON, ez’ben (Ji2$8, ’etsbon): 1. A ‘son’ of 
Gad, ancestor of a Gadite family (Gn 46 16) called 
Ozni (and the family Oznites in Nu 26 16). 2. The 
head of a family of the clan of Bela in Benjamin (I Ch 
W417): 

EZEKIAS, ez’’1-kai’as. See HEezEKIAn. 


EZEKIEL, vzi/ki-el ONPIM, ychezqe’l), ‘God 
strengthens’: Ezekiel, the son of Buzi, known 
through his prophetical writings as one of the lead- 
ing Israelites of the early exilic period. 

1. Life Before Prophetic Call. Altho there is 
considerable obscurity as to his birth and early life, 
the following facts are beyond question: He was of 
priestly descent, for he calls himself ‘the priest.’ He 
belonged to the priestly family of Zadok, serving at 
Jerusalem, for he limits the priesthood to the sons 
of Zadok (40 46, 43 19). He was born during the reign 
of Josiah, but the exact year is left in doubt. If the 
words, ‘in the 30th year,’ with which he introduces 
the record of his work (1 1) refer to his age, the year 
of his birth was 627 B.c. But this is by no means 
fixed. He was married, and his wife died at the 
_ beginning of the year 587 B.c. It has been con- 
jectured upon the basis of certain affinities of thought 
that E. was at one time a pupil of Jeremiah’s. In 
the circumstances this is highly probable. 

2. Prophetic Ministry. The familiar portion of 
E.’s life begins with his call to the prophetic work, 
which took place in the 5th year of King Jehoiachin’s 
captivity, 592 B.c. (1 2). At this time E. was living 
in one of the Jewish colonies of exiles established at 
Tel-Abib (probably the Til-abu , ‘hill of deluge,’ of 
Assyrian inscriptions), on a canal in Babylon 
called the Chebar (the Nar-kabari, of Babylonian 
tablets, probably the present Shatt en-Nil; Peters, 
Nippur II, pp. 106-192). Here he had a house 
(8 1, 24 1, 18) and was apparently held in high 
esteem by his fellow Israelites. Their elders were 
accustomed to visit him for purposes of consultation 
(141, 201). He frequently uttered public prophetic 
discourses which were listened to by large and 
_ eager crowds (33 30-32). The Babylonian authorities 
were evidently not very rigid in their treatment of 
the exiles; for both prophet and people enjoyed a 
reasonable measure of freedom. How long the 
ministry of E. lasted is not known. It could not, 
however, have been less than 22 years. The latest 


Exodus 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Ezekiel 


date he mentions is the 27th year of the captivity 
of Jehoiachin, 570 s.c. (29 17). A late unverifiable 
tradition has it that he was put to death by a 
Jewish prince whom he reproved for idolatry. 


3. The Book in General. The Book of E. is from 
the literary and critical view-point in a fair state of 
preservation. The text is, indeed, full of corrup- 
tions; but its general smoothness and intelligibility 

are not seriously impaired, except in a few and 
unimportant places. The prophet’s dominant idea 
is that the hope of Israel for the future rests with the 
exiles. The religious life of Jerusalem after the de- 
portation under Jehoiachin seems to have been re- 
duced to a very low state. From this E. looked for a 
restoration, first through a speedy return of the cap- 
tives, and afterwards through a reorganization of 
Israel upon an ideal basis (chs. 40-48). The book 
may be divided into four parts. I. Chs. 1-24. IL. 
Chs. 25-32. III. Chs. 33-39. IV. Chs. 40-48. 


4. Prophecies Against Judah. Prophecies de- 
livered before the siege of Jerusalem in 587 B.c. 
(chs. 1-24). The portraiture of the inaugural vision, 
with which the whole book opens is more than 
usually elaborate and also highly symbolical (1 4-28, 
repeated in 3 23, 8 4, 10 20). Upon the whole, it gives 
the impression of an apocalyptic rather than an 
ecstatic experience. Its symbolism is designed to pre- 
sent God in all His power. The flashing fires evi- 
dently stand for the forces of nature, while the rain- 
bow represents the hope of help, and the living 
creatures, various forms of life, all of which are God’s 
creatures and ministers. The wings and wheels 
signify omnipresence and the many eyes omniscience. 
The blaze of light in which the whole is framed is 
the glory of God. (See also Guory, § 3). Like the 
visions of Moses and Isaiah, it is intended to assure 
the prophet that his ministry is to have the approval 
and support of J’. The elaborateness of the vision 
furnished the rabbinical interpreters a favorite sub- 
ject for speculation, and was put on a par with the 
story of the Creation, both serving as bases for 
cabalistic and theosophical mythologizing (Zunz, 
Die Gottes-Dienstl. Vortr.d. Juden, p. 162). The re- 
mainder of this portion of the book foreshadows im- 
pending ruin over Judah and Jerusalem, and justifies 
this by the exposure of the idolatry and sin of the 
people (chs. 2-24). Whence E. derived the imagery of 
his visions is a secondary question; and yet it is not 
difficult to see that both in the Cherubim of the 
Temple and in the winged bulls of Babylonia he 
had the materials for the construction of the sym- 
bolical chariot of ch. 1. 

5. Prophecies Against Heathen Nations. Chs. 
25-32. As the prediction of disasters to God’s people 
might be construed as 4 vindication of the heathen, 
these are next shown to be under condemnation for 
their transgressions. Taken in their order, the 
prophecies against foreign nations are those against: 
(1) Ammon (25 1-7); (2) Moab (25 8-11); (3) Edom 
(25 12-14); (4) the Philistines (25 15-17); Tyre (26 1- 
2819); (6) Sidon (28 20-26); and (7) Egypt (chs. 29-32). 
The prophecy against Egypt includes six separate 
discourses and a funeral dirge, making the sacred 
number 7. 

6. Prophecies of Restoration. Chs. 33-39. Here 


Ezekiel 
Ezra and Nehemiah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


252 





the prophet rises out of the contemplation of dis- 
tress and ruin to a vision of a glorious future. But 
he first vindicates and characterizes the office of the 
prophet so clearly brought into view in the fulfil- 
ment of the foreshadowing of doom for Jerusalem 
(ch. 33). He then points to the devastation of the 
flock of Israel because of false shepherds, and pre- 
dicts the coming of the good shepherd whom he 
calls David (cf. ch. 34). He foretells doom for Edom 
(ch. 35) and blessing and renewal for Israel, both 
plainly (ch. 36) andin thesymbolic vision of the Valley 
of Dry Bones (ch. 37) and closes with a denunciation 
of the enemies of God under the names of Gog and 
Magog (chs. 38-39). 

7. Vision of Ideal Israel. The ideally restored 
Israel (chs. 40-48). This opens with a vision of the 
ideal temple (chs. 40-43), which is followed by the 
vision of an ideal priesthood and sacrifice (chs. 44-46), 
and an ideal legislation for the land (chs. 47, 48). To 
this, however, is prefixed a vision of the river of life 
(48 1-12). In this section E. propounds the doctrine 
of the separateness of the civil from the ecclesiastical 
power or, at any rate, the independence of the latter, 
and also gives to his ritual code distinctive features, 
which place it between Deuteronomy and the 
Holiness Code (Lv chs. 17-26). 

8. Style. The style of E. is marked by love of 
elaboration. He makes frequent use of vivid imagery 
and is fond of pursuing a thought to its detailed 
application. His diction, however, is never obscure, 
altho it lacks the spontaneity of the earlier prophets, 
and is more like the style of the literary man than 
that of the fervent orator, and yet there is neither 
the coldness of the mere thinker’s method of ex- 
pression nor the prosaic formality of the professional 
writer, but rather the fervor and poetic glow of an 
aggressive, earnest soul. 

9. Significance and Permanent Value. Ezekiel’s 
distinctive contribution to the growth of Israel’s 
thought is in no respect less than that of his great 
predecessors. The conditions under which he labored 
did.not call for a creative spirit like that of Isaiah. 
Nor did they call for the voice of vehement protest 
uttered by Jeremiah. They required the conser- 
vation of the inner values already in possession and 
the reconstruction of the Chosen People into a new 
community. And E. was the prophet who in this 


period of transition helped more than any 
other to guide Israel. He has been called 
an ‘epoch maker,’ ‘the father of Judaism,’ 


and ‘the prophet of reconstruction.’ He deserves all 
these characterizations because he brought into the 
foreground the love of God, the necessity of holiness, 
and the preeminence of the spiritual over the 
political aspect of communal life for the people of 
God. See also IsRAEL, RELIGION oF, § 24. 
LiTeRATuRE: Driver, LOT ® (1899, ch. 5, pp. 278-298); Skinner, 
Ezekiel, in Expositor’s Bible, 1895. Redpath, H. A. West- 


minster Commentaries, (1907); Lofthouse, Century Bible, 
(1907) and The Prophet of Reconstruction, (1920). 
A 


EZEL, i’zel (Disa, h@Gzel): The name of a stone 
according to the ordinary text in I S 20 19. The 
name is unintelligible. The LXX. reads here and 
in ver. 41 ‘this Ergab,’ and as Ergab (or Argob) 
may mean ‘cairn’ or ‘heap of earth,’ this reading is 


accepted by many scholars, altho not entirely free 
from difficulty. E. E. N. 


EZEM, i’zem (9%, ‘etsem, Azem AV): A town 
in Simeon (Jos 19 3; I Ch 4 29), assigned to Judah 
in Jos 15 29. Site unknown. 


EZER, i’zer (1¥8, ’étser): A son of Seir (Gn 36 
ai ff.; [ Ch 1 38 #., Ezar AV). 

EZER, i’zar, (1!Y, ‘ézer), ‘help’: 1. An Ephraimite 
(I Ch 7 21). 2. A Judahite, the father of Hushah - 
(I Ch 4 4). 3. A Gadite warrior who joined David 
at Ziklag (I Ch 129). 4. A son of Jeshua, and one of 
those who repaired the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 i9). 
5. A musician who assited at the ceremony of dedi- 
cating the wall of Jerusalem. (Neh 12 42) 

EZION-GEBER, i’’z1-on-gi’bar (133 SY, ‘etsyon 
gebher, E,-gaber AV): A station of the wilderness 
journey mentioned before Kadesh (Nu 33 35 f.), 
but reached after Kadesh (Dt 2 8). It was in the 
Arabah, near Elath (Eloth), the port of Edom, at 
the head of the Gulf of Akabah, where Solomon 
and Jehoshaphat built ships for the gold trade with 
Ophir (I K 9 26, 22 48; If Ch 817, 20 36). The modern 
‘Ain el-Ghudyan. CJ So 

EZNITE, ez’nait. See ADINo. 

EZRA, ez’ra (STUY, ‘ezra’), ‘help’: 1. See Ezra 
AND NEHEMIAH. 2. Ezrah RV. See Ezran. 3. The 
head of a priestly house returning from the Exile 
with Zerubbabel (Neh 12 1), supposed to be iden- 
tical with Azariah (Neh 10 2). 4. A priest, contempo- 
rary with Nehemiah (Neh 12 33). 


EZRA AND NEHEMIAH, I. Tue Posrerxttic 
Prriop.—1. The Historical Events of the Period. 
The Babylonian exile marks a new era in the life 
of the Jews. We have no exact statistics as to the 
number of the people, but we know that a great 
many of the best of them were taken to Babylon 
and that, of the miserable remnant left in Judea, a 
number fled to Egypt. Henceforward, until the 
wider dispersion of later times, the Jews were in- 
creasingly active in these three regions. At the 
beginning of the Persian period (538 B.c.) the Jews 
were free to return to their own land, and the 
tradition is that there was an important exodus of 
Babylonian exiles in the reign of Cyrus (538-529 
B.c.). In 520 B.c. we find Haggai and Zechariah 
preaching in Jerusalem, encouraging the people to 
build the Temple, which is supposed to have been 
completed some fifteen years later. The Persian 
rule lasted until 332 B.c., when it was overthrown 
by Alexander the Great. During the two centuries — 
of Persian domination the Jewish cordmunity with 
its center at Jerusalem, in spite of varied hindrances, 
gained new life. The Jewish Church was founded, 
the Law codified, the Temple-worship more fully 
organized, and the work of collecting and arranging 
the sacred books well begun. According to the 
chronology accepted until recent times, under the 
long reign of Artaxerxes I (Longimanus, 465-424 
B.c.), the two important events with which we are 
concerned took place: viz., the mission of Ezra and 
‘second return of the Jews’ (458 B.c.), and Nehe- 
miah’s two visits to Jerusalem (445 and 482 B.c.). 
The book Ezra-Nehemiah begins with the story of 


258 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ezekiel 
Ezra and Nehemiah 





the first return (c. 536 B.c.) and closes with Nehe- 
miah’s account of the work that he had attempted 
to do. 


2. The Problems of the Period. In a small but 
careful commentary which shows an independent 
spirit and discriminating criticism, we read these 
words:‘ During the last half century more discus- 
sions have arisen and more books have been written 
about Ezra and Nehemiah than about any other 
equal portion of the Old Testament, and we seem as 
far as ever from finality in the matter. To these dis- 
cussions British scholars have contributed but 
little, altho the writings of Sayce, Ryle, Sir Henry 
Howorth and Cheyne bearing on the subject are 
worthy of praise. America is represented by the 
radical and destructive criticism of Torrey, who 
has found followers in his fellow-countrymen H. P. 
Smith, C. F. Kent, and perhaps L. W. Batten. 
The books and articles by Dutch (Kuenen Kosters, 
etc.), French (van Hoonacker), and especially by 
German (Bertheau-Ryssel, Sellin, etc) scholars are 
legion.’ (The New Cent. B.) From L. W. Batten’s 
elaborate commentary (ICC) it appears that, after 
years of careful study of the text, altho he believes 
that the work of Ezra followed that of Nehemiah, 
he does not accept fully Torrey’s radical criticism. 
‘Torrey’s arguments have failed to convince those 
who have been diligent students of the story of 
Ezra, and with all regard to his undoubted scholar- 
ship and industry, I find myself among the number of 
those who must still take the Ezra story seriously.’ 
(p. 18). 

At the beginning of the Persian period we find in 
Babylon a considerable number of active, intelligent, 
patriotic Jews, others are in the homeland, and also 
refugees have found shelter in Egypt. There is no 
temple in Jerusalem, no walls around the city, very 
little commercial activity and ecclesiastical organiza- 
tion. Two hundred and fifty years later the Jewish 
communities in all these three centers have become 
more prosperous and vigorous. The Temple of 
Jerusalem is restored, the city fortified, the Jewish 
Church placed on a secure foundation. There are 
priests who minister in the temple and scribes who 
study and teach the Law. In the criticism of the 
records that grew out of this movement there is 
danger of losing the feeling for the facts that really 
lie behind the stories and are of great significance in 
the history of the world. The discussions turn 
largely round the following points. 


3. The Return from Babylon (Ezr chs. 1 and 7). 
The attempts to deny any real return and to show 
that Judaism grew up again on its native soil has 
done good in provoking discussion and leading to 
a re-examination of all the traditions and stimulating 
research for all available information. But it has not 
been able to destroy the living connection between 
Judah and Babylon. If the statistical and genea- 
logical information offered can not claim scientific 
accuracy still it is the Oriental way of expressing 
real facts, and even the exaggerations express the 
feeling that there is something of great significance. 
‘From the land of exile must come those who 
would arouse the sluggish spirits of the native 
Judeans, Sheshbazzar, Zerubbabel, and Jeshua, 


Nehemiah and Ezra, and probably Haggai and 
Zechariah, were the products of Jewish blood and 
Babylonian enterprise, and their presence in 
Jerusalem counted for more than 40,000 ordinary 
men, who may, indeed, have returned from exile, 
but in the course of the two centuries of Persian 
rule, not in one great company’ (Batten, p. 37). 


4. The Relation of the Work of Ezra and Nehe- 


-miah (Ezr chs.-7-10; Neh. chs. 2 ff., 13). The older 


view, before the records had passed through such 
severe criticism, was that Ezra came first (458 B.c., 
ch.7 ff.) and sought to carry out a religious reform; 
he was distressed at the ignorance of the law that 
he found and the laxity of life especially as to mixed 
marriages. (The account of this work closes abruptly 
in Ezr 10 44 and is resumed in Neh 7 73-10.) Then 
from various causes, which can only be conjectured, 
the city fell into distress, and the walls were de- 
stroyed. It was then that Nehemiah came as 
governor, restored the walls and brought back the 
city to a state of comparative peace and prosperity. 
Ezra, who has no official position, takes part in 
religious reform, but not until twelve years later 
was he able to instruct the people in the require- 
ments of the law. A slightly different view was that 
he had to leave the city before his work was com- 
plete. There was a reaction and the work had to be 
done over again by Nehemiah, Ezra returning to 
take part in the Dedication of the walls, etc. It is 
evident that the uncertainty results from the 
scantiness of the records and from the imperfect, 
and in some cases, contradictory chronology. 
Naturally, here, as elsewhere in the Old Testament 
documents, when modern criticism in its most 
drastic forms was first applied, it tended to be 
extremely negative and later a more reasonable 
criticism began to prevail. Even if old traditions 
can not be literally defended painful research may 
find in them much that is of value. We must con- 
cede that without Nehemiah’s strong, courageous 
action the religious reforms could not have gained a 
firm foundation in the life of the community. The 
final conclusion may be that the scribe and the 
statesman both played their part. 


5. The Samaritan Separation. One important 
thing that happened in this period, and as a result 
to some extent of the work of Ezra and Nehemiah, 
was the institution of a separate religious community 
in Samaria and the building of a temple on Mt. 
Gerizim. In NT times we find the Jews and 
Samaritans bitterly opposed to each other and 
controversies as to the merits of rival mountains 
(Jn ch. 4). In Ezr 41-3 we read that ‘the adversaries 
of Judah and Benjamin’ who were evidently in- 
habitants of the district known as Samaria wished 
to assist in the building of the Temple at Jerusalem, 
but they were rejected by ‘the children of the 
captivity’ and told that they could have no part in 
this work (cf. 3 3, 4 4). It is questioned whether the 
hostility of the Samaritans was shown in any 
marked degree in the earliest days of the return 
when the Jewish effort was devoted to the building 
of the Temple. But there is clear evidence that the 
hostility of the Samaritans increased during the 
reign of Artaxerxes (465-425 B.c.), and that it was 


Ezra and Nehemiah 
Ezri 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


254 





at first political in its nature; they feared that the 
building of the walls would give security and 
dominance to Jerusalem (Hizr 4 7-24; Neh 2 19-20). 
They were aided by disaffection in the city (Neh 6 
17, 13 28); at first they succeeded but later the 
influence of Nehemiah with his pure patriotism and 
strong will was too much for them. It became clear 
to the Jews that political strength and religious 
purity must go together; as the growing influence 
of the Law welded together the members of the 
Jewish Church the separation from the Samaritan 
sect was the inevitable result. The temple on Mt. 
Gerizim, according to Josephus, was built in the 
time of Alexander the Great, but it is probable that 
this is a century too late, and that 432 B.c., in 
connection with the events recorded in Neh 13 28, 
is the correct date. It is thought that the Jews 
took their revenge and destroyed this temple in the 
time of the Maccabean ascendency. 


II. Tue Hisroricay LireRATURE. 

If the views of modern scholars are accepted, this 
period can not said to be barren in literary enter- 
prise. There is still power to write the beautiful 
stories, as may be seen from Jonah and possibly 
Ruth, poetry reaches some of its noblest flights in 
Job, powerful sermons (Is chs. 56 ff.) and apoca- 
lyptic visions (Is chs. 24-27) were not lacking, but 
the historical literature can not compare with the 
productions of the preexilic age. 

6. I and II Chronicles. The Books of Chronicles 
are a historical sketch from Adam to the Babylonian 
Exile. The first chapters consist of long lists of 
names, and when the author begins actual history, 
he makes free use of the earlier books, and while 
possibly using sources that have been lost he pre- 
sents the material according to the ideas of his own 
time, when the Priestly Code was beginning to 
dominate the situation. It was history with a pur- 
pose, the purpose being to teach the supreme im- 
portance of the Temple worship. There has been 
much discussion concerning the closing paragraph 
of this book (II Ch 36 22-23; Ezr 1 1-3; I Hsd 1 1-5a). 
‘They are not the proper close of a history, but the 
introduction; hence their true place is in Ezra, 
I and II Chronicles originally formed with Ezra 
one work, and in the separation this paragraph was 
allowed to remain either by chance, or as an evi- 
dence that the two writings were originally one, or, 
with less probability, it may have been appended to 
II Chronicles to give a more hopeful close to the 
book (even as II Kings closes with the notice of 
the release of Jehoiachim).’ (Curtiss, in ICC., 
Chronicles). It is very generally accepted that these 
books which appear as three in the English Bible, 
Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, formed one large 
work, altho we have no evidence of their existence 
as one book. Their compilation must have been a 
complicated process. There is, however, sufficient 
evidence that Ezra-Nehemiah was in ancient times 
treated as one book. This book has many affinities 
with Chronicles, but students should consider care- 
fully the differences which are sometimes ignored. 
(See Davies in New Cent. Bible.) 

7. The Ezra Literature. Students beginning to 
study these books are in danger of being confused 


by the varying notation. In addition to the later 
legends that gathered round the name of the great 
scribe, there are two books outside the Canon 
that have borne his name. Now we usually refer to 
the four books as Ezra, Nehemiah, I Esdras (the 
Latin form of the name), and II Esdras, but some- 
times the last two are cited as III and IV Esdras. 
To understand this we must remember that formerly 
our two books were classed as Ezra (Esdras) I and 
II, just as Chronicles was divided into I and II, 
and afterwards the name Nehemiah was applied to 
Ezra II. Thus the series ran, using the names with 
which we are most familiar, Ezra I, Ezra II (Nehe- 
miah), Ezra III (Esdras I), Ezra IV (Esdras IT). 
The detailed history of the MSS. is more complicated, 
but this simple arrangement will suit our present 
purpose. I Esdras, the third of the above series, 
‘The Greek Ezra,’ is really another version of Ezra- 
Nehemiah with additions from Chronicles and other 
sources (See Espras, Booxs or). Esdras II (or 
Ezra IV) is an apocalyptic book, probably com- 
posite, not earlier than 100 a.p. 

8. Ezra-Nehemiah (formerly Ezra I and II). The 
following analysis is given for the purpose of in- 
dicating the evidences of compilation and the 
problems that emerge; the discussion of such 
problems, many of them insoluble, can not be 
attempted in a brief statement. 


The First Part of the Book. 


Ezr 11-5 (I Es 21-5, the decree of Cyrus giving to Jews 
in Babylon persmission to return to Jerusalem. Ezr 
1 6-11 (I Es 2 6-15), the gifts for the temple. Shesh- 
bazzar (vs. 8, 11) is probably an earlier governor and 
not to be identified with Zerubbabel. Ezr 2 1-70 = 
Neh 77 4. (I Es 57 ff.), list of those who returned in 
538 B.c. The number of people, when the classes are 
added, varies in these three lists, but that is often 
the case in ancient documents. Ezr ch. 3 (I Es 5 
47 ff.), the religious life of the nation resumed; the 
altar built and the foundation of the temple laid. 
Ezr 4 1-5 (I Es 5 66-73), the Samaritans’ offer of 
assistance in the building of the Temple is refused 
(see above). 

Ear 4 6-23 (I Es 2 15-25), story of the opposition to 
the building of the city walls. This section is in 
Aramaic, and may have been extracted from records 
in that language. It is out of its proper place as it 
deals with the building of the walls. A better posi- 
tion would be between Ezr ch. 10 and Neh ch. 1 
(Batten treats it in that place). It may refer to the 
period just before or at the beginning of Nehemiah’s 
governorship. Ezr. 4 24-6 22 (I Es 2 30b, and chs. 
6 and 7). This section also (to 6 18) 1s in the Aramaic 
dialect. It continues the history, interrupted by 
4 6-23, and shows how the rebuilding of the Temple 
proceeded with the help of the King of Persia. 


The Second Part of the Book. 


Ezra’s arrival at Jerusalem and» his work 
there; based upon Ezra’s own memoirs in chs. 
7-10. Some place this section after Neh 13, and 
then cause it to be followed by Neh chs. 8, 9, 
and 10. Between Ezra chs. 6 and 7 there is a gap 
of about 60 years for which we have no Biblical 
records. There may have been such that have been 


255 A NEW STANDARD 


lost, but certainly hard work must have gone on 
which manifested its results later in the life of the 
Jewish Church. Ezr 7 12-26 is in the Aramaic dialect. 
Ezr 7 1-10 (I Es 8 1-7), introduction to the decree of 
Artaxerxes. Ezr 7 11-26 (1 Es 8 8-24), the decree. Ezr 8 
1-14 (I Es 8 28-40), list of those who returned with 
Ezra. Ezr 8 15-36 (I Es 8 41-67), the assembling of the 
party at the River Ahava, the journey and the 
arrival at Jerusalem. Ezr ch. 9 (I Es 8 68-90), Ezra’s 
vexation at the mixed marriages and his attempts 
to put an end to the same. Ezr ch. 10 (I Es 8 91- 
9 36), the repentance of the people and judgment 
upon the offenders, closing with the list of those 
who had married ‘strange women.’ 

Neh 7 73b-10 39 (I Es 9 37-55), the religious Reform 
of Ezra continuing the history of Ezr ch. 10, and 
based upon Ezra’s memoirs. Neh 11-75, inthe main 
Nehemiah’s own vivid picturesque description of 
his first journey from Persia to Jerusalem. Neh 7 
6-73a, list of Jews who returned from Babylon, based 
on Ezr ch. 2. Neh 11 1-12 26, list of laymen, priests, 
Levites, etc. Neh 12 27-47, dedication of the walls, 
and organization of the Levites. Neh 131-3, attempt 
to separate from Israel ‘the mixed multitude.’ 
Neh 13 4-29, Nehemiah’s second administration, 
expulsion of Tobiah, care for the sanctity of the 
Temple, the support of the Levites, observance of 
the Sabbath and energetic protest against mixed 
marriages. Neh 13 30-31, his brief summary of the 
work he had attempted to accomplish. 


9. The Question of Historicity. This can not be 
discussed in any detail. The amount of learning, 
skill and ingenuity that had been expended upon it 
during the past generation is enormous. It is one 
of the most difficult regions of Hebrew history. A 
brief statement of the contents of the books shows 
that they bristle with intricate problems, historical, 
literary, and textual. We can simply record our 
conviction that a review of the recent work of mod- 
ern scholars leaves the impression that, while the 
traditional interpretation can not be completely 
maintained, the extreme radical criticism has had 
to be modified. Oriental views of history and their 
methods of treating it were different from our own, 
their sources were scanty, it did not appeal to them 
as their duty to check carefully their own sympathies. 
The Chronicler and the men of his time are clear 
examples of the fact that the mission of the histor- 
ian was to use his material to teach his own creed 
and glorify the religious institutions of his own age. 
If there are gaps in the history, difficulties, even con- 
tradictions, in the chronology, exaggeration in the 
pumbers, we must nevertheless be thankful that 


Ezra and Nehemiah 
Ezri 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


‘the Chronicler’ and others have given us a picture 
of the struggle by which Jerusalem was restored and 
Judaism established, tho it is not as clear and har- 
monious as we would desire. It was through the 
self-denying efforts of men, to whom patriotism and 
religion were supreme, that the continuity and purity 
of the Church was secured. ‘Those who now claim 
to possess a knowledge of ‘historical perspective’ 
should judge soberly the zeal and ‘intolerance’ of 


-men who were fighting for their lives. 


Ill. Toe Men And THEIR WoRrK. 


10. Ezra was a type of the scribe, a class of men to 
whom Judaism owed its very existence, and they, 
rather than the priests saved the books and the religion 
in the great crises. Even if he were a creation of the 
Chronicler, the tendencies that he is supposed to 
represent are features of the historical movement of 
the time. But it is probable that we have the mem- 
oirs of a real Jewish scholar and teacher of the Law. 
Passages such as Ezr 3 11-13, 8 21, 22 have both poetic 
feeling and spiritual power; they show the faith and 
emotion that are common to all great religious 
movements. 

11. Nehemiah. With regard to Nehemiah there 
are no such doubts; he speaks for himself, he im- 
presses his personality upon the reader; we might 
almost say that his words are the beginning of real 
autobiography. His sorrow for the home land, his 
night visit to the broken walls, the courage with 
which he faced the enemy and controlled internal 
discussions, his refusal to seek safety in the hour of 
danger, his appeal to God and his proud claim that 
he has done his duty,—these are bright bits of life 
and literature, coming as part of a chronicle that 
often seems dry and formal. Such things the world 
will not willingly allow to die for only by such faith 
and courage can great victories be won. 

LireRATURE: Driver’s LOT 9; Ryle in Camb. Bible (1st Ed.); 

T. W. Crafer (ibid 2d Ed. 1916); T. Witton Davies, New Cent. 

B.; L. W. Batten, on Ezra-Nehemiah (1913) and EK. C. Curtis 


on Chronicles (1910) in ICC; Articles in HDB and EB; 
Esdras I and II by A. Duff, Temple Bible; ak ae Hay, 
W af 


After the Exile, 2 vols. (1890). 
EZRAH, ez’ra (IY, ‘ezrah, Ezra AV), ‘help’: 


The head of a family of Judah (I Ch 417). 

EZRAHITE, ez’ra-hait CUTS, ’ezrahi): Ethan 
in I K 4 31 and Herman in the titles to Pss 88 and 89 
are called ‘Ezrahites.’ The word is probably de- 
rived from Zerah (cf. I Ch 2 6), meaning ‘a descen- 
dant of Zerah,’ who figured as ancestral head of one 
of the divisions or clans of Judah. E. E. N. 

EZRI, ez’rai (WY, ‘ezrz), ‘my help’: One of 
David’s superintendents (I Ch 27 26). 


Fable 
Faith 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





FABLE. In the O T there is one conspicuous 
example of the fable, Jg 9 8-15 but it is not so desig- 
nated. This one example would indicate however 
some acquaintance with the fable in ancient Israel. 
Fables is found in the N T as the rendering of the 
plural of the Gr. p.060¢ ‘myth’ inI Til 4,47; II Ti 
44; Ti 14; IL P1416. Im all these passages such 
‘fables’ are severely condemned, altho some belief 
in or regard to them was being urged by propagan- 
dists upon the faith and conduct of Christians. 
The reference may be to Jewish legendary expansion 
of Biblical material such as we have in abundance 
in some of the Apocryphal and Apocalyptic litera- 
ture (e.g., the Book of Jubilees or the Testaments of 
the XII Patriarchs) and in the later Jewish litera- 
ture. Or the reference may be to certain types of 
essentially Gnostic speculations (see GNOSTICISM). 
Cf. Locke in JCC on The Pastoral Epistles (1924). 

E. 


4. 


FACE. See Cosmocony, § 2; Gop, § 2; Rrver- 
LATION, § 11. 


FAIR HAVENS: A harbor on the S. coast of 
the island of Crete, E. of Cape Lithinos, and a few m. 
W. of Leben, the seaport of Gortyna. The harbor is 
formed by a bay, open to the E., and sheltered on 
the SW. by two small islands. During summer this 
bay gives mariners safe anchorage (Ac 27 8 ff.), and 
therefore was called Kaot Atuéves, a name which per- 
sists in the modern Limenes Kali. 

J. R. S.8.*—E. E. N. 


FAIRS: In reality, the commodities (‘wares’ RV) 
bartered in the Oriental bazaars and markets (Ezk 
2712-27 AV). Seein general TRapE AND COMMERCE. 


FAITH. This word must be studied in connec- 
tion with its great allies, ‘belief’ (‘believe’), and 
‘trust.’ All three are used in Scripture to describe 
a fundamental act or attitude of personal beings 
toward one another, without which fellowship, 
either within human relations or between the human 
and the Divine, would be impossible. 

1. Inthe OT. Altho the true nature of faith is 
first fully discovered in the N T, we find that in the 
O T the complete fact is prepared for through im- 
portant stages of experience. It is not a doctrine of 
faith that we encounter, but examples of it. The 
three principal Heb. verbs’a@man, (hiph‘tl) ‘to believe’, 
batah, ‘to trust,’ and hdasah, ‘to take refuge,’ occur 
oftener than the corresponding nouns. (1) It may 
be said, as we look back from our Christian vantage- 
ground, that faith as a conscious religious act was 
born when the Israelite first began to discover his 
relations with a personal and moral being, as his 
God. Apart from the great passage in Gn 15 6, 
none of these words occurs in any really significant 
way until we reach the story of Moses and the 
Exodus. But as soon as the prophet appears to 
speak for the invisible and living God, the subject 
of belief or trust appears. At first the question is 
whether the hearers will believe the prophet (Ex 
4 1-9, 31, 19 9; ef. Is 5381; II Ch 20 20). But then to 
believe the word of the prophet is to believe J”, 


who speaks through him; and that deeper act be- 
comes a believing in Him (Ex 14 31; Dt 1 32; IT K 
17 14). (2) Thus we pass on to the still deeper fact 
that God becomes the constant object of the people’s 
trust, especially in the face of public danger. Then 
they are said to ‘take refuge’ in Him (hasaéh, IIS 
22 3, 31; cf. Dt 32 37; Jg 9 15). 
tional literature, however, and in the great proph- 
ets that this act of direct trust in God is most often 
expressed, and it is there that the ground of that act 
is found in the faithfulness of God. The three 
words occur abundantly in the Psalms (27 13, 40 3, 4, 
78 22, 89 24, 119 90; 22 4, 25 2, 37 3, 5, 52 8, 84 12; 2 12, 
348, 40 4, 711, 141 8), and there they often utter the 
sense of absolute dependence and joyous confidence 
in God. We meet them less often in the prophets; 
but in Jer and Is the circumstances called for a new 
emphasis on the character as well as on the power of 
J’’; and that evoked the demand for the act of faith. 
When Judah’s earthly resources seemed shrunken 
before the might of a great empire, the question of 
trust in the Divine Deliverer became supreme 
(Is 7 9, 28 16, 12 2, 26 1-7, 36 15 [|[II K 18 30]; Jer 7 
1-15 [folly of misplaced trust], 17 5-7, 39 18). In the 
O T, then, this act of faith has not yet become a di- 
rect object of thought (cf. Is 2816; Hab24). Its vast 
spiritual significance could appear only when the 
revelation of the Divine grace on which it is directed 
had itself been consummated in a spiritual manner. 

2. In the Synoptic Teaching of Jesus. When we 
open the N T we find ourselves in a world where 
faith has become king among all human acts and ex- 
periences. Like other great words—Spirit, grace, 
love, righteousness, life, etc.—this word ‘faith’ be- 
comes illumined and expanded beyond all its past 
uses and meanings. The process begins with Christ 
Himself in His explicit teaching, and His practical 
demands. (1) He, first of all teachers, made men 
think directly of faith, as an act of supreme power. 
Thus He connects His own works of healing on sev- 
eral occasions with the faith of the patient (Mt 8 13, 
9 2, 22, 29; Mk 5 36, 9 23, 24; Lk 1719). Heavows that 
He has been seeking faith ‘in Israel’ (Mt 8 10; Mk 
919). The extraordinary power of faith is set forth 
in one saying or set of sayings, which appears in 
different connections and forms, as if, the idea were 
central in His mind and found various outlets (Mt 
17 20; Lk 17 5, 6; Mt 21 21; Mk 11 22-24). He re- 
bukes His disciples for lack of faith (Mt 14 27, 31; 
Mk 4 40, 817-21). (2) The demand of Jesus for faith 
underlies His whole teaching concerning God and 
concerning His own relation to the kingdom of God. 
For the injunction that we must approach God as 
Father (Mt 6 4, 6-15; Mk 11 22-25), that we must 
repent and seek forgiveness (Mk 1 15, 11 23-25; 
Lk 7 47-50, 8 12-15, 15 17-19), as the primary condition 
of right relation with Him, that we must meet all 
ills and the chances of life as His children (Mt 6 
25-32), makes the act of trust the supreme thing. 
The whole work of Jesus with His disciples, as even 
the passages above referred to indicate, aimed at 
creating in them a profound and complete trust in 


(3) It is in the devo-- 


257 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Fable 
Faith 





Himself, the Messiah, the head of the kingdom of 
God and Savior of men. The faith which won 
healing was first of all faith in His own power and 
grace (Mk 5 36, 9 22-24). 

3. In the Fourth Gospel. It is one of the most 
remarkable facts of the Fourth Gospel that the verb 
mtotedety occurs in it not less than 95 times, while 
the noun xictts does not occur even once. More- 
over, in I Jn the noun is used only once, in the 
great saying of 5 4, while the verb occurs nine times. 
The act of faith is represented in this Gospel as 
occupying a very prominent place in the discussions 
of Jesus. It is viewed as the characteristic of the 
new way and is spoken of absolutely (1 7, 4 48, 53, 
6 47, 64, 11 15, 14 29, 20 8). Of course in most cases 
an object is named, but this freely and variously. 
Thus, it is God as the Sender of the Christ (5 24, 
12 44; cf. 141, 10, 11, 17 8), 2.e., the faith in Christ 
carries with it and in it faith in God. They are 
inseparable objects of one act and not objects of 
two acts in different directions. But, again, Christ 
Himself is usually described as the object of faith. 
It may be His name (1 12, 2 23), or His spoken word 
(2 22, 3 12, 4 21, 50, 5 47, 8 45), or His works (10 38), 
or the fact that He is the Christ (11 27, 6 69, 8 24, 
13 19, 20 31), the one ‘sent’ of God (5 38, 11 42, 16 27-30, 
17 8, 21). But most generally it is Christ Himself 
in the fulness of His Divine authority and power 
and grace on whom faith is directed (2 11, 3 16, 18, 4 39, 
7 5, 31, 38, 9 35-38, 12 42, 141). The results of faith 
are usually summed up in the words ‘eternal life’ 
(3 16, 5 24, 6 40, 47, 20 31), but other descriptions occur 
(1 12, 3 18, 6 35, 12 36, 46). It can not be said that 
there is any doctrine of faith in this Gospel which 
is not implicit in the Synoptics. The fuller emphasis 
is found (a) in the prolog and chapter 20; (b) in the 
historian’s statements regarding the relations of 
men to Jesus (2 11, 23, 4 39, 41, 7 5, 11 48, 12 11, 42, 
20 8); (c) in the various discussions between Jesus 
and the educated Jews who opposed Him; (d) in 
the last conversations with the disciples. There is 
even here no formal examination of faith in a theo- 
logical manner. It is not compared with other 
principles, as in the Epistles. But the abundant 
use of the verb shows that the author recognizes 
this as the crucial point in the relation of Christian- 
ity to Judaism; 7.e., on the human side. Faith is a 
real knowledge, but it is opposed to sight and to 
speculation; and the present possession of the boons 
received in faith is stated emphatically. What 
Christ is to temple, sacrifice, legal enactment, that 
faith is to the corresponding human acts which those 
institutions evoke. This the author seems clearly 
to see, but he buries it in the substance of his story, 
without formal defense. 


4. In the Pauline Epistles. The words ‘faith’ 
(xlotts) and ‘believe’ (mtotetetv) occur almost 200 
times in the thirteen Pauline Epistles. The verb 
does not occur in Color Phm. In contrast with the 
O T and with Jn the noun occurs nearly three times 
oftener than the verb. The great fact has been at 
last fully identified, and, altho nowhere defined, is 
capable of direct comparison with other ethical or 
Spiritual principles. (1) The object of faith is vari- 
ously expressed. It may be a rumor (I Co 11 18), a 


historical fact (I Th 414; Ro 109; cf. Ro 4 17), testi- 
mony to a fact (I Co 15 2 f.; I Th 213; II Th 1 10; 
ef. II Th 2 15), the truth (II Th 2 13), the gospel (Ph 
1 27), Christ in the propitiatory power of His blood 
(Ro 3 25). God is the object of faith simply 
(Ro 4 3, 17; Gal 36; 1 Th 18; Tit 3 8), or as He acts 
(Ro 4 5, 24; ef. 109, Col 212). Christ is named as 
the object eighteen times, twice with the verb (I Ti 
116, 3 16), but sixteen times with the noun (Ro 8 22; 
Gal 2 20; Eph 1 15; Ph 1 29, etc.). Pfleiderer says 
truly that we nowhere read of motetety Xotot@ as 
we do of mtotedety Oe@; it 1s equally true, and even 
more significant, that we do not read of xlotts Gecod, 
as we do of tiotts Xetotod. Faith in God is faith 
in Him as the Father of Jesus Christ, and in His re- 
deeming mercy through Christ. Faith in Christ is 
faith in Him as the complete Redeemer and the ab- 
solute Lord of human souls. The cross, the atoning 
act of God in Christ (Ro 8 24, 25, 83, 32; II Co 519f.), 
so conditions the relations of God and man that 
henceforth we can neither conceive of God except as 
the redeeming God, nor of the cross asa mere past 
event, but as an act through which God so related 
Himself with sin and righteousness in human 
nature that righteousness (justification, forgive- 
ness) became available to mankind. This faith 
is neither faith in a mere theory of salvation, 
nor is. it faith in a God who is not a 
savior in some definite manner. The Pauline 
faith is fixed on God, who sent His Son as an offering 
for sin, and on the living Christ, who offered Him- 
self. The Eternal God, the Creator and Lord of 
all, is henceforth so conditioned for man’s apprehen- 
sion and faith. To trust in Him is to trust in the 
power of that cross; to trust in Christ whose blood 
covers sin (Ro 3 25) is to trust in God. (2) The 
effect of faith is the justification (cf. JusTIFICATION) 
of the believer (Ro 1 17, 3 24-27, 4 1-25, 5 1; Gal 2 16, 
3 1-29; Eph 28; Ph 39). This is the gateway to all 
else, union with Christ (Gal. 2 20), the indwelling 
Spirit (Eph 3 16, 17), peace (Ro 5 1), sonship (Gal 
3 26), etc. This is the heart of Paul’s Gospel, in 
which the real implications of Christ’s person and 
teaching and atoning work come to light. As the 
faith of Abraham was reckoned to him for righteous- 
ness, when as yet the legal system was not estab- 
lished, and the promise of God alone stood before 
him, so in Christ the legal system is surpassed, and 
the promise of a universal grace confronts the 
world. He who puts his faith in God-in-Christ as 
the offerer of mercy is thereby at once in right re- 
lations (righteousness) toward God. God hence- 
forth treats him as righteous in holy and loving 
mercy. This faith is the basis of all further fellow- 
ship between the believer and God. St. Paul 
contrasts faith chiefly with legal obedience; in its 
world nothing statutory has a place. He thus re- 
pudiates the fancied religious superiority of the Jew. 
Faith, the opposite of merit, is the new way, an- 
nounced in Christ, whereby men become right with 
God. (3) It is natural that faith so potent and sig- 
nificant should gradually become a term equivalent 
to the gospel or the Christian religion. It contains 
an intellectual element. Because through faith 
man is justified, all that a man apprehends concern- 


Faith 
Family and Family Law 


258 


pn ace aaie sapere SE DSW eee ame Se lesan ar ee D ee PO Da Cunt Pe dE IES on On > SETS SRI aE RNS ES TARE SEE RTE PN ens Pa 


ing God, Christ, humanity, becomes supremely im- 
portant. These various elements coalesce more or 
less definitely into a system of facts, historical and 
spiritual, which are naturally called his ‘faith’ 
(I Co 25, 15 1-4, 1613; II Co 1 24; Eph 45; Ph 1 27; 
Col 1 23; 1 Ti39, 58; Tit 113). From this element in 
the act of faith theology takes its rise. (4) Finally, 
the Pauline view of faith includes its nature and 
power as a creative ethical force which finds a chan- 
nel in love and hope, joy and peace. It is no mere 
technicality of an abstract religion. It describes 
the attitude of person to person, and hence implies 
both an emotional and a volitional element. It, 
therefore, determines conduct (Ro 614-23; 141, 2, 22, 
23; Gal 2 20, etc.), and the moral quality of that con- 
duct is itself derived from Him who is the object of 
faith. He, and not a series of legal prescriptions, 
molds the ideal, and guides the steps of the Chris- 
tian man (Ro 7, 8, 14 22, 23; I Co 6 11, 19; Gal 5 6). 
All Pauline moral exhortations rest on this concep- 
tion. 

5. In the Other Epistles, In the other N T 
writings we find no such deep grasp of the new 
principle as in Paul, altho there is nothing incon- 
sistent with his doctrine of faith. Yet there are 
characteristic differences of emphasis. The Ep. of 
James, in the famous passage 2 14-26, seems to correct 
a false deduction from the Pauline doctrine. James 
does not deny the latter; but he insists that the 
principle of faith is not antinomian, since a living 
faith, as that of Abraham, must issue in works, and 
so be ‘made perfect,’ or reach its end. And this, in 
other words, Paul says abundantly. The Ep. to the 
Hebrews describes faith at length—stressing its 
moral quality as a Christian virtue—in 11 1-12 6: 
(1) Faith is defined as that which deals with the 
future (promised) and the invisible (God, Christ), 
and this is illustrated. (2) It is proved that faith is 
the real substance of O T history and also a new 
thing, not created by but consummated in Christian- 
ity. (3) But we are commanded to live by faith, not 
by legal observances, because Jesus has appeared as 
its ‘author and perfecter.’ As such He has become 
its object (12 2). Thus it appears that on all sides 
the N T reveals Christ as the Person who has so 
appeared from God and acted for God that all other 
religious instruments fall away; and faith, issuing in 
obedience, including an eager but patient expecta- 
tion, becomes the great and universal principle, 
filling the present with the power of the future, 
binding man to God. 


LITERATURE: Inge, Faith and its Psychology (1909); E. W. 
Meyer, Das christliche Gotivertrauen und der Glaube an 
Christus (1899); A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im N T (81905); 
Warfield in HDB, art. ‘Faith,’ B. Weiss, The Religion of 
the N T, ch. 16 (transl. 1905); A. C. McGiffert, The Apostolic 
Age (1897), pp. 141-145, 457-460, 473-475, 498; W. H. P. 
Hatch, The Pauline Idea of Faith; A. B. Bruce, St. Paul’s 
Conception of Christianity (1894), chs. vii, xiii; E. F. Scott, 
Epistle to the Hebrews, ch. ix; P. Wernle, The Beginnings of 
Christianity (transl., 1903), pp. 192-194, 216-223; Herrmann, 
Communion With God (Eng. transl., 1906); the works on 
O T theology of H. Schultz and A. B. Davidson; and on 
N T Theology by B. Weiss, Holtzmann, Weinel, Feine 
(3d ed. 1919), and Stevens; H. A. A. Kennedy, The The- 
ology of the Epistles (1919); J. Oman, Grace and Personality 
(1919), pp. 132-151; commentaries on the Epp. to Galatians, 
(ICC), Romans, (ICC), James, (Mayor), and Hebrews 
(ICC). W. D. M.—H. R. M 


FALCON. See Pauzusrinn, § 25. 

FALL, See Sin, § 9. 

FALLOW DEER. 
Foon, § 10. 

FALSE WITNESS. See Law anp Leaat PrRaAc- 
TISE, § 4 (2); and Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 2 (b), 


FAMILIAR FRIEND: In Job 19 14 this expres- 
sion means ‘acquaintances.’ In Ps 41 9; Jer 20 10 
it is a good rendering of ’énésh sh*lémi, ‘man of 
my peace.’ 

FAMILIAR SPIRIT: The Heb. 3x, ’6bh, was 
used generally for ‘the spirit of the departed,’ but 
the etymology and exact meaning of the word is 
not known. As certain persons professed or were 
supposed to harbor, or be in communion with, such 
spirits, there were said ‘to have familiar spirits’ 
(Lv 19 31, etc.). See Magic anp Divination, § 3. 

K. E. N. 


FAMILY AND FAMILY LAW, 1. Terms De- 
noting Family. The term ‘family,’ as it occurs in 
the Eng. Bible, is nearly always the translation of 
the Heb. word 93¥2, mishpahah, which properly 
means ‘clan,’ altho it is often used in the narrower 
sense of ‘family.’ In a few instances 3, bayith, 
‘house,’ is rendered ‘family,’ and in a large propor- 
tion of cases in which ‘house’ is retained the reference 
is to the household or family. Other terms, such as 
seed, flesh, etc., are often used figuratively for 
family. Family relationships, especially the more 
remote ones, as those of uncle, ‘cousin,’ nephew, etc., 
are often expressed only generally rather than 
exactly, the word brother, e.g., being frequently 
used to cover such relations (cf. Gn 14 14, 24 48; 
Ly 25 25, etc.). 

2. The Significance of the Family in Heb. Society. 
The words ‘family,’ ‘house,’ ‘household,’ as used in 
the O T, do not represent exactly the same ideas as 
these same terms do with us. In Heb. society the 
mishpaéhdah was the fundamental social unit. It might 
be composed of a number of ‘families,’ in our more 
restricted sense of the word. It was the foundation 
of the clan, often equivalent to it, and as such the 
main constituent element of the tribe. In the more 
primitive conditions that lay behind Heb. society, 
as we find it in the O T, doubtless the ‘family’ was 
relatively less important than the clan or tribe. 
But with the development of a more complex type of 
life in Canaan, tribal and clan relations receded and 
the family attained to the position of prime im- 
portance. See IsramL, SoctaL DEVELOPMENT OF, 
§§ 11 and 26. The Heb. family was made up of 
several groups, or units, at whose head stood one 
‘father,’ or master. There might be several wives, 
each with her own set of children, also, concubines 
with children. There might also be a larger or 
smaller number of servants, male and female. 
Some of the servants might be married and have 
children. It was also possible that one or more of 
the sons of the father might be married and living 
on the paternal estate still under the father’s care 
and authority, with wife or wives under the control 
of the husband’s mother. Within this complex it is 
impossible to draw the line between the family, in 
our sense of the term, and the mtshpdhah or bayith 


See Pauestine, § 24; and 


uLe 


259 A NEW STANDARD 


of the O T. It is true that our O T evidence relates 
mainly to the more independent, well-to-do property- 
owners. Doubtless, there were many small families 
(husband, one wife, and children) in Israel, but the 
larger ‘house’ corresponded more nearly with the 
ideal of the majority, especially in the earlier pre- 
exilic days. 

3. Marriage. The basis of the family was, of 
course, marriage. We are here concerned only with 
the facts regarding marriage as we actually find 
them in the O T. For theories as to the nature of 
the marriage relation among the primitive Semites 
see MARRIAGE AND Divorce. In the O T marriage 
is viewed as a relation in which the husband is 
master, lord, owner. There may be some traces of 
& more primitive condition when the wife was more 
independent (matriarchate) or when polyandry was 
practised. But these lie beyond the horizon of O T 
history. See IsraEL, Soctan DEVELOPMENT OF, § 11. 

In the O T there is no specific word for marriage. 
The expressions are always concrete and relate to 
the actual condition. The man is the ba‘al, ‘master,’ 
‘owner,’ of his ‘woman’; he ‘takes’ a woman; the 
wife is be‘uldah, 7.e., ‘under the dominion of a ba‘al’; 
or she is ‘the woman’ of her ‘man’ (cf. Hos. 2 16). 

The marriage contract was between the husband 
(or his father) and the family of the bride, rather 
than between the two as individuals. The bride 
was practically purchased, the méhar, dowry, ‘pur- 
chase-money,’ being paid to the father of the bride. 
This fact placed a restriction on polygamy. A man 
could only have as many wives as he could afford to 
pay for with a mdhar sufficient to satisfy the family 
of each wife. No disgrace was attached to polyg- 
amy, or to the concubinage that might exist be- 
tween a master and his female slaves. Notwith- 
standing this commercial aspect of marriage, there is 
abundant evidence in the O T that the love of the 
young people for each other often played an im- 
portant part in the preliminaries of a marriage (cf. 
Jacob and Rachel, Gn ch. 29; David and Michal, IS 
18 20; and in general, Song of Solomon). Ancient 
Heb. society gave more liberty to its women than is 
the case in the Mohammedan East of to-day. The 
Law forbade the marriage of two (probably full) sis- 
ters to the same man (Lv 18 18); but the story of 
Jacob seems to show that actual practise was often 
different (or did Rachel and Leah have different 
mothers?). Marriage between half-brothers and 
sisters was allowable (Gn 20 12; II S 18 13). For 
further particulars on this point see MARRIAGE AND 
Divorce. 


4. The House-father. The head of a Heb. house- 
hold was the chief personage of what was a religious 
as well as a social institution. The family in primitive 
Heb. society had a religious significance. Through it 
the cult of the tribal and family deities was prac- 
tised and perpetuated. (On the cult of the dead, 
even in Israel, see Paton, Spiritism in Antiquity, 
pp. 208 ff. and 248 ff.). The house-father may 
well be viewed as the priest of the group of which 
he was the family-head. He was responsible for 
the religious life of his family and he was also the 
chief religious functionary. It was he who offered 
the sacrifices to the family deities, or, as later was 


Faith 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Family and Family Law 


the case, to Jehovah the national deity, on behalf 
of his family and their interests (cf. the cases of the 
patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job, etc). This 
will explain such passages as Gn 31 53, 32 9, and, in 
part, also the reverence paid to the family sepulcher, 
for the family with its ancestors constituted a cultus- 
unit. For an example of such family sacrificial ob- 
servances see I § 20 6. 

To the house-father was thus due a reverence that 
bordered closely on the reverence due to deity (cf. 
the place in the Decalog of the 5th Command- 
ment). To dishonor a parent was a crime worthy 
of death (Ex 21 15, 17). Within his own domain the 
master’s authority was well-nigh absolute. His 
wife, or wives, looked up to him as their lord (cf. Gn 
18 12). He was the chief, the elder, the father. 
Even to extreme old age he retained, nominally at 
least, this authority (cf. the story of Jacob). These 
house-fathers constituted the elders of the Heb. 
communities, the ancient men, whose counsel and 
means were the basis of tribal administration and 
who maintained their importance long after the 
tribes had become little more than a convenient 
fiction. On the father rested the responsibility of 
training and instructing his household in the tra- 
ditions of the family, tribe, or nation (Gn 18 19; Ex 
12 26, 18 8; Dt 67) and to him the sons looked for 
their education after coming out from under the 
tutelage of the mother (Pr I 8, 3 12, 41, 181, etc.). 
While Heb. law and custom gave such large power 
to the house-father, the O T is full of evidence that 
the Heb. families were no strangers to kindness and 
affection. The fathers loved their children and were 
loved by them (cf. the stories of Jacob and Joseph, 
of Jephthah, of David, etc.). Naturally, the po- 
lygamy that was probably the rule rather than the 
the exception was the source of much discord and 
of many evils. But in spite of this, the Heb. family 
was a nursery of virtue, and often a home of a 
faith and piety that were a genuine anticipation of 
the higher ideal realized later in the Christian home. 


5. The Wife and Mother. While the wife was 
really bought and paid for and was thus legally the 
property of the husband (see § 3 above, and cf. the 
old form of the 10th Commandment, Ex 20 17, where 
the wife is a part of the ‘house’), the actual position 
of a Heb. wife was, at least in many eases, far from 
that of a mere slave or chattel. Her family, for 
instance, generally stood ready to avenge any undue 
ill treatment from her husband. Women of spirit 
and ability appear to have found no difficulty in 
maintaining a fairly independent position (e.g., 
Sarah, Rebekah, Abigail, etc.). In families where 
there were two or more wives, ‘one beloved and the 
other hated,’ the lot of the latter was doubtless hard. 
The Law forbade unjust discrimination against the 
son of the ‘hated’ wife, if it was the first-born (Dt 
21 15), but contained no provision for alleviating the 
lot of such a woman herself. That was a case 
belonging to the inner sphere where the husband 
was supreme. If the husband’s mother was alive, 
the wife, or wives, were to a certain extent under 
her dominion even in the royal harem. She was the 
g*bhirah, ‘queen-mother,’ often mentioned in the 
notices of the Books of Kings and elsewhere (I K 


Family and Family Law 


Fast, Fasting A NEW STANDARD 





15 13; II K 1013, etc.). On the wife rested a large re- 
sponsibility. Much of the manual labor was per- 
formed by the Heb. women. Grinding the meal, 
baking, weaving the cloth, churning, etc., all fell to 
the women to do. Hence the representation of the 
ideal wife as we find it in Pr 31 10 ff. The restric- 
tions upon the participation by Heb. women in the 
social life of their times were not so many, or so 
severe, as in the case in Syria to-day; tho women 
did not mingle with men as freely as is allowed in 
modern Western society. 

To become a wife and mother was the fond de- 
sire of every Heb. woman. Not to be married was 
a disgrace, and to become a childless wife was 
equally mortifying. On the other hand, to be a 
mother—especially of a son—was the crowning joy 
of life (cf. the story of Hannah, 18 1f., or of Rachel; 
Gn ch. 30). In primitive society, the greater the 
number of sons the greater the number of spears. 
The standing of a family depended upon the number 
of its valiant men. Thus early was fostered the de- 
sire for sons, and it continued to exist among the 
Hebrews until the latest times. The high position 
and honor accorded to the Heb. mother is one of the 
brighter characteristics of the O T. The mother, as 
well as the father, was to be honored according to the 
Law (Ex 20 12, 2115). The children, both boys and 
girls, were almost entirely under the tutelage of the 
mother during their earlier years, and the daughters 
remained so until their marriage (cf. Pr 1 8, etc.). 
See also MARRIAGE AND Divorce. 


6. Children. As with other peoples of com- 
paratively simple life, childbirth among the Hebrews 
does not appear to have been viewed as particularly 
dangerous, tho of course not free from pain (ef. 
Gn 316; Ex 119). The employment of midwives (q.v.) 
was common. The term rendered ‘birth-stool’ (Ex 
1 16) is no longer clearly understood (but see also 
DisEASE AND Mepicing#, § 8). This is also the case 
with the expression to bear ‘upon the knees’ (Gn 
30 3, 50 23) of another. As soon as the babe was born, 
the navel cord was cut; then the child was washed, 
rubbed with salt (as is still done in Syria), and 
wrapped in swaddling-clothes (Ezk 16 4). The 
mother was considered ceremonially unclean for 
seven days after the birth of a boy, and for fourteen 
after that of a girl. She was also ‘to continue in the 
blood of her purifying’ thirty-three additional days 
after the birth of a boy, and sixty-six after that of 
a girl (Lv 12 1-5). Names were given, generally at 
birth, either by the mother (Gn 4 1, 25, 29 32, etc.), 
or by the father (Gn 5 29, 16 15; Ex 2 22, etc., see 
Namgss, § 1). The legitimacy of a child was derived 
from the father, not from the mother, and in case a 
wife was childless she welcomed the child of her 
husband by one of her maid-servants as if it were her 
own (Gn 301-12), and gave it its name. In later times 
the name appears to have been given a boy on the 
occasion of his circumcision (Lk 1 59, 2 21), which took 
place on the eighth day after birth (Gn 17 11 f.; Lv 
12 3. See Crrcumcision). Heb. children were 
generally nursed by their mothers, and were kept at 
the breast a long period (probably as much as two or 
even three years, as is the case in Syria to-day). 
Mother-love among the Hebrews was strong, and 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


260 


altho girls were far less welcome than boys, we hear 
nothing of the practise of exposure of female infants 
(except its condemnation as pagan, Ezk 165). The 
weaning of a child, especially the first-born or heir, 
was the occasion of festivities (Gn 21 8). The first- 
born boy was considered sacred to J’’ and could be 
redeemed from being devoted to Him only by a 
redemption sacrifice (Ex 13 i1 ff., 22 39, 3419f.). This 
may have had its roots in a primitive Semitic or 
Canaanite custom of actually sacrificing all first- 
born sons to deity. All the children, both boys and 
girls, were under the tutelage of the women of the 
house until the boys gradually came to be attached 
more closely to the men and were taught by them the 
knowledge of the profession from which the family 
gained its livelihood (different in different ages, local- 
ities, and special circumstances). The father and 
mother were the chief fountains of knowledge and 
authority (cf. Pr 1 8, etc.). In well-to-do families 
nurses (cf. II S 4 4) and instructors, or tutors (II K 
10 1, 5), were not uncommon (cf. also the case of 
Nathan and Solomon, II S 12 25). Schools, as such, 
are not mentioned in the O T. But some means of 
obtaining ‘higher’ education must have existed. 
Elementary instruction was imparted largely within 
the family circle (see Epucation). Ancient Heb. 
law seems not to haverecognized any period when a 
boy became ‘of age.’ So long as the father was 
alive and vigorous the sons were supposed to be 
subject to him, altho a son who had set up an 
independent home would not be so completely under 
the father’s rule as one who remained on the paternal 
estate. A’ daughter was the property of the father 
until she was married (Ex 21 7 #.; cf. 22 16 f.; Lv 
19 29). A widow or divorced woman might return 
to her father’s house and again become his property 
(cf. Gn 38 11). 

The early code of E (Ex 22 22) and especially Dt 
(10 18, 16 11, 24 17, 27 19, etc.) enjoined just and kind 
treatment for the fatherless, both to protect them in 
their legal rights (of inheritance) and to lay upon the 
well-to-do the responsibility of caring for such un- 
fortunates. But the prophetic pleas in behalf of 
the widow and fatherless (Is 1 17, 23, 9 17, 10 2; Jer 
5 28, 7 6, etc.) show that there was a widespread 
failure in carrying out the injunctions of the Codes. 
Apparently there was no definite provision com- 
pelling obedience to the Code. 


7. Servants and Dependents. The servants and 
other dependents of a Heb. house formed no unim- 
portant element. The servants were the property of 
the master or his wife (or wives), whose authority 
over them was nearly absolute. Female servants 
might be the individual property of one of the wives 
(e.g., Hagar, Sarah’s maid, Gn 161 ff., or Zilpah 
and Bilhah, Gn 29 24, 29), who had independent 
authority over them (Gn 16 6, 21 8 ff.). Certain 
restrictions were placed upon a too severe exercise 
of this authority. Six years was the limit of the 
service of a Heb. slave, unless he chose to become 
a life-servant (Ex 21 2-5). If married before his 
term of service, his wife came in and went out free 
with him; but if his master had given him his wife, 
she and her children remained the master’s (Ex 21 
2-5). Similar provision was made for the rights of 


261 A NEW STANDARD 


the woman who had been sold into slavery (Ex 21 
7-11). The Law sought also to protect servants from 
extreme injury at the hands of the master (Ex 21 
20 f., 26f.). Furthermore, they were not to be sent 
away empty-handed (Dt 15 12-14, 18) and in case a 
servant ran away and made good his escape, he was 
not to be returned (Dt 23 15). Heb. servants shared 
in the family sacrifices and festivals (Dt 16 11, etc.). 
The lot of non-Heb. slaves (acquired by capture, 
purchase from foreigners, etc.) was less fortunate. 
These were more completely under the power of their 
owners and the Law was not so careful to protect 
them against abuse. They were servants for life and, 
as property, could be passed on as a part of the 
family inheritance (Lv 25 44 ff.). They were obliged 
to observe the requirements of Israel’s religion. It 
was expected that male foreign slaves would be cir- 
cumcised, and thus made capable of eating the Pass- 
over (Ex 12 44f.). Toward a female captive the Law 
took a humane and kindly attitude (Dt 2110-14). Be- 
sides bond-servants, a Heb. householder was likely 
to have a number of hired servants (see Dt 24 14), 
and also ‘strangers’—that is, foreigners who, for 
one reason or another, put themselves under his pro- 
tection. Toward the latter the Law took a friendly 
attitude, seeking to guard them from undue oppres- 
sion (cf. Ex 20 10, 22 21 f.; Dt 1 16, 10 18, 14 21, etc.), 
tho making a distinction between them and Is- 
raelites (Dt 151-6, 23 19). See further under SLAVERY. 


8. Family Property, That property belonged to 
the family rather than to the individual appears to 
have been a fundamental principle of Heb. society, 
tho the master had undisputed control so long as 
he lived. The distribution of property after his 
death was also, at least in early times, made accord- 
ing to his directions. While the Law directed that the 
first-born should always possess the birthright, 7.e., 
the right to a double portion of the property, even 
tho he were the son of the ‘hated’ wife (Dt 21 
15-17), it is likely that in actual practise there were 
many exceptions to this rule (cf. Ishmael and Isaac, 
Jacob and Esau, Solomon as David’s chief heir, etc.). 
One son could not inherit to the exclusion of all the 
others. All sons of the same father were ‘brothers,’ 
even tho some of the sons may have been born 
of harlots (cf. the case of Jephthah, Jg 11 1 f., 
where might, not right, drove J. away). A special 
provision for the inheritance of daughters is given In 
Nu 27 1-11, 36 1-12. Widows, as a rule, appear to 
‘have had no special inheritance, but could, if child- 
less, claim the right of marriage to the husband’s 
brother (Dt 25 5-10). 

The family estate or patrimony (Dt 18 8) was 
considered a sacred possession given by J” of old and 
as such was to be retained as long as possible as 
the possession of the same family. To the nearest 
heirs (kinsmen) belonged the right of redemption 
(cf. Ru 4 1-12; Jer 32 6 ff.). Even a king could not 
override this ancient principle (cf I K 21 3f.). The 
year of jubilee was designed to restore all landed 
property to the families that originally owned it (Lv 
25 8 f.). It is not likely that all the provisions of 
this law were ever actually carried out. It was due 
to this strong feeling regarding the family rights and 
the hereditary privileges of the family that the Jews 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 





Family and Family Law 
Fast, Fasting 


took such care to preserve the family genealogies, of 
which we have so many examples, especially in the 
later literature (Priests’ Code, and Ch, Ezr, Neh). 
9. The Family in the N T. No comprehensive 
attempt is made in the N T to regulate family life. 
The Jews possessed the highest and purest type of 
family life known in antiquity. The N T specifica- 
tions seek only to bring it all more completely under 
the supreme principle of Christian love. See also 
BuRIAL AND BuriaL Customs; MARRIAGE AND 
Divorce; Movurnine Customs; and SLAVERY. 


LITERATURE: Nowack, 1894, §§ 26-33) and Benzinger (2nd ed. 
1907, §§ 21-26) in their books on Heb. Archdologie; also the 
article by Benzinger in EB. See also articles by Philip 
Baldensperger, The Immovable East, in PEFQ, 1910-1920. 

EK. E. N. 


FAMINE. See Pauzstine, § 20. 


FAN, FANNER: The Heb. word (zGradh) ren- 
dered ‘to fan’ (Is 41 16, etc.) means literally ‘to 
scatter.’ The grain was fanned by throwing it up 
with the winnowing shovel and allowing the wind to 
blow away the chaff. The reading ‘fanner’ in Jer 
51 2 (AV) is somewhat doubtful, but the AV is to be 
preferred, cf. RVmg. See also AGRICULTURE, § 7, 


FAR: In the expressions ‘far from thee,’ ‘far 
from me,’ ‘far be it,’ the word ‘far’ represents: (1) 
The Heb. halilah which expresses the idea of religious 
abhorrence, 7.e., it would be considered a profana- 
tion to do so and so. In many cases the AV 
translated the same Heb. expression by ‘God for- 
bid,’ which the RV has changed (cf. Gn 447, 17; Jos 
22 29, 2416; 1 S 12 23, 14 45, 20 2; Job 27 5). (2) The 
Gr. YAews cor (Mt 16 22), ‘propitious’ or ‘merciful to 
thee,’ i.e.. ‘God be merciful to thee and avert it.’ 
See aso Forsip. EK. E. N. 


FARE. See Suips anp NaviaatIon, § 1. 
FARE, FAREWELL. See EPISTLE. 
FARTHING. See Money, II. 


FASHION: Behind the occurrences of the word in 
the EV stands a variety of Heb. and Gr. terms. In 
some cases the rendering ‘fashion,’ while not always 
literally exact, well represents the sense of the orig- 
inal term and needs no comment. In the following 
instances the rendering calls for some explanation: 
In Ex 26 30, I K 6 38, Ezk 42 11 the idea is that of a 
‘plan’ (lit., ‘judgment’). In Lk 9 29 it is the ‘ap- 
pearance’ that is meant. The word in Ja 1 11 means 
literally ‘face’; in Mk 2 12 it is simply the adv. ‘thus.’ 
In I Co 7 31, Ph 28 the Gr. cyqpa is comprehensive; 
‘fashion’ only imperfectly expresses its meaning, 
which is ‘the whole external arrangement,’ ‘the 
scheme.’ The same word in verbal form occurs in IT 
Co 11 13, 14, 15, where the RV renders ‘fashion,’ and 
in I P 114. The RV rendering is to be preferred in 
I K 518; Job 109; Ps 189 16; Is 22 11, 44 10; Ac 7 44; 
Ro 12 2; Ph 8 21. E. E. N. 

FAST, FASTING: In the O T, tstim, ‘to abstain,’ 
tsdm, ‘abstinence from food,’ are the words com- 
monly used. In Is 58 3, 5 these are parallel to ‘innah 
nephesh, ‘to afflict’ or ‘humble the soul.’ The latter 
expression is the technical term for ‘fasting’ (cf Ps 
35 13, where ‘with fasting’ is added). In the N T 
we have yyotetety, ‘to abstain,’ and vyotela, ‘ab- 
stinence from food.’ Before special communion 


Fast, Fasting 
Fasts and Feasts 





with J’, Moses (Ex 34 28; Dt 99, 18) and Elijah (I K 
19 8) fasted (cf. also what is said of Jesus, Mt 4 2, 
and of Paul, Ac 99); it may be considered as having 
been done in preparation for receiving some great 


revelation. Fasting was also an expression of grief | 


over the death of friends (e.g., over Saul and Jona- 
than, I S 31 13; II S 112). Surprize is expressed 
that David does not fast after the death of his child 
(II S 12 20 #.). Nehemiah fasted in sorrow for the 
condition of Jerusalem (Neh 1 4). Here, however, it 
expressed also the humbling of himself before God, 
because of sin, as in Lv 16 29, 31; Ps 35 13, 69 10, and 
Dn 93. This was preparatory to intercession for for- 
giveness and help, or in hope that God would be 
made favorable in time of especial need (IS 7 6; Is 58 
3, 5; II Ch 203). Ahab humbled himself when Elijah 
threatened evil, and thus averted it from himself 
(I K 21 27 f.); Nineveh was similarly saved (Jon 3 
5 f.). There is no doubt that men thought that 
fasting had a certain magical efficacy in warding off 
evil or in making God favorable. The prophets, 
however, laid emphasis on repentance and the 
humbling of the heart, of which fasting was only the 
outward act or symbol (Jer 14 12; Jl 2 12 £.; Zec 7 5). 
There is a suggestion in Jer 14 12 that the act was an 
offering to J’. Fasting also preceded difficult un- 
dertakings, in order to gain the favor of God (Est 
416; Ezr 8 21). Before the Exile the fasting of indi- 
viduals and nations was for the most part voluntary, 
in connection with some especial need or calamity. 
The only command to fast in the Law is in connec- 
tion with the Day of Atonement (Lv 16 29, 31, 23 27, 
29). After the Exile (Zec 8 19, 7 3, 5) four addi- 
tional yearly fasts were kept on days commemora- 
ting national disasters. (See Fasts anp Fnuasts, 
§ 2, IV; cf. also Est 9 31, where weeping and fasting 
are connected with the Purim feast.) In connection 
with fasting we find the rending of garments (I K 21 
27; Jl 2 13), and the use of sackcloth and ashes (Is 
58 5). No work was permitted on the appointed 
fast-days. Ordinarily the fast was from sunrise to 
sunset (II S 1 12); but the Day of Atonement lasted 
from evening to evening. If a fast extended over 
several days, men abstained from food during the 
day only. Public fasts were proclaimed (I K 21 9; 
Ezr 8 21) and sanctified (J1 1 14, 215). Fasting was 
not allowed on the Sabbath and regular feast-days. 
The near approach of the Messianic era would make 
fasting unsuitable (Zec 7 3, 5). In the N T there is 
evidence that fasting was common among the Jews 
(cf. Lk 18 12). Jesus, like the prophets, laid em- 
phasis upon the inner meaning of the outward act 
(Mt 6 16, 18), and recognized that it was a sign of sor- 
ow (Mt 9 14, 15). In Mk 9 29, Mt 17 21, and I Co75 
‘with fasting’ is a gloss. Cubs 


FASTS AND FEASTS. 1. Terms Used. The Heb. 
uses two words for ‘feast,’ hagh (7) and md‘édh 
(1¥1), often rendered solemn feast. Thelatteristhe 
more comprehensive, as it conveys the idea of set 
time, while the former prescribes in a measure the 
mode of observance. Another later term, holy 
convocation (YIP SIP), embodies the notion of 
form and ceremonial. The hagh was a pilgrimage 
feast; the same word is used in Arabic to-day of 
the pilgrimage to Mecca. Originally it may have 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


262 





described the festal procession, or even the dance, 
at the shrine, andthe word occurs in this sense in Ps 
42 4, tho ‘to observe a hagh’ meant ‘to visit the sanc- 
tuary (Ex 23 14-17). In early literature no precise 
dating is given for any of the sacred seasons. This 
was partly due to the fact tha’ the harvest varied 
greatly in different parts of the land. The moon also, 
being the chronometer (cf. Ps 104 19), introduced an 
inconstant element. 


2. The Sacred Calendar. The calendar of sacred 
seasons, according to the present form of the Penta- 
teuch, was as follows: I. Weekly and monthly 
festivals. (1) Sabbaths. (2) New Moons, each with 
a prescribed and elaborate ritual. II. Annual 
festivals. (1) Passover (pesah), observed on the 14th 
of the first month, called Nisan, or earlier, Abib. 
(2) Unleavened Bread (matstsdth), beginning on the 
15th of the month Abib and continuing 7 days 
(Ex 23 15, 34 18). (3) Weeks, or Harvest (qdisir), or 
Pentecost. (4) Trumpets, or New-year’s day, ob- 
served on the Ist of the 7th month, Tishri. (5) The 
Day of Atonement, observed on the 10th of 
the 7th month. (6) Tabernacles, or Booths (sukkdth) 
or Ingathering (’dstph), observed on the 15th of the 
7th month, originally a seven-day feast, later ex- 
tended to eight days, the 8th day being called Sh-- 
mini ‘dtsereth. The ritual for these seasons is given 
at length in Ex ch. 12; Lv chs. 16, 23; Nu chs. 28, 
29; Dt. ch. 16. III. Cyclic festivals. (1) The Sab- 
batical year, every 7th year to be observed, land to 
lie fallow, slaves to go free, debts to be released. 
(2) Jubilee, wherein country property reverted to 
the original owners and Hebrew slaves were ipso 
facto manumitted (Lv ch. 25). IV. Lesser festivals 
not prescribed in the Law. (1) Purim, celebrated on 
the 14th and 15th of Adar (March), in memory of 
the deliverance of the Jews from Haman’s plot (see 
EstHer, Book or, § 6). (2) The Feast of the 
Dedication (Jn 10 22), established by Judas Macca- 
beus on the 25th of Chislev (Dec.-Jan.) 165 B.c., 
to commemorate the reconsecration of the Temple, 
desecrated just 3 years before by pagan sacrifices 
(1 Mac 4 41-61, II Mac 101-8). The Feast was cele- 
brated 8 days. Ps ch. 30 (cf. the title) was read as a 
part of the ritual. (3) The Feast of Rejoicing for the 
Law, on the completion of the annual reading of 
the 54 Parashahs or ‘Lesson-sections’ of the Penta- 
teuch, followed Tabernacles on the 28rd of Tishri. 
(4) Fast-days: (a) for the capture of Jerusalem 
by the Chaldeans on the 9th of the 4th month 
(Jer 39 2). (b) For the burning of the city and 
Temple on the 7th of the 5th month (II K 25 8 f.). 
The capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of 
the Temple by Titus, which occurred in the 4th 
and 5th months respectively, gave a new significance 
to these anniversaries. (c) For the assassination of 
Gedaliah in the 7th month (Jer 411 f.; II K 25 25; 
Zee 7 5). (d) For the beginning of the siege of 
Jerusalem on the 10th day of the 10th month (II K 
25 1; Jer 52 4; cf. also Zec 8 19). (5) The Feast of 
Wood-offering, on the 15th of Ab, when wood was 
brought and stored for the perpetual altar-fires (Jos. 
BJ, 11 17 6; ef. Neh 10 34, 13 31). (6) Nicanor’s Day, 
in commemoration of the victory of Judas Macca- 
beus over Nicanor, 160 B.c., on the 13th of Adar 


263 A NEW STANDARD 


(March) (I Mac 7 49). (7) The Feast of the Re- 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Fast, Fasting 
Fasts and Feasts 


some time must have been added to the year to raise 


covered City, in memory of the recapture of the 
Acra on the 23rd of the 2nd month, 141 B.c. (I Mac 
13 50-52). 

Other festivals of a more local or pupular char- 
acter, like Sheep-shearing (I S 25 4; II S 13 23), 
were common at different periods. 

3. The Festivals in the Codes. The difficulties 
felt by every reader when studying the festal regula- 
tions are real and insoluble upon the theory of a 
nearly simultaneous origin of the entire legislation; 
but many obscurities disappear with the recognition 
that 4 (5) law codes of different dates exist in Ex- 
Di and Ezk. The four Pentateuchal festal rescripts 
and Ezekiel’s ordinal arranged chronologically are 
as follows: (1) Ex 34 18 ff. (J) and Ex 23 10-19; cf. 21 
2-7 (Book of the Covenant [E]); (2) Dt 151-6, 12-18 and 
16; (3) Ly 23 9-11, 14-182, 39-43 (Holiness Code); (4) 
Ezk 45 18 ff. and portions of 46; (5) Lv 16 1-34, 23 
4-8, 21-23, 33-38, 44; Nu chs. 28, 29 (P). Lv. ch. 25 
has much material common to (3) and (5). There is 
a noticeable advance in these five codes from 
simplicity to elaborateness of ceremonial. 


4, The Festivals in the History. Tho bulking so 
largely in the legislation, the feasts are seldom 
mentioned in the history. The great feasts of 
Solomon (I K 8 65), Hezekiah (II Ch 30 23), Josiah 
(II K 23 21; II Ch ch. 35), Ezra (Ezr 6 19-22), and 
Nehemiah (Neh ch. 8), when the Law was promulgat- 
ed, are extraordinary events. The testimony of the 
prophets is much more impressive. The pilgrimage 
feasts of N. Israel with their extravagant and tumul- 
tuous ritual were revolting to Amos. Hosea de- 
scribes them as a part of the very web of national 
life, but more a tribute to Baal than to J’’. Isaiah 
also was acquainted with a gorgeous ritual and a 
festal cycle (Is chs. 1 and 29). 


5. Origin and Development of the Feasts. 
Legislation was the crystallization of usage, and the 
finished product in Nu chs. 28, 29 betrays but a few 
traces of its origin. Yet a comparison of early 
legislation and practise with various Semitic customs 
will reveal much of interest. Two cycles, a lunar and 
a solar, are combined in the Jewish Sacred Year, and 
two stages of national life are thereby revealed. The 
moon is the patron of the shepherd, as the sun is of 
the farmer. The latter has its seasons more ac- 
curately dated and divided, but the moon is after all 
the most convenient chronometer. A nomad people 
-earried their system of New Moon, Sabbaths, and 
Passover over into Palestine. There they met with 
festal celebrations of harvest and vintage, which 
must have varied with locality and climatic condi- 
tions. These indigenous agricultural festivals were 
coordinated with the lunar feasts of a conquering 
race, and the former in time came to be dated 
accurately in terms of the latter. With this gradual 
assimilation a change took place in the calendar. The 
year probably at first was divided roughly into semi- 
annual periods, each marked by a celebration on its 
first New Moon, and began with what was after- 
ward the 7th month, whose Full Moon festival was 
‘the feast.’ The Exile introduced many changes. 
New-year was transferred to the Passover month 
(conformably to Babylonian custom). Ten days at 


it from a lunar (3855 days) to a solar year. The old 
lst month—now become the 7th—was invested 
with peculiar sacredness, and its New Moon, through 
the Feast of Trumpets, was the most honored of the 
12. Days of Atonement seem once to have existed 
on the Ist of the Ist and 7th months respectively 
(Ezk 45 18, 20; in ver. 20 we should read ‘7th month, 
new moon’). These particular days, by some rec- 
tification of the calendar, necessitated probably by 
wrong intercalation in this process of change, fell 
according to later usage on the 10th; consequently, 
we find that on the 10th of Nisan a lamb was to be 
chosen, which became now the Paschal Lamb (Ex ch. 
12), and on the 10th of the 7th month occurs the only 
Day of Atonement recognized by P. On the 10th of 
the 7th month also, Jubilee was to be proclaimed, a 
provision hard to understand except on the theory 
that this was the old New-year’s day. Ezekiel seems 
to have lived at the time of transition from the old to 
the new style. The Sabbatical year and Jubilee 
were but priestly extensions of the festal system, 
tho doubtless both had some existence in early 
custom (Ex 21 2-7; Dt 15 1-6; Jer 34 13 £; Ezk 46 17). 
As ritual develops, feasts originally nomadic, agri- 
cultural, andastronomicalacquire historical elements. 
Certain seasons of the Sacred Year require a some- 
what extended treatment. 

6. New Moon and Sabbath. In preexilic litera- 
ture New Moon and Sabbath regularly are associated 
(II K 4 23; Is 113; Hos 211; Am 85). By Is and Hos 
the observance of both days is disparaged. This 
fact, combined with strong etymological evidence, 
indicates that the Sabbath was originally the Full 
Moon, an old Semitic feast, and that both the lunar 
feasts were accompanied by practises displeasing to 
the prophets. Near the time of the Exile the name 
‘Sabbath’ seems to have been transferred from the 
Full Moon to the Seventh Day, which already was 
observed as a rest day (Ex 34 21 [J], 23 12 [E]}). 
Observance of the weekly Sabbath then became one 
of the strongest religious features of Judaism. The 
New Moon, too, continued to be recognized in the 
religious calendar. Ezekiel provided for New 
Moon feasts with elaborate sacrifices (Ezk 46 6 ff.). 
P (Nu 28 11 ff.) gives a precise ordinal and especially 
distinguishes the New Moon of the 7th month (Nu 
291f.). Associated with the Sabbath, the lunar feast 
survived to N T times (Col 2 16). 

7. The Passover. (1) The Name. The root pdsah 
(NOS) occurs in several passages in the sense of a 
peculiar limping movement which denotes a festal 
dance (I K 18 26), or lameness (Gn 32 31), hence 
pesah (NOP, Gr. n&cya, rendered Easter in Ac 12 4 
AV) has been explained as a feast celebrated with 
peculiar dances; cf. 17, § 1, above; but its derivation 
from aword cognate with the Assyrian pasahu, ‘to pro- 
pitiate, is more probable, and weshould seek its ex- 
planation therefore in the blood-rite of Ex 12 7, 
22 f. The later conception and the English trans- 
lation embody another notion—probably etymo- 
logically incorrect—that of the passing (leaping) 
over the houses of the Israelites on the night before 
the Exodus. Ex 12 23 is sometimes understood to 
mean that J’ was to pass over the threshold into 


Fasts and Feast 
Fear 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


264 





the house to protect, but 12 13 evidently implies 
that J’’ passed by the blood-marked houses. (2) 
Theories of Origin. P. was strictly a family feast, 
celebrated in the household (note the exception in Dt 
16 5f.). The father presided, and the lamb always 
possessed a sacrificial character (Nu 97, 13). It pre- 
served, therefore, the memory of clan and nomad life, 
and was the festival of a pastoral people. The victim 
was to be from the flock (or the herd, Dt 16 2; ef. 
Ezk 45 22). The date in the later legislation is the 
14th of Nisan, the day of the full moon. There is no 
evidence that P. was a sacrifice of firstlings, the regu- 
lation in Ex 12 5 being that the lamb shall be a year- 
ling. The firstling law was independent of P. P., 
New Moon, and Sabbath appear to belong to the 
same cycle of observances and, like the New Moon, 
P. is not mentioned in the Book of the Covenant, nor 
in Ex 34 18-24 (the reference in ver. 25 is incidental). A 
7th day rest-period is the only moon-feast definitely 
recognized in this stratum of the legislation. One 
phase of the struggle to suppress or reconstruct the 
feasts of the lunar cycle appears in Dt, where P. is to 
be celebrated at the central sanctuary and not in the 
home; but later the old custom was restored (Ex 12 
3 ff. [P]), and has been continued ever since. ‘Be- 
tween the evenings’ (Ex 12 6) has been variously 
rendered, the usual interpretation being ‘between 
sunset and dark.’ But, as the feast was nocturnal, 
the ‘evenings’ may be those of the 14th and 15th, 
or the phrase may mean in ‘the middle of the night.’ 
(3) Combination with Unleavened Bread. In all 
the codes we find somewhat extensive provision for 
the feast of matstsdth, or Unleavened Bread, ap- 
pointed for the 15th Abib (z.e., Nisan), and to be 
kept 7 days. In the Book of the Covenant and in 
Ex 34 18-21 this feast and not P. is mentioned in the 
cycle of agricultural observances, and coordinated 
with the other two harvest feasts. In Dt we find 
the word ‘Passover’ somewhat loosely applied to 
the whole period beginning with P. itself. The 
worshiper returns home on the morning of the 15th 
Abib, and celebrates Unleavened Bread there. The 
7th day of Unleavened Bread is to be kept with a 
solemn assembly. Here two things seem evident: 
(a) there has been a concession to popular feeling in 
giving an ecclesiastical standing to P., and (b) the 
feast of Unleavened Bread overshadows it. In Ezk 
45 21 also, the feast is called ‘Passover.’ It is to 
begin on the 14th of the month and to continue 7 
days with the use of unleavened bread. Sacrifices 
are provided for each day and a bullock for a sin- 
offering on the Ist day. This requirement keeps the 
agrarian idea prominent, while P. has given its name 
to the entire period. Unleavened Bread celebrated 
the beginning of the grain harvest. At some point 
in its progress, which none of the existing data en- 
ables us to fix, a sheaf of the first-fruits was to be 
waved before J’”” (Lv 23 11). This took place at the 
beginning of the period which 50 days later cul- 
minated in the Feast of Weeks (Pentecost in the 
N T). The entire 7 weeks was a festal season; prob- 
ably therefore the 7 days of Unleavened Bread began 
a festivity which terminated with Pentecost, and 
this 8th day found a counterpart later in the 8th day 
of Tabernacles. Ezekiel omits Pentecost from his 


calendar, which would indicate a tendency to ignore 
the agrarian origin of the feasts. Undoubtedly since 
the old agricultural feasts were dated with reference 
to the moon, namely, at the full moons, P. and Un- 
leavened Bread were brought together. Yet they 
are carefully distinguished, and tho the name 
‘Passover’ is applied to both, it is quite clear that 
Unleavened Bread did not begin until the morning 
of the 15th. Since Unleavened Bread was a festival 
of first-fruits it suggested a like significance for P.; 


consequently, the firstling law was closely connected — 


with that of P. The combined feast is appropriate to 
the spring month. The legislation calls this double 
feast a memorial, a ‘night of observances’ (shimmt- 
rim, Ex 12 42), but this was an added idea which, 
however, deepened the religious significance of all 
the rites. (4) The Ordinal. The following passages 
are given in the generally accepted chronological 
order of the Codes: Passover, Ex 12, 21-27, 34 25b (J); 
Dt 16 1-7; Ezk 45 21; Ex 12 1-13. 43-50; Lv 23 5; Nu 
9 1-14, 28 16 (P). Unleavened Bread, Ex 13 3-10, 
34 18 (J), 23 15 (E) ; Dt 16 3; Ezk 45 21 £.; Lv 23 9-14. 
(the wave-sheaf), Holiness Code (H); Lv 23 6-8; 
Ex 12 14-20; Nu 28 17-25 (P). Ex chs. 12 and 13 isa 
fundamental passage for both feasts. Certain differ- 
ences in the ordinal should be noticed. (a) The 
month in the earlier law is called ‘Abib,’ in the later 
law ‘the first month,’ or ‘Nisan.’ (b) The memorial 
idea is found as early as the Book of the Covenant. 
(c) Dt brings in the new provision that P. shall 
be observed at the central sanctuary, and Un- 
leavened Bread at home. (d) The Passover animal 
in Dt is from the flock, or the herd, and is to be 
boiled; in the later law it is to be from the sheep, 
or the goats, and must be roasted. Ezk, however, 
commands the use of a bullock. (e) In H there is 
no mention whatever of either feast, altho the 
ceremony of the wave-sheaf may imply an original 
matstsoth law. (f) In Lev 23 6-8 the double feast has 
become one of the holy convocations with fire offer- 
ings to J’’ during the week. In Nu 28 17-25 an elab- 
orate ritual appears, part of which includes a sin- 
offering. Thus we see that the old joyous agrarian 
character of the feast has disappeared, leaving but 
few traces behind. (5) Historical Celebration. The 
Samaritans have preserved in many respects the 
ancient features of the celebration; since it is certain 
that their present ritual has been kept rigidly pure 
from later excrescences, retaining even the ancient 
features of the sprinkling of blood and of eating 
with signs of haste which were omitted from the 
later Jewish ritual. In some respects they are 
nearer the provisions of Dt than of P, for they 
come together at the appointed time on the summit 
of Mt. Gerizim, and under the superintendence of the 
chief priests slay the lambs and eat them in a family 
meal during the night of the 14th. Their feast fur- 
nished the most perfect example of an ancient Se- 
mitic rite. There are other notices of the celebration 
of P., e.g., that at Gilgal (Jos 5 10 f.), and the one 
mentioned in Ezr 6 19-22. The greatest celebration in 
preexilic history occurred in the 18th year of King 
Josiah, following the discovery of the Book of the 
Law (II K 23 21 f#.). A most interesting reference to 
P. and Unleavened Bread has recently come to light 





265 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Fasts and Feasts 
Fear 





among the Aramaic Papyri discovered at Elephan- 
tine in Upper Egypt. It is a direction or command, 
dated in the 5th year of Darius IT (419 s.c.), and in 
his name to the heads of the Jewish garrison at 
Elephantine that the P. and Unleavened Bread be 
observed and according to certain specific directions 
which are laid down (cf. Cowley, Aram. Pap. of the 
Fifth Cent. B.C. [1923] pp. xxiv f. and 60 ff.). II Ch 
ch. 35 expands this account, and is interesting as illus- 
trating the mode of procedure inthe tiine oftheChron- 
icler, whose ordinal js noteworthy for being that of 
Dt rather than of P. In the N T, P.isseveral timesre- 
ferred to, the name of course applying to the whole 
period of 7 days. There are some features of the later 
usage important to notice: At the time of Christ, P. 
was a family feast, altho the lamb seems to have been 
slain according to Levitical rules. The drinking of 
4 cups of wine seems to have been prescribed. After 
the first cup, the eldest son asked the meaning of the 
rite and the father recited the Exodus history, after 
which Pss 113 and 114 were sung. Then followed 
another cup, then the feast proper, then a third cup 
(cf. Lk 22 20), then a fourth, after which Pss 115-118 
were sung (Mt 26 30; Mk 14 26). A day of Prepara- 
tion is mentioned in Mt 27 62; Mk 15 42; Lk 23 54, 
by which the synoptists seem to mean a preparation 
for the Sabbath, and it is fair to interpret Jn 19 14 as 
meaning that it was the preparation for the Passover 
Sabbath and, therefore, a great day. 


8. Tabernacles. The ordinal for the Feast of 
Tabernacles occurs in Ex 34 22 (J), 23 16 (EK); Dt 
16 13-15; Exzk 45 25; Lv 23 39-43 (H), 33-36; Nu 29 12-38 
(P). In the Law it is called Ingathering (dstph), 
and Booths (sukkéth). In H and Ezk it is called 
‘the Feast.’ Dt and H prescribe 7 days, P adds an 
8th, probably the last great day (cf. Jn 7 37 ff.), with 
a special ritual. T. is to be kept at the year’s 
‘revolution,’ t¢qiuphah, Ex 34 22b), a word peculiar to 
this feast (cf. Is 29 1), or at the close of the year 
(Ex 23 16), and the Law was to be read every 7th 
year (Dt 3110). Its final and definite dating was on 
the full moon of what was once undoubtedly the Ist 
month. The oldest attested historical feast of the 
Jewish year, it is probably described in Jg 9 27 ff., 
21 19, and I S ch. 1, and antedated the Israelite 
occupation. Traces of its observance still survive. 
Fires are kindled on the slopes of Lebanon at the 
present day upon a date which approximately cor- 
responds to this autumn festival. The joyous charac- 
ter, which in early times must have been almost 
bacchanalian (Is 9 3; cf. Hos 9 1-5), was never 
entirely lost, but prophetic and priestly agencies 
gradually reformed the practise and made T. the 
greatest of the Hebrew feasts (Zec 14 16). The 
Temple was dedicated at this season (I K 8 65 £.; II 
Ch 7 8-10; note the divergencies). Jeroboam insti- 
tuted a like feast in the 8th month (I K 12 32). The 
celebration in Neh ch. 8 follows Lv 23 39-43. To the 
later extracanonical ritual belonged the lighting of 
candies and water libation (see Jn 7 37 f., 8 12). 


9. The Day of Atonement. Much space is given 
to this fast in Lv 16 1-34, 23 26-32; Nu 297-11. Its 
germ seems to be found in Ezk 45 18-20, but no public 
observance can be traced prior to 444 B.c. Neh chs. 
8-10 concern the 7th month of that year, but men- 


tion no such fast. The Day of A. represents, how- 

ever, the culmination of the Jewish expiatory cere- 

monial, and the ideal expression of Israel’s religion, 
and as such supplied the writer of Hebrews with 
some of his most striking typology. 

In conclusion, it is important to observe that, 
under the transforming genius of Israel’s religious 
teachers, these feasts became the medium of ex- 
pression for the people’s gratitude to J’’, and the 
memories of his grace, which quickened their sense 
of unworthiness. Only a narrow view would insist 
that a people could put no more into a form of wor- 
ship than existed in the crude period of inexperienced 
childhood, for this would deny to growing spiritual 
consciousness that larger expression which maturity 
demands. 

LirERATURE: C. F. Kent, Israel’s Laws and Legal Precedents 
(1907); Carpenter and Battersby, The Composition of the 
Hexateuch (1902); Chapman, Int. to the Pentateuch (1911); 
W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites (1888-89); H. C. 
Trumbull, The Blood Covenant (1885), and The Threshold 
Covenant (1896); on the Sabbath, JBL, 33, 201-212; Driver 
on Ex (Camb. Bible, 1911) and on Dt (JCC); Gray on 
Numbers (ICC); G. A. Smith on Dt (Camb. Bible, 1918); 
and articles in the larger Biblical Encyclopedias and 
Dictionaries. C.zA—O. R. S 
FAT. See SacriFice AND OFFERINGS, 

and VINES AND VINTAGE, § 1. 


FATHER, FATHERS. See Faminty anp Fam- 
ry Law, § 4; AB, Api; and ABBA. 


FATHERLESS. See Famity anv Famity Law, § 6. 
FATHOM. See WeEicuts AND Mrasurss, § 2. 


FATLINGS: Cattle fattened for slaughter (cf. Lk 
15 23, ‘fatted calf’), especially for sacrifice. InIS 
159 the Heb. means literally ‘second’ but is probably 
a scribal error for the proper word for ‘fatlings’. 
Cattle were fattened by withdrawing them from the 
open pasture and keeping them in the stall (cf. Am 
6 4). See Foon, § 10. E. E. N. 


FAVOR: ‘To find favor’ is ‘to please,’ ‘to show 
favor’ is ‘to be pleased.’ At times the Heb. has 
the sense of ‘grace,’ in the LXX. often having yéers 
as its equivalent. In the N T it is 6 times the 
translation of yéers. 10, hén, and other derivatives 
of 12) are the Heb. words most frequently translated 
by ‘favor.’ The noun occurs commonly in the ex- 
pressions ‘to find’ or ‘to give favor in the eyes of’ 
some one (of man, Gn 30 27; Ex 11 3; of God, Gn 18 3; 
Nu 11 11, 15). Eight other Heb. roots, implying 
‘kindness,’ ‘acceptance,’ ‘good-will,’ ‘pity,’ are 
translated by ‘favor.’ |], rdtsén, ‘good-will,’ 
is used 15 times, and in passages implying perhaps 
more especially the help of God (Ps 5 12, 30 5, 89 17, 
106 4). 0°28, panim, ‘face,’ is used 4 times (Ps 
45 12, 119 58; Pr 196 29, 26). The adjectives ‘well’ 
and ‘ill-favored’ (Gn 29 17, 39 6, 41 2, 4, 18; Dn 1 4), 


§§ 8, 10; 


- referring to the personal appearance as pleasing, are 
translations of yapheh, ’beautiful,’ and ra‘, ‘evil,’ 


‘bad.’ ieee 


FEAR: The term ‘fear’ occurs both in its com- 
mon signification as a feeling of apprehension and 
in a narrower religious sense. In the former sense, 
it is not distinctive. One may fear a fellow man, or 
he may fear dangers and harmful powers in nature 
(Ps 31 11, 641; Jer 6 25, 46 5, ‘terror’ RV). Asa re- 


Feast, Feasting 
Fire 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


266 


a 


ligious feeling, fear assumes a great variety of forms 
according to the degree of vividness in which the 
apprehension of God’s personality enters into it. 
The very essence of religion is a form of fear produced 
by the realization of the being and nature of God. 
‘The fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom’ 
(Ps 111 10; Pr 9 10); but this is a form of emotion 
more properly called ‘awe’ or ‘reverence.’ It grows 
from the contemplation of what God is, and not of 
what He may do to one as an individual. Fear is 
thus tantamount to religion. Jacob swears to 
Laban by the ‘Fear of his father Isaac’ (Gn 31 53), 
which would appear to be either a method of avoid- 
ing the use of the Divine name or a metonymic use 
of the name of the emotion proper before God for 
the name of God Himself. To fear God is to wor- 
ship Him (Job 11); but this noble form of fear may 
degenerate as the true, nature of God is less and less 
clearly understood, into a paralyzing sense of terror. 
This is discouraged and held up as something to be 
overcome and expelled from the heart (Ezk 2 1; 
I Jn 4 18). A. C. Z. 


FEAST, FEASTING. See in general Fasts AND 
Feasts; and Foop; also see Mra.s, § 3. 


FEAST, SET. See Fasts anp Feasts, § 1. 
FEAST, SOLEMN. See Fasts anp Frasts, § 1. 


FEAST OF THE DEDICATION. See Fasts 
AND Frasts, § 2, iv. 


FEATHERS: For the occurrence of the word in 
Job 39 13 AV, cf. the correct rendering of the RV. 
For the word as used of God in a figurative sense 
see Gop, § 2. 


FEET. See Foor. 


FEET, DISEASES OF. See DIsrasz aNnpD 
MEDICINE, § 6. 


FELIX (®2:&): Antonius Felix, a freedman of the 
imperial family, brother of Pallas, the favorite of 
Nero, was appointed procurator of Judea at the re- 
quest of the high priest Jonathan probably in 52 
A.D. Tho a freedman, he was given a procurator- 
ship with military command, ‘an unheard-of novel- 
ty.’ Both Josephus and Tacitus imply that Felix 
exercised some authority in Palestine before his ap- 
pointment as Cumanus’ successor, but their state- 
ments do not agree in details. Felix’ predecessor 
Cumanus by his misgovernment left for Felix a dis- 
turbed province, which Felix in turn transmitted 
to Festus in a much worse condition; for ‘with all 
manner of cruelty and lust he exercised royal func- 
tions in the spirit of a slave’ (Tacitus). He was 
married three times, each time to a woman of royal 
lineage, his last wife being the Jewess Drusilla, 
daughter of Agrippa I, whom he unscrupulously 
persuaded to desert her husband and further to 
defy Jewish law by marrying him, tho he had not 
become a Jew. Under the severity of his régime 
disturbances increased; the Zealots became aggres- 
sive, a band of secret assassins known as the Sicarii 
terrorized Jerusalem, and a fanatical outbreak, led 
by an Egyptian Jew (Ac 21 38), was crushed relent- 
lessly. During the last two years of Felix’ rule, 
while Paul was a prisoner in Caesarea (Ac 23 24- 
24 27), a conflict arose between the Jews and Syrians 


of that place, which was referred to Rome for deci- 
sion. Felix was recalled, but was acquitted, perhaps 
through the influence of Pallas. See Jos. Ant. 
XX 7 1-2 8 5-8; BJ II 12.8, 13 3-5; Tacitus, Annals 
XII. 54; History V, 9, Suetonius, Claudius, 28. 

R.. Av Bown Ee aN, 


FELLOW: Besides meaning ‘man’ (ish, I S 29 4 
AV, and ’énésh, Jg 18 25), ‘fellow’ in the O T rep- 
resents (1) ‘companion’ (habhér, Ps 45 7), (2) ‘com- 
patriot’ (‘dmith, Zec 13 7), (8) ‘fellow-countryman,’ 
‘friend’ (réa‘, Ex 213; Jg 713 f.;1S 14 20). Inthe 
N T often for (4) ‘this one’ (ottos, used contemp- 
tously, e.g., Mt 26 61, AV; Lk 22 59 AV), (5) ‘man’ 
(avne, e.g., the ‘loafers’ in the market-place, Ac 17 
5), (6) ‘partner’ (uétoxoc, He 19 [from Ps 45 7]), (7) 
‘comrade’ (&tepoc, Mt 11 16). S. D.—M. W. J. 


FELLOW-CITIZEN, -HEIR, -MEMBER, -PAR- 
TAKER. See Kinapom or Gop, § 8f 


FELLOW - DISCIPLE, -ELDER, -HELPER, 
-LABORER, -PRISONER, -SERVANT, -SOL- 
DIER, -WORKER, YOKE-FELLOW. See Cuurcu 
§§ 2 and 9. 


FELLOWSHIP: This term represents (1) in Lv 
6 2 AV the Heb ¢t¢stimeth yadh, 1.e., ‘something placed 
in the hands,’ meaning a ‘deposit’ or ‘bargain’ 
(So RV) (2) ‘joint participation’ (uetoxn, IT Co 
6 14), (3) most frequently ‘communion,’ ‘commun- 
ity of possession’ (xotvwviz), where the emphasis 
is not so much on the personal relationship as on the 
sphere of it; 7.e., on the thing which is shared, the 
object of the common interest (e.g., I Co 19; II Co 
8 4; Gal 29; Ph 310; I Jn 13.) See CourcH AND 
ORGANIZATION, § 2. S. D.—M. W. J. 


FELLOWSHIP WITH, TO HAVE: This phrase 
signifies (1) ‘to be joined in alliance with’ (habhar, 
Ps 94 20), (2) ‘to become partaker with’ (xotvwyd¢ 
ylvecbar, I Co 10 20), (3) ‘to be joint partaker 
with’ (cvyxorvwvetv, Eph 5 11; Ph 4 14 ‘communi- 
cate’ AV; Rev 18 4). See also Communion and 
CoMMUNICATE. S. D.—M. W. J. 


FENCED, FENCED CITY. See Cry, § 3. 


FERRET: One of the list of unclean animals in 
Lv 11 30 AV. See Pawesring, § 24. 


FERRY-BOAT: The one occurrence of this word 
(II S 19 18) rests upon a doubtful Heb. text. It 
is likely that a verb instead of a noun should be 
read meaning either ‘and they crossed the ford to 
bring over the king’ or ‘and they did the service 
of bringing over the king ’(cf. Bib. Heb. ed. Kittel, 
in loc.). E. E. N. 


FESTIVAL. See in general Fasts anp Frasts. 


FESTUS (@fo10¢): Porcius Festus, a member of 
the Porcian gens, was appointed by Nero procurator 
of Judea in succession to Felix. He was apparently 
a man of good character, but entered on a governor- 
ship involved in difficulties, largely owing to the mis- 
management of Felix. Apart from the N T and 
Josephus nothing is known of him. Owing to his 
relations with Paul, the date of his accession is im- 
portant for N T chronology (Ac chs. 25, 26). Some 
scholars assign Festus’ accession to 55 or 56 A.D., 
following the Eusebian Chronicle, which, however, 
is untrustworthy, and relying also on the statement 


267 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Feast, Feasting 
Fire 





of Josephus that the influence of Pallas with Nero 
saved his brother Felix when the Jews appealed 
against him to Rome. The fact that Pallas fell into 
disfavor early in the reign of Nero appears also to 
support this date. But he may have recovered his 
influence, or Josephus may be in error, and thus the 
way is open for a later date. Albinus succeeded 
Festus, after a few months’ interval, not later than 
62 a.p., and the governorship of Festus was short. 
On the whole, 58 a.p. seems the most probable date 
on which his procuratorship began. See New TrEsra- 
MENT CHRONOLOGY. R. A. F.—E. E. N. 


FETTER. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, § 
3 (b). 
FEVER. See Dismase AnD MepIcIng, § 4 (1). 


FIELD: Of the numerous terms rendered ‘field,’ 
the most commonly used are sddheh and sddhay; 
which usually designate (a) the wild uncultivated 
land, in contrast to that which is more thickly in- 
habited or worked (cf. Gn 25 27, etc.), or (b) the open 
country, in contrast to the enclosed city or town 
(cf. Dt 211, etc.) The same term is also used in a 
more restricted sense for (c) the territory belonging 
to a particular tribe or people (e.g., Gn 36 35; cf. 147 
RVmg., etc.) and (d) particular localities, as ‘the 
fuller’s field’ (Is 7 3), etc. Other terms more rarely 
used are :(1) hits,‘a place outside’ (Job 5 10; Pr 8 
26); (2) helgah, ‘portion’ or ‘lot’ (II S 14 30); (3) she- 
dhémah, cultivated portions, as vineyards, etc. (Dt 
32 32; Is 16 8; II K 23 4; Jer 31 40; Hab 3 17); (4) bar 
(Aram.), ‘open country’ (Dn 2 38, 4 12-32); (5) &ye6c 
(Mt 6 28, etc.), with the same sense as (b) above; (6) 
xoea (Jn 4 35; Ja 5 4), the same as (8) above; (7) 
ywetoy (Ac 1 18 f.), like (d) above. See also Acri- 
CULTURE, §§ 2-4. E. E. N. 


FIERY HEAT. See Disnass, § 4 (1). 


FIERY SERPENT: A serpent whose bite was 
especially painful and poisonous (Nu 21 6). See 
PALESTINE, § 26; and SrERAPHIM. 


FIG, FIG-TREE. See Paxsting, § 23; Foon, 
§ 5; and Disnasz AND MepiIcIng, § 8. 


FIGHT. See WarFARE. 


FIGURE: In Dt 4 16 the word translated ‘figure’ 
means a ‘statue’ or ‘image’ of a deity (cf. Driver, 
ICC in loc.). In I K 6 29 the Heb. word means 
‘carvings.’ In Is 44 13 the idea is that of the ‘build’ 
ofaman. In Ac 7 43, Rom 5 14 the Gr. is tbo, 
‘type’, in the first instance, in the sense of image, 
in the second, used metaphorically. In He 9 9, 
11 19 the original is tzpaGoA%, ‘parable,’ 7.e., ‘simili- 
tude.’ In He 9 24 the Gr. is dvtltuxa, ‘anti-types,’ 
which occurs also in I P 3 21 (sing). In Lv 261, 
Nu 33 52, Pr 16, Ac 7 44, RV has substituted ‘figure’ 
or figured’ for the less accurate renderings of the 

EK. E. N. 

FILE: The purely conjectural rendering of two 
Heb. words 0°) 17X31], happ*tstrah phim in IS 
1321. Recently the second word 9”8, pim (perhaps 
to be pronounced payam) has been discovered in- 
scribed on a small Heb. weight found near Jerusalem. 
This has led to a new rendering (by E. J. Pilcher) 
of the whole difficult passage, I S 13 20 f. (some 
words being still undetermined) as follows: ‘And 


all Israel went down to the Philistines to forge 
every man his plowshare and his '‘éh, his ax 
and his goad; and the inducement (or payment) 
was a payam for the plowshares and for the ’éthim 
and three qill’shén for the axes and to put a point 
on the goad,’ cf. PEFQ 1914, p.99, and 1916, pp. 
77-85. 


FILLET: A ring or band about the capital of the 
pillars of the Tabernacle, for ornament, or perhaps 
of use in hanging curtains. Both the noun hdshigq 
(Ex 27 10, 11, 36 38, 38 10, etc.) and the verb hdsh- 
aq (Ex 27 17, 38 17, 28), to ‘furnish with fillets,’ occur. 
The fillets on the pillars at the door of the Taber- 
nacle were overlaid with gold, those on the pillars 
of the court with silver. Some interpret ‘fillet’ to 
mean ‘connecting-rods,’ joining the tops of pillars, 
from which curtains were hung. For hut (Jer 52 21, 
‘fillet? AV) RV gives ‘line.’ CASaek. 


FINE. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (c); 
SACRIFICH AND OFFERINGS, § 12; and as applied to 
the refining of metals see ARTIZAN Lirs, § 10 b. 


FINE FLOUR. See SacriricE AND OFFERINGS, 
§ 12; and Foon, § 1. 


FINE LINEN: The words usually rendered 
‘fine linen’ are (a) badh, (b) shésh, and (c) buts. Of 
these (a) means ‘linen,’ as it was the material of cer- 
tain priestly garments. In regard to (b) and (c) 
the evidence (archeological especially) favors ‘linen’ 
rather than ‘cotton’ as the proper rendering; (b) 
is the older term, (c) the later. In Pr 31 22 AV 
renders shésh by ‘silk.’ In Pr716 the Heb. term is of 
uncertain meaning. Cf. RV. See also LINEN. 

K. E. N. 

FINGER: As used of God in an anthropomorphic 
sense, see Gop, § 2. 


FINING POT. See Arrizan Lirs, § 10 b. 
FIR, FIR-TREE. See Pauestinge, § 21. 


FIRE (for this the common Heb. word is ’ésh= 
xode in the N T. Two other Heb. words, ur and 
brah, and two Aramaic, nur and y*gédhah 


[Dn 3 22 £., 7 11] occur a few times): ‘Fire’ was 


used in both a literal and a figurative sense. (1) Ina 
literal sense: (a) of its use for domestic purposes in 
processes of cooking (Ex 12 8, 9; Jn 219), and for 
warmth (Is 44 16; Jer 36 22; Mk 14 54). (b) of cast- 
ing (Ex 32 24), working (Is 44 12), and refining (Jer 
6 29) metals, and, therefore, a symbol of purification 
(Mal 3 2; Mk 9 49) and testing of character (Zec 139; 
Mal 33;1Co313). (c) For burning refuse (Ex 12 10; 
Lv 8 17, 9 11), and infected garments (Lv 13 52). 
(d) It is viewed as a destructive agency in the 
form of lightning (Nu 111, 2, 3; II K 1 10), and in 
war in the burning of cities or property (Jos 6 24, 
7 15; Jg 915; I S 301). Hence it was a figure of 
war (Is 10 17, 26 11; Jer 17 27). (e) As a means of 
punishment of grave offenses (Lv 20 14; Jos 7 15). 
(f) As an important means of offering sacrifices 
unto J’ (Ex 2918; Lv 19). Fire was to be kept con- 
tinuously burning on the altar of burnt-offerings 
(Lv 613), and acceptance of sacrifices was shown by 
the fire of J’’ consuming the offering (Jg 6 21; 1 K 18 
38). It was used in human sacrifice even in Israel (II 
K 16 3, 17 17), tho forbidden (Dt 18 10). Topheth, 
in the Valley of Hinnom, was the place of such 


Firebrand 
Flood 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


268 





sacrifices (Jer 7 31). (2) Symbolic and figurative 
use: (a) Fire accompanied theophanies (Gn 15 17; 
Ex 3 2) and was thus a symbol of God’s protecting 
presence (Ex 13 22; Ps 78 14; Ex 40 38), of His glory 
(Ex 2417; Dn 79), and of His wrath against sin (Dt 
424; Jer 44; Am 56; Ps 89 46). (b) It was a symbol 
of the Holy Spirit (Mt 311; Lk 316; Ac 23). (c) Of 
the punishment of the wicked (Ps 68 2; Is 47 14; Jer 
51 58; Mt 5 22, 18 50; cf. ‘eternal fire,’ Mt 18 8; Mk 
9 48; Jude ver. 7; and ‘lake of fire,’ Rev 19 20). (d) 
Figuratively, sin, trouble, affliction, etc., are likened 
to fire, because of its destructive or purifying nature. 
Cf. also (b) and (d) under (1), above. C.S. T. 


FIREBRAND: (1) ’uédh, a ‘bent stick’ for stir- 
ring fire. InAm4u1, Is7 4, Zec 3 2 it is represented 
as almost consumed. (2) lappidh, a ‘torch,’ made 
of a stick, with some absorbent material saturated 
with oil fastened on one end (Jg 15 4, 5). (8) 2éq 
(in pl.), ‘fire-missiles’ (cf. Pr 2618), or sparks, brands, 
as ‘leaping,’ or ‘springing forth.’ (4) mégédh, a 
‘burning mass’ (Ps 102 3), a figure of J’”’s judgment. 

LOA. Ril bi 


FIREPAN. See Tremp.ie, § 16. 


FIRKIN. A _ liquid measure. 
AND MEASURES, § 3. 


FIRMAMENT. See Cosmogony, § 3. 


FIRST, THE, AND THE LAST. See AupHa 
AND OMEGA. 


FIRST BEGOTTEN. See Jesus Curist, §§ 15 
and 18. 


FIRST-BORN. See Famiuy anp Famiuy Lirs, 
§§ 6, 8; ONLY-BEGOTTEN; and Jesus Curist, §§ 15 
and 18. 


FIRST DAY: In the Priests’ Code the first day of 
a festal season was considered to be specially sig- 
nificant (cf. Lv 23 7, 35, 39 f.; Nu 2818). The ‘first 
day’ of the week in the N T usage (Mk 16 2 and ||s; 
Ac 207; I Co 16 2) means Sunday, which, as the day 
of the week on which Jesus rose from the dead, came 
to have a special significance for Christians, and 
gradually supplanted the Jewish Sabbath (Satur- 
day) as the holy day of the Christian Church. As 
such, it was called ‘the Lord’s Day’ (Rev 1 10; ef. 
Ac 20 7). E. E. N. 

FIRST-FRUITS, FIRSTLINGS. See Sacririce 
4ND OFFERINGS, § 19. 


FISH, FISHING: The waters of N. Palestine es- 
pecially the Sea of Galilee and the streams of the 
Lebanon region abound in fish and from the earliest 
times, fishing must have been carried on extensively 
in those districts and fish must have formed a prin- 
cipal article of diet. The ‘fish-gate’ of Jerusalem 
(q.v.) and the fish-pedlers e.g., of Neh 13 16, are 
sufficient evidence of this. Nevertheless, the refer- 
ences in the Bible to fish and fishing are comparatively 
few. Fish, ddégh, daghdh) were taken with nets, or 
with hooks, or by spearing. The nets used were 
either the drag-net (mikhméreth, Is 19 8; Hab 1 15; 
coayyjvn, Mt 13 47) or the casting-net (herem, Ezk 
26 5, etc.; dueiBAnotepov, Mk 116). The kind of net 
indicated by m*tstidhah (Ec 9 12) is unknown, while 
Sixtuoy, the common term for net in the Gospels, 
is probably generic in meaning (see also Nar). For 


See WEIGHTS 


hooks several terms occur, as hakkah (Job 41 1), 
tsinnah (Am 4 2), str (Am 4 2, here with the addition 
dughah, ‘fishing’), and &yxtoteov (Mt 17 27). In Job 
417 we have the sole O T reference to the fish-spear, 
tsiltsal. In the Law distinction was made between 
clean and unclean fish (Lv 11 9-12; Dt 149f.). For 
the fish of Palestine, see PALESTINE, § 26. For their 
use as food, see Foon, § 8. See also TRADE AND 
CommercgE, § 4. The art. Fish in HB is compre- 
hensive and valuable. HK. KE. N. - 


FISHER’S COAT. See Dress AND ORNA- 
MENTS, § 2 (at the end). 


FISH-GATE. See JERUSALEM, § 38. 
FISH-POOL. See HEesHBON. 


FITCHES: The Heb getsah (Is 28 25-27) appears 
to mean ‘black cummin,’ Nigella sativa, the black, 
bitter seeds of which were used as a condiment (see 
Foon, § 4). In Ezk 49 the RV corrects the AV by 
reading ‘spelt’ instead of ‘fitches.’ 


FIVE. See NumBrers, SACRED AND SYMBOLIC, 
§ 7; and CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (c). 


FLAG. See REED. 


FLAGON: This is the AV rendering of the Heb. 
’ashishah, which means ‘cakes,’ especially cakes of 
pressed grapes (raisins). These were prized as a 
refreshing article of diet (II S 6 19; I Ch 16 3; Song 
2 5), and were also used in the Canaanite cultus- 
rites, so attractive to many Israelites (Hos 31). In 
Is 22 24 the Heb. is nebhel, on which see Borris. 

E. E. N. 


FLASK. See ALABASTER. 


FLAT NOSE. See Disease AND MEDICINE) 
§ 5. 


FLAX (Heb. pésheth [but usually in the pl. pish- 
ttm] and pishtah): In the O T the word is used 
comprehenseively: (1) of the plant (Ex 9 31); (2) of 
the stalks laid out to dry (Jos 2 6); (8) of the fibers 
of the stalks from which linen was made (Pr 31 13; 
Is 19 9; Hos 2 5, 9); (4) of the cords, (Jg 15 14; Ezk 
40 3) or wicks (Is 42 3; cf. Mt 12 20) made of flax; 
and (5) of the finished product, linen, woven from 
flax, of which a variety of articles was made, as gar- 
ments (Lv 13 47 ff.; Dt 22 11; Ezk 44 17 f.), or girdles 
(Jer 13 1). The plant was extensively grown in 
Palestine (cf. Hos 2 5,9), and the method of working 
it up into linen were well known. See also PaLys- 
TINE, § 22; Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 5; ARTIZAN 
Lirg, § 11; and Linrn. E. E. N. 


FLAY, FLAYING. See SacriFIcE AND OFFER- 
INGs, § 16. 


FLEA. PALEsTINE, § 26. 


FLEECE: In Dt 18 4 géz ‘fleece’ means literally 
‘shearing,’ and ‘the shearing of the sheep’ means the 
‘wool,’ the product of the annual sheep-shearing, the 
‘first’ of which was to be given to the priesthood as 
a part of their means of support. The quantity 
covered by the term ‘first’? appears to have been 
left indefinite. See SacririIcE AND OFFERINGS, 
§ 19. 


FLESH, FLESHLY: The word ‘flesh’ in Bib- 
lical usage signifies (1) the whole animate creation on 
earth (e.g., Gn 613). (2) The soft, meaty parts of 


ig pa rete: 








269 


an animal or man (e.g., Lv 411). (3) The body, or 
the surface of the body (e.g., Lv 610; Nu87). (4) 
Human beings (e.g., Job 34 15), often in contrast to 
spiritual beings (e.g., Dn 211), and at times, especially 
in Paul, with emphasis on the moral weakness of 
man that is so closely connected with his bodily 
life. (e.g., Ro 6 19, 7 18; Gal 5 17). Neither by the 
Bible in general nor by Paul in particular is it taught 
that the flesh is inherently sinful, tho this has been 
asserted. See also Man. Doctrine or, §§ 6, 7; and 
Famiy, § 1. K. E. N. 

FLESH-HOOK (md@zlégh and mizldgh, ‘hook’): 
A metal hook with one or more (three in I § 2 13) 
teeth, used for handling large pieces of flesh, espe- 
cially in connection with sacrifices (I S 2 13 f.; Ex 27 
8, 388 3; Nu 414; I Ch 2817; II Ch 416). 


FLINT: (1) hallaémish, a rocky formation of 
silica, common in Palestine. It was from a ‘rock of 
flint’ that water flowed for Israel in the desert (Dt 
8 15; Ps 114 8). Olive-trees grew on flinty soil (Dt 
3213; cf. Job 296). Used figuratively of firmness (Is 
50 7). (2) tsar, tsér, tstir, used figuratively in the 
same way (Is 5 28; Ezk 39). The last term is found 
- in Jos 5 2, 3, where we read of ‘knives of flint’ used to 
perform circumcision. Cos. T! 


FLOAT (Flotes) AV: The rendering of raphs6- 
dhéth (II Ch 2 15) from a root meaning ‘to bind,’ and 
débheroth (I K 59, rafts RV) from ddabhar, ‘to drive.’ 
What is meant is that the timber was brought by 
sea from Phenicia to Joppa in the form of logs. 


FLOCK. See Nomapic AND PASTORAL LIFE. 


FLOOD. 1. Introduction. The story of a uni- 
versally destructive deluge in very early times is 
given in Gn 6 6-9 17, and the cataclysm is alluded to 
as ‘the waters of Noah’ inIs 549. Inthe N T the 
flood is regarded as an analog of baptism (I P 3 
20 f.). andas anexample of God’sjudgment on sinners 
(II P 25). In two apocalyptic discourses of the 
Gospels the history of Noah and the flood is used 
to illustrate the uncertainty of the Parousia or the 
coming of the Son of Man (Mt 23 38 ff.; Lk 17 26 f.). 

2. Literary Features of the Narrative. There 
appear to be some contradictions or discrepancies 
in the narrative, which affect the number of the ani- 
mals taken into the ark, the duration, and the im- 
mediate cause of the deluge. In Gn78,9 (J) the dis- 
tinction between clean and unclean animals is recog- 
nized, and Noah is commanded to take into the ark 
one pair of the latter and seven pairs of the former 
(7 2 [J]). The parallel account makes no such dis- 
crimination, mentioning only one pair of each spe- 
cies (6 19, 20, 714 [P]). One set of statements fixes 
the duration of the flood at 61 days (8 6, 8, 10, 12 
[J]); in the parallel account it lasts 365 days (7 11, 
13, 14; cf. 8 3 ff. 14 [P]). The deluge is ascribed to 
rain only in 7 7, 12, 8 2b (J), while in 7 11 and 8 2a (P) 
it was the bursting forth of the waters under the 
earth and those above the firmament that brought 
on the catastrophe. 

3. Sources. The explanation of these discrepan- 
cies is to be found in the composite character of the 
narrative, which is the result of weaving together 
two separate documents, the early Judean (J) and 
the later Priestly (P. See Hexarrucu). Both docu- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Firebrand 
Flood 


ments, however, are at one in all points not men- 
tioned above, and especially in regard to the great 
purpose of the deluge: it was the judgment of God 
upon a depraved race, and formed the watershed 
between two distinct eras in the history of mankind. 

4. Not Meant as a Universal Deluge. The 
Scriptural phraseology does not imply a universal 
deluge; altho certain expressions seem to convey 
that idea. ‘All the high mountains that were under 


the whole heaven were covered’ (7 19); it was God’s 


purpose to ‘destroy all flesh wherein is the breath of 
life’ (6 17); every living thing is to be swept away 
‘from off the face of the ground’ (7 4). It is put still 
more strongly in stating that the effect of the deluge 
was to destroy ‘every living creature’ (7 21-23). But 
these expressions are to be understood, partially at 
least, as instances of hyperbole, in which the Ori- 
ental delights (cf. Gn 41 57; Dt 2 25; 1 K 10 24; Lk 2 
1), while, without exception, they are limited by the 
writer’s geographical horizon, which was bounded by 
portions of Asia, Africa, and Europe (cf. Gn 10 and 
see GEoGRAPHY, $1). If the narrative is approached 
from the standpoint of strict grammatical and his- 
torical exegesis, it is clear that the Scriptures them- 
selves do not teach a universal deluge in our modern 
sense of the term. Consequently the acrimonious 
controversy between the theologians and scientists 
of the 18th cent. over this point was in no sense a 
debate over, a discrepancy between science and 
Biblical teaching, but rather a conflict between 
scientific principles and a dogma incorrectly based 
upon Scripture. 


5. Difficulties involved in the Theory of a Uni- 
versal Deluge. The difficulties involved in the 
assumption of a universal deluge are now generally 
acknowledged by Biblical scholars. Not only would 
the laws of hydrostatics be violated in the accu- 
mulation of such a great mass of water, but the 
climate of the globe would have been changed, 
making it impossible for animals to exist, even in 
the ark. To this should be added the practical diffi- 
culty of bringing animals from distant lands and 
islands to the valley of the Euphrates, and housing 
all known species in a vessel of the size of the ark. 
Nevertheless the Noachian deluge might have 
covered the area occupied by man. At an early age 
the genus Homo had a limited distribution, and, as a 
species, might easily have been swept away. A flood 
universal in this respect is all that a literal exegesis 
of the Biblical narrative demands. But the story of 
such a flood can neither be verified nor disproved his- 
torically, and consequently its value must lie in the 
moral and spiritual lessons it is designed to teach. 


6. A Geological Diluvion. Sir John Prestwich and 
Professor G. F. Wright have maintained that the 
Noachian flood was a geological diluvion, due to 
the sudden submergence of the earth’s surface. Pro- 
fessor Wright states his thesis with exteme caution, 
that ‘since man came into the world there may have 
been changes of land level of sufficient extent and 
rapidity to destroy the human race, and fairly to 
meet the demands of the Biblical narrative when 
properly interpreted.’ 

The geological catastrophe occurred at the close 
of the postglacial period. The piling up of huge 


Flood 
Food and Food Utensils 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


270 





masses of ice disturbed the equilibrium of the earth’s 
surface; in consequence there was a sudden sub- 
mergence. With the disappearance of the ice there 
followed an upheaval. Prestwich presents other 
evidence for these geological changes in Europe 
and North Africa. In 1900 Professor Wright discov- 
ered similar evidence in Central Asia for the recent 
submergence of a large part of Asiatic Russia. 
The proofs of this theory are worthy of careful con- 
sideration, and should be examined in the literature 
given below. 

It is to be noted, however, that some features of 
the Biblical narrative do not harmonize with the 
idea of a geological upheaval. The mountains are 
covered with water and reappear (7 19 ff., 8 4 ff.); as 
soon as the waters abate the earth assumes its 
former condition, for the dove brings an olive twig 
(811). To bring the length of the flood and the date 
of the Biblical story into harmony with the idea of a 
geological diluvion seems an impossibility; on the 
other hand, there are no a priori reasons against the 
possibility of such a geological catastrophe since the 
appearance of man on the earth. 


7. Ethnic Flood-Legends. Most peoples of an- 
tiquity had a flood-legend. One notable exception 
were the Egyptians. Among the Greeks two 
traditions were current—that of the Ogygian deluge, 
which inundated Attica, and the story of the flood 
of Deucalion. The latter was probably the Baby- 
lonian account in a Hellenic mold, which later was 
intermixed with elements borrowed from the Biblical 
narrative. The Indian legend is connected with an 
incarnation of Brahma and Vishnu. The absence of a 
flood-legend from Egyptian folk-lore is due to the 
annual inundation of the Nile, which was viewed as 
the greatest blessing the land enjoyed. It is now 
known that flood-legends exist all over the world. 
but they are unequally distributed. They occur 
in the German and Scandinavian mythologies, 
and are found among the Mexicans, the Peru- 
vians, the Indians of N. and S. America, and 
the aborigines of the islands of the Pacific. Flood- 
legends are conspicuously absent in Arabia, in 
northern and central Asia, in China and Japan, are 
hardly found anywhere in Europe (except Greece) 
and Africa. The theory that all these legends are 
reminiscences of a universal deluge is now generally 
discarded. Many are modifications and adapta- 
tions of the Biblical story which has been scattered 
world-wide by missionaries; others are due to special 
local causes. F. H. Woods (HDB, s.v.) classifies 
these legends into three groups with respect to their 
origin: (1) Those which are connected with cos- 
mogonic myths, regarding water as a creative ele- 
ment. (2) Highly colored traditions of some his- 
torical event, or extraordinary natural phenom- 
ena, as the subsidence of an island or coast, the 
creation or destruction of an island by a volcano, a 
tidal wave, the inundation of a plain by the over- 
flowing of a river, the formation of a lake, the 
melting of snow. (8) Flood-stories, which appear 
to have originated in an attempt to account for 
some otherwise unexplained fact, as the dispersion of 
peoples, differences of language, the color of the skin, 
the existence of fossils and glaciers, 


8. The Babylonian Flood-Story. The Babylonian 
flood-story must be discussed more fully, as it closely 
resembles the Biblical account and furnishes the key 
for the interpretation of the latter. The former had 
long been known in the version of Berosus, but the 
cuneiform original was discovered 1872 in the library 
of Asshurbanipal (660 B.c.). The story was reduced 
to writing at least as early as 2000 B.c. It consti- 
tutes Canto xi of the Babylonian Gilgamesh epic, in 
which Utnapishtim, the Babylonian Noah, reveals 
the secret of immortality to Gilgamesh. The gods 
having decided to destroy the city of Shurippak 
by a flood, Ea, the Babylonian Neptune, warns Ut- 
napishtim to ‘build a ship, to look after life.’ Then 
follows the description of the ship. Its dimensions 
are different from those of Noah’s ark, but it was 
built in 6 stories and pitched within and without 
with ‘bitumen’ (Heb. and Bab. words are identical). 
Into this ship Utnapishtim brings his family, his 
possessions, ‘and all living creatures of all kinds.’ 
Then is described the storm which terrifies men and 
sends even the gods to the edge of the heavens cower- 
ing like dogs. The tempest continues 6 days and 
nights; on the morning of the 7th a calm broods on 
the face of the waters, but the ‘race of mortals’ 
was no more and ‘every voice was hushed’; ‘all 
mankind had turned to clay.’ The ship grounds on 
Mt. Nisir and on the 6th day after the Baby- 
lonian hero, like Noah, sends forth birds—a dove 
and a swallow which return, and a raven which 
finds the waters abated. Like the Biblical hero, 
Utnapishtim offers a sacrifice above which ‘the 
gods gathered like flies.’ Bel is enraged because 
Utnapishtim has escaped, but finally being ap- 
peased, he blesses Utnapishtim and his wife by 
conferring on them the gift of immortality. The 
points of similarity between the Bab. and Heb. 
stories are apparent on the surface, for the Heb. 
tradition as a whole was derived from Babylonia. 
But what the reader misses in the former is the 
lofty moral earnestness and the religious motive of 
the Biblical story. J’’ sends the deluge because the 
entire human race has become morally degenerate; 
in the Bab. account the flood is due to the caprice 
of the gods. The gross polytheism of the one and 
the lofty monotheism of the other are evident. 
Note the chaste anthropomorphism: ‘J’” smelled the 
sweet savor’ of the sacrifice (8 21) and the offensive- 
ness of the simile: ‘the gods gathered like flies about 
the sacrifice.’ Furthermore, the Noachian deluge 
manifests not only the judgment of God but also 
His grace (8 20-22; cf. I P 3 20f.). 

In recent years two fragments of a more ancient 
Babylonian recension have been dicovered, in which 
the name of the hero is Atra-hasis. These fragments, 
however, add nothing to our knowledge of the details 
of the legend. A Sumerian version has been found at 
Nippur and has been dated between 2300 and 1200 
B.C.; it has many points of contact with the Gilga- 
mesh Epic. Perhaps the source of the Babylonian 
story was Sumerian. 

Both stories, Babylonian and Hebrew, refer to 
the same event and are different versions of an early 
Semitic tradition. Two theories have been held by 
Assyriologists and Biblical scholars as to the relation 


271 A NEW STANDARD 


of the two stories: (1) Both accounts derived the 
legend from a common fountain head; (2) The He- 
brews borrowed their legend from the Babylonians. 
The concensus of modern scholarship favors the 
latter position. Clay, alone among Assyriologists, 
denies the Babylonian origin of the flood-story, 
and claims that the details point to an Amorite 
source. His own summing up of his case is as 
follows: ‘The famine story, the force in nature 
which caused the deluge, the name of the hero, 
Noah, the mountains, the olive branches—these are 
not Babylonian, but Amorite. The words mabbil 
‘flood’ and tébhah‘ ark’ are not Babylonian’ (Origin 
of Biblical Tradition, p. 188 [1923]). This theory of 
an Amorite origin of the Hebrew flood-legend de- 
mands a thorough investigation before it can be 
substituted for the older view. The theory propound- 
ed by Cheyne (#. Brit, s.v.), jointly with Zim- 
mern (#B, s.v.), that the Babylonian legend is a 
nature myth has not been generally accepted. An 
actual, extrordinary inundation of the plain of 
Babylonia lies at the basis of the story. There was 
probably an unusual amount of rain, accompanied 
by a hurricane from the SE., and an earthquake 
which produced a tidal wave or lowered the surface 
of the land. Such a combination of natural phe- 
nomena would be sufficient to produce a great 
catastrophe in Babylonia. 

LiteRATURE: Commentaries on Gn by Driver; Ryle (Camb. 
B.), and Skinner (I C C, 1910); Frazer, Folk-Lore in the 
O T, I, 104-361 (1918); for the Babylonian story cf. Clay, 
Origin of Biblical Traditions (1923); Kent, Beginnings of 
Hebrew History (1904), p. 373; Jastrow, Religion of Babylonia 
and Assyria (1898); Gordon, Early Traditions of Genesis 
(1907); Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels to the O T, 80 ff. (1912); 
for the geological theory: Prestwich, Certain Phenomena 
Belonging to the Close of the Last Geological Period, and 
Their Bearing on the Tradition of the Flood (1895); Wright, 
Scientific Aspects of Christian Evidences, p. 132 ff.; also 
Bibliotheca Sacra, 1902; Andrée, Die Fluisagen Ethnographisch 
Betrachtet (1891) JoAnn: 
FLOOR. Sce Hovuss, § 6 (b). 

_ Floor, see Acricutrurs, § 7. 


FLOTES. See Fioar. 


FLOUR. See Foop, § 1; and Sacririce anp 
Orrerinas, § 12. 


FLOWER: While Palestine is noted for the vari- 
ety and beauty of its flowers, little is said of them 
in the Bible except by way of reference to them as 
illustrations of quickly vanishing temporal beauty 
and glory (Is 281, 4, 406f.; Jali0f.;1 P 124). In 
Song 212 and Mt 6 28 (|| Lk 12 27) there is an appre- 
ciation of their beauty. In the carving and em- 
broidery of the Temple and Tabernacle flowers had 
an important place, as also in the ornamentation of 
the metal-work (Ex 25 31 #., 37 17 #.; 1 K 7 26, 49). 
In Song 5 13 for ‘flowers’ AV, the RV has ‘banks,’ 
or, more correctly, in the mg., ‘towers.’ The ‘flower 
of her age’ (Gr. ixépaxuocs) in I Co 7 36 means 
the age when it was customary for maidens to 
marry (in Greece about 20 years). In I S 23 the 
whole expression ‘in the flower of their age’ in the 
Heb means simply ‘men’ (cf. RVmg.). In Ly 15 24, 
33 the Heb. means ‘separation’ and the reference 
is to the menstrual discharge. See also PaLEsTINE, 
§ 22. K. E. N. 


For Threshing- 


Flood 
Food and Food Utensils 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
FLUTE. 
MENTS, § 3. 


FLUX. See Diskase anp Mepicinp, § 5 (2). 


FLY, FLIES. See PALestinge, § 26; PLaauEs, 
and Semitic Retiaion, § 15 (3). 


FODDER: The Heb. b*lil seems to mean ‘mixed 
food’ (‘grain’) used as provender (so AV in Job 6 5, 
but ‘fodder’ in both AV and RV in Is 30 24). The 
denominative verb bdlal occurs in Jg 19 21 (‘gave 
the asses fodder’ ‘provender’ AV). In Gn 24 25, 32, 
42 27, 24; Jg 19 19 mispo’ ‘fodder’ is rendered 
‘provender’ in both AV and RV. 


FOLD. See Nomapic AND PASTORAL Lirs, § 6. 


FOLK: This word is used in Gn 33 15 and Pr 30 
26 to render the common word ‘am, ‘people.’ The 
RV of Jer 51 58 has the correct rendering. In Ac 5 16 
the Gr. means simply ‘sick’; ‘folk’ is an addition 
of the EV. 


FOLLY. See Foot. 
FOOD AND FOOD UTENSILS. 


I. ARTICLES oF Foop. 
1. Vegetable Foods. 


1. Grains. The soil of Palestine furnished every- 
thing the Israelites needed for their sustenance. The 
effect produced by the climate on the physical con- 
stitution made the vegetable foods the most im- 
portant, as it does to-day. First among these were 
the grains, and especially wheat, hittgh, and barley, 
s*‘6rdh. The kernels were sometimes roasted or 
parched, galt (IS 17 17, 2518; IIS 17 28); more rarely 
the ears were roasted at the fire (cf. Lv 214). The 
primitive way of grinding the grain was to crush it 
in a mortar, m¢dhékhah (Nu 118), or makhtésh (Pr 
27 22), with a pestle, ‘élz (Pr 27 22), making the 
bruised grain of Lv 2 14, 16, which was eaten without 


See Music anp MusicaL INstrRv- 










t aves ange 


Baker’s Oven, Showing the Dough Against the Oven Wall. 
(See § 2, page 272, column 1). 


further preparation. Probably it is this, or por- 
ridge made from it, which is denoted by the word 
‘arisah (Nu 15 20; Ezk 44 30, ‘dough’ EV). Generally, 
however, the grain was ground into meal, gemah. In 
distinction from ordinary meal, sdleth or gemah séleth 
designated a very fine meal, which in later times was 
used with sacrifices (Lv 21, etc.). Meal made from 


Food and 
Food Utensils 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


272 





barley was called, like the grains of which it was 
made, s°drim (Nu 5 15; Ezk 49). 

2. Bread. The dough, bdtség, was kneaded in a 
kneading-trough, mish’ereth. Leaven, s°’ dr, was 
usually mixed only with bread that was intended to 
be taken on a journey. Such bread was called 
hdméts; unleavened bread was termed matstsah. The 
loaf was molded by the hand into the form of a 
disk—from which form it derived its name kikkar 
(‘circle’)—and was about the thickness of one’s 
thumb, so that it could easily be broken (cf. Is 587). 
Bread was baked in a bake-oven, tanntr. The lumps 
of dough were flattened firmly against the heated 
wall of the oven or spread on the stone within. At 
times the loaves were simply placed in the hot ashes 
or on red-hot stones (I K 19 6, mg.), in which case 
care had to be taken to turn them at the proper 
time (cf. Hos 7 8) and see illustrations in column 2. 
Such loaves, or cakes, were the so called ash-cakes 
(‘uggah, Hos 7 8, or ‘cakes baken on the coals,’ I K 
19 6). 

Corresponding to our pancakes were the cakes 
cooked in a pan, marhesheth, well-known to the 
Bedawin of to-day (cf. Niebuhr, Beschreibung, etc., 
p. 52). Possibly thesame thing is meant by niqqtdh- 
im (cracknels AV, IK 143). An especially thin, 
round cake is evidently meant by rdqgiqg (Ex 29 2, 23) 
while hallah (Ly 
2) refers probably 
to one somewhat 
thicker and per- 
forated. Fre- 
quently cakes were 
spread with oil(Lv 
2 4; Ezk 16 13), or 
the dough was 
mixed with oil 
(Nu 11 8; cf. Lv 
25), or honey (Ex 
16 31). In times 
of famine, bread 
was also made of 
beans, pdl, lentils, 
‘adashim, millet, ddhan, and spelt, kuss¢mim(Ezk 49). 

3. Vegetables. As a relish with bread, vegetables 
and fruit were used. The leguminous vegetables, 
yGrdq (Pr 15 17; Dt 11 10), also ‘ésebh (Gn 9 3), such 
as beans (II S 17 28), lentils (cf. pottage of lentils 
Gn 25 34), marsh-miilet (Ezk 4 9), cucumbers 
qishshi’im, melons, ’dbhattihim, and especially garlic 
shimim (Nu 11 5), onions, betsdlim, and leeks 
hatsir (Nu 11 5), were all well-known. In times of 
stress, wild gourds, paqqii‘dth sddheh, prepared with 
meal, were used in pottage (II K 4 39 £.), also salt- 
wort, malliah (Job 30 4). 


4. Spices. The spices were cummin, kammon, 
fitches, t.e., black cummin or dill, getsah (Is 28 25; 
Mt 23 23), mint, 7ddocu0v (Mt 23 23; Lk 11 42), and 
mustard, ofvantc (Mt 13 31, 17 20). Salt, melah, was 
always very important. “To eat a man’s salt’? meant 
to eat of his food (Ezr 414). A ‘covenant of salt’ was 
unbreakable; it was ratified by a meal seasoned with 
salt, i.e., of bread and salt, as is the custom to-day 
(cf. Nu 1819; II Ch 135). 

5. Fruits. The fruits, pert (cf. Gn 1 29), known 





Tabtin, or Small Oven, Used in Bak- 
ing. (Under View.) 


and used were: figs, especially the early fig, dik- 
kairah (Is 28 4; Jer 24 2), and the late fig, t’énah 
(Jer 813, 2917). The latter were generally dried and 
pressed into round or square cakes, d*bhélah (I S 
25 18; II K 207). Grapes, ‘dndbhim and ’eshkél 
‘anabhim (Nu 13 23 f.), were used both fresh and 
dried, 7.e., as raisins, tsimmigim (I S 25 18, 30 12). 
They were also, like figs, pressed into cakes, d*bhélim 
(I S 25 18). It is uncertain whether the Israelites 
were acquainted with grape-honey, since the Arabic 









= 






OS i ee 


+5 
SA 


Baker’s Oven, Showing the Loaves on Red-hot Stones. 


dibs, corresponding to the Heb. d*bhash, ‘honey’ 
EV, is used both for the artificial fruit-honey as 
well as for the natural product (cf. Gn 43 1; Ezk 
27 17). Olives were eaten both raw and prepared, 
as they are to-day. Besides these may be men- 
tioned also the pomegranate, rimmén (Dt 8 8; 
Song 4 3), the fruit of the mulberry-fig, shigmah 
(sycamore Am 7 14), which was eaten by the poor, 
the fruit of the date-palm, taémdr, which also was 
treated in the same manner as figs and grapes, the 
pistachio nuts, botnim (Gn 43 11), almonds, sh¢gédhim 
(Gn 43 11), and walnuts, ’éghdz (Song 611). The dried 
fruit of the carob-tree—the so called St.-John’s- 


payee 
a 


SOATTLL 4 pega (OT? hey ii ‘: 
iy Ye ZaY itn yy YW 


td 





Baker’s Oven, Showing the Loaves on Hot Ashes. 


bread—xepétioyv, husks EV (only in Lk 15 16), was 
more fit for swine than for men. The unripe husks 
were frequently used to give water a pleasant taste. 
It is a matter of debate as to whether the Israelites 
were acquainted with the apple. In the Hellenistic 
period many varieties of produce were imported 
from other countries—mustard, pumpkins, beans, 
lentils from Egypt, asparagus, horse-beans, Persian 
nuts, etc. 


HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS—I. 
6. Tabtéin, small oven. 
‘Arsa,’ large oven. 
8. Saj, metal plate for baking bread. 
9. Kub‘a, small basket for flour, 


. Khaby, grain-bin. 
Tahéine, hand-mill for grinding flour, iy 


noe 


w 


Minkhul, flour-sieve. 
Batye, dough-bowl. 
Seniyyet el-bdtye, wicker cover for dough-bowl. 


(From the Suvia Davison Paton Collection in Hartford Theological Seminary.) 


ow 





HOUSEHOLD UTENSILS—II, 


Sandutk, chest for clothes. 9. Ibrik kahwe, pot for making coffee. 
Kuffe, basket for carrying earth. 10. Tahtinet kahwe, coffee-mill. 


Sal, basket for fruit or vegetables. itahe Tunjera, copper kettle. 
Maktdaf, large basket with a handle. 12. Munfah, bellows. 


Kurmi, stool. 13. Jurn, mortar for grinding coffee. 
Kartali, basket with handle. 14. Mukense, broom. 
. Sukkara and Miftah, lock and key. 15. Mudakka, washing-pounder, 
8. Tbrtk ma, pot for hot water. 16. Dikmak, mallet. 


(From the Suvia Davison Paton Collection in Hartford Theological Seminary.) 





273 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Food and 
Food Utensils 





2. Animal Foods. 


6. Milk. Next to bread and vegetables the most 
important food was milk, halabh, both of larger and 
smaller cattle (Dt 32 14), especially goat’s milk (Pr 
27 27), which was usually kept in skins, nd’dh (Jg 
419). The Bedawin alone used camel’s milk. As a 
drink the fresh milk, which in a hot climate develops 
a sour taste soon after milking, is most effective in 
quenching thirst. Among the peasantry of to-day no 
meal is served without this sour milk (cf. Gn 18 8). 
Cream, hem’dh, is mentioned frequently (Gn 18 8; 
Is 7 22, etc.), but the word means also thick milk, 
cheese (Pr 30 33), and probably butter. At the 
present day butter is made by pressing and shaking 
a goatskin filled with milk and hung between poles. 
The modern Arabs use a great deal of butter, both 
fresh and melted. Whether this was also the case 
with the Israelites in Palestine is doubtful, since they 
had olive-oil to take its place. It is also probable that 
they were acquainted with the ‘sweet milk. cheese,’ 
hdritsé-halabh (1S 1718). The special word for cheese 
is g*bhinah (Job 10 10), which was in all probability 
prepared then as at the present. The curdled 
milk is first drained of its liquid, the curd is then 
salted and molded into lumps the size of one’s 
hand and finally placed in the sun to dry. To-day 
such cheese is often mixed with water and furnishes 
with its somewhat sour taste a most cooling drink, 


7. Honey. By honey, d¢bhash, so often mentioned 
in connection with milk, not only bee-honey but also 
fruit-honey is meant. While bee-culture was 
known to the Israelites, wild bees were abundant, as 
at the present time (Dt 3213;1S 14 25f.). The liquid 
honey, ndpheth tsiphim, that drips from the comb, 
ya‘ar or ya‘rath d¢bhash (1S 14 25, 27), is mentioned 
many times (Ps 1911; Pr 16 24, etc.), and is still highly 
prized. Honey was used with pastry (Ex 16 31) and 
mingled with the drink as well as eaten alone. 

8. Fish. There are but few notices concerning fish 
as an article of diet (cf. Nu 115). In fact, little is 
said of them at all in the O T (cf. Jer 16 16; Ezk 47 
10; Ec 9 12). But they must have been as much 
relished then as in the days of Jesus (Mt 7 10, 14 17, 
15 34; Lk 24 42; Jn 219). The last two references 
show that they were often broiled and eaten with 
honey. According to Dt 1410, Lv 119, fish without 
fins and scales were unclean and not to be eaten. It 
was in postexilic times that the Jews came to use 
fish in large quantities. In the neighborhood of the 
‘fish-gate’ in Jerusalem there was the fish-market 
~ (Zeph 110; Neh 3 3, 12 39; II Ch 3314), where sun- 
dried or salted fish were sold. According to Neh 13 
16 they were imported by Tyrian dealers. Others 
came from Egypt, where cured fish constituted an 
important article of export. In later times the salting 
of fish was extensively carried on in Palestine, tho 
the industry was learned from foreigners (cf. the 
‘name of the town Tarichesx, ‘curing-places,’ from 
taetyoc, a ‘cured fish,’ at the S. end of the Sea of 
Galilee). See also Fisu. 

9. Reptiles and Locusts. From the prohibition in 
Ly 11 29 £. it would seem that lizards, tsabh, were 
occasionally eaten, just as to-day in many districts 
the Bedawin are fond of the daff, which corresponds 
to the tsébh, tho the qualifying phrase ‘after its 











kind’ in the passage cited may be intended to give 
the word a quite general meaning. According to Ly 
11 21 f. it was allowable to eat locusts—the varieties 
’arbeh, sol‘dém, hargdl, and hdaghadbh, being ex- 
pressly mentioned. It is probable that this was a 
habit surviving from the earlier nomadic times 
against which Dt 14 19 utters a protest without 
actually forbidding it. 


10. The Use of Meat. Meat has always been more 


rarely used as food in the Orient than with us: only 


on the royal table was it an article of daily diet (I K 
5 3), and this was probably because of the daily 
offering (see SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS). Otherwise 
animals were slaughtered for food only on festal oc- 
casions, such as the yearly pilgrimages to the Sanc- 
tuary, haggim, and the annual festivals of families or 
relatives, or under special circumstances, such as 
visits, etc. (cf. Gn 187; II S 12 4). The primitive 
style of preparing the meat was by roasting. It was 
not until they lived in Palestine and came under 
the influence of the Canaanites that the Israelites 
learned to boil their meat (cf. seethe AV, Ex 23 19; 
ef. broth, Jg 6 19; I S 2 13), and even then, in the 
Passover ritual, roasting—the old custom of the 
nomadic shepherds—was retained. The supply of 
meat was derived from the cattle-raising industry. 
Sheep were of greatest importance for this purpose 
(IS 25 11, 18, etc.). Lambs, karim (Am 6 4), up to 
three years old were favorites. In addition, fatted 
calves, mr?’ (Is 1 11), and oxen (I S 14 32) are re- 
ferred to, also kids, g¢dhi ‘“izzim (Gn 279, etc.). The 
hindquarters, shéqg (I S 9 24), thighs, y@rékh, and 
shoulders, kdthéph (Ezk 24 4), were considered the 
best parts. It is evident from Gn 27 6 ff. that the 
women of Israel, even in early times, were skilful in 
preparing meat. The prohibition in Ex 23 19 shows 
that it was common to boil the young animals in 
milk, as is the custom among the Arabs to-day. 
Venison was somewhat rare, but found on the royal 
table (I K 5 3). This was due to the fact that there 
was no large extent of wild land, and the Israelites, 
moreover, were not specially fond of hunting (cf. Gn 
25 27). According to Dt 14 3 f. and Lv 111 ff. it was 
allowable to eat only animals that chew the cud and 
have cloven hoofs. Dt names, in addition to oxen, 
sheep, and goats, the hart, ’ayydl, gazel, ts*bhi, 
fallow deer, yahmir, wild goat, ’aqqd, antelope, 
dishon, oryx, t’’6, and the zemer, probably a variety 
of deer or stag. Among the fowl, doves, yéndah, 
and turtle-doves, tdr, also quail, slaw (Ex 16 12 £.), 
were eaten, and from Is 10 14, Lk 11 12, it may 
be inferred that eggs also were an item of food. It 
was forbidden to eat any animal not duly slaugh- 
tered, e.g., such as had fallen or was torn—a pro- 
hibition probably due to the ancient prejudice re- 
garding the shedding of blood (cf. IS 14 32 #.; 
Dt 12 16, 23, etc.). 

11. The Preparation of Food. Utensils. Cooking 
was done by men as well as by women. The former 
indeed considered it their duty only to slaughter 
and boil or roast the meat, as the Bedawin and Fella- 
hin do to-day. It was the task of the women to 
grind the meal, bake the bread and cakes, make the 


| cheese and butter, prepare the vegetables, etc. (cf. 
| Gn 18 6; 1S 813). Even women of the royal family 


Food and Food Utensils 
Forest of Carmel 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


274 





occasionally engaged in such work (cf. 11S 138). It 
was an exception for a man to prepare vegetables 
(cf. Gn 25 29; II K 4 38). Cooks, tabbah, m. sing., are 
mentioned (I S 9 23, ef. 8 13, f. plur.), but were 
found only in some of the more wealthy homes. 
Bakemeats, ‘baked food’ (Gn 40 17, RV), refers 
to delicacies prepared by the cooks of the royal 
household. There were bakers, ’dphim, only in the 
larger towns (Hos 7 4). 

The furnishings of a Hebrew kitchen were very 
simple. In addition to the hand-mill and bake- 
oven there were the vessels, kadh, which the women 
filled with water at the spring or well, and carried 
home on their shoulders (Gn 24 14). In such ves- 
sels meal and other similar things were kept (I K 
17 12). Meat was boiled in pots of earthenware and 
of brass. Inasmuch as the manufacture of the 
latter had been learned from the Phenicians (I K 
7 13 f.), they were similar in form to those of Phe- 
nicia. A number of names of such vessels, or dishes 
have come down to us, but it is no longer possible 
to distinguish clearly among them (e.g., kiyydr, 
didh, qallahath, parir, sir, tsélahah, saph, mizraq, 
kaph, I K 7 40, 50; 1S 214; II Ch 3513; tedBrArtov, Mk 
14 20). For fruits and bakemeats there were baskets 
of various sorts, of which we know the names, but 
not their different forms (didh, Jer 24 2; sal, Gn 
40 17; tene’, Dt 26 2). The three-pronged forks, 
mazlégh, of I S 2 13 were used, not for eating, but 
for drawing the meat out of the pot. Knives, 
ma’dkheleth, were used only for slaying the animals 
and cutting the meat for cooking (Gn 22 6, 10). 
Liquids were kept usually as they are to-day, in 
goatskin ‘bottles,’ hémeth (Gn 21 15), and nd’dh (Jg 
4 19); only in later times, and then rarely, were 
metal vessels used for this purpose. 


II. BEVERAGES. 


12. Water. The most common beverage, especially 
in towns, was water (IS 3011; I K 196,8), which was 
collected mainly in the cistern (bdr) that every well- 
appointed house possessed (II S 17 18; Jer 38 6). 
These cisterns were generally made wider at the bot- 
tom so as to keep the water cooler. The opening was 
covered with one or more stone slabs, both to prevent 
accidents and to guard against a too free use of the 
water by others. Wells, b’ér, furnishing ‘living’ 
spring water (Gn 26 19; Nu 211 ff.; Jn 411), were rarer 
and most highly prized. The water of such springs 
was usually collected in basins that were walled up 
and covered over, into which one descended by 
steps. They were the common possession of a clan 
or community. See WaTErR. 


13. Wine, etc. In the heat of the harvest time 
use was frequently made of a sour drink, hdmets 
(Ru 2 14), a mixture of water and wine, yayin, or 
some other strong drink, shékhGr. Wine was in com- 
mon use, as it was produced in abundance. Both the 
must, 2.¢e., ‘new wine,’ firdésh, and the wine proper, 
t.e., after its fermentation, were drunk. Whether it 
was customary in earlier times to mix the wine with 
water is questionable, and can not be proved from 
Is 1 22. In II Mac 15 39, and in the Mishna (Pesah 7 
13) there is evidence of such a custom, but it may 
have been due to Greek and Roman influence. There 


was, indeed, an old custom of ‘mixing’ wine, but this 

consisted in adding spices to strengthen it or im- 

prove its taste (Song 8 2; Is 5 22; Ps 759; Pr95). It 

was usual to strain, zdqaq, the wine through a cloth 
in order to free it from dregs and insects. The 
method of preparing the intoxicating drink, shékhar 
is unknown. According to Song 8 2 pomegranates, 

‘asi rimmonim, were used for the purpose. It is 

probable that the Israelites were also acquainted 

with palm-wine, pressed from soaked ripe dates. It 
is possible also that they were acquainted with the 

Egyptian barley-wine (cf. Herod. ii. 77; Pliny, HN 

xiv. 29; Mishna, Pesah 31). In the Mishna cider 

(Terumoth 11 2) and honey-wine (Shab. 20 2) are 

mentioned. 

14. Changes in Respect to Food. The course of 
time brought with it changes in respect to the food 
used by the Israelites. The original simplicity of the 
nomadic days gradually gave way, especially among 
the well-to-do, under the influence of a more self- 
indulgent mode of life, fostered by prosperity and 
intercourse with the outside world. The example set 
by the court was not without influence (I K 5 2). The 
various sorts of fine pastry which are mentioned in 
the Law (cf. Lv ch. 2) reveal the advance made in 
the art of cooking. It is likely also that the pains- 
taking care shown in the preparation of spiced 
wines was characteristic of the period of the King- 
dom. After the Exile the Jews learned to import 
many new varieties of food. When the exiles returned 
they brought with them hens, and afterwards eggs 
were a favorite article of food (cf. Lv 1112). From 
Egypt came pickled fish, taptyn (see § 8, above). 
Egyptian beer, (060c, mustard, gourds, beans, 
lentils were also imported from Egypt. Tyrians 
brought sea fish to the Jerusalem market (Neh 13 
16). Finally, the use made by the people generally of 
Babylonian pulp, Median beer, Bithynian cheese, 
Persian nuts, asparagus, etc., gives clear evidence of 
how, with increased prosperity and contact with the 
outside world, a taste for more delicate foods had 
manifested itself among the Jews. 

LiTERATURE: The Archeologies of Benzinger and Nowack; 
G. Dalman, ‘Butter, Dickmilch und Kase im A.7.,’ Pal. 
Jahrb. XV (1917), 31-35; E. Herdi, Die Herstellung und 
Verwerthung von Kdse im griechisch-rémischenAltertum (1918); 
M. Jastrow, ‘Wine in the Pentateuchal Codes,’ JAOS, 
XXXIII (1913), 180-192; J. Déller, ‘Der Wein in Bibel und 
Talmud,’ Biblica, IV (1923), 143 ff., 267 ff. 

W. N.—L. B. P. 


FOOL, FOOLISH, FOOLISHNESS, FOLLY: 1. 
In the O T these words are found mainly in the 
Widsom Lit. (Job, Pr, Ec). The various original 
terms express many varieties of meaning which the 
English words only imperfectly reproduce. (1) 
nabhal, n*bhalah (rare in the Wisdom Lit.) signify 
more than mere folly. The verb means to ‘despise,’ 
‘contemn’ (cf. Dt 3215). The nabhal, then, is one who 
is positively bad, despising what is right, and n*bhalah 
is open, wilful badness (cf. Gn 347; Dt 22 21; Jos 7 
15; Jg 19 23, 20 6, 10; II S 3 33, 18 12, 13; Ps 141, 
53 1, 74 22; Pr 177, 21, 30 22; Is 32 5, 6 [cf. AV], etc.). 
(2) ’twweleth, ’éwil, and ya’al mean simply ‘folly,’ 
‘fool,’ ‘foolish,’ ‘to be foolish.’ The root idea is 
thought to be ‘to be thick,’ but this is uncertain. 
While frequent in Pr (1 7, 5 23, etc.), elsewhere 


275 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Food and Food Utensils 
Forest of Carmel 





they occur only in Nu 12 11; Job 5 2, 3; Ps 38 5, 69 6, 


107 17; Is 19 11, 35 8; Jer 4 22, 5 4, 50 36; Hos 97, 13; 
Zec 1115. (3) kegel, k¢stl, kestlaith. The root ksl ex- 
presses the idea of ‘thickness’ and these terms signify 
‘intellectual dulness.’ They are the favorite terms in 
Pr and Ec (cf. Pr 1 22; Ec 2 14, etc.) and are found 
only in Ps 49 10, 13, 85 8, 92 6, 94.8; Jer 10 8 outside of 
these books. (4) sakhdl, sekhel, sikhlith, found often 
in Ee (1 17, 2 19, etc.), mean simply ‘fool,’ ‘foolish,’ 
‘folly,’ z.e., ‘lack of moral good sense.’ (5) Of other 
less used terms, those from the root hélal mean ‘arro- 
gant’ or even ‘mad’ (Job 12 17; Ps 55, 73 3 (ef. RV), 
75 4); those from taéphal mean literally ‘insipid’ (Job 
1 22, 2412; Jer 23 13; La 2 14; cf. Job 66). In Job 418 
the meaning is ‘error’; on Ps 73 22 cf. RV; in Pr 96 
‘foolish’ means ‘simple.’ The frequency of the men- 
tion of such terms in Pr and Kc is due to the fact that 
‘wisdom’ according to the view of the Wisdom 
Schools was not a speculative and abstract concept, 
but a practical one. The wise man understood how 
to live correctly, while the fool was ignorant, or 
negligent, or defiant of the rules of correct living. 
Since these books deal largely with the matter of 
practical life, setting forth the maxims in obedience 
to which it may be attained, it was natural that the 
reverse side—the fool and his foolishness—should 
often be spoken of by way of illustration or contrast. 

2. The N T usage calls for little comment. ‘Fool’ 
is perhaps too strong a term in Lk 24 25 and Eph 5 
15‘(cf. RV). On Ro 1 21, 10 19 also cf. RV. In most 
other cases in the N T these terms are translations of 
dvéntos, &pewv, oru.wedc (with their compounds, or 
derivatives), of which the first two mean literally 
‘without wit’ or ‘sense,’ the last ‘dull,’‘ sluggish,’ 
‘stupid,’ altho all were used in a more general sense. 

K. E. N. 


FOOT: In addition to its literal use in numerous 
places, because of its position as the lowest part of 
the human body, ‘foot’ is used in various figures of 
speech to express: (1) Subjection, from the Oriental 
custom of placing the foot on the vanquished (Jos 10 
24; II S 22 39; Ps 86, 474; Ro 16 20; I Co 15 2%). 
Humility, in salutation, supplication, or homage (Dt 
33 3; II K 4 27; Est 83; Mk 5 22; Rev 1 17), as of 
a disciple at the feet of his teacher (Lk 10 39; Ac 22 3), 
or as shown in the act of washing the feet of another 
(Jn 11 2,135). (2) Poetically, the part of the body in 
action is used for the man himself (Ps 25 15; Jer 18 22; 
Lk 179; Ac 59). Washing of feet, customary at the 
_ end of a journey, or on entering a house, was an act 
of courtesy to a guest. In AV kén, the ‘base’ of the 
laver, is rendered ‘foot’ (Ex 3018, etc.). C.S. T. 


FOOTMAN. See Warrare, § 4. For the weapons 
of the footman see in general ARMS AND ARMOR. 


FOOTSTOOL: Twice an exact translation of 
kebhesh (II Ch 9 18), and of Sxoxédtov (Ja 2 3). It is 
elsewhere the translation, im Dt, of the late word 
hadhém, ‘stool,’ and in the N T of dxoxé3:0v, with the 
addition ‘of the feet.’ Tic footstool is used figura- 
tively of the earth (Is 661; Mt 5 35; Ac 7 49), of the 
Temple (La 21), of the Ark (Ps 99 5, 13827; I Ch 28 
2), and of enemies, in a metaphor of their conquest 
by the Messianic King (Ps 1101; Lk 20 43, etc). 

C.S. T. 


FORBID (in the expression ‘God [or the Lord] 
forbid’): In the O T this is the rendering of the Heb. 
halilah, ‘profanation,’ z.e., in reference to J’’ (IS 24 
6, 26 11; I K 21 3; I Ch 1119). For other instances 
changed by RV see Far. In the N T ‘God forbid’ 
is the translation of the Gr. pw} yévorto, z.e., ‘et it 
not be.’ E. E. N. 


FORCES. See WarrFare, §§ 3, 4. 


FORD: In the O T a ‘ford,’ or place of crossing, 
is mentioned in connection with three rivers, the 
Jabbok (Gn 32 22), the Arnon (Is 16 2), and the Jor- 
dan (Jos 27; Jg 3 28). In antiquity bridges were 
almost unknown and fords were therefore of great 
importance. The Jordan has a large number of 
fords, some of which are impassable when the river 
is high. See also PaLEsrInn, § 12 (a) and (b). 

E. E. N. 


FORECAST: The word in Dn 11 24 f. AV means 
‘to think,’ ‘plan,’ or ‘desire,’ as is indicated in RV. 


FOREFATHER: This term occurs but once in 
the O T (Jer 11 10). The same Heb. original (in the 
sing.) is rendered ‘first father’ in Is 43 27. In the 
N T xedyovor (II Ti 1 3) means ‘ancestors.’ See also 
FAMILY AND FamILy Law, §§ 2, 4. E. E. N. 


FOREHEAD: The forehead is often treated in a 
somewhat symbolic way, as indicative of the char- 
acter or personality (e.g., ‘a harlot’s forehead,’ Jer 
3 3; cf. Ezk 38 f.). It was on the forehead of the 
high priest that the golden plate with its inscription 
‘Holy to Jehovah’ was placed (Ex 28 38). Marks, 
or signs, or names are spoken of as placed on the fore- 
heads of the faithful (Ezk 9 4, where the mark is the 
Heb. letter n in its old form X or t; Rev 7 3, 9 4, 
141, 22 4), or of the servants of the beast (Rev 13 16, 
149, 17 5, 20 4) KE. E. N. 


FOREIGNER. See GENTILES. 


FOREKNOW, FOREKNOWLEDGE, FORE- 
ORDAIN. See in general EvLEctTIon. 


FOREPART: In Ac 27 41, generally for the prow 
of the ship. See SaHips anD NAVIGATION, § 2. 


FORERUNNER: The rendering in He 6 20 of 
xp 63e0u0c, which is applied to Christ, who as eternal 
High Priest enters in our behalf into the Divine pres- 
ence, thus insuring our personal access to God. It is 
used also in the LXX. of Nu 13 (21) 20and Is 28 4 for 
the first ripe fruits, and in Wis 12 8 for the advance 
guard of an army. See also Jesus Curist, § 4, and 
JOHN THE Baptist. M. W. J. 


FORESAIL, FORESHIP: Technical terms used 
only in the account of Paul’s voyage (Ac 27 40, 30). 
See SHips AND NaviaaTIoNn, § 2. 

FORESKIN. See Circumcision. 

FOREST. See PALESTINE, § 21. 

FOREST IN ARABIA (2193 1Y2, ya‘ar ba- 
‘Grabh): A forest or thicket, probably a hiding-place 
for Arabian merchantmen of the tribe of the Dedan- 
ites (Is 21 13). Site unknown. The second word 
is translated by many ‘in the steppe’; by others 
the vowel-pointing is changed to mean ‘in the eve- 
ning.’ C2Sut: 

FOREST OF CARMEL. See CarMEt. 


Forest of Hareth 
Fringe 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


276 





FOREST OF HARETH. See HeReErs. 
FOREST OF LEBANON. See LesBanon. 
FORFEIT. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 


§ 3 (c). 

FORGER. See Artizan Lirs, § 10; and Tusa 
Cain. 

FORGIVE, FORGIVENESS (also in the O T par- 
don, and in the N T remission): The idea of forgive- 
ness may occur either in religious or in social rela- 
tions. In both cases it is the annulling of a ground of 
estrangement, or offense, by the estranged or 
offended person. The principles which underlie it are 
viewed as the same, and the conditions are at least 
similar, if not absolutely identical, whether it is 
God’s forgiveness of man or man’s forgiveness of his 
fellow man (Mt 612). The term is also used of the 
free cancellation of a debt which is overdue (Mt 18 
27). Hence sin is looked upon as a debt (Mt 6 12, 14). 
In general what is forgiven may be a personal in- 
dignity or offense, depriving one of his rightful 
property, or honor (Nu 14 19; Mt 18 21; Lk 17 3); 
or it may be a violation of moral law, whether viewed 
as a Divine prescription or an inherent right. The 
vast majority of cases of forgiveness in the Scrip- 
tures are of this latter type (Jos 24 19; Ro 4, 7). 

The conditions of forgiveness are repentance and 
reparation, or atonement; but they are not mechan- 
ically conceived, nor presented as equally indis- 
pensable in every case. In fact, neither seems to 
have been fulfilled when Jesus on the cross forgave 
His executioners. The ground for His forgiving was 
that they knew not what they were doing (Lk 23 34). 
In the parable of the prodigal son, while repentance 
is a condition fully met by the conduct of the 
offender, nothing is said of atonement, or reparation. 
The same is true in Ps 1031, 8-13. But in the more 
formal treatment of the subject both atonement 
and repentance are made conditions (Mk 1 4; Lk 
24 47; Ac 2 38), and reparation is prescribed in the 
law alluded to in He 9 22. 

The nature of forgiveness is shown in the different 
forms of its effect. One of the most frequent words 
in the O T pictures it as the taking off, or away, of 
that which is forgiven, as if it were a blot, or excres- 
cence (ndsd@’, Gn 5017). Again, it is the act of cov- 
ering what is forgiven, as if it were a blemish. This 
is strictly an O T conception (Ps 78 38), and is related 
to the sacrificial notion of covering sin with the blood 
of the expiatory victim. But it is also used in the 
N T (1 P48; Ja 5 20). A third way of speaking of 
forgiveness is suggestive of the conferring of a gra- 
tuity. The underlying thought here is, of course, 
the canceling of the payment of a debt (Lk 7 43; II Co 
27). Still another manner of speaking puts what is 
forgiven into the class of things cast, or sent away. 
This is the most frequent, and is designated by the 
O T term salah (e.g., Ps 103 3) and by the N T dofnur. 
In a single instance (Ro 4 25) forgiveness is made a 
passing by or overlooking of sin. 

The forgiveness of sin is the specific prerogative of 
God Himself (Mk 2 9); and in the apostolic teaching 
forgiveness is secured through Jesus Christ (Eph 17; 
Col 114). The same was anticipated in the words of 
Jesus claiming the privilege for the Son of Man of 


forgiving sin (Mk 210). For unpardonable sin, see 
Sin. See also RECONCILIATION AND ATONEMENT. 
Aa Solis 
FORK: The only occurrence of this term inthe 
EV isinIS 13 21. The Heb. here is sh*lésh (‘three’) 
gill¢eshén, usually taken to mean ‘a three-pronged 
fork’ (as the root glsh has in Aramaic the sense of 
‘thin’). But the meaning is, after all, obscure. See 
Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of the Books of Sam- 


uel, p. 80. See also AGRIcULTURE, § 7; and Foon, - 


§ 11. K. E. N. 


FORM: I. The rendering of several Gr. words: 
(1) poeeh, which occurs only in Ph 2 6f., where it is 
used by the Apostle of the existence form in which 
Christ externalizes His essential being. In His pre- 
existent state 1t is the form in which the Divine Being 
(@e6¢) externalizes Itself in the world of Spirit; in 
His incarnate state it is the form in which the crea- 
ture (S050¢) externalizes itself in the world of mat- 
ter; (2) el8oc, which in Jn 5 37 (‘shape’ AV) and Lk 
3 22 (‘shape’ AV) has reference to the externaliza- 
tion of the Divine Being to human vision, and in I 
Th 5 22 (‘appearance’ AV) refers to the outward 
manifestations of evil, from which the Apostle urges 
his readers to abstain; (3) uwdepwats, which in Ro 
2 20 refers to the essential substance of knowledge 
(yy@ot¢) and truth (4A78eax) which the Jew pos- 
sessed in the Law, but which he failed to appreciate 
and apply; and in II Ti 35 to the form of godliness 
which the degenerate religionists predicted by the 
Apostle are to hold externally, but to deny in char- 
acter and life; (4) térocs, which in Ro 6 17 is used of 
the special form of gospel truth that had character- 
ized the Apostle’s preaching, and had been appro- 
priated by his readers, and in Ac 23 25 (‘manner’ 
AV), less significantly, of the cast of Claudius Lys- 
ias’ letter. (5) InII Ti 113 RV has substituted ‘pat- 
tern’ for ‘form,’ the less accurate AV rendering of 
StotUTWats. 

II. See also Gop, § 2; and Man, § 2. 

M. W. J. 

FORMER, FORMER THINGS: The expression 
‘former things’ occurs frequently in Is chs. 41 ff. 
It refers to the Divine knowledge of history by which 
J’’ was able to set forth accurately through His 
prophets what was to take place. The prophet chal- 
lenges the representatives of the other religions to 
show any such knowledge on the part of their gods. 
On Zec 148, see Easrand Drap Sra. E. E. N. 


FORNICATOR, FORNICATION. See Crimzs 


AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 (c); and MarrIAGE AND 
Divorce, § 4. 


FORSWEAR. See CrimMES AND PUNISHMENTS, 
§ 2 (b). 

FORT, FORTIFY, FORTRESS: Every city in 
antiquity was fortified (‘fenced,’ often, in AV) by 
its wall and citadel. See Crry, § 3. For the terms 
‘fort,’ fortress’ (AV) the RV gives other renderings 
in a number of places. In II S 59, Jer 16 19, Ezk 
33 27, RV reads ‘stronghold.’ In Is 29 3 it reads 
‘siege-works.’ In Is 32 14 it renders the Heb. ‘dphel 
by ‘hill,’ the reference being probably to the hill 
on which the palace of David was built. In Is 
25 12, RV reads ‘the high fortress of thy walls.’ In 


— _—— =.’ 


277 


Mic 7 12 the Heb. is mdétsér, perhaps a textual error 
for mitsrayim, ‘Egypt,’ as in RV. The ‘forts’ re- 
ferred to in II K 251, Jer 52 4, Ezk 4 2, etc., were the 
siege-forts erected by the Chaldean army during its 
siege of Jerusalem. EH. E. N. 


FORTIFIED CITY. See Crry, § 3. 


FORTUNATUS (®optovvétos): One of the mes- 
sengers of the Corinthian Church at whose presence 
in Ephesus Paul rejoices, because of the reassur- 
ance which he brought concerning the attitude of 
part of the Church toward Paul (I Co 16 17). See 
also AcHAIcus and STEPHANAS. JMET: 


FORTUNE: In Is 65 11 a doom is pronounced 
on those ‘‘that prepare a table unto Fortune [for 
that troop AV] and that fill up mingled wine unto 
‘Destiny’.”” The Heb. term is gadh, which was the 
name of an Aramaic deity, the god of good fortune 
(see Semitic Reiaion, § 21 f.) The tribal name 
Gad was probably due to some ancient (pre-Mosaic) 
worship of this deity among Israel’s ancestors. 

EH. E. N. 

FORTY. See SIGNIFICANT AND 
SyMBo.ic, § 7. 


FORUM. See Appius, MARKET oF. 


FORWARD, FORWARDNESS: In the N T 
these words occur in AV in several places where RV 
gives decidedly better renderings. In II Co 88 Gr. 
oxovdy = ‘zeal,’ ‘earnestness’; 810, 6¢Aetv = ‘to wish,’ 
‘to will’; 9 2, mpo6uute = ‘readiness’; Gal 2 10, oxov- 
3aCerv= ‘to be earnest’ or ‘zealous.’ EK. E. N. 


FOUL SPIRIT. See UnNcuEan Spirit. 


FOUNDATION, FOUNDATIONS: In the O T 
this term (nearly always the rendering of a verbal 
form or some derivative of 123, ydsadh ‘to found’ 
is used (1) of the walls of a building or city, for which 
the N T equivalent is generally Oeuédto¢g (I K 7 10; 
Ps 137 7; Lk 6 48, etc.), and (2) of God’s creative act 
of establishing the earth, for which the N T equiv- 
alent is xataBoAy (Job 38 4; Mt 13 35). Figurative 
applications of both of these usages are also found 
(Pr 10 25; Is 28 16, the principle of faith; Ro 15 20; 
II Ti 2 19, etc.). In Job 38 6 the Heb. is ’adhan, 
usually rendered ‘socket,’ but here used of the firmly 
fixed ‘base’ or ‘pedestal’ on which the ‘pillars’ of 
the earth rest. In Is 16 7 the RV ‘raisin-cakes’ 
(idolatrous offerings) is the more probable rendering. 
In Is 6 4, RV reads ‘foundations’ for ‘posts’ (AV), 
and in Ps 89 14, 97 2, ‘foundation’ for ‘habitation’ 
(AV). In the early period the laying of the founda- 
tions of buildings, walls, etc., was accompanied by 
the sacrifice of young children, whose bodies were 
immured in the foundation (cf. Jos 6 25; I K 16 34, 
and consult the report of the discoveries at Gezer in 
PEFQS). See also Cosmocony, § 3. E. E. N. 


FOUNTAIN: I. In metaphorical usage a foun- 
tain is the emblem of any source of spritual blessing 
(J13 18), whether issuing in cleansing (Zee 13 1) or 
in refreshment and revival (Rev 7 17, 21 6). Once 
Jacob is called a fountain, referring to the peaceful 
contentment of his condition (Dt 33 28). Preemi- 
nently, however, God is the fountain of life, z.e., the 
source of all good (Ps 36 9; Jer 2 13, 17 13). Hence 


NUMBERS, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Forest of Hareth 
Fringe 


the Ney fae of God is also a fountain of life (Pr 
13 14). 

II. See Patzstine, §§ 14, 20; also En-. 

AviCr Zs: 

FOUNTAIN GATE. See JERusALEM, §38. 

FOUR, FOUR AND TWENTY, FOURTEEN. 
See NumBers, SIGNIFICANT AND SYMBOLIC, § 7. 

FOURFOLD. See Crimms AND PUNISHMENTS, 
§ 3 (c). 

FOWL. See PALEstINnE, § 25. 

FOWLER. See Hountina. 

FOX. See Pauustine, § 24. 

FRANKINCENSE. See SacrIFICE AND OFFER- 
Ings, § 15; and OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, § 2 (4). 

FRAY: This old English word in AV and ERV 
at Dt 28 26, Jer 7 33, Zec 1 21 means ‘to frighten.’ 
Cf. ARV. 


FRECKLED SPOT. See Disease AND MeEDI- 
CINE, § 4 (3). 


FREE, FREEDOM, FREEDMAN, FREE- 
WOMAN. See Suavery; and Liserry, Curis- 
TIAN 


FREEWILL-OFFERING. 
OFFERINGS, § 10. 


FRET, FRETTING. See Diszasp anp Mept- 
CINE, § 2, and 4 (2). 

FRIED. See Sacririck AND OrreRINas, § 16. 

FRIEND, FRIENDSHIP: The most common 
words for friend in the O T (réa‘, ré‘eh, méréa‘) indi- 
cate acquaintanceship and intercourse of varying de- 
grees of intimacy. In II S 15 37, 16 16; I K 45 the 
word is used probably in a somewhat technical, 7.e., 
official sense. Another frequently used term is 
’Ohébh (participle of ’Ghabh, ‘to love’), lit. ‘lover,’ like 
the Gr. 9fkoc (IIS 196 AV; IL Ch 207; Est 5 10, 
14, 613; Pr 14 20, 18 24, 27 6; Is 41 8; Jer 20 4, 6; Zec 
13 6). The classic example of Biblical friendship, 
that of David and Jonathan, is spoken of as ‘love’ 
not friendship (I $ 18 2). In Jer 38 22 the original 
means ‘men of thy peace’ (cf. 20 10). In Pr 16 28, 
17-9 the Heb. term implies the existence of a bond of 
union, or a confidential relation. ‘To speak friendly 
(AV in Jg 19 3; Ru 2 13) is literally ‘to speak to the 
heart’ (‘kindly’ RV). In Job 19 19 ‘inward friend’ 
(AV) is literally ‘men of my counsel’ (cf. RV). In 
the NT the word rendered ‘friend,’ except in four 
instances, is the common Gr. term ¢fAoc. In Mt 
20 13, 22 12, 26 50 the Gr. is étatpoc, ‘companion’ or 
‘comrade.’ In Ac 12 20 the statement is literally 
‘and having persuaded Blastus’—“‘friend’ not being 
in the original at all. E. E. N. 


FRINGE, FRINGES: In Dt 22 12 we have an 
ancient law requiring Israelites to wear ‘fringes’ 
(g¢dhilim) upon the four corners of their garments 
In Nu 15 38 f. essentially the same law is given, 
only here the word rendered ‘fringes’ is ¢stésith, 
which seems to have taken the place of the older 
word. ‘Tassels’ is a much more correct rendering 
than ‘fringes,’ since g*dhilim means something 
‘twisted,’ and these were to be attached to the corner, 
not the hem, of the garment. These tassels were 
fastened to the outer garment or simlah (see Drxss 


See SACRIFICE AND 


Frog 
Galatians 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


278 





AND ORNAMENTS, § 3) by a cord of blue, and worn to 
remind the wearer of his obligation, as an Israelite, of 
loyalty to J’’, tho the original purpose, in the time 
of Dt and earlier, may have been quite different. 
Much was made of these in later times as distinct 
badges of Judaism (cf. Zec 8 23). They seem to have 
been common in N T times (cf. Mt 9 20, 14 36, 23 5). 
When the Jews adopted Gentile dress, they gradually 
ceased wearing the tassels as part of their ordinary 
garb, and confined them, as now, to the tallith (an 
adaptation of the old stmlah, worn by men at the 
synagog service, also, in a smaller form, as an 
article of underwear). E. E. N. 


FROG. See PA.esTIne, § 26; and in general 
PLAGUES. 
FRONTLETS. See PHYLACTERIES. 


FROWARD: The North Eng. form of the prepo- 
sition ‘fromward,’ meaning ‘turned from,’ often with 
the idea of perversity. In AV it is used as adjec- 
tive, noun, and adverb in the rendering of several 
Heb. words, which are translated in other passages 
by ‘perverse,’ ‘crooked,’ ‘false,’ and ‘wayward.’ All 
these words appear in Pr much oftener than else- 
where, referring to conduct in private and public 
life. ARV retains ‘froward’ only in II S 22 27, Ps 
18 26, and I P 218. GOSav: 


FRUIT: In the great majority of instances the 
words rendered ‘fruit’ are, in the O T, p*ri, and, in 
the N T x«exéc, both words being of general signifi- 
cance and applied (1) to the produce of the earth 
and its plants, (2) to the increase of animals, inclu- 
ding man, and, (3) figuratively, to the results or con- 
sequences of human actions, especially in the moral 
sphere. Other terms rendered ‘fruit’ are: ’ébh, 
‘bloom’ or ‘budding’ (Dn 4 12, 14, 21); y¢bhil, ‘result’ 
(Dt 1117; Hab 3 17; Hag 1 10); yeledh, ‘child’ (Ex 21 
22); lehem, ‘bread’ (Jer 11 19); ma’dkhal, ‘eating’ 
(Neh 9 25, lit. ‘trees of eating’); melé’ah, ‘fulness’ 
(Dt 22 9); ndbh, nibh, and tenibhah (all from nibh, 
‘to grow’), meaning ‘fruit,’ as the result of growth 
(Jg 9 11; Is 27 6; La 49; Mal 1 12, and, figuratively, 
Is 57 19); t¢bhi’Gh, ‘increase,’ and often so rendered; 
zimrah, meaning doubtful (Gn 43 11); kdah, ‘strength’ 
(Job 31 39); yévnua, ‘product’ (Mk 14 25, and |s; 
Lk 12 18 [‘grain’ RV]; II Co 9 10), and éxwea, ‘ripe 
fruit? (Rv 18 14). See also PatmsTINE, § 23; and 
Foop, § 5. K. E. N. 

FRYING-PAN: The translation of marhesheth, 
Lv 27, 79—probably a shallow pan, whether of metal 
or earthenware is not certain. 


FUEL: Little is said specifically about fuel in the 
Bible. It may be inferred that in ancient times, 


when the country was more abundantly wooded, 
wood was commonly used as fuel. The references to 
coals are generally to stones heated red hot, but at 
times to charcoal, which was burned in a brasier, or 
pan, of earthenware (Jer 36 22 f.; Zec 12 6), and 
used for heating rooms, also, probably, in the smelt- 
ing-furnaces, and in the priestly censers. ‘Coals of 
juniper,’ 7.e., charcoal made from the broom shrub 
(used for this purpose to-day), and mentioned in Ps 
120 4. For heating pots, thorn bushes of various - 
kinds furnished a convenient fuel (Ps 58 9; Is 33 12; 
Ec 7 6). The dung of camels and cattle is used to- 
day very commonly in Palestine as fuel, but there is 
only one reference to this in the O T (Ezk 4 15). 
E. E. N. 


FUGITIVE: (1) In Gn 4 12, 14, the Heb. means 
‘wanderer,’ one who has no fixed abode. (2) In 
21 29 RV, Jg 12 4 the idea is that of one who has 
‘escaped.’ (3) In II K 25 11 ‘deserters’ are meant. 
(4) In Is 10 31, 155, 4314; Jer 495; Ezk 17 21, ‘fugitive’ 
is the proper term. (5) In Is 16 3, 21 14 RV, gives 
the real sense of the Heb. ‘wanderer(s).’ 


FULFIL. See Propuecy, $§ 8, 12, 13. 
FULLER. See ArtizAn Lirs, § 13. 

FULLER’S FIELD, THE. See JerusauEm, § 11. 
FULNESS. See Gnosticism 1n N T. 


FURLONG: A measure of length. See WEIGurTs 
AND MEASURES, § 2. 


FURNACE: Several original terms are so ren- 
dered in the Bible. (1) tanntr (Aram. ’attiéin, Dn 
3 6 ff.), properly ‘oven’ (Gn 15 17; Neh 3 i1, 12 38; 
Ps 219; Is 319; Mal 41); see Foon, § 11. (2) kibh- 
shan, a ‘kiln’ or ‘smelting-furnace’ (Gn 19 28; Ex 
98,10, 1918). (8) kér, a ‘crucible,’ for metal-working, 
often used figuratively (Pr 17 3; Dt 4 20, etc.). (4) 
‘alil (Ps 12 6) is of uncertain meaning. (5) x&utvoc 
(Mt 18 42, etc.), a term of comprehensive meaning, 
signifying various kinds of furnaces. EK. KE. N. 


FURNITURE: In all instances save one the Heb. 
term rendered ‘furniture’ is keli, a word of general 
import. In Gn 31 34, ‘furniture’ AV, the Heb. kar 
is more correctly rendered ‘saddle’ (so RV). A 
camel’s saddle, or saddle litter, it a basket-lke affair, 
provided with cushions inside, and covered with an 
awning. It is used by women when traveling by 
camels. Such a saddle is to be distinguished from 
the pack-saddle, used to hold the burdens loaded on 
camels. K. E. N. 


FURROW. See AGRICULTURE, § 4. 
FURY. See Gon, § 2. 


279 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Frog 
Galatians 





GAAL, g@’al (73, ga‘al): A son of Ebed, who 
organized a revolt of the Shechemites against Abime- 
lech (Jg 9 26-41). Whether Gaal was an Israelite 
or Canaanite (probably the latter), and whether he 
acted as a patriot or a demagog aiming to set up 
his own personal authority in the place of that of 
Abimelech are questions on which the story does not 
furnish sufficient material for definite answers. 

A. C. Z. 

GAASH, gé’ash (VY3, ga‘ash): The name of a 
hill north of which Joshua was buried (Jos 24 30; Jg 
29). The brooks (or ‘brook valleys’) of Gaash are 
also mentioned (II S 23 30; I Ch 11 32). For location 
see TIMNATH-SERAH. 

GABA, gé’ba. See GEBA. 

GABBAI, gab-bé’ai ('33, gabbay): A prominent 
Benjamite in postexilic times (Neh 118). 

GABBATHA, gab’a-fhe. See JERUSALEM, § 44. 

GABRIEL, gé’bri-el. See ANGEL, § 4. 

GAD, gad (73, gddh), ‘fortune’: I. 1. A son of 
Jacob; see Tripus, §§ 2-4. 2. A prophet who ad- 
vised, or admonished, David, first, when as an out- 
law he was passing from place to place in his efforts 
to elude Saul’s search (I S 225), and again, when the 
king took the census (II § 2411 #.;I Ch 219#.). To- 
gether with Nathan he further assisted David in the 
arrangements of the Levitical musical service (II Ch 
29 25), and wrote a record of some portion at least of 
the great king’s reign (I Ch 29 29). 

II. That there was a form of Canaanitish idolatry 
adopted by some Hebrews, in which a fortune-god 
was worshiped under the name of Gad, is attested by 
Isaiah (65 11); ARVmg. ‘Gad.’ The name of this 
fortune-god appears also in such compounds as 
Baal-gad (Jos 11 17, 12 7, 13 5) and Migdal-gad (Jos 
15 37). It is probable that in Leah’s naming of her 
maid’s son ‘Gad’ (Gn 30 11) there is a trace of the 
worship of this deity. See Semitic Retiaion, § 22. 

A. C. Z. 

GAD, VALLEY OF (733 5m}, nahal hag-gadh, 
ITS 245), ‘torrent valley [wady] of Gad’: The valley 
of the Arnon, the boundary between Moab and 
Gad (cf. Dt 2 36; Jos 139). In IIS 245 read, with 
LXX. (Lucian), Wellhausen, and Driver: ‘And they 
began from Aroer, from the city . . . toward Gad.’ 

Cap ai. 

GADARENES, gad”o-rinz’. See G=RASENES. 

GADDI, gad’dai (73, gaddi): One of the spies 
(Nu 13 11). 

GADDIEL, gad’1-el (OND gaddi’él), ‘Fortune is 
God’: One of the spies (Nu 13 10). 

GADI, gé’dai ('73, gadhi): The father of King 
Menahem (IT K 15 14, 17). 

GAHAM, gé’ham (073, gaham): Probably an 


Aramean clan-name, connected genealogically with 
Nahor (Gn 22 24). 


GAHAR, gé@’har (193, gahar): The ancestral head 
of a subdivision of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 47; Neh 7 49), 


GAI, gé’ai (873, gay’), ‘valley’: The name of a 
place in Philistia (I S 17 52, ‘the valley’ AV). The 
true reading is ‘Gath’ (cf. RVmg. and the latter 
half of the verse). Oe San 


GAIUS, gé’us (Té&ioc): 1. A traveling companion of 
Paul mentioned in Ac 19 29. 2. Gaius who in Ac 20 4 
is distinguished as ‘from Derbe’ and possibly identi- 
cal with 1. 3. One of two persons in Corinth whom 
Paul himself had baptized (ICo 114). 4. The person 
to whom III Jn is addressed. 5. Gaius, ‘my host? 
mentioned in Ro 16 23. If Ro ch. 16 was written in 
Corinth possibly identical with 3. 4 Fool Bid by 


GALAL, gé’lal (593, galal): The name of two post- 
exilic Levites (1. I Ch 915. 2. I Ch 916; Neh 11117). 
GALATIA, ga-lé-shi-a. See Asta Minor, III, 5. 


GALATIANS, EPISTLE TO THE. 1. Introduc- 
tory. The Epistle to the Galatians belongs to the 
group of practically undisputed letters of Paul (see 
CORINTHIANS, EpiIsTLEs To THE, § 1). In this group 
it holds a place of special importance because of the 
peculiarly large autobiographical element it pos- 
sesses, which brings it into significant relation to the 
record of the Book of Acts. 

2. Circumstances of Writing. It was written on 
the receipt of unexpected and disturbing news of a 
threatened defection of the readers from the Gospel 
preached to them by the Apostle (16 f., 3 1-4, 4 13-16, 
5 7-9). This defection, while it was occasioned by 
teachings which aroused in the readers a spirit of 
pride and vainglory that stimulated them to feelings 
of jealousy and hostility within their own circle 
(5 13, 15, 26; cf. 5 6, 20, 61-5), practically united them 
in an attack upon the authority of Paul’s apostleship 
as underlying the Gospel which he preached (1 11-17, 
2 6-10), and involved them in beliefs vitally different 
from those he proclaimed, and consequently fatal to 
their Christian life (1 6 f., 31, 4 8-11, 19, 51-4). It was 
apparently written on a journey, and not from a 
city center (11f.). The information on which it was 
based bears all the marks of having come to the 
Apostle not through general rumor, nor through offi- 
cial correspondence, but througha personal messen- 
ger. (cf. 1 6-10, 31-5, 4 12-20, 5 1-15, 6 11-13). It was pro- 
duced under the pressure of strong feeling (cf. 1 6-8, 
11-17, 20, 3 1-5, 4 11-16, 19 f., 5 2-4, 11 f., 611 f. Note in 
contrast to Paul’s other letters the absence from 
the greeting of any thanksgiving for the readers’ 
spiritual life). 

3. Order of Contents. At the same time, the order of its 
thought is simple. After the formal address (1 1), in which he 
seems to forecast the claim he is to make for himself (ver. 1), and 
the rebuke he is to administer to the churches (ver. 4), the 
Apostle passes at once to a consideration of the situation (1 bag 

He states in language the plainness of which can not be mis- 
understood his astonished disappointment at the unreasonable 
and alarming course the readers are pursuing (vs. 6, 7a) and his 
unhesitating anathema upon the false teachers who were 


responsible for it (vs. 7b-9), justifying the solemnity of his 

condemnation by the disinterested motive involved in the 
e (ver. 10). 

eat oT AANEa takes up the personal element in the con- 

troversy and presents, in a detailed review of his life from his 

conversion to the period of the Jerusalem Council, a vindication 

of his apostolic authority (1 4-22), He begins this vindication 


Galatians 





with a solemn statement of the origin of his Gospel—that it 
had not come from man but from God (11! f-). In proof of this 
he calls to their mind the bitter zeal of his Jewish life (1 #3 f.), 
in order that they might understand the significance of the 
change which had come over him in his conversion—a change 
which was due to nothing short of a Divine agency, and had for 
its purpose nothing less than the entrusting to him of this God- 
given Gospel which he preached (1 }, 16a), 

To this subjective experience he adds a statement of objective 
facts, showing not merely his independence of the Jerusalem 
Apostles subsequent to his conversion (1 1sb-24), but the ac- 
knowledgment which these same Apostles made of the equality 
of his apostleship at the time of the Jerusalem Council (2 140)— 
an equality of which he was conscious enough to rebuke Peter 
himself, the head of that apostolic circle, for conduct incon- 
sistent with the principles they all confessed (2 4-4), These 
facts gave evidence that his Gospel was of Divine and not of 
human origin, since with a human gospel he would have had no 
expectation of such action on the part of the other Apostles, 
and no justification for such action on his own part. 

The circumstances in which this equality was 
acknowledged and this rebuke administered were all 
the more significant for Paul’s argument, because 
the question before the Jerusalem Council had been 
the observance of the ceremonial law by the Gentile 
converts as necessary to their admission into the 
Christian brotherhood—the very same matter as 
was being urged by the false teachers in Galatia 
(214.). As to this question Paul had had a con- 
ference with the Apostles, most likely just before the 
gathering of the Council, and had taken strong 
ground against the compulsion of these converts to 
such observance (2 3-5), and had won the Apostles to 
his view (2 3, 6f.,9f.). . 

Peter’s inconsistency had also to do with this 
same question. In spite of his acknowledgment of 
Paul’s position at the Council—that nothing should 
be required of the Gentiles as a condition of salva- 
tion and, therefore, of church-membership, beyond 
faith in Jesus Christ (cf. Ac 15 7b-11), he had not 
only given up partaking with the Gentiles in the 
common meal, which doubtless had been instituted 
as a natural result of the Council’s decision, but had 
abandoned it in such a spirit as practically to deny 
the Gentile converts the right of Christian fellow- 
ship (2 11-13). 

In his rebuke of this Apostle, which, of course, we do not have 
here fully reproduced, Paul presents the principle of justifica- 
tion by faith in such a way as to show that Peter could not be 
logically true to it and act as he had done (2 15-21), This closes 
the personal discussion of the situation and leads the way to the 
more purely doctrinal discussion (chs. 3 and 4). 

This discussion is opened with a renewed statement of his 
astonished disappointment at the course the readers are pur- 
suing (3 1), in which he confronts them with the inconsistency 
it showed with all their previous experience (vs. 3, 4a), tho he 
hints at the hope that this experience may yet assert itself 
(ver. 4b). 

He then proceeds to place before them the mutually exclusive 
principles of the Gospel of faith, which they had received and 
accepted, and the gospel of works, which they were now follow- 
ing (3 5-481), Hereminds them (1) that Abraham, to whom the 
false teachers harked back, as the father of circumcision and the 
representative of the covenant of the Messianic promises, was 
justified not by works, but by trust in God; so that they who 
lived by faith were the true children of Abraham, and the real 
recipients of the promises (3 °-%); for they who live by works 
must keep the whole Law, and this has never been possible in 
the sight of God, since the only basis on which God ever justifies 
man is faith and the Law is not something toward which faith 
can be exercised (3 10-12), (2) That Christ had redeemed man 
from the penalty consequent upon his failure to keep the Law, 
in order that, instead of the fruitlessness of works, man might 
receivethe promised blessings through faith (3 18 f-). (8) That, if 
it be claimed that the promises to Abraham were superseded by 
the Mosaic Law (3 15-17), it must be remembered (a) that the 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


280 





promises were of the nature of a covenant (3 45 !-); so that the 
Law, tho subsequent to them, could not annul them (3 17 f-)—in 
fact, if it could, it would invalidate the very principle on which 
they were given, which was one of free promise received in 
trust, and not of earned reward for obedience to law (3 18) and 
(b) that the Law was given, not to supersede the promises, but 
by showing man his inability to keep its commands to bring 
him, through a consciousness of his spiritual helplessness, to 
faith in Christ (3 19 f-); so that the Law, far from superseding the 
promises, makes possible their realization through bringing 
man to an appreciation of the need of faith (3 219), 

This presentation of the relation of the principles of faith 
and works is then illustrated from the position of an heir under 
the Roman law (41-7), This brings the Apostle to still another 
statement of his disappointment at the readers’ present course 
(4 820), in which he recalls to them their enthusiasm for his 
Gospel, and their personal attachment to himself when he first 
preached to them (4 18-6), appealing to them, through an alle- 
gorical presentation of the superiority of the covenant of the 
promise, to appreciate the blessings which belonged to them 
through faith (4 21-81) 

Upon this follows the practical portion of the Epistle, begin- 
ning with an exhortation to stand fast in their liberty from the 
bondage of the Law (5 1-12), and then proceeding, through an 
elaboration of what this idea of liberty should mean to their 
living (5 18-26), to a group of admonitions regarding their fellow- 
ship and service within the Christian brotherhood (61-!°), closing 
with a final restatement of the Apostle’s position (6 4-15), and 
the benedictory remarks (6 16-18), 


4. Composition and Location of the Churches. 
The churches to which this burning remonstrance 
was addressed must have had a definite Jewish ele- 
ment within their membership in order to give the 
false teachers a point of contact for their ceremonial 
propaganda; altho the previous nature-religion of the 
Gentile majority, through its ascetic tendencies, had 
left them open to the legalism these teachers en- 
joined (4 8-10). 

Where in Asia Minor these churches were located 
has been a question of much debate—the accepted 
view, up to recent times, being that they, belonged 
to that northern portion of the large Roman prov- 
ince of Galatia known as Galatia proper. As long 
ago, however, as the close of the 18th cent. it was sug- 
gested that they may have been the churches of 
Paul’s first mission tour, since those were within the 
Galatian province. (See Map of the Pauline World.) 

With the opening of the 20th cent. this suggestion 
has gained in favor, largely through its strong advo- 
cacy by Ramsay (1890), and is now the widely ac- 
cepted opinion of scholars. It has many arguments 
in its favor—chiefly (1) that it allows one of Paul’s 
most important letters to go to churches whose 
founding is given us in detail in Ac, and whose situa- 
tion near Syria not only opened them to just such a 
Jewish propaganda as this letter contests, but makes 
such an agitation almost inevitable, in view of the 
fact that it was the Gentile success of Paul’s first 
mission among these churches which caused in 
Antioch the outbreak of the whole controversy (cf. 
Ac 1518.). No mention is made in Ac of the found- 
ing of churches in Galatia proper; while such 
churches as may have been there in Paul’s time must 
have been too remote from Syria to be in vital con- 
tact with any such specifically Jewish movement as 
this crusade for ceremonialism. (2) That it will 
account for several references in the letter which 
otherwise would be obscure, e.g., Paul’s repeated 
mention of Barnabas (2 1, 9, 13), who had been with 
him on his first mission tour only (cf. Ac chs. 13, 14, 
15 36-41), Paul’s reference to his reception by the 


281 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Galatians 


eee 


readers as an angel (‘messenger’) of God (4 14; cf. 
Ac 1411-14), Paul’s complaint that, tho he is charged 
’ with preaching circumcision, he is still persecuted by 
those who advocate this rite (5 11; ef. Ac 16 1-3), the 
attention Paul calls to the marks of Jesus, which he 
bears branded on his body (6 17; cf. Ac 14 19 £.). 


5. Date. In view of this location of the churches it 
would seem that the Epistle could not have been 
written earlier than the latter part of Paul’s second 
mission tour; since he evidently had visited the 
readers at least twice before sending them the letter. 
(Note the necessity of two visits to account for the 
difference in the attitude of the readers in 4 13-15 and 
1g.) It has been assigned, accordingly, to some time 
within Paul’s second mission tour, either at Corinth, 
when the Thessalonian Epistles were written (Zahn), 
or at Antioch in Syria, between his second and third 


mission tours (Ramsay); also to his third mission © 


tour, either at Ephesus (Burton), or in Macedonia 
on his way from Ephesus to Corinth (Von Dob- 
schiitz). On the other hand, there are those who, 
holding that 4 13 does not necessarily imply two 
previous visits, place its composition on the journey 
from Antioch to Jerusalem just preceding the 
Council of Ac 15 (Lake); while some, claiming that 
the second visit is the return half of his first visit to 
the churches (Ac 14 23), assign its writing to the stay 
in Antioch after the Council (McGiffert)—in either 
case making it the earliest of Paul’s letters. 

Apart, however, from the fact that it was written 
while the Apostle was on a journey, accompanied by 
traveling companions, and not while he was in some 
city center, the guest of the local church (see above, 
§ 2), and that oltw> tayéws (1 6) does not mean 
‘how quickly,’ but ‘how rashly’ (cf. I Ti 5 22), it is 
clear if, when II Co was written, there was in the 
Corinthian situation any intimation of the Galatian 
Situation (see CoRINTHIANS, EpisrLEs TO THE, § 12 
and above § 2), that the absence of all warning in 
II Co (especially chs. 10-13) as to the doctrinal 
possibilities of such a Judaizing movement as may 
have been present can not be adequately explained 
if Paul had already experienced the severity of the 
Galatian defection. 

It is difficult to account for the light and easy 
treatment of circumcision in the Corinthian letters, 
if he had already been taught by the Galatian trouble 
the fatal significance it would have in the religiouslife. 
This is confirmed by the fact that, altho there was no 
Judaizing movement at all in Rome, the Epistle to 
that church shows that the doctrinal impressions of 
the Galatian discussion were still strong in Paul’s 
mind when he wrote that letter. (Note the treat- 
ment of circumcision in Ro 2 25-29, 49-17, which would 
be quite natural, if Galatians had just preceded 
Romans.) It is but reasonable to suppose that these 
impressions must have been with him when he wrote 
to the Corinthians, if Gal had preceded the letters to 
them. Recognizing the fact of development in 
Paul’s formulating of his doctrinal ideas and the 
continuity of thought involved in such development, 
Epistles so similar in doctrinal thought as Ro and 
Gal are not likely to have been separated by Epistles 
80 dissimilar to either as I and II Co. 

That Paul could not have written to the Galatians 


after the Council of Ac 15 without mentioning the 
decrees misses in a singular way the significance of 
2 1-10 which was not to remind them of the decrees, 
of which they already knew, but to inform them of 
his private conference with the Apostolic leaders, of 
which being private, they did not know; for it was at 
this conference that he won the Apostles to his views 
and brought the Council to the confirmation of his 
position. 

Taking all things into consideration, the writing 
of Gal is best assigned to that part of Paul’s third 
mission tour covered by his journey from Ephesus to 
Corinth a portion of which he spent possibly in 
Epirus (cf. Ro 15 19), after his last letter to the 
Corinthian church, in other words to the summer, or 
fall, of 55, or more probably 56 a.p. 

6. Bearing of Epistle on Paul’s Work. The early 
apostolic Church was wholly Jewish in its member- 
ship. It was, therefore, naturally Jewish in the 
spirit of its worship and its thought, and Jewish in 
the purpose of its evangel. It considered the reli- 
gion of Jesus as the vital outcome of Judaism, to 
which, in form, it still belonged, and which it aimed 
simply to reform up to this new standard of the 
Gospel. Theoretically this was right. Practically, 
however, it failed to realize that any such reform 
involved an abandonment of the spirit of the old 
exclusivism by which all Gentilism was to come into 
the new religion by way of Judaism. Consequently 
when Paul appeared with his commission to the 
Gentiles the Church accepted him, not foreseeing 
what his work implied (cf. Ac 9 26-29). The startling 
results of his first mission tour, however, made this 
vividly real, and the controversy regarding the ad- 
mission of Gentiles without circumcision became a 
necessary issue (cf. Ac 14 25-15 1, 3-5). 

This controversy was joined first at Antioch, car- 
ried up to Jerusalem for decision, and settled there 
in full recognition of the principle of salvation by 
faith tho the racial lines and prejudices of Judaism 
remained (Ac 15 19-21, 21 17-26). This duality of life 
and thought inside the Church, however, made 
further dispute inevitable, and rendered certain 
that, within the regions near Jerusalem and Syria 
in which Paul’s Gentile work was being carried on, 
this dispute would open the way for a Judaizing 
propaganda against his ministry. It is to contest 
this propaganda that Gal was written—showing us 
the first stage in the practical working out of the 
religious dualism within the Apostolic Church. (See 
CORINTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE, § 12). 

LiterRATURE: Among the introductions accessible in English, 
Jilicher (Eng. trans. 1904) fairly represents the more ad- 
vanced criticism, while Zahn (Eng. Trans. 2d ed. 1917) places 
its unrivaled wealth of learning on the conservative side. 
Consult also the introductions of Moffatt (1911); Peake 
(1910); also the Comm. of Ramsay (1900); Rendall, Hz- 
positor’s Greek Test. (1903); Williams, Camb. Grk. Test. (1910); 
Adeney, New Cent. Bible (1911); Mackenzie, Westminst, N. T. 
(1912); Emmet, Readers Com., (1912); Burton, ICC. (1920). 
For discussion of the South Galatian theory see, besides 
Zahn, Introduction, § 11; Ramsay, Historical Geography of 
Asia Minor (1890), Cities of St. Paul (1907). For description 
of the Galatian situation, see Von Dobschiitz, Christian Life 
in the Primitive Church (1904); Lake, The Earlier Epistles of 
Paul (1911); Watkins, Paul’s Fight for Galatia (1914). For 


significant discussion of teaching in this Epistle and that to 
the Romans, see Westcott St. Paul and Justify Ai 


Galbanum 
Gammadim 





GALBANUM. See OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, 
§ 2; and PALESTINE, § 22. 

GALEED, gal’i-ed (1973, gal‘édn), ‘witness-pile’: 
The name given by Jacob to a pile of stones, raised 
as a ‘witness’ to the compact between himself and 
Laban (Gn 31 47, 48). Apparently intended as an 
explanation of the word Gilead (cf. the witness-altar 
of Jos 22 34). OSE. 


GALILEE, GALILEAN. See Patzsting, § 36. 


GALILEE, SEA OF (called also Lake Gennesaret 
[Lk 51, originally Tewnoke; I Mac 11 67], and Sea 


° 


SCALE OF MILES 
* ‘ 2 ae 


of Tiberias [Jn 6 1, 21 1]; in the O T Sea of Chin- 
nereth [Nu 3411; Jos 13 27] and Chinneroth [Jos 12 3]. 
In I K 15 20 [Cinneroth AV] the term is evidently 
used of the plain of Gennesaret, and not of the sea): 
The largest fresh-water lake of Palestine, being 13 m. 
from N. to S. and 8 m. from E. to W., at its widest 
part. Its shape is in general that of an irregular 
pear, its depth less than 200 ft. and its surface 681 ft. 
below the level of the Mediterranean. The river 
Jordan enters it at the extreme NE. and issues from 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


282 


it at the extreme SW., at a point much lower, as 
shown by the cataract-like aspect of the water at 
this point. It constitutes a bright, light-blue body 
of water, which on account of the low level is gen- 
erally warmer than similar bodies in other parts of 
the world. Its temperature ranges from 69° on the 
surface to 59° at a depth of 65 ft. and lower. It is 
located in a volcanic region, the mountains on the E. 
and the country on the N. being full of lava forma- 
tions and basalt rocks. The hot springs at Tiberias, 
which always have been and are to the present day 
famous for their medicinal qualities, and the fre- 


tin et Tabigha 
in et-Tin 


Magdala 


(/feydel) Kersa or Kersi) 


Tiberias 


GALILEE 


Hot Batis 





quent earthquakes show that the volcanic forces in 
this region are not yet exhausted. 

The scenery about the lake does not lack in 
variety, as the sky-line never runs on a dead level for 
any distance, but either rises, as in the E.., with the 
steep mountains, or sinks to the very level of the 
shore, as in the NW., where the water imperceptibly 
passes into the plain of Gennesaret, and the land 
slopes up to the hills of Galilee. The only feature 
needed to put it on an equality with the most beau- 


283 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Galbanum 
Gammadim 





tiful landscape in the world is that of thick woods 
on at least a portion of the highlands around. 

The waters of the lake are noted for abundant fish. 
The industry of fishing was accordingly one of the 
most stable resources of the country round about. 
Clear evidences of this are to be found in the names 
of the cities Bethsaida (‘house of fish’) at the N. end 
of the lake, and Tarichoea (from tapryedety, ‘to cure 
for purposes of preservation,’ mod. Kerak) at the 
S. end. Several varieties of Galilean fish were 
regarded as choice, and it was claimed that they 
were the same as those found in the waters of the 
Nile. See Patestine, § 26. Jesus called His dis- 
ciples from among those engaged in this industry. 
He also made use in His parables of the methods of 
fishermen (Mt 13 47, 48). 

Another feature of the Sea of Galilee is its suscep- 
tibility to sudden storms. These are occasioned 
partly by its lying so much lower than the surround- 
ing table-land (a fact that creates a difference of 
temperature and consequent disturbances in the 
atmosphere), and partly by the rushing of gusts of 
wind down the Jordan valley from the heights of 
Hermon. The event recorded in Mt 8 24 is no extra- 
ordinary case. Those who ply boats on the lake are 
obliged to exercise great care to avoid peril from such 
storms. 

The shores of the Sea of Galilee as well as the lake 
itself were the scenes of many of the most remark- 
able events recorded in the Gospels, such as the feed- 
ing of the 5,000 (Mt 1413 and ||s). 

Literature: G. A. Smith, HGHL, pp. 437-465. A. C. Z. 


GALL: Two different conceptions are repre- 
sented by the words which EV translates ‘gall’ (a) 
mérorah, or mé*rérah, lit. ‘bitterness’ (Job 13 26; Dt 
32 32), is used for the bile (Job 1613), the human gall- 
bladder (Job 20 25), and the venom of serpents (Job 
2014). (b) ré’sh, the name of a quick-growing weed 
(Hos 10 4, ‘hemlock’), which bore berries (Dt 32 32) 
and was coupled with wormwood (q. v.), as a type of 
bitterness (Dt 29 18; La 3 19; Am 6 12). Hence the 
word is twice used for the ‘poison’ of serpents (Dt 
32 33; Job 2016). The plant indicated is probably the 
poppy, which grows abundantly in Palestine, and 
whose capsules might well give rise to the name 
ré’sh (‘head’). The ‘water of gall’ (Jer 8 14, 9 15, 
23 15) was apparently a decoction of poppy-heads, 
rather than the opium drug itself. In the N T, ‘gall’ 
(xoAn) seems to indicate ré’sh, especially in Mt 
27 34, which is influenced by Ps 69 21. Many scholars 
however, explain yoAy as signifying in Hellenistic 
usage any kind of bitter liquid, including myrrh 
(cf. Mk 15 23). L. G. L.—E. E. N. 


GALLANT SHIP: An expression found in Is 33 21 
where the prophet, in comparing the future Jerusa- 
lem to a great city, naturally used illustrations 
drawn from the large commercial cities on the Nile 
or Euphrates with their well-appointed ships and 
boats (see also Surps AnD Navigation). The Heb. 
word rendered ‘gallant’ is ’addir, ‘large,’ ‘mighty,’ 
‘glorious.’ The word rendered ‘galley’ is the com- 
mon word (’dnz) for ship. 


GALLERY: (1) In Song 7 6 this is AV rendering 
of rahat, a word of uncertain meaning, for which 


RV gives ‘tresses.’ 
TEMPLE, §§ 20, 21. 


GALLEY. See GaLuAnt SuHip; and SuHrrs AND 
NAVIGATION, § 2. 


GALLIM, gal’im (0°53, gallim), ‘stone heaps’: 
A place in Benjamin, the home of Paltiel, Michal’s 
second husband (I S 25 44), also mentioned in Is 
10 30 as not far from Gibeah of Saul. The name may 
be only a shortened form of Gilgal. Site uncertain. 


GALLIO, gal’i-o, [aXtwy: The adopted name of 
Marcus Annzus Novatus, son of M. Annzus 
Seneca of Cordova in Spain, brother of the philoso- 
pher L. Annzeus Seneca, and uncle of the poet Lucan. 
He was a man of fine character and culture, was pro- 
consul of’ Achaia in the last (7.e., the second) year 
of Paul’s first visit to Corinth (52 a.p.), and fell a 


(2) For other occurrences see 


victim to Nero’s cruelty in 66 a.p. His decision in 


Acts was significant, because, if Paul’s preaching 
concerned Jewish religious belief and practise—as 
Gallio evidently thought it did—it showed that he 
as Roman governor would not interfere, and that in 
other respects he saw nothing in it that conflicted 
with Roman law (Ac 18 12-17). The recent publica- 
tion of an inscription at Delphi (discovered in 1905) 
has made it practically certain that Gallio’s procon- 
sulship was for the years 52-53. Paul was evidently 
brought before G. soon after G.’s arrival in Corinth. 
This gives us a ‘fixed point’ for N T chronology. For 
a translation of the inscription see Barton, Arche- 
ology and the Bible, p. 439. See also Deissmann, SE. 
Paul (Eng. Transl. 1912.) R. A. F.—E. E. N. 


GALLOWS. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 
§ 3, (a). 

GAMALIEL, ga-mé'l1-el ( Sd-F gamlvél, Gr. 
Tayartna), ‘reward of God’: 1. A son of Pedahzur, 
a prince of Manasseh (Nu 1 10, 2 20, etc.), in charge 
of a section of the census in the wilderness (Nu 10 23). 
2. A rabbi in the Apostolic Age (to be distinguished 
from a later one of the same name), a grandson of the 
renowned Hillel, a student of Greek literature and a 
leader of the liberal school of Pharisees. According 
to Ac 22 3, Paul was a student under him. G. is also 
noted for the counsel which moved the Sanhedrin 
not to molest the first preachers of Christianity (Ac 
5 34 ff.). An-untrustworthy Christian tradition 
(Clem. Recog., I, 65) represents him as a convert to 
the new faith. By the Jews he was regarded as the 
first of the seven great ‘Rabbans’ (preeminent 
rabbis). AcCGvZ: 


GAMES. The rendering in I Co 9 25 RV of the 
ptepl. dywvSéuevoc, ‘contending in a struggle or 
game’ (fr. &y ay, ‘contest,’ cf. I Ti 612; He 121), and 
in II Ti25 RV of vb. 6 d0Actv (whence our word 
‘athletics’). 

GAMMADIM, gam’a-dim (9°73, gammddhim): 
The context in Ezk 27 11 seems to require that 
this word should be interpreted as the name of a 
people. The ARV ‘valorous men’ has little to 
commend it. No satisfactory identification has yet 
been suggested. Evidently a people near Tyre was 


meant, possibly the Kumidi of the Amarna letters. 
K. E. N. 


Gamul 
Ge-Harashim 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


284 





GAMUL, gé’mol (9303, gamil): The ancestral 
head of the 22d course of priests (I Ch 24 17). 
GANGRENE. See Diseases anD Mepicinp, § 5. 
GARDEN. See Epren; and PALestine § 23. 
GARDENS, THE KINGS’. See JerusaLem, 
GAREB, gé’reb (23, gdrébh): I. One of David’s 
chiefs (II S 23 38; I Ch 11 40), said to be a member of 
the Ithrite family of Kiriath-jearim (cf. I Ch 2 53). 
It is probable, however, that the Heb. text should be 
vocalized so as to read ‘the Jattirite,’ 7.e., an inhabi- 
tant of Jattir (cf. IS 30 27). IL. An unidentified hill 
near Jerusalem (Jer 31 39). L.G. L.—E. E.N. 


GARLANDS: The rendering of the Gr. otéupata, 
which occurs but once in the N T (Ac 1413). The 
reference is to the wreaths used in heathen sacrifices. 
They were ordinarily made of the leaves and flowers 
of such trees or plants as were most acceptable to 
the divinity to whom the sacrifice was to be offered. 
If the phrase tateousg xa) otéupate ‘oxen and gar- 
lands’ isa hendiadys for tabeoug éoteruévouc, ‘oxen 
adorned with garlands,’ then they are to be under- 
stood as adorning only the victims; otherwise they 
may have been intended for the ministering priests 
and such temporary altars as they may have planned 
to erect, if, as is probable, the sacrifice was to be 
offered before the gates of the city, or the house, 
within which were the acclaimed divinities, and 
thus apart from the temple building itself. In fact, 
as the custom was to place them on the statue of the 
divinity before sacrificing to it, they may have been 
intended even for the Apostles themselves. See also 
DRESS AND ORNAMENTS, § 8. M. W. J. 


GARLIC. See Foon, § 3; and Patusring, § 23. 


GARMENT. See in general Dress AND ORNA- 
MENTS; and PRIESTHOOD, § 9b. 


GARMITE, gar’mait (73, 
name found only in I Ch 4 19. 
unknown. 


GARRISON: The proper Heb. term for ‘garri- 
son’ is matstsdbh (fem. matstsaébhah, in I S 14 12), 
which is so rendered in both RV and AV (IS 13 
23, 141, 4, 6, 11, 15; IT S 23 14). In other passages, 
where the Heb. is n¢tstbh, ‘pillar,’ or ‘governor’ (IS 
105,13 3f.; ILS 86,14; 1 Ch 11 16, 1813; II Ch 17 2), 
RV has retained the AV rendering ‘garrison,’ which 
should be changed, perhaps, to ‘governor’ (except 
in I Ch 1116). In Ezk 26 11 ‘pillars’ RV, and in 
II Co 11 32 ‘guarded’ RV, are the correct renderings. 

H. EK. N. 

GASHMQ, gash’miu. See GusHEM. 

GATAM, gé’tam (9993, ga‘tam): A ‘duke,’ 7.e., 
‘chief,’ of Edom (Gn 36 11, 16; I Ch 1 36). 

GATE. See Ciry, § 3; Wise Men; 
§ 6; and JERUSALEM, passim. 

GATH (Fi, gath), ‘wine-press’; gentilic, Gittite 
(II S 6 10): One of the five cities of the Philistines 
(II S 1 20). It is first mentioned as a place where 
Anakim were still living at the time of Joshua 
(Jos 11 22). The Ark of the Covenant was held here 
foratime (IS 58). It is also known as the residence 
of two Philistines, 7.e., Goliath, the gigantic cham- 
pion whom David slew (IS 17 4 #.), and Achish, its 


garmi): A gentilic 
Its significance is 


TEMPLE, 





king, with whom David later took refuge (I S 21 
10 f.). Still later, David captured and reduced it to 
subjection (IIS 81; cf. 1 Ch 181). Rehoboam forti- 
fied it (II Ch 11 8); but in the days of Uzziah it ap- 
pears to have regained its status as an independent 
Philistine city (II Ch 26 6). In the wars of Syria 
against Judah, it was seized by Hazael as a prelimi- 
nary step to an attack on Jerusalem (II K 12 17). 
From Am 6 2 it has been inferred that it was taken by 
Sargon in 711. Its name is to be recognized as the 
Gintu Asdudim of that monarch’s inscription (cf. 
Schrader, COT, II, p. 143). In the Onom. Sac. it is 
located 5 Roman m. from Eleutheropolis( Beit Jibrin) 
in the direction of Diospolis (Lydda), which would 
point to the modern Dikkerin, a village with ancient 
ruins that might possibly be those of a city like Gath. 
But according to modern explorers a more probable 
site is Tell-es Safiyeh, 10 m. SE. of Ekron and 10 m. 
E. of Ashdod (cf. G. A. Smith, HG HL, pp. 194-195). 
See Map I, C 9. A. C. Z, 


GATHERED TO ONE’S FATHERS. See Bur- 
IAL AND Buriat Customs, §§ 3-6; and EscuaToLoey, 
ee ee 

GATH-HEPHER, gafh-hi’fer (1207 "3, gath 
hahépher): The residence of Jonah, son of Amittai. 
(Jos 1913; II K 14 25), by mistake made into Gittah- 
hepher in AV of Jos 1913. The modern site is El- 
Meshed, about 3 m. NE. of Nazareth and 2 m. SW. 
of Sepphoris, where a tomb of the prophet Jonah is 
shown. Map IV, C7. 

GATH-RIMMON, -rim’an (1157 i, gath rim- 
mon). 1. A Levitical city situated in the territory 
of Dan (Jos 19 45, 21 24). Its exact site is not identi- 
fiable, but it must have lain near and somewhat E. 
of Joppa. 2. Another Levitical Gath-rimmon is 
mentioned in Jos 21 25 as in the half-tribe of Manas- 
seh; but in I Ch 6 69 the corresponding description 
reads ‘Bileam’ and ‘Gath-rimmon’ and is probably a 
textual corruption of this form (possibly Ibleam). 

A. C. Z. 

GAULANITIS, gél’’a-nai’tis (MaviAavitts, the mod- 
ern Jaulan): One of the provinces in the tetrarchy 
of Philip (Lk 31; cf. Jos. Ant. VIII, 1), bounded by 
the Jordan on the W., the Jarmuk on the S., and the 
Hermon on the N., with an uncertain line on the E., 
perhaps the river ’Allan. It is a volcanic region of 
the nature of a plateau varying in elevation from 
3,000 ft. in the N. to 1,000 ft. in the S. extremity. 
Parts of it are rich and fertile but the greatest portion 
only yields pasture ground for nomads (cf. G. A. 
Smith, HG HL, p. 541, and Schumacher, The Jaulan 
(1888). Map I, F, G, 4, 5. See also Goan). 

A. C. Z, 

GAZA, gé’za (TY, ‘azzah), also Azzah (Dt 2 23 
AV), gentilic, Gazites and Gazathites (Jos 13 3 AV): 
The southernmost of the five principal cities of 
the Philistines (II K 18 8), and in general a conven- 
tional territorial limit in the S., e.g., of the country 
of the Canaanites (Gn 10 19 [J]), of the conquest 
of Joshua (Jos 10 41), of the realm of the Avvim (Dt 
2 23) and of the empire of Solomon (I i@ 4 24). Map 
II, A 2. It was an important city as early as the 


days of Rameses II, in whose lists its name occurs 
(Rec. of the Past, 2d ser., VI, pp. 27, 41). In the 


285 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Gamul 
Ge-Harashim 





distribution of the land by Joshua it was assigned to 
Judah (Jos 15 47), but never possessed. It was for- 
tified, for it had gates (Jg 16 3), and possessed a tem- 
ple of Dagon (Jg 16 21 f.). Its location on the high 
road between Egypt and Mesopotamia brought it 
into relations with the Assyrians. Tiglath-pileser 
III subjugated its king Hanno in 734. It rebelled, 
but was again conquered by Sennacherib (701) and 
Esarhaddon (676); cf. Schrader, COT, I, pp. 91, 149, 
247. A. C. Z. 


GAZELLE. See PAuEstine, § 24, and Foon, § 10. 
GAZER, gé’zar. See Grezer. 
GAZEZ, gé’zez (13 gdzéz): The name of two indi- 


viduals, both Calebites (I Ch 2 46), tho there may be 
a textual error in the verse. 


GAZZAM, gaz’em (813, gazzém): The ‘sons of 
Gazzam’ were a subdivision of the Nethinim (Ezr 
2 48; Neh 7 51). 

GEAR. See Sures AnD Navigation, § 2. 

GEBA, gi’ba (333, gebha‘, in pause gabha‘, whence 
the AV Gaba), ‘hill’: 1. A Levitical city on the 
N. border of Benjamin (Jos 21 17; cf. IL K 23 8, 
‘from Geba to Beer-sheba’), and on the opposite 
side of the valley from Michmash (18 145). Itisto 
be distinguished from the neighboring Gibeah (Is 
10 26); but the similarity of the names (without 
vowel-points gb‘, gb‘h) has caused some confusion in 
the Heb. text. See Grpean, 2. In IIS 5 25 ‘Geba’ 
should be ‘Gibeon’ (so LXX., I Ch 14 16, and Is 
28 21). Geba is certainly the modern Jeba‘, a small 
village conspicuously situated on the S. side of the 
Wady es-Suweinit, opposite Michmash. Map III, 
F5. 2 (TarQat, Jth 310). Probably Jeba‘, a village 
4m. NE. of Samaria. Map III, F3. 

L. G. L.—E. E. N. 

GEBAL, gi’bal( 923, gbhal): 1. The Heb. name 
of the very ancient Phenician city Byblus, now 
known as Jebeil, situated on the coast 20 m. N. of 
Beirut. The O T locates the land of the Gebalites, 
or Giblites, correctly near Lebanon (Jos 13 5). 
Gebal furnished stone-masons for Solomon. (In- 
stead of ‘stone-squarers’ AV, read ‘Gebalites’ RV, 
I K 518.) According to Ezk 27 9 it was the head- 
quarters of shipbuilders. It was known to the 
Egyptians of the Ancient Empire as Kepuna, and 
to Assyrians and Babylonians as Gubal or Gubli. 
The excavations which the French have conducted 
since 1919 have brought to light extensive remains, 
both Egyptian and Phenician. The more important 
are two ancient shrines, one Egyptian and the other 
Syrian. In the ruins of the latter were found vases 
with the names of famous kings of the Ancient Em- 
pire—Mycerinus, Unas, Pepi I and Pepi II. Near 
the shrines was the burial ground of the royal 
family of Byblus; within its precincts several 
tombs have been discovered. Of these, two are of 
special interest as they are the sepulchers of two 
princes, father and son, and have hieroglyphic 
inscriptions on the lids of the sarcophagi which 
associate these ancient Phenician rulers with 
Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV of the XII 
dynasty (1849-1792 n.c.). Among the El-Amarna 
letters there are several from Rib-Adda, ruler of 


| Jerusalem (Is 10 31). 


Gebal, who acknowledges the sovereignty of the 
Egyptian King and protests his loyalty. The close 
connection between Gebal and Egypt is further 
attested by Wenamon the Egyptian traveler who 
mentions his visit to the prince of Gebal (¢ 1100 B.c.). 
2. The northern portion of Edom which is now 
known as Jebdl (Ps 837). J ARK 

GEBER, gi’bar (143, gebher), ‘man,’ ‘mighty man’: 
One of twelve officers of Solomon in charge of his 
commissariat (I K 4 19). His district, E. of the 
Jordan and S. of those mentioned in vs. 13 and 14, was 
somewhere between the Jabbok and the Arnon. 

OR. aay 

GEBIM, gi’bim (8°33, gébhim), ‘cisterns’: A place 
between Madmenah and Nob, and not far N. of 
Not identified. 

GECKO. See PauzEstIneE, § 26. 

GEDALIAH, ged’e-lai’a (172273, g*dhalyaha), 
‘J’ is great’: 1. A son of Ahikam and grandson of 
Shaphan, the secretary of King Josiah, appointed 
by Nebuchadrezzar as governor of those left in the 
land after the fall of Jerusalem (II K 25 22 f.), and 
assassinated by Ishmael (Jer 41 18). 2. One of the 
sons of Jeduthun (I Ch 25 3,9). 3. A son of Hezekiah 
and grandfather of Zephaniah (Zeph 11). 4. A son 
of Pashhur, a ruler who consigned Jeremiah to 
prison (Jer 381). 5. A priest who married a foreign 
wife (Ezr 10 18). 

GEDER, gi’der (113, gedher), ‘wall’: A Canaanite 
royal city, the same as Beth-gader (Jos 1213). Site 
unknown. Gederite, an inhabitant of Geder (I Ch 
1 i 

GEDERAH, gi-di’ra (177, g*dhérah), ‘a walled 
place’ (usually ‘a sheepfold’): A town in the low- 
lands of Judah (Jos 15 36). See Map II, D1. Identi- 
fication uncertain. The inhabitants were called 
Gederathites (I Ch 12 4). See also RV at I Ch 4 23. 

GEDEROTH, g1-di’reth (NIN, gedhéroth), ‘walled 
places’ (or ‘sheepfolds’): A town of Judah (Jos 15 41; 


II Ch 28 18). See Map II, C 1. Identification un- 
certain. 


GEDEROTHAIM, gi-di’rd-fhé/im (020713, gedhé- 
rothayim), ‘place of enclosures’: One of 14 towns 
in the Shephelah of Judah (Jos 15 36). Perhaps an 
error through dittography for the preceding name 
Gederah, as there are 14 without it. LXX. trans- 


lates ‘its enclosures.’ C. 8. T. 


GEDOR, gi’dér (7173, gedhdr), ‘wall’: I. 1. A 
Benjamite ancestor of Saul (I Ch 8 31, 9 37). 2. A 
family in Judah (I Ch 4 4,18. See II, 1). If. 1.A 
town in Judah, now Jedur (Jos 15.58), Map II, E. 2. 
2. The home of Jeroham, in Benjamin (I Ch127), 
possibly the same as 1. 3. For ‘Gedor’ (I Ch 4 39), 
read with LXX. ‘Gerar,’ a town of Simeon in the 
extreme S. of Judah. Map II, A 3. Loa. Bl bs 

GE-HARASHIM, gi”ha-ré’shim (O°U 7) 82, g@’ 
hdrdshim), ‘valley of the smiths’; ‘valley of Char- 
ashim’ (I Ch 414 AV): In Neh 11 35 the same Heb. 
term is rendered ‘valley of craftsmen.’ The words 
are not free from suspicion, but as they stand they 
mean that in a certain valley near Lod and Ono were 
the works of a gild of smiths. Ey E: N. 


Gehazi 
Genealogy, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


286 





GEHAZI, gi-hé’zai (1073, géhdzt), ‘valley of vi- 
sion’: The servant of the prophet Elisha, II K chs. 
4-8. In ch. 4 G. appears in a favorable light, sym- 
pathetic with the Shunamite woman, because she 
was childless (ver. 14), and at the same time jealous 
of his master’s honor (ver. 27). But in ch. 5 he is 
described as covetous and untruthful, and as pun- 
ished with the leprosy of Naaman. After this we are 
surprized to find him, in 8 4f., talking freely with the 
king of Israel, to whom he is recounting the deeds of 
Elisha (as tho the prophet were then dead). The 
stories have evidently been gathered from different 
sources, and no attempt has been made to render 


them perfectly harmonious. See also ExisHa. 
K. BE. N. 


GEHENNA. See JERUSALEM, § 6; and Escua- 
TOLOGY, § 30. 


GELILOTH, gi-lai‘lefh (19°23, gelilath), ‘cir- 
cles,’ z.e., ‘stone circles’ or, more broadly, ‘districts’: 
A place in the boundary of Benjamin (Jos 18 17) 
called Gilgal in 157. It was between Jerusalem and 
the Jordan, not far from the ascent of Adummim 
(q.v.), but is still unidentified. 


GEMALLI, gi-mal’ai C203, g°malli): One of the 
twelve spies (Nu 13 12). 

GEMARIAH, gem’’a-rai’a (17793, g¢emaryah), ‘J’’ 
accomplishes’: 1. A noble of Judah, in the days of 
Jehoiakim, apparently somewhat favorably dis- 
posed toward Jeremiah (Jer 36 10-12, 25). 2. A son 
of Hilkiah, sent to Babylon by Zedekiah and the 
bearer of a letter from Jeremiah to the Jewish cap- 
tives there (Jer 29 3). 


GEMS: This term is found only in Pr 26 8s ERV 
where the Heb. is ’ebhen, ‘stone.’ While a jewel or 
precious stone may be meant, and would make good 
sense, both AV and ARV correctly render the word 
‘stone,’ avoiding all inferences. E. E. N. 


GENEALOGY, OLD TESTAMENT. 1. Reasons 
for Genealogical Records. Zeal in establishing and 
recording genealogies is promoted by anything 
which connects privilege with the establishment of 
descent. For example, the remarkable genealogical 
records of the Arabs, which in many respects are a 
most suggestive parallel study to that of the Jewish 
genealogies, appear to owe their character and extent 
to the method introduced by the Calif Omar I of 
distributing the spoil taken from the infidels so that 
certain classes of the believers and their children 
received a larger share than other Arabs. In the 
circumstances of the Exile and the Return we find a 
sufficient cause, if not for the creation, yet certainly 
for great extension of genealogical zeal among the 
Jews. So long as the Jews were in their own land, 
actual possession of the patrimony and discharge of 
the duties connected therewith may frequently have 
served as sufficient proof of the inclusion of the 
owners in the Jewish nation; but divorced from 
their land they needed other proofs of their descent, 
if, in the Exile, they were to look forward to, or at 
the Return were to claim with confidence reinstate- 
ment in what were then to rank as the full privileges 
of Jews by descent. Thus we find Ezekiel, at the 
beginning of the Exile, making allusions to written 


registers, when he says of the false prophets that 
‘they shall not be in the council of my [J’”’s] people, 
or be written in the writing [register, mg.] of the 
house of Israel, neither shall they enter into the land 
of Israel’ (Ezk 18 9). And in the list of those who 
returned from the Exile we find certain families 
mentioned who were unable to show ‘their fathers’ 
houses and their pedigrees’ (zar‘am, Neh 7 61). 
What loss of privilege befell these secular families is 
not specified, but of certain priestly families in like 
case it is related that ‘these sought their register 
among those who were reckoned by genealogy,! but 
it was not found: therefore were they deemed pol- 
luted and put from the priesthood. And the gover- 
nor [“Tirshatha’] said unto them that they should not 
eat of the most holy things [7.e., exercise the privileges 
of priests; cf., e.g., Nu 18 9-11] till there stood up a 
priest with Urim and Thummim’ (Neh 7 64-65), 7.e.,_ 
till the doubt left by the defectiveness of the family 
register could be determined by the sacred lot. The 
exclusive policy of Ezra, involving as it did the ille- 
gitimacy of marriages between Jews and those who 
were not Jews, must also have stimulated genealog- 
ical research and record. This cause, too, or any- 
thing corresponding to it, was absent in earlier times, 
for intermarriages had then been recognized and 
frequent. 

2. Genealogical Records Before the Exile. We 
can scarcely be wrong, then, in concluding that 
genealogies were kept much more regularly after 
the Exile than before. Indeed, if we ask how early 
and how direct is the evidence for genealogies, in 
particular for uninterrupted genealogies of indi- 
viduals, recorded in writing before the Exile, it must 
be admitted that it is relatively late and indirect. 
The laws of Dt 23 2-8 (7th cent. B.c.) perhaps presup- 
pose, and would certainly require for their satis- 
factory fulfilment, such records; while the narrative 
of the census in II S ch. 24, and such allusions as 
those in Ex 32 32, Jer 22 30 may point, if not to actual 
genealogical records, to records from which gen- 
ealogies might be constructed. 

A certain form of genealogical knowledge was in 
any case doubtless prevalent in early Israel. It 
must be remembered that by their social organiza- 
tion the Israelites consisted of a number of tribes, 
these tribes of a number of clans, these clans of a 
number of houses or families, the family even being a 
more complex group than the family (in its more re- 
stricted sense of a man, his wife, and their children) is 
with us. Thus when we read in a relatively early 
passage (Jos 7 16, 17 JE) that ‘Joshua brought Israel 
near by their tribes; and the tribe of Judah was 
taken. And he brought near the family (‘clan’) of 
Judah; and he took the family of Zerahites; and he 
brought near the family of the Zerahites, man by 
man;and Zabdi was taken: and he brought near his 
household, man by man; and Achan, the son of 
Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, of the 


1 The verb rendered ‘reckoned by genealogy’ (hithyahés) and 
the noun from which it is formed (yahas, Neh 7 5only) are con- 
fined to the books of Ch, Ezr, and Neh. The origin and primi- 
tive meaning of these words are obscure and their sense is to 
be determined largely from the passages where they occur 
(I Ch 433, 51, 7,17, '75, 7, 9,40 9 1, 22: TT Ch 12 15, 31%, 17, 18, 19: iEar 
2 &=Neh 7 &; : Ear 81, a Neh 75). 


287 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Gehazi 
Genealogy 





tribe of Judah, was taken,’? we can see that Judah 
was one of many tribes constituting Israel, Zerah 
one of many clans constituting Judah, Zabdi one of 
many families constituting Zerah, and Achan, him- 
self the father of a family, one of many individuals 
belonging to different families (in our restricted 
sense of the term) that constituted the family of 
Zabdi (cf. also IS 10 21). Now we may well believe 
that in early Israel a man could commonly have 
given the name of his family, clan, or tribe, and 
moreover many or all of the families that constituted 
his clan and of the clans that made up his 
tribe. And early records of the names of these 
tribal divisions may well have been kept in records 
made for various purposes. But this is a very 
different matter from genealogies of individuals 
carried upward through many generations. 

Whatever we may infer as to early periods, it is 
certain that of the genealogical material preserved in 
the O T by far the greater part is found in works of 
postexilic origin—in the Priestly Code (P), in Ch, 
Ezr, Neh. In preexilic writings it is rare to find an 
individual identified more closely than by reference 
to his father: in some cases, especially in the Book of 
Jeremiah, the name of the grandfather is also given; 
but it is altogether exceptional (and probably due 
to the kingly position of the last-named ancestor) 
that the prophet Zephaniah’s ancestors are given 
(Zeph 1 1) to the fourth generation before him. Con- 
trast with this the lengthy genealogies with which 
Ezra (Ezr 71), Tobit (To 11), and Judith (Jth 8 1) 
are provided. But tho the genealogical material is 
found mainly in the later literature, much of it 
relates to far earlier periods; the genealogies of P 
end with the Mosaic Age, those of I Ch chs. 1-9 
(mainly, if not exclusively, apart from interpolated 
sections) are apparently intended? not to descend 
below the age of David (cf. 4 31, 72). If, then, these 
genealogies are throughout genuine, the custom of 
carefully registering tribal, clan, and family divisions 
and, in some cases, lengthy lines of the descent of 
individuals must have been widely prevalent far 
earlier than the direct evidence would suggest. 
There thus emerge important questions: with what 
degree of trustworthiness should the O T genealogies 
be credited? Are many or any of them artificial con- 
structions resting less on fact than on imagination 
and theory? Or are the genealogies even when 
genuine and accurate tables of relations, referred to 
the correct period? 

3. Significance of the Terms Used. Before at- 
tempting to give the very brief answers, which will 
alone be possible here, to these questions, it will be 
well to consider the language of the genealogies. For 
we shall thus see that a number of the O T genealo- 
gies are not intended to be and consequently must 
not be criticized as tables showing the descent of 
individuals; they are modes of describing the rela- 
tions between tribes, clans, families, and places. It, 
is not always easy to decide to which type particular 
genealogies were originally intended to belong; 
again, it is not improbable that descriptions once 





2For text and a more literal translation, see Bennett in 
SBOT. 
*Benzinger, Die Biicher der Chronik, p. 1, 


intended in the one sense came to be taken in the 
other. But these difficulties will be lessened if we 
approach the genealogies by a study of certain 
linguistic usages of the Hebrews, and, in particular, 
two: (1) Terms of kinship, more particularly the 
term ‘son,’ are used to cover other relations than 
those occasioned by physical descent. What we 
should term membership in a gild is in Hebrew ‘son- 
ship’; a member of the gild of the perfumers is a ‘son 
of the apothecaries’ (cf. Neh 3 8s AV; RV paraphras- 
tically ‘one of the perfumers’) members of prophetic 
societies, or gilds of porters, are respectively ‘sons of 
the prophets,’ or ‘children [sons] of the porters’ (Ezr 
2 42); the Jews as exiled are termed collectively 
haggolah, ‘the company of exiles’ (Ezk 11; Jer 28 6; 
Ezr 10 8, etc.), or bené haggdlah, ‘children of the 
captivity’ (Ezr 4 1; etc.). Nor is this usage to be 
explained by the descent of calling, or profession, 
from father to son; for this would not explain why a 
single perfumer is a son of the perfumers (plural), 
nor such a closely allied phrase as ‘sons of the troop’ 
(‘men of the army,’ II Ch 2513 RV), with which we 
may compare the expression ‘sons of the caravans’ 
in the Aramaic of Palmyra, or even the N T ‘sons 
of the bride-chamber.’ Various other relations are 
also expressed by the term ‘son’; hostages are ‘sons 
of pledges’ (II K 14 14), valiant men ‘sons of might’ 
(II S 27); cf. the N T ‘sons of thunder.’ All these 
expressions, it must be observed, occur in ordinary 
prose. ‘Son’ is used also with geographical terms: 
Ezekiel (16 26, 28, 23 17) terms Egyptians, Assyrians, 
and Babylonians respectively ‘sons of Egypt,’ ‘sons 
of Assyria,’ and ‘sons of Babylon.’ Joel (3 6) terms 
those whose home wa Jerusalem ‘children [sons] 
of Jerusalem’; ‘children [sons] of the province’ are 
the exiles who returned and settled in the province 
of Judah (Ezr 21). So, in poetry it is true, ‘rams of 
the breed of Bashan’ (Dt 32 14) are in Hebrew idiom 
‘sons of Bashan.’ Towns or villages dependent on 
another are its ‘daughters’ (cf. ‘Heshbon and in all 
the towns [daughters mg.] thereof,’ Nu 21 25). Is the 
case different when an ethnographical takes the 
place of a geographical term? Did the expression 
‘sons’ (‘children’ RV) of Esau, Heth, Lot, Manasseh, 
Israel, etc., mean the actual children or, at least, the 
lineal descendants of individuals named Esau, Heth, 
etc.? Certainly in later times the Jews treated their 
descent from the patriarchs literally enough. This 
is not the place to examine in detail the validity. of 
the claim, but it must be pointed out that such an 
inference can not be safely drawn from the term 
‘sons of Israel,’ for this is ambiguous; it may mean 
persons physically descended from an individual 
named Israel, or persons belonging to the people so 
named. That the latter usage occurs is obvious in 
one case; for we can not sharply distinguish the use 
of this term ‘sons’ in ‘sons of Manasseh’ and ‘chil- 
dren [sons] of the half-tribe of Manasseh’ (I Ch 
5 23), yet in the latter case ‘sons’ can mean only 
’members’ of the half-tribe. (2) The second lin- 
guistic use needing to be kept in mind is the frequent 
personification of a whole group of people, so that the 
whole is spoken of, or represented as speaking, as an 
individual. As illustrations it may suffice to cite: 
‘And the Egyptians [Heb.‘Egypt’] said, Let me flee’ 


Genealogy 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


288 





(Ex 14 25; RV paraphrastically, as often, ‘Let us 
flee’); ‘and the men of Israel said unto the Hivites, 
Peradventure ‘ye’ [Heb. ‘thou’] dwell among us’ (Jos 
97); ‘The children of Joseph spake unto Joshua, 
saying, Why hast thou given ‘me’ but one. . . in- 
heritance, seeing ‘I’ am a great people’ (Jos 17 14; 
ef. further Nu 20 14-21, 21 1-3; Jg 1 3; Gn 34 30). See 
also [CC on Numbers, p. 265 f. 

4. Geographical and Ethnological Relations Ex- 
pressed Gene»logically. We may now examine some 
instances of genealogies which clearly describe geo- 
graphical and ethnographical relations. And _ first, 
Gn ch. 10: The RV rather obscures the obvious 
meaning by transliterating certain names which it 
elsewhere translates: so ‘Mizraim’ (ver. 6) is regu- 
larly elsewhere rendered ‘Egypt,’ ‘Cush’ commonly 
by ‘Ethiopia,’ ‘Asshur’ (ver. 22) by ‘Assyria.’ If we 
substitute the familiar for these entirely exceptional 
English equivalents of the Hebrew words, Gn 10 6, 
13, 14, 15, 16, 18 runs thus: ‘And the sons of Ham: 
Ethiopia and Egypt and Put and Canaan. And 
Egypt begat Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, 
and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim, 

. and Caphtorim. And Canaan begat Sidon, his 
first-born, and Heth and the Jebusite and the Amor- 
ite . . . and the Arvadite and the Zemarite and the 
Hamathite.’ The meaning of all this is clear; the 
terms ‘sons’ and ‘to beget’ are used metaphorically; 
and what is stated is that one of the three great 
divisions of the inhabitants of the world known to the 
Hebrews included as its subdivisions Ethiopians, 
Egyptians, Putites, and Canaanites; and in those 
subdivisions the inhabitants and subjects of Egypt 
included Ludites (all the terms in ver. 13 are plurals in 
Hebrew), the inhabitants of Upper Egypt (Pathros) 
and Caphtor and others; the Canaanites included the 
Phenicians (who are intended by Sidon, which 
being regarded as the most ancient settlement in 
Canaan, is described metaphorically as Canaan’s 
‘first-born’), Hittites, Jebusites, inhabitants of 
Arvad and Hamath (in N. Syria), and others. The 
compiler of Gn ch. 10, like the compilers of the 
Arabic genealogies, may have held the theory, which 
would, however, conflict no less with the facts of the 
growth of nations given in the Bible than with the 
findings of modern historical and scientific research, 
that each nation consisted exclusively of descen- 
dants from a common ancestor, and again that all 
allied nations were descended from another common 
tho more remote ancestor, but this is not directly 
stated in the chapter; the genealogy supplies no 
links between terms so wide as Egypt and Canaan on 
the one hand and terms so relatively limited as 
Caphtor and Sidon on the other. The value of the 
genealogy lies in the light it casts on the geographical 
distribution and, to some extent, on the political 
relations of nations at the periods to which its 
several parts belong. 

The metaphorical language of Gn ch. 10 is relatively 
simple; ‘sons’ are obviously subdivisions of the 
ethnographic groups that rank as ‘fathers.’ Else- 
where it is often more elaborate and sometimes more 
ambiguous. For example, in I Ch 218 f., 50-55 we read 
that Caleb married Azubah, and, after her death, 
Ephrath; that the first-born of ihe second marriage 


was Hur and the sons of Hur, Shobal, Salma, and 
Hareph, were fathers respectively of Kiriath-jearim, 
Beth-lehem, and Beth-gader, and that the families of 
Beth-lehem were Ithrites, Putites, and others. The 
presence of names of well-known districts and towns 
(Ephrath, Beth-lehem, Kiriath-jearim) at once indi- 
cate that the terms ‘son,’ ‘father,’ ‘marry,’ ‘beget’ 
are used metaphorically. In detail there is room for 
some difference of interpretation, but the general 
drift of the genealogical statement is clear—the clan 
Caleb first settled in the district of Azubah and was 
there subdivided into certain clans (Jesher, Shobab, 
and Ardon); subsequently Azubah passed out of the 
possession of the clan which then settled in Ephrath 
—the district which included Beth-lehem (Mic 5 2; 
Gn 35 19); during the occupation of Ephrath a main 
subdivision of the clan was called Hur, and was again 
subdivided into divisions named Shobal, Salma, and . 
Hareph, who inhabited the towns Kiriath-jearim, — 
Beth-lehem, and Beth-gader respectively—the Sho- 
balites of Beth-lehem being split up into the families 
of Ithrites, Putites, and others. Here, as in Gn ch. 
10, ‘sons,’ ‘grandsons,’ ‘great-grandsons,’ represent 
the divisions, subdivisions, and further subdivisions 
of an ethnic group: but here ‘son’ or ‘wife’ may also 
represent the town or district inhabited. 

Facts remain facts, and literal descriptions of the 
same facts, if true, must agree whatever their age 
or origin; but metaphorical descriptions of the same 
fact may vary largely according to the taste of the 
writer. A relation which one may describe as that 
of father and son, another may prefer to describe as 
that of husband and wife. Further in the course of the 
centuries tribal divisions and tribal relations vary. 
A tribe may increase and it may fall at one time into, 
say, five, at another into ten main divisions; or the 
reverse may happen; or, again, a once independent 
tribe, or clan, through diminution may become in- 
corporated with another, or a particular subdivi- 
sion of a tribe may become so important as to form 
a new independent tribe; or, once more, a clan which 
occupied a particular district may move to another. 
Then in the metaphorical language of these genealo- 
gies it will be said, in the first case, that X (=the 
tribe) had five sons, but at a later or earlier period, 
as the case may be, it will be said with equal correct- 
ness that he had ten; in the next case X and Y will be 
at one time described as brothers, at another as 
father and son. The last case may be variously ex- 
pressed. As above, in the case of Caleb, X being the 
clan, Y and Z the districts, X may be said first to 
marry Y and then Z, or at one time X may be father 
of Y, at another of Z; or again X may be first son of Y 
and then son of Z. In spite of frequent textual cor- 
ruption and not infrequent ambiguity of the meta- 
phorical terms, up to a certain point the geographical 
and ethnographical genealogies of the O T may be 
understood, once the general method is appreciated; 
but if it be disregarded and the names taken to repre- 
sent individuals and the terms to be literal descrip- 
tion of fact, then various genealogies being com- 
pared will simply bristle with contradictions and 
difficulties. For example, in I Ch 7 6, Benjamin is 
said to have three, in I Ch 81f., and Nu 26 38 five, 
and in Gn 46 21 ten sons; in Gn 46 21 Gera is a son of 


289 A NEW STANDARD 


Benjamin and brother of Bela, in I Ch 87a grandson 
of Benjamin, and a son of Bela; similarly Ard and 
Naaman are sons of Benjamin in Gn, but of Bela in 
Nu 26 40. According to Nu 26 29-32 Manasseh’s son, 
Machir, had by his son Gilead (a district!) six grand- 
puns—lezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, and 
Hepher; but in Jos 17 1, 12 the six grandsons of 
Machir become sons of Manasseh and younger 
brothers of Machir. The real difficulty in such cases 
is to determine the periods to which the several de- 
scriptions apply; there is seldom reason to doubt that 
such descriptions are genuine descriptions of fact. 

The Book of Genesis is articulated by a succession 
of interrelated genealogies—of heaven and earth, 
1-2 4a; of Adam, ch. 5; of Noah, 69 £.; of the sons of 
Noah, ch. 10; of Shem, 11 10-27; of Terah, 11 27, 32; of 
Ishmael, 25 12-16; of Isaac, 25 19 £.; of Esau, ch. 36; 
of Jacob, 35 22b-26, 37 2. The character and value 
of these must in the main be determined by wider 
considerations than those that fall under the present 
subject. However, the first of the foregoing geneal- 
ogies is obviously metaphorical and so, as we have 
seen, isthe fourth. On the other hand, in some cases 
it is clearly the intention of the writer that we should 
think of individuals; the twelve ‘sons’ of Ishmael 
are expressly said to be twelve princes (25 16; cf. 
17 20). Whether he be right or wrong, the list has 
value; for 't preserves the names of actual Ishmaelite 
clans, even tho the ‘sons’ of Ishmael thus named may 
as individuals be nothing more than an inference 
from an incorrect theory of the origin of clans and 
tribes. As the genealogies present twelve ‘sons’ of 
Ishmael, so they present twelve ‘sons’ of Israel; and 
these ‘sons’ again, whether they ever had existence as 
individuals or not, are the twelve tribes of Israel, 
tho it must be added that the twelve ‘sons’ of Israel, 
as tribes of Israel, are not an entirely fixed and per- 
manent quantity; for the twelve sometimes includes 
and sometimes excludes Levi, sometimes makes of 
Joseph a single tribe and sometimes two—Ephraim 
and Manasseh. In Gn ch. 36 there can be little doubt 
that we are dealing with clans and their relations, 
and not with individuals. The earlier genealogies of 
Genesis are, in part, of yet a third type; they tabu- 
late neither clans nor individual men, but mythical 
names and matter. 


5. The Lists in I Chronicles. Turning to the 
early chapters of I Ch, we find that the main purpose 
here also is to present the names of the tribes and 
their subdivisions at a time when each ‘son’ is a clan 
numbering many individuals; so most clearly and ex- 
clusively in the case of Issachar (7 1-5), Manasseh 
(7 14 f.), Asher (7 30 #.). In these cases the genealo- 
gies given seldom exceed three or four, and, of course, 
in no way correspond to the number of generations 
between an individual common ancestor and the 
numbers given. But interspersed in these chapters 
are lengthy genealogies of individuals—of the 
ancestors of a certain Elishama (2 34-41); of the 
descendants of David (ch. 3); of the ancestors to the 
8th preceding generation of a certain Beerah, de- 
scribed as contemporary with Tiglath-pileser (8th 
cent. B.c.) (5 4-6); of certain priests and Levites 
(ch. 6); of the descendants of Saul to the 12th 
generation (8 33-40=9 39-44). With these we reach 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Genealogy 


the final point to be considered—the trustworthiness 
of genealogies of preexilic individuals. As already 
stated, evidence that such genealogies were recorded 
in early times is scanty. Of the genealogies just 
enumerated, that of David down to the Exile is 
certainly genuine, but could, of course, have been 
compiled at a late period from the books of Kings. 
It is difficult to prove the authenticity of any of the 
rest, and some of them contain features which create 
suspicion. Freest from suspicious features is the 
genealogy of Saul. On the other hand, the priestly 
and Levitical genealogies are so full of suspicious 
features that they may safely be treated as not 
genuine. They contain, certainly, some names of 
actual persons gleaned from earlier sources, but also 
many ‘dummies,’ mere names that represent no 
actual persons in the periods implied, and as a whole 
they seek to establish lines of descent that must be 
regarded as historically unproved and improbable, 
in some cases even demonstrably wrong. The 
genealogies of I Ch ch. 6, for example, present a 
series of features which are known to be characteris- 
tic of postexilic names, but which are entirely 
different from those that mark groups of well- 
attested early names. Thus the same name recurs 
in the same genealogy, implying the custom of nam- 
ing children from ancestors, yet this custom, as 
Jewish, can not be clearly traced beyond the 5th 
cent. B.c. Names compounded with the Divine 
name Yah(weh) form a highly suspicious proportion 
of the whole; the formations of the names are those 
most frequent in late and least frequent in early 
times; some of the names are frequent in later, but 
otherwise unattested in the earlier periods. An 
indication that these genealogies could not in all 
cases be, even if real, complete is found in the wide 
difference in the number of genealogies that separate 
contemporaries from a common ancestor. 


6. The Levitical and Priestly Genealogies. 
Finally, reasons for the invention of these genealogies 
are to be found in the history of the priesthood, and 
particularly in the movement powerfully started by 
Ezekiel (Ezk 44 10 #.), which illegitimized certain 
priests and their descendants, and confined the 
priesthood to a single line, and required all servants 
of the Temple to be Levites and not, as heretofore, 
aliens. 

The basis of fact in the Levitical genealogies, as in 
the genealogies of the other tribes, is to be found in 
the names of the Levitical divisions; but from the 
narratives we can see that the divisions no more re- 
mained constant in Levi than in other tribes. In 
Nu 26 58 the primary divisions of Levi are five—the 
Libnites, the Hebronites, the Mahlites, the Mushites, 
and the Korahites (gentilics formed from Libnah, 
Hebron—names of places—and Mahli, Mushi 
[Moses], and Korah); elsewhere (Nu 26 57; I Ch ch. 
6, etc.) they are three—Gershon, Kohath, and Mer- 
ari, ‘sons’ of Levi, while Mahli and Mushi become 
‘sons’ of Merari, Hebron of Kohath, Libni sometimes 
a ‘son’ of Gershon (Nu 3 18; I Ch 6 17), sometimes of 
Merari (I Ch 6 29), and Korah, a great-grandson of 
Levi (Nu 161; I Ch6 37¢.). Worthless as genealogies 
of individuals, these tables nevertheless contain 
many valuable clues alike to late Jewish theory and 


General 
Genesis 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


290 





to the actual origin and history of the priestly and 

Levitical orders, but it is impossible to follow them 

further here. 

LITERATURE: EB s.v. and also the articles on the various 
Hebrew tribes (full, searching, and careful); HDB; Int. Stand. 
Bib. Enc.; S. R. Driver, Genesis, especially pp. 112-114 (on 
Gn ch, 10) and, generally, standard commentaries on Gn, Ch, 
Ezr, and Neh; G. B. Gray, Studies in Hebrew Proper Names, 
ch, iii (a detailed examination of the historical character of 
the names and name-lists in P and Ch) and EHzpos., 1902 
(March), pp. 225-240. On the Arabic genealogies, Springer 
Das Leben u. d. Lehre d. Mohammed, ch. iii, p. exx ff.; W. R. 
Smith, Kinship and Marriage in ag Arabia, ch. i. 


G.*-—-O. RAS. 


GENERAL: This word occurs once (I Ch 27 34 
AV) as the rendering of sar, elsewhere generally ren- 
dered ‘captain’ (q.v.). 


GENERATION. See Tims, § 5; GENEALOGY, 
§ 4; Genesis, § 2; Cosmocony, § 1; and JEsus 
Curist, § 19. 


GENESIS. 1. The Name. The first book of the 
O T was called by the Jews N'U813, beré’shith (‘in the 
beginning’), from its first word. The word Genesis 
is Greek (yévects), meaning ‘generation,’ or ‘origin,’ 
and was the title given to the book in the Greek 
version of the O T (the LX X.), whence it passed to 
the Latin and other versions. 

2. Outline. Gn is constructed on a simple tho 
somewhat artificial outline, being divided into ten 
unequal parts, each introduced by the formula, 
‘These are the generations of.’ The first one of these, 
now found at 2 4a, probably originally stood before 
11. According to these headings the scheme of the 
book is: (1) The ‘generations’ of the heavens and 
earth (1 1-4 26). (2) Of Adam (51-68). (38) Of Noah 
(6 9-9 29). (4) Of the sons of Noah (101-119). (5) 
Of Shem (11 10-26). (6) Of Terah (Abraham) (11 


27-25 11). (7) Of Ishmael (25 11-18). (8) Of Isaac 
(25 19-35 29). (9) Of Esau (ch. 36). (10) Of Jacob 
(chs. 37-50). All the material in 11-11 26 may be 


called the primeval history, and that in 11 27-50 may 
be termed patriarchal history. The plan of the 
writer was, evidently, to connect the history of 
Israel with the larger history of mankind, and the 
method followed was that of continually passing 
from a wider to a narrower field, until at last the 
history of Jacob-Israel was reached. Thus he passed 
from the Universe (ch. 1) to Mankind (Adam); from 
Mankind to the line of Noah; from the Sons of Noah 
to one line, Shem; from all the Shemites to the line 
of Terah-Abraham; from all of Abraham’s line to 
that of Isaac; and from the story of Jacob and Esau 
(the line of Isaac) to that of Jacob alone, for Israel 
and Jacob were equivalent terms. 

3. Critical Analysis. When the contents of Gn are 
closely examined, it becomes evident that the unity 
of the book is only superficial. It is in reality com- 
posite in structure, the result of combining three 
narratives originally separate and each complete in 
itself. The evidence for this is given in part in the 
article HexatTeucu (q.v.). The outline given above 
(§ 2) is that of P, the latest document, which was 
adopted by the compiler as the basis for his large 
composite work (Gn-Jos). An analysis of P in Gn 
will be found under Hexatzucs, § 27, and need not 
be repeated here. 


Of the two older documents (J and E), J began 
with creation and passed gradually to the story of 
Israel’s ancestors, a method later imitated by P. 
Since no certain trace of E is found before ch. 15, it is 
probable that E began with Abraham. From ch. 20 
onward J and E can be traced as parallel narratives 
dealing with the same ancient traditions, and in 
much the same way. The narrative of J can be 
traced with comparatively little difficulty because of 
its consistent use of the name Jehovah for God and, 
as far as ch. 20, by means of its easy, flowing narra- 
tive style. After ch. 20 the analysis is more difficult, 
not only because there are now three interwoven nar- 
ratives instead of two, but because, on the one hand, 
two of these (E and P) use ‘God’ instead of ‘Jehovah,’ 
and, on the other, the style of Eis much more nearly 
that of J. The places most difficult to analyze are 
those where J and EF. are closely interwoven. In such 
sections the style and contents of the two documents ~ 
are often so similar and the clues so elusive that a sure 
analysis is impossible. 


4. Contents of J and E. The analysis exhibited 
below is mainly that of Dr. Driver in LOT 8 (1913). 
This is but one of many analyses made by careful 
scholars in modern times. While all agree in the 
main, some have ventured to distinguish between 
the documents much more minutely (cf. e.g., the 
analysis in Carpenter-Harford, The Comp. of the 
Hezxateuch, p. 509 ff. or Skinner’s in his Com. on Gn 
in JCC [1910]). In this analysis such passages as 
should be assigned probably to the various editors 
of this literature in the long course of its transmis- 
sion have not been specially designated. 


1. Primeval History. J (alone). 


1. Creation and Fall (2 4b-3 4), 
2. Progress—in the line of Cain (4 1-44), 
3. Progress—in the line of Seth (fragments only in 4 # . and 


4. The sons of God and the daughters of men (6 1+). 
5. The Story of the Flood. 
(1) Wickedness of men, except Noah (6 5), 
(2) Noah and the Ark, rain 40 days (7 14, 7-10, 12, 16b, 
17b, 22f., 8 2b, 3a, 6-12, 18b, 20-22) . 
. Thesons of Noah (9 18-19), 
. Noah and his vintage, Canaan cursed (9 20-27), 
. Fragments of a genealogical table (10 8-19. 21, #4-80), 
. The tower of Babel (11 1-°). 


2. The History of Abraham. 
E 


© CONTI 


J 

1. Genealogical fragments 
(11 28-80), 

2. A.’s call and migration to 
Canaan. Promise of 
blessing and of the land 
(12 1-4, 6-9), 

8. A.in Egypt (12 10-20), 

4. Returnto Canaan. Sepa- 
ration from Lot. Second 
promise of the land 
(13 1-5, 7-lla, 12b-18), 

5. The promise of an heir 
(15 2a, Sb, 4, 6-11, [12-15] 
17-18), 

6. A. and Hagar. Ishmael 
born (16 1», 2, 4-14), 

7. The revelation at Mamre, ' 
(1) When the heir was ; 

to be born (18 1-15), 
(2) Of the destruction 
of Sodom (18 16-8), | 


The promise of multitudinous 
seed (15 1, 2b, 8a, 5, 16), 


General 





291 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Genesis 
The History of Abraham.—Cont. The History of Isaac and Jacob (Israel).—Cont. 
E J E 
8. Thedestructionof Sodom, A. and Sarah at Gerar; Sarah 22. Burial, etc., of Jacob (50 Joseph’s kindness to his 


13. 
14, 


. Jacob purchases 


. Jacob at Haran. 


. Joseph 


. Joseph’s 


rescue of Lot. Origin 
of Moab and Ammon 
(ch, 19, except v. 29). 


. Birth of Isaac (21 18-28), 


. A.’s tamarisk at Beer- 


sheba (21 88), 


. J.’8 promise to A. because 


he had not withheld 
his only Son (22 1-18), 


. Genealogical notice of 
Nahor’s family (22 
20-24) , 


. A. sends for a wife for 


Isaac. 
24). 


Rebekah (ch. 


. A.’s children by Keturah 


(25 1-6), 


taken by Abimelech (20 


1-18) , 


Birth of Isaac (fragment) 
(21 °-7), 

Hagar and Ishmael driven 
away (21 8-21), 


A. and Abimelech make a 
covenant at Beersheba (21 
22-82, 34) 

The great test of A.’s faith 
(22 1-14, 19), 


3. The History of Isaac and Jacob (Israel). 


. The birth of Esau and 


Jacob (25 lb, 21-26), 
Ksau’s 
birthright (25 27-54), 


. Isaac at Gerar, dealings 


with Abimelech. The 
well Beersheba (26 1-88), 


. Jacob, by deceit, gains 


Isaac’s blessing away 
from Esau (27 1-45), 


. Jacob’s flight to Haran, 


his vision at Bethel 
(28 10, 18-16, 19), 

Rachel 
(29 2-14), 


. J..8 marriages and sons 


(29 81-85, 30 Sb-5, 7, 9-16, 
20b, 22b, 2), 


. J. grows wealthy (30 


25-43) | 


. J. flees from Laban (31 


1, 3), 


. Laban pursues; reconcilia- 


tion (31 46, 48-50) , 


. J.2s meeting with Esau; 


the struggle at Peniel 
(32 8-188, 22, 24-82, 33 1-17), 


. J. at Shechem; Dinah epi- 


sode (34 Sbha.e; 0,7, 11. 8,. 
19, 25a, 0, 26, 30 f.), 
J. at Bethel again (35 14). 
J. at Migdol-eder Reu- 
ben’s incest (35 21-228), 


. Joseph envied and sold 


into Egypt (37 1218, 21, 
25-27, 2b, 31-85), 


. Judah and the Canaanites 


(ch. 38). 

in Egypt; im- 
prisoned and yet hon- 
ored (39 1-23), 


. Joseph and his brethren 


(42 $8-43 (all), 44 (all), 
45 10a) , 


. Jacob moves to Egypt 


(Goshen) (46 %-34, 47 
1-4, 6b), 


administration 
(47 18-278, 29-31), 


. The blessing of Jacob (49 


, Ab-%a) a 


Jacob’s dream and vow at 
Bethel (28 11 f., 17 £., 20-22) , 


Jacob’s arrival at the home of 
Laban (29 }). 

J.’s marriages and sons (29 
15-23, 25-28, 30 Q() 1-3a, 6, 8, 17- 
20a, o, 22a, 23) 

J. flees from Laban (31 2 4- 
18a, 19-21) , 


Laban pursues; he and Jacob 
agree to respect each other’s 
right (31 22-45, 47, 51-55), 

J. at Mahanaim (32 1), 


J. at Shechem; buys land; 
erects an altar (33 18b-20) , 


J. at Bethel (35 1-8), 
Birth of Benjamin (35 16-29), 


Joseph’s dreams; his breth- 


ren sell him to Midianites 
(37 2-11, 19 f., 22-24, 28a, c, 29 f., 
36), 


Joseph in prison interprets 
dreams (40 1-25), 


Pharaoh’s dream; Joseph be- 
comes chief minister; mar- 
riage; the famine (41 1-45, 
47-87), 


Joseph and his brethren (42 
1-87, 45 1-9, 10b-28), 


Jacob moves into Egypt (46 
1-5), 

J. cared for by Joseph (47 12). 

Jacob adopts Joseph’s chil- 
dren (48 1 f., 8-22), 


I-11, 14), brethren (50 15-21), 


Joseph’s charge to his breth- 
ren; his death (50 22-26), 

In the foregoing analysis of JE and that of P 
given in Hexarrucn, § 27, all the material in Gn 
is accounted for, except ch. 14, which seems to have 
been a separate composition, found at hand by an 
editor, or compiler, and inserted in its present po- 
sition. 

5. Comparison of the Documents in Gn. Reading 
the narratives for the sake of comparison, certain 
distinctive characteristics of each will become 
manifest. In P we have a carefully planned, sys- 
tematic narrative, arranged according to an exact 
chronological scheme, with a view to the progress of 
history toward a certain well-defined end. The 
writer of P was profoundly convinced that the goal 
of human history was Israel, the theocratic people, 
with its holy institutions, and in Gn we have that 
part of P’s history in which the preliminary unfold- 
ing of that Divine purpose is revealed (cf. Skinner, 
ICC on Gn, p. lxif.). Thus the Sabbath is founded 
at creation; commands concerning food are given 
from the beginning (1 29 f., 9 3 #.); emphasis is placed 
upon circumcision as the sign of the covenant (ch. 
17); God is known to the primeval world as ‘God’ 
(Hl) simply, to the patriarchs as ‘God Almighty’ 
(‘El Shadday) (17 1; cf. 28 3, 35 11), to be later known 
to Israel as Jehovah (see Ex 6 2). In P there is no 
mention of sacrifice or priesthood in the primeval, or 
in the patriarchal, world, for these came only later 
with the founding of Israel’s institutions by Moses. 
The theological conceptions of P are advanced tho 
somewhat abstract. God is great, infinite, tran- 
scendent, and while He reveals Himself, there is no 
hint of any external means (as by a vision or angel). 
All that is said is simply, ‘God said unto’ this or that 
one. Furthermore, there is comparatively little in P 
that savors of a close touch with popular tradition, 
or seems to have been drawn from popular story. 
All is exact, carefully planned and worked out, the 
result of much thought and even research (cf. the 
genealogies of Ishmael, or Esau, the geographical 
material in ch. 10, the table in ch. 5, or the chrono- 
logical scheme into which the events are fitted). 
In both J and E, on the other hand, the narrative is 
of a much more popular character. It shows itself 
to have been drawn quite directly from the popular 
tradition. The stories are told in a vivid, realistic 
way, designed to interest and attract the listener or 
reader. In these stories there is no connected 
chronology—in fact, there is no chronology at all, 
and the combination of P’s chronological arrange- 
ment with the non-chronological narratives of J and 
E works havoc with the consistency of the whole 
(cf. Skinner, pp. lvii ff.). In religious and moral 
character the material in J and E varies greatly. 
Much of most ancient and primitive material has 
been preserved, or still lingers in these stories along 
with more advanced and refined religious or moral 
conceptions (e.g., in the stories of paradise, of the 
visit of the three angels to Abraham, or of Jacob at 
Peniel). 


Genesis 
Geography 


A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


292 





6. Sources of the Material in Gn. In considering 
the sources whence the writers of the documents in 
Gn drew their material a distinction must be made 
between the ultimate origin of the material and its 
condition when the authors J, E, or P made use of it. 
In both J and E we have evidently quite a collection 
of ancient tradition. Close examination of J will 
reveal the fact that behind the collection, as we find 
it in that document, there were earlier and smaller 
collections which were at hand and used by the 
author of J. It is altogether probable that quite a 
process of collection, and even editing, is to be 
posited before the composition of J. The ultimate 
sources of Gn were separate traditions, legends, or 
even myths, mainly oral rather than written, each 
having its specific occasion and independent history 
before being taken in hand, altered, and adjusted to 
a place in a group of more or less closely connected 
traditions. Doubtless the homes of many of these 
traditions were the various holy places, or sanc- 
tuaries, which figure in them, as Beersheba, Hebron, 
Bethel, or Shechem. Some of them may have been 
originally Canaanite, and later transformed by the 
Hebrews. Some may have related originally to the 
movements of tribes, retold later as the experiences 
of individuals (e.g., chs. 834 and 38). The fragments 
of ancient poetry (4 24 f., 25 23, 27 27 #., etc.) may 
well, in some instances at least, be much older than 
the narrative in which they are embedded, and their 
original reference may have been to different circum- 
stances. None of the material in 1 1-11 25 is spe- 
cifically Israelitic, and its formal elements at least 
must have been derived by the Israelites from the 
larger Semitic world of which they were a part, and 
to which they were very closely related. We now 
find all this varied material collected, edited, and ar- 
ranged according to one ruling purpose—a national- 
religious purpose—to show how Israel originated as 
the people of J”. It was along these lines that the 
ancient document J was constructed and, tho dealing 
exclusively with patriarchal stories, this was also 
the method followed by the writer of E. 

As to the sources of P, while it is evident that this 
work is planned much lang the same lines as J, it 
is just as evident that the author was not interested 
especially in merely reproducing popular tradition. 
His creation and flood stories, his comprehensive 
chronology, his interest in ceremonial prescriptions, 
his careful array of facts of a geographical, ethno- 
logical, and genealogical character, together with his 
advanced theological conceptions, all reveal reflec- 
tion, study, and calculation—in other words, the 
careful working over of ancient material from certain 
well-defined points of view. Consequently, in 
regard to P, the question of sources is comparatively 
unimportant. P presupposes acquaintance on the 
part of his readers with the general body of popular 
tradition. It was the purpose of the author, as a 
scholar and theologian, to use those elements of an- 
cient tradition to make manifest the lofty, supreme 
purpose of God, the One Maker of heaven and earth, 
manifested in the creation of His covenant people 
Israel. 

7. Historical Value of Gn. In the light of modern 
science and of recent archeological discovery the 


-what the later elaboration. 


historical value of Gn chs. 1-11 is no longer an open 

question. We can not go to Gn ch. 1 for our cosmog; 

ony, orour geology. Wecan not go to Gn chs. 2-3 

for the literal facts of the origin of man, or of evil. 

Neither can we go to 4 17 ff. for exact knowledge of 

the origin of early civilization, nor does the story 

of Babel really account for the origin of the diverse 
languages. We must judge the material or formal 
elements of all these narratives precisely as we do the 
very similar matter found in abundance all over the 
ancient world. The case is somewhat different with 
the contents of chs. 12-50. Here, to a large extent, 
we are dealing with traditions centering for the most 
part about places in the land actually occupied by 
Israel and about persons considered to be the actual 
forefathers of the nation. Such traditions might 
easily be greatly elaborated and embellished in the 
course of transmission, until finally committed to 
writing, and it is exceedingly difficult to determine 
what is to be considered the historical kernel and 

That a great part of the 

substratum of the traditions in Gn is historical seems 

to be a reasonable position. 

8. Religious Value of Gn. The question of the 
religious value of Gn is, in great measure, distinct 
from that of its historical value. The Hebrews 
belonged to a world full of all kinds of mythological 
legends, and of all grades and varieties of theistic 
conceptions. It was certainly no small matter that 
they were able to face that world and make use of 
many of its theories and yet triumph over its re- 
ligious deficiencies in the interests of a pure, spiritual, 
ethical, and monotheistic faith. It is just such a 
victory of Israel’s religion that we find in Gn, and 
of that victory the Book of Gn itself is an incontest- 
able witness. The book is everywhere instinct with 
this vital faith. Whether the writers are dealing with 
the ancient Babylonian cosmogony (as in ch. 1) or 
with the old legend of Jacob wrestling with an angel 
(the original significance of which must remain 
unknown), it is the same earnest religious feeling and 
purpose that are manifested. It is Israel’s religion, 
the post-Mosaic religion of Israel, that we find in 
Gn. Speaking broadly, one may say that in the 
J and E sections we see the best type of the ‘pre- 
prophetic’ religion of Israel and in the P sections the 
more formal type of the postexilic period. And it 
is in what Gn tells us, and seeks to teach, of the 
character and progress of this religion in that ancient 
world that we are to find its highest value and may 
discern its inspiration. 

Lirerature: The following works will be found helpful: The 
commentaries of Driver (Wesiminsier Series), Gunkel, 3d ed. 
(not translated; very valuable), Ryle (Camb. Bible) and 
Skinner (ICC most excellent). On chs. 1-11, cf. A. R. 


Gordon, The Early Traditions of Genesis (1907). 
LiteRATURE under HEXATEUCH. E. 


GENNESARET, zen-nes’a-ret, LAKE OF. See 
GALILEE, SEA OF. 


GENNESARET, LAND OF. See PAatesting, § 10. 


GENTILES (géy, pl. giyim, and 20voc, pl. 26vn, 
‘people,’ nation, nations) : Since the Israelites looked 
upon themselves as a ‘peculiar people’ (Hx 19 5 AV), 
the ‘chosen’ (Is 43 20) nation, they considered other 
nations to be on a lower level and less privileged than 
themselves. These conceptions are disclosed, in the 


See also 











c OF OLauvesy Woz yatq OpnzZu07 


“FEP°920000 00000009 cOt 
* 5 9%000, 4 (S9MnE “LN -'0'E ‘299 YJ9) U0WWwLO;s0y — — ——- —— —— 
Bat S% (129 UIs) polwag uDtwhissy 000000000000 
E hyounuoy Aung +e b+et ete 
° OT 
8 POMlag jsarjuvgy wt TTT eee 
TARAS) - 


% yo 009 =00S =O (Gs cesCiis—“‘i‘éikSSCi 
O° > 
$21IW 30 37v08 


: AHA VUVOHD 
MAUMEE 


int Sra 


00 9 909°9 CODES 000 \ 



















+ 
Bos moyRsnsa 
\* ect Se, reno o® 
oysaed Shs 
“Bsus, ON + ore 
SOE AV snosvumnr(_o 
oP oes * pogo 
Cee n ae se 
ss Roto WVuV pea 
e pBas 
° qyemey 
aed t 4 2 Vy 2\ : 
: ke "oy Y Vu3Ht VUSHLAM 
c¢ ." oe qoor}a pee ss : 
S eo (e) ° es ; Ki s 
“ooo cookie OX 


&- 
Vaal 











293 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Genesis 
Geography 





O T, especially in the postexilic writings, and are 
found frequently in the Apocrypha and Apocalyptic 
Literature, and in the literature of later Judaism. 
The term heathen, common in the AV, conveys this 
idea, but the RV has rightly preferred the more 
impartial rendering ‘nations.’ In N T times, the 
Jew divided mankind into three classes, Jews, 
Greeks (“E)Anyves, made to include Romans, thus 
meaning the civilized peoples of the Roman Empire, 
often rendered ‘Gentiles’ AV), and barbarians (the 
uncivilized, Ac 28 4; Ro 114;I Co 1411). The terms 
uncircumcised, uncircumcision were also used 
sometimes with deep meaning, to designate those 
who had no share or lot with Israel in her peculiar 
privileges (Gn 17 14; Jg 14 3, 158; 1S 31 4; Gn 3414; 
Ac 11 3; etc.). Besides these general terms there are 
several special terms, which show the attitude of 
Israelites toward foreigners who lived among them 
Two of these, gér (generally sojourner RV, but 
stranger AV, once alien, Ex 18 3 AV) and téshabh 
(also sojourner RV), express the nearer relationship, 
while zar (stranger) and nékhdr or nokhrt (stranger, 
strange woman, etc., sometimes alien) designate the 
more remote. The gér (pl. gérim) or tdshdbh was one 
who put himself under the protection of Israel and 
of J’, Israel’s God, who submitted to many of the 
requirements of Israel’s law, and was entitled to 
certain privileges not accorded to the ‘stranger’ (zdr 
or nékhar). In the earliest code the gér was given the 
benefit of the Sabbath rest, and it was recommended 
that he be treated kindly (Ex 20 10, 22 21, 23 9, 12). 
In the Code of Dt the same kindly spirit prevails, 
the gér being classed with the Levite, the fatherless, 
and the widow (Dt 14 21, 29, 16 11, 26 11-13), and guar- 
anteed the same just judgment as was the right of 
the Israelite himself (24 14, 17, 19-21, 27 19). At the 
same time Dt 14 21 permits the Israelite to give to a 
ger meat that he himself was not to eat, because the 
animal had ‘died of itself.’ In the Holiness Code it 
is presumed that the gér offered sacrifices to J’’ (Lv 
17 8, 22 18); he is required to observe various cere- 
monial and other requirements (Lv 17 10 #., 18 26, 
20 2, 24 16, 22); he is to be treated kindly (19 10; etc.). 
On the other hand, if a rich gér acquires a Heb. slave 
by purchase, the latter can be redeemed at once (Lv 
25 47). In P, while the gér is supposed to offer sacri- 
fice to J’ (Nu 15 14 #f.), he must be circumcised in 
order to partake of the Passover (Ex 12 19, 48 £.; Nu 
9 14), by which act he becomes an Israelite. The 
status of the tdshabh was exactly that of the gér, the 
two terms being synonymous. 

The status of the nékhdar (or nokhrt) was based on 
the idea that he had (or desired) no cultus-fellow- 
ship with Israel. His real allegiance was to another 
people and another deity. Hence even the humane 
Code of Dt does not extend the privileges of the year 
of release to the nokhri, and permits the exaction of 
usury from him (Dt 15 3, 23 20). No nokhri could 
be king (Dt 17 15), and in P he is stringently for- 
bidden to partake of the Passover (Ex 12 43). In 
HWizk 44 7-9 he is forbidden to enter the sanctuary. 
The ‘strange’ wives against whom Ezra and Nehe- 
miah (Ezr 10 2 f.; Neh 13 26f.) protested and (prob- 
ably) the ‘strange’ women against whom the wise 
men warned the heedless (Pr 2 16, etc.) were foreign- 


ers. The z@r was not necessarily of foreign blood. 
The term is used at times of class distinctions within 
Israel, as, e.g., of the non-priestly vs. the priestly 
(Ex 29 33; Lv 22 12; etc.). In the same way the term 
is applied to the ‘strange’ woman as one outside the 
pale of respectable society (Pr 2 16, 5 3; ete.). But 
it was often used of foreigners as people entirely 
different from, or even hostile to, Israel (Is 17; Ezk 
11 9; etc.). 

Even in preexilic days some felt that the Gentile 
world shared with Israel in J’’s care and purpose 
(hints in Is 2 2-4 or 19 23 £., date uncertain). In the 
postexilic period, in spite of the dominant exclusive 
tendency to separation from the Gentile there were 
those like IT Is (cf. Is 49 6) or the author of the Book 
of Jonah who had a deep sympathy for the Gentile 
world and felt that it could share in Israel’s hope. 
But the main trend was the other way and conse- 
quently in the postexilic and N T times the distinc- 
tion between the Israelite and the non-Israelite was 
emphasized in the scrupulous abstinence on the part 
of loyal Jews from all familiar, unrestrained fellow- 
ship with Gentiles, like eating with them, ete. 
(Ac 11 3; Gal 212). Another striking evidence of the 
same prejudice was the demarcation of a portion 
of the Temple court as the ‘court of the Gentiles,’ 
beyond whose bounds no foreigner could pass with- 
out incurring the death penalty (see TEMPLE, § 27, 
and cf. Ac 21 28). Notwithstanding this, the way of 
entrance into Judaism from without was always 
open. Proselytes (xpocqAutot) were numerous and 
zealously sought for (Mt 23 15). These corresponded 
to the O T gérim who had received circumcision, 
without the local and political allegiance natural 
to the O T times. Strictly speaking, there was but 
one class of proselytes, as the so called ‘proselytes 
of the gate’ (in the N T, ‘devout’ men, who ‘feared 
God,’ Ac 10 2; etc.) were not proselytes proper, but 
merely Gentiles favorably disposed toward the 
Jewish faith, who attended synagog services, and 
were willing to impose on themselves some of the 
Jewish rules of life (cf. Nowack, Heb. Arch., I, p. 
339 f.; and Schiirer GV J4, vol. III, pp. 177 f. See 
also PROSELYTES). The occasional occurrence in the 
N T of ‘sojourner’ (He 11 9; I P 2 11) or ‘alien’ (He 
11 34) is but a figurative echo of O T usage, and not 
especially significant. See also NrrHINiIM and 
SLAVERY. E. E. N. 

GENUBATH, gi-nii’bath (N32, geniibhath): A 
son of Hadad, the Edomite, and the sister of Tah- 
penes, the Egyptian queen. He was reared (not 
‘weaned’) in the royal palace with the children of the 
Pharaoh (I K 11 20, text confused). HE. E. N. 


GEOGRAPHY. 1. Geography in General. The 
ancient Orient gave no consistent and interested 
study to the surface of the earth. While the aspect 
of the heavens attracted the Babylonians, and a 
considerable amount of correct information was 
secured, making up a crude science of astronomy, 
knowledge of places upon the earth was regarded as 
of secondary importance. Especially is this true of 
the Hebrews in the earlier stages of their history. 
Their contact with the world outside of their own 
territory was not like that of the Phenicians, mo- 
tived by aggressive commercialism, but occasioned 


Geography 
Gerasa 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


294 


by initiative from without, and was for the most part 
indirect. Their knowledge of the world was thus 


not the same from one age to another, but increased | 


with each generation. 

2. Form and Size of the Earth. Asto the 
form of the visible earth, the Jews held 
that it was circular, and surrounded by water, 
which extended as far as where the dome of heaven, 
like an inverted bowl, rests on it (Job 26 10; Pr 8 27f.). 
The surface of the earth was believed to be generally 
plain, but studded with mountains, and broken by 
rivers and lakes. It was vast beyond the power of 
man to measure or com- 
pute (Job 28 5, 38 18); 
but yet it was limited 
within certain bound- 
aries which were definite- 
ly known to exist (Dt 
28 64; Job 28 24; Jer 10 
13; Ps 28). The center 
of it was the Holy City, 
Jerusalem (Ezk 5 5; 
‘navel of the earth’ 
LXX.). Around this 
central point the na- 
tions of the earth were 
arranged as described in 
Gn ch. 10. 


3. Points of the Com- 
pass. Within the circle 
of the known earth the 
Hebrews were accus- 
tomed to distinguish 
four and only four direc- 
tions in the horizon 
(cardinal points), and 
four winds to correspond 
with these(Jer 49 36; Ezk 
37 9; Zec 6 5; Dn 8 8). 
The designation of these 
directions was made ac- 
cording to three differ- 
ent systems: (1) The 
first of these took the 
rising sun as its fixed 
point, and by placing 
the observer face to face with it named the Hast 
‘front’ (qedhem), the West ‘behind’ (’ahdrén), the 
North ‘the left hand’ (s¢mé’l), and the South ‘the 
right hand’ (yamin, téman) (see also Easr). (2) 
The second system was based on the daily apparent 
motion of the sun; hence the East was ‘the rising 
of the sun’ (mizraéh), the West the ‘going down’ of 
the sun (m*bhd’ hashshemesh, Ps 50 1; Mal 1 11), the 
North the regions of darkness (ts@phén), and the 
South the region of light or brightness (dérém). (8) 
The third was descriptive of the character of the 
place relatively to the center of Palestine. The 
West and South were designated respectively from 
the fact that the former was limited by the sea (yam, 
miyyam, yamméh), and the latter was the arid or dry 
quarter (neghebh, from obs. naghabh). Corresponding 
terms for North and East are lacking in this system. 


4. The Land of Israel. The center of geographical 
knowledge was the Holy City. About it three 


6 KASBU 


@ city 


CLEFT M 


\ 
ARSH 
© 


(0M xuHanpan @ pur 111, 
WY BABYLON 





Earty BaByLonrAN Map or THE WoRLD 


A map of the world as it was known in ‘the late Babylonian 
period’ (Sayce would substitute ‘early’ for ‘late’) has been 
published in the 22d vol. of the Cuneiform Texts from Baby- 
lonian Tablets in the British Museum, Plate 28, and is repro- 
duced here by permission. It is said to be by a tourist of the 
age, is accompanied by explanatory text, and throws a 
flood of light on the subject. 
Sayce, cf. Exp. Times, Nov., 1906, p. 68 ff. 


irregular circles might be drawn, indicating geo- 
graphical knowledge according to its degree of 
definiteness. The innermost of these would contain 
the Holy Land. But even of this territory all knowl- 
edge was predominantly practical, and not distinct 
enough to leave its traces in the form of maps or 
minute descriptions.! The name given to the land 
varies according as it is viewed as the residence of 
certain peoples—the land of Canaan (Gn 11 31), 
the land of the Hebrews (Gn 40 15), the land of 
Israel (I S 13 19); or as possessed of sacred associa- 
tions—the ‘holy land’ (Zec 2 12), the ‘pleasant land’ 
(Zec 7 14), the ‘glorious 
land’ (Dn 11 16), the 
land of J’” (Hos 9 3), 
‘the land which J’ sware 
to Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob’ (Gn 50 24), and 
‘the land of promise’ 
(He 11 9). 


5. The Ideal Limits of 
the Land. The ideal lim- 
its of this land the 
Hebrews found in the 
empire achieved and 
maintained for a_ brief 
period under David and 
Solomon (I K 4 21, 9 26). 
Roughly speaking, it 
was bounded on the N. 
by the range of Lebanon, 
on the 8. by the wilder- 
ness of Paran, on the W. 
by the Mediterranean, 
and on the E. by the 
Arabian desert. Its 
length was designated 
in the phrase ‘from Dan 
to Beersheba’ (II S 3 10, 
2415; etc.). The subdivi- 
sion of it among the 
tribes was probably not 
a fixed one, tho certain 
ideal boundaries were 
held in mind for each 
tribe, as dating from the 
Mosaic age (Nu 32 33-42, 34 2-12; Jos chs. 15, 
16, 17). 

6. Natural Features. Four districts were spe- 
cifically distinguished (Dt 1 7), as the ‘Arabah,’ or 
Jordan Valley, the ‘Shephelah,’ or lowland along the 
western coast, the ‘Negeb,’ or South country, and 
the seashore. To these the hill-country of Ephraim 
and the hill-country of Judah might be added (Jos 
17 15, 21 11). More particularly, the Valley of 
Lebanon (Jos 11 17, 12 7, later called Coele-Syria), 
lying between Lebanon, ‘that goodly mountain’ 
(Dt 3 25), and the Antilebanon ranges, was the 
northern section of the land. Mt. Hermon, the 
southernmost summit in the group, was the most 
conspicuous of the mountains. Other mountains 


8 KASBU 


@ Lanp oF ASSUR 


For a popular account by 





1Fragments of a remarkable map of Palestine in mosaic work 
made in the 6th cent. a.p. were discovered in 1897. Cf. Schul- 
ten, Die Mosaikkarte v. Madaba (1900), and photographs in 
Libbey and Hoskins, The Jordan Valley and Petra, vol. II. 


295 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Geography 
Gerasa 





which secured a fixed place in the popular geog- 
raphy were Mt. Naphtali (Jos 20 7), Mt. Tabor 
(Jos 19 22; Jg 8 18), Mt Gilboa (I S 311 f.), Mt. 
Carmel (I K 1819 #.; Is 35 2), Mts. Ebal and Gerizim 
(Dt ch. 27), and, in the outer rim of the country, the 
mountains of Bashan (Ps 68 15; Is 2 13), Mt. Gilead 
(Dt 3 17), Mt. Nebo, and Mt. Pisgah (Abarim, 
Dt 32 49). 

7. Plains and Rivers and Seas. Chief among the 
lowlands of the country were the Valley of Jezreel 
(Jos 17 16; Jg 6 33), the Plain of Sharon (Is 33 9), the 
Lowland (‘Vale’ AV) or Shephelah (Jos 10 40), the 
Valley of Sorek (Jg 16 4), the Plain of Jordan (Gn 
13 10), which is in the vicinity of Jericho, and was 
also called the Valley of Jericho (Dt 34 3), and its 
extension beyond the Dead Sea, the Valley of Salt 
(II S 813). Besides the Mediterranean, called ‘the 
Sea’ par excellence (Nu 34 5), the Dead Sea (also 
called the ‘Sea of the Arabah,’ ‘the Salt Sea’ Dt 3 17, 
and the ‘East Sea’ EXzk 47 18), the Sea of Chinneroth 
(Jos 12 3), or Chinnereth (Nu 34 11), later called the 
Lake, or Sea, or Gennesaret, Galilee, or Tiberias, 
were noted. Of rivers, the principal one was the 
Jordan, constituting, as it does, the chief line of 
division between the E. and W. parts of the country. 
But besides this great river, others were familiar, 
such as the Shihor-libnath (Jos 19 26), the Kishon 
(Jg 5 21; I K 18 40), the River of Egypt (Gn 15 18); 
and on the E. of the Jordan, the Jarmuk, the Jabbok, 
and the Arnon. 


8. Adjacent Foreign Countries. From the earliest 
days the relations of the Hebrews with the outside 
world brought them into direct touch with Phenicia, 
altho mention is made only of its cities Tyre, Sidon, 
Arvad, etc. To the E. of Phenicia lay the great 
stretch of land known as Aram (Syria), extending to 
the Euphrates. The Euphrates itself, together with 
the Tigris (Hiddegel), was familiar as the territory 
of Asshur, Nineveh, and Babylon, gradually recog- 
nized as having an internal unity under the name of 
Mesopotamia (’Aram-Nahdrayim). 'To the E. and 
the SE. of the land of Israel lay Moab, with its cities 
of Kir and Ar (Is 151), the territory of Ammon, and 
Edom (also called Mt. Seir, together with Mt. Hor 
[Nu 20 22], one of its conspicuous summits), with 
Ezion-geber and Elath (I K 9 26; Dt 2 8), its ports, 
and Bozrah and Sela (Is 34 6), its principal cities. To 
the W. of Edom the Wilderness of Paran, gradually 
passing into the Wilderness of Shur (Gn 21 21; Ex 15 
23), stretched as far as the border of Egypt. Further 
S. was the peninsula of Sinai, with the mountain from 
which it takes its name, tho this mountain is but a 
single peak in the range called Horeb (Ex 31). Still 
more remote, and almost lost in the dim distance, 
was the land of Sheba (I K 101), and Ophir so far 
away that its exact location has been made the sub- 
ject of conjectures (Arabia, India, Africa?). 


9. Egypt and Africa. In the intermediate zone 
between the Holy Land and the remoter world the 
most prominent country to the Israelite’s view was 
Egypt. Its whole length to Syene (‘from Migdol 
to Syene,’ ‘Ezk 29 10, 30 6, RVmg.) was more or less 
familiar ground throughout the whole of the Biblical 
period. S. of Syene lay Ethiopia (or Cush; cf. 
IT K 199) and Seba. To the W. of Egypt the whole 





coast of Africa was comprehended under the one 
great name of Libya (Jer 46 9, ‘Put,’ q.v.). 

10. The Uttermost Parts. To the eye of the 
Hebrew, at least before the Exile, the circle within 
which the inhabited earth is fixed was one with a 
radius of approximately 1,000 miles. The furthest 
countries known in any sense were: to the E., Persia, 
Media, Elam (Paras, Mddhay, and ‘Eldm) and 
Susiana; to the N., Armenia to the Caucasus, and 
the regions of Asia Minor, as far as the Black Sea 
(‘Magog,’ “Togarmah,’ ‘Ararat,’ and ‘Gomer’); to 
the W., Cyprus, the coasts of Greece, the Archi- 
pelago, Ionia, and Libya (‘Elisha,’ ‘Javan,’ ‘Kittim,’ 
‘Caphtor,’ and ‘Lubim’); and to the S., Ethiopia, 
Yemen, Hadramaut, E. Arabia (‘Cush,’ ‘Phut,’ 
‘Seba,’ ‘Hazarmaveth,’ ‘Ophir,’ ‘Raamah’ EV). 

11. Growth of Geographical Knowledge. The 
foregoing stands in general for geographical ideas in 
the O T asa whole. Naturally, these are not equally 
full and clear in all the periods of the history. They 
develop from cruder and vaguer notions. Events 
such as the wars of David, the commercial enter- 
prises of Solomon, the Babylonian Exile, and contact 
with the Greek world vastly enlarged and clarified 
them. In the N T geographical ideas coalesce with 
those of Greco-Roman science. Nothing approach- 
ing a systematic presentation is given anywhere, but 
the accounts of the missionary journeys of Paul 
furnish materials for the identification of Biblical 
ideas with those of the best authorities outside (cf. 
Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller, 1896). See also Asta 
Minor, etc., and cf. Francis Brown in EB, article 
Geography. AM GaZs 


GEOLOGY OF PALESTINE. See PA.LEsTINnzE, 
§§ 14-16. 

GERA, gi’ra (871i, géra’): The ancestral name of 
one of the clans of Benjamin (Gn 46 21). In the list 
in I Ch 8 3 ff. one or more Geras are mentioned as 
subdivisions of the clan of Bela of the tribe Benja- 
min. The fact that both Ehud (Jg 315) and Shimei 
(II S 16 5, etc.) are called ‘sons’ of Gera also indi- 
cates that Gera was one of the ancient clans of 
Benjamin. EH. E. N. 


GERAH, gi’ra. See WriGHTs AND MEASURES, 
§ 4. 

GERAR, gi’rar (173, g*rar): An ancient city S. 
of Gaza, near the boundary of Canaan (Gn 10 19), 
visited by Abraham (Gn 201, 2) and Isaac (Gn 26 
1, 6). Asa (II Ch 1413 £. destroyed a company of 
Ethiopians led by Zerah at Gerar. It is commonly 
identified with Umm el-Jerdr, on the deep torrent- 
valley Jurf el-Jerdr (Gn 26 17). Map II, A 3. But 
according to Gn ch. 20, it lay between Kadesh and 
Shur, and Trumbull (Kadesh-Barnea, p. 61 ff.) 
identifies it with the Wddy Jerair, W. of ‘Ain Kadesh. 
The kingdom of the Philistine king may have ex- 
tended S. into the Negeb, and Gerar may have been 
the name of a large region. C.§8. T. 

GERASA, jo-ré’so, GERASENES, ger’a-senz (Te- 
eacnvol, Mk 51; Lk 8 26, 37; Gergesenes Lk 8 26 mg., 
Gadarenes Lk 8 26 mg., Mt 8 28. The Revisers’ 
reading in Mk is undoubtedly correct, being sup- 
ported by the best MSS., and is adopted by recent 
editors. That of Lk is more doubtful, but ‘Gera- 


Gergesenes 
Gideon 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


296 





senes’ is better supported than ‘Gergesenes.’ In Mt 
‘Gadarenes’ is to be preferred to the ‘Western’ 
reading ‘Gerasenes’): Undoubtedly the textual 
difficulty is complicated by a geographical one. Ac- 
cording to the narrative the scene is laid on the E. 
shore of the Lake of Galilee, where a cliff rises 
abruptly from the Lake. But this will not suit 
either of the cities which at first sight are suggested 
by the readings in the Gospels. The Greek city 
Gerasa, modern Jerdésh, was in Gilead, or Perea, a 
little N. of the Jabbok, and its ruins to-day are 
among the most magnificent in Syria. An interest- 
ing description will be found in Henry Van Dyke’s 
Out-of-Doors in the Holy Land. More is to be said 
for the identification of the Gerasa of the Gospels 
with Gadara, since the ‘country of the Gadarenes’ 
(} Tadapitts, Jos. BJ, III, 10 10) was a political 
district extending to the SE. shore of the Lake, with 
Gadara as its capital. This city was 6 m. from the 
Lake, finely situated in a fertile region, with beau- 
tiful views over the Jordan Valley, Galilee, and the 
Lake. The distance of Gadara from the Lake, how- 
ever, is too great to allow of any identification. See 
Decapotis. On the other hand, the identifi- 
cation of the city mentioned in the Gospels with a 
place now called Kersa, Gersa, or Kursi, first made 
by Dr. Thomson, is almost certain. It lies at the 
mouth of the Wddy Samak, about the middle of the 
E. shore, where a cliff covered by ruins rises sheer 
above the beach, with numerous tombs in the vi- 
cinity. Origen and Eusebius knew of a village on the 
E. of the Lake, which they called Gergesa. But this 
is probably the same as Kersa, from which the 
adjectives Gergesenes and Gerasenes would be 
derived, the latter form having been suggested per- 
haps by the similarity in sound to the well-known 
Gerasa. The reading ‘Gadarenes’ in Mt may have 
been a gloss by the editor of the Gospel, to whom the 
reading ‘Gerasenes’ was inexplicable. 
R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


GERGESENES, gir’’gi-sinz’. See GmRASA. 


GERIZIM, MOUNT, ger’i-zim. Mts. Ebal and 
Gerizim were two mountains lying one on the N. 
and the other on the S. of the valley in which 
Shechem was situated (Map III, 3 F). Mt G. was 
the sacred Mountain of the Samaritans. See 
SHECHEM; and PALEsTIN#, § 7 (d). 


GERSHOM, gior’shom (03, gérshdm): 1. A son 
of Levi (Gershom in I Ch 616 f. and 157 #., but else- 
where Gershon). His descendants constituted the 
priestly family of the Gershonites. On account 
of the disproportionate importance which they are 
given, both in the description of their service and in 
the distribution of Levitical cities, it is probable that 
they were a branch of the priesthood directly 
descending from Gershon, the son of Moses, and 
that their ancestor’s name is included among the 
sons of Levi by a conventional genealogical connec- 
tion. 2. The eldest son of Moses and Zipporah 
(Ex 2 22), and the ancestor of Jonathan, the priest 
of the idolatrous sanctuary at Dan (Jg 18 30). 3. 
A son of Phinehas, or at least the head of a branch 
of the priestly family of Phinehas (Ezr 8 2). 

A. C. Z. 


GERUTH-CHIMHAM, gi’rith-kim’ham. See 


CHIMHAM. 

GESHAN, gi’shan (]?3, géshan; in AV Gesham, 
except in ed. of 1611): A descendant of Caleb (I Ch 
2 47). OFF a ea ek 


GESHEM, gi’shem (803, geshem, Neh 2 19, 61 £., 
written Gashmu 6 6): He is called ‘the Arabian.’ He 
joined with Sanballat and Tobiah in opposing 


Nehemiah, when rebuilding the wall of Jerusalem. 
CoBAE: 


GESHOUR, gi’shor, GESHURITE, gi-shi’rait: 1. 
See Aram, § 4 (5). 2. Geshur in the S. of Palestine. 
In Jos 13 2 Geshurites are named in connection with 
Philistines, and in I S 27 8 (Heb. text) David is said 
to have warred against the Geshurites, where evi- 
dently a southern tribe is meant. If the Heb. text 
of IS 27 8 is correct, we have evidence of a southern 
Geshur (omitted in LXX. B), of which nothing more 
is known. Possibly Absalom’s mother was from 
this Geshur, not from the northern one (in which 
case the words ‘in Aram,’ II S 15 8 are a later gloss). 

E. E. N. 


GETHER, gi’fher. See ErsnoGraPHy AND 


ErHNoLoay, § 13. 


GETHSEMANE, geth-sem’a-ni: A garden across 
the Kidron (Jn 18 1), a resort for Jesus and His 
disciples (Mk 14 32; Mt 26 36; Lk 22 39). The name 
means ‘oil-press,’ one probably being in the enclo- 
sure. The traditional site, if not authentic, is at 
least near the original place, lying on the W. slope 
of the Mt. of Olives, about 50 yards beyond the 
Kidron. R. A. F.—E. E. N. 


GEUEL, giii’el (Dasa, g?Wél), ‘majesty of God’: 
One of the spies (Nu 13 15). 


GEZER, gi’zar (113, gezer), also Gazer AV (Il 
S 5 25;I Ch 1416), gentilic Girzites (I S 27 8), Gizrites 
RVmg., Gezrites AV, Gerzites AVimg. (the variants 
are probably due to textual corruptions): An ancient 
city of great military importance named in the 
Amarna tablets (c. 1400 B.c.) as in alliance with 
Ashkelon, Lachish, and Jerusalem. The account of 
its destruction by Joshua (Jos 10 33, 12 12) is un- 
historical. Gezer remained Canaanite until (con- 
quered by Egypt) it passed into the possession of 
Solomon, as the dowry of his Egyptian wife (I K 
9 16). It was later named as a Levitical city (Jos 
21 21). It figures largely in the Maccabeean wars, 
under the name Gazara (I Mac 4 15, etc.). Its 
modern site Tell-Jezer (see Map III, D 5) has been 
more thoroughly excavated and explored than any 
other Palestinian locality thus far examined. (Cf. 
Clermont-Ganneau, Arch. Res. in Palestine, II, 257, 
and Stewart Macalister, Memoirs of the Excavations 
of Gezer (1912), also in popular form, Bible Lights 
from the Mound of Gezer (1907). 

A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 

GHOST: An old English term, which, apart from 
the expression ‘Holy Ghost,’ occurs only in the 
phrase ‘to give up the ghost’ (Job 11 20; Jer 159, etc.), 
which is used as the equivalent of ‘to die’ (Mt 27 50; 
Jn 19 30, ‘spirit’? RV). 


GHOST, HOLY. See Houy Sprrrr. 


A NEW STANDARD 


GIAH, gai’a (173, giah): Apparently a place near 
Gibeon (II S 2 24). 


GIANT, GIANTS: Four Heb. words are so ren- 
dered : (1) gibbér (Job 16 14), which means simply a 
physically strong and courageous man. (2) r¢phd- 
‘im (‘Rephaim’ RV), the name of a part of the pre- 
Canaanite inhabitants of Palestine (Dt 2 11, 20, 3 11, 
13; Jos 12 4, 13 12, 15 8, 17 15, 18 16). See RepHarm. 
(3) raphah, possibly a proper name and, if so, the 
father of a race of giants in SW. Palestine. The 
word may, however, mean ‘giant.’ The passages in 
which it occurs indicate that in historic times certain 
individuals of extraordinary size were thought of as 
descended from an imaginary race of gigantic men 
in SW. Palestine (II S 21 16-22. The || in I Ch 20 
4-8 reads rapha@’, which may be a mistake, or it may 
show that the original reading for both texts was 
repha’im). See also ANaAxk (and cf. G. A. Smith on 
Dt 1 28 in Camb. Bible). (4) nephilim, a term of 
unknown etymology, probably well rendered by 
‘giants’ (AV). See Diszase AND Mepicine, § 5; and 
NEPHILIM. HK. E. N. 


GIANTS, VALLEY OF. See RepHarm. 
E. E. N. 


GIBBAR, gib’ar (133, gibbaGr): A district of Judah 


(Ezr 2 20). Probably a mistake for Gibeon (cf. 
Neh 7 25). 
GIBBETHON,  gib’1-fhen  ((JiN33, gibbethon), 


‘mound,’ ‘height’: A Danite (Jos 19 44) and Levitical 
city of refuge (Jos 21 23). It was a frontier Philis- 
tine city toward Ephraim and was besieged by 
Nadab, who was slain here by his general, Baasha, 
who conspired against him (I K 15 27). Twenty-five 
years later it was in the possession of the Philistines, 
when Omri (I K 16 15 f.) who was besieging the city 
was made king after Elah had been assassinated by 
Zimri. Exact site unknown, but see Map III, E 5. 
ORs iid 


GIBEA, gib’i-a. See Grsrau. 


GIBEAH, gib’i-a (7933, gibh‘Gh, and ¥33, gebha‘, 
Geba EV), ‘hill’: 1. A town of Judah (Jos 15 57; 
I Ch 2 49). Site unknown. 2. Geba of Benjamin, a 
town on the N. border of Benjamin. Map III, F 5 
(Jos 18 24; Jg 20 43; IS 18 2, i6, 14 2, 5,16; I K 15 22; 
II K 23 8; I Ch 6 60, 8 6; II Ch 16 6; Neh 7 30, 11 31, 
12 29; Is 10 29; Zec 1410). Tho similarity of the spell- 
ing has led to confusion with Gibeah of Saul, such 
passages as Jos 18 24, 28 and Is 10 29 clearly show that 
these two names did not refer to the same place. See 
GeBa. 3. Gibeah of Saul (Is 11 4). A town a few 
m. §. of Geba, identified with the ruins TJell-el-fal, 
about midway between Ramah (Map III, F 5) and 
Jerusalem. Excavations carried on by the Am. Sch. 
Or. Research in 1922 show that the site was occupied 
in the Canaanite period and was strongly fortified in 
the time of Saul and David. G. was the scene of the 
shameful deed and its bloody vengeance recorded in 
Jg chs. 19 and 20 (cf. Hos 99, 109). It was an old 
sacred site, a ‘hill of God’ (I S 10 5, 10) and here a 
Philistine garrison was stationed (IS 105, 13 3). It 
was also the home of Saul and his headquarters while 
king, and here seven of his sons were executed and 
exposed to satisfy the vengeance of the Gibeonites 


Gergesenes 
Gideon 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
(II S 21 6). It was also the home of Ittai, one of 
David’s heroes (II S 23 29), and of Micaiah, the 
mother of Abijah, King of Judah (II Ch 13 2). In 
IT 8 63¢. read ‘hill’ with RV. See Bul. ASOR, Oct., 
1922 and Feb., 1923; also Burney, Judges (1918) on 
chs. 19-20. HK. E. N. 


GIBEATH, gib’1-ath, GIBEATHITE, gib’i-ath- 
ait. See GrBEAH, 2. 


GIBEON, gib’1-an (11933, gibh‘dn), GIBEONITE 
gib’1-en-ait: A royal city of the Hivites (Jos 9 3, 17). 
It was apparently the head of a league or confed- 
eracy, the other cities being Chephirah, Beeroth, 
Kiriath-jearim (ver. 17). By a stratagem it secured 
terms of peace with Israel under Joshua, and per- 
sisted as a non-Israelitish community as late as the 
days of David (IIS 212). In spite of the discovery 
of their ruse, Joshua kept the compact with the 
Gibeonites. He drove from the gates of the city a 
group of Amorite kings (Jos 10 10, 12). In the civil 
war following the death of Saul, Abner and Joab, 
representing Ishbosheth and David respectively, 
met with their armies in its neighborhood (by ‘the 
pool,’ II S$ 2 12), but avoided a battle for a time by 
selecting twelve champions on each side to settle 
their differences (cf. HELKATH-HAVVURIM). In this 
affair mention is made of the Wilderness of G., but 
such a region can not be identified. Later, the place 
was the scene of a battle between David and the 
Philistines (II S 5 25, here ‘Geba,’ but in I Ch 14 16 
‘Gibeon’). Here, too, ‘at the great stone’ Joab slew 
Amasa (II S 208). Saul rashly put to death many 
of the Gibeonites; but the survivors were given 
satisfaction by David through the delivery of seven 
from among Saul’s descendants into their hands to 
be put to death (IIS 211ff.). G. was later counted as 
a priestly city (Jos 21 17). It had a ‘great high 
place,’ at which Solomon offered his first sacrifice as 
king (I K 3 4; cf. also I K 92). The notice in I Ch 
21 20 that the tabernacle was for a time erected here 
is hardly historical. It was the residence of Hana- 
niah the prophet (Jer 28 1). Some of its inhabitants 
took part in the rebuilding of Jerusalem (Neh 3 7). 
The Valley of Gibeon (Is 28 21) refers to Geba, where 
J’ triumphed through David (II S 5 22 #.=I Ch 
1413 #.). Mod. El-Jib; Map I, D 8; ITI, F 5 (cf. 
G. A. Smith, HG HL, p. 250 ff.). A. C. Z. 


GIBLITE, gib’lait. See GreBat. 


GIDDALTI, gi-dal’tai (D?U, giddalit): A mu- 
sician, the ancestral head of the 22d division of the 
choir of the Second Temple (I Ch 25 4, 29). 


GIDDEL, gid’el (773, giddél): 1. The ancestral 
head of one of the subdivisions of the Nethinim 
(Ezr 2 47; Neh 7 49). 2. The ancestral head of one 
of the subdivisions of Solomon’s servants (Er 2 56; 
Neh 7 58). 


GIDEON, gid’1-on (]i¥73, gidh‘dn), ‘hewer,’ or 
‘feller’: A son of Joash, of the Manassite family of 
Abiezer, also called Jerubbaal (Jg 6 32), and Jerub- 
besheth (q.v.), a native of Ophrah and one of the 
Judges of Israel (Jg chs. 6-8). The name Jerubbaal 
et Baal (z.e. J’, since Baal was often used as the 
equivalent of J’ in early times) contend’ (i.e., for 


Gideoni 
Glass 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


298 





His rights) is found only in the secondary strand of 
the story. 

The story of G. (Jg chs. 6-8)is the result of com- 
bining several separate and quite divergent threads 
of tradition. The main features of one story can be 
found in 6 2-6a, 11-24, 34, 716-20 (the parts in which 
pitchers and torches are spoken of), 21, 22b. 8 4-21isa 
unit, but whether originally a part of this story is 
uncertain. Another main thread is found in 6 36-40, 
7 2-7, 16-20 (the parts in which trumpets are spoken of). 
Of the other parts of the narrative, some sections as 
6 1, 7-10, 8 33-35 are probably editorial. The first 
story is the simpler and more objective, and gives 
the more original account of G.’s victory over the 
Midianite hordes. In this old story great emphasis 
is laid on G.’s valor (6 12, 14, 8 21, etc.), on his faith in 
J’’, coupled with bold reliance on his own resources, 
and on his military skill. There is here no reference 
to the religious condition as corrupt and disloyal to 
J’’. In the later forms of the tradition miracle plays 
a prominent part, and far less is accredited to G.’s 
own initiative and ability. In all, however, it is 
J’’ who gives the victory. 

This signal deliverance from their enemies led 
the people of central Israel to offer G. a crown, the 
first recorded movement toward monarchy in Israel. 
Loyalty to the old tribal constitution led him to re- 
fuse the honor. His home town became the center 
of a worship of J’’ which was viewed with disfavor 
by the later editor. G. lived on a large scale, having 
an extensive harem and many children. The evil 
results of this departure from the primitive Israelitic 
simplicity showed themselves in the career of his 
son Abimelech (q.v.). See also EpHop and consult 
Commentaries by Moore (JCC) or Burney (1918). 

K. HE. N. 

GIDEONI,  gid’1-0’nai_ (3913, gidh‘dni). The 
father of Abidan (Nu 1 1, 2 22, etc.). 

GIDOM, gai’dem (8973, gidh‘6m): A place men- 
tioned in Jg 20 45 (perhaps an error for Geba, cf. 
Burney, Judges ad loc.). 


GIER EAGLE. See Pauusrinp, § 25. 


GIFT: The giving of gifts, or presents, in ancient 
times was not usually from disinterested motives. 
Some return, in service or otherwise, was expected, 
or some obligation was thereby recognized, or con- 
fessed. Consequently ‘gifts’ played an important 
part in the ordinary life of the times, and the terms 
‘gift,’ or ‘present,’ in the English Bible should not 
be interpreted exactly according to Western stand- 
ards. When the Heb. term is minhdh (‘gift,’ or 
‘present’ AV) and is used in a political sense, the 
ARV renders it by ‘tribute.’ The ‘gift’ one gave 
for a bride was more a purchase price than a present. 
‘Gift’ is also used a number of times in the sense of 
‘bribe’ (Ex 23 8, etc.). Finally, ‘gift’ is used in the 
sense of an offering, 7.e., to God, or for His service 
(cf. Ex 28 38, etc.), or to false gods (Ezk 16 33). 

In the N T the word is used with few exceptions in 
a religious sense. Where the Gr. is Sépov, it gen- 
erally stands for an offering, either a sacrifice (Mt 
5 23), or of money (e.g., Lk 211; He 51; cf. also Mk 
741, RV); where 86ua is used, the idea is the bestow- 
ment of benefits because of affection (cf. Mt 7 11; 


Eph 4 8; Ph 417). In other cases (Gr. weed, or 
3Heny.a) it is used of the new life in Christ (Jn 4 10; 
Ro 5 15, etc.), or more specially of the gift of the 
Holy Spirit (Ac 2 38, etc.). Finally, the special dis- 
pensations or graces of the Spirit are called ‘gifts,’ 
xaplopata, peotowol (eg., Ro 126; ICo124#.; He 
24, etc.) See also Sacriricr, §§ 1, 12, 18; Crimes 
AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 (b); and Cuurcn, §§ 5-7. 
E. E. N. 


GIHON, gai’‘hen. See Engen, and JERUSALEM, 


§ 11. 

GILALAI, gil’a-lai (°223, gildlay): A postexilic 
musician (Neh 12 36). 

GILBOA, gil-bo’a (2 393, gilbéa‘): A collective name 
for a hilly district (about 1,700 ft. above the sea at 
its highest point) located in the neighborhood of 
Shunem, Jezreel, and Bethshean, renowned as the 
battle-field on which the Israelites pitched their 
camp in Saul’s last campaign against the Philistines 
(IS 28 4, 311; ITS 1 21), and as the scene of the death 
of Saul. MapI, E6. See Paesrine, § 9. 

A.C. Z. 

GILEAD, gil’1-od (1973, gil‘adh), ‘hard, firm’ (?): 
I. 1. A son of Machir and grandson of Manasseh, 
eponym of a clan (Gileadites, Nu 26 29, 30; Jos 17 1). 
2. The father of Jephthah (Jg 111). 3. A son of 
Michael, a Gadite (I Ch 5 14). 

II. 1. A city (Jg 10 17) near Mizpan (Hos 6 8). 
Gileadite (Jg 111) may mean an inhabitant of this 
city (cf. also JABESH-GILEAD). 2. The name of a 
somewhat loosely defined district E. of the Jordan. 


‘In its largest extent it is identified with the whole 


country S. of Hermon (Gn 37 25; Jos 229 #.; ITS 29; 
II K 10 33; Am 1 3; Ezk 4718). In a narrower sense, 
it is one of the three sections of the E. Jordan coun- 
try, the other two being Bashan and Moab (Dt 3 10; 
Jos 13 11; II K 10 33). Ina still narrower sense, G. 
was bounded on the N. by Bashan and Geshur, or, 
conventionally, by the river Jarmuk, on the 8. by a 
line drawn from the N. end of the Dead Sea east- 
ward just S. of Heshbon (this portion of the district 
was more anciently called Jazer [q.v.], Nu 321), on 
the W. naturally by the Jordan, and on the E. by 
the wilderness (Jos 13 11, 13). The late story of 
territorial allotment by Joshua assigns G. to the 
half-tribe of Manasseh and Gad, with a boundary 
between the two, shifting from the Jabbok (Dt 3 16; 
Jos 12 2) to a line drawn NE. and SW. from the 8. 
end of the sea of Chinnereth, through Mahanaim. 
The N. part of the district was given to Manasseh, 
and the S. to Gad (but, according to I Ch 5 it, 16, 
Gad extended as far N. as Bashan). G. is, generally 
speaking, a mass of low mountains ranging in height 
from 1,500 to 2,500 ft. above the sea-level. It 
abounds in beautiful scenery and, tho presenting a 
rugged and barren aspect from a distance, turns out 
on nearer approach to be pleasing and measurably 
fertile. It was famed as the home land of Jephthah 
(Jg 111), and of Elijah (I K 17 1); also for its rich 
pasturage (Mic 7 14; I Ch 5 16 mg.), on account of 
which it was chosen by the tribes to, whom it was 
assigned (Nu 321). It was also known for its rich 
balsam (Jer 8 22, 46 11; see BaLM oF GILEAD). See 
also PALESTINE, § 13 (b). A. C. Z. 


299 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Gideoni 
Glass 





GILEAD, BALM OF. See Diskase anp MeEp- 
ICINE, § 3. 

GILEAD, MOUNT: Strictly speaking, this term 
signifies the mountain range in the district of Gilead 
(q.v.) (Gn 31 21 f.), but is applied in Jg 7 3 to a sum- 
mit which projects into the valley of Jezreel. This 
may mean: (1) That the same name was somehow 
given independently to two separate mountainous 
districts on the two sides of the Jordan; (2) that there 
was a connection between the E. and W. sides, the 
possessions of the tribe of Naphtali reaching over to 
the E. side, thus extending the name over the hills 
in the neighborhood of Jezreel; (3) that the text was 
originally different, admitting of the application of 
the name to the region E. of the Jordan (cf. Moore 
on Jg 11); or (4) that Mt. Gilead is a textual cor- 
ruption for some other name, now lost, like Gilboa, 
or JGlid, the mod. name of the spring of Harod, near 
by. (See Burney on Judges 7 3). AiG. Le 

GILGAL, gil’gal (233, gilgal), ‘circle of stones,’ 
from gélal, ‘to roll’; but Jos 59 f. derives it from the 
secondary meaning ‘roll away’: A name of places 
designated by a sacred circle of stones. The Heb. 
always has the article except in Jos 59,1223. 1. A 
place E. of Jericho, between that city and the Jordan 
(Jos 419). Map III, G5. It was the first encamp- 
ment of Israel W. of the river (Jos 5 10), where they 
set up 12 stones taken from the river-bed (Jos 4 20). 
According to Jos 5 2-9 the men of Israel were circum- 
cised here. Josephus and others identified G. with 
what is now the modern Tell jeljul, a mound with 
the ruins of a stone cloister or church. Conder in 
1873-75 and 1880 found here the name Birket 
Jiljuliyeh. Joshua maintained a standing camp at 
G. during the earlier period of the conquest of 
Canaan (Jos 9 6, 10 6 #., 14 6; Jg 21; cf. Mic 6 5). 
Perhaps the ‘quarries,’ or graven images, of Jg 3 19 
are to be in some way connected or identified with 
this Gilgal. It was a religious and military center 
in the time of Samuel and Saul (IS 108, ll 14 f,, 
137 f., 12, 15, 15 12, 21, 33). Judah received David at 
G. on his return after the death of Absalom (II § 
19 15 [16], 40 [41]). At Gilgal was a frequented sanc- 
tuary in the 8th cent. (Hos 4 15, 9 15, 12 11 [12]; Am 
4 4,5 5). Samuel visited a G. with Bethel and 
Mizpah (I 8 716). The prophets may have referred 
to the G. in the Jordan Valley, but, as Bethel and 
Mizpah are on the central range of hills, the Gilgal 
visited by Samuel was near Bethel and identical with 
the following. 2. The modern village Jiljilia, on a 
hill lying between Bethel, Shechem, and Samaria. 
Map III, F 4. Here there was a school of the 
prophets (II K 4 38), connected with Elijah and 
Elisha. ‘The order in II K 2 1-7, Gilgal, Bethel, 
Jericho, is evidence that this G. is to be found in the 
hill-country rather than in the Jordan Valley. 3.A 
place associated with Mt. Gerizim and Mt. Ebal 
(Dt 11 30), if not the G. of 1, then the Julezjil just E. 
of Mt. Gerizim. Map III, F3. 4. A place mentioned 
in Jos 12 23 as in Sharon, unless we are to read, 
with LXX., ‘Galilee.’ 5. A place on the border 
between Judah and Benjamin (Jos 157), over against 
Adummim (cf. Map II, G 1) =Geliloth (Jos 18 17); cf. 
Beth-gilgal (Neh 12 29), a place near Jerusalem. This 
last G. may be the same as 1. CEseilene 


GILOH, gai’ls (773, giloh): A town of Judah (Jos 
15 51), the home of Ahithophel, the Gilonite (II S 15 
12). The identification on Map II, E 2 is probable, 
but not certain. 

GIMZO, gim’zo (1193, gimzd): A town in the NW. 
of Judah (II Ch 2818). Map III, D 5. 

GIN. See Huntina. 


GINATH, gai’nath (N23, ginath): The father of 
Tibni, the rival of Omari (I K 16 21 £.). 

GINNETHOI, gin’1-tho’ai (1N2, ginnethoy, Gin- 
netho AV), and GINNETHON, gin’1-fhon (1933, 
ginnthon): The head and ancestor of a priestly 
family in postexilic days (Neh 10 6, 12 4, 18). 

GIRD, GIRDLE. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, 
§§ 1 and 2. 

GIRGASHITE, gior’ga-shait (°#273, girgashi), also 
Girgasite (Gn 10 16 AV), generally Girgashites in 
AV (Gn 15 21; Dt 71; Jos 3 10, 24 11; I Ch 114; Neh 
98): One of the tribes, or divisions, of the Canaanites. 
Of these references, however, only Jos 24 11 gives 
any intimation regarding the location of the tribe. 
Its name is included among those opposing the 
Israelites along with the men of Jericho. Hence 
they lived west of the Jordan. A.C. Z. 


GIRZITE, gor’zait. See Guzen. 
GISHPA, gish’po (82W2, gishpa’, Gispa AV): One 
of the overseers of the Nethinim (Neh 11 21). 


GITTAH-HEPHER, git’’a-hi’fer. See Gartu- 
HEPHER. 


GITTAIM, git’a-im (8°53, gittayim), ‘two wine- 
presses’ (?) A town of Benjamin (II S 4 3; Neh 
11 33). Site unknown. 


GITTITE, git’ait. See Gatun. 


GITTITH, git’1fh. See Music anp 
INSTRUMENTS, § 3 (4). 


GIZONITE, gai’zo-nait. See JASHEN. 


GLAD TIDINGS: To ‘bring glad (or good) ti- 
dings’ (Lk 2 10) is the rendering of the Greek verb 
elayyeAtCecOar (used in LXX. for Heb. bdsar in such 
passages as Is 409, 527, etc.). This verb generally 
refers to bringing the good tidings of the Gospel 
message either (1) generally (e.g. Mt 11 5), or (2) 
in its various phases and is usually translated ‘to 
preach’ (e.g. Lk 20 1; Gal 1 23; Ac 5 42). See also 
GosPEL, GOSPELS, § 1. 


GLASS: The rendering of 2*khikhith (Job 2817 ‘crys- 
tal’ AV), where the poet compares wisdom in value to 
gold and glass. In Dt 3319 Zebulun and Issachar are 
promised ‘the hidden treasures of the sand, possibly 
an allusion to the manufacture of glass at Akka, 
on the coast nearby (cf. G. A. Smith Camb. Bible, ad 
loc.). It is noteworthy that these two tribes were 
immediate neighbors of the Phenicians who are 
often regarded as the discoverers of the process of 
making glass (Pliny, Nat. Hist., XXXVI, 651). 
But see below. A legend tells of a pavement of glass 
in the palace of Solomon. Undoubtedly the ancient 
Hebrews were acquainted with glass, as its manu- 
facture runs back to an extremely early age. Glass 
beads of remote antiquity have been discovered 
in the excavations at Gezer. Small fragments of 


MusIcAaL 


Glean 
Gnosticism 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


300 





this material were brought to light at Megiddo in 
the stratum which is assigned to 2000-1500 B.c. 
The Egyptians manufactured glass at an early 
period. We have a lion’s head of opaque blue glass 
with the name of Nuantef 
IV, of the 11th dynasty; a 
bead of glass bearing the 
name of Queen Ha’t-sepsut; 
and a green opaque jar of 
Thothmes IIJ. The Pheni- 
cians learned the art probably 
from the Egyptians; they 
used glass beads for barter- 
ing with rude African tribes. 
The Romans executed works 
of great beauty in this ma- 
terial, and many specimens 
of their workmanship have 
been found in Palestine. In 
the N T we read of the ‘sea 
of glass like unto crystal’ 
(Rev 4 6), and the golden 
streets of the New Jerusalem 
are ‘as it were of transparent 
glass’ (Rev 21 18, 21). The force of the comparison 
lies in the transparency of the glass. The crystal 
(Job 28 18 ‘pearls’ AV; Ezk 1 22 ‘ice? RVmg.) is the 
translucent rock-crystal, which was well known to 
the ancients. The glass of antiquity was opaque, 
hence the transparency of it is emphasized when it 
is compared to crystal. The terms mar’ah (Ex 38 
8) and gilldyon (Is 3 23), rendered ‘glass’ AV, refer 
to mirrors made of polished metal commonly used 
in antiquity. J. A. K, 


GLEAN, GLEANING. See Aaricutturn, § 5; 
and VINES AND VINTAGE, § 2. 


GLEDE. See Patesrinp, § 25. 


GLORY: 1. Original Terms. The generic idea in 
the Heb. and Gr. terms rendered by ‘glory’ glorious, 
gloriously, glorify is that of ‘excellency,’ ‘height’ or 
‘preeminence.’ In some (’addereth, Zec 11 3; hadhar, 
Ps 90 16, etc.), it is a matter of adornment; in others 
(hodh, Job 39 20, etc.; ts*bhi, Is 13 19, etc.; pa’ar, 
iiph’ereth, Is 10 12, etc.; tohar, Ps 89 44 [‘brightness’ 
RV]) it is ‘beauty’; in a third class the distinctive 
idea is ‘preciousness,’ or ‘rarity’ (y*qar, Dn 2 37, etc.); 
in a fourth, and by far the most numerous, class of 
passages in the O T, the specific thought is that of 
‘honor’ (kabhédh, ‘weight,’ Gn 45 13; Ps 81, etc.). In 
the N T the conception of glory is primarily visual, 
that of a halo of light (86&«). This conception was 
moreover taken over from the O T through the LXX. 
in which 86& is the usual rendering of kabhédh. The 
Gr. xAé0¢ (I P 2 20) is rather ‘praise’ than ‘glory.’ 

2. The More General Use of the Term. These 
variations blend in two distinct uses, a general and 
a more specific. The former is the application of the 
term to human conditions, including the idea of glory 
as external pomp. The kings and prominent 
characters of public and social life display such glory 
in their appearance among men (Is 87; Mt 6 29; Ps 
4513). With this is naturally associated intellectual 
preeminence (Est 511). It includes, further, the con- 
ception of honor in the esteem of men, hence it is 








Mirror of Polished 
Metal. 


synonymous with reputation (I Ch 16 24; Ps 96 3), or 
anything for the possession of which one may be 
proud, or admire and defer to another. Even inani- 
mate objects are in this sense endowed with glory 
(cf. ‘the glory of Lebanon,’ Is 35 2, 60 13; ‘the glory 
of the celestial bodies,’ etc., I Co 15 40, 41). Poet- 
ically, when glory is attributed to God, speaking 
of His distinctive character, it may thus become 
equivalent to the word ‘self’ (Gn 49 6), ‘honor’ AV; 
Ps 57 8). 

In this general sense, the term is used in the Pss of 
God’s glory as the revelation of His preeminence, 
calling for awe and admiration, whether conceived 
as external splendor or inward power (Ps 191, ‘the 
heavens declare the glory of God,’ 66 2, 96 3, 7). 

3. Glory of J’; a Physical Appearance. In its 
specific sense, the glory of J’’ is conceived of as a 
physical phenomenon accompanying the revelation 
of His presence. This usage appears uniformly in — 
Kzk and in the Hexateuch (P). The representations 
of God’s physical glory found in these two places 
differ in some respects. The glory of J’’ as seen by 
Ezekiel (1 27 £., etc.) is a definite shape with color: 
‘as .. . the appearance of fire, ... As the ap- 
pearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of 
rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round 
about.’ This is associated with a vision. In a true 
sense the description is apocalyptic. As such, it 
may be an actual theophany or a literary expedient 
to express a revelation received by the prophet in a 
subconscious form. In either case, the reality of the 
revelation will depend not on its external form, but 
on the fact that God wished to, and did, make His 
will known to the prophet. In neither case, how- 
ever, was the glory visible to the physical eye of any 
one but the prophet himself. 

The glory of J’ as described in P is a brightness of 
undefined form. ‘Devouring fire’ is the nearest 
approach to a description given (Ex 24 17). This 
all the people were able to see (Ex 167). It mani- 
fested itself in the Tent of Meeting (Ex 40 34, 35; 
Lv 9 23; Nu 1410, 1619, 42, 206) and filled the Temple 
at its dedication (II Ch 71 f.). There are two pos- 
sible explanations of the literary relationship of the 
conceptions of Ezk and P. Hither P describes a 
theophany in the form of a dazzling light, which 
served as a basis and preparation for Ezekiel’s more 
definite vision, or Ezekiel’s vision is an apocalypse, 
which paved the way for the idea of the more con- 
stant and broadly perceptible halo implied in P. 
General critical considerations favor the second 
alternative. Again, upon the basis of the unity of 
these two pictures of physical glory (Ezk and P), 
the question will next arise whether the physical as 
a whole is older than the general and metaphorical 
conception. Tho the former may seem more primi- 
tive, the facts leave practically no ground for this 
view. The conception of a specific glory in material 
form could arise much easier after than before the 
eet and splendor of God had been fully appre- 
ciated. 


4. Glory in Ex 33 is#. An intermediate concep- 
tion of the glory of J’’ appears in Ex 33 18-22 That 
here the reference is to something different from the 
physical glory appears from Moses’ earnest petition 


801 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Glean 
Gnosticism 





for a vision of God’s glory. He could not have asked 
for a glimpse of that which he could have seen by 
visiting the Tent of Meeting. Therefore, in the 
answer to the petition, the glory is identified with 
the person of God Himself. ‘It shall come to pass 
while my glory passeth by’ is explained by ‘until I 
have passed by’ (Ex 33 22). 

The terms glorify and glorious, while frequently 
used in the O T and the N T, occur in their ordinary 
cognate meanings and involve nothing which has not 
been covered in the foregoing discussion of the pri- 
mary term glory. A. C. Z. 


GNAT. See PAuestTINe, § 26. 


-GNOSTICISM: Origins of the Gnostic Ideas 
Current in N T Times. The beginnings of Gnosti- 
cism can not be traced or ascribed to any one person, 
place, or time. This much only is clear, that gnostic 
‘tendencies’ had been cropping out here and there 
throughout the Orient long prior to the rise of any 
definite leader or system. The Gnosticism of the 2d 
and 3d Centuries A.D. was one of the results of the 
gradual intermingling of the old faiths and philoso- 
phies under the tolerant rule of Rome. The move- 
ment had by that time become positively aggressive 
and missionary, claiming to give a more profound 
and truer interpretation of Christianity than that 
which was given by the orthodox faith. It was then 
a very diversified movement, expressing itself in a 
number of different systems or ‘schools’ such as 
those of Basilides, Valentinus, etc. With this fully 
developed Gnosticism, which was attacked by 
Ireneus, Hippolytus, and other Church Fathers, 
this article is not eoncerned. It is rather with those 
thought-movements of a ‘gnostic’ character that 
were already in the world at the advent of Chris- 
tianity and with which it came in contact, and 
which are implied as at hand in certain N T pas- 
sages, that this article has to deal. The beginnings 
of Gnostic thought go back far beyond the Christian 
Era. And the directions from which the various 
streams of incipient ‘Gnostic’ ideas originated were 
quite divergent. India, Persia, Babylonia, Egypt, 


Asia Minor (especially Phrygia) have all been ! 


named as the regions in which gnostic speculations 
arose and whence they flowed into the common 
religious life of the Mediterranean world of the first 
centuries of our era. With the possible exception of 
India, it is likely that each one of the countries 
named contributed something to the common fund, 
but no one of them can be considered as the sole 
source of Gnostic thought. 

Judaism as well as Christianity was peculiarly 
liable to attract to itself those who were inclined to 
gnostic speculation. It furnished a framework, a 
fairly complete outline-theory of the universe and 
God’s relation to it, of man as a subject of redemp- 
tion, and of a goal or end toward which all things are 
moving. And it was Judaism that furnished Chris- 
tianity its fundamental principles of cosmogony and 
cosmology. It was around Judaism first, and then 
around Christianity that a great deal of the current 
gnostic thought gathered, and it seems that the most 
probable theory of the origin of the great gnostic 
systems of the 2d cent. A.D. is that the speculations 
on which they rested were developed first in connec- 


tion with Judaism and thence they passed on to 
their contact with Christianity. 

It was demonstrated by M. Friedlander (Vor- 
christliche jiid. Gnosticismus, 1898), and subsequent 
investigations, some of them as yet unpublished, 
have largely confirmed his views, that in Judaism, 
both Alexandrian and Palestinian, Gnostic ideas 
found a fertile soil in which to thrive. These specu- 
lations were largely of an esoteric nature, carried on 
by such sects as the Cainites, Melchizedekians, 
Sethites, etc. But others were of a more open type 
and even Philo has a distinct ‘Gnostic’ strain in his 
thought, tho he preserves his orthodoxy by his resort 
to allegorical interpretation. In Rabbinic circles in 
Palestine it was forbidden, e.g., to speculate (openly) 
on such subjects as ‘Bereshith’ (the ‘beginning,’ cf. 


|} Gn 11) or the ‘Merkaba’ (the ‘Chariot,’ ef. Ezk ch. 1) 


but it was done nevertheless—an essentially gnostic 
type of speculation. 

The extent and ramifications of this ‘pre-Christian’ 
Jewish Gnosticism we may not be able to determine. 
It doubtless connected itself with much that was not 
Jewish, for those early ‘gnostics’ were free lances. In 
Egypt elements would be taken over from Egyptian 
thought, in Palestine and Syria from religious specu- 
lations current in those lands, and in Asia Minor 
doubtless much was found in the somewhat mystical 
character of the old Phrygian religion that readily 
lent itself to new interpretation and connection with 
elements of Jewish belief. In the numerous Jewish 
synagogs, probably, in many cases essentially 
gnostic thought was propagated, in secret and by the 
less orthodox members, if not openly. 

When the Christian faith began to make its way 
it was the synagog that furnished it the point of con- 
tact with the world at large. The first doctrinal 
conflicts Christianity experienced were with Juda- 
ism. It first had to define itself versus Judaism. The 
first disturbers of the doctrinal peace of the Church 
were Jewish-Christians. And we believe it can be 
established that the most, if not all, of the types of 
‘error’ combated in the N T are of Jewish rather 
than pagan origin. Such free-thinking Jews would 
not hesitate to accept views from any source and 
use any method in their attempt to demonstrate the 
superior wisdom or ‘gnosis’ which they claimed to 
possess. 

In addition to such efforts to add to or modify 
Christian doctrine by speculations consciously 
known to be foreign to its original content, one 
must allow for a certain amount of indirect appro- 
priation on the part of the most loyal and devoted 
Christians of ideas and terms that were essentially 
‘enostic’? in character. The very word yvéstc, 
‘gnosis, ‘knowledge’ and the verb ytvaoxey ‘to 
know’ (so frequent in the Johannine literature), to 
say nothing of terms such as acy, on or ‘age’, 2.e. 
a world-period, @a0tc, ‘depth,’ tAjewya«, ‘fulness,’ 
etc., all have more or less of a ‘gnostic’ flavor and 
came easily into the language of Christianity. Both 
Paul and John had certain affinities with the better 
side of gnostic thought, tho they took decided ground 
against any positive, direct appropriation of such 
speculations by the Church. 

2. Gnostic Contacts with N T Faith. The gnostic 


Gnosticism 
God 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


302 





movement being of an eclectic, philosophico-mystic 
nature, drew elements from the current disintegrat- 
ing systems of religion and philosophy, and at the 
same time it freely appropriated apostolic teaching 
and absorbed something of the virile faith and zeal 
of youthful Christianity. 

The first definite contact of Christianity with 
Gnostic claims is found in the story of Simon Magus 
(Ac 89f.). As the story is told in Ac Simon’s chief 
claim, it is true, was to the possession of magical 
power, but such an assumption was not wholly 
foreign to historic Gnosticism, and besides, in this 
instance, it seems to have rested back upon premises 
of a distinctly gnostic character. To what extent 
Simon had a fully developed gnostic theory is, 
however, impossible to state (see Simon Maaus). 

The chief information concerning the contact be- 
tween Christianity and nascent Gnosticism in N T 
- times comes to us through five groups of documents: 
Paul’s Epistle to the Colossians, the Pastorals, II P 
and Jude, Rev, I, II, and III Jn, and the Epistles of 
Ignatius and Polycarp. It need not be assumed that 
some specific form of Gnosticism was present in 
each or indeed in many of the communities covered 
by these documents. But gnostic tendencies were 
everywhere emerging, which foreshadowed the 
coming struggle. Many of the elements in the future 
gnostic systems were causing irritation, especially 
to the churches of Asia Minor, and the Apostles 
and other leaders recognized them as foreign and 
even hostile to the Christian faith, and uttered 
their words of warning. It is possible that reflections 
of the presence of gnostic influences as disturbing 
the peace of the churches may also be detected in 
the Epp. to the Corinthians and Romans, but this 
would be difficult to prove. 

It is clear from a study of the Colossian Epistle 
that the Christian communities of the Lycus valley 
were being troubled by self-appointed teachers, 
whose doctrines arose through an intermingling of 
current Jewish and Christian and even pagan ele- 
ments. The essentially gnostic notes are found in 
the pretentious philosophy, angel-worship, and as- 
cetic requirements referred to in ch. 2. And the 
emphasis which Paul in this Epistle puts upon the 
headship of Christ (1 15 ff.) leaves us to infer that 
this central Christian doctrine was suffering serious 
reduction, through the medium of some form of the 
general ‘gnostic’ theory of intermediary powers 
(principalities, zons, ete.), at the hands of these 
precocious theologians. Here surely was soil from 
which the later gnostic systems may easily have 
sprung. 

The situation reflected in the Pastorals is still more 
advanced. From such passages as I Til 3f., 41f., 
63f.;I0 Ti 113 f., 214f.,31£.,434.; Tit 1iof., 21f., 39f., 
it is evident that the Christian communities of Ephe- 
_ sus and Crete were much perturbed. False teaching 
of various kinds and degrees was rife among them. 
Certain men among whom were Hymeneus and 
Philetus, had crept into the churches and created a 
crisis. Some of them were of the circumcision and 
assumed to be teachers of the Law. But many views 
widely aberrant from the common Jewish and Chris- 
tian faith were stealthily taught. Here again we 


' the synagog of Satan’ (Rev chs. 2 and 3). 


have a pretentious philosophy, a specious cosmology, 
a mild docetism, a practical asceticism, and per- 
haps also libertinism, and a tinge of simony. Most 
of these are constituent elements in one or another of 
the later gnostic systems. 

In Jude and II P there is an advance over the sit- 
uation described in the Pastorals, in that some of 
these ‘false teachers’ are entrenched in the churches, 
or at least in certain Syrian and Asian communions 
(cf. Jude 1, 3f.; IL P21f.,324.). And they have per- 
haps also advanced farther in their divergence from 
the common Christian conception of the unique 
and central position of Christ. But their teaching 
is still inchoate, and they are without commanding 
leadership. Of course these ‘false prophets’ were 
aberrant from the common faith in varying degrees, 
some being wholly unconscious of their divergence. 
There were among them charlatans and rogues, but ~ 
there were doubtless also those who were seeking for 
the truth and for the lofty pathway of the Christian 
life. It is plain that we have here the germs of 
Gnosticism, which needed only time and occasion 
to put forth and bud and blossom. 

The heretical teaching combated in the Johannine 
writings is of a distinctly gnostic type and is more 
decidedly self-conscious and antichristian. The 
churches at Ephesus and Pergamum are commended 
for having rejected those who claimed to be apostles, 
and then they are warned against the ‘Nicolaitans,’ 
who seem to be crystallizing into a sect. In Thyatira 
the ‘woman Jezebel, who calleth herself a prophet- 
ess, has secured a following, which professes to 
‘know the deep things of Satan,’ and observes and 
practises things contrary to the Christian faith. In 
Smyrna and Philadelphia the churches are greatly 
troubled by those professing to be Jews, ‘but are of 
It is in 
I and II Jn, however, that the main advance and 
divergences are marked. From such passages as 
I Jn 18, 218 f., 41-3; II Jn7f£., it is plain that the 
cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith has been 
called in question. Plainly the crisis has come, 
the climax has been reached, and the breach must 
be made. The ‘false prophets who have gone out 
into the world’ must not be allowed to return and 
bring back ‘this teaching,’ and lead the brethren 
astray. The familiar tone of these Epistles indi- 
cates an intimate knowledge of the inner life of the 
Christian communions to which they are addressed. 
The author saw the ‘tendencies’ in the teaching 
which he so vigorously condemns and repudiates; 
and he foresaw whereunto it would grow. Evidently 
the churches were not aware of the great danger 
which threatened them, else the warning need not 
have been reiterated again and again. 

The Ignatian epistles combat two heretical tend- 
encies. The one was a false conception of the per- 
son of Christ, which questioned the reality of His 
earthly physical life, and seems to have been es- 
pecially rife in Ephesus, Tralles, and Smyrna. The 
other was a disposition on the part of some in the 
churches of Magnesia and Philadelphia to relapse 
into ‘Judaism,’ which meant ‘the keeping of the 
Law,’ the observance of the Sabbath to the neglect 
of the Lord’s Day, the exploiting of ‘antiquated 


303 A NEW STANDARD 


fables,’ the living ‘apart from Christ,’ and similar 
errors. The docetism which Ignatius combats is 
essentially the same as that denounced so vigorously 
in the Johannine epistles, and the stress placed upon 
the reality of the human, physical nature of Christ 
is likewise the same. 

Our examination of the five groups of documents, 
with reference to the origin and progress of Gnos- 
ticism, leads us to infer: (1) That there was a wide- 
spread and increasing gnostic tendency, especially 
in Asia Minor, during the closing decades of the 1st 
cent.; (2) that gnostic views of religion and life were 
filtering into the churches, and provoking increasing 
resentment on the part of the leaders; (3) that these 
advanced ideas came in the first instance and in 
large measure from, or through, the Jewish environ- 
ment of the churches; (4) that the advocates of this 
fuller Christian gnosis were for the most part un- 
conscious of any actual departure from the true 
faith; (5) that they were, however, children of their 
own age, and had become eclectic in philosophy and 
religion, and especially in ideas concerning revela- 
tion and redemption; (6) that the common allegor- 
ical method and habit of interpreting the Scriptures, 
whether Jewish or pagan, were responsible for many, 
if not most, of the gnostic vagaries; (7) that the 
emphasis upon ‘knowledge’ tended to discount 
faith, and led to arrogance and want of charity and 
of brotherly love; (8) that the dualistic philosophy of 
the day, together with the allegorical method, fairly 
accounts for the docetic view of the person of Christ, 
so common to the Gnostics; (9) that the ascetic 
principles and practises of the Gnostics were the her- 
itage which they shared with the men of their day; 
and, finally, (10) that Gnosticism was but a common 
distemper of the times, which gradually penetrated 
into the churches, and aroused the leaders to a vig- 
orous and ofttimes ill-tempered resistance. 
LireratuRE: Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, vol. II, Bk. 1, ch. 4; 

Kriiger, in PRE art. Gnosticismus; von Dobschiitz, Christian 

Life in the Primitive Church, Bk. III, ch. 16; C. W. King, 

Gnostics and Their Remains (1889); E. F. Scott, in ERE, vol. 


VI (1914); A. D. Heffern, Apologetic and Polemic in the N T 
(1922). EK. K. M : 


GOAD: A long stick about nine feet in length, 
sharpened at one end, or fitted with a sharp brad, 
used in urging cattle (Jg 3 31; 1S 13 21 [Ee 1211; Ac 
95 AV] 26 14). See plate of AGricuLtrurRAL IMPLE- 
MENTS, Fig. 9. 


GOAH, god’a (193, gd‘Gh, Goath AV): An un- 
known locality near, or in, Jerusalem (Jer 31 39). 


GOAT. See Foon, §10; Nomapic anD PasroraL 
Lire, § 4; Pavtesrine, § 24; and SacriFICE AND 
OrrERiInGs, §5. For Scapegoat, see AZAZEL. 


os 
e 


GOAT: In reference to Daniel’s vision, see DANn- 
IEL, Book of, § 2. 

GOATS’ HAIR: This material was used in the 
making of a coarse cloth (Nu 31 20), for the filling of 
pillows (I S 19 13), and for tent-cloth (Ex 26 7), 
which gave it a place on the list of articles acceptable 
as Offerings for the sanctuary (Ex 25 4, 35 6). 

GOAT’S SKIN: The skins of goats often served in 
early times as crude articles of clothing, but at a 
later period to be reduced to a goat’s skin as a gar- 


Gnosticism 
God 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 0 





ment was evidently a sign of great destitution (He 
11 37). 

GOB, gob (34; and 33, gdbh): A place where David 
had several encounters with the Philistines (II S 
21 18 f.), otherwise unknown. The text here may be 
corrupt, since in I Ch 20 4 (|| II S 21 13) ‘Gezer’ is 
read and in ver. 5 no town is mentioned. 

K. E. N. 

GOBLET. The Heb ’aggdn means a ‘basin’ or 

‘bowl’ rather than a ‘goblet’ (Song 7 2). 


GOD. The fundamental subject of the Bible is 
God. The first book in the canonical order opens 
with announcements about God as the Creator of 
the Universe. The last book closes with words of 
Him, in and through whom God brings the history of 
man to its consummation. The Bible is, therefore, 
regarded by all Christians as containing the record 
of the revelation of God, and of the duties and the 
destiny which that revelation necessarily brings to 
every human being. 

Before summarizing the doctrine of God in the 
O T we must recognize some principles and methods 
which seem to characterize the course of the reve- 
lation. 

1. Pre-Mosaic Beliefs and Practises. The his- 
toric revelation began with a group of Semitic tribes 
afterward known as Israel, who already possessed 
religious beliefs and practises resembling those of 
cognate tribes. In the midst of these the new religion 
took shape through Moses, and only gradually and, 
in some Cases, after long labor succeeded in extruding 
or correcting them. There is much discussion among 
scholars on two vital points: (1) The degree of extra- 
Israelitish approaches to monotheism, and (2) the 
origin of the name and worship of Yahweh (Jehovah, 
q.v.) (cf. L. B. Paton in Biblical World, 1906). It is 
clear that the O T recognizes affinities with earlier 
conceptions of God, for inter alia we find: (a) the 
God of whom Moses teaches is the God of their 
fathers (Ex 3 6, 15, 6 3); (b) Melchizedek was priest 
of ’Hl ‘Elyén, ‘God Most High’ (Gn 14 18 #.); (c) 
even J” is known to other tribes before Moses 
receives his revelation (Ex 318). Recent knowledge 
of Babylonian and Egyptian religions makes it clear 
that something more had been attained by some 
races than a simple monelatry. But it was not true 
ethical monotheism, and therefore perished. The 
god was still attached to some astral body (as 
Sin to the moon), or to some great natural phenome- 
non (some believe that J’’ may have been the name 
of a thunder-god). That which distinguishes the 
movement in Israel may be set forth as follows: (1) 
Moses had an experience of the presence and power 
of God deeper and purer than any man before him. 
(2) This experience, or voice, of God fitted him to 
become the leader of a group of tribes out of Egyp- 
tian bondage, in a manner which they ever after 
recognized as the act of God (Ex 15 13; 20 2; Am 31; 
Hos 13 4, etc.). (8) The name of J’’ received an 
interpretation which released it from all mere phy- 
sical association (Ex 3 13 f.), made it the name of a 
supreme and living personality and attracted to 
itself the truth in older names (El, Elohim, El 
Shaddai [God Almighty], Adonai; cf. article Divine 
Names, EB, III, 3320-3331). See Names, §§ 6 and 


God 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


304 





7. (4) The covenant between Israel and J’’, founded 
under Moses, was established by and founded on 
His righteousness and grace, His good-will. (James 
Moffatt. The O. T.; A New Translation (1924) 
translates it ‘compact’). (5) That covenant (see 
CovENANT, § 3) required of the people complete 
trust in God and obedience to His will as their 
only God. Hence the rise of that great system 
of Law in which the will of God was formally 
announced (Smend, 41 ff.). All these elements were 
present in the religion of Israel from the time of 
Moses, and formed the conditions under which 
heathen beliefs and practises were gradually cast 
out and a true monotheism was established. 


2. Erroneous Beliefs and Heathen Practises. Tho 
signs are found, as said above, that some races had 
lofty conceptions of their gods, yet the Semitic 
tribes immediately related to Israel, as well as the 
Canaanites among whom they settled, as a rule 
practised idolatry of a profuse kind, while some 
reached what has been called ‘monolatry’ (a tribe 
owning allegiance to one god as its god). The wor- 
ship of J’’ was begun under Moses amid such beliefs 
and practises. From the first, three things stood 
firm and clear whenever a prophet spoke: (1) That 
J” is alone Lord of Israel, (2) that He loathes 
idolatry, and (8) that He has a fixed will (or char- 
acter) and demands the same of His people. From 
these vital centers the life and light spread. It is 
natural to find that in belief and practise Israel 
continued many things whose inconsistency with 
the worship of the living God was only gradually and 
painfully discovered. Students of the O T are 
laboriously striving to trace out the long and tor- 
tuous path through racial, political, economic, as 
well as intellectual and moral, changes, by which 
from age to age the self-revelation of God was ac- 
complished. (A) In the matter of belief, for exam- 
ple, we find that the Israelites long retained the 
habit of thinking of their God as if He were a human 
being (anthropomorphism), not only as to the pos- 
session of moral and intellectual characteristics 
(e.g., mercy, grace, patience, long-suffering, loving- 
kindness) and limitations (e.g., His fury, jealousy, 
hate, vengeance, wrath), but even of physical organs 
(e.g., His back, face, finger, foot, form, hand, heart, 
mouth, and voice). See also the poetic expressions 
‘pinions’ (feathers AV) and ‘wings’ (Ps 91 4). So 
gradual and laborious was the removal of these ideas 
that scholars are in doubt as to when they can be 
said to have died out. They naturally passed from 
a literal to a symbolic use, as when even we speak 
of the heart or the mind of God; and it may well be 
that for the nobler spirits in Israel this anthropo- 
morphism in its grosser forms ceased at a much 
earlier date than for the mass of the people. (B) In 
the matter of religious practise: (1) Some practises, 
as idolatry, polytheism, human sacrifice, sensual 
ceremonies, were utterly condemned from the 
beginning of the worship of J’. That they survived, 
or intruded themselves at later periods, in no wise 
proves that they were not felt to be condemned by 
the inward nature of J’ worship. It began to make 
and mark its distinctiveness at the very start, or it 
could never have done so later. (2) Some practises, 


as circumcision, sacrifice, feasts, purification, per- 
haps the Sabbath, which were already in use, or 
were taken over in Canaan, were gradually changed 
in form and meaning. Hence we may well expect to 
find, as we do, that the use and value of these are 
found to alter from one stage to another, as the grow- 
ing revelation of God flung its light upon them. 
(3) Other practises, as the observation of sacred 
places, stones, trees, animals, etc., continued for a 
while without explicit condemnation, but were 
found to be inconsistent with the worship of J”, 
when His self-revelation had become more familiar 
to the general thought of the people. 


3. Periods and Instruments of Revelation. In the 
study of the growth of the knowledge of God in 
Israel, it is necessary to pay attention alike to the 
main periods of the people’s history and to the instru- 
ments of revelation. (1) For it was always in con-. 
nection with their changing economic, social, and 
political circumstances that the light of that knowl- 
edge increased. The settlement in Canaan brought 
contact with more highly civilized peoples, new 
forms of worship, new customs. And these brought 
at once stimulus and temptation. The rise of the 
kingship ushered in a new era in which great strides 
were made alike in national unity and intelligence, 
and in the need for that prophetic instruction 
through which henceforth the knowledge of God 
grew more definite, more spiritual, more awful. Con- 
tact with the great empires of the East (Assyria, 
Babylon, Persia) evoked tremendous changes in 
which the nation’s life seemed to be utterly quenched. 
The long and terrible struggle was made the occasion 
of sublime revelations of God by Amos, Hosea, 
Isaiah (chs. 1-39), Jeremiah, etc. The Exile was 
midnight for the nation, but dawn for the Church of 
Israel. Out of it the people of J’’ came with such 
clear knowledge of the living God as no human mind 
had ever possessed (Ezekiel, Isaiah [chs. 40-66], 
the collection of the Psalms, etc.). (2) The instru- 
ments of revelation were (a) institutions of religious 
and political life (the covenant, sacrifice, priesthood, 
temple, law, the judgeship, kingship, etc.); (b) events 
in history (famine and poverty, wealth and power, 
war and victory, defeat and exile). These institu- 
tions and events were not peculiar to Israel. All 
peoples, small and great, have had them. That 
which made them channels and occasions of revela- 
tion was the work of the prophets (see PROPHECY). 
Under their teaching, spread over many centuries, 
the people were held to their faith in J’ and were 
taught to see in Him the Lord of their life, the faith- 
ful, merciful, omnipotent, righteous, and invisible 
King, not of Israel only, but, at last, of all nations. 

4. The Resulting Monotheism. The name by 
which the O T doctrine of God is known is mono- 
theism. It is nowhere set forth in a formal manner. 
It is the general view of God, which is gained from 
a survey of the whole literature. It is implied in the 
earliest teachings; it is made explicit in the latest. 
It begins in the conviction of that covenant rela- 
tionship between J” and Israel; it culminates in the 
spiritual experience of many psalmists and pre- 
eminently of Jeremiah and in the Messianic prophe- 
cies of second Isaiah. When we bring the various 


305 





elements together we have as a result that doctrine of 
God out of which the Christian is - historically 
derived. The following references are given merely 
as illustrations, for which many parallels are in the 
O T (1) There is but one God, Jehovah of Israel (Jer 
10 6-10; Is 42 8). He alone is the living God (Jer 4 2, 
10 10); the idols are dead things (Is 449-17). (2) The 
living God is the Creator of all things (Gn 11 #.; 
Is 42 5, 45 18; Ps 104; Pr 8 22-29), Himself eternal 
(Ps 90 2; Is 44 6, 4812). (3) He is, therefore, the 
Ruler of all nations, as well as of the universe (Job 
chs. 38-39; Pss 8, 19; Am 97; Is 19 25, 451-13, 18). He 
is omnipresent (Ps 1389), omnipotent (Is 43 6, 45 9, 
50 2 f., 641-4), omniscient (Job 34 21 #.; Dn 2 20-22; 
Pr 8 22-31;1S 167). (4) Among the moral attributes 
of God we find His holiness (see HoLingess and cf. 
the expression Holy One of Israel, especially fre- 
quent in Isaiah), supreme and all-inclusive (Ex 15 11; 
Is 5 16, 57 15; Lv 11 44 f.), His righteousness, which 
appears in His just dealings with men, rewarding 
each according to his works (Gn 18 25; Ps 18 25 f.; 
Is 42 21, 45 24); as righteous, He is also faithful to His 
covenant word and therefore to His people (Dt 4 30f., 
79; Hos 2 18-20; Is 408; and many Pss); from His very 
righteousness and faithfulness comes His mercy. 
He is full of compassion, of unlimited kindness 
(Dt 7 8; Ex 34 6f.; Is 401; Ps 103). (5) One of the 
most remarkable elements in the monotheism of 
Israel is that J’’ is God of the future. This religion 
arose from His promises, which became more won- 
derful in their scope and character as the national 
tragedy deepened. The Messianic is an essential ele- 
ment in monotheism; without it God is not a fully 
spiritual being and His attributes are shorn of their 
absolute nature. Hence the Messianic element in 
all the varied meanings and forms of that great hope 
is always a reflection of the character, as well as a 
revelation of the authority, power, and purpose of 
J”’ before the faith of His people (cf. the spirit of the 
King in Ps 72 with that of Ps 103, or the spirit of 
Ts ch. 53 with that of Is ch. 41) (see Mussraq; 
PROPHECY). 


5. Inthe NT. When we pass to the N T we find 
ourselves in a new world made for us by a new reve- 
lation. The change is due to the creative personality 
of Jesus Christ. It was as rapid as it was great, and 
yet it passed through certain well-defined stages. 
And, asin the O T, the full N T doctrine of God is not 
gained from any one stage, not even from the oral 
teaching of Jesus, but is the effect of the whole 
revealing process therein described. (1) It began 
with the appearing of Jesus (identified by John the 
Baptist, Mk 11-8) as the Messiah. He avoided the 
title because of its current misinterpretations, but 
He accepted it (Mt 8 29, 14 33) when His personality 
and work had opened the eyes of men to the truth. 
He at once elucidated and fulfilled the true meaning 
of Messiahship by (a) the energy of His personal will, 
authority, power (Mk 1 21-28, 3 13, 4 41, 6 1-6, etc.). 
which overawed the people and even awoke dread 
among His disciples at certain crises (Mk 5 17, 10 32; 
Lk 5 8, 26); (b) the sublimity and finality of His 
teaching about God and man. He spoke with con- 
vincing and original authority (Mt 7 28 £., 13 54; 
Mk 1 22, 6 2, 11 18); (c) the emphasis on His rela- 


A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


God 





tionship to God as the Son to the Father, especially 
when compared with His assurances that all men 
must call God their Father (Mt 5 44 f., 69, 18, 11 25-27; 
cf. Jn 5 18, 10 24-39). This emphasis was no mere 
formal claim to His own share in a general human 
relationship. It was the foundation in His own con- 
sciousness for the demand that men come to Him, 
believe in Him, follow Him, obey Him, as the condi- 
tion of their right relationship with God (Mt 7 21-27, 
10 32 f., 37-39, 11 25-30, 12 50, 16 27, 17 5,9, 18 5 £., 10, 
21 33-45). It is of course prominent and explicit in 
the Fourth Gospel; (d) the exercise of His authority 
to forgive the sins of individual persons (Mk 2 1-12); 
(e) His description of the kingdom of God (or of 
heaven) as both present and future, established here 
and fulfilled there, which may have led His disciples 
to misunderstand the course of coming events, but 
made all the more clear and impressive His con- 
sciousness as Master of life eternal (Mt 5 3, 10 
[gorty], 13 37 £.; Lk 17 204.3 Mk 10 17-21, 24-31; cf. Jn, 
passim); (f) His view of His own death as no mere 
disaster and close of His active ministry, but as the 
supreme act whose full personal and, therefore, 
moral significance must henceforth condition the 
relations of God and man (Mk 10 45, 14 22-25). In all 
these self-expressions there moved a consciousness 
of a new type, not that of prophetism nor of private 
saintliness, a consciousness which all through seemed 
to act and speak and reveal itself as if veiled, re- 
strained, as if only preparing the field and itself for 
its full scope. (2) All this, as the N T tells the story, 
would have remained unapprehended and fruitless, 
save as a baffling and pathetic mystery in one man’s 
picture of humanity and of the inscrutable Divine, 
but for (a) the resurrection (Lk 24 5-7, 19-27; Jn 20 8 f.; 
Ac 1 2-4, 3 26, 13 29-37, 17 31; Ro 1 4; I Co 15 3-8, 20; 
I P13) and (b) the gift of the Holy Spirit (see Hoty 
Sprrir). In these events the inner nature, source, 
and meaning of His consciousness became fully 
revealed. And through the change which the whole 
of these facts and events wrought in the relations of 
those men toward God the human consciousness 
broke into a new era, a new universe, and a new, 
sublime, and luminous knowledge of God. For it 
was God who had sent His Son and His Spirit, and 
He stood revealed in the whole redeeming work 
which was thus done before the eyes and upon the 
hearts of men. 


6. Apostolic Theology. Only a brief summary of 
the main features in the new doctrine of God can 
be given here. Those Jewish monotheists were sur- 
prized out of their pure monotheism into a new way 
of conceiving and worshiping God. (1) We find 
them rendering worship and ascribing Divine titles 
and glory to Jesus Christ as Lord (Jn 20 28; I Co 1 2, 
16 22-24; II Co 12 8; Rev 1 4f.), and in prayers and 
ascriptions of praise His name is continually used 
along with the name of God the Father. And, 
indeed, as God acts through Christ on man, worship 
is given to God through Christ (Ro 5 11; Jude ver 25; 
He 13 20). (2) The supreme blessings of the soul are 
said to be derived from all three names, Father, Son, 
and Spirit: grace (Ro 17, 15 15; I Co 15 10, 16 23; 
II Co 61, 1314), peace (Eph 6 23; Ro 8 6; Gal 5 22), 
life (Ro 6 23, 8 2; I Jn 5111.), love (Ro 5 5, 8 35, 39; 


God 
Good 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


306 — 





Eph 3 14-19; I Jn 4 10-13). (8) In many passages all 
three names are used in a coordination and inter- 
change of powers and attributes which were new and 
startling to the whole world—both of Jew and 
Gentile (Mt 28 19; Ro 5 5f., 81-17, 15 30; I Co 2 10-16, 
6 19 f.; II Co 13 14; Gal 5 16-24; Ti 3 4-7; Jn 14 16, 26, 
15 26; T Jn 3 23 f., 4 IP a Altho i in certain passages 
the relations of Christ to God and to the universe are 
discussed, or abruptly stated (Ph 2 5-11; Eph ch. 1; 
Col ch. 1), we do not find in the N T an elaborated 
theory or doctrine of the Trinity. What we find is a 
community of individuals to whom has come the 
very indwelling of God, whose open conscious fellow- 
ship with Him has resulted from the person and work 
of Jesus Christ and the gift of the Spirit of God. This 
new and highest, and indeed final, type of human 
experience is realized in their faith, worship, love, 
and obedience, directed toward the three names 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as three coordinate, 
living, Divine sources of mercy, righteousness, love, 
life eternal. And yet they worship and serve one 
God. Monotheism had evidently passed into a 
remarkable and new form (I Co 8 4-6; I Ti 1 12-17; 
II Ti 1 8-10, 14). 

7. The Christian Idea of God. Christian men were 
forced to think out the implications of this whole 
situation. (1) The redemption wrought by Christ, 
the revelation of the will, power, wisdom, purpose, 
holiness, and love of God were now too clear, too 
glorious, too real, to admit of doubt on the part of 
those who had passed into life and light. Using 
every hint in the apostolic records, they gradually 
worked out various theories regarding the ultimate 
significance and relations of the three names. The 
Trinity of historical experience was there, given once 
for ail in the very origin and nature of the Christian 
life. Its explanation resulted in various forms of 
Trinitarian doctrine. This is not the place to re- 
count them. Sufficient to say that the instinct of 
the Church has ever been to reject any theory of the 
Divine nature and the three names which, by re- 
action, weakens faith in the reality of the Atone- 
ment, the act of Divine redemption on the Cross; or 
in the permanent relation of the Fathe: and the 
Son to the earthly life of man through t' | Spirit; or 
in the reality of the immediate and personal revela- 
tion of God the Father in these events, facts, and 
experiences. Since what we may call realistic 
Trinitarianism is the essential, or typical, view of 
God given in the N T, some form of theoretic Trini- 
tarianism has always characterized the doctrine of 
the Church as a whole. (2) The N T doctrine of 
God retains all the highest O T conceptions of Him, 
as the Creator and Lord of Nature (Mt 5 34 f., 6 26, 
30; Ac 7 48-50, 17 24-28; Ro 1 20, 11 33-36; Col 1 15-19; 
Jn 11-4); holy and righteous (the whole teaching of 
Jesus rests on the idea that God is of an inflexible 
justice and holiness, as well as mercy, in His rule and 
judgment of men) (Mt 5 3-10, 6 33, 11 21-24, 13 41-43, 
24 45-51; cf. Ro 1 17, 2 5-16, 3 21-30, Jn 318); almighty 
and all-wise (Mt 19 26, 25 31-46, 28 18-20; Jn 10 27-29; 
Ro 11 33; I Co 210 f.; I Ti 117); merciful and gracious 
(Mt 57, 45, 614f., 7 11, 11 25f., 29f.); but the N T contains 
the supreme revelation of His character as holy love, 
for which indeed a noun seems to have been coined 


or at least baptized into a new and higher sense, 
a&vann (Mt 5 43-48; Jn 316; I Jn 47-13; Ro 55, 8, 8 35- 
39; Eph 2 4, 3 17-19). It is in the fellowship of this 
God thus revealed as Father of Jesus Christ the 
Redeemer, and as indwelling Spirit, that those 
hearts of apostolic men reached a combined fervor 
of love and moral clearness, in peace and hope and 
power, which are accepted wherever the gospel 
goes as the very essence of the Supreme Good itself. 
LirerRATuRE: Of the immense literature mention may be made 
of the works on O T Theology by Schultz (translated); Stade; 
A. B. Davidson; Smend, Alitest. Religionsgeschichte (21899) ; 
Marti, Geschichte der Isr. Relig. (41906); Baentsch, Meono- 
theismus (1906); Kautsch, art. The Religion of Israelin HDB, 
extra volume; art. Names of God in ZB, coll. 3320-3331; 
Addis, Hebrew Religion; H. Wheeler Robinson, The Religious 
Ideas of the O T (1913). Works on N T Theology by B. Weiss 
(translated), W. Beyschlag (translated), H. J. Holtzmann, 
Stevens; B. Weiss, Religion des N T (1908); Liitgert, Gottes 
Sohn und Goties Geist (1905); Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewus- 
stsein Jesu (21892); Forrest, The Christ of History and of 
Experience (1899); H. J. Holtzmann, D. Messianische Selbst- 
bewusstsein Jesu (1907); Sanday, in HDB, II, pp. 205-215; 
Loop, Wer war Jesus Christus (1922); C. Gore, Belief in God 
(1921); Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God (21908); H. F. Hamil- 
ton, Discovery and Revolution (1915); O,. Holtzmann, Der 
Christliche Gottesglaube (1905); C. G. Beckwith, The Idea of 
God (1923). See also Gitory; GopHEAD; Grace; Hanp; 
Houinsess; Hoty Spirit; Hosts, Lorp or; Jesus CuHRist; 
Love; Masesty; Mercy; PRresENCcE; RIGHTEOUSNESS; 
Sprrit; Srreneru or Isrant. W. D. M.—H 


GOD, CHILDREN OF. See Gop, Sons Anp 
DAUGHTERS OF (3). 


GOD, SON OF. See Jesus Curist, § 15 (b). 


GOD, SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF: A phrase 
used in whole or in part with various meanings. 
(1) In Gn 61, Job 1 6, 2.1 the expression ‘sons of 
God’ refers to the heavenly spirits who minister 
about the throne (cf. I K 2219 #.; Is 6 2 ff.) and make 
up the court of the Supreme Ruler. The passage Gn 
6 1 stands practically alone in the O T in its concep- 
tion of the possibility of union between spiritual 
beings and the daughters of men. It may be a frag- 
ment of Semitic mythology, which the writer in Gn 
(J) saw fit to make use of (see Genusis, § 4 ff.). (2) 
The expressions ‘my sons’ and ‘my daughters’ in 
Is 48 6 refer to the exiled Israelites, who are to be 
restored to their land through Cyrus. This passage 
(with Hos 1 10) was probably in Paul’s mind in II Co 
618, where he uses it of Christians in distinction from 
unbelievers. (3) In the O T ‘my sons’ (‘children’ in 
EV) is frequently applied by the prophets in the 
name of J’ to Israel as the people of J’’ (Is 1 2, etc.). 
This expression reappears in the N T in the more 
spiritual sense of those who truly recognize God as 
their Father and seek to do His will (Mt 59, 45, ete. 
[utot]; Ro 8 16f., etc. [céxve]). E. E. N. 


GOD FORBID. See Forsip. 


GODHEAD: Of the three Greek words repre- 
sented by this term that in Ac 17 29 (cd Oetov) is more 
literally rendered ‘the divine’; but in classical usage 
it is the exact equivalent of ‘God.’ It is therefore 
chosen by Paul as the more philosophical designation 
of God in this address, designed to recall to the minds 
of his hearers a conception more exalted than that 
associated with their pantheon. The other two 
terms (Oeécty¢ and Geétys) differ from each other 
precisely as ‘divinity’ and ‘deity’ in English. In Ro 


307 A NEW STANDARD 


1 20 (‘divinity’ RV) the Apostle has in mind the 
quality of God; in Col 2 9 His inner essence or per- 
sonality. For classical parallels for Ac 17 29 cf. 
Plato, Phedr. 246 D; for Ro 1 20, cf. Plut. Cur Pythia 
nune nomeddat, etc., 8; and for Col 29 cf. Plut. De 
defec. Orac., and Lucian, Icarom., 9. A. C. Z. 


GODLESS: This word occurs only in RV, ren- 
dering a Hebrew term (hdnéph), which means ‘pro- 
fane’ (Job 8 13, 13 16, 15 34, etc.; Pr 11 9; Is 33 14, 
‘hypocrite’ AV). The original is derived from a 
root denoting ‘that which cuts itself off (from God) 
and is rejected.’ The idea of hypocrisy is attached 
to the word in later Mishnaic usage. ATOZ 


GODLINESS: A strictly N T term, its root idea 
being ‘reverence,’ or more specifically, ‘the loving 
fear of God’ (I Ti 2 2; II Ti35; II P 311; cf. Eus. 
Prep. Ev., 1,3). Godly is used in the O T as equiv- 
alent to ‘merciful’ (Ps 4 3, 32 6), and once to what 
has a ‘special relation to God’ (‘from God,’ Mal 215). 
In the N T it renders both the adjective ‘godly’ 
(edce8q¢) and the general conception of being 
specifically ‘related to God’ (II Co 112; I Ti 1 4). 
Hence ‘after a godly sort’ (II Co 79, ‘after a godly 
manner’ AV) means, strictly, ‘according to the 
will of God,’ or ‘in a way suitable in relations with 
God.’ ‘ A. C. Z. 


GODLY. (1) The rendering of the Heb hdsidh 
(Ps 43, 121, 32 6) for which ‘pious’ would be more 
satisfactory. (2) It takes the place of the more 
literal ‘of God’ (Mal 2 15; II Co 1 12 [ef. RV], 11 2; 
ITil4[cf. RV]). (3) Inthe N T for the Gr. edceBhe 
(adj. II P 29) and edceBiic (adv. II Ti 3 12; Tit 2 12) 
‘pious,’ ‘piously’ or ‘reverent,’ ‘reverently’ would 
give the real meaning. (4) In II Co. 79, 10, 11 the Gr. 
is xat& Oedy, ‘according to God’ for which ‘godly’ is 
an accurate rendering. (5) On III Jo 6, see RV. 


GODS. See in general GREEK AND Roman IDoL- 
ATRY; and Semitic RELIGION. 


GOG, gog (\3, gogh): A name given to a race or 
people inhabiting some part of the ‘northern’ region. 
It I Ch 5 4 ‘Gog’ = Magog of Gen 105. In Ezk 38 
and 39 Gog is associated with Meshech, etc. as 
Magog is in Gen 105, and probably both refer to the 
same people, who may be the Gagaia of the Amarna 
Tablets (see JCC. on Gen 10 5), a northern people 
living in this mountainous region of E. Asia Minor. 
Ezekiel, followed by the author of the Apocalypse of 
John (Rev 20 8), uses the terms Gog, etc. symbolic- 
ally for the world as hostile to God’s people and 
kingdom. See ErHNOGRAPHY AND ErHNoLoey, § 13, 
under Magog and Meshech. 


GOIIM, gei’im. See Trpat. 


GOING, GOINGS, GOINGS FORTH, or OUT, 
GOING UP: The verb ‘go’ represents a large num- 
ber of different words in the Heb. or Gr. originals. 
In most cases the interpretation involves no diffi- 
culty. One or two special usages call for remark, 
‘Goings forth’ is used frequently of the boundary of 
a district (Nu 34 5, ete.). ‘Going up’ in the AV is 
frequently much better rendered in the RV by 
‘ascent’ (Jos 157, etc.). E. E. N. 


GOLAN, gi’len (1213, gaan): A city of refuge (Dt 4 
43; Jos 20 8, 21 27in the territory assigned to the 


God 


half-tribe of Manasseh. Both a town, Golan, and a 
district, Gaulanitis (q.v.) were known to Josephus 
(Ant. XIII, 153; XVII, 81). The latter is called by 
the Arabs Jauldn. It was one of the provinces in the 
tetrarchy of Philip, bounded by the Jordan on the 
W., by the Jarmuk on the S., and by Mt. Hermon 
on the N. The E. boundary was probably the 
river ‘Allan (cf. G. A. Smith, HGHL, p. 541, and 
Schumacher, The Jaulan). Perhaps the name was 
applied, first, to a city and later to the district round 
about; etymologically, however, the root, meaning 
‘circuit,’ would point to the opposite conclusion. 
Site uncertain. xt Lok Ey 


GOLD. See Merats, § 1. 


GOLDEN CITY: A term applied to Babylon in 

Is 14 4 (but ef. alternative reading in mg.). 
GOLDSMITH. See Artizan Lire, § 10 (b). 

GOLGOTHA. See JERUSALEM, § 45. 

GOLIATH, go-lai’ath (0773, golyath): A Philistine 
giant (‘six cubits and a span,’ or between 7 ft. 1 in. 
and 8 ft. 5in. in height) slain, according toI$ 174 f., 
by David. In IIS 21 19, however, he is said to have 
been slain by Elhanan the Bethlehemite in single 
combat. In I Ch 205, probably to avoid this con- 
tradiction, the text (taken from II S 21 19) is changed 
to read that ‘Elhanan slew [not Goliath but] Lachmi, 
the brother of Goliath.’ A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 


GOMER, go’mer. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND ErH- 
NOLOGY, § 13; and Hosna, § 2. 


GOMORRAH, go-mér’a. See Sopom. 


GOOD, GOOD WORKS: There is nothing pe- 
culiar in the use of the term ‘good’ in the Bible. In 
the O T it nearly always stands for the Heb. tobh 
(adj.), tabh (subst.), or yatabh (vb. ‘to do good’), all 
of which are significant of ‘good’ in a comprehensive 
sense, easily applied (1) to material or physical 
good, or (2) to moral good. In most cases the Eng- 
lish reader should have no difficulty in making the 
distinction. In the N T ‘good’ is in most cases the 
rendering of the Gr. adjectives éya06c¢ or xaAéc, the 
former nearly always in a moral or spiritual sense, 
the latter often in a material or esthetic sense. Both 
adjectives frequently occur in the expression ‘good 
works’ with almost equivalent meaning—x«Aé¢ 
however, generally retaining something of its funda- 
mental esthetic coloring. The following additional 
instances call for comment: In Mic 7 2 the word 
hasidh means ‘full of love,’ ‘kindly’ (godly’ RV). In 
Ec 5 11 ‘good’ AV = ‘advantage’ RV. In Dt 2 4, 415; 
Jos 23 11, ‘good’ renders the adv. m* ddh, ‘very,’ ‘very 
much’; in Jer 13 10 (cf. RV) it renders a verb meaning 
‘to succeed,’ and then ‘be fit for.’ In Job 15 3 the 
Heb. means ‘to be of no profit’; in Jer 18 4 it means 
‘as it was right in the eyes of the potter’; in Gn 24 12 
‘send me good success’ stands for ‘cause (it, 1.e., 
success) to meet (7.e., happen),’ while in Jos 1 8 ‘good 
success’ means thou shalt ‘deal wisely.’ In I Co 
15 33 the Gr. is yenords, lit. ‘useful’ or ‘kind’; here 
used in a sense akin to ‘morally refined.’ In Gn 
46 29 ‘good while’ means ‘again,’ or ‘still more,’ and 
in Ac 18 18 (AV) it means ‘a (sufficient) number of 
days.’ In Ro 16 18 ‘good words’ means ‘courteous, 
pleasant speech calculated to disarm suspicion’ (cf. 





Sitters A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 308 
RV). Practically, ‘the good’ are contrasted with GORE (Ex 21 32). See Crimes AND PounIsH- 


‘the evil’ (e.g., Mt 5 45), but nowhere is a strict 
definition of ‘the good’ given. That which is in 
harmony with recognized ethical standards or with 
the spirit and teachings of the gospel is ‘good’ 
(4ya06g or xaAédg). Good works are the natural 
fruit of good hearts (Mt 7 17). God alone is abso- 
lutely good, and only through a true perception of 
Jesus’ relation to God can one know how to call 
Him good (Mk 10 18 and ||s). See also Jusririca- 
TION. HK. BE. N. 


GOODMAN: In Pr 7 19 the meaning is ‘husband’ 
(‘the man’ RV). The woman appears purposely to 
refrain from saying ‘my husband.’ ‘Goodman’ was 
once frequently used in the sense of ‘head of the 
house.’ In the N T the Gr. term is oixodecrétys 
z.e., ‘master, or head of the house’ (Mt 20 11, etc.; 
cf. RV). K. E. N 


GOODNESS: In most cases this word is the ac- 
curate rendering of the original terms. In the O T 
tobh and tubh are comprehensive. God’s goodness is 
manifest in the blessings He bestows on His ser- 
vants, 7.e., the good things of life, and also the more 
spiritual blessings of forgiveness and love (e.g., 
Ex 33 19, cf, 346). The word hesedh often‘translated 
‘goodness’ in AV (e.g., Ex 34 6) is much better 
rendered by ‘mercy’ or ‘loving-kindness’ (so RY). 
In the N T in Ro 2 4, 11 22, the Gr. yenotds, xeno- 
cétns, signify ‘kindness’ (cf. Eph 27), or ‘benignity,’ 
not ‘goodness’ in the abstract. See Goop, Goop 
Works. Es K. E. N. 


GOOD PLEASURE, GOOD WILL: In the N T 
e0doxia usually refers to God’s ‘good will,’ either in 
the sense of His delight or satisfaction (II Th 1 11, ef. 
RVmg) or of His sovereign purpose or will (cf. Mt 
11 26; Eph 1 5, 9; Ph 2 13). 
occasioned most comment is Lk 214. Here for ‘good 
will toward men’ (AV) RV reads ‘among men in 
whom he is well pleased’ (‘men of [His] good will’). 
The RV is based on the reading eddoxtas (genitive) 
found in the best MSS. The AV is based on the 
nominative. ‘The sense is practically the same in 
either case. eUyorx, in Eph 67, means ‘good disposi- 
tion’ or ‘intent.’ HK. E. N, 


GOODS: The EVV use this word to render a 
variety of Heb. and Gr. terms: (1) ’6n, ‘strength,’ 
ONY, (Job 20 10 AV); (2) hayil, ‘strength, ’ Vig- 

r,’ ‘power’ (Nu 31 9); (8) ¢dbh, ‘good’ (in a general 
aoe (Dt 28 11 AV; Ec D 1); (4) mla’ khah, ‘work,’ 
‘business’ (Ex 22 8, 1); (5) niksin, ‘riches’ (Ear 6 8, 
7 26); (6) ginydn, ‘acquisition’ (Ezk 3812.1.) (7) 
rkhush, ‘that which is gathered’ (Gn 14 11-21, 31 18 
AV, 46 6; Nu 16 32, 35 3 AV; II Ch 2114 AV; Hier 1 4, 
6). The same fon is often rendered ‘substance.’ 
(8) kebhtiddah, ‘weighty material’ (Jg 18 21); (9) 
ta aya0&é (Lk 12 18 f.) ; (10) otdcta, ‘substance’ (Lk 
1512 AV); (11) t& oxedn, ‘vessels,’ ‘implements’ (Mt 
12 29; Mk 3 27; Lk 16 1); (12) cx dn&exyovra, ‘posses- 
sions’ (Mt 24° 47 AV, 25 14; {Lk 11 21, 161, 19 8; I Co 
13 3; He 10 34 AV); (13) 6 bs ‘the means of ligne’ 
(I Tn 317); (14) Uxapéts, ‘substance’ (Ac 2 45); (15) 
ta ok, “thy (things)’ (Lk 6 30); (16) xAourety, ‘to 
be wealthy,’ (Rev 317 AV; cf. RV.). E. EL. N. 


_GOPHER WOOD. See Patesring, § 21. 


The passage that has ; 


MENTS, § 2 (a). 

GOSHEN, go’shen (j¥3, gdshen): 1. A district in 
Egypt in which Jacob and his family were placed 
(Gn 45 10, 46 28, 47 27, 508; Ex 9 26 [all J]). According 
to J, here the Israelites lived, quite apart from close 
contact with the Egyptians. In E and P a different 
view is held. G. was noted for its adaptation to 
pastoral life and regarded as in general unsuitable 
for agriculture, perhaps because of its distance from 
the Nile and the difficulty of irrigation. But that 
it must have been cultivated to some extent appears 
from Nu 115. The LXX. renders Gn 45 10 Déseu 
’ApaBlac, intimating that G. was located in the 
nomos (political division) Arabia; and names Hero- 
opolis (jyemwy zédtc, Gn 46 28) ostensibly as its 
capital. The site of this city has been identified as 
the modern J'ell-Mashkita in the Wady Tumalat, and 
excavated by Naville (The Store City of Pithom, 
1888), but, according to the geographer Ptolemzeus, 
the nomos Arabia had Phacussa for its capital. This 
would identify G. with Kesem (Egyptian, Pa Sept— 
‘home of [the god] Sept’), modern Seft- Henna, which 
is somewhat NW. of Pithom. Steindorff’s sugges- 
tion in PRE, art. Gosen, that the capital of the 
nomos may have been changed from one city to the 
other, as was frequently the case in the subdivisions 
of Egypt may be the solution of the difficulty. G. 
therefore, as a district was undoubtedly in the E. 
portion of Egypt, and N. of the southern point of the 
Delta. 2. A district in the Negeb and the Shephelah 
(Jos 10 41, 11 16); perhaps named from No. 3 follow- 
ing. 3. A city in Judah (Jos 15 51). Site unknown. 

A. C, Z.—E. E. N. 


GOSPEL, GOSPELS. I. GospsEn (cdayyéAtoy, ‘good 
tidings’; AS, god-spell; OHG, gotspel = ‘God-story’): 
The N T term for the contents of the message given 
by Jesus Christ to the world. 

1. Usage of the Term. In the statements which 
Matthew gives of Jesus’ early preaching in Galilee 
(4 23, 9 35), and in the record which he gives of 
Jesus’ prediction of the future proclamation of his 
message (24 14), the phrase ‘gospel of the kingdom’ 
shows that the term is to be understood in its pri- 
mary meaning of ‘good tidings’ (as in the RV of 
Ro 10 16 and Rev 146). The Matthew phrase is an 
elaboration of the simple term ‘gospel’ which Mark 
has in the title of his narrative (11), and in his record 
of Jesus’ initiatory preaching (114 f.) and of His later 
teaching (8 35, 10 29, 13 10, 149). This term, when 
used by Mark in connection with the primitive idea 
of xnetocety (114 f., 13 10, 149), is undoubtedly in- 
tended to be understood in its primary sense, as by 
Matthew; but when used in such connections as in 
11, 8 35, 10 29 it is presented in its more technical 
meaning of a ‘formulated message.’ In this Mark 
shows, as he does elsewhere (e.g., 1 4), a tendency to 
introduce into his narrative, primitive tho it is, 
phraseology borrowed from the developed thought 
of the Apostolic preaching. It is in this technical 
sense that the term is to be understood in Peter’s 
council speech (Ac 15 7), and in Paul’s farewell ad- 
dress at Miletus (20 24)—the only instances in which 
Lk uses the word in either of his writings. For it he 
substitutes in his Gospel the cognate verb (etayyeXl- 


a EE i ee 


~< 


a) 


o. mn pet ee. ome Z 


EN le Seed errs 


—— 


4. - mn 
Mee STS 1 re 





309 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Goodman 
Gospel 





tecbat, ‘to announce good news’), using it mostly in 
connections where to his mind the primary idea of 
heralding the good news is present (e.g., 318, 418, 7 22; 
cf. Mt ||). Such connections are also clear in certain 
Acts passages (e.g., 812, 25). At the same time, when 
the verb is used in connection with objective truths, 
or distinctive messages, there is an evident tech- 
nical meaning, which is most apparent in Ac, where 
it seems to represent the formulated Apostolic 
preaching (e.g., 5 42, 11 20, 14 15, 17 18). It is quite 
natural, therefore, that in the Epistles both noun 
and verb should appear almost constantly in their 
technical meanings (e.g. [edayyéAtoy], Ro 1 16, 15 16; 
I Co 9 23; II Co 913, 11 4; Gal 1 6f£., 2.5, 7, 14; Col 
15, 23; 11 This; II Ti 18;1 Pe4 17; [edayyertecbat], 
Ro 115; I Co 9 16, 18; Gal 1, 16, 23; I P 46), and that 
there should be meanings developed beyond this, 
as (a) of the distinctively Pauline gospel (e.g. 
[edayyértov], Ro 2 16, 16 25; II Co 43; Gal1i1, 2 2,7; 
I Th 15; Il Th 214; 1 Tilsu; IL Ti 2 8; [edayyer- 
CecOat], [Co 151f.; Gal 1 8f., 11—which throw light on 
the peculiarly Pauline meaning to be given to such 
passages as Gal 2 5, 14; Eph 1 13, 3 6, 8, 619; Ph 1 27; 
Col 1 23); (b) of the general gospel, in the adminis- 
trative sense of the dispensation, or the service 
characteristic of gospel times (e.g. [edayyéAtov], Ro 
11,9; I Co 912, 14; Ph 15, 7, 12, 16; Phm ver. 13); (c) of 
the gospel in a written form ([edayyéAtov], Rev 14 6). 
The solitary passage I Th 3 6 shows how generally in 
the N T the early literary usage of the word had 
disappeared. 

The foregoing induction of the usage of the term 
‘gospel’ makes clear the sense in which it is applied 
to the canonical narratives of the ministry of Jesus, 
and leads the way to the following consideration 
of the process by which the message and mission of 
Jesus came into written form, and the characteriza- 
tion of Jesus which this form presents. 


II. GospxE.s. 


2. The Process from Oral Tradition to Written 
Gospels. Behind the written gospel narra- 
tives stood the oral tradition of Jesus’ life and 
teachings. This had its origin in the reports which 
were spread abroad concerning Him, while His 
ministry was yet in progress, and crystallized into 
the testimony regarding Him which followed upon 
that ministry’s completion. The formal expression 
of this testimony was in the Apostolic preaching, the 
basis of which was the story of Jesus, as culminating 
in His death and resurrection (cf. Ac 2 22-32, 10 
36-41, 13 23-31, 17 18). 

Naturally, this oral record of the ministry of Jesus 
was more or less fragmentary. It did not record all 
there was to record. It dwelt on certain parts of 
His life, certain phases of His teaching. This was as 
true of the formal Apostolic preaching as it was of the 
informal reminiscences of the disciples. Naturally 
also, as the gospel generation aged, this oral and 
fragmentary character of its record was felt to be 
imperfect, and created the desire to have in more 
permanent and completed form what it had pre- 
served of the past. As a result, these oral records 
came to be committed to writing, at first in frag- 
mentary form (cf. Lk 11f.), then as more collected, 


until there were evolved the gospel narratives, as we 
have them in the N T (cf. Lk 1 2-4). 


3. Literary Character and Purpose of the Gospels. 
In all this development, however, the writing fol- 
lowed the form of antiquity, which had no idea of 
biography as we understand it to-day, but was at 
most a selection of a few great deeds, or sayings, or 
discoveries, especially at the close of the life; conse- 
quently, when our Gospels came to be written, their 
form was that of brief memoirs rather than of 
formal biographies. It can easily be understood, 
therefore, that this process was at no time strictly 
historical. The motive of the disciples in their oral 
reminiscences, of the Apostles in their formal preach- 
ing and of the Evangelists in their Gospels was not 
so much to make a record of the past as to make an 
impression on the present. Luke’s Gospel is the 
nearest approach to a conscious historical effort, and 
yet 1 4 shows that it was written for Theophilus as 
one who had been favorably impressed with the 
religion of Jesus and whom Luke wished by his 
writing to strengthen in his impression; (cf. also Jn 
20 3f.). Their motive was primarily evangelistic. In 
fact, however much their experience of Jesus’ per- 
sonal self may have made them lovingly retain in 
their memory the things He had said and done, it 
was on the future rather than the past that they 
dwelt; for He had left them with the promise of a 
personal return to earth to consummate His work. 
For this return they themselves waited with keen 
expectancy, and against its coming they sought to 
win the world to a faith in their Lord (cf. I Thlot.; 
Ac 17 30f.). Our Gospels are thus not so much the 
records of history as they are the impressions of 
experience. That we have four Gospels, therefore, 
is not due to repeated efforts to give an accurate nar- 
rative of the life and teaching of Jesus, but to the 
individual desire with each writer to present Jesus 
Himself through what He had said and done in a way 
to meet the special evangelistic needs which con- 
fronted him individually in his own particular work. 
Consequently, we are not surprized to find these 
Gospels differing greatly among themselves. Mat- 
thew presents the Master from the view-point of 
fulfilled prophecy, to appeal to Jewish minds. Mark 
presents Him from the point of the Apostolic preach- 
ing outside of Jewish circles, to meet the Gentile 
mind. Luke, more nearly than any of the others, 
presents Him from the point of investigated facts, 
to influence the mind of a cultured man of rank. 
John, most of all, presents Him from the point of a 
meditated experience, to meet the needs of troubled 
faith. And yet, in spite of these wide differences, 
there is a necessary community among the Gospels, 
from the common subject they present—and es- 
pecially among the first three Gospels, from the fact 
that they present this subject in a common way, 
going over the same portion of the Ministry and with 
the same general outline of events, so that a com- 
bined survey of their narratives is necessary in 
order to secure an understanding of the history (see 
Jiilicher, N T Introduction, Eng. transl., 1904, 
p. 293; Milligan, N 7 Documents (1913), p. 182, 
note). For this reason they are called the Synoptic 
Gospels. 


Gospel 
Grace 





4. Outline of Composite Narrative. The composite narrative 
presented by the four Gospels is briefly as follows: Following 
the introductory material given by Jn, Mt and Lk (Prolog 
[Jn 1 1-18]; Genealogies [Mt 1 1-17; Lk 3 23-38], Annunciation and 
Birth of Baptist and of Jesus [Mt 1 18%; Lk ] 5-3, 57-80, 
2 1-20], Karly Years of Jesus [Mt 2 13716, 19-23; Lk 2 3882]) is a pre- 
liminary narrative, consisting of a description of the ministry 
of the Baptist, culminating in the induction of Jesus into His 
public ministry, through His Baptism and Temptation (Mk 
1 1-13, and |\s). There then follows a record of Jesus’ presence 
in Judea in the region of the Baptist’s work, where there came 
to Him from the following of the Baptist His first disciples (Jn 
1 19-51), After this is a note of a short visit to Galilee (Jn 2! f.) 
from which He returns for this first official visit to Jerusalem 
(2 13-3 2). There is then noted His retirement to the region 
of the Baptist’s ministry, where He remains until His departure 


to Galilee (Jn 3 22-4 45). Then follows the record of His ministry - 


in Galilee, beginning with a visit to His home in Nazareth from 
which place He withdraws to Capernaum (Mt 4 18)), where He 
formally attaches to Himself a discipleship, and makes the 
place a center from which His work is carried on (Mk 1 164, and 
lis). As far as this work is represented as following any dis- 
tinctive method it is that of preaching tours through the sur- 
rounding country, with a return to the home city. Mk and Lk 
record such a tour soon after His coming to Capernaum (Mk 
1 85-39, and Lk ||; probably Mk 1 4° and Lk 5 12-16 belong to this 
tour. It was confined, apparently, to the villages of the im- 
mediate neighborhood and was of short duration, being fol- 
lowed by a considerable period of activity in Capernaum itself, 
which excited increasingly the hostility of the Scribes and 
Pharisees (Mk 2 178 [3 1-6 (?)}, 3 7-12, and |/s). There is given 
then, in evident preparation for a more extended tour, the 
formal appointment of the Twelve to their service in His 
ministry (Mk 3 13719a, and ||s), with its accompanying discourse 
(the Sermon on the Mount [Mt 51-81, and Lk |l]). This is fol- 
lowed by one or two selected incidents from the tour (Lk 7 19, 
and Mt ||s), leading up to the incident of the healing of the blind 
and dumb demoniac on the return to Capernaum (Mk 3 19b-30, 
and Mt ||). This is presented as significant in its arousal of 
popular enthusiasm to an open acclaim of Jesus as the Mes- 
sianic Son of David and the meeting of this claim by the Scribes 
and Pharisees with the countercharge of Beelzebul (Mt 12 
22-24: Mk 3 22; Lk 11 14 f.), the outcome of which conflict was a 
tendency among His hearers to separate into receptive and hos- 
tile groups (Mk 3 41-35, and ||s; Mt 12 38-0, and Lk |]; Lk 11 38, 8 
18-21), There is then given an account of a day of parable teach- 
ing by the seaside at Capernaum (Mk 4 1-*4, and |ls), by which 
method Jesus is represented as having sought to encourage this 
grouping tendency of His hearers (Mk 4 1912, and ||s). Follow- 
ing this is the account of a departure of Jesus and His disciples 
across the lake, a brief stay in the Gentile region of Gerasa, and 
a return to further activity at Capernaum and a second visit 
to Nazareth, where He offended the national pride of the people 
who attempted to take His life. (Mk 4 %-6 6, and |s [including 
Lk 4 1680]), A third teaching tour is then recorded, which seems 
to have issued in a sending out of the Twelve on a more extended 
mission, while Jesus continued His restricted work (Mk 6 6713, 
and ||s). Upon the return of the Twelve, Jesus, hearing of the 
death of the Baptist, departed with them across the lake out of 
Herod’s territory where they were followed by the multitude, 
which He miraculously fed (Mk 6 30-46, and ||s, including Jn 6 
116), The miracle having roused the nationalism of the multi- 
tude He returns to Capernaum and in the Synagog confronts the 
people with the spiritual character of His message and mission, 
the result of which is a general defection of his Galelean follow- 
ing (Jn 6 1671), The narrative then brings Jesus to Jerusalem, 
where a discourse following a Sabbath miracle results in a 
hostility which threatens His life (Jn ch. 5, 7 5-24, 8 12-20), He is 
next found with His disciples in the regions of Tyre and Sidon, 
and the Decapolis, through a period of restricted activity (Mk 
6 47-86, 7 4-§ 2% and ||s), toward the close of which He called 
forth from His disciples a confession of their belief in His spirit- 
ual Messiahship, on the basis of which He made His first an- 
nouncement to them of His coming Passion, and, in the company 
of the three with whom He was most intimate, was transfigured 
(Mk 8 27-9 38, and ||s). After the account of a short stay at 
Capernaum the Synoptic Gospels represent Jesus as having 
finally departed from Galilee for Jerusalem (Mk 10 1, and ||s), 
Lk recording, in connection with the journey, an extended 
ministry of teaching (chs. 10-18), The Fourth Gospel discloses 
this ministry, however, as broken up into at least two visits to 
Jerusalem—the first occurring at the Feast of Tabernacles, on 
which occasion Jesus delivered a discourse resulting in a mur- 
derous attack upon Him causing His retirement from the City 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


rr 


310 





(Jn 7 1714, 25-52, 8 21-59); the second at the Feast of Dedication 
where a notable miracle occasioned another discourse which 
resulted in a renewed hostility that compelled His withdrawal 
from the City (Jn chs. 9 and 10). From this retirement He re- 
turns to Bethany, near Jerusalem, on the death of Lazarus, and 
after raising him withdraws to Ephraim, a city of Judea (Jn 11 
1-4), From that place he comes for His final ministry in Jeru- 
salem (Mk 11 1-14 9, and {|s; Jn 11 "12 5°), culminating in the 
Passover with His disciples (Mk 14 42-31, and ||s, including Jn 
13 1-3) followed by His farewell discourse and prayer (Jn 31 4- 
17 76), the Passion in Gethsemane (Mk 14 %2-#, and ||s), the 
Betrayal by Judas (Mk 14 48-82, and ||s, including Jn 18 1), the 
Trial before the Sanhedrin and Pilate (Mk 14 5-15 20, and |\s, in- 
eluding Jn 18 12-19 16a), the Crucifixion and the Resurrection 
(Mk 15 21-16 8, and ||s, including Jn 19 16-20 18), There is then 
given an account of Jesus’ appearances to His disciples after 
His Resurrection, Matthew confining his narrative to those 
which took place in Galilee (28 16-20), Luke to those in the neigh- 
borhood of Jerusalem (24 13-48), John notices only his appearance 
to the disciples in connection with the experience of Thomas 
(Jn 20 19-29) and to a portion of them at the Sea of Galilee (Jn 
21 1%), Mark, his Gospel ending as it does with the 8th verse, 
giving no account of them. The general narrative is then closed 
with an account of the Ascension, given alone by Luke (24 


44-53), 

The characterization of Jesus presented by this 
narrative is one of strong and irresistible impressive- 
ness. 3 

Announced by angels and supernaturally born, 
He comes into the world bearing upon Himself all 
the marks of the unseen universe, and tho little is 
said of His childhood, and we become really ac- 
quainted with Him only as He enters upon His 
public work, we realize, from such record as is given, 
that His consciousness of Himself is of one who stands 
separate from those around Him in His communion 
with God, that it is this consciousness of His spiritual 
isolation among men that brings Him to a conscious- 
ness of His Divine mission in the world, that it is 
in this consciousness that He comes to His baptism 
as the symbol of His public consecration to His work, 
and that it is to test this consciousness that the 
Spirit drives Him into the wilderness to His temp- 
tation. 

It is on this understanding of Himself and His 
work that He enters upon His public ministry, and 
it is because of Himself and His work so understood 
that He challenges at once the ceremonialism of the 
Pharisees and Scribes. He takes up from the begin- 
ning an attitude of judgment with reference to the 
ceremonial Law—ignoring it when it symbolized 
and developed separation between man and God 
and between man and his fellow man, and observing 
it in full when it symbolized and effected their com- 
munion—and at the same time directs His ministry 
toward the ceremonially unchurched, calling to His 
discipleship the tax-gatherer, and making clear 
that it was for the sinner that His ministry of help- 
fulness was intended. Inevitably this confronts Him 
with a hostility from the Scribes and Pharisees, and 
sets in motion two tendencies among His hearers— 
the one of criticism under the influence of this op- 
position, the other of sympathy under the power of 
His personality. To encourage this sympathy, and 
with the necessary accompaniment of strengthening 
the criticism, He adopts the parable in His teaching 
and makes an ever-increasingly clear statement of 
the personal relationships with Himself which His 
discipleship demanded. 

In such a consciousness of Himself and His work, 


—- 


311 A NEW STANDARD 


and in such assertion of them against the material- 
ism around Him, He carries on in Galilee and the 
surrounding regions His ministry of healing and of 
revelation of the sin of man and of the love of God. 
From the beginning, however, this consciousness of 
Himself and His work makes clear to Him that His 
ministry must not only involve hostility from the 
materialism of Judaism, but an inevitable develop- 
ment of his hostility into an open persecution of 
Himself which can only end in His death. 

As His Galilean work comes to its close under His 
spiritual confronting an aroused national Messianism 
with the spiritual character of His ministry, this con- 
viction of the outcome of His work becomes increas- 
ingly strong, and under its influence He turns His 
face toward Jerusalem, where must be brought to 
final issue the conflict between the ceremonialism 
of the nation and His spiritual mission to the world. 
There He casts aside all reserve; face to face with 
His enemies He makes plain His Messianic claims, 
and shows with unmistakable clearness the national 
consequence of their rejection, while He gathers 
closer to Himself His disciples and, as far as it was 
possible to their unaroused conceptions, prepares 
them for the result. With the calmness of this 
great consciousness of all He was in Himself and 
of all His mission meant for the world, He comes to 
His Passion and His death. From the beginning He 
had shown the personal relations to Himself which 
His discipleship involved. Increasingly He had 
laid emphasis upon that faith without which that 
discipleship could not issue in acceptance with God, 
and now as the end came in His death it was this 
same personal relationship between Himself and 
His disciples that gave it all its significance as the 
only way to that forgiveness of sin and reforming of 
life which was the object of all He had come to do. 

To some conception of His personality and of 
their personal relation to Himself in their salvation 
the disciples apparently came during His ministry, 
more clearly doubtless through the instruction given 
them by Jesus during the period of His presence with 
them after the Resurrection, tho it is evident that 
their final comprehension of it came from that un- 
derstanding of His redemptive relation to them which 
gradually resulted from their maturing spiritual 
experience. This conception of Jesus is what lies 
before us, then, in these Gospels—the conception of 
a man among men, possessed of all the qualities of 
humanity, its frailties of body, its sympathies of 
heart, its powers of mind, but lacking that one com- 
mon element of sinfulness, not only in the manifesta- 
tions of life, but in the consciousness of soul, that 
marked Him out as separated from them all and 
gave Him thus the isolated right beyond any mere 
Messianic meaning to the title ‘Son of God.’ (For 
the literary interrelation of the Gospels see THE 
SYNOPTIC PROBLEM.) 


Lirprature: Generally in the larger N T Introductions will be 
found in connection with the criticism of the Gospels some 
reference to the need and growth of Gospel writing (see 
especially Zahn, N 7 Introd. [1917] § 48). But a fuller treat- 
ment of this process is given in Moffatt’s “‘The Development 
of N T Literature,” in Peake’s Commentary onthe Bible (1919); 
also in his Approach to the N T (1921) ch. Il. Cf. Wrede, The 
Origin of the N T. (1909) and Sanday’s art.‘*The Bible,” in 
ERE, pp. 574-6. See also APPROACH TO THE BrBxz, II. M.W.J. 


Gospel 
Grace 


BIBLE: DICTIONARY 
GO TO: An expression, now obsolete, found 
eleven times in AY. It corresponds to our modern 
hortatory ‘come,’ which RV gives instead in Gn 11 
3-7, 38 16; Ec 21; Ja 413, 51. In other cases RV 
omits it as an unnecessary addition (Jg 7 3; IT K 55; 
Jer 18 11; Is 55). 


GOURD. See Foon, § 3; Patusring, § 23. 


GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENTS: the term 
in Is 9 6 means properly ‘princely’ or ‘royal author- 
ity. On II P 210 cf. RV. On I Co 12 28, and for 
the organization of the early Church, see Cuurcu, § 7. 
For the different forms of government in ancient 
Israel, see ISRAEL. 


GOVERNOR: In the O T the one word that 
properly means ‘governor’ is pehah, used chiefly in 
the documents of the Persian period (Ezr, Neh, Hag, 
Mal). It signifies (in the Bible) both the ‘satrap,’ 
or ‘governor,’ of one of the main subdivisions of the 
Persian Empire (e.g., Ezr 5 3, Tattenai, who was 
satrap of the region W. of the Euphrates), or the 
governor of a subdivision of a satrapy (e.g., Judah, of 
which Nehemiah was pehdah; cf. Neh 514). In both 
cases the appointment was made directly by the 
king. The functions of the governors of the smaller 
provinces were administrative and civil rather than 
military. The word “Tirshatha’ (Ezr 2°63, etc., AV) 
is a Persian term, the equivalent of pehah. Other 
O T terms rendered ‘governor’ are expressive of 
leadership, or authority, but are not of technical 
significance. 

In the N T Pilate is called ‘governor’ of Judea, 
Felix and Festus of all Palestine, with their head- 
quarters at Cesarea. The Gr. term is fyepoy, 
standing for the Latin procurator, 7.e., a governor of 
a far town, or unruly country, appointed directly by 
the emperor, and who was only partially subordinate 
to the Imperial legate of the province, to which his 
district belonged. Such ‘governors’ were usually of 
equestrian rank, Felix, a freedman, being an excep- 
tion to this rule (see Schiirer, I, 1, pp. 43-48). Qui- 
rinus (‘Cyrenius,’ Lk 2 2) was an Imperial legate,not 
a procurator, of the large Province of Syria. On II 
Co 11 32 see AkETAS. On Ja34cf. RV. In Gal 4 2 
‘steward’ (‘governor’ AV) is the overseer of the 
household. HE. E. N. 


GOZAN, g6’zan (1!'3, gézan): A district on the river 
Habor in Mesopotamia. After several revolts it was 
finally reduced to submission by Asshurdan of 
Assyria c. 760 B.c. (Schrader, KAT?, p. 48). It 
was one of the provinces of the Assyrian Empire to 
which the captives of N. Israel were deported in 
722 B.c. (II K 17 6, 1811, 19 12; I Ch 5 26; Is a 12). 

3 KH. E. N. 


GRACE: The rendering of two Heb. (hén, thin- 
nah) and two Gr. (yéets, edreéxetx) words. I. 
General: In the main, two leading ideas are repre- 
sented by the Eng. term: (1) The objective idea of 
‘outward grace,’ or ‘beauty,’ and (2) the subjective 
idea of ‘personal kindness,’ or ‘favor.’ In the O T 
the former is represented, with two exceptions, in 
all the passages in which RV retains the term ‘grace,’ 
the Heb. being hén (Ps 45 2, 8411; Pr 19, 3 22, 49, 
22 11; Zec 47, 1210). In the excepted passages (Ezr 
98; Pr 8 34) the latter is represented, the Heb. being 


Grace 
Greece 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 312 





in Ear thinnah, and in Pr hén. In the passages 
where AV rendered hén by ‘grace,’ RV has substi- 
tuted ‘favor’ (Gn 6 8, etc.; Ex 338 12, etc.; Nu 32 5; 
Jg 617; Ru 2 2, 10; 1S 118, etc.; IZ S 14 22; Est 2 17; 
Jer 312). Inthe N T the term ‘grace’ is abundantly 
used, both ideas being represented, and the term 
receiving a large development along the line of the 
latter. Practically but one Gr. word (xyéets) is em- 
ployed throughout, the exception being the passage 
Ja 1 11, where edrpéxere might have been better 
rendered ‘beauty’ or ‘shapeliness.’ 

II. Particular: In N T usage we have the objective 
idea in such passages as Lk 4 22 and Col 46. The 
subjective idea, in general, is found in Lk 2 52 ‘favor’ 
EVV; Eph 4 29. This idea is enlarged, however, in 
the direction of emphasizing the undeserved nature 
of the kindness, or favor, shown (e.g., Lk 1 30), but 
more specifically, as characterizing the favor shown 
by God in His redemptive work (e.g., Ro 4 4, 16, where 
yaers is contrasted with dgetAnucz, 11 6, where the 
contrast is with é§ geywy, and Eph 2 8, where the 
contrast is with ¢& Syev; cf. also II Co 89). Natur- 
ally, from this Gospel use of the term, we have a 
further enlargement in the direction of designating 
the spiritual force exerted by God upon those who 
are receptive to His work (e.g., Jn 1 16; Ac 11 23; 
II Co 61, 914, 129; I Ti 114; II Ti 21; He 416), which 
is further broadened out to include the special gifts 
of life by which God renders men capable of His 
service (e.g., Ro 15; Gal 29; I Co1 4, 310; Ph17). The 
combination of these two usages is seen conspicu- 
ously in such a passage as I Co 15 10 (cf. also II Co 
98). So the word is used of the results of this Divine 
energizing—generally, as representing the state and 
condition of spiritual life into which its recipients 
come (e.g., II P 3 18; cf. also Ro 5 2), or, specifically, 
as designating some particular phase of spiritual life, 
brought to manifestation in them (eg., Ac 13 43; 
II Co 8 1-7, 19). In Col 3 16 the reference may be 
generally to this state of Christian grace, or, specif- 
ically, to that phase of it which might be better 
rendered ‘thankfulness.’ (For the use in the N T 
of yéers to designate ‘thanks’ cf. Lk 179; I Co 10 30; 
II Co 9 15.) 

Viewed in the light of this special Gospel meaning, 
grace finds its source in God’s love to man. Paul 
tells the Ephesians in that characteristically soterio- 
logical letter that ‘God being rich in mercy, because 
of the great love wherewith He loved us, even when 
we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive 
together with Christ,’ and then adds, as a brief 
summary of that statement, ‘by grace have ye been 
saved’ (2 4£.; cf. Jn 3 16; Ro 58; II Th 216). Asto 
its content, it consists in providing for man a plan 
of salvation with which it is possible for him to fall 
in. In this same Epistle the Apostle says, ‘By grace 
have ye been saved through faith, and that not of 
yourselves, it is the gift of God’ (2 8), in which he 
characterizes the way in which they have been 
redeemed as one not based upon their own righteous- 
ness, a condition they could never fulfil, but upon 
the gracious provision of God, made effective, sub- 
jectively, by that faith in Christ which it was always 
possible for them to exercise, if they would (Jn 
5 40, 6 37). As to its process, it does no violence to 


the human spirit, but works upon it, negatively, in 
devitalizing those impulses and forces which make 
it easy for the will to move away from God and, 
positively, in vitalizing those which make it easy 
for the will to move toward God. ‘With fear and 
trembling,’ Paul wrote to the Philippians, ‘work out 
the salvation you have received from God, for it is 
God which worketh in you both to will and to do’ 
(213; ef. I Co 1510; He 13 21). Naturally, therefore, 
when it has been admitted by the receptive soul 
within itself, its energizing establishes a condition 
of that soul which most properly is termed a state of 
grace, and which can be increased in its effectiveness 
by the soul’s own cooperation (II P 3 18), or des- 
troyed by its resistance (II Co 61). See also Gop, 
§ 2. M. W. J. 


GRACE, MERCY, AND PEACE. See Epistriez. 


GRACIOUS: This word is the rendering of (1) the” 


Heb. noun hén, ‘grace,’ in the construct form, e.g., 
‘a woman of grace,’ ‘gracious woman’ (Pr 11 16); 
‘words ... of grace’ (He 1012). (2) Of hdnan, in 
the sense of ‘charming,’ ‘winning’ (Jer 22 23 AV; but 
‘to be pitied’ RV, and ‘how wilt thou groan’ ERV- 
mg.). (3) Generally of haénan and hanniin, ‘gracious,’ 
always of God, to designate His exercise of mercy. 
(4) Of tobh, ‘good’ (Hos 14 2 AV; cf. RV). (5) Of 
xzertos, Gen. of xkers (Lk 4 22 AV, but ‘of grace’ 
RV). (6) Of xenotés, ‘serviceable,’ ‘useful’ (I P 
23). PNAS Oa 


GRAIN, GRAINS. See Pauzusrina, § 23; Aari- 
CULTURE, §§ 4-6; and Foon, § 1. 


GRAPE, GRAPES, WILD GRAPES. 
general VINES AND VINTAGE. 


GRASS: The word ‘grass’ is used in a somewhat 
comprehensive sense in the EVV. It is the render- 
ing of four Heb. and one Gr. terms. (1) Of deshe’ 
(e.g., Gn 1 11), the ‘fresh,’ ‘tender grass.’ (2) Of 
hatsir, apparently of grass when in full growth (I K 
18 5, etc.). (3) Of yereq, the ‘green’ grass (Nu 22 4). 
(4) Of ‘ésebh, which signifies the ‘herb’ that bears 
seed, t.e., grain (cf. Gn 1 11, 29), but is used in quite 
a general sense, including grasses, both those that 
bear grain and those that are suitable only for fod- 
der, herbs, and vegetables. (5) of yé6etos, which 
may mean either green grass (Mk 6 39, ete.) or the 
stalk with the head of grain (cf. Mt 13 26). 

HK. E. N. 


See in 


GRASSHOPPER. See Locust. 
GRATE, GRATING. See Atrar, § 2. 


GRAVE, GRAVE-CLOTHES. See Buriat AnD 
Burrau Cusroms, §§ 1, 5, 6. 


GRAVE, GRAVEN, GRAVING. 
Lirg, §§ 3-5; and Mxrrats, § 1. 


GRAVING TOOL. See Merats, § 1. 

GREAT OWL. See Pauzstine, § 25. 

GREAT SEA. See MrEpITERRANEAN SEA. 

GREAVES. See Arms AND Armor, § 10. 

GRECIANS, GREEKS. See Greece. 

GREECE. 1. Natural Features. Adcient Greece 
was bounded on the N. by Macedonia and Illyria, 


on the E. by the Aigean Sea, and on the W. by the 
Ionian Sea. Its greatest length from Mt. Olympus 


See ARTIZAN 





313 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Grace 
Greece 





to Cape Matapan was about 250 m., but it varied 
greatly in width. To this continental Greece must 
be added many islands in the Aigean and Ionian 
seas, as well as numerous colonies in Asia Minor, 
Thrace, the Black Sea region, Sicily, S. Italy, France, 
and N. Africa, for much of the influence of Greece on 
the world came through these islands and colonies. 
The Greeks themselves called their country Hellas— 
originally a small territory in S. Thessaly—and they 
spoke of themselves as Hellenes. The name Greeks 
(Greci) came to us through the Romans, who heard 
the name Ipatxof in S. Italy, whither it had come 
from Illyria. See also EranocrapHy AND ETrH- 
NOLOGY, §§ 6 and 138 under Javan. 


2. Influence of the Natural Features on the 
National Character. G. is so covered by ramifica- 
tions of mountains that but little of its surface is 
left for plains and valleys. These mountains are the 
distinctive features of the inland landscape. The 
national character was molded in great measure by 
the mountains. Being mountainous, Greece is also 
very rocky, and the stones of Greece had a great 
influence on the national institutions. They not 
only promoted city life by insuring the safety of the 
dwellers within the city walls, but, being chiefly 
marble, they made Greek architecture and sculpture 
possible. Again, mountains are natural barriers, but 
since the rivers of Greece were not large enough to 
serve as means of transit, land traffic between towns 
and between the land-locked mountain valleys was 
difficult. Nature herself ordained that Greece 
should be socially and politically disunited, and it 
was primarily because of its mountains that Greece 
never became a united state. But the great extent 
of the seacoast and the easy accessibility from the 
sea to any part of the interior counteracted the 
difficulties of transit by land. The coast-line is 
deeply indented with bays and inlets, affording safe 
harbors. Therefore the determining element in 
Greek geography was, not the mountains, but the 
sea, which the Greeks thought of as a bridge, or 
means of passage. All Greek colonies were situated 
on the sea; intercommunication was by the sea, 
which was necessary not only for commerce, but for 
the transmission of ideas and for progress in general. 
The dwellers in inland cities were conservative, 
rustic, courageous, full of endurance, sterile of 
imagination, hostile to innovations, narrow in their 
sympathies and ideas, tenacious of ancient habits. 
The dwellers in the sea-towns were progressive, 
tolerant, active, eager for gain, ready for innovation 
and revolution, daring at sea, full of imagination, 
fickle in character, given to pomp and luxury, open 
to refining influences, delicate in taste and intellec- 
tual sympathy. 

As the configuration of Greece kept the country 
disunited and perpetuated separate autonomy, so 
the smallest town was an autonomous unit. But 
still the Greeks were united for social, religious, 
recreative, intellectual, and esthetical purposes. 
Their national games brought the conservative of 
the interior into close touch with the radical of the 
sea-town, and the meeting stimulated the observant 
faculties, and the vagaries of both sections were 
thereby modified. Greece was the meeting-place 


of the nations. Ideas and movements emanating 
from the Orient passed through Greece, where they 
were assimilated and then recast in the Greek mold, 
ere they were passed on to the West. 


3. The Greek Mind. The most striking charac- 
teristics of the Greek mind—that is, of Hellenism— 
were: the variety of its aptitudes, its graceful 
versatility, combined with unique originality, its 
vivacity and penetrating keenness, its balanced 
development of diverse faculties, its reason tem- 
pered with imagination, sentiment with intelli- 
gence, passion with reflection; it was supple, subtle, 
astute, wily, adaptable, discursive and analytical. 
The Greek thought with acuteness, and imagined 
with brilliancy; his mind was incapable of entertain- 
ing the vague, the obscure, or the undefined. Yet 
his conceptions were moderate and within bounds, 
and hence his gods were not monsters, but anthro- 
pomorphic. Greek genius was anthropocentrie as 
opposed to the theocentric nature of Oriental genius. 
In contrast to the vague symbolism and love of the 
colossal in the Orient and the realism of Rome, the 
genius of Greece was essentially idealistic. ,The 
Greek was social; he sought out his fellow man, both 
to receive and to give; he was fond of gossip and 
facile in conversation; he possessed a great experience 
of life (seen even in the Epos); he was eminently 
curlous and inquisitive, in the best sense, about the 
enigmas of the world, and for that reason he pro- 
pounded all the great problems and inaugurated all 
the correct methods. The characteristic excellences 
of Greek literature are plastic neatness of concep- 
tion, limpidity, transparency, even in abstruse 
matters, such as metaphysics, and a marvellous 
restraint (‘nothing too much’) in conjunction with a 
self-forgetfulness which contrasts sharply with the 
more personal and self-conscious element in Roman 
literature. The Greeks copied nothing slavish- 
ly. They did employ models, but they recast 
them and put upon them the imprint of their own 
individuality and liberty. In their temperament the 
Greeks were youthful and gay, tho ever sensitive 
to the miseries of life. They fixed their thoughts on 
the ideals of youth and beauty; the poetry of life 
characterized their writings, yet the Greeks had no 
monopoly of optimism. Just in proportion to their 
keen response to the joys of life and their passionate 
attachment to ‘youth and bloom and this delightful 
world’ they were liable to a deep melancholy. No 
literature contains more pathetic laments over the 
sorrows of life, the passing of love, the deceitfulness 
of hope, and the ruthlessness of death. 


4. Greece and Christianity. Inestimable have 
been the services of Greece to Christianity. Greece 
especially through her colonies in Asia Minor, 
Magna Grecia, N. Africa, and Gaul, brought the 
Mediterranean peoples into mutual relations. She 
educated and civilized the two conquering empires— 
Macedon and Rome—which unified the world for 
the Gospel. She supplied the missionaries of the 
‘ew Way’ with a common language such as no 
other religion ever had for its propaganda. Her 
philosophy, both in its lofty spirituality and idealism 
and in its arid criticism, prepared the way of the 
Lord. The Greeks dedicated their matchless genius 


Greek Language 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


314 





to Christ, which gave Christianity an immense 
advantage over Mithraism and the religion of the 
Great Mother which never won their loyalty. They 
were the first metaphysicians and philosophers of 
Christianity. It is not an accident that the N T 
is written in Greek, and that for over two centuries 
the language of primitive Christianity was almost 
everywhere Greek. It was the Hellenized world 
which most eagerly embraced the new faith. It was 
in a Greek atmosphere, and largely under the in- 
fluence of the Greek spirit, that the first and greatest 
reinterpretation of Christianity (Fourth Gospel) 
was penned, giving a timelessness to the revelation 
of Jesus which no change of environment can anti- 
quate, and presenting a view of His personality 
which so raises Him above the accidents of history 
that He leads the generations on. Moreover, 
‘Hellas the nurse of man complete as man’ was the 
most eloquent witness for Jesus’ ideal of the whole- 
ness of life with every rational activity, upon which 
ideal Oriental asceticism encroached from an early 
date, but toward which modern Christianity is 
turning again for self-expression. 


J. R. S. S.*—S. A. 


GREEK LANGUAGE (HELLENISTIC AND 
BIBLICAL GREEK): 1. Comparative Philology. 
The introduction of historical method into the study 
of the Greek language was due primarily to the 
discovery of Sanskrit by Sir William Jones in 1786. 
But it was not until Bopp published his Verglei- 
chende Gram:-7«tik in 1857 that the full import of the 
new discovery was seen. Before that time grammar 
had been based upon abstract theory, and every- 
thing that did not conform to the rules laid down was 
treated as an ‘exception.’ But when the data were 
examined in the light of the kindred tongues, it was 
seen that there was an orderly historical develop- 
ment which can be readily understood even if it 
can not all be brought under grammatical rules. 

Brugmann and Delbriick brought modern know- 
ledge to the history of the subject in the five massive 
volumes entitled Grundriss der Vergleichenden 
Grammatik der Indogermanischen Sprachen (lst 
edition, 1886-1900). The late Albert Thumb, one of 
the most distinguished workers in this fruitful field, 
revised and enlarged Brugmann’s Grriechische Gram- 
matik (1918), a book that every teacher of Greek 
should know. Giles, Short Manual of Comparative 
Philology (2d edition, 1910) is the best work for the 
beginner in this subject. The historical and com- 
parative method of study has made it possible for 
us to understand and interpret aright the varied 
uses of case, preposition, voice, mode, and tense. 


I. Tue Koine. 


2. Origin. The age of the dialects ended with 
the work of Alexander the Great. He carried the 
Greek language with him in his conquest of Asia 
and Egypt. As a result Gréek was current over 
the entire eastern Mediterranean world from 
330 B.c. to 330 a.p. 

3. Name. The term Koiné, ‘common,’ is now 
generally accepted as the name for the Greek lan- 
guage of this period. It means the Greek that was 
common to the whole Mediterranean world, not 


merely the Greek of the common people. Greek 
became the lingua franca of the time, the one lan- 
guage besides his native tongue that every one 
would be likely to know. ‘Hellenistic’ is sometimes 
employed, but that word is naturally applied to the 
speech of those not native Greeks, or Hellenes, 
whereas the word Koiné is applicable to the speech 
of both Hellenes and Hellenists alike. 


4. Relation to Dialects. The base of the Koiné 
is the Attic, tho the other dialects color the Attic . 
here and there. The Ionic leaves the strongest mark 
on the Attic base in forms like oneteng and déoréa, 
absence of the rough breathing, dropping of y: in 
verbs like 8:86, while the Doric makes distinct con- 
tributions like Ads, vabs, &péwvtat (the latter being 
Arcadian and Jonic also). Northwest Greek fur- 
nishes forms like A€Auxay, tods Aéyovtes, técaxpes for 
téscapas. Every country had provincial pecu- 
liarities of its own, but none of sufficient amount to 
become a special dialect. Such differences as existed 
were in pronunciation rather than in anything else. 
There was one Koiné everywhere (cf. Thumb, Die 
Griechische Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus, 
p. 200). 

5. Vernacular Koiné. There is always a difference 
between the vernacular and the literary style. We 
know from the remains of the vernacular Attic 
preserved in literature and especially in inscriptions 
that it differed much from the literary Attic. 
(Meisterhans-Schwyzer, Grammatik der Attischen In- 
schriften, 3 Aufl. 1900.) The vernacular may be 
written as well as spoken, and there are many 
specimens of it in Aristophanes. The vernacular 
Koiné grew directly out of the vernacular Attic, and 
the modern Greek vernacular continues the history 
down to the present day. (Thumb-Angus, Hand- 
book of the Modern Greek Vernacular, 1912.) 


6. Literary Koiné. The literary Koiné is some- 
thing of a compromise between the older liter- 
ary style and the contemporary vernacular. It is 
found chiefly in the works of Polybius, Plutarch, 
Philo, Diodorus, and Josephus, the latter being 
rather a self-conscious example. Xenophon and 
Aristotle exhibit the later Attic on its way toward 
the Koiné. 

7. Atticism. There were some writers like 
Dionysius of Halicarnassus and Dio Chrysostom 
who disdained to write the literary Koiné, and 
consciously imitated the literary Attic. But this 
was too artificial to last, and the Atticizing gram- 
marians, Meeris and Phrynichus, labored in vain. 

8. The Inscriptions. The inscriptions furnish 
invaluable instances of the Koiné idiom in various 
parts of the Greco-Roman world. They show 
examples of both the vernacular and the literary 
Koiné, the decrees being usually in the literary 
style. Many of the inscriptions are in a formal 
and stilted phraseology, but they have the distinct 
advantage for our study of being widespread in both 
place and date. Besides Boeckh’s Corpus Inscrip- 
tionum Grecarum, there are numerous handbooks, 
like that of Hicks and Hill, A Manual of Greek 
Historical Inscriptions, revised edition, 1901. 

9. The Papyri and Ostraca. The papyrus 
plant in Egypt was a common source for making 





315 





paper for writing. The material was very brittle 
and perishable, tho numerous specimens have come 
to light in Herculaneum, preserved under the ashes 
from the volcano, as shown by Crénert, Memoria 
Greca Herculanensis (1903). But the rubbish heaps 
of Egypt, covered by ages of sand from the desert, 
have preserved papyri in amazing quantities. Some 
collections of the papyri have been known for a long 
time, like the Turin Papyri (1826-27); but it was 
not until Grenfell and Hunt, Flinders-Petrie, 
Mahaffy, and others began to publish the results of 
their discoveries at Hibeh, Faytim, Oxyrhynchus, 
Tebtunis, and elsewhere in Egypt, that the full 
significance of the new discoveries began to be 
appreciated. Almost every year since 1898 has seen 
one or more volumes published out of the great 
collections of papyri which have been gathered. 
The bulk of these writings show the vernacular 
Koiné of Egypt. Among them one finds love letters, 
marriage contracts, divorce papers, wills, deeds, 
receipts, business correspondence, anything and 
everything that made up the life of the people. Here 
is the real vernacular Koiné, the language of life. 
There is great variety in the culture seen in these 
scraps of paper. Some of the writers are quite ig- 
norant and make many crass blunders in spelling, 
as the result of careless pronunciation, or of tenden- 
cies like itacism which blended ot, e, uv, n, p, ¢ into 
the one sound of «. Hence one is likely to see any 
one of these forms anywhere. Prof. W. H. Davis, of 
Louisville, Kentucky, has found three thousand 
words in the papyri not in any Greek lexicon. 
Small portions of the New Testament in Greek, 


written as early as the 3d cent. a.p., have been found | 


in the papyri. Excellent handbooks of the Greek 
papyri are those by Lietzmann, Griechische Papyri, 
2 Aufl. (1910), and by Milligan, Greek Papyri 
(1910), Here and There in the Papyrt (1922). 
There is now a vast and constantly growing litera- 
ture on the papyri discoveries. For the grammar of 
the papyri one can be referred to Mayser’s Gram- 
matik der Griechischen Papyri. (The first volume, 
published in 1906, covers Phonology and Accidence 
only. The second volume is promised soon.) 

Scraps of pottery called ostraca, which are found 
in Egypt and elsewhere, preserve specimens of the 
vernacular Greek of the non-literary and poorer 
classes who could not afford the papyri. Of these 
1,624 are given in Wilcken’s Griechische Ostraka 
aus Aegypten und Nubien (1889). 

There is therefore a wealth of material for pre- 
senting the Koiné, and the characteristics of this 
really great period of the Greek language are now 
fairly well known. Besides the works of Mayser, 
Thumb, and Dieterich, a sketch of the Koiné 
appears in Moulton’s Prolegomena (ch. 2), and 
Robertson’s large Grammar of the Greek N T (ch. 3). 


II. THe SEpruaGInr. 

10. Relation to the Koiné. There is no ‘Biblical’ 
Greek, as the older grammarians spoke of it. 
There is a Greek Bible, but it is written in the 
current Koiné, as one would have expected. It is 
true that the Septuagint is translation Greek, and 
inevitably shows marks of the Hebrew idiom. The 
work shows varying degrees of merit, because it was 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Greek Language 


not all done by one man, nor at one time. There are 
crudities in it, like goouat &3dvar, ‘I shall give,’ Ta 
5 15. But in the main the translation is into the 
vernacular Koiné of Egypt. Most of the pecu- 
liarities of the vernacular Koiné appear in the 
Septuagint, as can be seen in Thackeray’s A Gram- 
mar of the O T' in Greek (Vol. 1, Introduction, Ortho- 
graphy and Accidence, 1909) and Helbing’s Gram- 
matik der Septuaginta (Laut- und Wortlehre, 1907). 
These two volumes enable one to see the relation 
between the Septuagint and the Koiné. Swete’s 
Introduction to the O T in Greek (2d ed., 1914) is still 
exceedingly useful, as his edition of the Septuagint 
in three volumes (1887-94) is indispensable. The 
Selections from the Septuagint (1905) by Conybeare 
and Stock have a grammar that is antiquated in its 
outlook. The Concordance to the Septuagint by 


’ Hatch and Redpath (1897) is very helpful, as is the 


larger Cambridge edition of the Septuagint. Ott- 
ley’s Handbook to the Septuagint (1920) is one of the 
best of the recent monographs. 

11. Relation of LXX. tothe N.T. The relation be- 
tween the Septuagint and the Greek of the N T is 
brought out from the old standpoint by Hatch 
(Essays in Biblical Greek, 1889), from the transi- 
tional standpoint by Kennedy (Sources of N T 
Greek, 1895), and from the new point of view by 
Deissmann (Philology of the Greek Bible, 1908) and 
by Psichari (Hssaz sur le grec de la Septante, 1908). 
There is no denying the real influence of the Greek 
of the Septuagint upon the writers of the N T. Over 
half the quotations in the N T are from that trans- 
lation. Luke, who was a Greek, used the Septuagint 
to such an extent that his own style bears marks of 
its idioms even when he is not using Semitic sources, 
like roocébeto teftoy néudaer (Lk 20 12). After a 
knowledge of the ancient Greek is obtained, the 
best equipment for the study of the Greek N T is 
reading in the papyri and in the Septuagint. Thus 
one will get the real linguistic atmosphere that reap- 
pears in the N T. 


Il. Toe New TEestaMent. 


12. Recent Contributions to Study of the Greek 
of the N T. Deissmann published his Bvrbel- 
studien in 1895 and Neue Bibelstudien in 1897. 
An English translation of these two books in 
one volume entitled Bible Studies was made by A. 
Grieve, and published in 1901. Here for the first 
time was presented definite proof that the Greek of 
the Bible is the current Koiné, that of the last three 
centuries B.c. for the Septuagint, of the first cen- 
tury A.D. for the New Testament. There had been 
anticipations of this view before, especially by 
Lightfoot in 1863. But it is Deissmann who has 
proved the point beyond controversy. In 1908 
Deissmann produced Licht vom Osten, Das Neue 
Testament und die Neuentdeckten Texte der Hellen- 
istisch-Rémischen Welt, which was translated by 
Strachan and appeared in 1910 as Light from the 
Ancient East. By 1923 Deissmann had thoroughly 
revised this valuable work which appeared in its 
‘Vierte, villig neubearbeitete Auflage mit 83 Abbil- 
dungen im Text.’ 

The contribution of Deissmann was mainly in the 
sphere of lexicography. James Hope Moulton was 


Greek Language 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


316 





the first to make detailed application of the new 
discovery of Deissmann to the grammar of the Greek 
New Testament. In 1901 he began to publish in 
The Classical Review and in the Expositor, ‘Gram- 
matical Notes from the Papyri’ which attracted 
attention by their freshness and scholarly insight. 
In the same year appeared Thumb’s Die Griechische 
Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus which enabled 
New Testament scholars to make use of the new 
knowledge of the Koiné. In 1906 appeared Moul- 
ton’s brilliant Prolegomena, Vol. I of A Grammar of 
N T Greek, which reached the third edition by 1908. 
Moulton fell a victim to a submarine attack on his 
return from India in 1917. However he had nearly 
finished Vol. II (Accidence), and made a beginning 
on the syntax. Prof. W. F. Howard is editing and 
continuing his work. Two parts of the second 
volume have been published (1919-20), and the 
third part on word formation is now practically 
ready. The third volume on syntax is still to 
appear. In 1911 L. Radermacher published his 
Neutestamentliche Grammatik, with many fresh 
illustrations from the papyri and later Greek writers. 
In 1908 the Short Grammar of the Greek N T by A. T. 
Robertson appeared (sixth edition, 1923). It has also 
been translated into four foreign languages (Dutch, 
French, German, Italian). In 1914 Robertson’s 
Grammar of the Greek N T in the Light of Historical 
Research was published. In 1923 the fourth edition 
appeared, the third having been thoroughly revised 
and considerably enlarged (LXXXVI, 1454 pages), 
with statistical tables by H. Scott. These modern 
grammars give the Greek of the N T as the current 
Koiné of the 1st century a.p. In 1921 A. Debrunner 
published the fifth, carefully revised edition of F. 
Blass’ Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 
in which the work of that famous classicist is revised 
in the light of the papyri without changing the 
fundamental standpoint. No new English edition 
of Blass’ Grammar of N T Greek (tr. by Thackeray) 
has appeared since 1905. 


13. The ‘Hebraistic’ Element in N T Greek: (a) 
The End of the Controversy between Purists and 
Hebraists. No longer does any scholar hold that the 
Greek of the New Testament has to be literary 
Attic. No more can one say it is intensely He- 
braistic, except in the Apocalypse of John, which 
Charles, Revelation of St. John, p. exliii, holds to 
be ‘absolutely unique’: ‘While he writes in Greek, 
he thinks in Hebrew.’ It is certain that Moulton, 
Prolegomena, p. 8, underrates the Hebraisms in the 
Apocalypse of John, but it is equally clear that 
Charles overrates them. .The explanation of the 
peculiar phenomena in the Apocalypse lies in the 
undoubted Hebraisms plus the rough and more or 
less uncouth vernacular Koiné, as the papyri amply 
illustrate. But no one claims that the Greek of the 
New Testament is a peculiar dialect of Greek. In 
fact, there are many differences of style in the 
writers, as one would expect. The phrase ‘Biblical 
Greek’ now only means the Greek of the Biblical 
books, as one would speak of the Greek of Plato 
or of Thucydides. It is only just to say that Winer’s 
Grammatik desneutestamentlichen Sprachidioms (1822. 
@ Aufl. by Liinemann, 1867), which was translated 


by W. F. Moulton (8rd ed., 1882), and by Thayer 
(1869), has served well the generations before the 
new discoveries. It is now out of date. The late 
H. Scott, of Birkenhead, insisted that Buttmann’s 
Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Sprachgebrauchs 
(1859. Translated by Thayer, A Grammar of the 
New Testament Greek, 1880) is a better grammar 
than that of Winer. But it also is out of date. 
Schmiedel began a revision of Winer’s work, but has 
published nothing of it since 1894. 

(b) Some Semitic Influence. Deissmann and 
Moulton at first admitted such influence only in 
‘translation Greek’ from Semitic sources. But this 
was going too far, as Deissmann in particular soon 
saw. ‘There is ‘translation Greek’ in the N T be- 
yond a doubt. We see it in the Hebrew and Aramaic 
proper names that are transliterated into Greek. 
The Aramaic words given in Mk like tade0é, xobu 
in 5 41 are translated also as td xop&ctoy, gyerpe. It 
is plain that Jesus usually spoke Aramaic when with 
those who understood it. The Gospels have trans- 
lated these Aramaic sources and naturally bear some 
marks of translation. But Jesus also spoke Greek 
at times, for Palestine was a bilingual country and 
people who would not understand Aramaic flocked 
to hear him from Decapolis, Perea, Tyre and Sidon. 
In Jerusalem Paul spoke both Greek and Aramaic 
(Ac 21 37, 40). All the writers of the N T were Jews 
except Luke. They would naturally read Hebrew 
and often quote from the Hebrew O T, tho usually 
from the Septuagint translation. But the constant 
reading of that intensely Hebraistic translation 
would influence to some extent the style of those 
who read it. That is seen particularly in the Gospel 
of Lk, who, tho a Greek and able to write an intro- 
duction to his Gospel in literary Koiné on a level 
with the introductions of Thucydides and other 
Greek writers, yet at once reveals the Semitic 
influence of his source, whether oral or written, for 
the Infancy Narratives (1 5-2 52). The same thing is 
true of the early part of Ac, whether we accept or 
not C. C. Torrey’s idea of an original Aramaic 
document for these chapters. But Lk has occa- 
sional Hebraisms in his free composition, due, 
probably, to constant reading of the Septuagint 
(Septuagintisms). A distinction must be made be- 
tween Aramaisms and Hebraisms (see Robertson’s 
Grammar, pp. 102-105). 


14. Chiefly Vernacular Koiné. There is a literary 
element in the N T, as Heinrici has shown, (Der 
literarische Charakter der neutestamentlichen Schrift- 
en, 1908). Luke himself is a man of scholarship 
(cf. Robertson, Luke the Historian in the Light of 
Research, 1920), and is familiar with the literary 
art of his time. Paul is also a man of culture, 
whether or not an actual student of the University 
of Tarsus. The Epistle to the He is more like the 
literary Koiné throughout than any other book in 
the N T, tho the Epistle to Ja has a certain literary 
finish. The Fourth Gospel seems in the Prolog to 
show knowledge of gnostic teaching, tho Burney, 
The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922), 
argues that the book was originally written in 
Aramaic. But there is no real support for the view 
of Blass that the N T writers were conscious 





317 


imitators of the professional rhetoricians with their 
artificial linguistic devices, (Die Rhythmen der 
astanischen und rémischen Kunstprosa, 1905). 
The papyri prove conclusively that the New Testa- 
ment writers as a rule used the vernacular Koiné 
of the time. It was dignified language, not the lan- 
guage of the street, but the speech of men in dead 
earnest on the highest of themes. There is eloquence 
in Paul’s Epistles, as in I Co 13 and 15 and Ro 8, 
but it is not the studied phrasing of Demosthenes 
or of Lysias, but the rhythm of a soul on fire and in 
tune with the Infinite God. There is something in 
the distinction of Deissmann between letters and 
epistles, the one familiar and free for private use, the 
other more formal and for public use, Bible Studies, 
pp. 3-59; Light from the Ancient East, pp. 217-238. 
But he overdoes the distinction when he insists 
that even Ro is a letter, not an epistle. It is not 
too much to say that the Koiné was better suited 
to be the permanent storehouse of the N T than 
the ancient Attic or any of the other dialects. Pre- 
cisely because it was a world speech adapted to 
people of all races and degrees of culture it is suited 
for the world to-day. It was written in the language 
of life and gripped the hearts of men of the first 
century, as it still holds the heart of the world. (See 
ch. 4 of Robertson’s large Grammar, ‘The Place of 
the N T in the Koiné.’) 


15. Peculiarities of N T Greek. (a) Individual 
Peculiarities. It is not necessary to have a special 
grammar on each of the N T writers, in spite 
of the good work done by Abbott, Johannine 
Vocabulary, (1905); Johannine Grammar (1906), 
which reflects little of the new learning, but 
shows much careful research. Nageli has begun a 
study of Paul’s vocabulary, Der Wortschatz des 
Apostels Paulus (1905), and J. Weiss has a keen 
discussion in Beitrége zur paulinischen Rhetorik 
(1897); Vogel also has a good treatment of Luke’s 
style in his Zur Charakteristik des Lukas nach 
Sprache und Stil (1899), while Cadbury’s Style and 
Literary Method of Luke (1920) concerns mainly 
his vocabulary as bearing on his use of medical 
terms. But each writer does have his own style, as 
is true of any group of great writers upon any great 
theme. They all wrote the language of life. Some 
were men of the schools, and others were éyedéupator 
“at (8:atat, ‘unlearned and ignorant’ (Ac 4 13). 

(b) Latinisms. It is natural that some Latin words 
should appear in the New Testament, such as 
proper names, military terms, court procedure, 
names of officials, and designations of money. 
There are more of them in the Gospel of Mark than 
elsewhere, tho not an excessive number there. This 
book is sometimes called the Roman Gospel. There 
are a few Latin idioms that reappear in the New 
Testament, as in the Koiné (see Robertson’s 
Grammar, p. 109). 

(c) Christian Contribution. It was once thought 
that Christianity called for the invention of a vast 
humber of new words to express the new message. 
We now know, thanks to the papyri, the inscrip- 
tions, and a fuller knowledge of current Greek 
writings, that this is not true. As a rule, the teachers 
of the Gospel employed the language of their day, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Greek Language 


but charged the words with new meanings. Paul and 
other early Christians took words like xJetoc, 
gwtye, utd¢ 8c00, used in flattery in the emperor 
cult, and boldly applied them to Jesus (See 
Wendland, Hellenistisch-rémische Kultur (3 Aufl., 
1912). ‘There are only fifty Greek words in the 
New Testament not yet found elsewhere. That 
number will probably be much reduced. But later 
Christian writers enriched the Greek vocabulary, 
especially in compounds and new meanings, as 
one sees in Sophocles’ Greek Lexicon of the Roman 
and Byzantine Period (1888), and Goodspeed’s 
Index Patristicus (1907), and his Index A pologeticus 
(1912). 

16. Need of a New Lexicon. The needs of students 
have still to be supplied in some respects by the 
Thayer-Grimm Greek-English Lexicon of the N T 
(second edition, 1890), which has none of the new 
lexical help from papyri and inscriptions. Souter’s 
Pocket Lexicon of the Greek N T (1916) is a handy 
statement of the results of modern research.’ Abbott- 
Smith’s Manual Greek Lexicon of the N T (1922) is 
much fuller and makes careful use of the Septuagint, 
as well as of the papyri and inscriptions. There is 
great help to be found in Moulton and Milligan’s 
Vocabulary of the Greek N T Illustrated from the 
Papyri and other Non-literary Sources of which five 
parts (1914, 1915, 1919, 1920, 1924) have appeared. 
Cremer’s Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch was re- 
vised by Kégel (10 Aufl., 1912), but without any 
great change in standpoint. There are also recent 
lexicons in German by Preuschen (1910), and by 
Ebeling (1913). Preuschen’s work is characterized 
by Deissmann as ‘a regrettable backward step,’ but 
the inclusion of the primitive Christian literature 
makes it useful in that direction. 

The vast and growing literature of the subject has 
been sufficiently presented in the body of this article. 


IV. Spectan CHARACTERISTICS OF 
THE KOINs. 

17. Nouns. The dual number has disappeared 
entirely in both nouns and verbs. There are still 
five distinct case endings, while modern Greek has 
only three, but the vocative has already been largely 
displaced by the nominative, while the prepon- 
derance of the dative case is due entirely to the 
excessive use of the preposition é¢v. The use of the 
accusative has increased. ei¢ is found for éy, as in 
Jn 118, and we often find reéc¢ ce for cot. The great 
extension in the use of the genitive absolute is a 
noteworthy feature. In the papyri it is often used 
for a series of statements covering several lines, 
and it occurs in the N T where in classical Greek 
there would be assimilation to a noun or pronoun in 
another part of the sentence, as in Mt 81, 9 18. 

18. Pronouns. Personal pronouns are used in 
abundance, as in the colloquial style of all languages, 
and therefore lose something of their emphasis. The 
special pronoun of the third person 04, ot, é, plural 
ogetc, is not used at all. The reflexive éautod, is 
used frequently in the plural for the first and second 
persons as well as the third, and in the accusative 
plural sometimes stands for the reciprocal é\A%- 
Rous, I Co 67; Col 316. The indefinite relative Sott¢ 
appears only in the nominative case and the 


Greek Language 


Greek Religion A NEW STANDARD 


accusative neuter, except for the phrase gw¢ érou, 
but in these forms is frequently used for the simple 
relative 6s; Mt 7 26; Lk 24; Ac 85, 1210; I Jn 12. 
The dual interrogative métepo¢ has disappeared 
with other duals, and ti¢ is used in its stead, Mk 29. 

19. Adjectives. In the adjective also the dis- 
tinction between duality and plurality has largely 
disappeared, 7.e., in comparisons the comparative 
and superlative forms have not both maintained 
themselves, and it is largely the superlative that is 
lost. The careful footnotes in the R V to such pas- 
sages as Mt. 181 and I Co 13 13 are a work of super- 
erogation. There are still examples of the superla- 
tive in its absolute sense, corresponding to the 
English ‘very.’ 

20. Verb. The process of assimilation had been 
goingoninthe verb. The yu verbs were passing over 
gradually into the w class, a process which has been 
completed in modern Greek. We find for toryut 
two w forms, that in -~w and a new formation in 
-avw. Instead of dbvauat, Sbvacat, etc., there often 
appears Sbvouat, ddvn. In the compounds of tne 
we have many cases of the w forms. And there are 
sporadic occurences in many other of the yt verbs. 
With the second aorist we find increasingly the «, ¢ 
endings which are proper to the first aorist. The 
optative mode had always been a luxury, little used 
in the vernacular, and entirely gone in modern 
Greek. In the N T it occurs 67 times, but 59 of 
these occurrences are in two writers, Luke and Paul. 
The disuse is more marked in the N T than in the 
Sept. The so called periphrastic tenses, made up 
of a participle and the present and imperfect forms 
of eiul, are largely used. In the syntax of the verb 
perhaps the most striking thing is the development in 
the use of tvz, which is no longer confined to pur- 
pose clauses, but is used with great frequency to 
introduce substantive clauses giving the content of 
a preceding statement, where in classical Greek 
there would have been an infinitive. A good illus- 
tration is Jn 17 3. 

21. Prepositions. More and more it came to be 
felt that prepositions were needed in addition to the 
case forms in order to make the meaning clear. But 
there was another tendency—to use each preposition 
with a fewer number of cases. perk, meef and bx6 
are not found with the dative in the N T, and xpé¢ 
is found rarely with anything but the accusative. 
éxt is the only preposition which is still thoroughly 
at home with all the cases. 

22. Particles and Connectives. The great wealth 
of particles which is so characteristic of Attic 
Greek has been largely lost. The use of paratactic 
instead of hypotactic construction, so characteristic 
of the N 'T, was formerly thought to be a Hebraism. 
Now it is recognized as merely the loose putting 
together of ideas which is common to the vernacular 
of all languages. For the use of the negative a fair 
working rule is that od is used with the indicative 
and yw with all other parts of the verb; tho od is 
found with the participle 16 times in the N T. 

A. T. R. (§§ 1-16, mainly)—E. C. L. (§§ 17-22). 


GREEK RELIGION . 1. General Characteristics. 
Greek Religion was the expression, esthetically, 
morally, and intellectually, of a gifted race, and, 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 318 


like themselves, a fusion of Nordic, Aryan, and 
Mediterranean cultures. It was marked by freedom 
from tradition; the absence of sacerdotalism, fanati- 
cism, and proselytism; by fluidity of dogma; an 
immense variety of cults, due to local worships and 
to the failure of the Greeks to attain nationalism, 
and yet bearing a certain common Hellenic char- 
acter; by a closer association with art than any other 
religion ever secured. It abounded in etiological 
myths, and by means of allegorization, it displayed 
an extraordinary power of adaptation. It moved 
between the poles of anthropomorphic polytheism— 
the strongest religious bias of the Greeks, which 
made their religion rich in humanized persounalities— 
and a monistic pantheism, which always fascinated 
Greek thought. It was on the whole a bright re- 
ligion, Apollo, the ever-youthful and shining one, 
being, perhaps, its characteristic divinity. The. 
Greeks were never a ghost-ridden people, like the 
neighboring Semites and Romans, until they fell 
under the spell of Oriental polyd#monism in the 
Greco-Roman period. Their religious history 
extends over a period of two thousand years, during 
which it passed, without violent cataclasms, through 
an evolution in consonance with the education and 
refinement of the Greek spirit. This evolution may 
be thus sketched: 


2. Pre-Homeric Period. This comprises mainly 
the second millenium B.c., during which the Greeks 
themselves were in the making. The preanthropo- 
morphic and aniconic (7.e., worship without temple- 
images, but in fetishistic objects like the tree, tree- 
trunk, wooden pillar, and detylus or stone-pillar) 
hardly concerns us. The Aryan invaders entering 
the Balkan peninsula from the North had already 
arrived at the conception of some common prominent 
personal divinities, such as Zeus, Poseidon, and 
Apollo, when they confronted the Mediterranean 
stock in Crete and the Agean islands. It is also 
reasonable to assume that they had, like their 
Eastern Aryan cousins, evolved one supreme personal 
Sky-God. And tho female deities, and even the 
Mother or Earth-goddess, are of Aryan origin, the 
male deity held premier place among the Aryans 
when they came into contact with an advanced 
Minoan-Mycenean culture in which the female 
deities were prominent, e.g. the ‘Mother’ goddess 
of Crete, and which probably gave to the invaders 
Athena, Artemis, Aphrodite. Ritual had already 
been so specialized as to require priesthoods. This 
period presents a cruder side in traces of therio- 
morphism (e.g., Apollo Lykeios of Argos) or even 
theriolatry, beside anthropomorphism, the practise 
of magic, polydemonism, or functional-deities, 
animism, human sacrifices, and of hero-cults which 
assumed such proportions in later paganism. These 
more primitive views manifested a wonderful per- 
sistence. 


3. The Homeric Religion, well-known to us in the 
Homeric poems and works of Hesiod, which repre- 
sent a religion of the beginning of tne first millen- 
nium B.c. In it anthropomorphism has ripened into 
an advanced polytheism: the Gods of the Greek 
pantheon have become clear concrete individuals in 
a nominal hierarchy under Zeus (Jupiter), ‘Father of 


319 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Greek Language 
Greek Religion 





Gods and men,’ with some vague demones and dark 
underworld powers. They are elevated human be- 
ings with passions and jealousies. Yet the concep- 
tion of morality is growing apace, as evidenced in the 
increasing hesitation to ascribe base conduct or acts 
of injustice to deity. The relations of men to deity 
are on lines of reward and retribution, and are on the 
whole genial. The sacrifice is not a bribe but a 
ritual act of communion. This classic religion did 
not dwell on the thought of an afterlife, or continuity 
of moral existence, except for egregious sinners and 
heroic saints. The lowliest lot here was preferable 
to the shadowy existence in the realms of Death. 
And the divinities of the underworld, such as 
Demeter, are beneficent vegetation powers. 


4. Post-Homeric, 9th to middle of 7th cent., dur- 
ing which (a) image-worship has definitely super- 
seded the aniconic cult or fetish agalma, and flowered 
into a full-blown idolatry intensifying the anthropo- 
morphic polytheism. (b) The rise of the polis or 
city-state, with a political religion fostering civic 
virtues, in which the religious unit was the state 
rather than the individual, the latter joining in the 
cult not primarily for the good of his soul but for the 
health of the state with which were inextricably 
bound his weal and wo. (c) The coming of Diony- 
sus-cult from the North, Thrace and Macedonia, 
which, probably as early as the 10th cent., began to 
penetrate the peninsula, and later forced its way 
into Thebes and Athens, and secured the sympathy 
of the Delphic oracle, was an epoch-making event 
in Greek religion, not only as the first introduction 
of the ecstatic and mystic element into the West, 
with a warmer and emotional faith, but because 
this cult was the first to offer an eschatology. It 
was the first sponsor of the idea of sacramental grace 
to the West and of a revolutionary conception of 
communion with deity by identification or diviniza- 
tion; as a corollary it demanded an esoteric worship. 
It also presented a new idea of divine personality 
both in its vagueness and in its facility for incarna- 
tions. In the heart of the ritual stood the birth and 
passion of the deity,—prophetic of much religious 
thinking for the coming centuries. The Dionysiac 
cult was also the harbinger of a non-political religion, 
which Orphism iater developed. (d) The rise of the 
Delphic oracle, which, through its priesthood, played 
a momentous part in that Greek colonization which 
changed the character of the Mediterranean world, 
in its coordinating influence on Greek polytheism, 
in developing to a certain extent a Greek conscious- 
ness of nationality, in the extension of moral ideas 
and political justice, in appointing penalties for 
crime and exacting a katharsis for homicide. By 
its vacillating policy in the struggle with Persia and 
the suspicion of ‘Laconizing’ in the Peloponnesian 
war, the oracle lost its prestige, which it never 
recovered save for a brief period in the early Chris- 
tian centuries. (e) The Eleusinian Mysteries, 
originally a local secret society for agrarian purposes, 
became part of the Athenian state-religion of the 
incorporation of Eleusis with Athens in the 8th cent. 
Through the coming of Demeter, the association of 
Iacchos and his consequent identification with 
Dionysus, and the wise policy of the Pisistratids in 


the 6th cent., these Mysteries became pan-Hellenic 
and of the loftiest spiritual value. Already in the 
7th cent. the Hymn to Demeter indicates their high 
prestige. In later centuries they became ecumenical, 
and Eleusis ‘a common sanctuary of the whole 
world’ (Aristides). They proved to the later Greco- 
Roman world one of the chief supports of the hope 
of immortality. ‘Thanks to the lovely Mysteries 
given us by the gods; Death is for us mortals no 
longer an evil but a blessing’ is the testimony of an 
inscription unearthed on the spot. 


5. The great Revival of the 7th-6th centuries, as- 
sociated with the name of the legendary Orpheus. 
Orphism introduced a note of mysticism which re- 
sounds to this day in the religion of the West. It 
proclaimed for the first time in the West the doctrine 
of a fall, with the stain of original sin, the divine 


origin of the soul, the duality of man’s nature as 


compact of Dionysiac or heavenly and Titanic or 
evil elements, the necessity for purity here in order 
to escape the cycle of reincarnation, and an awful 
Purgatory hereafter. The chief services of Orphism 
were the substitution of personal religion for political 
religion, and its unambiguous protest against gentile 
religion—prophetic of the coming era of individual- 
ism; the consequent founding of those religious 
guilds which, from the days of Alexander, have been 
the greatest religious momenta in history, with their 
voluntary spirit and the duty of self-diffusion; the 
refining, and adaptation to the Greek mind, of the 
orgiastic Dionysiac cult; and the strong hope of a 
blessed hereafter, which appealed to Plato, furnish- 
ing him with arguments for the eternity of the soul 
in the Phedrus. 


6. The Period of Enlightenment, as it may be 
termed, overlapping the close of the previous period 
and extending to the middle of the 4th cent. The 
cramping authority of the polis provoked the inevit- 
able reaction. The chief factors of disintegration 
were the Ionian philosophy in the 6th cent. and the 
Sophists and the Peloponnesian war in the 5th. An 
antidote to the mystic spirit of Orphism was sup- 
plied by the rise of European speculative thought in 
Tonia, which affected Greek religion by drawing the 
attention from political to physical science, by ad- 
umbrating a unitary principle which was to contri- 
bute to the monistic or pantheistic monotheism of 
latest Greek thought, and by disputing the regnant 
anthropomorphism by the juxtaposition of a meta- 
physical power or spiritual principle. It saved 
Greece from falling a prey to the sacerdotalism 
threatened by Orphism, and secured for her the 
brilliant career in philosophy which the mysticism 
of Orphism would have rendered impossible. The 
Sophists questioned all authority, and by their 
skeptical and eristic doctrines undermined accepted 
epistemology. By their theory of relativity they 
were the apostles of that ubiquitous individualism, 
so marked a feature of later Greco-Roman religious 
life. Thus they weakened the polis-civilization. 
Finally, the Peloponnesian war exposed the weak- 
ness and perils of the city-state with a political 
religion. The Greek drama of the 5th cent. was one 
of the potent educative forces of the Greek spirit. 
#eschylus probed the dark problem of Fate and 


Greek Religion 
Guest 





moral responsibility. Sophocles presented not only 
the all-seeing justice of the Deity but equally his 
mercy, and did for the Greeks what the author of 
Job did for the Jews in demonstrating the moral, 
and not merely retributive, meaning of human suffer- 
ing. Euripides was the prophet of a new age of 
criticism of traditional polytheism, of the demand 
that the gods should justify their ways to men, of a 
comprehensive humanitarianism which could feel 
the agony of captive Trojans, and of a deeper insight 
into ethical purity. Plato—still one of the unspent 
spiritual forces of the world—presented a view of the 
spiritual and ideal world which can never be lost to 
mankind. For him man is ‘a heavenly plant and not 
of earth,’ the ‘spectator of all time and all existence,’ 
for whom the only reality lies in the ideal and hea- 
venly things, of which the things of earth are but 
faint copies, and of which the soul, by its divine 
origin, possesses an innate knowledge, whereby it is 
ever seeking to detach itself from sense to escape to 
its homeland. The moral life of man is a gigantic 
conflict, for ‘fair is the prize, and the hope great, and 
the venture glorious.’ Touched by the mystic spirit 
and other worldliness of the Orphic faith Plato made 
‘the noblest single offering that human reason has 
yet laid on the altar of human hope.’ 


7. The Greco-Roman Period, which may be 
dated from Alexander to Plotinus, or to the closing 
of the schools of Athens by Justinian. (a) Alexander 
produced as great a revolution in religion as in 
politics. By his far-sighted policy of the ‘marriage of 
East and West’ he promoted that active theocrasia 
or syncretism in religious matters which gave the 
Oriental religions a firm foothold in the West and 
proved a potent factor in early Christianity. By 
making all members of one empire he necessitated 
the rise of a universal religion. His striking per- 
sonality gave a fresh impetus to apotheosis and pre- 
pared the way for the imperial cult which challenged 
Christianity. By releasing men from the polis- 
religion he opened wide the way for personal religion, 
which gave the mightiest impulse to those thiast or 
religious brotherhoods in which the voluntary prin- 
ciple of worship has operated to our day. (b) The 
Oriental Mystery-Religions, some of which had more 
than a century previously gained a footing on Greek 
soil, entered upon their long career, in the course of 
which they imposed on the West a new conception of 
religion. They banded men together in Thiasi which 
broke down gentile barriers: they were the precursors 
of the house-churches of primitive Christianity, and, 
together with the synagog, they offered the New 
Society a useful mode of organization. They were 
also the main exponents of the impulse toward per- 
sonal religion with its craving for union with God. 
Synchronously, the Greek Mysteries of Eleusis 
gained rapidly in influence from the 4th cent., and a 
more sympathetic hearing was given to the Orphic 
gospel. (c) The monistic principle gained ground 
and worked toward an abstract monotheism or at 
least monistic pantheism. Aristotle had shrewdly 
remarked that the religion of a state takes its charac- 
ter from the polity, which held true of the polis- 
civilization, and holds true also for the empires of 
Alexander and of the Romans. One visible ruler on 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


320 
| 
| 
earth rendered inevitable one God in the Universe. 
Consequently the deities of various pantheons were 
identified, as ‘One is Zeus, one Serapis, one Mithras,’ 
or even a §e65 tkvOeog was posited, or a supreme God 
chosen and the epithet pantheus assigned to him. The 
highest form of this monotheism found expression in 
the philosophic idea of one divine principle, the One 
or All, and in the imposing solar cult so conspicuous 
in the Christian centuries. (d) The Chthonian 
deities loomed larger beside the Ouranian or Hea- 
venly deities owing to the increasing interest in 
eschatology and the collapse of the polis, which had 
kept these primitive cults submerged. There are 
traces of the Chthonian cult in the earliest forms of 
polytheism, but it is only in later literature that the 
cult becomes prominent. These Underworld deities 
were gods of vengeance, to whom sacrifice was a 
bribe. They are dark nameless powers without the 
individuality of the Upper-world personalities, and 
generally addressed in euphemism, as e.g., ‘Gracious 
Ones.’ In sacrificing to them the head of the victim 
was bent down over a pit which received the blood 
from the severed throat, and the offering was en- 
tirely devoted as a holocaust. For the Olympians 
(or Heavenly gods) the victim was raised up from 
the ground on a high altar, his head bent toward the 
heavens, and thus slain; a portion of the sacrifice was 
burned to the deities. (e) Closely associated with 
this resurgence of Chthonic ideas was the increasing 
vogue of hero-cults, or worship of the dead, the ritual 
of which was shaped after that of the Chthonians, 
and which was not without influence on the early 
Christian attitude toward saints and martyrs. (f) 
The demonic powers, which in earlier stages had 
but little terror for the Greek mind, became more 
tyrannous, causing resort to magic, exorcism, evoca- 
tion, and similar unspiritual practises. One of the 
most welcome notes in the Evangel of Jesus to the 
Greco-Roman age was his conquest over the hier- 
archy of demons, who had crucified ‘the Lord of 
Glory’ (I Co 2 8), but whose act proved their own 
undoing in that God triumphed over them in the 
Cross (Col 2, 14, 15). (g) Astralism, the religion of 
Astrology, thoroughly terrified the ancient world, 
and shackled it in the chains of a determinism which 
enervated the moral initiative. Escape was sought 
in communion with the Mystery-gods, in a solar 
monotheism which astonishes moderns by its 
religious fervor, in magic, and by many in Jesus 
from whose love ‘neither the Ascension of the stars, 
nor their Declinations shall separate’ (Ro 8 39). 
(h) Mention should be made of the remarkable 
demand for Savior- or Healing-Gods and the evolu- 
tion of the idea of a Man-God, both conceptions so 
relevant to Christian history, and corresponding to 
the felt need for a divine sympathia and for an 
epiphany or humanizing of the Divine. This ac- 
counts for the astonishing fact that the obscure 
Thessalian earth-demon, Asklepius became the 
Healer and Savior, the ‘greatest lover of men,’ whose 
cult contributed to the salvationist terminology of 
Christianity, and whose figure, perhaps, suggested 
the model for the gracious 4th or 5th cent. figure of 
Christ. The Mystery-Gods were likewise Savior- 
Gods, into the fellowship of whose sufferings the 


$21 A NEW STANDARD 


initiate entered by sacrament. (i) Plotinus (3d cent. 
A.D.) may be taken as representing the last phase of 
Greek religion: his words on his death-bed at 
Puteoli—‘I am striving to restore the Divine within 
us to the Divine in the All,’ as the swan-song of 
Hellenic religion. It has been given to few to explore 
so profoundly the spiritual nature of man, to live so 
consciously in communion with the Unseen, or to 
recognize more clearly the value of religious ex- 
perience for philosophy. In his religious thought he 
draws together many of the syncretistic tendencies 
of the centuries after Alexander, and expresses the 
last hope of Greek religion as ‘the flight of the Alone 
to the Alone.’ 

8. Greek Religion and Christianity. Yet Greek 
religion did not perish. It was disintegrated to 
reintegrate and bequeath its timeless truth to 
Christian theology. The Greeks consecrated their 
unique genius to Christ—an epochal event for our 
faith, contrasted with the failure of Mithraism to 
secure Greek loyalty. Platonism has become one 
of the richest strains in the interpretation of the 
religion of Jesus, whereby that religion has so per- 
manently laid hold of the West. Through such 
Christian writers as Clement, Origen, Augustine, 
Pseudo-Dionysius, and the Hellenist, Philo of 
Alexandria, the perennial in the faith of Greece has 
become ours, especially that idealism which is so 
consonant with Jesus’ view of human nature; its 
mystical tendencies; the dynamic conception of the 
Logos-Christology; and that view of immortality 
which bulks so largely in historic Christianity beside 
the realistic Judaistic eschatology. If Augustine has 
been the most formative of our Western theologians 
Plotinus was the most formative influence for 
Augustine, who cites with approbation the words of 
his master: ‘“‘we must fly to that dear, dear Father- 
land; there is the Father, there the All . . . to be 
Godlike.”’ 

LirERATURE: V. Macchioro, Zagreus, Bari (1920); Orfismo e 
Cristianesimo, 721; E. Rohde, Psyche, 6th and 7th ed. (1921); 
Die Religion d. Griechen (1901). Chantepie de la Saussaye, 
Manuel d’Histoire des Religions, (1904). J. Toutain, Les 
Culies paiens dans l’ Empire rom., (1911-20); Adam, Religious 
Teachers of Greece, (1908); E. Caird, The Evolution of Theology 
in the Greek Philosophers, (1904); L. R. Farnell, Outline Hist. 


of Greek Religion, (1920); Higher Aspects of Greek Religion, 
(1912); Art. ‘Greek Religion’ in ERE, Vol. VI, (1914). 
S. 


GREEK VERSIONS OF O T. See Versions. 

GREEN. See Cotors, § 3. 

GREET, GREETINGS. See Saturs, Satura- 
TION. 

GREYHOUND. Sce Patsstine, § 24. 


GRIEF. See in general Mournina Customs. 
GRIND, GRINDING. See Mit. 


GRINDERS: In Ec 12 3 the Heb. term téhdndoth is 
a fem. participle plural. Women were accustomed to 
grind the meal in the Hebrew home, often accom- 
panying their work with song (cf. ver. 4). The ex- 
pression is used here (probably in a figurative way) 
for the molar teeth, apt to fall out in old age. 
K. E. N. 


GROSS: ‘Waxed gross’ is the translation in Mt 
13 15; Ac 28 27 of the Gr. raydvery (‘to make thick’ or 


Greek Religion 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Guest 


‘fat’). The N T passages are both quotations (after 
the LXX.) of Is 6 9, where the Heb. has a similar 
meaning. The same Heb. expression is found else- 
where in the O T (Dt 3215; Neh 9 25; Jer 5 28), always 
meaning that prosperity had rendered the people so 
satisfied that they cared nothing for the higher moral 
or spiritual ideals. E. E, N. 


GROUND: In most cases this word renders ’ddhd- 
mah (generally meaning ‘cultivated ground,’ e.g., 
Gn 2 5), or ’erets, ‘earth,’ or ya, ‘earth,’ or ‘ground.’ 
Other terms so rendered are: (1) helqah, ‘portion’ 
(II S 23 12 AV); (2) hdarish, ‘plowing’ (I S 8 12); 
(3) ‘aphar, ‘dust,’ or ‘soil’ (Job 14 8); (4) sddheh, 
‘open country,’ ‘field’ (Gn 33 19; Jos 24 32; 1S 14 25; 
I Ch 1113 AV); (5) g3ag0c, ‘bottom,’ ‘base’ (Ac 
22 7); (6) ESeatwua, ‘stay,’ ‘support’ (I Ti 3 15); 
(7) xmea, ‘place’ (Lk 12 16); (8) xwelov, dim. of (7) 
(Jn 4 5); (9) &yedc, ‘field’ (Lk 1418 AV); (10) yauat, 
adv., ‘to the ground’ (Jn 9 6, 18 6). In Lk 19 44 
‘ground’ does not represent a separate Gr. word, 
but is involved in the verb édagitetv, from g8agog; 
see (5), above. EK. E. N. 


GROVE. See Semitic Retiaion, § 11. 


GUARD: The rendering of several Heb. and Gr. 
terms: (1) fabbah, ‘slaughterer,’ used only of three 
foreigners (Potiphar in Gn 37 36, etc.; Nebuzaradan 
in II K 265 8, etc., and Jer 399, etc., and Arioch in 
Dn 2 14). The Heb. term is perhaps not an exact 
reproduction of the Egyptian or Babylonian origi- 
nals, tho the ‘chief of the slayers’ may well have been 
an official who was entrusted with the duty of guard- 
ing the royal person and of ‘slaughtering’ any one 
who attempted the king’s harm. (2) rats, ‘runner,’ 
used of Hebrews themselves in I and IT K and II Ch. 
These ‘runners,’ or trusted foot-soldiers, stood close 
to the king and performed various functions. Their 
‘chief’? was doubtless an officer of rank. That they 
were a ‘body-guard’ in the strictest sense is not cer- 
tain. David, e.g., had a special guard of foreigners 
(Cherethites and Pelethites; cf. II S 20 23, 23 23, 
where mishma‘ath, not riits, is used). (3) mishmdar, 
‘watch’ (Neh 4 22 £.; Ezk 387). (4) On Ac 28 16; 
Ph 1 13, see Prwrortum. (5) The xouctwila, 
‘guard’ RV, ‘watch’ AV of Mt 27 65 f., is somewhat 
difficult to explain. It may refer to the Temple 
guard that under a Roman officer kept charge of the 
high-priestly vestments (see Jos. Ant. XV, 11 4). 
(6) In Mk 6 27 cxexovAdtwe, a Roman military term, 
means here probably one of the officers at hand ready 
for any duty the king might demand. E. E. N. 


GUARDIANS. In Gal 4 2 RV renders éxitpoxor 
by ‘guardians’ in place of the AV ‘tutors.’ The legal 
system which Paul had in mind (whether Jewish, 
Greek, Roman or some other) is not certain, but the 
general sense of the reference is perfectly clear (cf. 
Burton in ICC., ad loc.). 

GUDGODAH,  god-gio’da (77973, gudhgddhah): 
A station on Israel’s march from Kadesh to Moab, 
probably somewhere in Edom (Dt 107). 

GUEST, GUEST-CHAMBER: (1) The rendering 
of the Heb. q*ri’im, ‘invited ones’ in I K 1 41, 49; 
Pr 9 18; Zeph 17. (2) Present participle of dvaxel- 
oOat, ‘to recline at table’ (Mt 2210f.). (3) Aor. infin. 
of xat«Advety, ‘to lodge’ (Lk 197 AV, ‘gone in to 


Guile 
Hadad 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


322 


Spear nnn nN noe 


lodge’ RV). (See Hosprrauiry.) The larger houses 
had a guest-chamber (Mk 14 14; Lk 22 11; 1S 9 22, 
‘parlor’ AV). O58.) 
GUILE: In general this word conveys the same 
meaning in Biblical usage as elsewhere (Ex 21 14; 
Ps 3413; Jn 1 47), z.e., the quality, or act, of conceal- 
ing one’s true intention and producing a misleading 
impression. It is named as something to be depre- 
cated and avoided, except in II Co 12 16, where it is 
used in a good sense. A.C. 
* GUILT, GUILTINESS, GUILTY: (1) These 
words in most cases render derivatives of the root 
’shm (verb: ‘to be for feel] guilty’; noun: ‘guilt’ 
[‘guiltiness’ Gn 26 10]; adjective: ‘guilty’). In AV 
the word ‘trespass’ is frequently used to render 
these terms, also ‘desolate’ (Is 24 6; Hos 13 186), 
‘faulty’ (II S 1413), and ‘offend’ (Jer 2 3). (2) The 
Heb. rasha‘, ‘wicked,’ ‘godless,’ is also so rendered 
(Nu 35 31; Ps 1097, ‘condemned’ AV). (3) gvoxos, 
‘held in,’ ‘subject to,’ ‘liable’ (Mk 3 29, ‘in danger of? 
AV, 14 64 and ||, ‘worthy of’ RV; I Co 11 27; Ja 210). 
(4) On Mt 23 18 and Ro 319 cf. RV. E. E. N. 


GUILTLESS: This word renders: (1) the Heb. 
nagqah (vb.) and ndqi (adj.), the root idea being ‘to 
empty’ (as a vessel, by pouring out its contents), 
and hence ‘to cleanse,’ or purify (Nu 3 22; Jos 2 19, 20, 
‘quit? AV; II S 3 28, 149). (2) dvatttoc, “free from 
legal blame,’ from the negative a(ay) and atria, ‘legal 
cause for complaint’ (Mt 12 5, 7, ‘blameless’ AV in 


v. 5). E. E. N. 


HAAHASHTARI, hé’s-hash’ta-rai, (YON), 
ha@’ dhashtari): A descendant of Judah (I Ch 4 6). 

HABAIAH, hab-é’ya (730, habhadyah), ‘J’’ hides’: 
The ancestral head of a priestly family whose 


members could not establish their genealogy (Ezr 
2 61, called Hobaiah in Neh 7 63). 


HABAKKODK, ha-bak’vk or hab a-xok (P1P30, 
habhagqtiq), either from habag, ‘to embrace,’ or cog- 
nate with Assyr. hambukiku, the name of a plant 
(Delitzsch, Proleg. 84): 1. The Prophet. A pro- 
phet of Judah, probably a resident of Jerusalem. All 
that is known of him is to be found in the book 
which bears his name. All other alleged information 
is valueless. In the aporcyphal story of Bel and 
the Dragon he is said to have been of the tribe of 
Levi. One rabbinical legend identifies him with the 
son of the Shunammite widow whom Elisha restored 
to life (II K 416), another with the sentinel referred 
to in Is 21 6. 

2. The Book and its Contents. The Book of 
Habakkuk (‘the burden which Habakkuk the 
prophet did see’) is mainly concerned with the men- 
ace to the national existence of Israel presented by 
the rapid development of the Chaldean power. Its 
three chapters present the thought of the reality and 
greatness of this danger and its meaning. In the 
first, the prophet expresses his personal distress 
upon realizing the condition of things. The thought 
is cast into the form of a complaint to J’’ (1 2-4), to 


GUILT-OFFERING. See SacriricB AND OF- 


FERING, § 9. 
GULF. See Escuato.oey, § 38. 


GUNI, gii’nai ("23, guint): 1. The ancestral head 
of the clan of Gunites, of the tribe of Naphtali 
(Gn 46 24; Nu 26 48; I Ch 713). 2. The head of a 
Gadite family (I Ch 5 15). 


GUR, gor (713, gir), ASCENT OF: A place near 
Ibleam where Ahaziah, King of Judah, was wounded 
(II K 9 27). Site unknown. 


GUR-BAAL, -bé‘al (793 7%3, gar ba‘al), ‘dwelling 
of Baal’: An unidentified place, probably somewhere 
in Edom, inhabited by Arabians (II Ch 267). The 
true reading may be tar-ba‘al, ‘rock of Baal,’ as sug- 
gested by MSS. of the LXX. and the Vulgate. 

' E. E. N. 


GUTTER: 1. The word rahat, so translated in Gn 
30 38, 41, is much better rendered ‘trough’ as in Ex: 
216. The addition ‘in the watering-troughs’ (v. 38) 
is probably in apposition, 7.e., explanatory of the 
preceding term. 2. In IIS 58 RV has ‘watercourse’ 
for ‘gutter’ AV. The text of the verse is corrupt and 
the sense impossible to make out. It is not known 
what is meant here by the term tsinnor. Cf. the || 
text in I Ch 11 6, and consult Driver, HTS?, pp. 
259-261, and also PEFQ (1924) on the new light on 
II S 58 from the recent excavations at Jerusalem. 

K. EB. N. 


H 


which J” is represented as making the reply that the 
Chaldeans are raised up by Himself (1 5-11). The 
prophet responds with a declaration of his satisfac- 
tion; for if this is the case, it can mean no permanent 
evil, and the explanation of the evil conditions must 
be found in the sin of Judah, which demands a visi- 
tation of judgment (1 12-27). The second chapter 
opens with the preliminaries of a new vision (2 1-3), 
proceeds to a description of the Chaldean’s greed 
and violence (2 4-8), records three woes against him 
because of his ‘evil gain’ (vs. 9-11), because he ‘build- 
eth a town with blood and establisheth a city by 
iniquity’ (vs. 12-14), and because he ‘giveth his 
neighbor drink’ (vs. 15-17), and ends with a denunci- 
ation of the vanity of his idolatry (2 18-20). The 
third chapter, entitled ‘A prayer of Habakkuk,’ is 
a psalm of praise to J’’ and of confidence in His pur- 
pose to deliver His people (3 1-19). 


3. Literary Form. The literary form of Habak- 
kuk is striking, if not unique, among the prophetic 
books. The prophet casts his thought into a dra- 
matic representation, with J’’ and himself as the 
speakers. And both in conception and expression 
the result is highly poetic. In ch.3 especially there is 
a lofty tone and a rhythmic flow quite up to the 
standard of the best Hebrew poetry. 

4. Unity. The question of importance for the 
proper understanding and use of the Book is that of 
its unity: (1) Some scholars believe that the three 
parts belong to three different settings and authors, 





323 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Guile 
Hadad 





of which only the first is traceable to H. (Kuenen). 
(2) Others hold that the first and second parts are a 
single composition by H., but that the third is a 
later production. And (3) a third group assigns the 
whole to H. The reasons for dividing the book into 
three separate sections are not very strong, and its 
advocates are constrained to admit that they can 
only establish a high degree of probability. The 
reasons for detaching ch. 3 and ascribing it to a later 
date are: the lack of a definite setting for it, such as 
the rest of the book reflects, and a certain difference 
of style and temper. In the first two chapters H. 
addresses God as an individual; in the third he puts 
a prayer in the mouth of the people. Moreover, in 
form and content there are strong resemblances be- 
tween ch. 3 and some exilic psalms, leading to the 
conclusion that this poem is excerpted from an exilic 
liturgical collection and attached to the prophecy 
of H. (Wellhausen, Nowack, Cornill, Cheyne). Of 
these considerations the last offers the greatest 
cogency and pertinence. The alleged lack of defin- 
ite setting is a purely negative condition on which no 
conclusion can be based. Upon the whole, the reas- 
ons for doubting the integrity of the book are un- 
satisfactory and many of the most competent schol- 
ars (Ewald, Kénig, Sinker, Kirkpatrick, and Von 
Orelli) believe in its unity, while many others de- 
clare in favor of the verdict ‘not proven’ (Driver, 
G. A. Smith). 

5. The Text. The condition of the Hebrew text 
of H. is not satisfactory; in fact, in many places it is 
hopelessly corrupt 

6. The Date. The date of the prophecy has been 
generally fixed between 625 and 600 B.c. This was 
the period of the rapid progress of the Babylonians 
toward supreme power under Nebopolassar and his 
more illustrious son Nebuchadrezzar. The Chal- 
deans had captured Nineveh in 612. In 604 they 
had overwhelmingly defeated the Egyptian army led 
by Pharaoh Necho at Carchemish (Jer 46 2). From 
that day onward it was only a question of time as 
to when they should become complete masters of 
Western Asia. Altho they did not actually invade 
Judea until the year 601, it is probable that the 
prophecy was uttered in in view of the time expec- 
tation of their coming somewhat before that year. 
Literature: Duhm, Das Buch Habakkuk (1906); Budde, 

St. Kr., 1893, LX, p. 383 ff.; and Expositor (1895), p. 372 ff.; 

G. A. Smith, Ezpositor’s Bible, The Book of the Twelve 

Prophets (1898), IJ, p. 113 ff; W. H. Ward in ICC (1911); 


Stonehouse, The Book of Habakkuk (1910); Geof. Gordon, 
An Interpretation of Habakkuk (1916). Ft Oh 


HABAZZINIAH, ha”baz-i- or  hab’a-zi-nai’a 
(N3¥30, hdbhatstsinyGh, WHabaziniah AV): A 
Rechabite (Jer 35 3). 


HABERGEON, hab’ar-jan or ha-bir’ji-on. 
ARMS AND ARMoR, § 1. 


See 


HABITATION: The rendering of a number of: 


Heb. and Gr. terms. (1) z*bhdl, ‘dwelling’ (cf. 
Zebulun, Gn 30 20) (II Ch 6 2; Is 63 15; Hab 3 11; 
Ps 49 14, ‘dwelling’ AV). (2) tirah, ‘encampment’ 
(Ps 69 25). (3) shebheth (inf. construct of ydshabh, 
‘to seat oneself,’ ‘to dwell’) (I K 8 13; Ps 33 14; Jer 
9 6; Ob ver. 3). (4) mdshabh (also from ydshabh) 
(Gn 36 43; Lv 13 46 AV; Ps 107 4 RV, etc.). (5) 





makhon (from kin, ‘to be upright,’ ‘firm,’ or ‘fixed’), 
a ‘place,’ or ‘foundation’ (Ps 89 14, 97 2; cf. RV; 
Is 45). (6) mkhirah, ‘descent,’ or ‘origin’ (Ezk 
2914 AV; cf. RV). (7) mekhérah, of uncertain mean- 
ing (Gn 49 5 AV, ‘swords’ RV). (8) md‘én and m*- 
‘onah, ‘dwelling’ (Dt 26 15; II Ch 30 27, etc.; I Ch 
441 AV, ‘Meunim’ RV). (9) shakhan, ‘to dwell,’ and 
mishkan, ‘dwelling-place’ (Dt 125; II Ch 296, etc.; 
Ps 132 5 AV, ‘tabernacles’ RV). (10) ndweh (fre- 
quently in the pl. n’’dth), the feeding- and resting- 
place of the flocks, hence ‘pastures,’ ‘folds’ and then, 
of men, ‘dwelling,’ etc. (Ex 15 13, etc.; Job 5 24, and 
Jer 25 37 AV, ‘fold’ RV; Ps 797, and Pr 24 15, ‘dwell- 
ing-place’ AV; Jer 9 10, 50 19, and Am 1 2 AV, ‘pas- 
tures’ RV; Ps 83 12, ‘houses’ AV). On Ex 15 2 ef. 


RV. (11) éxavrr¢ (Ac 1 20, the Gr. rendering of (2), 
above). (12) cxyvn, ‘tent,’ Lk 16 9, ‘tabernacles’ 
RV. (18) xavorxfe (Ac 17 26), olxntjerov (II Co 


5 2, ‘house’ AV; Jude ver. 6), xatotxytyeroy (Eph 
2 22; Rev 18 2), all derived from oixfa, ‘house.’ 
(14) oxqyvwua (Ac 7 46 RV; cf. IT P. 113 f.) 

E. E.N. 

HABOR, hé’bér (7137, habhor): A tributary of 
the Euphrates, on whose banks some Israelites, de- 
ported during the reign of Hoshea, were settled by 
Sargon (722-705 s.c.) (II K 17 6, 18 11; I Ch 5 26). 
Others had been taken to the same region by Tiglath- 
pileser III (745-727). The stream is identified with 
the Habur of the Assyrians (COT, II, p. 267) and 
the Chaboras of classic literature (not to be confused 
with Chebar, q.v.). / Oh BAYA: 

HACALIAH, hak’e-lai’a (M920, hdkhalyah, 
Hachaliah AV): The father of Nehemiah (Neh 1 1, 
10 1). 

HACHILAH, ho-kai’la or hak’i-la (7122, hakhi- 
lah: A hill near the wilderness of Jeshimon, in the 
wilderness of Ziph (I S 23 19, 261 .). Map II F 3, 
but the exact location is unknown. 


HACHMONI, hak-m6’nai or hak’mo-nai (1235, 
hakhm6ni), ‘the wise’: The father of Jehiel (I Ch 
PARRY DS 

HACHMONITE, hak’mo-nait (222, hakhmé6ni): 
In I Ch 11 11 Jashobeam, one of David’s heroes, is 
said to be ‘the son of a Hachmonite.’ In the || 
II S 23 8 the word is ‘Tahchemonite,’ which is prob- 


ably an error for ‘Hachmonite.’ See JASHOBEAM. 
KE. E. N. 
HADAD, hé’dad (715, hddhadh), name of an 
Aramean god, see Semitic Reuiaion, § 30. 1. 
A son of Ishmael, also spelled Hddhddh (Gn 25 15; 
I Ch 1 30). 2. An early king of Edom, son of 
Bedad (Gn 36 35f.; ICh1 461.), who smote Midian 
in the field of Moab. His city was Avith. 3. 
The last in the list of the kings of Edom (I 
Ch 1 50 f.=Hadar, Gn 36 39). He was perhaps 
slain with his family by Joab, captain of 
David’s host (I K 11 15). His city was Pau. 4. 
An Edomite of royal line, perhaps grandson of 3. 
He escaped from Joab to Egypt, and received favors 
from Pharaoh. After the death of Joab and David, 
and probably toward the end of Solomon’s reign, 
he returned to Edom and troubled Israel (I K 11 
4 ff.). Cosi. 


Hadadezer 
Haggai 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


$24 





HADADEZER, had”a-di’zar (WYT19, hadhadh- 
‘ezer), ‘Hadad is help’: A king of Zobah, near 
Damascus (II § 8 3-12; I K 11 23=Hadarezer, IIS 
10 16, 19; I Ch 18 3 f., 19 16, 19). After his defeat 
by David, the Syrians of Damascus came to aid him, 
and were defeated and made tributary. At another 
time he joined the Ammonites and Syrians against 
David (II S 10 16), and was defeated at Helam. II 
S83 and 1015 f. suggest that he was ruler over an 
extended Aramaic kingdom, but this is uncertain. 

ASML, 

HADADRIMMON, hé’dad-rim’an (O75, hd- 
dhadhrimmén, corapounded of two names of divini- 
ties, Zech 1211): The name, according to Jerome, of 
Maximianopolis, the modern Rummédne, near Me- 
giddo, where Israel lamented the death of King 
Josiah. Nowack, Handkom. ad. loc, and others 
find here the name of a god (Adonis?) whose death 
islamented. Cf. W. R. Smith, Religion of the Sem- 
ites?, 411. Ga Shs bb 

HADAR, hé’dar. See Hapap. 

HADAREZER, had’ar-i’zar. See HAapDADEZER. 

HADASHAH, ha-dash’a or had’a-sha (TVD, 
hdadhashah,) ‘new’ (town?): A town of Judah (Jos 
15 37). Site unknown. 

HADASSAH, hoa-das’a. 
§ 6. 

HADATTAH, ha-dat’a. See Hazor-HADATTAH. 

HADES, hé’diz. See Escuarouoey, §§ 17-21, 34. 


HADID, hé’did (71, hddhidh): An ancient site 
not mentioned in the preexilic books (but found on 
Egyptian inscriptions of the 16th cent. B.c.), tho 
recolonized by postexilic Jews (Ezr 2 33=Neh 7 37, 
11 34) and later fortified by Simon Maccabeus (I 
Mac 12 38; here called Adida). See Map III, D 5. 

EK. E. N. 

HADLAI, had’lé-ai or had’lé (2°10, hadhlay): The 
father of Amasa (II Ch 28 12). 

HADORAM, ho-do’ram (87179, hddhdram), 1. 
The son of Tou (Toi II S 89 Ff. [here the form is 
Joram]): King of Hamath, sent to King David by 
his father on a congratulatory embassy on the occa- 
sion of his victory over Hadadezer (I Ch 18 10). 
2. For H in Gn 10 27, see ErHNOGRAPHY AND 
Eruno.ocy, § 13. 3. For H. in II Ch 1018, see 
ADONIRAM. 
~ HADRACH, had’rek or hé’drak (JV, hadh- 
rakh): Only in Zec 91, as the name of a land against 
which a prophetic burden is declared. The context 
determines the region to be a portion of Syria and 
its capital, Damascus. It is associated with Ha- 
math, Tyre, and Sidon. It was the same as the 
Assyr. Hatarakka or Hatarakka (cf. COT, II, p. 
453). A. C. Z. 

HAGAB, hé-gab (42, haghabh), ‘grasshopper’: 
The ancestral head of a subdivision of the N ethinim 
(Ezr 2 46). 

HAGABA, HAGABAH, hag’a-ba, hag’a-ba (830, 
1230, hdghabha’, haghabhah, variant forms of Ha- 
gab): The ancestral head of a subdivision of the 
Nethinim (Ezr 2 45=Neh 7 4s). 


See Estumr, Boox or, 


HAGAR, hé’gar (2, haghar, Agar AV, in N T), 
meaning uncertain; the root means possibly ‘to 
flee’; cf. the Arab. Hegira, the ‘flight’ of Mo- 
hammed: The name of Sarai’s handmaid, the 
mother of Ishmael. The story of H. is told both in 
J and HE, with some additions in P. The story in J 
(Gn 16 1b, 2, 4-14) relates how the childless Sarai 
gave H., her Egyptian (mitsrith) handmaid, to 
Abram, hoping thereby to obtain children. But the 
insolence of H. offended Sarai, who treated her so 
harshly that she fled to the desert. Here an angel 
appeared to her near a well and comforted her by the 
promise that her seed should be very numerous, told 
her to name the child soon to be born Ishmael, and 
indicated beforehand his character. In gratitude 
she named the well Beer-lahai-roi (q.v.). In obe- 
dience to the angel, she returned to Sarai (16 9, 
which may be editorial, to harmonize J with E). 
In E (Gn 21 8-21) the story follows much the same 
fundamental outline. Ishmael, a child still quite 
young (cf. vs. 14 #f.), playing about on the occasion 
of the feast celebrating the weaning of Isaac, aroused 
Sarai’s jealousy, who demanded the expulsion of 
the ‘bondwoman’ H. and her child. Abraham, 
loath to consent, does this only in obedience to a 
Divine command. With a bit of provision H. was 
sent away the next morning into the wilderness. 
Here she and the child were saved from dying of 
thirst by an angel of God, who showed her a well 
and also promised that her son should be the father 
of a great nation. 

The additions of P (Gn 16 1a [?], 3, 15 £.) are chrono- 
logical notices fitting the stories into P’s chronologi- 
cal scheme. 

The two accounts of J and E are so similar in their 
main points that it seems probable that they are 
both based upon the same group of legendary or tra- 
ditional materials connected with early (and now un- 
known) tribal movements, which resulted in the 
formation of closely related tribal groups (Isaac, 
Ishmael). H. is called an ‘Egyptian,’ but the 
adjective mitsrith may possibly refer to Mutsri—a 
N. Arabian locality. H. (viewed as a tribe) may 
also have some connection with the HE. Jordan 
Hagrites, or Hagarenes (I Ch 5 10, 19-21; Ps 83 6). 
The story as now found in Gn emphasizes the Divine 
selection of and special providence over Isaac 
(Israel), and at the same time reveals a broad sym- 
pathy for other tribes (Ishmael), for whom there is 
also a place in the same providential care. 

Both Jewish and Mohammedan speculations have 
indulged in many fancies concerning H. (cf. Ryle 
in HDB s.v.). Even Paul does not hesitate to 
allegorize (in rabbinical fashion and largely on the 
basis of a late but incorrect interpretation of the 
Heb. mé*tsahéq ‘playing’ which was understood as in- 
dicating ‘mocking’ as in AV, cf. RVmg.) the story 
for an illustration in his argument in Galatians 
(4 21-31). See Skinner in JCC. Genesis, ad loc. 

E. E. N. 


HAGARENES, hé’ga-rinz or hag’s-rinz. See 
Haar. 

HAGGAI, hag-ga’ai (20, haggay), ‘festal’: A 
prophet by whom, with his fellow-prophet Zech- 


325 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Hadadezer 
Haggai 





ariah (q.v.) the returned exiles were aroused to 
the duty of rebuilding the Temple and encouraged 
in bringing the difficult task to completion. Such 
is the statement in Ezr 4 24-5 2 (=I Es 5 73b-6 2), the 
late when the work was begun being the 2nd year 
f Darius (Darius I), z.e. 520 B.c. 

Fortunately, this brief mention of H. in Ezr is 
supplemented and the full significance of H.’s mes- 
sages made more clear by the small collection of at 
least some if not all of those messages in the little 
book known as The Book of Haggai, one of the 
twelve so called ‘Minor Prophets.’ 

According to the Book of Haggai the prophet, 
on the Ist day of the 6th month of the 2nd year of 
Darius (=some time in Aug.-Sept. of 520 B.c.), de- 
livered an oracle in the name of J” to Zerubbabel the 
governor and Joshua the high priest, rebuking the 
people (‘this people’) for not building J’”s house, and 
giving this as the reason for the drought and other 
misfortunes from which the community was suffer- 
ing. The two leaders were stirred to action and the 
work was begun. Other messages followed, the last 
one, the 5th in the entire series, being delivered on 
the 24th day of the 9th month of the same year 
(Dec. 520 B.c.). 

From these messages we may gain a fairly close 
view of some of the reasons and motives that were 
operative in the work of building the second Temple. 

The first message 1 2-11 (6th mo. Ist day) would 
seem to indicate that the duty of building the Tem- 
ple had been before the community forsome time 
but had been neglected, the people having time and 
means for their own private houses, but letting the 
house of J’ lieinruins. But when drought and mis- 
fortune came the prophet found his opportunity 
to declare that they could not expect J’”’s blessing 
unless they built His house. Let them start to 
build and J” will bless them (1 8). The response 
seems to have been immediate (1 12-14) and the pro- 
phet cheered Zerubbabel and Joshua with the assur- 
ance that J’’ was with them as they undertook the 
difficult task. 

The next word of the prophet is probably to be 
found in the misplaced passage 2 15-19, which, with 
Rothstein, we would connect with the date given 
in 1 15 (which as the text stands now is a mere date 
with no message attached). This message, deliv- 
ered on the 24th day of the 6th month (reading 
‘sixth’ instead of ‘ninth’ in 2 18) was one of further 
encouragement. It was on that day that the foun- 
dation stone of the new building was laid and the 
prophet made bold to promise that from that day 
J’’sblessing was assured. These strong assertions 
probably imply that some of the community had 
misgivings as to the success of the undertaking. 
About a month later (7th mo. 21st day, the last day 
but one of the Feast of Tabernacles) a still bolder 
word was uttered by H. (21-9). That house might 
seem unworthy of comparison with the beautiful 
Solomonic Temple of preexilic days, but it was des- 
tined to have a greater glory. J’’s decisive day is 
soon to come. The ‘nations’ are to be ‘shaken’ and 
their treasures brought to this house. So let all 
work that the house may be completed and the great 
blessing come. The ‘shaking’ of all the nations had 


some reference probably to the great revolt in the 
Persian Empire which Darius was engaged in sup- 
pressing. 

The work was being pushed as rapidly as possible 
and soon attracted the attention of the ‘people of the 
land’ that is the non-Jewish population in the terri- 
tory of the old Northern Kingdom of Israel. These 
people, of mixed race, partly old Israelitic stock and 
partly ‘heathen’ (cf. IIT K 17 24-41; Ezr 4 9b.) pro- 
fessed to worship J’’ (the ‘God of the land,’ II K 
17 26). They now came forward with an offer to 
help in building the Temple of J” (zr 41-2. The 
notice here is correct but it 1s out of place, as are 
other sections in Ezr. It is evident that it was not 
as ‘adversaries’ but as friends that they made the 
offer. The author of Ezr calls them ‘adversaries’ 
(by anticipation). Should the offer be accepted? 
If it were, the ‘holiness’ of the community would be 
violated for those people were ‘unclean’ from the 
strict legalistic point of view (as set forth, e.g. by 
Ezekiel). On the other hand, to refuse it would be 
to incur the hostility of these neighbors and place 
the community in a dangerous situation. The 
stricter party were for refusal and in this they 
were supported by Zechariah in his first message 
(8th month Ist [?] day) cf. Zech 1 1-6, and by H. 
who on the 24th day of the 9th month uttered what 
seems to have been the decisive word (2 10-14) in 
which he declared that ‘this people,’ ‘this nation’ 
(i.e. those who were making the offer) were unclean 
and would contaminate the holy community. The 
offer was therefore refused (cf. Ezr 4 3-5a; 5b gives 
a wrong date) with the result that the neighbors 
were turned from being friends into enemies (cf. 
Ezr 4 4-5. and 53 4.). It was a decisive day, this 
24th day of the 9th mo. 520 B.c. and none felt its 
significance more than H. His faith was equal to 
the emergency and in his last (recorded) word 
(2 20-23) he declares that J’’ will ‘overthrow the 
throne of kingdoms’ and makes bold to add that He 
will make Zerubbabel ‘a signet’ for ‘I have chosen 
thee, saith J’ of hosts,’ practically declaring Z. to 
be the head of the new age or in later terminology, 
the Messiah. 

In the revision of the present arrangement of the 
messages of H. the writer has been guided largely by 
the investigations of Rothstein (Juden und Samari- 
taner, 1908). There is no indication that the Book 
of Haggai was written by H. himself. It is evidently 
but a collection by some other and probably later 
person of H.’s messages. The dates attached ap- 
pear to be correct (except in 218) but through some 
mistake or accident the message in 2 15-19 got mis- 
placed and separated from 115, its date-heading. 

Nowhere else in the O T do we get such an insight 
into the spirit and motives and hopes that were em- 
bodied in the great effort of the weak community 
to build the Second Temple. The narrative in Ezr 
3 2-13 fits in admirably between H.’s first and third 
messages and it is from the Book of Haggai that we 
get the correct dating for this and other sections in 
Ezr. The compiler of Ezr was mistaken in thinking 
that the foundation of the Second Temple was laid 
immediately after the Return in 536 B.c. It was 
not until 520 B.c.—16 years after the first exiles 


Haggi A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Hamonah 


326 


LL 


returned—that they set themselves to the task of 
building the house. This explains the severity of 
H.’s rebuke in Hag. 1 2 f. 

It was essentially the Messianic hope that in- 
spired the building of the second Temple. Only if 
that house were built could the Jews expect the 
realization of J’’s promises of glory and prosperity to 
His people. This was H.’s conviction and it was 
this his faith that led him to make the promises he 
did. 

H. was of the school of Ezekiel. The principle 
of ‘holiness’ (the ‘holy’ community) and the all-im- 
portance of the Temple as J’”s house, as formulated 
by Ezekiel were guiding principles for H. 
Lirerature: Driver in LOT, Rev. ed. (1916); G. A. Smith in 

Exp. Bible (1908) ; Rothstein, Juden u. Samaritaner (1908) ; 

H. G. Mitchell, in ICC (1912). KB. E.N. 

HAGGI, hag-gai (20, haggt), ‘my feast’: The 
ancestral head of one of the clans of Gad, the Hag- 
gites (Gn 46 16; Nu 26 15). 


HAGGIAH, hag-gai’a (40, haggiyyah), ‘J’ is my 
feast’: A Levite (I Ch 6 30). 

HAGGITH, hag’gifh (130, haggith), ‘festive’: 
The wife of David and mother of Adonijah (II S 
3 4, etc.). 

HAGRI, hag’rai ("137, haghrt): 1. The father of 
Mibhar, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 38, Haggeri 
AV), but probably more correctly given in II S 23 36 
as ‘the Gadite.’ 2. Jaziz, the Hagrite, superin- 
tendent of David’s flocks (I Ch 27 30, 31, Hagarite 
AV). Both 1 and 2 may be explained by 3. 3. The 
Hagrites (I Ch 5 10, 19, 20, Hagarites AV; also 
Hagarenes, Ps 83 6, but RVmg. ‘Hagrites’), the 
name of a tribe with which the Reubenites waged 
war and from which they took spoils. Following the 
suggestion furnished by the name, the tribe was 
later derived by Jewish writers from Hagar. A 
similar, probably cognate, name appears in the list 
of Tiglath-pileser III (COT, IT, 32), and it is certain 
that such a tribe flourished in northern Arabia. 

A. Ged: 


HAHIROTH, ho-hai’reth. See Pi-HAHrRoTH. 
HAI, hé’ai. See Ar. 
HAIL. See Pauestine, § 19; and PLacugs. 


HAIR: Among the Hebrews black hair was 
common (Song 41, 511), and a luxuriant growth was 
considered a mark of beauty. Men wore their hair 
trimmed (Ezk 44 20), but not shaven, and the beard 
was carefully dressed. A few had long hair (Ab- 
salom, II S 14 28), which might be braided (Samson, 
Jg 1613, 19). Women wore the hair long (Song 41; 
I Co 11 15), but fastened in some way, often in 
artistic locks and coils (II K 9 30; Is 3 24). Baldness 
was a disgrace (II K 2 23; Is 3 24). Shaving the 
head was a sign of mourning (Jer 7 29; Am 8 10), 
which was forbidden in later times (Dt 14 1), 
as were also certain forms of cutting the hair 
(Ly 19 27; Ezk 44 20). In connection with the 
Nazirite vow, the hair was allowed to grow until 
the vow was accomplished (Nu 6 2, 5), when its was 
cut off and burned (Nu 6 18; cf. Ac 18 18, 21 24). 
The expression ‘a hairy’ man in II K 1 8 does not 
refer to the prophet’s person, but to his mantle, 


which in all likelihood consisted of undressed skin 
(cf. Gn 25 25; Zech 18 4). Crs. T: 

HAKKATAN, hak’a-tan (]9P1, haqgdtan), ‘the 
little one’: The father of Johanan (Ezr 8 12). 

HAKKOZ, hak’kez (Y1P7, haqgédts), ‘the thorn’ 
(?): 1. The head of a family of Judah (I Ch 48 Coz 
AV). 2. The ancestral head of the seventh course 
of priests (I Ch 24 10; Ezr 2 61; Neh 3 4, 21, 7 63, Koz 
AV). 

HAKUPHA, ha-kii’fa (82)P0, hdqipha’): The 
ancestral head of a subdivision of the Nethinim (Ezr 
2 51= Neh 7 53). 

HALAH, hé’la (120, hdlah): Sargon, after he had 
captured Samaria, transported the captive Israel- 
ites to Halah, and to the Habor, the river of Go- 
zan, and to the cities of the Medes (II K 17 6, 18 
11). There are several views as to the location of. 
Halah. (a) It has been identified with the Calachene 
of Strabo, a plain of N. Assyria, which lies to the 
E. of the Tigris. (b) Others regard it as the Hebrew 
name of Chalkitis in Mesopotamia, near the river 
Chaboras. A cuneiform inscription mentions a 
territory, Halahha, near Haran. ‘This points to the 
same region as Chalkitis. (c) The LXX. regards 
Halah as the name of a river of Gozan. The second 
view of its location is the most probable. J. A. K. 

HALAK, hé/lak (P27 777, hahar hehalag), 
‘the smooth (bare) mountain’: In Jos 11 171277 16 
is given as the southern limit of Joshua’s conquest. 
It has been identified with the white cliffs 8 m. S. of 
the Dead Sea, and also with Jebel Madara, SW. of 
the pass on the road between Petra and Hebron. 

GAG fei 

HALHUL, hal-hol (73920, halhul): A town in 
the hill-country of Judah (Jos 15 58). It is the 
modern Halhil, a well-situated village 4 m. N. of 
Hebron, on a hill just E. of the road to Jerusalem. 
A spring, rock tombs, and old walls are near at hand. 
Map II, E 2. Crena: 

HALI, hé’lai con, halt): A town on the border 


of Asher (Jos 19 25 ‘ Map IV, C 5. Identification 
uncertain. 


HALL. See Houss, § 6 (f); and Prerorium. 


HALLELUJAH, hal’’1-lu’ya, literally, ‘Praise 
Jah’: A liturgical ejaculation frequent in the last 
part of the Psalter. It occurs at the opening of 
eleven Psalms (106, 111, 112, 113, 117, 135, 146, 
147, 148, 149, 150), and at the close of thirteen (104, 
105, 106, 113, 115, 116, 117, 135, 146, 147, 148, 149, 
150). In all these cases it is probably not an integral 
part of the Psalms, but rather a traditional accla- 
mation used with them. From its occurrence the 
group Pss 113-118 was known as the Hallel (or 
Egyptian Hallelujah), which was regularly used at 
the celebration of the Passover, doubtless being 
the hymn sung at the institution of the Lord’s 
Supper (Mt 26 30; Mk 14 26). Another Hallel (the 
Greek or Great Hallelujah) included more or less of 
the group Pss 146-150, and part of it was sometimes 
added to the foregoing. Inthe N T the word occurs 
only in Rev 19 1-6 in the Greek form Alleluia, which 
has been extensively adopted in Christian liturgies 
and hymns. We SAP: 


327 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Haggi _- 
Hamonah 





HALLOHESH, ho-lo’hesh (¥1197, hallohésh, Ha- 
lohesh AV), ‘the whisperer’: The ancestral head 
of a postexilic family (Neh 3 12, 10 24). 


HALLOW, HALLOWED, THINGS: The Heb. 
terms so rendered are all connected with the root 
WIP, gadhash, which meant primarily ‘separation’ 
or ‘placing apart’ and (in its different forms) is most 
commonly rendered ‘holy,’ be ‘holy,’ ‘holiness,’ 
etc. A ‘hallowed thing’ was thus something set 
apart from ordinary to a sacred use. To ‘hallow’ 
a person or thing was to withdraw him, or it, from 
common occupations, or uses, to those of a sacred 
character (cf. Ex 20 11, 291; 1S 21 4, etc.) God’s 
name is to be ‘hallowed’ in that it is not to be 
treated as common, but with all due reverence (Mt 
69; Lk 112). See also Hoty. K. E. N. 


HALT. See DisEASE AND MEDICINE, § 6. 
HAM (81, ham): I. The younger son of Noah 


(Gn 9 24 RVmg.). The name has been derived from ° 


chem or keme (Egyptian for ‘black’). Ebers (Aegypten, 
I, p. 55) makes it refer to the:color of the soil. 
Others derive it from a Semitic (Late Heb.) root, 
him, ‘hot,’ relating the patriarch to the peoples of 
the warm southern countries in general. The later 
derivation seems better founded (cf. PRE, article 
Aegypten). See also ETHNOGRAPHY AND EvH- 
NOLOGY, §§ 5, 7, 12. 

II. 1. Poetically, Ham denotes Egypt (‘land of 
Ham,’ Ps 105 23, 27, 106 22, also ‘tents of Ham,’ 
Ps 78 51 [‘tabernacles’ AV], for the dwellings of the 
Egyptians). 2. A place where Chedorlaomer is said 
to have defeated the Zuzim (Gn 14 5); but since these 
are the same as the Zamzummim, who dwelt in the 
territory known as Ammon, it is safe to infer that 
Ham here stands for Ammon. A. C. Z. 


HAMAN, hé’mon (1217, haman), etymology doubt- 
ful: The prime minister and favorite of Ahasue- 
rus (Xerxes, 485-464 B.c.). He is one of the chief 
personalities in the story of Esther (3 1 ff.), and 
is represented as the great enemy of the Jews. 
He is also called an Agagite (Est 3 1, 10, etc.= 
Amalekite; cf. I S 15 8) in the Hebrew text, but a 
Bugean (in 9 24,a Macedonian) inthe LXX. There 
may be a suggestion in this of the enmity of the 
Macedonians for the Jews in the later age. In the 
feast of Purim the hanging of an effigy of Haman 
was a feature. See also Esrner, §6. A.C. Z. 


HAMATH, HEMATH, hée’math (090, hamath): 

Perhaps, to be distinguished from ‘Hamath the great’ 
(q.v.), a district lying on the SW. slope of Hermon, 
reaching at least as far as the Jordan to the W., and 
forming the boundary of Palestine and Israel to the 
NE. (Nu 348;1K 865; II K 14 25; Ezk 4716; Am 614). 
In the 10th cent. B.c. it was an Aramean kingdom, 
whose ruler To‘u, altho not joining in the league 
against Israel, became tributary to David (IIS 89 
f.; cf. I Ch 189). As the frontier of a rival people, 
its control was always aimed at by the powerful 
kings of Israel (II Ch 8 4; II K 14 28). See Winckler 
in KAT3, 182, 231 f., and Oriental. Forschungen, III, 
Heft 3 (1905). The common view is that this 
Hamath is to be identified with ‘Hamath the great,’ 
the modern Hama, which at the time of its greatest 


power controlled the territory as far south as the 
north border of Israel. See also ARAM, § 4 (4). » 
J. F. McC.—L. B. P. 


HAMATH (the Great), HAMATHITE, hé’math, 
hé’ma-fhait. See ARAM; and ErHNoGRAPHY AND 
ETHNOLOGY, § 13. 

HAMATH-ZOBAH, -z0’ba (731% NON, hamath 
tsdbhah), ‘fortress of Zoba’: A place in Syria con- 
quered by Solomon (II Ch 8 3), near Hamath and 
Tadmor. Co ne 

HAMMATH, ham’ath (N20, hammath), ‘hot 
spring’: I. The father of the house of Rechab 
(I Ch 2 55). II. A town of Naphtali (Jos 19 35), 
probably the well-known hot springs S. of Tiberias, 
the Gr. Emmaus, the modern Hiimmdm (Jos. Ant. 
XVIII, 2 3, “Avyalbotcs) =possibly Hammoth-dor 
(Jos 21 32), and Hammon (I Ch 676 [61]). C.S. T. 

HAMMEAH, ham’mi-a4, TOWER OF. See 
JERUSALEM, § 38. 


HAMMEDATHA, ham’’m1-dé’ tha (89797, ham- 
m*dhatha’): The father of Haman (Est 3 1, etc.). 


HAMMELECH, ham’‘i-lek (1227, hammelekh), 
‘the king’: So in Jer 36 26, 38 6 (AV), but RV reads 
simply ‘the king.’ 

HAMMER: The rendering of several Heb. words. 
(1) maggebheth, the hammer used by the carpenter 
or stone-mason (I K 67; Jer 10 4), or the smith 
(Is 44 12). It is also used of the mallet by which 
tent-pins were driven into the ground (Jg 4 21). 
(2) halmith, of uncertain meaning, the instrument 
used by Jael to slay Sisera (Jg 5 26; cf. Moore in Int. 
Crit. Com. ad loc.). (3) pattish, the large hammer of 
the smith (Is 41 7; Jer 23 29), used figuratively of 
Babylon, or Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 50 23). (4) 
kélappoth (pl.), probably a cutting implement like 
an ax, not a hammer (Ps 74 6). Een NS 

HAMMIPHKAD, ham-mif’ked, GATE OF. See 
JERUSALEM, § 38. 

HAMMOLECHETH, hom-mol’i-kefh (02207, 
hammdlekheth, Hammoleketh AV): Apparently a 
Manassite clan closely connected with the Gileadites 
E. of the Jordan (I Ch 7 18). 

HAMMON, ham’en (1190, hammén), ‘hot spring’: 
1. A border town of Asher (Jos 19 28), near Kanah, 
and therefore not far from Tyre. Unidentified. 
Evidence of a sanctuary of Baal Hamman has been 
found in two inscriptions at Khirbet Ummel ‘Amud, 
S. of Tyre. 2. A Gershonite Levitical city in Naph- 
tali (I Ch 6 76 [61]) =Hammoth-dor (Jos 21 32), and 
possibly Hammath (Jos 19 35). Cr, Sake 

HAMMOTH-DOR, ham’ath-dér’” (I8T An, 
hammoth do’r): A Levitical city of Naphtali (Jos 
21 32), apparently the same as Hammath (Jos 19 35) 
and Hammon (I Ch 676). Map IV, E 7. See also 
HAMMATH, 

HAMMUEL, ham’mu-el (78190, hammudl, 
Hamuel AV): The ancestral head of a Simeonite 
clan (I Ch 4 26). 

HAMONAH, ha-md’na (729, hdmonah, Ham- 
monah AV), ‘multitude’: The symbolic name for 
a city near the place where the armies of Gog were 





Speers A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 328 
to meet their fate (Ezk 39 16). It is not likely that | gatekeepers in Jerusalem (Neh 7 2). 3. A chief 


any actual city is referred to 
- HAMON-GOG, hé’mon-gog” (3 190, hamon 
gogh), ‘the multitude of Gog’: the valley, described 
quite specifically as ‘the valley of them that pass 
through on the east of the [Dead] sea’ (Ezk 39 11 ff.). 
It is likely that some actual valley, a thoroughfare 
between the regions E. and W. of the Jordan, is 
meant. The prophet uses it symbolically. It is to 
be filled with the dead bodies (of the hosts of Gog) 
and passage through it will thereby be blocked. 
The AV reading in ver. 11, ‘stop the noses,’ has no 
basis in the Heb. EH. E. N. 
HAMOR, hé’mér (1100, hdmor), ‘ass’: The 
name of a Hivite, ‘the father of Shechem,’ who along 
with his son was slain by the sons of Jacob for the 
wrong done their sister Dinah (Gn 34 2 #. Emmor 
in Ac716AV). Some maintain that under the guise 
of an incident in the life of two families, the story 
has embalmed an episode in the tribal relations of 
Israel with a Canaanite tribe, Hamor (a totem-clan, 
whose symbol was the ass). Another view identifies 
the sons of Hamor, the Hamorites, with the Amorites. 
ATG. 


HAMRAN, ham’/ren. See HEMDAN. 

HAMUEL, ham’yu-el or hoa-miii’el. 
MUEL. 

HAMUL, hé’mol (7191), hamil), ‘pitied’: The an- 
cestral head of one of the clans of Judah, the Ha- 
mulites (Gn 46 12; Nu 26 21; I Ch 25). 

HAMUTAL, hi-mi'tal (70307, hdmatal),‘my hus- 
band’s father is the dew’?: The wife of Josiah and 
mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah, kings of Judah 
(II K 23 31, 24 18; Jer 521). 


HANAMEL, han’s-mel (78220, hanam’al, Hana- 
‘meel AV), ‘God is kind’?: The cousin of Jeremiah 
from whom the prophet purchased an ancestral 
field, according to the law of redemption (Lv 25 25), 
in the faith that after God’s judgment had been 
visited on Jerusalem the land would again be in- 
habited (Jer 327 #.). The notice of the transfer of 
the deed is of archeological interest. E. E. N. 


HANAN, hé’nen (]39, hdndn), ‘gracious’: 1. A. 
Benjamite chief (I Ch 8 23). 2. A descendant of 
Saul (I Ch 8 38, 9 44). 3. One of David’s mighty 
men (I Ch 11 43). 4. The head of a family of the 
Nethinim, who returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 46; 
Neh 7 49). 5. One who assisted Ezra in explaining 
the Law (Neh 87), perhaps the same as Neh 10 10(11). 
6. One of the four treasurers in charge of the tithes 
(Neh 13 13). 7, 8. Two who ‘sealed the covenant’ 
(Neh 10 22 [23], 26 [27]). 9. A son of Igdaliah, and a 
‘man of God’ (prophet), whose sons had a cell in the 
Temple at Jerusalem (Jer 35 4). Chie i 

HANANEL, han’s-nel, TOWER OF. See Jerv- 
SALEM, § 38. 

HANANI, ha-né’nai (30, hdnanz), ‘gracious’: 1. 
A seer, father of Jehu (I K 161, 7; II Ch 19 2, 
20 34), who rebuked Asa for relying on Syria, and 
was cast into prison. 2. A ‘brother,’ or kinsman, of 
Nehemiah, who brought news of the fate of Jeru- 
salem to Susa (Neh 1 2), and later was over the city 


See Ham- 


musician who took part in the dedication of the wall 
at Jerusalem (Neh 12 36). 4. A priest who had 
married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 20). 5. A musician, 
son of Heman, in David’s service (1 Ch 25 4, 25). 
OF Ne 

HANANIAH, han’s-nai’a (720, hdnanyaha, 
M20, hdnanyah), ‘J’’ is gracious’: Fourteen per- 
sons bearing this name are mentioned in the O T. 
1. An officer under Uzziah (II Ch 26 11). 2. The 
father of Zedekiah, prince of Judah (Jer 36 12). 
3. A prophet of the popular party who publicly op- 
posed Jeremiah’s policy and contradicted his declar- 
ations regarding the outcome of the siege of Jerusalem. 
In his reply Jeremiah predicted the speedy death 
of H. (Jer ch. 28). 4. The grandfather of Irijah 
(Jer 37 13). 5. One of Daniel’s three companions 
(Dn 16 f., 217 f.). 6. A Hemanite musician (I Ch. 
25 4, 23). 7. A descendant of Banjamin (I Ch 8 24). 
8. A descendant of David (I Ch 3 19, 21). 9. One of 
the ‘sons of Bebai’ who had married a foreign wife 
(Ezr 10 28). 10. A perfumer of Jerusalem who helped 
repair the wall (Neh 3 8). 11. A son of Shelemiah 
who helped repair the wall (Neh 3 30). 12. An officer 
under Nehemiah (Neh 7 2). 13. A representative of 
a family of the same name who signed the covenant 
(Neh 10 23). 14. A priest (Neh 12 12, 41). 


HAND (7, yaddh) (figurative use): While ‘hand’ 
is one of the anthropomorphic expressions which 
abound in the O T, its figurative use is not con- 
fined to Divine actions and expressions. A lan- 
guage which possesses few abstract terms is com- 
pelled to use objective words for the wide range 
of ideas that come with changed conditions and 
growing civilization. Even in the Assyrian, idu 
means ‘strength’ and in the Hebrew, phrases like 
‘strengthen the hand’ readily pass into those in 
which the hand itself is a synonym for power: 
‘none of the men of might have found their hands’ 
(Ps 76 5). In Jos 8 20 ‘power’ is ‘hands’ in the He- 
brew; cf. also Lv 5 7, 11, where ‘means’ is literally 
‘hands.’ It is also rendered ‘dominion’ (II 8 8 3; 
I Ch 18 3). Closely connected with this use are the 
phrases in which the Lord’s hand is spoken of; it is 
‘heavy’ in chastisement (I S 5 6); it is strong to 
deliver (Ex 13 3, 14, 16); it is not ‘short’ (Nu 11 23); it 
is ‘stretched out’ (Is 5 25, etc.); it seizes upon the 
prophet in inspiration (Is 8 11); even its ‘shadow’ 
may be spoken of (Is 49 2). Other figurative uses 
are more akin to its physical meaning, as ‘side’ 
(I S 4 18), ‘direction’ (‘coast,’ Nu 24 24), special 
‘place’ (Dt 23 12; Nu 217). The Heb. word may also 
mean a ‘monument’ (I § 15 12), a share (Gn 47 24), 
or parts of objects, like an axletree and supports. 

Many prepositional phrases occur which are 
rendered literally into English, like ‘under the 
hand’ (Gn 41 35). Certain other Heb. words are 
rendered idiomatically by ‘hand’ in various com- 
binations in the AV, which are now obsolete or rare. 
There is also a wide range of emotional experiences 
in which the hand plays a large part—the hand that 
is waved in defiance, or pointed in scorn, that is 
raised in blessing, or extended for an oath, or that 
is laid upon the neophyte when inducted into his 


329 A NEW STANDARD 


duties, speaks where the voice is unheard, or has 
ceased forever. The narrative and poetic sections 
of the O T owe their dramatic power in no small 
degree to this. ‘A hand upon the throne of Jah’ 
(Ex 17 16 mg.) has all the significance of a gage of 
battle, and is as well an appeal that fears not to 
bring J’’ Himself into the fray. The priest who 
enters on his functions must have his ‘hands filled,’ 
Eng. ‘be consecrated’ (Ex 29 9; Jg 17 5)—whether 
with sacrificial portions, or priestly emblems, or the 
dignity of the office is uncertain. Washing hands in 
innocency, real or assumed, was a practised rite 
(Dt 21 6-8; Mt 27 24), and ministration to a leader 
could be symbolized by the phrase ‘pour water on 
the hands’ (II K 3 11). But ‘clean hands’ and a 
‘pure heart’ are correlative terms by which the 
citizen of Zion is distinguished from those who have 
not shrunk from touching the unclean thing (Ps 
24 4). For the late Jewish expression ‘defile the 
hands’ see O T Canon, §8ff. A.S.C.*—O.R.S. 


HANDBREATH. 
SURES, § 2. 


HANDKERCHIEF: The word so_ rendered, 
coudéetroyv (Ac 19 12), is a Lat. word, sudarium 
(from sudor, ‘sweat’), signifying a cloth for wiping 
off perspiration, or for similar purposes. The same 
word is rendered ‘napkin’ (Lk 19 20; Jn 11 44, 207). 
The word rendered aprons (ctutxivOre) in the same 
passage (Ac 19 12) is also a Lat. word, semicinctium 
(a ‘half-girdle,’ from semi, ‘half,’ and cingere, ‘to 
bind’), meaning a ‘small girdle’ and then applied to 
a cloth worn over the clothing to protect it and 
fastened, or girded, about the waist. In Gn 37 the 
Heb. word rendered ‘aprons’ means ‘girdle,’ on 
which see Dress AND ORNAMENTS, §1. E. E.N. 


HANDMAID. See Faminy anp Faminy Law, 
§ 7; MarRIAGE AND Divorce, § 3; and SLAVERY, 
§ 2. 

HANDSTAVES: The Heb word maggél, often 
rendered ‘staff’ (‘staves’; cf. I S 17 40, 42), is found 
in Ezk 399 joined with ‘hand,’ magqgél yddh, ‘staff 
of the hand’ (the sing. for the plural), denoting one 
of the many kinds of weapons used by the hosts 
of Gog. Probably the simplest sort of weapon such 
as clubs, is meant, tho possibly the goads, or 
sticks, used for driving the animals may be intended 
(so A. B. Davidson in Camb. Bible, Ezekiel). 

K. E, N. 


HANDWRITING (ye:edyeagov): The literal ren- 
dering (in Col 2 14 AV) of a term used in the sense 
of a ‘written obligation,’ as a ‘note,’ ‘bond,’ ete. 
Here Paul uses it of the Law, as if it were a note, 
or bond, indicative of an infinite debt. E. E. N. 


HANES, hé’niz (027, hdnés): An Egyptian city, 
mentioned with Zoan (Is 30 4), giving perhaps the 
limits of the Egyptian kingdom. If so, it may be 
Heracleopolis magna (Coptic Hnés, Gr. "Avuatc, 
Herod. 2 137) in middle Egypt, between the Nile 
and Fayiim, the ruins Ahnds el Medina. The texts 
and versions of Is 30 4 f. vary, and the meaning is 
obscure. Some think that Hanes is for Taphanhes 
on the NE. frontier of Egypt, near Zoan, which 
would give two cities near Palestine. C2s.1, 


See WEIGHTS AND MEas- 





Hamon-Gog 
Haran 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 

HANG, HANGING. See Crimes AND PUNISH- 
MENTS, § 3. 

HANGING, HANGINGS. See TaBEeRNACLB, § 3. 

HANIEL. See Hannieu. 

HANNAH, han’a or han’a (730, hannah), ‘grace’: 
One of the two wives of Elkanah and the mother of 
Samuel, the prophet. In the rather late narrative 
(I S chs. 1-2; see Samunn, Booxs or) H. is repre- 
sented as a pious woman, but unhappy because of 
her childlessness. Samuel was born in answer to 
her prayer and devoted by his mother to the service 
of J’’. Afterward she became the mother of five 
other children (I S 2 21). 

In the LXX. the Song is inserted after 1 28a, and 
after the Song we read at 2 11a, ‘And she left him 
(Samuel) there before the Lord and returned to 
Ramathaim.’ This difference between the Heb. 
and the LXX. shows that the Song is probably a 
later insertion into the text of IS of a poem that 
originally had nothing to do with either Hannah or 
Samuel. See further SAMUEL, Books or, § 3. 

EK. E. N. 

HANNATHON, han’no-fhen (JN, hanndathon): 
A place on the N. border of Zebulon (Jos 19 14); 
perhaps the modern Kefr ’Andn, a little E. of 
Ramah, Map IV, D 6. C8e'T: 


HANNIEL, han’/ni-el (98°30, hanni’al), ‘God is 
grace,’ or ‘pity’: 1. A ‘prince’ of Manasseh (Nu 
34 23). 2. The head of a family of Asher (I Ch 
7 39, Haniel AV). 

HANOCH, hé’nok (4129, hdndkh): 1. The ances- 
tral head of a clan of Midian (Gn 25 4; I Ch 1 
33, Henoch AV) (see ETHNOGRAPHY AND HErTH- 
NoLoGy, § 13). 2. The ancestral head of a clan of 
Reuben, the Hanochites (Gn 46 9; Nu 26 5, etc.). 

HANUN, hé’non (1)30, hanin), ‘pitied’: 1. The 
son of Nahash, King of Ammon. His insolent 
treatment of the messengers of David brought on 
a war in which the Ammonites lost their independ- 
ence (IIS 101 8.; I Ch 191#.). 2, 3. The name of 
two persons who assisted in the work on the wall of 
Jerusalem (Neh 3 13, 30). 

HAPHARAIM, haf’’a-ré’im (9°190, hapharayim, 
Haphraim AV): A town on the border of Issachar 
(Jos 19 19), not yet certainly identified. 

HAPPIZZEZ, hap’piz-ez (V¥2'7, happitstséts, Aph- 
ses AV): The ancestral head of the 18th course of 
priests (I Ch 24 15). 

HARA, hé’ra (SVJ, hdara’): A section of the 
Assyrian Kingdom, to which the Israelites from 
Samaria were deported (I Ch 5 26). The corre- 
sponding account in II K 17 6, 18 11 reads ‘in the 
cities of the Medes,’ for which the LXX. has ‘in 
the mountains of the Medes’ (1) "IJ, hadré maday). 
The LXX. is to be preferred, and would account for 
san (I Ch 5 26). CLBat: 

HARADAH, ha-ré’da or har’s-da (7710, hara- 
dhah): A station on the wilderness route between 
Sinai and Kadesh (Nu 33 24). Site unknown. 

HARAN, hé’ran (17, haraén): 1. A son of Terah 
and brother of Abraham. He was the father of 


Haran 
Hashum 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


330 


LD LLL 


Lot, and of Milcah, the wife of his brother Nahor, 
and of Iscah. He is represented as dying before his 
father Terah (Gn 11 26f., 31 [P], 28 £. [J]). Probably 
behind these individual names tribal or clan rela- 
tions are signified. 2. A Levite (1 Ch 23 9). 
E. E. N. 

HARAN, hé’ran (107, harén, in N T Xapepdy, 
Charran AV): I. A city of Mesopotamia situated on 
the Bélikh about 60 m. above its confluence with the 
Euphrates. It was a junction-point on the great 
trade-route from Nineveh to Carchemish (see Map 
of Ancient Semitic World), and was a place of great 
commercial importance (cf. Ezk 27 23). It was also 
a chief seat of the worship of the moon-god Sin, 
and is frequently mentioned in the Assyr. inscrip- 
tions (cf. II K 19 12; Is 37 12). At H. after the 
fall of Nineveh in 612 B.c., the remnant of the 
Assyrian forces made a last stand against the 
Babylonians and Medes, but were utterly defeated 
(611-609 3.c.). H. maintained its importance 
to quite recent times (13th cent.), its ancient 
paganism continuing until the 11th cent. It was 
at or near H. that the family of Abram either 
had their original home (so J, Gn 12 1, 4. Cf. 
24 4, 7, 10, etc.), or made their home after their 
migration from Ur, another great center of moon- 
worship (so P, Gn 11 28b, 31 f., 15 7, etc.). A range 
of mounds on both sides of the river is all that 
remains of the ancient city. 

Ii. A son of Caleb (I Ch 2 46). E. E.N. 

HARARITE, hé’ra-rait (17, hararz), ‘the moun- 
taineer’ (or ‘the man from Harar’?): A designa- 
tion of two of David’s heroes. 1. Shammah (II 
S 23 11, 33; I Ch 11 34, where ‘Shagee’ perhaps = 
Shammah). 2. Ahiam (II § 23 33, Ararite RV; I Ch 
11 35). It is possible that in I Ch 11 34 ‘Hararite’ 
refers to Jonathan. There is much text-confusion 
in these passages. EH. KE. N. 

HARBONA, HARBONAH, hiar-bd’na, har-bd’na. 
See CHAMBERLAINS, THE SEVEN. 

HARD QUESTION. See PRovERBs. 


HARDEN (THE HEART): In the O T this ex- 
pression occurs mainly in the story of the plagues 
(Ex chs. 7-10), or in reference to the rebellious 
spirit often manifested by Israel (cf. II K 17 14; 
Neh 9 16 ff.; Ps 95 8; Jer 7 26). The Heb. terms used 
are derivatives of three roots differing in meaning: 
(1) hdzaq, ‘to be stable,’ ‘strong’ (‘to do a thing,’ 
or ‘to resist,’ etc.), frequently found in the causative 
form with J”’ as the subject (cf. Ex 4 21, 9 12, 10 20, 
27, 1110, 14 4,8, 17; Jos 11 20). Tho the most of 
such passages belong to the later strands of the 
narratives, the same idea is found also in the early 
writers J and E. They did not think of this ‘harden- 
ing’ as a capricious or arbitrary proceeding on God’s 
part. It was rather a step in His sovereign process 
of judgment on those who had already incurred the 
Divine displeasure by first ‘hardening’ their own 
hearts (cf. Ex 7 13, 22, 819, 9 35). There is no instance 
in the Bible of God arbitrarily ‘hardening’ the heart 
of an innocent man simply to punish him. (2) 
kabhédh, ‘to be heavy,’ with the idea of ‘stubborn- 
ness’ most prominent (cf. Ex 7 14, 8 15, 32, 9 7, 34, 
101; 1866). (8) gashah, ‘to be (or make) hard,’ 


figuratively applied to a moral disposition un- 
responsive to discipline or appeal (cf. Ex 7 3; Dt 
2 30, and the reff. in Neh, etc., noted above). (4) 
’amats, ‘to be strong’ (Dt 15 7; II Ch 36 13). 

In the N T we have echoes of the O T expressions, 
with no specific difference of conception (cf. Mk 
8 17; Jn 12 40; Ac 19 9, etc.). Paul’s words (Ro 
9 18) are not to be understood as taking absolutely 
no account of moral responsibility (see Sanday on 
Romans 9 18 in ICC.). E. E. N. 


HARE. See Patustine, § 24. 

HAREPH, hé’ref. See Haripu. 

HARETH, hé’reth. See Herrera. 

HARHAIAH, hGr-hé’ya (7070, harhdyéh): The 
father of Uzziel (Neh 3 8). 

HARHAS, hor’has (P0795, harhas): The grand- 
father of Shallum, the husband of Huldah the proph- 
etess (II K 22 14; Hasrah in II Ch 34 22). 


HARHOUR, har’hor (1170, harhir), ‘fever’ (?): 
The ancestral head of a subdivision of the Nethinim 
(Ezr 2 51; Neh 7 53). 


HARIM, hé’rim (9°77, and 28°, harim, ‘dedi- 
cated,’ or ‘devoted’: 1. The ancestral name of a 
large postexilic family (Ezr 2 32, 10 31; Neh 3 i, 7 35, 
10 27). Like other names in the list this may also be 
the name of the place where these returned Jews 
lived, tho it is not yet identified. 2. The ances- 
tral head of the third course of priests (I Ch 24 8), 
i.e., of the large priestly family called by this name 
(Ezr 2 39, 10 21; Neh 7, 42, 105). 3. An individual 
belonging to 1 or 2 (Neh 12 15). EK. E. N. 


HARIPH, hé’rif (79, hariph, Hareph I Ch 2 51 
RV): 1. The ‘father of Beth-gader’ in a Calebite 
genealogy (I Ch 2 51). The names here are place- 
names, by which movements. of population are in- 
dicated, and probably the reference is to the town 
elsewhere called Haruph (I Ch 125). 2. A postexilic 
family, or community, apparently living at Haruph, 
of Hariph (Neh 7 24, 1019). In Ezr 218 Jorah instead 
of Hariph occurs. E. EL. N. 


HARLOT: Prostitution was a deeply rooted and 
widely practised evil in the ancient Semitic world. 
There was not only common prostitution for hire 
but religious prostitution, in which the votaries were 
attached to a temple or shrine, and gave themselves 
in this way to the service of deity, a practise closely 
connected with the deification of the reproductive 
forces of nature. In the O T the technical term 
for a religious prostitute (WIP, g¢dhéshah) occurs 
but seldom (Gn 38 21 f.; Dt 23 17; Hos 414). The 
more general term for common harlotry ("2!, 2a- 
nah (often rendered in AV by whore, whoredom, 
etc.) is used in both senses. In the O T legislation 
there are no specific statutes against common 
prostitution, except in Lv 19 29, due probably to the 
somewhat lower standard of morality. Against 
religious prostitution the attitude was much more 
positive. Not only were the priestly families to keep 
clear of such practises (Lv 21 7, 9, 14; Dt 23 18), but 
the many prohibitions and warnings directly against 
the practise of the Canaanite religion by Israelites, 
characterizing it as harlotry, are due, at least in part, 


331 A NEW STANDARD 


to the degrading nature of such worship (cf. Ex 
34 15; Hos 1 2, 4 12 #.; Ezk 16 23 f., etc.). In the 
prophetic period, and later, many voices were raised 
against the all too-prevalent sexual immorality (cf. 
Gn 34 31; Am 27; Hos 4 2, 1; Jn 2 208.,368.; Pr 
6 26, etc.). Children by such illegitimate connections 
could be brought up in the father’s house (ef. Jg 
111f.). See Crimes AND PuNISHMENTS, § 2 (c); 
and MarrIAGE AND Divorce, § 4. KH. E.N. 


HAR-MAGEDON, har’’-ma-ged’an (‘Apuayeday) 
(Rev 1616, Armageddon AV, Ar-Magedon RVmg): 
An apocalyptic symbol for the site of the final con- 
flict between the forces of good and evil. Its ex- 
planation depends on the form of the underlying 
Hebrew. Hippolytus is supposed to have read 
something like ‘Valley of Megiddo,’ with allusion to 
Zec 12 11 (cf. Lagarde, Analecta, 1858, p. 27, n. 18). 
Origen’s (Eus. Onom. Sacr. ed. Lagarde, p. 187 
reading was ‘Ar-Miggedem (‘the plain before’). 
Luther’s marginal gloss is based on the N T, but 
derives the word from herem, ‘curse.’ Gunkel 
(Schépf. u. Chaos, 1894) elaborates Hommel’s sug- 
gestion that the Hebrew was har md‘édh (‘mount 
of congregation’, cf. Is 14 13), and connects it with 
the Babylonian notion of a world-conflict on some 
mountain height. But, according to the common- 
ly accepted view, Har-Magedon is simply a Greek 
transliteration of the Hebrew for ‘mountain of 
Megiddo.’ This does not occur in the O T, but the 
plain of Megiddo{n] was proverbially the scene of 
decisive contests (Zec 1211; Jg 519; II K 9 27, 23 29), 
and Gunkel’s theory may be correct in so far as it ac- 
counts for a change, under Babylonian influence, of 
‘the plain of Megiddo’ into ‘a mountain of Megiddo.’ 

A.C. Z. 

HARMON. This word is taken as a place-name 
by RV at Am 4 3, but the reading is uncertain. No 
such place is known. 

HARNEPHER, hGr’ni-for (12373, harnepher): A 
descendant of Asher (I Ch 7 36). 


HARNESS: The AV rendering of shiryon in I 
K 22 34 ||II Ch 18 33. See ARMs AND Armor, § 9. 


HAROD, hé’rod (10, hdrédh): 1. The spring 
of Harod was the place where Gideon’s army en- 
camped before his night attack on the Midianites 
(Jg 71). It is now identified with ‘Ain Jélud, at 
the foot of Mt. Gilboa, at the W. end of the valley 
Jezreel (see Map IV, D 8). 2. Shammoth, the Ha- 
rodite, one of David’s captains (II S 23 25; in I 
Ch 11 27 Harorite, which is clearly an error). 

Jo Aste 

HAROEH, ho-ro’e or har’o-i (M8, hard’eh), 
‘the seer’: The name of a small clan or, possibly, of 
a place, in the genealogy of the Calebites descended 
from Hur (I Ch 2 52). Perhaps the name here is a 
mistake for Reaiah (cf. 4 2). BK. E. N. 


ss 
HARORITE, hé’ro-rait. See Hanon, 2. 
HAROSHETH, ho-rd’sheth (NY10, hdrdsheth): 
The headquarters.of Sisera, the general of Jabin’s 
forces (Jg 4 2, 13, 16)>It is usually identified with 


el- Harithiyeh, near the Kishon at the W. end of the 
Plain of Esdraelon. It is situated at the narrowest 


w, 


Haran 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Hashum 





point of the defile, commanding the entrance to the 
plain (see Map IV, B 7). H bg, wat 

HARP, HARPER. See Music anp Musicau 
INSTRUMENTS, § 3. 

HARROW. See Acricuurure, § 4. 

HARSHA, har’sha (S¥70, harsha’), ‘deaf’: The 
ancestral head of a subdivision of the Nethinim 
(Eizr 2 52; Neh 7 54). 

HARSITH, har’sifth, THE GATE. See Jrrv- 
SALEM, § 32. 

HART. See Foon, § 10; and Patestineg, § 24. 

HARUM, hé’rom (977), hartim): The ancestral 
head of a family of Judah (I Ch 4 8). 

HARUMAPH, ha-ri’maf (79390, hdrimaph), 
‘with pierced nose’ (?): The father of Jedaiah (Neh 
3 10). 

HARUPHITE, ho-ri’fait (2100, hdriphz): In I 
Ch 12 5 Shephatiah is called ‘the Haruphite,’ 7.e., 
he belonged to Haruph. See Harrra. 

HARUZ, hé’roz (¥1", hdartts): The father of 
Meshullemeth, wife of King Manasseh (II K 21 19). 

HARVEST. See AGRIcuLTURE, §§ 6, 7; and 
PALESTINE, §§ 17-20. 

HASADIAH, has’’a-dai’i (WIEN, hasadhyah), J” 
is kind’: A son of Zerubbabel (I Ch 3 20). 

HASENUAH, has’’1-nii’d. See HassENvAH. 


HASHABIAH, hasgh’’a-bai’d (TM3VU0, M300, hd- 
shabhyah[a]), ‘J’’ has taken account’: 1. Two Le- 
vites of the sons of Merari (I Ch 6 45 [30], 914; Neh 
11 15). 2. A son of Jeduthun (I Ch 25 3, 19). 3. A 
Hebronite (I Ch 26 30). 4. The ruler of the Levites 
(I Ch 27 17). 5. A chief Levite under King Josiah 
(II Ch 359). 6. A Levite who returned with Ezra 
(Ezr 8 19). 7. One of twelve priests entrusted with 
the holy vessels (Ezr 8 24=Neh 12 24). 8. One who 
helped repair the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 17) and 
sealed the covenant (10 11 [12], 12 24). 9. A Levite 
(11 22). 10. A priest (Neh 12 21). Great, 


HASHABNAH, hosgh-ab’na@ (723¥0, hdshabhnah): 
The head of a postexilic family (Neh 10 25). 

HASHABNEIAH, hash”ab-ni-ai’a (TMIAYO, ha- 
shabhn¢yah, Hashabniah AV), ‘J’’ has thought of me’: 


1. The father of Hattush (Neh 310). 2. A Levite 
(Neh 9 5). 
HASHBADDANAH, hasgh-bad’a-na = (AYTSVN, 


hashbaddanah, Hashbadana AY): A scribe or priest 
(Neh 8 4). 

HASHEM, hé’shem. See JASHEN. 

HASHMONAH, hagh-md’/na (70Y0, hashmo- 
nah): A station on the wilderness route (Nu 33 
29 f.), not yet identified. 

HASHUB, hé’shoub. See HASSHUB. 

HASHUBAH, ho-shi’ba (7300, hdshtibhah): A 
son of Zerubbabel (I Ch 3 20) 

HASHUM, hé’shom (80%, hashiim): 1. The an- 
cestral head of a large postexilic family, also possi- 
bly the home of the family, as well as its represent- 
ative men (Ezr 2 19, 10 33; Neh 7 22, 10 18). 2. A 
priest or scribe (Neh 8 4). 





Health A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY /  g3e 
HASHUPHA, ha-shii’fe. See Hasupwa. times considered a part of the Hauran). In the 


HASIDEANS = has’’1-di’anz or dé’anz. See 
PHARISEES, § 3. 

HASMONEANS, has’’mo-ni’enz or -né’anz. See 
MAcCABEES. 

HASRAH, haz’ra or has’ra. See Harwas. 

HASSENAAH, has’’1-né’a (78207, hass¢nd’ah): 
The ‘sons of H.’ repaired part of the wall of Jeru- 
salem (Neh 3 3). The name is peculiar, but as yet 
there is no satisfactory explanation (cf. Cheyne in 
EBs.v.). See also SENAAH. E. E. N. 

HASSENUAH, has’1-niii’a (T8200, hass¢nw’ah, 
Hasenuah and Senuah AV): Apparently a Ben- 
jamite clan-name (I Ch 97; Neh 119). See Spnaan. 


HASSHUB, hasgh’ob (23¥0, hashshabh), ‘thought 
of’ (z.e., by God): 1. Apparently-the ancestral head 
of a subdivision of Merarite Levites (I Ch 9 14; Neh 
11 15, Hashub AV). 2. The name of several in- 
dividuals (Neh 3 11, 23, 10 23). 

HASSOPHERETH, has’’o-fi’refth. See SopuHx- 
RETH. 

HASTY FRUIT: This expression is found in Is 
28 4 AV. For the correct rendering see RV. 

HASUPHA, ha-sii’fa (SPIVD, hdsipha’, Hashu- 
pha AV): The ancestral head of a subdivision of 
the Nethinim (Ezr 2 43=Neh 7 46). 


HAT: The Aramaic original, 82272, karbela’ (Dn 
3 21), is rare and occurs but once in the O T, and 
while ‘hat’ (AV) conveys a wrong idea of its mean- 
ing, the RV rendering ‘tunic’ is not certain. ‘Hel- 
met’ or ‘cap’ (so BDB.) would seem to be nearer 
the correct meaning. See Dress, §8. E. E. N. 

HATACH, hé’tak. See Haruacs. 

HATCHET. See Ax. 

HATE (OF GOD). See Gop, § 2. 

HATHACH, hé’thak (100, hdthaékh, Hatach AV): 
A eunuch at the court of Ahasuerus (Est 4 5 f..). 

HATHATH, hé’thath (OD, hdthath): A son of 
Othniel (I Ch 4 13). 

HATIPHA, ha-tai’fa or hat’i-fa (SB°D0, hdtipha’), 
‘snatched away’: The ancestral head of one of the 
subdivisions of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 54=Neh 7 5s). 

HATITA, ha-tai’ta or hat’i-ta (8Y’OD, hadtita’): 
The ancestral head of one of the subdivisions of 
the porters, or doorkeepers, of the Second Temple 
(Ezr 2 42=Neh 7 45). 

HATTIL, hat’il (270n1, hattil): The ancestral head 
of one of the subdivisions of ‘Solomon’s servants’ 
(Ezr 2 57=Neh 7 59). 

HATTUSH, hat’ush (WiUN, hattish): 1. A de- 
scendant of David (I Ch 3 22). The same person 
is probably referred to in Ezr 8 2, tho the texts 
of Ch and Ezr are not quite harmonious. 2. A 
priest (Neh 10 4, 12 2). 3. One of those who helped 
in building the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 10). 

HAURAN, hau"ran’ or hé’ren (1710, hawran), ‘hol- 
low land’: The fertile basin, now practically treeless, 
about 50 m. square and 2,000 ft. above sea-level, SE. 
of Mt. Hermon, between Jauldn and the Lejé (some- 


of the sea and becoming a ‘haven’ for ships. 


Bible the name is found only in Ezk 47 16, 18 as 
marking the ideal border of Canaan on the E. The 
modern Arabs call essentially the same district 
el-Haurdn. The name occurs also in the ancient 
inscriptions of Assyria. In Greco-Roman times the 
same region was known as Auranitis, which was 
bounded on the N. by Trachonitis, and on the NW. 
by Gaulantis and Bataneza, all included in the 
kingdom of Herod the Great. Upon his death they 
fell to Philip (Lk 31). Troglodytes, doubtless, once 
occupied the rocky E. portion. G. L. Ri: 


HAVEN: In the ‘blessing of Jacob’ (Gn 49 13) 
Zebulon is represented as dwelling at the ‘haven’ 
The 
Heb. hodph, however, means no more than ‘shore’ 
or ‘beach,’ and is so rendered where it occurs else- 
where (Dt 17; Jos 91; Jg 517 [AV]; Jer 47 7; Ezk . 
25 16). It is the proximity of Zebulon to the Medi- 
terranean coast and to the Pheenicians with their 
maritime commerce that is implied. In Ps 107 30 
the word madhéz may mean ‘city’ rather than ‘haven,’ 
but this is not certain. On Ac 27 12 see Fair 
HAVENS. E. E. N. 


HAVENS, FAIR. See Farr HAvEns. 


HAVE TO DO WITH: In all instances but one 
this phrase is the rendering of idiomatic questions 
which read literally, ‘What is there to you [sing. or 
pl.] and to me [or some other person],’ 7.e., what 
community of interest or what relationship can be 
supposed to exist between the two parties, a negative 
answer being implied (Jos 22 24; Jg i112; IL S 16 10; 
I K 1718; Mt 8 29, 27 19; Mk 1 24; Jn 2 4, etc.). In He 
4 13 the literal reading is: ‘with whom is our account’ 
(or reckoning, Aéyos), referring to man’s account- 
ability to God. EK. E. N. 


HAVILAH, hav’i-la. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND 
Erunotoey, § 13. 

HAVVOTH-JAIR, hé’’voth-jé’ir (V8? NN, haw- 
woth y@ir): A group of trans-Jordanic towns, or vil- 
lages (60 in Dt 3 4, 30 in Jg 10 4), conquered by the 
Manassite clan Jair (Nu 32 41, spoken of as an in- 
dividual in Jg 10 4). The term hawwé6th, originally 
signifying a group of Bedawin tents, was later 
applied even to fortified cities (I K 413). The two 
traditions, one locating them in Gilead (I K 4 13), 
the other in Bashan (Dt 3 14), are not mutually 
exclusive; the former includes the latter. 

J. Aes 


HAWK. See Pauestine, § 25. 


HAY: The terms so rendered (hatsir, Pr 27 25; 
Is 156 AV, and ydetos I Co 3 12) are very general 
in meaning, signifying grass or the early blade of 
grains, such as barley, rye, etc. See also PALEs- 
TINE, § 22. EK. E. N. 

HAZAEL, hé’zo-el or haz’o-el (2810, hdza’él), 
‘God sees,’ Assyr. Hazailu: A king of Damascus, c. 
844-804 p.c. He had been singled out by Elijah to 
succeed Ben-hadad II, and when sent by that king 
to Elisha to inquire the issue of a sickness, he was 
told by the prophet that he would succeed his master 
and inflict distress on the people of Israel. The next 
day H. put Ben-haded to death and usurped the 


333 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Hashupha 
Health 





throne. He was one of the most vigorous: of the 
kings of Damascus, and in war against Jehu and 
Jehoahaz (II K 10 32, 33, 13 22) he brought Israel 
to the brink of destruction. He also successfully 
resisted the attacks of Shalmaneser III in 842 and 
839. A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 
HAZAIAH, hea-zé’ya (NID, hdzdyah), ‘J’ hath 
seen’: The head of a postexilic family (Neh 11 5). 
HAZAR-ADDAR, hé’’zir-ad’dar. See Appar. 
HAZAR-ENAN, hé’zGr-i’‘nan (]7?¥ 750, hdtsar 
‘enan), HAZAR-ENON, -i’nen (117¥ ‘NT, h. ‘Endn), 
‘enclosure of the fountains’: The NE. corner of the 
(ideal) border of the land of Israel in the priestly 
theory of Israel (Nu 349 f.; Ezk 47 17, 481). Some 
point near Dan was evidently meant. EK. E.N. 


HAZAR-GADDAH, hé’’zar-gad’a (771 TSO, ha- 
tsar gaddah): A city in the S. of Judah (Jos 15 27). 
Site unknown. 

HAZAR-HATTICON, hé’’zar-hat’iken. See Ha- 
ZER-HATTICON. 

HAZARMAVETH, hé’zar-mé’veth  (1)7%7, 
hatsarmaweth): An Arabian clan, descended from 
Joktan (Gn 10 26; I Ch 1 20). See ErHnoGrapPHy 
AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. 


HAZAR-SHUAL, hé”zar-shi’al (PY ASD, ha- 
tsar-sha‘al): A town in the S. of Judah near Beer- 
sheba (Jos 15 28), assigned also to Simeon (Jos 
19 3; I Ch 4 28). It was reoccupied in postexilic 
days (Neh 11 27). Not yet certainly identified. 


HAZAR-SUSAH, HAZARSUSIM, hé’zar-si’si, 
-sii’sim ({0°D1D] MBiID “SN, hdtsar stisah for -im)), 
‘village of horses’: A town in SW. Judah occupied 
by Simeonites (Jos 19 5; I Ch 4 31), also called 
Sansannah (Jos 15 31). It may have had some con- 
nection with the commerce in horses carried on by 
Solomon (I K 10 28 £.). Site unknown. See also 
Brru-MARCABOTH. KH. E. N. 


HAZAZON - TAMAR, haz” a - zon - té’ mar 
(2H 1SS0, hatsdtson tama@r, Hazezon-tamar AV), 
‘Hazazon of the palm’: A place identified with 
En-gedi (q.v.) in II Ch 20 2. But this does not well 
suit the other notice in Gn 14 7, which seems to 
demand a location farther 8S. That En-gedi was 
famous for its palm-trees seems well attested (Jos 
Ant. IX, 1 2), and the notice in II Ch 20 2 is probably 
correct. But there may have been another town 
of the same name, possibly the Tamar in the S. of 
Judah (cf. Ezk 47 19), to which Gn 147 refers. See 


TAMAR. HK. E. N. 
HAZEL. See Pauesting, § 21. 
HAZELELPONTI, haz’’1-lel-pd’nai. See Hazzr- 


LELPONI. 

HAZER - HATTICON, hé’’zar-hat’i-kon (137 
}>°N, hatsér hattikhén, Hazar-hatticon AV), ‘the 
middle village’: A place on the (ideal) N. border of 
the land of Israel (Ezk 47 16). It is probable that 
the original reading was Hazar-enon (q.v.). 

HAZERIM, he-zi’rim (O°7S0, hdtsérim), ‘vil- 
lages’: This term, found in Dt 2 23 AV (cf. RV), 
refers to the original inhabitants of the coast region 


W. of Judah, who were expelled from their rude vil- 
lages by the Philistine invaders. 

HAZEROTH, he-zi’reth (NIN¥0, hdtsérdth): One 
of the encampments of the Israelites between Sinai 
and Kadesh. In the list of stations it is situated be- 
tween Kibroth-hattaavah and Rithmah (Nu 3317 £). 
It has been questionably identified with ‘Ain el-Ha- 
dra, which lies 40 m. NE. of Jebel Masa, toward the 
head of the Gulf of ‘Akabah. J: As KS 

HAZEZON - TAMAR, haz’’-izen-té’mar. See 
HAZAZON-TAMAR. 

HAZIEL, hé’zi-el (310, hdazi-él), ‘God sees’: A 
Gershonite Levite (I Ch 23 9). 

HAZO, hé’zd (i!9, hdzd): An Aramean clan, 
counted among the descendants of Nahor (Gn 22 22). 


| Perhaps the Hazt in N. Arabia of the Assyrian in- 


scriptions. 

HAZOR, hé’zér (11S, hatsdr,‘settlement’): 1. The 
capital of Jabin’s kingdom (Jos 11 1), possibly at 
Jebel Hadireh W. of the waters of Merom. Map IV, 
D 5. 2, 3. Two towns in the Negeb of Judah (Jos 
15 23, 25). The site of the first is unknown. The 
second is also called Kerioth-hezron (q.v.). 4. A 
Benjamite town (Neh 11 33), probably the ruin 
Hazzur, 4 m. NW. of Jerusalem. Map II, F 1. 
5. An unknown locality mentioned in connection 
with Kedar (Jer 49 28 #.). L. G. L.—L. B. P. 

HAZOR-HADATTAH,  hé’”zér-he-dat’a (VSN 
M10, hatsor hadhattah, Hazor Hadattah AV), ‘new 
Hazor’: A place in the 8. of Judah (Jos 15 25). Site 
unknown. The text here may contain an error. 

HAZZELELPONI, haz’i-lel-po’nai (21522877, 
hatstslelp6ni, Hazelelponi AV): The name of a 
female in the genealogy of Judah (I Ch 4 3). 

Trae pad Be 

HEAD: While nearly all the instances in which 
the word ‘head’ occurs in the Bible are self-explana- 
tory, a few specimens of idiomatic usage may be 
noted. (1) ‘Heads’ of ‘fathers’ houses,’ or of 
the people or of tribes, etc., is a non-technical way of 
designating chieftains, princes, elders, etc. (2) To 
say that blood was ‘upon the head’ of any one was 
to charge him with responsibility for the death of 
some one (cf. Jos 2 19; IIS 116). (8) To say that 
any one ‘lifted up’ his head meant that he asserted 
himself in pride or power etc. (cf. Jg 8 28; Ps 83 2, 
etc.) (4) To ‘lift up’ another’s head was to exalt 
him to a station of power, etc. (cf. Gn 40 20; II K 
25 27). E. E. N. 

HEADBAND. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 8. 


HEADTIRE. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, 88. 


HEAL, HEALING. See Disease anv MeEpt- 
CINE, § 3; and, in general, MIRACLES. 

HEALING, GIFTS OF. See Cuurcu LIFE AND 
ORGANIZATION, § 7. 

HEALTH: This Eng. word once had a much 
broader meaning than it now has. In the O T we 
find it representing: (1) ’drakhah (from ’Grakh, ‘to 
be long’), primarily meaning the new flesh that 
gradually forms in the case of a wound, then healing, 
or health (Is 58 8; Jer 8 22, 3017, 33 6). (2) marpé 
and riph’uth (both from raépha’, ‘to heal’), ‘healing.’ 


Heap 
Hebrew Language 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


334 


LL LLL LLL 


(Pr 4 22, 12 18, 13 17, 16 24; Jer 8 15, and Pr 3 8) 
(3) In Ps 42 11, 43 5, 67 2 the Heb. means ‘salva- 
tion,’ ‘help,’ or ‘safety,’ and is so rendered in RV. 
(4) In II S 20 9 the Heb. is shalom, the ordinary 
salutation (lit. ‘Is there peace?’ or ‘Is it well with 
you?’ So RV). In Ac 27 34 cf. RV for the correct 
rendering. KE. E. N. 


HEAP, HEAPS: (1) In Jg 1516 the Heb. contains 
a play on words, the terms for ‘ass,’ ‘heap,’ ‘to be 
red,’ and the verb ‘to heap up’ all being quite alike 
in sound. The RV rendering of v. 16a is probably 
not quite correct. Moore would read, ‘With the 
jaw-bone of an ass I have piled them in heaps. 
Burney conjectures ‘with a red ass’s jawbone I have 
reddened them right red.’ (2) The Heb ?F tal, 
‘mound’ or hill on which a city was built (cf. Jos 
11 13; Jer 31 21) is also rendered ‘heap’ where the 
reference is the ruins of a city (Dt 13 17; Jos 8 28; 
Jer 49 2) (3) The Heb °¥, % ‘ruin,’ is also rendered 
‘heap’ (pl. ‘heaps’) in Jer 26 18; Mi 1 6, 312; Ps 791; 
and probably also in Is 17, the original reading was 
*Y (not ’Y). K. E. N. 


HEAR, HEARING. See Propuecy, § 6. 


HEART. See Man, Docrrine or, § 8; and 
Gop, § 2. 


HEART, DISEASES OF. See Diszask AND 
MEDICINE, § 4 (2). 


HEARTH: A word which occurs in the AV seven 
times; the RV retains ‘hearth’ in only one of these 
passages, Is 3014, and uses it in three additional ones. 
Several Heb. words are thus translated. (1) ’ah 
(Jer 36 22 f.) is correctly translated in RV brazier, 
which was used to warm the winter-room. The 
modern brazier is made of burnt clay, and, filled 
with coals, is placed in a hollow in the center of the 
room. When the coals are burned out, a wooden 
frame is placed over the brazier and on this a rug, 
to keep in the warmth. (2) kiyyér (Zec 12 6 RY), 
a pan of fire, for domestic use, perhaps similar to (1). 
(3) mdgédh (Ps 102 3 [4] RV), ‘firebrand’ (ef. Is 
33 14, ‘burnings’). (4) ydqudh (Is 30 14), ‘fire burn- 
ing on the hearth.’ (5) méq*dhah (Lv 6 9 [2] RV), 
the hearth (‘place of burning’) on top of the altar, 
translated by some ‘fire-wood.’ (6) har’aél=’dr7’al 
(Ezk 43 15 t. RV; cf. Is291f. RVmg.), ‘altar hearth,’ 
the upper portion of the altar on which the offer- 
ings were burned. See also ArreLt. Gn 18 6 is 
correctly translated (RV) ‘make cakes,’ omitting 
‘on the hearth.’ GS Re 


HEAT OF THE DAY. See Timp, § 1. 


HEATH: There is no heath in Palestine or in the 
deserts near by. The plant referred to in Jer 17 6, 
48 6 is thought to be a variety of juniper, with small 
scale-like leaves close to the stem, and consequently 
called ‘ar‘Gr (‘naked’). E. E. N. 


HEATHEN. See GentTILEs. 


HEAVE, HEAVE-OFFERING. The Heb teramah 
(from rim ‘to be high’) meaning ‘something lifted’ 
or ‘separated’ was applied first in a general way to 
contributions or offerings, as things ‘set aside’ to 
J’’, and later more specifically to the share set aside 
for the Priests or Levites out of the general offerings 


of the people (cf. Dt 12 6, 11; Ezk 45 6-16, 48 10-21; 
(here rendered oblation in EV); and esp. Ex 29 27 ¢. 
Lev 7 34, 1014 .; Nu 15 19 ff. 18 8 ff. etc.). See also 
SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 17. 


HEAVEN (in the O T generally expressed by 
shamayim; in the N T by odeavéc, pl. -of): 1. 
Twofold Interest. The Biblical conception of heay- 
en may be viewed either as a cosmological or as a 
religious one. These two, however, are closely inter- 
related. It is because the cosmological notion was 
what it was that the religious conception was an 
outgrowth from it. 

2. Cosmological Conception. Cosmologically, 
heaven is either one of the two great divisions of the 
universe (Gn 11) or one of the three (heaven, earth, 
and the waters under the earth, Ex 204). The usage 


is not exact, and the twofold division of the universe, © 


in the first case, as well as the threefold in the second, 
is made for the sake of presenting the idea of the 
universe exhaustively rather than for the sake of 
showing its parts analytically. A more fixed cos- 
mological notion is given in the identification of 
heaven with the firmament, which was conceived in 
the form of an inverted bowl resting upon the earth 
and keeping the waters above separated from the 
waters under the earth. This dome was provided 
with windows (Windows of Heaven Gn 7 11, 8 2) 
through which the waters above fell in rains and 
floods. Besides this function, heaven, or the firma- 
ment, was viewed as the place in which the sun, the 
moon, and the stars were fixed (Ezk 32 7 £.; Gn 1 
14 ff.; Mt 24 29). In this sense heaven is the sky 
(Mt 16 2). Whether heaven was thought to be a 
simple vault with several divisions or stories is a 
disputed question. As a matter of fact, the concep- 
tion is not the same through all the stages of Bibli- 
cal cosmology. There is no clear trace of more than 
one heaven in the earlier Hebrew thought. By 
‘heaven of heavens’ (Dt 10 14; I K 8 27; Ps 148 4) is 
meant probably ‘the height of heaven.’ The word 
shémayim is itself a plural form. Yet, as both the 
Babylonian and Persian cosmologies recognize seven 
heavens, and as the apocalyptic literature unmistak- 
ably presents this conception (Slav. Hn.; Asc. Is., 
etc.), it is no longer doubted that later Biblical 
thought adopted this idea. Yet there is no evidence 
of a belief in more than three heavens (cf. Paul’s 
reference to the ‘third heaven,’ II Co 12 2; also ef. 
‘all the heavens,’ Eph 4 10). 

3. Religious Conception. The religious concep- 
tion of heaven is built altogether upon the fact that 
heaven is above. What is above is higher in dig- 
nity and worth than what is beneath. Hence heaven 
was viewed as the abode of God (I K 8 30). The pro- 
hibition of the making of images of God deepened 
and intensified this thought, and in the days of the 
restoration from the Exile the distinctive name of 
God became ‘God of Heaven’ (Ezr 1 2, 5 11; Neh 
14,5). Meanwhile the same feeling which led to the 
disuse of the proper name Jahweh and the substitu- 
tion for it of ’4dhéndy, ‘Lord,’ worked toward the 
exclusion of the word ‘God’ from the language of life 
and the substitution of ‘heaven’ for it, the LXX. fur- 
nishing the connecting-link in the transition. At the 


— a 


335 A NEW STANDARD 


opening of the N T period ‘Kingdom of God’ and 
‘Kingdom of Heaven’ were already synonymous and 
interchangeable (cf. Kinapom or Gop). 

4. The Abode of God and other Beings. Besides 
the person of God, other superhuman beings, such 
as angels, are thought to dwell in heaven (Mk 12 25; 
Mt 1810; Lk 213); also the Messiah and all preexis- 
tent beings, even the Torah and a prototype of the 
sanctuary are found there (He 9 23). Finally, the 
redeemed are to be gathered in heaven (II Co ch. 5; 
Jn1421.; cf. Th416f.). Itis there that Jesus has 
gone (I P83 22), and it is thence that the Holy Spirit 
comes (I P 112). Heaven is, therefore, in general, 
the abode of the blest. But, at least in apocalyptic 
literature, suffering was not excluded from a certain 
portion of it. Slav. En. (7 2) represents the second 
heaven as the place where the fallen angels were 
held in prison in misery (cf. also Tests. of the Twelve 
Patr.), and the fifth heaven is inhabited by the 
Crigsri, who are sad and silent on account of sym- 
pathy with their fallen brethren in the second heay- 
en. 

5. Spiritual Heaven. In the N T the idea of 
heaven is very much spiritualized. At times it ap- 
pears indeed as nothing more than a symbol of the 
state of ideal perfection (Eph 1 3, 26). When it is 
called paradise, for instance (Lk 23 43), it is in order 
to present the innocence of the Garden of Eden as 
restored in the final sinless condition of true believ- 
ers. Hence the many characterizations of the heav- 
enly life as the reward of the believer (Mt 5 12; Col 
15;1 P14). Heaven is also regarded as lasting for- 
ever (Ps 89 29; cf. also Jer 33 25 of the sun and stars 
as everlasting). But such representations express 
the thought of the relative permanency of the ce- 
lestial as compared with the terrestrial. 

6. Heavenin Eschatology. In all the eschatologi- 
cal representations the renovation of the whole cre- 
ation includes also the passing away of the heavens 
as they exist and the creation of new heavens (II P 
3 10, 13; Rev 211 #.). As they now stand, they are 
blemished by the moral imperfection of man, and 
must give place to substitutes which are absolutely 
free from sin. All these representations of heaven 
are conventional and pertain to the form rather than 
to the essence of religious teaching. Hence the per- 
plexities that sometimes appear in the effort to make 
a full and consistent picture to the mind of the reali- 
ties of heaven, either in the cosmological or in the 
eschatological sphere, must be relegated to the region 
where the figure is transcended by the reality. 

A. C. Z. 


HEAVENS. See Cosmocony, § 3. 


HEBER, hi’ber (131, hebher), ‘associate’: 1. A 
Kenite, the husband of Jael who slew Sisera (Jg 
411 f.). 2. An Asherite head of a family, the son 
of Beriah (Gn 4617). 3. The father of Soco, and a 
son of Ezra (I Ch 4 18). 4. A Benjamite, son of 
Elpaal (I Ch 817). See also Epmr. 


HEBREW, HEBREWS. See ErHnoaraPHy 
AND Erunooey, § 9, and Eber in § 13. 


HEBREW ARCHEOLOGY. See Isrant, Socrau 
DEVELOPMENT OF. 


Heap 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Hebrew Language 





HEBREW LANGUAGE: Hebrew is one of the 
most important members of the Semitic group, 
closely related both to the Arabic and to the Ara- 
maic, and emerging upon the field of history long 
after the Babylonian. 

1. Affinities. The name ‘Hebrew’ properly coy- 
ers the dialects of the group of kindred peoples, 
Moab, Ammon, Edom, and Israel, as well as the 
Phoenicians. Hebrew was sometimes called the 
‘language of Canaan’ (Is 19 18), which would suggest 
that it was spoken by the Canaanites, or Amorites, 
who were dispossessed by Israel. 


2. Monuments. Very few inscriptions remain 
by which the primitive character of the language 
may be determined. The Siloam inscription (see 
JERUSALEM, § 34), dating perhaps from Hezekiah’s 
reign (8th cent. B.c.), is the oldest on Palestinian 
soil. The Moabite Stone, written in a dialect al- 
most identical with that of the O T, is about a cen- 
tury older. There are some forty seal stones con- 
taining little but Hebrew proper names, some pre- 
exilic. (See AupHasetr). A large number of in- 
scriptions on fragments of jars were found at Sa- 
maria by the Harvard Expedition. Phoenician in- 
scriptions of various dates are also found, and 
coins of the Maccabean period exist. The LXX. 
may be regarded as furnishing some data for the 
study of early Hebrew. 


3. Linguistic Development and Change. The 
O T Hebrew has been so carefully worked over by 
the scribes that many of its irregularities have been 
obliterated. As originally spoken and written, it 
must have been more irregular than its present 
written form. It has been rhetorically developed, 
probably from an early period, as the result of its 
religious use. The LXX. is a witness to some pro- 
nunciations and spellings current about 250 B.c., 
which differ from the present Massoretic text. The 
Massoretes themselves worked with sedulous care 
upon the words and forms and have given to us a 
vocalization which represents the synagog method 
of reading. This uniformity makes it difficult to 
distinguish between the form of the language at 
different periods, but, speaking broadly, there are 
two main divisions: the golden age of Hebrew liter- 
ature, which produced the historical books (excluding 
Ch, Ez, Neh, Est), most of the Prophets, and some of 
the poetical writings; and the postexilic, in which 
were written most of the books of the Hagiographa 
and the latest prophets. The differences in style, 
while not numerous, consist in a general lack of 
lucidity. In marked contrast to Chronicles, the 
Books of Kings are striking examples of simplicity, 
clearness, and brilliancy. Yet the general likeness 
is noteworthy in a language whose literary monu- 
ments cover 1,000 years. 

4. Linguistic Structure. Hebrew has much in 
common with its kindred tongues: the triliterality 
of its roots, the structure of its verb system, its noun 
formation, its tendency to coordinate its sentences, 
together with a sparing use of particles, and the use 
of suffixed pronominal forms, where Aryan languages 
use separate pronouns. All these testify to a com- 
mon origin and a close relationship to the primitive 


| speech. Word-formation by prefixes, by prefixed 


Hebrew Language 
Hebrews, Epistle to the 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


336 





words, and by suffixes shows that the Hebrew and 
its sister tongues occupy a different, if not a lower, 
stage in linguistic development from the Aryan. 

(1) Lexical Peculiarities. Almost every Hebrew 
verb is reducible to three radicals, but there are be- 
sides a number of monosyllabic words, as well as 
those built up by means of weak letters, which 
seem to point to a biliteral stage. The personal 
pronouns and the numerals do not in all respects fall 
into the triliteral scheme. But the language has 
nearly obliterated the traces of the primitive Semitic. 
Most of the roots are expressions of physical facts 
and actions, and therefore intellectual and _ relig- 
ious notions must be rendered figuratively and 
symbolically. This will account also for the strong 
anthropomorphisms of the O T. 

(2) Grammatical Peculiarities. (a) The alphabet. 
The present character is a development from an 
older and more rudimentary form, which did not 
go out of use probably until about 300 B.c., traces 
remaining on coins even later (see ALPHABET). 
The alphabet is consonantal and contains a number 
of sounds difficult to represent by our characters or 
our vocal organs; prominent among these are the 
laryngeals, formerly called gutturals. The LXX. 
recognized at least two laryngeals which are not 
represented in the present alphabet, but which are 
current in Arabic, and the letter Résh was evidently 
doubled in the LXX. period, but not later. The 
mode of writing from right to left is retained in 
Hebrew as in most Semitic languages. 

(b) Orthoepy and Orthography. The vowel 
system is a late addition to the Hebrew alphabet, 
the vowel signs being introduced not earlier than 
the 6th cent. a.p., to represent and preserve the tra- 
ditional synagog pronunciation. Together with 
them, some diacritical marks were invented to indi- 
cate doubling of letters and certain distinctions in 
sound. Three stages may be noted in the history 
of the Hebrew text: In the beginning, Hebrew writ- 
ing must have had no indication of vowels or dia- 
critical marks. It has been conjectured that the 
perpendicular line, occurring frequently and called 
Pasegq, was the first sign introduced by Hebrew copy- 
ists to guide the reader (cf. James Kennedy, The 
Note Line in the Hebrew Scriptures). During the 
second stage, the characters for h (mM), y (°), and 
w (i) were used to represent the long vowels 4, 7, 
and a, but at a third and later stage, since these 
might be ambiguous—y standing for 7 or e, and w 
for 6 or & respectively—points and marks were 
added to make clear to the reader which guttural, 
palatal, or labial vowel was intended. The old 
letters were retained in many instances in connec- 
tion with the vowel-points and were called matres 
lecttonis. A prime peculiarity of Hebrew words is 
the vowel system and the vowel quantity. A group 
of vowels, which are called ‘tone long,’ and which 
occur only in the accented and the adjacent syl- 
lable, are a unique product of Hebrew vocali- 
zation. 

(c) Etymology. The Massoretic reworking has 
introduced regularity, especially in the books 
most read, but this ecclesiastical process has not 
obscured the fundamental principles of the language; 





it has in a measure accentuated them. The par- 
ticles are most of them nouns which have undergone 
processes of denudation and metamorphosis, but 
they represent the earliest stratum of the language. 
The noun is to be considered the basis of the lin- 
guistic structure, and, with pronominal fragments 
appended or prefixed, it was used to express various 
phases of verbal action. Hebrew words (aside from 
pronouns, numerals, particles, and certain mono- 
syllables) can be divided into two classes: mono- 
syllabic, those that have one original formative 
vowel, and which may appear in the simple tri- 
literal form (‘segholates’), or augmented with pre- 
fixes or affixes; and dissyllabic, those that have two 
original formative vowels, which also may be 
augmented, generally by affixes, or strengthened by 
lengthened vowels or doubled consonants. This 
division applies not only to nouns but to verbs. In 


the former, by augmentations and vowel changes 


the various abstract, instrumental, local, and similar 
phases of state or condition may be expressed. In 
the latter, a language which might seem singularly 
rigid is given flexibility and life. The Hebrew verb 
by various modifications of the root is able to express 
simple, reflexive, causative, and intensive action; 
while the division into monosyllabic and dissyllabic 
forms is notably exemplified in the simple stem, 
where the perfect, infinitive absolute, and the par- 
ticiple belong to the dissyllabic group, and the in- 
finitive construct, imperative, and imperfect belong 
to the monosyllabic. 

The Hebrew verb lacks the richness of the Aryan 
in modal and tense development. There are but 
two so called tenses, the perfect and the imperfect, 
and these are hardly analogous to the Greek; for the 
perfect represents a verbal idea as a fact, while the 
imperfect represents it as action. The time idea 
inheres in the context, and the perfect may represent 
a fact as taking place in past, present, or future time 
(cf. for the last, Is 96). The imperfect is the more 
flexible of the two; for by it all the shades of meaning 
of the Greek or Latin imperfect, future, subjunctive, 
or optative are expressed. Particles and conjunc- 
tives being the real tense media, the so called Hebrew 
tenses are more nearly moods. Hebrew syntax is 
much simpler than Arabic. Noteworthy construc- 
tions are the construct state, the form which a noun 
takes when governing a genitive; and, peculiar to the 
Hebrew (and Moabite), the waw consecutive, 7.e., 
the conjunction, which, when used with an imper- 
fect, ‘converts’ it into a perfect, and when used with 
a perfect ‘converts’ it into an imperfect. 


5. Later Developments. Hebrew ceased to be 
the popular spoken language near the beginning of 
the Christian era. Aramaic supplanted it, but its 
literary development continued somewhat longer 
in the Rabbinic literature. Many variations have 
developed in the pronunciation of the vowels and, 
to a less degree, of the consonants in different coun- 
tries. In the last ten years, largely through the 
Zionists, there has been a great revival of Hebrew as 
a spoken tongue. 

LITERATURE: Gesenius-Kautzsch, Hebrew Grammar, 28th ed., 


§§ 1-3; articles Heb. Language and Semitic Languages in 
EB" and JE. A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8. 


337 A NEW STANDARD 


HEBREWS, EPISTLE TO THE: The longest 
and most significant of the anonymous Epistles of 
the N T. 1. The Literary Form. In form, it lacks 
the usual epistolary introduction and, in fact, the 
readers are not directly addressed in the first two 
chapters. Moreover the argument of the Epistle 
is so carefully wrought out as to give it the flavor 
of a treatise rather than a genuine letter (cf. Wrede, 
Das literarische Rdtsel des Hebrderbriefs). On the 
other hand, the earnestness of the author in the ap- 
plication of his argument (cf. 2 3, 18, 3 12, 41, 10, 12, 13, 
16, 6 6,9 etc.) to a group of readers personally known 
to him (cf. 5 11-14, 6 9-12, 10 32-34) seems to establish 
the practical as against the theoretical character of 
Hebrews. ‘The suggestion that the Epistle is an 
example of a first century sermon cast in the form of 
a letter, perhaps best explains the literary problem 
of form and contents. The arrangement of material 
is homiletical. The argument is interspersed with 
exhortations as if the author had to reckon with 
hearers not readers. He seems to take pains to 
secure attention (cf. 21, 5 11) and himself character- 
izes his work as a ‘word of exhortation’ in 13 22 (an 
expression only found elsewhere in Ac 13 15 where it 
is used of a religious speech in the Synagog). 
He uses almost exclusively the terms of a speech 
and not of a writing (cf. 2 5, 69, 511, 81, 95, 11 32). 
While this may be partly explained as the habit of a 
public speaker, it seems more probable that at least 
the framework of the Epistle is a sermon or parts of 
sermons. This might account for the omission of 
the epistolary address. The opening sentence of 
Hebrews is too perfect to make it seem probable 
that the introduction has been lost, and we do not 
know any reason for a purposed anonymity; but if 
the Epistle was sent to be read as a sermon or if it 
had that form originally, at least in the main, the 
absence of the epistolary introduction and the pres- 
ence of a personal conclusion might be thus ex- 
plained (cf. Burggaller, Z NTW, II 1908). 

2. Argument. The view-point of the author is that of a 
Jewish Christian who holds that in the message given in Jesus 
Christ God has spoken to us His final word, from which there 
can be no safe return, even to the best that is in the Divine 
revelation of the past. This position, which is announced in 
the thematic statement of the opening verses (1 }: 24), is im- 
mediately followed by a preliminary argument regarding the 
Son’s sonship and theocratic relation (1 25-4 18), This is made 
up of two statements: (1) The superiority of the Son to the 
angels of the old dispensation (1 2>~2 18), which is first presented 
(1 4b~4) and proved (1 544), and then followed with an extended 
resultant exhortation to be attentive to the Divine word of 
the Son, who, in His mission to earth, went through man’s 
experience that He might lift man up to His salvation (ch. 2). 
There is then given (2) the second statement, viz., the 
superiority of the Son to Moses (3 1-6), upon which follows a 
warning to be attentive to the Son’s voice (3 7-1), accompanied 
by a reminder of the limitation of the Divine promises to the 
present dispensation (418), Then is stated the main argument 
regarding the superiority of the Son’s priesthood over that of 
the old dispensation (4 '4-12 2%), which, after a preliminary 
exhortation to loyalty (4 1416), is opened with a formal dis- 
cussion of the Son’s perfect fulfillment in Himself of the 
qualifications for this office (5 !), and, after further ex- 
hortation (ch. 6), finds its main claim in (a) the statement of 
the supernatural character of His priesthood (ch. 7), and 
(b) its ministerial relation to the new and the better covenant 
of this final dispensation (8 1-10 18). This is then followed 
by exhortations, warnings, and encouragements directing 
them toward the holding fast of their Christian profession 


(10 19-13 17), and these bring the Epistle to its closing words 
(13 18-25), 





Hebrew Language 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Hebrews, Epistle to the 








3. Situation of the Readers. The general sit- 
uation disclosed by this argument is obviously one 
in which the readers are tempted to drift away from 
Christianity (cf. 2 1-3, 3 6, 12 f., 41, 11, 6 4-6, 10 26-39). 
Altho the author addresses them as ‘holy brethren, 
partakers of a heavenly calling’ (31) he can envisage 
the possibility of their ‘falling away from the living 
God’ (3 12) and of their crucifying ‘the Son of God 
afresh’ (66). There is a decided lack of the boldness 
and confidence and strong hope which characterized 
the early Christian temper. They are drifting 
away from their early moorings (21). They tend 
to grow dull and sluggish if not sophisticated in 
their attitude toward the fundamentals of the faith 
(511 #.). They neglect the assembly (10 25). The 
author’s repeated exhortations to patience, sted- 


-fastness, and faith (cf. e.g. 3 6, 14, 41, 14, 10 23 £. 36, 


11, 12 13) emphasize the lassitude and feebleness of 
their Christian stand. Weneed not suppose that the 
reminder of former heroic days (10 32-34) implies 
more than that thesame heroic mood is needed now. 
The total effect of the Epistle is that the readers have 
been suffering for some time from reproaches, 
taunts, sneers, ostracism and the like rather than 
from bodily harm. 


4. Readers. Who were these readers and par- 
ticularly what was their religious background? 
Recent study of the Epistle has busied itself mainly 
with this question. The generally accepted answer, 
until recent times, has been that they were Jewish 


| Christians tempted to revert to Judaism. On this 


view Hebrews is an effective argument for the 
finality of Christianity written to meet their diffi- 
culties. The author’s use of the Hebrew Scriptures 
and the Hebrew cultus gets its significance from 
their racial background. The familiar reference to 
O T personages, the confident reasoning from O T 
angelology and Mosaic institutions seem to presup- 
pose Jewish readers. 

Recent scholarship, however, has emphasized the 
positive purpose of Hebrews as being the presenta- 
tion of the finality of Christianity to those in dan- 
ger of relapsing, indeed, but not into Judaism. ‘The 
writer never mentions Jews or Christians. He 
views his readers without any distinctions of this 


kind... He never refers to the temple... 


It is the tabernacle of the Pentateuch which inter- 
ests him, and all his knowledge of the Jewish ritual 
is gained from the LXX. and later tradition... 
The LXX. is for him and his readers the codex of 
their religion, the appeal to which was cogent 
for Gentile Christians, in the early church. As 
Christians his readers accepted the LXX. as their 


bible . . . (accordingly, the readers) were not 
specifically Jewish Christians.’ (Moffatt, Hebrews 
IGC, pi xvi:): 


A modification of the traditional view to meet the 
objections raised lies in the suggestion that the read- 
ers were Jewish Christians inclining toward a specu- 
lative Judaism more or less influenced by an Alex- 
andrine type of philosophy and attracted also by 
ritualistic observances more satisfying religiously 
than the simple Christian worship. The ob- 
vious acquaintance of the author with Philo and 
his use of the allegorical method of interpretation 


Hebrews, Epistle to the 
Hebron 





(ch 7) would have a natural explanation if the 
Epistle is addressed to such a group of readers. 
The elaborate use of the O T coupled with 
the earnestness of the author would also seem to be 
more naturally explained on this hypothesis. That we 
do not have direct evidence of such a liberal specula- 
tive Judaism which would prove attractive to Jew- 
ish Christians is not fatal to this suggestion in view 
of the fact that the Epistle was probably sent to a 
small group who may well have been rather sophisti- 
cated. Hebrews gained and deserved wider cur- 
rency however because of its powerful argument for 
the finality of Christianity, which argument would 
have weight whatever the racial background of the 
readers. 

It is now generally aamitted that the Epistle is 
written to a definite group of Christians (cf. 5 11 f., 
10 32-34, 12 1-5) but the circumstances of the readers 
are not concretely enough referred to for any be- 
trayal of their local surroundings. Jerusalem, 
Rome, Alexandria and parts of Asia Minor have 
been urged. There are strong arguments against 
both Jerusalem and Alexandria (see Ayles, Desti- 
nation, Date and Authorship of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews, 1899). Zahn’s suggestion that the read- 
ers were ‘part of the whole church of a large city, 

. a congregation attached to some household,’ 
meets many of the conditions which the Epistle 
reveals. On the whole Rome seems the most prob- 
able destination. 


5. Place and Time. The phrase ‘they of Italy’ 
13 24 is used more naturally of Italians outside 
Italy who send greetings to those in the homeland 
altho grammatically it may be taken the other way. 
We have nothing more definite as to the place of 
composition. The Epistle was used by Clement of 
Rome (96 a.p.). It is not possible to identify the 
persecutions referred to. Hebrews does not reflect, 
however, the Jewish-Gentile controversy of the 
Pauline literature and should accordingly be placed 
after the Neronic persecution of 64 A.D. The refer- 
ences to ritual are to the tabernacle and not to the 
Temple hence it is not required that the date be be- 
fore 70 A.D. On the other hand, the position that 
Hebrews was written to those so familiar with the 
LXX. as to make detailed argument from it effec- 
tive, irrespective of their race, and the suggestion 
that the readers are tempted by a liberal Judaism, 
both call for a relatively late date. Perhaps the 
years 81 to 85 A.p., when persecution arose under 
Domitian, best meet all requirements. 


6. Author. Paul, Barnabas, Apollos, Silas, Peter, 
Luke, Clement, Aristion, Philip the Deacon, Pris- 
cilla and Aquila: This is a partial list of those whose 
claims to the authorship of the Epistle have been 
preferred by ancient or modern students. Altho 
attention is more profitably centered upon a re- 
examination of the purpose of the Epistle and its 
relation to N T thought, the problem of the identity 
bf the author remains of perennial interest. Prot- 
estant scholarship is practically unanimous in the 
wegative opinion that Paul can not be thought of as 
sts author. Tradition is not very favorable 
to him. The earliest use of Hebrews gives no 
name and for centuries the west did not know it as 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





338 


his. In Alexandria it was accounted as Paul’s but 
Clement and Origen felt the difficulties. The in- 
ternal evidence is even more decisive against the 
Pauline authorship: (1) Paul was accustomed to 
authenticate his epistles. (2) The style of the Epis- 
tle is in contrast to Paul’s letters, being slow, mass- 
ive, studied as against Paul’s rapid brilliant dia- 
lectic. Vocabulary and Greek style are also in con- 
trast to Pauline usage. (3) The structure of the 
Epistle, with each argument issuing immediately in 
a practical exhortation, differs from Paul’s character- 
istic division of his letters into two sections, a doc- 
trinal and a practical. (4) The theology of the 
Epistle is not Pauline (see below, § 7). (5) Such a 
verse as 2 3 (ef. Gal. 1 11) is almost of itself decisive 
against the Pauline authorship. (6) The Alexan- 
drine cast of thought, including both formal and ma- 
terial analogies to Philo, sets this Epistle over 
against Paul. No marked progress has been made, 
perhaps ever can be made, in postively identifying 
the author. It is clear that he was a Jewish Chris- 
tian of decided culture, and one whose culture was 
of that peculiar character which belonged to Alex- 
andrianism. He differs fundamentally from Philo 
in his main position, for the fact of the earthly life of 
Jesus 2.e. a set of historical facts (note his frequent 
use of the simple name Jesus 2 9, 3 1, 6 20, 7 22, 10 19, 
12 2, 24, 13 12) is determinative for his thought. But 
he was evidently acquainted with the philosophy 
of that writer, whose allegorical method of inter- 
pretation he does not hesitate to use (ch 7), with 
whose peculiar conception of the typological re- 
lation between the visible and the invisible world he 
is in large agreement (cf. 6 5, 8 2, 9 23, 11 10, 16, 12 
22-28, 18 14) and to whose phraseology he exhibits 
often striking similarities (cf. 11 10, 13 14 with pass- 
ages from Philo cited in Drummond, II, 53; 10 27, 
12 29 with II, 17; 85, 9 23 with I, 289; 1 7, 14 with I, 
289; 6 20, 7 25 with II, 193,235). Either Apollos 
(whose name was first given currency by Luther) 
or Barnabas (whose name was cited by Tertullian 
as the author of the Epistle and first revived by 
Cameron, a Scotch critic of the 17th cent.) might 
satisfy this requirement. Apollos was an Alex- 
andrian Jew, a man of culture, learned in the scrip- 
tures (Ac 18 24; cf. I Co passim) and of special 
power in reasoning with the Jews (Ac 18 25f.). At 
the same time, as far as we know, he was not specific- 
ally a disciple of the original Apostles; so that, if 
2 3 be taken literally, it militates against his author- 
ship. Barnabas was a Levite of the island of Cy- 
prus (Ac 4 36), which would bring him easily within 
the influence of Alexandrianism, altho we have no 
positive evidence as in the case of Apollos, that such 
was the type of his thought. His close connection 
with the original disciples (Ac 4 36, 9 26 f., 11 22 £.) 
together with his association with Paul (Ac 11 26, 
15 35) might account for the fact that the Epistle 
deals with some of Paul’s great themes yet not in 
Paul’s manner (see § 7). His Levitical background 
fits very well with the theme of the Epistle and 
its treatment. But our knowledge of both Bar- 
nabas and Apollos is meager—only in the case of 
Barnabas is there any supporting tradition—so 
that their names can only be suggested as of the 


~~ = se 


339 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Hebrews, Epistle to the 
Hebron 





type required. Even less can be said for the other 
names listed. 


7. Relation of Epistle to N T Thought. The 
abiding value of this Epistle is twofold: a profound 
argument for the finality of Christianity which 
altho stated in very technical form as over against 
Judaism is yet an attempt to show how it meets 
religious needs; a witness to another way of inter- 
preting Christianity than the Pauline. Both con- 
tributions can best be seen by comparing the 
thought of the Epistle with Paul’s theology. The 
author deals with Pauline themes: Christianity as 
superseding Judaism, the death of Christ and its 
significance, and faith. Yet each of these themes is 
treated from his own view-point. The Law is for 
him not a system of commands and prohibitions 
with the purpose of producing righteousness, but a 
system of ritual with the purpose of securing access 
to the Divine presence. Access to God through the 
veil (6 19, 20), fellowship with Him, satisfying wor- 
ship—this is the dominant religious need (cf. ch. 4 
esp. ver. 16 and 1019 ff.). This need Judaism imper- 
fectly satisfies (chs. 8, 9, 10) yet foreshadows ‘good 
things to come’ 101. (Judaism is a stage in an evo- 
lutionary process, while for Paul the process is 
revolutionary involving a return to a condition be- 
fore the Law cf. Gal 36). Perhaps the readers feel 
that Christianity does not satisfy this need at all. 
To them the author offers elaborate proof by anal- 
ogy. Christianity carries to finality that which 
Judaism initiates in that Christ is superior to angels 
(ch 1), to Moses (ch 3), to the Levitical priesthood 
(chs 7-10) in Hisrelation to the Covenant upon which 
Judaism rests; in that He is fitted to administer the 
Covenant as a priest (7 11-28) who can alone satis- 
factorily offer sacrifice (10 1-18); and in that He in- 
augurates the better Covenant (7 22, 8 6-13) and its 
ordinances (99f.) which supersedes the imperfect 
earthly institutions of the old Covenant—the taber- 
nacle (8 2, 5, 9 1-11, 23 f.), the sacrifices (9 12-14, 25 f.), 
the ceremonies (9 18-22), the whole cultus (10 1; cf. 
12 18-27). In effect he is saying, Think of Christ as 
priest and you will find that He qualifies and brings 
men to God once and for all. The death of Christ, 
while central for this Epistle as for Paul, is also 
differently viewed, not under the categories of law 
7.e., ransom from the curse of the Law, condemna- 
tion of sin in the flesh, reconciliation to God through 
the death of His Son, but analogous to the ritual of 
the Day of Atonement as the inaugural sacrifice of 
the New Covenant (chs. 9, 10). The author does 
not explain how the death of Christ brings men to 
God. Heargues by analogy that if the old cere- 
monial ensuring right of access into the Divine pres- 
ence—an access symbolized by the entrance of the 
high priest with the blood of the sacrifice into the 
Holy of Holies—was partly satisfying, then Christ, 
who is the Divine Son, superior to angels, Moses, 
and the priests yet brought into closest sympathy 
with human needs (2 10, 18, 4 15,57f.122f.), and who 
has entered the heavenly sanctuary once for all, has 
offered a sacrifice which completely satisfies. Ac- 
cordingly those whose hearts have been cleansed 
_from an evil conscience (10 22) through His sacrifice 
may draw near to God with courage and confidence. 








Faith also is central both for Paul and this Epistle, 

but Paul’s profound conception of faith as inner 

union with Christ is lacking here. The author of 

Hebrews views faith rather as confidence in the 

reality of the heavenly world, assurance of the heri- 

tage which God has promised—in a word, loyalty 
to the Christian position. This is the Epistle to 

the non-mystic. Paul’s words, ‘it is no longer I 

that live, but Christ liveth in me’... (Gal 2 20) 

would be out of place here. The language of He- 

brews. is rather, “.).).fun ... the race’. .7% 

looking unto Jesus . . . who hath sat down at the 

right hand of the throne of God,’ (121-2). But it is 
not necessarily a lower conception of union with 

Christ to which the author summons his readers: 

It is a different approach set forth in terms which 

his readers will understand and which describe his 

own attainment of fellowship with Christ. A fol- 
lowing of Jesus with true loyalty of purpose in afflic- 
tions and reproaches such as were His lot will bring 
union with Him. It is noteworthy that this Epis- 
tle, the most ritualistic and sacramental in its 
phraseology of the N T writings, is almost totally 
silent concerning Baptism and the Eucharist. Of 

three possible references to Baptism, the first (6 2) 

if it includes Christian Baptism is incidental and 

does not assign great significance to the rite, the 
second (9 10) is clearly to O T usages and the third 

(10 22) if it refers to Christian Baptism does not give 

it large significance. All possible references to the 

Eucharist (9 20, 6 4, 13 10) are extremely doubtful. 

This does not mean that these sacraments were not 

practised in a section of the early Church to which 

Hebrews is a witness. That would be an unwar- 

ranted use of the argument from silence. It rather 

means that to readers attracted by ‘meats’ and ‘div- 

ers and strange teachings’ (13 9) to whom, conceiv- 

ably, the Christian sacraments seemed not very im- 

posing, the author presents the Christian revelation, 

especially the life of Jesus, as in its entirety a mag- 
nificent sacrament. 

LirERATURE: For Introductions, that of Jiilicher (Eng. transl., 
1904) gives an admirable discussion of the Epistle’s thought, 
as well as of its critical questions; that of Zahn (Eng. transl., 
1908) is exhaustive on the newer critical problems. For 
Commentaries, Rendall (1888); Westcott (1892); Davidson 
(in Handbooks for Bible Classes); Edwards (in Expositor’s 
Bible, 1888); Peake in The New Century Bible; Riggenbach 
in Zahn’s Kommentar z. NT (1913); Windisch in Lietzmann, 
Handbuch z.N T (1909); Nairne, The Epistle of Priesthood 
(1918); Scott (1922); Moffatt in TCC (1924). In addition, 
treatises of Bruce (1899), and Milligan (1899), as also Drum- 
mond’s two-vol. work on Philo Judzeus (1888), Hort’s 


Judaistic Christianity (1894), and the articles of Bartlett 
in the Expositor, 1902, 1903, 1905, should be es 


HEBRON, hi’bren (]i7A9, hebhron), ‘associa- 
tion’: I. A city, probably the oldest in Palestine 
(so Jos. BJ, IV, 97), said by J to have been built 
seven years before Zoan (Tanis) in Egypt (Nu 13 22). 
Its early name, Kiriath-arba (q.v.), was apparently 
revived after the Exile (Gn 23 2; Jos 1415; Neh 11 25). 
The crusaders called H. ‘The Castle of St. Abraham.’ 
It is now known as el- Khalil, ‘The Friend,’ 2.e., 
Abraham (cf. Is 41 8, Ja 2 23). One cycle of the 
stories of the patriarchs centers about this ancient 
city (Gn 18 18, 35 27, 3714). According to the early 
J document, H. was conquered by the tribe of Judah 


Hebron 
Hereth 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


340 





singly, under the leadership of Caleb (Jg 1 10-15, 
Jos 15 14). According to the later Deuteronomic 
editor, it was captured by all Israel, under the 
leadership of Joshua (Jos 10 36f., 11 21). According 
to P, H. was made a city of refuge (Jos 207) and con- 
signed to the Kohathite Levites (Jos 2111). David 
was twice anointed king in H. (II S 2 4, 5 3), and 
reigned here as king of Judah alone for seven and 
a half years (IIS 211). Here six sons were born 
to him (II S 3 2-5), one of whom, Absolom, later 
chose his birthplace as headquarters for his re- 
bellion (II S 15 7, 10). 

After the time of David, H. is seldom mentioned 
in Scripture (only II Ch 1110; Neh 11 25). In post- 
exilic times it came into the possession of the 
Edomites, from whom it was recovered by Judas 
Maccabeeus (I Mac 5 65; Jos Ant. XII, 86). It was 
seized without bloodshed by the rebel Simon bar- 
Gioras, but was soon recaptured and burned by the 
Romans (Jos. BJ, IV, 97,9). From the 7th to the 
11th cent. A.p., H. was under Moslem rule. It was 
then taken by the crusaders and, in 1100, was bes- 
towed as a fief upon Gerhard of Avennes. In 
1167 it became the seat of a Latin bishopric; but in 
1187 it fell into the hands of Saladin, and has ever 
since remained in the possession of the Moslems, who 
reverence it as one of the four sacred cities of the 
world.! 


(cf. ‘the vale of Hebron,’ Gn 37 14), which is noted 
for its vineyards. Map II, E 2. An ancient reser- 
voir in the lower part of the valley may be the ‘pool’ 
by which the murderers of Ish-baal (Ish-bosheth) 
were hanged (IIS 412). The population numbers 
about 18,000, of whom 1,500 are Jews, the remain- 
der being Moslems of a fanatical type. 
facture of glass and of water-skins are important 
industries. The most conspicuous object in H. is 
the structure enclosing the traditional cave of 
Machpelah (q.v.). 


LirTERATURE: Robinson, BRP (1868), ii, 73-94; Baedeker- | 


Benzinger, Palestine and Syria (1912), 134-137; Thompson, 

The Land and the Book (1880), i, 268-286; G. A. Smith, 
_ HGHLE (1898), p. 317; F. Buhl, Geographie (1896), pp. 160- 
> 162, with bibliography. 

IJ, 1. A son of Kohath, the son of Levi, according 
to P (Ex 6 18), whose family, the Hebronites (Nu 
3 27), or ‘sons of Hebron’ (I Ch 159), are frequently 
mentioned by the Chronicler in enumerations of 
Levites. In the time of David, according to the 
Chronicler, the clan was large and powerful (I Ch 
26 30-32); but this reflects conditions in the time of 
the author. 2. In I Ch 2 42¢. H. is probably not the 
name of a person, but of the Calebite town (cf. I, 
above). 3. A town of Asher (Jos 19 28 AV); see 
EBRON. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 

HEDGE: The rendering of (1) gaddhér, g*dhérah, 
properly ‘a (stone) wall.’ ARV renders by ‘wall’ 


lAccording to the Moslems: Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, 
Hebron; according to the Jews: Safed, Tiberias, Jerusalem, 
Hebron. 

2A gainst the statement of Benjamin of Tudela (followed by 
many modern scholars) that ancient Hebron lay on a hill to 
he NW. of the present site, see Robinson and Thompson, l.c, 


PLE Sel 316i8,). 
_ yet been made. 


The manu- 





in all cases except Ps 89 40, Jer 49 3, Nah 3 17, and 
I Ch 4 23, where g*dérah is a proper noun. (2) sikh, 
m:stikhah, a ‘thorn hedge’ (Pr 1519, etc). (3) gpaypd¢ 
(Mk 121, etc.), which is used in the LXX. to render 
(1), but may mean any kind of fence. E. E. N. 
HEGAI, HEGE, heg’s-ai, hi’gé (720, 827, 
héghay, héghe’?): A eunuch under Ahasuerus (Est 
2 3 ff.). 
HE-GOAT. See Sacririce AND OFFERINGS, § 8. 
HEIFER. See SacriFIcE AND OFFERINGS, § 5. 
HEIR. See Famiuy anp Faminy Law, § 8. 
HELAH, hi’la (7820, hel’ah), ‘rust? (2): One of 
the wives of Ashhur (I Ch 4 5, 7). 
HELAM, hi‘lem (02°0, hélam): A town of Syria 
E. of the Jordan, where David met and defeated 


the Syrians whom Hadarezer had asked to aid him 
No satisfactory identification has © 


HK. E. N. 
HELBAH, hel’ba (71370, helbah): An ancient 
Phenician town (Jg 1 31), probably on the coast 
between Achzib and Sareptah. Possibly Achlab 
and Helbah are identical. E. E. N. 
HELBON, hel’ben (1'221, helbdn): The modern 
Halbiin, 13 m. N. of Damascus. Its famous wine is 
mentioned not only in Ezk (27 18) but also on 


| Assyrian inscriptions. Vine culture is still exten- 


H. is 19 m. SW. of Jerusalem, with which it is | sively carried on there. 


now connected by a good automobile road. Theun- | 
walled city lies about 3,000 ft. above sea-level, and | 


tretches f NW. to SE. along a fertil lley? | : : 
Ue re icky i grip esteem Sos eee one of David’s heroes and captain for the twelfth 


E. E. N. 
HELDAI, hel’do-ai or hel’dé ("121), helday), ‘en- 
during’: 1. A son of Baanah, the Netophathite, 


month (I Ch 27 15; for which I Ch 11 30 has Heled; 
II S 23 29, Heleb). 2. A Jew who returned from 


| Babylon to Jerusalem (Zec 6 10; in 6 14 Helem, 


helem). 

HELEB, hi’/leb. See Hetpay, 1. 

HELED, hi’led. See Hepat, 1. 

HELEK, hi’lek (P2n, héleq), ‘portion’: The an- 
cestral head of a Manassite clan in Gilead, the 
Helekites (Nu 26 30; Jos 17 2). 

HELEM, hi’lem (0277, hélem): 1. The ancestral 
head of an Asherite clan (I Ch 7 35), apparently the 
same as Hotham (ver. 32). 2. (helem) See Hexpat, 2. 

HELEPH, hi'lef (120, héleph): A town on the 
border of Naphtali (Jos 19 33). Site unknown. 

HELEZ, hi'lez (72%, helets): 1. One of David’s 
heroes and an officer in his army, called a ‘Paltite’ 
in ITS 28 26, z.e., an inhabitant of Beth-pelet in 8. 
Judah, but a ‘Pelonite’ (I Ch 11 27) and a man of 
Ephraim in I Ch 27 10. 2. A descendant of Judah 
(I Ch 2 39). 

HELI, hi’lai (Het): The father of Joseph, hus- 
band of Mary (Lk 3 23). 

HELKAI, hel’ko-ai or hel’ke (RM, helgay): The 
head of a priestly family (Neh 12 15). 

HELKATH, hel’koth (nR?n, helqath), ‘portion’: 
A town assigned to the Levites on the border of 
Asher (Jos 19 25, 21 31; Hukok in I Cn’ 6 75). See 
Map IV, C 6, but the identification is uncertain. 

HELKATH-HAZZURIM, _hel’’kath-haz’ziu-rim 
(737 ''N, helqath hatststirim), ‘the field of the 


Goat pi FP 


OO a 


341 A NEW STANDARD 


sword-edges’: The name given to the place of the 
conflict mentioned in II S$ 216. Some would emend 
to read ‘field of the sides’ (cf. Driver H7T'S). 

E. E. N. 


HELL. See Escuaroioey, §§ 18-21, 29 f., 38. 
HELLENISM. See GREECE. 
HELLENIST, HELLENISTS. See Disprrsion. 


HELLENISTIC and BIBLICAL GREEK. See 
GREEK LANGUAGE. 


HELM. See Suirs anp Naviaation, § 2. 

HELMET. See Arms anp Armor, § 8. 

HELON, hi’len (170, halon): The father of 
Eliab of Zebulon (Nu 19, 27, etc.). 


HELPS: (1) (dytiAnudes): As used in I Co 12 28 
this word (in plural form) has a descriptive rather 
than a technical significance. It refers to those who, 
having the ability or means and the opportunity, 
were moved to aid or succor those in need of help. 
It is not a term for a distinct church-office. See 
Cuurcu Lirz, § 7. (2) (Bonerx): A term used in 
plural form in Ac 27 17). See Snips anp Naviaa- 
TION, § 3. E. E. N. 


HEM. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, § 3. 
HEMAM, hi’mam (9°), hémam): The ances- 


tral head of a Seirite family (Gn 36 22; Homam in 
I Ch 1 39). 

HEMAN, hi’mon (])"7, héman), 1. A son of Ezrah 
(Zerah), one of the three wisest men with whom 
Solomon was compared (I K 4 31). 2. A Kohathite 
Levite (I Ch 6 33, 15 17) and head of a division of 
the musicians (I Ch 251, etc.). 


HEMATH, hi’math. See Hamarn. 

HEMDAN, hem’don (]12, hemdan): The eldest 
son of a Horite family (Gn 36 26; Hamran [Amram 
AV] in I Ch 1 41). 


HEMLOCK: The rendering of the Heb. ré’sh in 
Hos 10 4. The same Heb. word is elsewhere ren- 
dered ‘gall’ or ‘poison’ (Dt 29 17 [cf. RVmg.]; 
Ps 69 21; La 3 5; Jer 9 14, etc.). In Hos 10 4 it is 
evident that some troublesome, quick-growing, and 
probably noxious weed is meant, a fit symbol of the 
corruption of justice then prevalent in Israel. Its 
frequent collocation with wormwood (Am 6 12, etc.) 
shows that it was bitter, and other references in- 
dicate that it was considered poisonous. See GALL. 
In Am 6 12 AV, ‘hemlock’ is the rendering of 
la‘anah, ‘wormwood’ (q.v.). See also PALESTINE, 
§22. K. HE. N. 


HEN (10, hén), ‘grace’: This word (in Zec 6 14) | 


may not be a proper noun (cf. RVmg.), or it may 
be a mistake for ‘Josiah’; cf. ver. 10. 


HEN. See Patestine, § 25. 
HENA. hé’na (¥25, héna‘): A city named with 


Sepharvaim and others as conquered by the Assyr- 
ians (II K 18 34, 1913; Is 3713). Site unknown. 

HENADAD, hen’a-dad (1120, hénddhddh): The 
ancestral head of a sub-division of the Levites (Ear 
39; Neh 3 18, 24, 109). 

HENNA. See Pauestrine, § 21. 

HENOCH. See Enocu; and Hanocu. 


Hebron 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Hereth 


HEPHER, hi’fer (190, hépher): I. 1. The an- 
cestral head of a Manassite clan of Gilead, the 
Hepherites (Nu 26 32, 271; Jos 17 2 £.). 2. One 
of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 36). II. 1. A district of 
Judah in the neighborhood of Socoh, i.e., in S. 
Judah (I K 410). It is this district, probably, that is 
called in I Ch 46a ‘son’ of Ashhur. 2. A Canaanite 
city (Jos 12 17). Site unknown. 

HEPHZI-BAH, hef’zi-ba ([3°%5), hephtsi-bah), 
‘my delight is in her’: 1. The wife of Hezekiah and 
mother of Manasseh (II K 211). 2. An ideal name 
for the New Jerusalem of prophecy (Is 62 4). 


HERALD: Found only once in the Bible (Dn 3 4). 
The Aramaic original, kéréz, was probably derived 
from the Gr. xjevé (from xnedtasety, ‘to proclaim’), 
‘erier’ or ‘proclaimer.’ K. E. N. 


HERB: This word renders several Heb. and Gr. 
terms. (1) The most common is ‘ésebh, which 
includes both grains and grasses (e.g., Gn 1 11; Ps 
106 20), and is often rendered ‘grass.’ (2) deshe’, 
the ‘fresh,’ ‘young grass’ (II K 19 26, ete.). (8) 
yaraq, ‘green plants,’ including vegetables (Dt 11 10; 
I K 21 2; Pr 1517). (4) ’6r, ’Grah, apparently, the 
‘bright,’ ‘shining grass,’ tho used in a broader 
sense (II K 4 30; Is 26 19). (5) In Job 8 12 hétsir 
evidently refers to tall grass. (6) The two N T 
terms, Gotévyn (only Heb 67) and A&yavoy, are both 
of general significance, the former indicating a plant 
fit for food, the latter a cultivated (vs. a wild) herb 
or garden vegetable. HK. E. N. 

HERD. See Nomapic anp Pasrorau LIFE. 

HERES, hi’riz (971), heres), ‘sun’: 1. Mt. Heres 
(Jg 1 35), a locality in the territory of Dan, prob- 
ably the same as Ir Shemesh (q.v.), or Beth She- 
mesh (q.v.); cf. Jos 19 41; I K 49; II Ch 28 18 (so 
Moore, on Judges in JCC.). Map II, D1. 2. The 
Ascent of Heres (Jg 8 13, ‘when the sun was up’ 
AV) was if the Heb. text is correct a pass near 
Succoth, E. of the Jordan, but the text is suspicious. 
See also (on No. 1.) Crry or Destruction; and 
TIMNATH-SERAH. 

HERESH, hi’resgh (U1), 
9 15). 

HERESY, ‘division,’ ‘sect’: The Gr. atpests is 
applied to parties or types of religious thought in 
N T times. Both the Sadducees and the Pharisees 
were called ‘heresies’ (EV ‘sect,’ Ac 517, 15 5, 26 5; 
cf. also Jos. Ant. XIII, 59). The term was early 
used in designating the Christians (‘the sect [Gr. 
‘heresy’] of the Nazarenes,’ EVV ‘sect,’ Ac 24 5, 
14, 28 22). In these casesit is the approximate equiva- 
lent of the modern ‘denomination.’ It is used, how- 
ever, in the Epistles also of pernicious (but not 
necessarily doctrinal) divisions or strifes (‘factions’ 
(I Co 11 19; Gal 5 20; ef. Tit 310; IT P 21). The 
use of the term ‘heresy’ for a departure from a doc- 
trinal standard of orthodoxy is not found in the 
Bible. Ay Orde 

HERETH, hi’refh (1, hereth, Hareth AV): 
A forest in Judah which was one of the hiding- 
places of David (I S 225). The proposed identifica- 
tion, Map II, E 2, is unsatisfactory phonetically (so 
Driver HTS.?). 


heresh): A Levite (I Ch 


Heritage 
Herod 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 342 





HERITAGE. See Faminy anp Faminy Law, 
§ 8. 

HERMAS, hor’mss (‘Kepac): One of those 
saluted in Ro 16 14. From the last clause of the 
verse, ‘the brethren that are with them,’ we infer 
that his house was used as a meeting-place for the 
Christians (cf. Ro 16 4, 15). By Origen (Com. ad 
Rom., in loc.) H. is identified with the author of 
‘The Shepherd,’ but as this is a work of the 2d cent., 
and since Ro ch. 16 was apparently contained in 
very early Mss. of the Ep. to the Romans, the 
identification is impossible. JM, T, 


HERMES, hior’miz (‘Eeyts): Saluted by Paul 
in Ro 1614. Confusion between this name and that 
of Hermas, mentioned in the same verse, appears 
in some MSS. Me ad be 

HERMOGENES, har-mej’1-niz (Eepoyévng [‘E-, 
WH)]): Mentioned only in II Ti 115, where he is said 
by Paul to have been among those (‘all’) in Asia 
who ‘turned away from me.’ The special mention of 
H. and Phygelus would seem to indicate that they 
were leaders in the movement. Later apocryphal 
stories concerning H. are found in the Acts of Paul 
and Thecla, 1 and 4, 11-14. J. M. T. 

HERMON, har’man (i270, hermdn), ‘sacred 
[mountain]’: The large mountain that forms the S. 
potion of the Antilebanon range. As its name 
indicates, it was probably from ancient times viewed 
as a sacred locality and, in fact, numerous shrines 
existed on its slopes, and one even on its summit. 
In Dt 3 9 we learn that the Phenicians called H. 
Sirion (cf. also Ps 29 6), while the Amorites called 
it Senir, which, however, designated probably some 
adjacent part of the same range (cf. also I Ch 5 23; 
Song 4 8; Ezk 275). This same name (as Saniru) is 
given to the mountain in the Assyr. inscriptions, and 
(as Sanir) to the portion of the range N. of Damascus 
by the Arabs. A fourth name, Sion, is found in Dt 
4 48. H. is a lofty mountain (9,363 ft. high), whose 
summit, consisting of three peaks (‘the Hermons,’ 
Ps 42 6, Hermonites AV), is rarely free from snow. 
The cool heights of H. condense the moisture of the 
atmosphere so rapidly that mists frequently obstruct 
the view from its summit, and at night the dew is so 
heavy as to be almost equal to rain (cf. Ps 42 6, 7, 
133 3). The upper part of the mountain is bare, 
but the slopes are well covered with vegetation. 
In ancient times it furnished cypress, or fir, for the 
boat-builders of Phenicia (Ezk 27 5). It was the 
haunt of wild beasts (Song 4 8), and to-day is 
the only haunt of the Syrian bear. At present it is 
the home of the Druses, who have extensive orchards 
and vineyards on its N. and W. slopes. Its modern 
name, Jebel esh-Sheikh, ‘mount of the chief,’ is due 
to the fact that the founder of the sect made his 
headquarters here (10th cent. .D.). EK. BE. N. 


HEROD, her’od: Herod (‘Hewdys) is the name of 
the founder of an Idumzan family which furnished a 
number of kings and other rulers for Palestine and 
the adjacent countries during the latter half of the 
century before Christ and throughout the first 
century of the Christian era. The father of Herod 
was Antipater, a man of remarkable ability, whose 
father was governor of Idumza under Alexander 


Jannzus and Queen Alexandra. The origin of the 
family is not known. Possibly it came from Ascalon. 
Antipater had probably succeeded his father when 
the civil war broke out between Hyrcanus II and 
his brother Aristobulus (69 B.c.), and the oppor- 
tunity was given for him to employ his abilities as 
the former’s champion and master 


I. Herop I (rue Great), 37-4 B.c. 1. Herod as 
Governor of Galilee. Herod, the son of Antipater, 
was early given office by his father, who had been 
made procurator of Judea by Cesar, Hyrcanus II, 
the high priest and ethnarch, being little more than 
a puppet in the hands of the energetic Idumzan. 
The first office which Herod held was that of 
governor of Galilee. He was then a young man of 
about twenty-five, energetic and athletic. Imme- 
diately he set about the eradication of the robber 


bands that infested his district, and soon was able to ~ 


execute the robber chief Hezekiah and several of his 
followers. For this he was summoned to Jerusalem 
by the Sanhedrin, tried and condemned, but with 
the connivance of Hyrcanus IT he escaped by night. 
During the disorders following the assassination 
of Cesar, Herod and Antipater were loyal to Cas- 
sius, and assisted him in raising money from the 
towns of Palestine. In 42 8.c. Antipater was assas- 
sinated by one Malchus, who in turn was killed by 
assassins sent by Herod. After the defeat of Brutus 
and Cassius at Philippi, Herod and his brother 
Phasael were accused by the Jewish aristocracy at 
least twice before Antony; but in each case Antony 
showed favor to the brothers and finally appointed 
them tetrarchs. In 40 B.c. Antigonus, the son of 
Aristobulus II, attempted to recover the throne by 
using the Parthians as allies. He succeeded in 
getting hold of Phasael, who committed suicide in 
prison, but Herod escaped to the fortress of 
Massada, whence he was forced to flee with his en- 
tire family to Petra. -Being refused refuge there, he 
went to Alexandria and thence to Rome, via Rhodes. 
2. As King of Judea. Herod’s purpose in going to 
Rome seems to have been to obtain the kingship for 
Aristobulus, the grandson of Hyrcanus II, whose 
sister Mariamne he was to marry. But on his arrival 
at Rome, Antony and Octavius appointed him rather 
than Aristobulus king, and within a few days after 
his arrival at the capital he returned to Palestine to 
get possession of his kingdom (39 B.c.). For the next 
two years he was engaged in fighting the forces of 
Antigonus, whom he finally defeated, and in 37 B.c. 
gained possession of Jerusalem. Antigonus was 
beheaded by Antony at the request of Herod. 


2a. Problems of His Reign. As king, Herod con- 
fronted serious difficulties. The Jews objected to 
him because of his birth and reputation. The 
Hasmonean family regarded him as a usurper, 
notwithstanding the fact that he had married 
Mariamne. The Pharisees were shocked at his 
Hellenistic sympathies, as well as at his severe 
methods of government. On the other hand, the 
Romans held him responsible for ‘maintaining 
order in his kingdom, and for the protection of the 
eastern frontier of the Republic. Herod met these 
various difficulties with characteristic energy and 
even cruelty, but generally with cold sagacity. 


| a 


343 A NEW STANDARD 


Altho he taxed the people severely, in times of 
famine he remitted their dues, and even sold his 
plate to get means to buy them food. While he 
never became actually friendly with the Pharisees, 
they profited by his hostility to the party of the 
Hasmoneans, which at the beginning of his reign 
led to the execution of a number of Sadducees who 
were members of the Sanhedrin. 

2b. Building Activity. The fact that Herod’s 
kingdom included many Greeks as well as Jews led 
him to adopt a self-contradictory policy. He favored 
both parties of his subjects. For the Greeks he built 
temples in the cities where they lived, as well as in 
towns outside of his own kingdom. It was this 
general policy, as well as the example of Augustus, 
that led Herod to rebuild a number of cities. The 
most important work of this sort was the refounding 
of the city of Strato’s Tower, which he named 
Cesarea (q.v.), and beautified with a temple to 
Augustus, colonnades, a mole, and many public 
buildings, making it the chief city of his kingdom. 
Throughout the Roman period it remained the seat 
of the Roman governor of Juda. He also rebuilt 
the city of Samaria (q.v.), renaming it Sebaste in 
honor of the wife of Augustus. Here also he erected 
a great pagan temple and other public buildings, the 
ruins of some of which remain to-day. He built 
many amphitheaters and theaters at Jerusalem and 
in other cities, and established games at Cesarea 
and at Jerusalem. He surrounded himself with 
Greek scholars, the most prominent among whom 
was Nicolas of Damascus. For the Jews he re- 
built the Temple at Jerusalem in great magnificence, 
making it, with its courts and colonnades, one of 
the noblest buildings of antiquity. This rebuilding 
apparently began about 20 B.c.,and was not finally 
completed until in the time of the procurator 
Albinus, 62-64 a.p. (cf. Jn 2 20, and see TEMPLE). 
Altho he removed the high priests at will, Hered was 
careful to respect the prejudices of the Jews, and 
did not attempt to introduce statues into the 
public buildings of Jerusalem, and even omitted 
images on his coins. 


2c. Maintenance of Order. By way of maintaining 
order, he established citadels throughout the terri- 
tory, and maintained a strong band of mercenaries. 
In addition, he established strict police regulations, 
and maintained a system of spies. Notwithstanding 
the fact that there were popular disturbances— 
doubtless to some extent associated with the 
Messianic movement—Judza was at peace through- 
out his reign. During his last years, it is true, the 
people became increasingly uneasy, and there was 
a threatened revolt under Pharisaic leadership; but 
the old king crushed this with characteristic severity. 


2d. Relations to Rome. As an allied king with 
Rome, Herod was expected to maintain order on 
the frontier (see above, 2a). In pursuit of this policy 
he fought, and was given suzerainty over the 
Arabians. He annexed and colonized Trachonitis, 
which had been held by a body of robbers; and he 
seems to have been able to keep back the wandering 
tribes of the desert. In fact, it was because of this 
energetic policing of the frontier, as well as main- 
tenance of peace within his own dominion, that he 


Heritage 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Herod 


kept the friendship of Augustus. At least twice 
during his reign this friendship was threatened, but 
he was able to adjust matters. The conjecture 
(Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? [1898]) 
that during the latter half of his reign Judea was 
more completely under the control of the empire, 
even to the point of being subject to the census, 
can hardly be said to be as yet thoroughly estab- 
lished. Throughout his reign, however, he was 
never given complete independence, but was sub- 
ject to the general limitations set allied kings, 
among them being the restriction of the coinage 
to copper coins, liability to a certain degree of con- 
trol from the nearest propretor—in Herod’s case 
that of Syria—inability to carry on war, except 
with the consent of the emperor, or to appoint his 
own successor, except with the imperial approval. 


2e. Intrigues of His Reign. It is probably because 
of the animus of Josephus, as well as the perspective 
of his narrative, that Herod’s success as an 
administrator has been considerably obscured by 
the tragedies within his own family circle. In esti- 
mating the prejudice which led to the successive 
execution of the surviving members of the Has- 
monean house, including his wife Mariamne and 
their two sons Alexander and Aristobulus, it is to 
be borne in mind that, like all Oriental kings, Herod 
was subject to constant plots on the part of his 
family and the sympathizers with the Hasmonean 
house. A study of his reign will show that his execu- 
tions were the outcome of the efforts of his rivals to 
displace him. The only exception to this was his 
execution of his wife Mariamne, because of jealousy 
born of intrigues instigated to a large extent by his 
sister, who was jealous of the influence of Mariamne 
and her mother. The execution of his two sons (by 
Mariamne) was due to a series of plots on their part, 
and an antiplot on the part of his eldest son, An- 
tipater, to secure the succession. It can hardly be 
doubted, further, that during the later years of the 
old king’s life he was suffering from a disease which 
made him easily susceptible to suspicion (cf. Mt 
2 3-12, 16-19). 

2f. Disposition of His Kingdom. At his death 
(4 B.c.) Herod left a will, according to which his 
kingdom was to be divided among his three sons. 
Archelaus was to have Judea, Idumza, and Sa- 
maria, with the title of king (Mt 2 22); Herod 
Antipas was to receive Galilee and Perea, with the 
title of tetrarch; Philip was to come into possession 
of the trans-Jordan territory, with the title of 
tetrach (Lk 31). This will was ratified by Augustus, 
with the exception of the title given Archelaus. 


II. Sons AND DeEscENDANTS OF HEROD THE 
Great. 3. Archelaus. Archelaus (4 B.c.-6 A.D.), 
after the ratification of Herod’s will by Augustus, 
succeeded to +the rule of Judea, Samaria, and 
Idumeza, having the title of ethnarch, with the 
understanding that, if he ruled well, he was to 
become king. He was, however, highly unpopular 
with his people, and his reign was marked by dis- 
turbances and acts of oppression. The situation 
finally became so intolerable that the Jews appealed 
to Augustus, and Archelaus was removed and sent 
into exile. This accounts for the statement in 


Herod 


Hexateuch 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


HAA 





Mt 2 22, and possibly also suggested the point of 
the parable in Lk 19 12 ff. His territory became a 
procuratorial province subject to the census. Arche- 
laus, like all his family, was a builder, among his 
public works being the establishment of the city 
Archelais. 


4. Herod Antipas. Herod Antipas (4 B.c.-37 A.D.) 
was the son of Herod I and Malthace, and was a full 
brother of Archelaus. By the will of his father he 
was appointed tetrarch of Galilee and Perea in 
48.c. His long reign was marked by no serious out- 
break or disturbance, and Galilee seems to have be- 
come exceedingly prosperous. Perea also enjoyed 
prosperity, altho this must have been due in con- 
siderable measure to the development of the Greek 
cities within Perean territory belonging to the 
Decapolis. Herod Antipas was a builder of cities, 
his most important undertaking being the erection 
of Tiberias, on the Sea of Galilee (q.v.). The 
city was built and organized in the Greek style, and 
was controlled by a castle rising above it. It was 
built in part over a graveyard, and for some time 
was regarded as unclean by the Jews. Antipas also 
rebuilt Sepphoris, and walled the city of Betha- 
rampha, naming it Livias (or Julias). He also 
helped the Greek islands, as tablets found in Cos 
and Delos indicate. His general policy was that of 
friendship with the Romans, but he was also careful 
to attend feasts at Jerusalem, and to stamp no image 
on his coins. He joined in a protest against Pilate 
for having set up a votive shield in the Temple. 
He married his niece Herodias (Mk 6 17; Mt 14 3), 
the wife of his half-brother Herod Philip (not the 
tetrarch Philip), of Rome. This necessitated the 
divorcing of his wife, who was the daughter of 
Aretas, King of Arabia, and involved him in war 
with that monarch, in which he was defeated. At 
the time of the Gospel history, however, Galilee was 
at peace. 

In 37 a.p. Agrippa, the brother of Herodias, was 
made king of the former tetrarch of Philip, and 
Herod was induced by his wife to seek royal honors 
for himself. Agrippa, however, who had quarreled 
with his brother-in-law while superintendent of the 
markets in Tiberias, poisoned the mind of Caligula 
by charging that Antipas was gathering an army 
preparatory to revolt. Antipas was in consequence 
banished (39 a.p.) to Lyons, whither Herodias 
accompanied him, and where probably he died. 
This is the ‘Herod’ most frequently mentioned in the 
N T (Mt 617 f., 8 15; Lk 3 1, 97, 13 31 £.; Ac 4 27, 
13 1, etc.). He was the one who imprisoned the 
Baptist (Mk 6 14-29, and ||s) and the one to whom 
Pilate sent Jesus (Lk 23 7-15) 


5. Herod Philip. Herod Philip, son of Herod I 
and Cleopatra of Jerusalem (4 B.c.-34a.D.). By the 
will of his father he was made tetrarch of that 
section of the Herodian kingdom lying E. and N. 
of the Sea of Galilee. The region was not strictly 
Jewish, and was composed of a number of small 
districts which had been conquered by, or given to, 
Herod I—Bataneza, Trachonitis, Gaulanitis, Iturea, 
and Auranitis. He was, on the whole, the most 
respectable of Herod’s sons. He was fond of building. 
Banias he rebuilt as a Greek city, with the right of 


asylum, and named it Cesarea. In order to dis- 
tinguish it from various other towns of the same 
name, It was known as Cesarea Philippi (q.v.). 
He also rebuilt Bethsaida (q.v.), a town a few miles 
from the entrance of the Jordan into the Sea of Gal- 
ilee, and named it Julias, in honor of the daughter of 
Augustus. Furthermore, he built various temples to 
the heathen gods, and stamped an image on his coins. 
In general, he seems to have been a good ruler, 
traveling over his territories, rendering justice to his 
subjects. He was married to Salome, the daughter 
of Herodias, and died in 34 a.p. without issue. 


6. Herod Agrippa I. Herod Agrippa I, son of 
Aristobulus, the son of Herod I and Mariamne 
(37-44 a.p.). He was one of the most interesting 
characters of the period. After the execution of his 
father he seems to have gone to Rome and to have 
acquired the habits of the wealthy young men of the . 
early empire. At forty he found himself bankrupt, in 
disfavor with Tiberius, and compelled to leave Rome 
to escape his creditors. He went to Palestine, and 
was about to commit suicide when his wife Cypros 
induced his sister Herodias, at that time the wife 
of Herod Antipas, to obtain for him the position of 
superintendent of markets in Tiberias. In a short 
time he quarreled with Herod Antipas, and became 
a friend of Flaccus, propretor of Syria. He lost 
favor with that official by taking bribes from the 
citizens of Damascus. Reduced to extremities, he 
went to Italy, where he was imprisoned by Tiberius, 
because he had been overheard to tell Caius that 
he desired the death of the emperor. Upon the 
death of Tiberius he was released from prison by his 
friend Caius, and made king over the territory 
which had belonged to his uncle Philip (37 a.p.). 
He does not seem to have lived much in his kingdom 
until after the deposition of Herod Antipas. In 
39 A.D. he was given the latter’s tetrarchy. During 
the antisemitic outbreak under Caius (Caligula) he 
was able to obtain some favors from the emperor, 
and so won popularity with the Jews. He seems 
to have had some share in the elevation of Claudius 
to the empire after the assassination of Caius, and, 
in consequence, was given the province of Judea 
(41 a.p.). His kingdom thus became practically co- 
extensive with that of Herod I. Herod Agrippa 
was popular with the Jews, because he was careful 
to regard Pharisaic observances. He had power to 
appoint the high priest, but he was careful in no 
way to outrage the feelings of the Jews, and further 
added to his popularity by using his influence with 
Claudius for the good of the Jews throughout the 
empire. According to Ac 121 ff. he persecuted Chris- 
tians to increase his popularity. He strengthened 
the fortifications of Jerusalem and apparently began 
the formation of a confederacy of neighboring kings. 
This project, however, was nipped in the bud by the 
legate of Syria. Notwithstanding his regard for 
Jewish customs, outside of Palestine he was a 
thoroughgoing Hellenist. In Beirit he built baths 
and a sumptuous theater. He also erected an 
amphitheater for gladiatorial games. He was in the 
midst or games in Caesarea when he was seized with 
a fatal disease after being saluted by the people as a 
god (44 a.p.; cf. Ac 12 20-23). 


345 A NEW STANDARD 


7. Herod Agrippa II. Herod Agrippa II (49-c. 
100 a.p.), son of the preceding, was a boy at the 
death of his father and was not allowed to succeed 
him. He was, if possible, more friendly to the Jews 
than his father had been, and maintained also friend- 
ship with Claudius. In 49 a.p. he was appointed the 
successor of his uncle Herod, as king of the little 
kingdom of Chalcis, with which position went also 
the right to appoint the high priest. In 53 a.p. he 
exchanged Chalcis for territory that had been a part 
of the tetrarchy of Philip, to which Nero added por- 
tions of Perea and Galilee, including the city of 
Tiberias. At the outbreak of the revolt of 66 a.p. he 
did all that he could to restore peace, and to per- 
suade the Jews to give up their mad undertaking. 
In this, however, he was unsuccessful, and took the 
side of the Romans against the Jews. He seems to 
have reigned until his death, which was probably 
about 100 a.p. It was before this Agrippa and his 
sister Bernice that Paul was brought by Festus (Ac 
25 13-26 32). 

8. The Herodian Women Mentioned in the N T. 
Herod Agrippa I had three daughters. The eldest, 
Bernice, married her uncle Herod of Chalcis, and 
subsequently Polemon II, King of Cilicia, and lived 
as wife on the Palatine with Titus. She is mentioned 
in the N T as being present at the trial of Paul (Ac 
25 13, 23, 26 30). The youngest of the three was 
Drusilla. After various adventures she became the 
wife of Felix, procurator of Judea. She was present 
at the trial of Paul (Ac 24 24). Like her sister 
Bernice, she gained a reputation not above re- 
proach. Herodias was the daughter of Aristobulus, 
son of Herod the Great. It was her unholy relation- 
ship with Herod Antipas (see § 4 above) that 
brought her and Antipas under the denunciation of 
the Baptist, and it was her resentment that led 
finally to John’s death (Mk 6 17-28). 

LiteRATURE: Besides Josephus and the Latin historians, 
the best modern authority is Schiirer, HJ P,(3d-4th Germ. ed., 
1901-1909). S. M. 
HERODIANS, hi-ré’di-anz: The adherents, or 

partizans, of the Herod dynasty and, as such, well 

content with Roman overlordship, but desirous of 
seeing one of this family over Judea in the place 
of the Roman procurator (Mk 3 6, 12 13 and ||s). 

The principles of Jesus’ teaching were no more 

favorable to the Herodian policy and ideals than 

they were to Pharisaism. The women of the 

Herodian house were, as arule, devoted to Judaism, 

which may partly explain the union of Herodian 

and Pharisee against Jesus. EK. E.N. 


HERODIAS, hi-rd’di-as. See Heron, § 8. 

HERODION, hi-rd’dion (‘Hewdtwy): A relative 
of Paul (Ro 16 11). 

HERON. See PALESTINE, § 25. 

HESED, hi’sed. See BEN-HESED. 


HESHBON, hegh’ben (Ji2¥N, heshbon): A city 
of Moab, advantageously situated on two hills com- 
manding an extensive view of the lower Jordan 
Valley. Map II, J 1. Sihon made H. the capital of 
his Amorite kingdom (Nu 21 25-34; Dt 1 4; etc.). 
Taken from Sihon by Israel, it was occupied by the 
Reubenites and Gadites (Nu 32 3, 37; Jos 13 26 f.; 


Herod 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Hexateuch 


I Ch 8 81; and ef. Mrsua, Moabite Stone, line 10). 
Later, we find it again in possession of Moab and its 
overthrow predicted by Isaiah and Jeremiah (Is 
15 4, 16 8 f.; Jer 48 2 #., 49 3). The site is one of 
great fertility, well supplied with water (cf. Song 
7 4, where AV reads fish pools instead of ‘pools’). 
The extensive ruins show that it was a flourishing 
city in Roman times. E. E.N. 


HESHMON, hesh’mon (]}0¥M, heshmén): A town 
of Judah (Jos 15 27). Site unknown. 

HETH, heth (0, héth): The people of Hebron, 
in Gn ch. 23, are called ‘children of Heth,’ also in 
ver. 10 Hittites (MN, hittt). The same usage meets 
us in Gn 27 46 and 26 34 regarding Esau’s wives (cf. 
also 49 29 f.). These ‘Hittites,’ as an element of 
the pre-Israelitic population of S.. Palestine, are 
referred to a number of times (Gn 15 20; Ex 3 8, 17, 
13 5, 23 23, 28; Jos 12 8, etc.). All such terms as 
Canaanite, Amorite, Hittite are used somewhat 
loosely in the O T and in different senses by different 
writers. The question here is: were the Hebron 
‘Hittites’ simply Canaanites who were considered 
as being connected genealogically with a certain 
Heth, or were they an offshoot or remnant of the 
great Hittite people who had become separated 
from the main body and had remained in S. Pales- 
tine? While the first view is the prevalent one, there 
are good reasons (cf. Burney, Judges, pp. lxxxiii ff.) 
for the latter. Ahimelech (I S 26 6) and Uriah 
(IIS 113 #.) probably belonged to these S. Pales- 
tine Hittites, and Ezk 16 3, 45is to be explained in 
the same way. On Gn 10 15 and other references 
see Hirrrrms. (Cf. also Driver, Com. on Genesis, 
1904, and Skinner JCC on Gn 23.) K. E.N. 


HETHLON, heth'len (171, hethlon): A place 
on the ideal N. boundary of Israel (Ezk 47 15, 481), 
not mentioned elsewhere. Perhaps the modern 
Hetitela (Furrer, ZDPV, VIII, 27), N. of Tripoli. 
Others make the ideal N. boundary S. of the foot of 
Hermon, and identify H. with ’Adlin, N. of the 
mouth of the Kasimiyeh (Litany) river. C.S8. T. 


HEXATEUCH. 


IntTRoDuUcTORY, §§ 1-3. 
I. THe STRUCTURE OF THE 
HEXATEUCH 18 CompPos- 


II. ANALYSIS INTO THE 
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS, 
§§ 10-13. 


ITE, §§ 4-9. III. History oF THE For- 
MATION OF THE HExa- 
TEUCH, §§ 14-30. 

1. The Term. The term ‘Hexateuch’ (¢§ and 


ce0xo<, ‘the six-book treatise’) is used to designate 
the first siz books of the O T. This term is preferable 
to the older, Pentateuch, 7.e¢., the first five books, or 
the Law, since modern study has shown that, 
Joshua is a part of the same literary production and 
must be included in any comprehensive study 
of the Pentatuech. 

2. General Outline. The H. presents a general 
historical account extending from the Creation to 
Israel’s occupation of Canaan, disposed as follows: 
(1) The Ancient World, the starting-point of all 
history (Gn chs. 1-11). (2) The origin of the Coy- 
enant-People Israel and its history during the 
patriarchal age (Gn chs. 12-50). (3) The organiza- 
tion of Israel and the origin of its laws and institu. 


'trophe is cosmic rather than local. 


Hexateuch 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


346 





tions (Ex 11-Nu 10 10). (4) The discipline in the 
desert, ending in the conquest of the East-Jordan 
region (Nu 10 11-Dt 34 12). (5) Israel’s conquest 
and occupation of Canaan (Jos). 

3. Mosaic Authorship a Late Idea. Not until 
the Persian period did the Jews think of Moses as 
the author of the entire Pentateuch. The references 
in Kings, Joshua, and the Pentateuch itself to a 
‘book’ or books, by Moses can not be shown to 
refer to the Pentateuch in its present form. But from 
the Greek period it was the general opinion that 
Moses wrote the Law (i.e., the Pentateuch). 
Christianity took over this opinion from Judaism, 
and, until critical methods of study showed it to 
be untenable, it was the prevalent opinion. 


I. Tue SrructurE oF THE HExaTEUCH I8 
* CoMPOSITE—PROOF. 

That the H, is of composite structure many facts 
in the work itself conclusively prove. 

4. From Genesis. (1) A comparison of Gn 1 1-2 
4, with 2 4b-3 24 discloses two distinct narra- 
tives. In 1 1-2 42 the word for the deity is God 
(Heb. ’éldhim), and a cosmic process is described, 
the order being: the universe, earth, plant and 
animal life, man. The conceptions are somewhat 
abstract, and the idea of God is monotheistic and 
free from anthropomorphism. This section has also 
a noticeable literary style. But in 2 4b-3 24 the word 
for deity is Jehovah (Lorp AV) God. Interest is 
centred, not on the cosmos, but on the earth, 
especially as the abode of man. The animals are 
made after man, and for his sake. The conception 
of God is more anthropomorphic, and the literary 
style is altogether unlike that of 11-2 44. (2) The 
Flood narrative, 6 5-9 17, presents the same features. 
Sections using God alternate with others using 
Jehovah. The passages 6 5-8, 7 1-5, 8 20-22 are clearly 
‘Jehovah’ paragraphs, and on the basis of similarity 
of style and conception 7 7-10 (in the main), 12, 16 
(last clause), 17b, 22, 23, 8 2b, 6-12, 13b are to be classed 
with them. On the other hand, 6 13-22, 7 6, 11, 13- 
16a, 17a, 18-21, 24, 8 1-2a, 3b-5, 18a, 14-19, 9 1-17 make up 
another narrative in which God is the name for 
deity. In this, in contrast with the narrative using 
Jehovah, the conception of deity is more abstract, 
the style is formal and statistical, and the catas- 
(3) There are 
two ancient genealogical tables, 4 1, 16-24 and 5 1-28. 
In the first, man’s descent is traced through Cain 
to Lamech; in the second, through Seth to Lamech. 
Since the two tables are altogether or nearly identical 
in respect to a number of the names, they may 
represent but two versions of some very ancient list. 
In the first Jehovah is used, in the second God, 
with corresponding differences in style. (4) The 
story of Abraham’s experience in Egypt, 12 10-20, is 
parallel, in general outline, to 20 1-18, and in one 
Jehovah, in the other God, is the name for deity. 
But now a new phenomenon appears: The style of 
20 1-18 is unlike that of the preceding sections which 
use the same name God. It is the easy, flowing 
narrative style of the Jehovah passages. The 
significance of this will be noted later. (5) In 
ch. 17 God gives Abraham the promise of seed, while 
in ch. 18 Jehovah makes a similar promise. The 


sequel of ch. 18 is found in 21 1 (Jehovah); that of 
ch. 17 in 21 2-6 (God). (6) Ch. 87 contains two 
stories of Joseph’s transportation to Egypt. In 
one (vs. 28a, 36), Midianites take him out of the pit 
and carry him away. In the other (vs. 27, 28b) his 
brethren sell him to the Jshmaelites. (See Grnzsis). 


5. From Exodus. (1) 11-77 there is, on the whole, 
a triple narrative. (a) 11-5 (with 6 14-27), 7, 13, 14b, 
2 23b-25, 6 2-7 7 form a complete account of the 
initial stages of the Exodous movement. They 
neither presuppose nor require anything mentioned 
in the intervening sections. It is also evident that 
6 2-3 directly conflicts with those passages in 
Genesis in which a knowledge of Jehovah in the 
patriarchal age is assumed (cf. Gn 4 26, 12 8, 13 18, 
15 2, 7, 16 5, 22 14, 24 3, 7, 12, 27, 31, 35, 40, 42, 44, 48 
and many others. (b) Separating out from Ex 1 1- 
7 7 the passages noted under (a), there remains a- 
series of paragraphs, some using God, others Jehovah, 
the rest being less distinctive. Naturally, after ch. 3 
9b-15, where God reveals His name Jehovah, and to a 
greater degree after 6 2-3, the name J’” could be used 
freely by all the writers. But this only makes the 
alternation of Jehovah and God more significant, and 
such a passage as 3 2-7 evidently consists of two 
separate threads of narrative. Using this hint we 
may tentatively assign 1 15-21, 3 1, 4b, 6, 9b-15, and 
4 17, 20b to the document using God, and the remain- 
ing passages to the one using Jehovah. (2) The plague 
narrative, 7 8-12 36, is also seen to be composed of 
several strands. In some passages Moses and Aaron 
together deal with Pharaoh, Aaron as speaker and 
performer of the wonders (7 2, 10, 19-20, 8 5, 6, 18, 
9 8), while in others Moses acts alone (7 14-15, 81, 20, 
9 1, 13, 22, 10 21-29). In some the emphasis is laid 
on Aaron’s rod (7 9, 19, 8 5, 16), in others on Moses’ 
rod, or hand (9 22 f., 1012 f., 21 £.; ef. also 14 15 £., 
21). 111-3 breaks the connection between 10 28 f. 
and 11 4-8 by introducing a matter belonging to an 
entirely different situation, and apparently from 
another narrative. (3) In 18 13-17 assistant judges 
are appointed by Moses at Jethro’s suggestion, but 
in Dt 1 9-18 the same transaction is placed after the 
giving of the Law, Jethro is not mentioned, and the 
selection is made by the people, not by Moses. 
(4) In 19 1-24 18 there are evidently three accounts. 
a. 19 1-2 and 24 15-18. form a complete altho brief 
introduction to the great revelation concerning the 
Sanctuary and its services (Ex chs, 25-31, 35-40; 
Lv fall]; ete.). b. A closely interwoven double 
narrative in 19 3-24 14, 15b. Evidence for this is 
(a) the alternation of God and Jehovah, which is 
otherwise inexplicable (19 3, 17-20, 20 1); (b) in the 
Jehovah parts of ch. 19 the people keep away from 
the mount when Jehovah descends, but in 19 17, 19, 
20 1, 18-21 Moses and the people are quite near 
where God is, and only at the people’s request is the 
distance between them and God increased; (c) 24 1-2, 
9-11 can be interpreted only as describing the rat- 
ification of a covenant, or a covenant-meal. But 
essentially the same significance must, be given to 
24 3-8; (d) the religious injunctions in 20 22-28, 22 
29-30, and 23 10-33 are repeated partly in identical 
words in 34 10-27, a passage which also is loosely 
attached to its context. (See Exopus.) 


B47 A NEW STANDARD 


6. From Leviticus. Ex. chs. 25-31, 35-40, the 
entire Book of Leviticus, and Nu 1 1-10 28 are closely 
connected, marked by the same general style, 
deal with the same subject, and are written from the 
same points of view. In all these respects they are 
sharply distinguished from the narrative sections 
that precede and follow them. (See also Leviticus 
and NuMBERS.) 

7. From Numbers. (1) Examining the narrative 
in Nu from 10 29 on, we find there are two accounts 
of the expedition of the spies. (a) In 13 17b-20, 22-24, 
26b-31, the region about Hebron is the limit reached. 
(b) In 13 1-173, 21b, the whole land of Canaan is 
examined. Dt 1 19-25 agrees with (a) rather than 
with (b). (2) The account of the great rebellion in 
ch. 16 shows itself to be composite. (a) On, son 
of Peleth, is mentioned at first as one of the leaders, 
but nothing more is said of him. (b) The motive 
of the rebels is twofold. That of Korah is religious— 
a protest against the exclusive claims of the Levites 
vs. the rights of the whole people, or a protest 
against the claims of the priests vs. the whole body 
of Levites (see NumBerrs, § 2). But Dathan and 
Abiram are hostile to Moses’ civil authority and 
declare that he has not fulfilled his promises. (c) 
The paragraphs alternate, vs. 4-11 dealing with 
Korah, 12-14 with Dathan and Abiram, 15-19 with 
Korah, while 20-35 is a composite account of the 
punishment, which differs in each case. (8) In the 
Balak and Balaam story (ch. 22) there seem to be 
two narratives. (a) In ver. 7 the ‘elders of Midian’ 
go for Balaam, but in ver. 8 it is the ‘princes of 
Moab.’ (b) In ver. 20 God directs Balaam to go, 
but in ver. 22 f. He is angry with him for going. 
(c) In ver. 5a Balaam lives in Pethor by the Eu- 
phrates, in ver. 5b in ‘the land of the children of his 
people’ (z.e., according to the probable reading, in 
the land of Ammon). (d) The form of the oracles 
in ch. 23 is very different from that in ch. 24. 


8. From Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy forms a 
separate book directly connected neither with 
Numbers nor with Joshua. Its style is distinct from 
that of the preceding books. Its introductory 
narrative traverses briefly the same ground as 
Exodus and Numbers, but its representation of 
the events is different (cf. Dt 1 9-18 with Ex 18 
13-26; Dt 1 19-40 with Nu ch. 13; Dt 21-8 with Nu 
20 14-21). Its code (chs. 12-26, 28) is an amplification 
of the brief code in Ex chs. 20-23, the additional 
matter being suitable to a time much later than the 
Mosaic age. The religious polemic in Dt chs. 4-11 
fits the situation in Judah in the 7th cent. as it does 
no other, while the literary affinities between Dt and 
other portions of the O T appear only from the 
7th cent. onward (e.g., Jeremiah has much in com- 
mon with Dt., but Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Isaiah 
{I] practically nothing; see DreurmRoNomy). 


. 9. From Joshua. The Book of Joshua presents a 
complex, difficult to disentangle. At some points 
there are traces of double or threefold narratives, 
as in other parts of the Hex. (1) In 215 a suitable 
conclusion of the narrative between Rahab and the 
spies is reached and vs. 16-21 appear to be part of 
another account. (2) In 2 15 Rahab’s house is built 
into, or a part of, the city wall; but in 6 22, after 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Hexateuch 


the wall has fallen down flat (6 20), Joshua sends 
the spies into the city to find the house. Evidently 
here are two different traditions. A careful study of 
ch. 6 does, in fact, reveal a twofold narrative of the 
capture of the city. (3) In 83 4. Joshua sends 30,000 
men to lie in hiding behind Ai, while he makes a 
feigned attack in front. But in 810 ff. the very same 
plan is described, only the ambushment consists of 
but 5,000 men. (4) In 10 36-43 Joshua, at the head 
of all Israel, attacks and utterly destroys, among other 
places, Hebron, Debir, and the towns in the whole 
southern country, from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza. 
But in 14 6-12 the same region is given to Caleb to be 
conquered by him, and the story of its conquest by 
Caleb follows in 15 13-19 (cf. Judges 19-21). Similarly 
in ch. 8 all Israel makes the attack on Bethel and Ai, 
while in Judges 1 22-26 Bethel is captured by the 
house of Joseph alone. (5) In 13 1 Joshua, at 
Gilgal, ‘old and well stricken in years,’ apparently 
after the main work of conquest is over, is com- 
manded to divide the land (137). But 1818. breaks 
into this procedure with another account of an 
allotment to only seven tribes at Shiloh. In 231 
Joshua, again ‘old and well stricken in years,’ gives 
his farewell charge to Israel (place not mentioned), 
but in ch. 24 we have another and different farewell 
at Shechem. Such features indicate the use of 
originally different narratives. 


Il. ANALYSIS INTO THE ORIGINAL DocUMENTS. 


10. Not Many Fragments, but Several Main 
Documents. It is, from what has been said, evident 
that Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua are 
composite, everywhere based upon older and 
originally separate strands of material. The unity 
is only apparent, due to editorial adjustment, not to 
single authorship. The separate strands, which are 
constantly revealing themslves, are, however, not 
all independent. The component elements of any 
given section are related to those of other sections. 
In other words, the separate strands are but sections 
of long, comprehensive documents that underlie the 
whole H. The character of these documents must 
next be determined. 

11. The ‘Priestly’ Document. P or PC. As we 
have seen, Gn 11-2 4a has a distinct style, vocabulary, 
and theological point of view. Gn ch. 5 has the same 
style, vocabulary, and point of view, also 6 9-22, 
many verses of ch. 7 (especially in vs. 13-24), 8 13-19, 
9 1-17, 28-29, 10 1-32, and 11 10-27. In all these we find 
the same strict monotheism, somewhat transcen- 
dental, the empahsis on Divine plan rather than on 
human motives, and long stretches of history 
covered in a merely statistical way. The writer 
has an exact and comprehensive chronology. The 
plan of the history is genealogical—note the ‘genera- 
tions’ of (1) the heavens and the earth, 2 4a; (2) of 
Adam, 5 1; (3) of Noah, 6 9; (4) of the sons of 
Noah, 10 1; (5) of Shem, 11 10; (6) of Terah, 11 27 
(cf. the continuation in 25 12, 19, 36 1, 37 1). In 
1 29-30, 2 1-3, 9 3-4, 12 we detect an interest in cere- 
monial usage and symbolism. In fact, we have an 
originally complete narrative, in which the same 
style and point of view are consistently maintained. 
This narrative can be traced by its characteristic 
marks through the rest of the Pentateuch and on 


Hexateuch 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


348 


LLL LL LLL LL LLL LLL LLL LLL LLL LLL LLL 


into Joshua (see below, § 28). It is the narrative of 
the origin of Israel, as the theocracy, and of Israel’s 
religious institutions. The goal of the national 
development was reached in the establishment of 
the Sanctuary, Priesthood, and religious services. 
It neglected, sometimes contradicted, popular 
tradition. According to it the patriarchs did not 
offer sacrifices (as they had no priests or legitimate 
sanctuaries), nor did they know, or use, the name 
Jehovah (Ex 6 2-3). Because of its character this 
document is known as the Priestly narrative (symbol 
P), and the legislation in it as the Priest’s Code (PC). 


12. The J and E Histories. On the same basis of 
stylistic and other affinities other passages show that 
they once belonged together. Gn 2 4b-4 26 finds its 
continuation in 5 29b, 6 1-8, 7 1-5, 7-9, 12, 16b, 17b, 22 f., 
8 2b, 6-12, 13b, 20-22, 9 18-27, etc. In all these the name 
for deity is Jehovah, the style is that of the story, 
told vividly and realistically. The tone is deeply 
religious and a profound interest is felt in man as 
a moral-religious being who is working out his lot in 
struggle and sorrow. He set forth the diversified 
character of the ancient world by a genealogical 
table, fragments of which remain, 10 8-19, 24-29, and 
11 28-30, and by the story of the confusion of tongues, 
11 1-10. With Abraham, summoned by Jehovah to 
leave his native land, the real history of Irsael 
begins. The writer loves to detail the personal 
experiences of his heroes. His style, marked neither 
by diffuseness nor brevity, is remarkably attractive. 
In Gn ch. 20 God is first used in a section of popular, 
story-telling character. Up to this point such sec- 
tions use the name Jehovah. The explanation is that 
there were originally two separate narratives, of this 
character, one using the name Jehovah throughout, 
the other using God, until the scene recorded in 
Ex ch. 3, when the name Jehovah was revealed to 
Moses. In style and mode of thought these two 
popular narratives are quite similar. Unlike P, 
they are not statistical, and have no systematic 
chronology. It is often difficult, sometimes im- 
possible, to determine to which one a specific word, 
sentence, or paragraph is to be assigned. Yet each 
has its distinctive terminology, more evident in 
Hebrew than in English, and the frequent occurrence 
of duplicate accounts is ample proof that two such 
narratives once existed and were quite similar in 
plan and content. Like P, both of these narratives 
can be traced from Genesis on into Joshua. On the 
basis of their use of the Divine names God (Heb. 
’élohim) and Jehovah, these documents are denoted 
by the letters E and J. 


13. The Documents No Longer in Their Original 
Form. The three histories J, E, and P, with the once 
separate work Deuteronomy (D), form the docu- 
mentary basis of the H. They now survive only 
as combined into one large work, not in their original 
form. Omissions and other changes were necessary 
in order to weave them into one. The combination 
was made, however, in a conservative spirit. In 
most cases as much as possible of the original 
documents was preserved. Very different accounts 
of the same thing could, in some instances, be 
placed one after the other, as Gn 1 1-2 4a (P), 
and 2 4b-25 (J). Very similar ones could be inter- 


woven, as the story of the Flood (J and P), or of the 
call of Moses in Ex ch. 3 (J and E). In some cases 
the compiler let differences or contradictions stand 
(e.g., Ex ch. 3 [JE] and Ex ch. 6 [P]) or changed the 
order (e.g., Ex 34 10-26 [J]=parts of Ex chs. 20-23 
[E], but placed at a different time), or omitted parts 
of one narrative in favor of the representation in an- 
other (the account of the organization of the worship 
by Moses in J and E was mostly omitted in favor of 
P’s account). This process of editing and combining 
was long and complex, not all done in one period, by 
the same persons or always under the same in- 
fluences. This can be shown most satisfactorily by 
tracing the history of the H. from its beginning to 
its final form. 


Ill. History oF THE FORMATION OF THE 
HEXATEUCH. 


1. The Two Most Ancient Histories J and E. 


14. The Sources of J and E. Of the four main 
documents from which the H. was compiled the 
oldest were J and E. Each was a complete narrative 
beginning very early, J with the making of the first 
man and E at least as far back as Abraham, both 
concerned mainly with Israel’s origins, and closing 
(apparently) with the conquest of Canaan by Je- 
hovah’s Chosen People. It is evident that their 
authors used such information as was at their dis- 
posal. They describe events that happened long 
before their day, and nowhere claim personal 
knowledge of the facts. Whence, then, did they 
draw their information? This legitimate question 
may be answered as follows: (1) They had at hand 
a limited amount of fixed material, possessing his- 
torical significance, such as (a) laws already codified 
and assigned to the period of Moses; e.g., a Decalog, 
a series of religious regulations (Ex 20 23-26, 22 29-30, 
23 10-19; cf. 34 10-26), and a civil code (Ex 21 1-23 9). 
(b) Ancient poems or songs, believed to have 
originated on specific occasions; e.g., Lamech’s (Gn 
4 23-24), Noah’s (Gn 9 25-27), Isaac’s (Gn 27 27-29), 
Jacob’s (Gn 49 2-27), the Song of Victory in Ex ch. 
15, the curse on Amalek (Ex 17 16), the invocation 
concerning the Ark (Nu 10 35-36), the fragments in 
Nu 21 14f., 17 £., 27-30, the Balaam Oracles (Nu chs. 
23 and 24), the Blessing of Moses (Dt ch. 33), and 
the poetic fragment in Jos 10 12-13. (c) Institutions, 
as to the origin of which tradition was fixed, as the 
Passover (Ex 12 21-27), the Priesthood (Ex 238 25-27), 
and the Sanctuary (Ex 33 7-11). (2) They also had 
access to tradition, which among people of simple 
culture always holds a most important place. This 
historical tradition was of two kinds: (a) A general 
national tradition, much the same everywhere in 
Israel, to the effect that their forefathers came 
originally from the Aram, once lived in Canaan, had 
been delivered by Moses from oppression in Egypt, 
and had conquered Canaan after receiving from 
Moses a national and religious organization. Any 
Israelite historian would have constructed his history 
on this general basis. (b) There were also many 
specific, particularly local, traditions varying greatly 
in quantity and character, according to locality, 
or according to the tribe in whose midst they were 
handed down. The tribe of Ephraim, e.g., was partic- 


349 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Hexateuch 





ularly interested in the traditions concerning Joshua 
the Ephraimite, Judah in those concerning Caleb. 
Each local sanctuary, as Beersheba, Hebron, Bethel, 
Gilgal, Shechem, was a center of tradition. Originally 
these traditions were independent and of different 
values. Some may have been Israelite transforma- 
tions of Canaanite originals. The process of amal- 
gamating these various traditions and building up 
therefrom a connected story of the patriarchal age 
began long before the writing of J and E. The ten- 
dency to embellishment as the stories were repeated 
from generation to generation must have been strong, 
and it is no longer easy to get back to the original 
facts on which they were based. In many cases it is 
best to admit this frankly and not to insist upon 
the historical accuracy of details. (3) Finally, there 
were current in Israel many general views regarding 
God, man, and the world which Israel shared with 
the general Semitic world of the day. The presence 
of these is very noticeable in the early narratives in 
J. While the historians of Israel used these concep- 
tions freely, they also modified them in accordance 
with their own higher ideas of deity, duty, worship, 
etc. 

15. The Spirit in Which J and E Were Written. 
Such was the general character of the material to 
which our two historians had access. They used it 
carefully and conscientiously. Actuated mainly by 
practical religious motives, they. were not ‘critical’ 
in the modern sense. But they were not inclined to 
sacrifice truth in order to glorify the men of the 
past. Of Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, 
Moses, Aaron, Miriam, and others, things are told 
which are not to their credit. A degree of objectivity 
was actually attained, rare indeed in the annals of 
the ancient world. 


16. Comparison of J with E. Altho of indepen- 
dent origin, the two histories followed much the 
same general outline, and frequently related the 
same events. Each has its own style and other pe- 
culiarities. J is the richer in the variety of his 
material, broader in view, more liberal in spirit, and 
of deeper insight into the motives that actuate 
human conduct. In E the conception of God is, 
perhaps, more abstract. In both, the mastery of a 
chaste narrative style marked by profound pathos 
and winsomeness is noteworthy. 


17. The Authors: Their Date and Place. The 
questions that center about the authorship of J and 
EK can be answered only approximately. (1) Who the 
authors were is unknown, as is the case with most 
O T books. It may be more correct, especially in 
regard to J, to think of a ‘school’ rather than an 
individual author. The designation ‘prophetic’ his- 
tories, because of alleged harmony with the teaching 
of such prophets as Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah is 
somewhat misleading. The harmony is superficial 
rather than profound and there is no evidence of 
acquaintance with the most distinctive prophetic 
teachings. All that can besaid with certainty is that 
the writers were earnest, sincere Jehovah-wor- 
shipers, representative of the better type of religious 
thought apart from the advance made by the 
great prophets. (2) In regard to the place of com- 
position, many points of difference between the two 


histories seem best explained by the theory that 
J was written in Judah, and E in the Northern 
Kingdom. And it may be noted that the general 
agreement of these narratives, written by different 
hands and in different parts of Israel, is incidental 
evidence of no small value for the antiquity and 
essential accuracy of the historical tradition con- 
tained in them. 

18. The Preservation of J and E. The way in 
which J and E were preserved is a matter of no little 
importance. Careful study shows that they are not 
now complete and that both have suffered at the 
hands of copyists or editors. Since they had no 
strictly ‘canonical’ character at first, they were easily 
subject to changes of various kinds. They could be 
supplemented here and there by additions. A pos- 


‘sible case of this is the Flood narrative in J, which 


does not seem to be anticipated in Gn ch. 4. The pro- 
cess of copying gave abundant opportunity for many 
minor changes. It is likely that E was brought 
into Judah, probably to Jerusalem, about the time 
of the fall of the Northern Kingdom (722 B.c.). 
There it was preserved and studied, and furnished, 
in addition to J, a valuable history of Israel’s origins. 
Of far greater importance was the fusion of the two 
histories into one compilation, JE. When this took 
place, since the two narratives presented many 
differences, considerable editorial adjustment was 
necessary. Passages belonging to this editor, or 
redactor, are denoted by the symbol Rsz. As the 
author of Deuteronomy (in its original form, 
which we designate as D) appears to have had some 
of these RsE passages before him, the combination 
probably took place before D was written, 7.e., not 
later than c. 650 B.c. The separate existence of J 
and E did not cease at once when they were com- 
bined into JE, but it was only in this form that they 
attained to a permanent place in Israel’s literature. 


2. Deuteronomy (D). 


19. The Influence of Deuteronomy. With the 
details of the origin of D we are not here concerned 
(see DeuTrERONOMY). Assuming that the original 
D was composed near 650 B.c. and was, in 621, 
made the basis of the covenant obligation of IT K 
ch. 23, it is evident that the book must have become 
very soon widely known and influential. This ex- 
plains why the O T literature dating from c. 600 and 
for a time after is full of Deuteronomic phraseology 
and is written from a distinctly ‘Deuteronomic’ 
point of view. When Judah went into exile in 586, 
they carried D with them as their law-book and 
JE as the record of their early history. 

20. Combination of JE with D. During the Exile 
these writings were studied with great seriousness, 
and at last they were combined with D into one work 
by a ‘Deuteronomic’ editor. This was accomplished 
by simply wedging D into JE at the place where 
Moses’ last days were recorded, thus displacing the 
JE account of Moses’ farewell address. The editor 
left the record of JE from the beginning to the 
Mosaic period practically intact. There are no 
clear signs of his work up to Ex ch. 18. From there on 
many sentences, or expressions, in Ex and Nu seem 
to be from him. Into D the editor inserted from 
JE Dt 25 5-7, 31 14-23 (in part), ch. 33, and 34 1-10 


Hexateuch 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


350 





(in part). But the narrative of the conquest of 
Canaan by JE was completely worked over under the 
influence of a radically different view from that of 
JE. According to JE, Israel, except the East-Jordan 
tribes, crossed the Jordan at one time and united 
in the attack on Jericho, but then divided and con- 
quered the highland region slowly and with difficulty. 
Judah and Simeon worked their way southward, 
conquered Hebron, and thence gradually spread over 
the whole territory later known as Judah. The 
house of Joseph conquered the middle highlands 
under Joshua. The other tribes followed in the 
wake of the house of Joseph, and gradually con- 
quered the territory in and north of the Plain of 
Esdraelon. Dut the Deuteronomic school, forgetful 
of all this, held that all Israel, including the East- 
Jordan tribes, marching en masse under Joshua, 
conquered the whole land in one or two great 
sweeping campaigns, exterminating the Canaanites, 
and in many cases destroying their cities. Compare, 
eg., Jos 14 6 f. and 15 14-19 (JE) with 10 28-43 
(Deuteronomic), or Jos 17 11 f£. (JE) with 12 21 
(Deuteronomic). The Deuteronomic school held 
that, since in D Moses had commanded Israel to 
conquer and utterly destroy (7 2) the Canaanites, 
and stamp out their worship, and since Joshua had 
been divinely appointed to carry out this command, 
it certainly must have been accomplished in just 
such a way. The more ancient and accurate notices 
of JE, therefore, while preserved in part, were 
practically ignored, as not describing the conquest 
in its true character as God’s signal and complete 
act of providence for His people (cf. 9 1-5). The 
combination of JE with D may be exhibited thus: 


From the Creation to the last 


NARRATIVE days of Moses. 


LINE 
JE (slightly revised by Deu- 
teronomic editor). 


JE+D. 


Rd 
3. The ‘Priestly’ Material of the Hexateuch (P and 
PC). 

21. The Priests the Teachers of the Law. When 
Israel settled in Canaan and the religion of Jehovah 
became established, its official custodians were the 
priests of the various sanctuaries. These made 
known the ‘law,’ or custom, regarding all matters of 
religious or moral character, and of right procedure 
in the courts of justice (such as they were). Within 
priestly circles there grew up gradually an extensive 
body of such teaching regulative of worship and 
conduct, supposed or alleged to be based on Moses’ 
directions, especially as time passed and much of it 
became very ancient. 

22. Codification of Priestly Law. Of the 
early history of this material we actually know very 
little. Codifications were made early, as is seen from 
the code in E (Ex chs. 21-28, in the main). At the 
more important sanctuaries this body of priestly 
‘law’ was preserved with care, and also continuously 
expanded, with increasing emphasis on ritual, and in 
view of the constant need of new applications of prin- 
ciples already formulated. Such legal material as 
we find in the H., apart from what was recorded in 


The critical symbol of this combination is 








Moses’ last days. 


D and small selections from JE. 


E, probably represents mainly the work of the 
priests of the great Sanctuary at Jerusalem—the 
Temple—and their exilic and postexilic successors. 
In Jerusalem, in preexilic times, a large body of 
such ‘law’ was probably in possession of the priests 
of the Temple, partly written, but much also un- 
written, consisting either of oral tradition or of well- 
known ceremonial. On this the author of D must 
have drawn mainly in constructing his written code 
(Dt chs. 12-26, 28), which was adopted as the 
national constitution in 621 B.c. (ef. II K 23 1-3). 

23. The Holiness Code (HC). Another example 
of such codification is the code found embedded in 
Lv, mainly in chs. 17-26 (see Leviricus). This 
section, as a whole, presents such striking contrasts 
to the main portion of the P material in the Hex. 
that it probably represents the conditions of a time 
earlier than that to which the main body of P be-- 
longs. In its present form it has been extensively 
worked over and altered by later postexilic hands. 
This code covers the following points (see Carpenter 
and Harford, Comp. of Hez., p. 428 ff.): 


1. Fundamental distinctions: 
(1) Exclusive loyalty’to Jehovah vs. all ‘Canaanite’ 
practises, 18 17>, 
(2) Animals killed to be eaten are sacrifices—regulations 
as to these, 17 1-16, 9] 26a, 20 25 f. 
[(3) Distinetions between clean and unclean animals, 
ch. 11 [?]. 
2. The family and sexual purity, 18 6-39, 19 20-21, 90 1-24, 
8. Miscellaneous laws, mainly of a ‘civil’ character, chs. 19 
and 24 15-22, 
4, Priestly holiness, 21 1-22 16. 
5. Offerings, 22 17-38, 
6. The calendar and related matter, 19 23-25, 231, ch. 25. 
7. Hortatory conclusion, ch. 26. 


Conquest. 





JE extensively revised. 


The moral tone of this code is high and its religious 
spirit earnest and pure. Its emphasis on form, 
shows the tendency to reduce religion to correct 
formal practise. Many of the laws of HC were 
already old when incorporated into the code, and 
thus afford little evidence for its date. The question 
as to its date is complicated by the similarities be- 
tween it and Ezk. Its affinities with D and with 
Ezk point to a date either a little before or after the 
Exile. If Ezekiel used HC, it would then be pre- 
exilic. If HC was influenced by Ezk, its date would 
then be somewhere near 540 B.c. 


24. Ezekiel and the Priestly Legislation. The 
influence of Ezekiel on the priestly legislation must 
have been large. In his outline for the organization 
of the new community (chs. 40-48), when it should 
once more occupy the Holy Land, holiness to 
Jehovah was the governing principle, a holiness 
that was to find expression in every detail of formal 
worship and community life. The outline deals 
first with the Sanctuary and its details (chs. 40-43), 
passes next to the worship (chs. 44-45), and then 
gives regulations for the holy territory, to be occu- 
pied exclusively by a holy people (chs. 47-48). In 
this sketch it is noteworthy how important a place 
is assigned to the priests. 


351 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Hexateuch 





25. Interest of the Exiles in the Law. Under 
such influences many of the Exiles looked forward 
to the establishment in Palestine of a community 
life which should perfectly express exclusive devo- 
tion to Jehovah. In such circles, composed mainly 
of priests, the work of perfecting an ideal con~ 
stitution for Israel was undertaken. In addition to 
the codes in JE, D, and HC, they had doubtless 
much traditional material. Probably little progress 
had been made at the time of the Return in 536. The 
colonists who rebuilt the Temple and restored the 
worship probably used mainly the codes of D and 
HC. But those who remained in the land of cap- 
tivity had an idealistic love for Jerusalem with its 
Temple, and for the institutions of Israel, and for 
these they worked assiduously. 

26. Ezra’s Law-Book. The result of such work we 
hear of first in the case of Ezra, who, c. 458 B.c., set 
out from Babylonia for Jerusalem with ‘the book of 
the law,’ evidently something new, in his hands, 
intending to make its contents known to the com- 
munity there (Ezr 7 6, 10; Neh 8). Just what the 
contents of this ‘book’ were is a question of great 
importance, but difficult to decide. 

27. Contents of P. The correctness of the prevalent 
view that it was P can be estimated best after a 
general survey of the contents of this ancient docu- 
ment. The material in P comprises two main 
elements: (1) a historical narrative and (2) a large 
body of laws. The manner in which these two 
elements are related to each other is seen in the 
following summary’ 


After the example of J the writer began’ with the Creation. 
From a standpoint of rigid monotheism, in exact, statistical 
style he unfolded the Divine plan of which Israel, a holy 
nation was to be the culmination, In ten sections he sketched 
the Creation (Gn 1 !"2 49), the ten genealogical steps from 
Adam to Noah (5 178, 80-82), the great universal deluge (6 %22, 
chs. 7 and 8 [passim], 9 1-17), the descendants of the sons of 
Noah (10177, 20, 22-23, 30-32), the ‘generations’ of Shem (11 77%), of 
Terah (=Abraham) (11 27-25 !! [passim]), of Ishmael (25 12718), 
of Isaac (25 19-35 29 [passim]), of Esau (ch. 36 [in part)], and of 
Jacob (chs. 37-50 [passim]). In the history of Abraham he 
gave exact statistics of A.’s age, tells of his separation from 
his family (11 27. 81 f-, 12 4b, 5), and from Lot (13 6 1b-12a), After 
relating the birth of Ishmael (16 38, 3, 15 f.) in A.’s eighty- 
seventh year, he recorded the appearance of God Almighty to A. 
in his ninety-ninth year, promising to make him a father of 
many nations, at the same time instituting the rite of circum- 
cision, and definitely assuring him of the birth of Isaac (ch. 17), 
who, in due time, was born (21 !. 2b-5), After this Sarah died 
(ch, 23), and then Abraham (25 78), After a formal notice of 
Ishmael (25 12-17), a brief account of Isaac follows (25 19-29), 
Only fragments of P’s narrative of the boys Jacob and Esau 
remain (25 2b, 26 84-3, 28 1-9), also of Jacob’s experience 
with Laban (29 34, 2%), The covenant relation of Jacob is 
clearly indicated (35 %13, 15), Jacob’s sons and his return 
to Isaac are noted (35 22>-29), After a summary description 
of Esau’s descendants (36 180, 4043), the history of the line of 
Jacob is given, preserved only in fragments (37 172, 41 45b, 46a, 
46 6-37, 47 5~6a, 7-11, 28), closing with the notices of the adoption 
of Joseph’s sons (48 **), of the last words of the patriarch 
(49 1s, 28b-38a), and of his burial (50 12718), 

The oppression in Egypt is briefly told (Ex 1 1°5, 7, 18, Mb, 
2 %8b-25), Then comes the great revelation of God as Jehovah 
(Ex 6 7-5), with the commission to Moses and Aaron (6 ®-7 13), 
Four plagues—blood, frogs, lice, boils—follow (7 19-11 1° 
[passim]), as demonstrations of Jehovah’s supreme power. 
The Passover is then instituted to be observed on the 14th 
of the current month, henceforth to be the first month of the 
year, and its law is given at length (12 1-20 24, 28, 40-51, 13 1-2), 
The itinerary is narrated briefly, special attention being 
given to the law concerning the manna (13 ”, 14 [passim], 
16 1-3, 5-36, 17 1s, 19 1-2s), 


‘Kadesh (20 1s, 2, Sb, 4, 6-8a, 9-18), 


At Sinai the theocracy was formally organized. Moses 
ascended the Mount (24 15b-18) and there received the Divine 
plans concerning the Sanctuary, called in P ‘the dwelling’ 
(generally rendered ‘Tabernacle’), and its officials and ser- 
vices (chs, 25-31). Coming down with radiant face (34 29-85) 
he at once undertook the construction of the Tabernacle and 
the organization of the worship (Ex chs, 35-40, and Lv [all; 
see § 23, above]). A census was then taken (Nu chs. 1-4), 
in which special care was given to the enumeration of the 
Levites. After several laws (chs. 5-6), the offerings of the 
‘princes’ at the dedication of the altar are described (ch. 7); 
then come regulations on various topics, closing with details 
regarding the order of the camp (8-10 28). 

Next comes the story of the spies (13 1-17, 21b, 25-26a, 32, 
14 Ia, 2, 5-7, 10, 26-30, 32, 89), Ch, 15 contains legal material and 
chs. 16-17 record the great rebellion of Korah, in which the 
divinely appointed prerogatives of the Aaronic priesthood 
are vindicated (see NumBers). Appropriately, ch. 18 con- 
tains legislation concerning priestly revenues, and ch. 19 deals 
with the purification of the ceremonially unclean. In ch. 
20 the itinerary is resumed with the story of the rebellion at 
At Mt. Hor Aaron died, 
succeeded by Eleazar (20 22-29), Finally the steppes of Moab 
were reached (21 4s, 10-lla, 22 1), and the Promised Land was 
in sight. Here Israel fell into grievous sin, in connection 
with which the zeal of the priest Phinehas, son of Eleazar, 
was conspicuous (25 *18), A second census was taken, which 
is recorded with extensive genealogical details (ch. 26). At 
this place the law of inheritance for heiresses is given (27 1-1), 
Moses warned that he is soon to die, was now directed to 
have Joshua consecrated by Eleazar as his successor (27 
12-28), Very curiously, we have next a list of the offerings 
proper to the several calendar seasons (chs. 28-29), followed 
by a law regulating vows (ch. 30). In this strange place 
occurs the record of the holy war against Midian (properly 
belonging after ch, 25), ending with the law concerning division 
of spoil (ch. 31). Next comes the arrangements made with 
the East-Jordan tribes (32 1%. 2b, 4, 18, 19, 28-30), An old 
itinerary, somewhat out of place, follows (33 1-49), Then 
come directions concerning the allotment of the land (33 50-51, 
54, 34) and the Levitical cities (ch. 35) and, once more, the 
law concerning heiresses (ch. 36). Moses then ascended the 
mountains of Abarim and died (Dt 32 48-52, 34 5b, 7-9), Fol- 
lowing this we have the story of the conquest of Canaan by 
Joshua (Jos 3 4% 8 Mb-16, 4 7%, 18, 15-17, 19, 5 10-12, G 19, 7 1, 
9 17-21, 27), and the final establishment of Israel in full possession 
of its religious institutions in the land (13 15-38, 14 1-5, 15 1-18, 
20-62, 16 4-9, 17 1-10, 18 1, 11-28, 19 1-48, 48-51, 90 1-9, 21 1-40, 99 9-84), 

28. The Construction of P. In this extended his- 
tory the relation between the narrative and much 
of the legal material is so close that they can not 
be separated. The narrative, evidently, was written 
largely to furnish a setting for the legal or ceremonial 
matter. On the other hand, many laws seem to have 
been inserted irrespective of any connection with 
the narrative. Furthermore, the code is not entirely 
homogeneous and self-consistent. The same subject 
is frequently treated in different places, not always 
harmoniously. Many sections seem to be supple- 
mentary additions registering the altered practise of 
later times (for details, see especially Carpenter and 
Harford, op. cit., pp. 429-506). The only plausible 
explanation of such phenomena seems to be that 
after the main work had been completed, it was 
afterward and at many different times supplemented 
by additional material, some of it already well 
known, as, e.g., HC, and other sections later in date 
and registering new developments of priestly teach- 
ing. In this way the old was preserved and the 
new was incorporated into the body of authoritative 
law. No serious attempt was made to reconcile 
differences. It was probably felt that later enact- 
ments simply superseded earlier ones. 

Returning to the subject of Ezra’s ‘book of the 
law’ the question actually is, whether Ezra had in his 


Hexateuch 
Hezir 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


352 





hand only the original draft of P, without its later 
supplements, or a later edition, in the ‘editing’ of 
which he himself may well have been concerned. To 
the present writer it seems most probable that, while 
the original draft of P antedated Ezra, the edition 
Ezra succeeded in getting adopted as the constitu- 
tion of the community in Palestine was not PC 
as we have it now, since there are a number of 
sections that appear to be later than the time of 
Ezra. 

29. The Combination of P with JE+D. It re- 
mains, finally, to consider the combination of the 
four main elements of the H. into their present 
E+D : 

Ra (see § 20) with P 
that produced the H. By the time this was done, 
D had practically assumed its present form, 
Deuteronomy. The editor who did this took for 
his basis P’s well-concatenated chronological nar- 
rative. This was not a difficult matter, since P 
itself had followed the general outline of JE. To 
combine JE with P was therefore easy for an editor 
who was not anxious to smooth away or eliminate 
all conflicting or contradictory representations (see 
§ 13). His method was simply to insert in P at the 
proper places the more discursive narratives of J 
and E. In most places where this was not possible, 
the representation in P was retained and that of 
JEomitted. The material of Dt was left practically 
intact. The whole process required naturally more 
or less editorial work. The date of this final com- 
bination is in dispute. At all events, it took place 
probably in Ezra’s day, or not long after, since the 
sect of the Samaritans (q.v.), which probably 
originated not far from ec. 400 B.c., possesses the 
same Pentateuch as the Jews; that is, they took over 
the H., and preserved the legal portion (to the death 
of Moses) practically intact. Of the ‘Joshua’ part 
they were less careful, and therefore the Samaritan 
Book of Joshua is not identical with that of the O T. 

30. Later Subdivisions. The subsequent division 
into the Law (Gn-Dt) and Joshua, and the still later 
subdivision of the Law (Torah) into five parts, 
called by the Jewish scholars the ‘five-fifths of the 
Torah,’ were early, probably before 250 B.c., but the 
details are not known. 


form. It was the fusion of J 





LITERATURE: The literature on the H. is voluminous, and 
a complete bibliography is out of the question here, The 
English reader will find an exhaustive and satisfactory treat- 
ment of the whole subject, with analytical tables, etc., in 
The Composition of the Hexateuch by Carpenter and Harford, 
London (1902); see also Driver, LOT § (1913); A. T. Chapman 
An Introd. to the Pentateuch (Camb. Bible) (1911); and 
the Introduction in Skinner’s Genesis in ICC 9 

41H 


HEZEKI, hez’1-kai. See H1zx1. 

HEZEKIAH, hez’’1-kai’a (PIN, also INPIN, 
hizqiyyah (-yahi), ‘J’’ strengtheneth’: 1. King of 
Judah (II K 18-20, Is 36-39). In view of the diffi- 
culty in harmonizing the chronological statements in 
II K 181, 9 and 13 with other data in II K and also 
with the well ascertained dates of the Assyrian 
records, it seems best to give 719-691 B.c. as the 
approximately correct dates for his reign without 
attempting to give a final solution of the problem. 

Our sources for the reign of H. are (1) the record in 


II K chs. 18-20, to most of which Is chs. 36-39 is an 
exact parallel, and therefore probably only an excerpt 
from II K. (2) A number of Isaiah’s oracles of 
different dates and therefore dealing with a number 
of different situations. (3) The messages of Micah in 
Mi 1 8-2 11, and 3 1-12. (4) Inscriptions of Sargon, 
King of Assyria (722-705 B.c.), which throw light 
on political conditions, altho H. is not mentioned, 
and of Sennacherib, Sargon’s suecessor (705-681), 
which give us Sennacherib’s version of his campaign 
in Palestine against H. and other rebellious vassals. 

H. came to the throne of Judah in troublous times. 
His father Ahaz had placed himself under the pro- 
tection of Assyria when he was threatened by Pekah 
of Israel and Rezin of Damascus for refusing to join 
with them against Assyria. This made Judah safe 
but subservient. Both of the neighboring kingdoms 
were crushed out of existence by Assyria—Damascus . 
in 732 and Israel in 722—evidence enough to show 
the boldest spirit the danger in opposing the over- 
lordship of Assyria. But the Assyrian yoke was 
galling to any freedom-loving people. The Assyrian 
kings were cruel and hard. They had no regard for 
the interests or feelings of the peoples on whom 
they imposed their rule. H. was high-spirited and 
patriotic, and was very unwilling to remain under 
Assyrian domination. In this he was at one with 
most of the kings of the many small principalities 
of the EK. Mediterranean coast-region. The tempta- 
tion was strong to join hands with such men as 
Jaubi’di of Hamath, Azuri of Ashdod, Hanno of 
Gaza, and others in rebellion against Assyria. The 
first one of such combinations (behind which were 
the machinations of the new Ethiopian control of 
Egypt) was promptly put down by Sargon in 720, 
and in this Hezekiah (who may not yet have begun 
to reign) had no part. A few years later, in 713 (or 
711) Sargon was again compelled to put down a 
revolt of these E. Med. coast-districts, and in this 
H. appears to have been.implicated, sympathetically 
if not directly. ‘The people of Philistia, Judah, 
Edom, and Moab dwelling by the sea . . who 
plotted seditions without number and treason, who 
unto Pharaoh carried presents...’ is the statement 
in one of Sargon’s inscriptions. In this campaign 
Sargon defeated and deposed Azuri of Ashdod, 
took Ashdod, Gath, and other places, and laid 
heavy tribute on the whole region. H.’s participa- 
tion in this Anti-Assyrian Confederacy seems to have 
been directly against the advice of Isaiah, who had 
no faith in the promised help of Egypt (Is 19 1-17, 
20 1-6), and clearly percieved the disastrous effects 
of resisting Assyria (cf. also Is 21 11-17). 

H. was not convinced, and when Sargon died in 
705 he was more than ready to lend a willing ear 
to proposals looking to a general uprising against 
Assyria brought by messengers from Merodach- 
baladan, a Chaldean chieftain who had usurped the 
the throne of Babylon, and had held his own against 
Sargon for 12 years, and altho defeated and driven 
out by Sargon was now once more master of Baby- 
lon. It is likely that H. entered into some definite 
arrangement with Merodach-baladan, according to 
which H. was to organize the revolt in the West 
while M-b. engaged Sennacherib, Sargon’s successor, 


353 A NEW STANDARD 


in the East. The prophet Isaiah was closely watch- 
ing the course of events, and sharply rebuked H. for 
receiving the messengers (II K 2012-19; Is ch. 39). In 
spite of Isaiah’s warnings and severe rebukes H. set 
himself vigorously to carry out his part of the pro- 
gram. Messengers went back and forth between 
Jerusalem and Egypt (cf. Is 18 1-7, 30 1-7, 31 1-3). 
The Philistine cities came into the alliance, H. 
assisting the anti-Assyrian party in Ekron in de- 
posing their king Padi who wished to remain loyal 
to Assyria. Padi was put in fetters and taken to 
Jerusalem as H.’s prisoner (so Sennacherib’s in- 
scription). The revolt was widespread, including 
finally all the coast cities from Sidon southward 
and the adjacent countries like Edom, Moab, 
Ammon, ete. In all this H. was a leading spirit. 
In Judah vigorous preparations for war were carried 
through (Is 22 8), with improvements in the water- 
supply and fortifications of Jerusalem as precautions 
against a possible siege (Is 22 9-11; and see JERU- 
SALEM, §§ 138, 34, 35). In vain Isaiah protested 
against the whole policy. The spirit that actuated 
the court and the nation seemed to the far-seeing 
prophet-statesman anything but wise. He con- 
demned the policy and the men who advocated it as 
utterly opposed to J’’, and accused them of know- 
ingly disobeying Him (cf. 22, 28 7-29, 29 1-16, 30 
8-17, 32 9-14). It is difficult to hold that H. was not 
condemned as well as his advisers. And when the 
crisis came, and the Assyrians were ravaging the 
land, Isaiah did not hesitate to condemn not only 
the false confidence in religious forms, but the 
injustice and wrong that were everywhere prevalent 
under H.’s administration (Is 1 1-23; cf. Mi 3 1-12). 

In 701 B.c. Sennacherib, after crushing Merodach- 
baladan, appeared in the West with a large army, 
defeated the allied rebels at Elteku, took or received 
the surrender of the Philistine cities, took and 
plundered 46 cities of Judah, counting out 200,000 
captives, and sent to H. demanding an immense 
indemnity (30 talents of gold, 300 [800 in S.’s in- 
scription] of silver and many other valuables). H. 
stripped Temple and palace and emptied his treasury 
to comply with the demand. He also released Padi 
(II K 18 13-16; Is 36 6; Insc. of S.). But the great 
king was not satisfied and sent a second time to H. 
demanding the surrender of Jerusalem. H. was in 
despair and might have yielded had it not been for 
the counsel of Isaiah who, disregarding the previous 
disobedience of H., encouraged him to refuse the 
demand of Sennacherib, predicting that the Assyrian 
would soon be called home by disquieting news and 
fail in his purpose to take Jerusalem (cf. Is 10 5-34, 
14 24-27, 17 12-14, 31 5-9, 30 27-33, 33, 36 1-37 35; II K 
18 17-19 34). The narrative in II 18 17-19 34 (with 
the || in Is) consists of two accounts (1) 18 17-197 
and (2) 19 8-34 of which (2) seems to be a later and 
less accurate story of the same events as are narrated 
in (1). Sennacherib’s army met with some mis- 
fortune (pestilence?) as it was advancing toward 
Egypt (II K 19 35), and this, with rumors of trouble 
at home, caused him to return to Assyria, taking 
with him immense booty, but having failed to cap- 
ture Jerusalem and put an end to the Kingdom of 
Judah (II K 79 36). H. was saved, but as by fire, 


Hexateuch 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Hezir 


and Judah remained subject to Assyria’s overlord- 
ship. The sickness of H. related in II K 201-11 seems 
to have occurred during the crisis of the Assyrian 
invasion (ver. 6). 

The impression produced by study of Isaiah’s 
messages is that H. was intensely anti-Assyrian, and 
in carrying out this policy he and his advisers 
deliberately rejected the counsel and warnings of 
Isaiah. There is nothing in Is to indicate that H. 
was a docile pupil of the prophet as he is often 
represented to have been. And also in both Is and 
Mi the moral conditions prevailing in H.’s day are 
viewed as very corrupt. On the other hand, the 
judgment pronounced upon him in II K is extremely 
favorable. Here (II K 18 2-8, especially vs. 3-7) he 
is represented as absolutely loyal to J”, as having 
reformed religious conditions, and as having been 
greatly prospered in his political policy. As to the 
last point we know that the statement in II K is 
quite at variance with the facts, for he brought 
great disaster on his realm by his rash rebellion 
against Assyria. Is the representation in II K as to 
the other two points any more reliable? One may 
say, yes; but not for the beginning of his reign. The 
only way the picture drawn in II K 18 3-7 can be 
saved from flat contradiction with the impression 
one gains from Is and Mi is on the supposition that 
H. was brought to his senses by the terrible ex- 
periences of the Assyrian invasion and while that 
was in process, and after it had passed, he became 
a humbled and penitent man. It was then that he 
gave serious attention to the warnings and rebukes 
uttered in the name of J” by Isaiah and Micah. He 
repented (cf. Jer 26 16-19) and also probably did some- 
thing in the way of reforming conditions at the 
Temple. The devastation by the Assyrians of most 
of the cities of Judah except Jerusalem, and the 
salvation of the latter with the Temple, due it was 
believed to J’’s special regard for His great Sanc- 
tuary, must have favored, if it did not originate, the 
idea that the Temple was the one sanctuary where 
J’ was really present and where the worship was 
acceptable to Him. This gives an adequate reason 
for the removal or prohibition by H. of worship at 
the ‘high places’ (7.e., sanctuaries other than the 
Temple), and probably the attempt was made to 
carry out some such measure., But it could have 
been only partially successful, as the later reform 
of Josiah shows. There is no cogent evidence to 
show that H.’s Temple-reform was suggested or 
guided by Isaiah. 

LitERATURE: Consult Commentaries on JI K, Is and Mi; 

also Kittel, GVI § (1909). 

2. A later descendant of the royal line of Judah 
(I Ch 8 23, Hizkiah RV). 3. The great-great-grand- 
father of the prophet Zephaniah (Zeph 11), perhaps 
the same as No. 1. 4. The head of a postexilic 
family (Ezr 216; Neh 7 21). E. E. N. 


HEZION, hi’zi-en (1"I, hezyén): The grand- 
father of Ben-hadad I, and therefore probably one 


of the first kings of Damascus (I K 15 18). Possibly 
identical with the Rezon of I K 11 23. 


HEZIR, hi’zer (VID, hdzir), ‘wild pig’: 1. The 
ancestral head of the seventeenth course of priests 


Hezro 
Hivite 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


354 


___ nce ETN RRR LL LLL LL LLL LLL LLL LAA 


(I Ch 2415). 2. The head of a family of postexilic 
Jews (Neh 10 20). 

HEZRO, hez’ro (i7¥1, hetsrd), and HEZRAI, 
hez’ra-ai (1, hetsray): One of David’s heroes 
from Carmel in 8. Judah (II S 23 35; I Ch 11 37). 

HEZRON, hez’ron (Ji7$9, JOSM hetsrdn): I. 1. 
An eponymous ancestor of a Reubenite family 
(Gn 46 9; Ex 614; Nu 266;I Ch 53). 2. A son of 
Perez, an eponymous ancestor of a family of Judah, 
the Hezronites (Gn 46 12; Nu 26 21; Ru 4 18, 19; 
I Ch25.; cf. Mt 13; Lk 3 33, Esrom AV). 1.1. A 
place on the S. boundary of Judah, W. of Kadesh- 
barnea (Jos 15 3=Hazar-addar, Nu 34 4). 2. A 
town in S. Judea (Jos 15 25=Kerioth-hezron, called 
Hazor, perhaps connected with I, 2). per II, E 3. 

Oh is Prd We 


HIDDAI, hid’da-ai or hid’dé (WWJ, hidday): One 
of David’s heroes, from near Mt. Gaash (II S 23 30), 
called Hurai in I Ch 11 32. 


HIDDEKEL, hid’de-kal. See Tiaris. 


HIEL, hai’al (8°n, hivél), ‘El lives’: A Beth- 
elite, who rebuilt Jericho in the reign of Ahab 
(I K 16 34), and brought upon himself the curse of 
Joshua (Jos 6 26). A building accident may have 
caused the death of his two sons, or they may have 
been sacrificed to insure the stability of the founda- 
tion and wall. Cf. Macalister, Bible Side Lights 
from the Mound of Gezer (1907), p. 165f. C.S. T. 

HIERAPOLIS, hai’’1-rap’o-lis (‘Ieee T6206): A 
Phrygian city between the Meander and Lycus 
rivers. H. grew up around a shrine of Cybele, the 
sacred nature of which was enhanced by two natural 
phenomena: hot mineral (medicinal) springs and 
the Ploutonium. The water of the springs, charged 
with carbonate of lime, rapidly forms an incrustation 
on anything over which it flows (it has raised the 
ancient level 15-20 ft., and has partially covered 
many of the ancient buildings). It now falls from 
numerous pool-basins in cascades (white stalactites) 
over a precipice 100 ft. high. The site is visible from 
afar (called ‘Cotton Castle’). The Ploutonium, or 
‘Entrance to Hades,’ was a narrow hole in the ground 
which emitted fumes deadly to all breathing them 
(eunuch priests of Cybele alone were immune). The 
former ‘city of the hieron’ (Hieropolis) became 
under Greek influence Hierapolis, the ‘sacred city.’ 
The local form of the mother-goddess was Leto; 
that of the god Lairbenos. The mineral water was 
efficacious for rheumatism and well adapted to 
dyeing, hence gilds of dyers flourished here. Chris- 
tianity was introduced into H. in connection with 
Paul’s mission work at Ephesus (Ac 19 10. Cf. 
Col 413 £.). John and Philip labored here. H. was the 
home of Papias (70-130 a.p.). In 320 a.p. H. was 
wholly Christian, and the mouth of the Ploutonium 
was closed. Cybele-worship and the woolen indus- 
tries made H. wealthy, as attested by its vast ruins, 
both pagan and Christian. J.R.S. S.*—S. A. 

HIGGAION, hig-gai’yen: A word of debated 
meaning that occurs apparently as a rubric, or 
musical direction, in Ps 9 16 (with selah), but also in 
the text proper of Ps 19 14 (‘meditation’ RV), 92 3 
(‘solemn sound’ RV), and La 3 62 (‘imagination’ 


RV, better ‘murmuring’ or ‘muttering’). The ver- 
sions of the LXX. render it in Ps 9 by various words, 
mostly meaning ‘song’ (84, wéAoc, gboyyh, etc.). 
Its derivation would favor some meaning like 
‘meditative murmur,’ a low, unobtrusive sound, a 
talking to oneself. WY diScue, 


HIGH, MOST. See Gop, § 1. 


HIGH PLACE: This is the literal rendering of 
the Heb. baémah, which, while often meaning simply 
‘heights’ or ‘elevations of land’ (cf. Dt 32 13; IIS 
1 19, 25; Am 413; Mic I 3), is most frequently used 
of places of worship located on such heights (I S 
9 12-25, etc.), and then of sanctuaries in general, 
irrespective of their location. The ancient Semites 
appear to have looked upon a hilltop as especially 
suitable for places of worship. When Israel entered 
Canaan the land was dotted with these ‘high-place’ 
sanctuaries. The term became the general one for a - 
local sanctuary, and was used even when the ‘high 
place’ was not on an elevation. The Israelite con- 
querors appropriated many of these to their own 
worship of J’’, altho retaining many of the features 
common to the old Canaanite worship. Through- 
out the preprophetic literature there is nothing to 
indicate that this was considered contrary to Isra- 
el’s religion. Such a passage as Ex 20 24, in fact, 
expressly sanctions such sanctuaries, since a place 
where J’’ recorded His name was likely to become a 
‘high place’ (¢.e., a local sanctuary). These local 
sanctuaries were numerous in ancient Israel. Miz- 
pah in Gilead (Jg 11 11), Dan (Jg 18 29 #.), Bethel 
(Gn 12 8, 28 20-22; Jg 20 26f., 21 2;1S8 103; Am713), 
Mizpah in central Israel (Jg 201; I S 7 6), Gibeon 
(I K 3 4; note the apology in ver. 2, and the apolo- 
getic reason given in II Ch 1 3), Ramah (IS 7 17, 
9 12 ff., used by Samuel), Gilgal (I S 10 8, 11 15; 
Am 4 4, 55), Nob (IS 21 2), Bethlehem (I § 20 6; 
29), Hebron (II S 51 #., 157), Beersheba (Gn 21 333 
Am 5 5)—all these, and doubtless many others, were 
‘high places’ whose altars even Elijah held in highest 
honor (I K 19 10, 14). In the course of time the 
popular worship at these places degenerated, be- 
coming more sensual. In the 8th cent. Amos, and 
especially Hosea, severely condemned it; cf. Am 
27,44 f.; Hos 5 12 #.; Jer 2 200 f.,31., ete. The 
Code of Dt placed all these sanctuaries under the 
ban by prescribing that only in one place (Jerusalem) 
should sacrifices be offered (Dt ch. 12), while the hor- 
tatory sections of Dt severely condemned all 
Canaanite forms of worship. It was in consequence 
of the public adoption of Dt in the reform under 
Josiah (621 B.c.) that these ideas became authorita- 
tive. The Books of Kings, edited in the spirit of 
Dt, consequently viewed all high places as illegiti- 
mate and condemned the kings of Judah who (in all 
innocence) had not prohibited the worship at their 
altars. See SANCTUARY. E. E. N. 


HIGH PRIEST. See PriesrHoop, § 9 (6). 

HIGHWAY. See Way. 

HILEN, hai’len. See Honon. 

HILKIAH, hil-kai’a (MP2, hilgiyyaha), ‘my 
portion is J’’: 1. A son of Hosah, a Merarite 
Levite in the reign of David (I Ch 26 11). 2. The 
father of Eliakim, the steward of Hezekiah (II K 


355 A NEW STANDARD 


1818 #.). 3. A son of Shallum (I Ch 613), and high 
priest during the reign of Josiah. He discovered the 
Book of the Law, which revealed to the king the 
great need for a reformation (II K 224 7.). 4. A 
Merarite Levite (I Ch 6 45). 5. A priest residing at 
Anathoth, and father of Jeremiah the prophet 
(Jer 11). 6. A priest contemporary of Ezra and 
Nehemiah (Neh 8 4, 11 11, 127, 21). 7. The father of 
Gemariah (Jer 29 3), probably the same as 3. 


HILL, HILL-COUNTRY: In both the AV and 
RV the Heb. gibh‘ah is always translated by ‘hill,’ 
when it is not used as the name of a town situ- 
ated on a hill (Jos 24 33; Jg 1916; 1S 114). Ina 
few other passages it might be understood as a 
proper name (cf. Jos 5 3; Jg 71; ILS 2 24). It is the 
Heb. term for isolated elevations which can not be 
classed as mountains. In poetical passages, how- 
ever, it is used as parallel with ‘mountain’ (Is 42 
15, 55 12; cf. Gn 49 26; Dt 33 15). The idolatrous 
rites of the Canaanites, which were adopted in part 
by Israel, took place on the ‘hills’ (Is 657; Jer 13 27; 
ef. Dt 12 2; If K 17 10; Hos 4 13, etc.). In the AV 
(I $ 9 11) ma‘dleh is translated ‘hill.’ RV has it 
correctly ‘ascent.’ In Is 5 1 geren (‘the horn,’ or 
‘top’) is translated ‘hill.’ The RV translates ‘dphel 
(‘the height’ in a fortified city, and especially the 
name of an elevation on the SE. portion of the 
Temple Hill, If Ch 27 3, 3314; Neh 3 26 £.) by ‘hill’ 
(II K 5 24; Is 3214; Mic 48). Inthe N T ‘hill’ is the 
translation of Bovvéc (Lk 3 5, 23 30) and de0¢ (Mt 
5 14; Lk 4 29, 9 37 AV). In the AV we find ‘hill’ as 
the translation of har, which is a much more general 
term than gibh‘Gh. In most instances the RV has 
more correctly used ‘mountain’ (Ex 24 4; Nu 14 44; 
I K 117, etc.). The Heb. har means a ‘mountain’ 
or ‘mountain range,’ and also a ‘mountainous region’; 
with this last meaning it is translated in the AV 
(Jos 13 6, 21 11; cf. Lk 1 39, 65) ‘hill-country,’ but 
elsewhere ‘mound’ or ‘mountains.’ The RV uses 
‘hill-country’ more frequently and uniformly for 
the mountainous tracts of country on both sides 
of the Jordan (Dt 2 37, 312). From a distance they 
have the appearance of one mountain. It is used 
also of the whole mountain range of W. Palestine 
(Dt 1 7, 19, 20), which is divided into the ‘hill- 
country of Judah’ (Jos 11 21, 20 7, etc.) and the 
‘hill-country of Ephraim’ (Jos 17 15, 18 12; Jg 2 9; 
I K 12 25, etc.). In Jos 207 the ‘hill-country of 
Naphtali’ is mentioned. See Pauusrine, §§ 4 ff. 

Cas ad Be 


HILLEL, hil’el (9271, nillal), ‘he hath praised’: 
The father of Abdon (Jg 12 13). E. E. N. 

HIN. See WreicuHTs AND Mrasurgs, § 3. 

HIND. See PAuestine, § 24. 

HINDER PART (of a ship). 
NAVIGATION, § 2. 

HINDER SEA. See MrprrerRANEAN SBA. 

HINGES. See House, § 6 (k). 

HINNOM, hin’am, VALLEY OF. 
SALEM, § 6. 

HIRAH, hai’ra (17%, hirdh): An Adullamite, 
a friend of Judah (Gn 38 1, 12; cf. Gn 38 20 f.). 

Oars Le 


See SHIPS AND 


See JERU- 


BIBLE DICTIONARY fecie 
HIRAM, hai’ram (97'N, hiram), probably from 
’ahirdm, ‘exalted brother’; an alternate form in 
Chronicles is Huram: 1. A king of Tyre whose reign 
overlapped the last portion of David’s and the first 
of Solomon’s (II 8 51; I K 51). Josephus (Ant. 
VIII, 2 6-9, 5 3; cf. Cont. Ap. I, 17 £.) testifies that 
Hiram was the son of Abibaal and reigned thirty-four 
years, dying at the age of fifty-three. But II § 
represents him as offering aid to David toward the 
building of his palace immediately after the latter’s 
settlement at Jerusalem, or in the eighth year of his 
reign, and I K alludes to him as still living in the 
twentieth year of Solomon, thus giving his reign 
not less than fifty-two years. The difficulty has 
been met by the supposition that the order of IIS 
is not chronological, the help given to David having 
come at the end of that king’s reign. Others assume 
a corruption of text in ITS, or a corruption, or error, 
in Josephus’ account. A better explanation is that 
the H. of II S is the Abibaal of Josephus. Of the 
two names, however, that used by Josephus is only 
an official title. H.’s reign constitutes the Golden 
Age of the history of Phenicia. For his services in 
the building of the Temple, Solomon offered him 
twenty cities in Galilee, which he declined. The 
relations of H. and Solomon were, on the whole, 
intimate and friendly. 2. The artificer whom the 
king of Tyre sent to Solomon to assist in the com- 
pletion and decoration of the Temple (I K 7 13, 40, 
43; IT Ch 2 13, 4 11, 16). He was the offspring of a 
mixed marriage, his mother being either a Danitess 
(I K 714) or the widow of a man of Naphtali, and his 
father a Tyrian. His name is given also as Hiram- 
abhi (II Ch 213 Heb. text). Axes. 


HIRELING (or hired servant, s&khir, wtobtos, 
utcOwrds): The man who works for wages, and not 
a mere slave (‘servant’). While ordinary day- 
labor was not unknown in Palestine (cf. Mt 201, 7), 
probably it was quite usual for men to be hired for 
stipulated periods (cf. Lv 25 50-55; Is 16 14). The 
Law protected the rights of such (cf. 19 13, 25 50 f.; 
Dt 2414¢.). In the N T ef. Lk 15 17, 19; Jn 1012¢. 

K. E. N. 


HISTORY. This word is the RV rendering of 
dibhré, ‘words [of],’ (‘book’ AV), in I Ch 29 29; IT 
Ch 9 29, 12 15, 30 34, 33 19, where reference is 
made to writings alleged to have been written by 
Samuel, Nathan, etc., some of which may have 
been among the sources used by the Chronicler. 
None of these can be thought of as genuine. 

HITTITE, hit’ait (ON, hittz, pl. DAN, hittim, 
Egyptian heta, Assyr. hatti): For the general history 
of this people see Asta Mrnor, I; and for the ques- 
tion as to Hittites in Palestine, see HETH. 

HIVITE, hai’vait (39, hiwwi): A petty tribe of 
Canaan, which was conquered by the Israelites. 
They seem to have inhabited central Palestine, for 
they are found chiefly at Gibeon (Jos 9 7) and 
Shechem (Gn 34 2). They scarcely could have 
pushed their way as far N. as Lebanon (consequent- 
ly instead of ‘Hivite’ read ‘Hittite’ in II S 24 7). 
Racially they were closely connected with the Am- 
orites; in fact the most recent research indicates 
that the Hivites were a sub-division of this people 


Hizki 
Holy Day 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 356 





(cf. the LXX. of Is 179). Many take ‘Hivite’ as a 
descriptive adjective rather than an ethnological 
term. If this view be correct, it signifies a tent- 
dweller (Lat. Paganus). In and after the reign of 
Solomon, the Hivites who had not been assimilated 
by the Israelites were subjected to forced labor 
(I K 9 20 £.). See also ErHNoGRAPHY AND ErH- 
NOLOGY, § 13. J. A. K, 


HIZKI, hiz’kai (PIM, hizqi): A Benjamite (I Ch 
8 17, Hezeki AV). E. E. N. 


HIZKIAH, hiz-kai’a, HIZKIJAH, _hiz-kai’ja 
(PIN, hizgiyyGh, usually vocalized to spell Heze- 
kiah, q.v.): A postexilic descendant of David (I Ch 
3 23). See also Hmzexian, 2. 


HOBAB, ho’bab (234, hdbhabh), ‘beloved’: A 
man whom Moses pressed into service as the guide 
of the tribes of Israel through the wilderness (Nu 
10 29-32). He was related to Moses by marriage, but 
the exact nature of this relation remains an un- 
solved question. According to EVV (Jg 411) he was 
Moses’ brother-in-law. In Nu 10 29 the same Heb. 
word is rendered ‘father-in-law.’ But, as in the 
last-named passage, the word ‘father-in-law’ may 
with equal propriety be regarded as applying to 
Reuel, it is more likely that H. was a brother of 
Zipporah, the wife of Moses. The two passages also 
differ in that Nu makes him a Midianite and Jg a 
Kenite. The Kenites, however, may have been a 
Midianite clan. A. C. Z. 


HOBAH, ho’ba (731, hdbhah): The place to 
which Abraham pursued Chedorlaomer and _ his 
allies. It was on the ‘left hand’ (7.e., N.) of Damascus 
(Gn 14 15). A spring, Hoba, about 50 m. N. of 
Damascus, may indicate the locality. 


HOBAIAH, ho-bé’ya. See Haparan. 


HOCK (hough AV): A verb meaning to cut the 
cords of the hock joints of horses in order to render 
them unfit for use (Jos 11 6,9; ITS 8 4; I Ch 18 4). 
See Arms AND Armor, § 6; and WaRFARE, § 5. 


HOD, hed (jn, hédh), ‘glory’: An Asherite (I 
Ch 7 37). 

HODAIAH, ho-dé’ya, HODAVIAH, hed’’a-vai'a, 
HODEVAH, ho’di-va; three variant forms of the 
same name (771, hddhyaghi), meaning ‘praise 
J’’: 1. Apparently the name of a clan of Manasseh 
(I Ch 5 24). 2. A son of Elioenai (I Ch 3 24). 3. A 
son of Hassenuah (I Ch 97). 4. The ancestral head 
of a family of Levites (Ezr 2 40=Neh 7 43, called 
‘Judah’ in Ezr 3 9). 


- HODESH, ho’desh (VIN, hadhesh), ‘new moon’ 
(t.e., ‘born at the new-moon feast’?): The wife of 
Shaharaim (I Ch 8 9). 

HODIAQ, ho-dai’a, HODIJAH, ho-dai’ja (71177, 
hédhiyyah), ‘J’’ is my glory’: 1. The name of a man 
(as in RV), not of a woman (AV) (I Ch 419). 2. The 
name of several individuals, or families, in the days 
of Ezra and Nehemiah (Neh 87, 9 5, 10 10, 13, 18). 

& HOGLAH, heg’la (7230, hoglah), ‘partridge’: 
One of the ‘daughters’ of Zelophehad. Probably a 
Clan- or place-1fame (Nu 26 33, 27 1, 36 11; Jos 17 3). 


HOHAM, ho‘ham (81717, hoham): The Canaanite 
king of Hebron, one of the confederates against 
Gibeon, defeated by Joshua (Jos 10 3 ff.). 


HOLD: A word frequently used in AV as the 
rendering of: (1) m*tsddh, m*tstidhah, ‘ a mountain 
fastness’ or ‘stronghold’ (cf. I S 22 4, etc.). Ina 
number of these references the cave of Adullam 
seems to be meant. (2) istriah, the meaning of 
which is uncertain in Jg 9 46, 49, tho inIS 1386 it 
evidently means a hiding-place, and is rendered 
‘pits.’ In all such instances ARV gives ‘strong- 
hold.’ (3) thenos (Ac 4 3, ‘ward’ RV), ‘a place 
of confinement.’ (4) guraxyn (Rev 18 an beer 

.HLN. 


HOLINESS: 1. Notion of Tabu. In the O T 
‘holiness’ is the rendering of gédhesh (Ex 15 11, etc.); 
in the N T of datétn¢ (Lk 175; Eph 4 24), ayrorns 
(II Co 112; He 1210), and a&ytwotvyn (Ro 1 4, etc.); 
holy, renders gddhésh (Ex 19 6, etc.), also rarely 
hasidh (Dt 33 8, RV ‘godly,’ etc.; Zytoc (Mt 4 5); 
teodg (I Co 9 13, RV ‘sacred things’); S8cto¢ (Ac 
2 27). Among the ancient Oriental people, including 
the Semites, the idea of holiness appears to have 
been at first non-moral. At its root lies the notion 
of tabu, 7.e., the prohibition of contact with some 
things from fear of harm, because of a mysterious 
and supernatural force in them (cf. J. G. Frazer, 
Golden Bough, 1900, I, 319 f., 387 f.; see Von Orelli, 
Religionsgeschichte, 1899, pp. 830 #.). But the 
notion of tabu taken up into Hebrew thought was 
subjected to a process of spiritualization, culminat- 
ing in its becoming a unique ruling idea through the 
OT. 

2. Separateness of God. The O T word qgédhesh, 
is derived from a root kindred to that which means 
‘newness’ (hadhdsh, so Dillmann; Delitzsch, however, 
associates it with the Sumerian kadistu, ‘free from 
defect,’ putting it into connection with sacrifice). 
But whatever the origin of the word, its usage is 
quite fixed; it means ‘separateness’ as the basis of 
relation to God; God’s separateness, which requires 
the same in the creature’s relation to Him; and an 
adequate conception of the notion of holiness, must 
therefore begin with the definition of it as God’s 
uniqueness. God is holy, because He is God. His 
holiness is His divinity. It includes His majesty, 
His greatness, His exaltation, His matchlessness 
(‘Who is like to thee, glorious in holiness’ [Ex 15 11]; 
‘There is none holy as J’” {I S 2 2]). God swears 
by His holiness as He swears by Himself (Am 4 2, 
6 8; Ps 60 6, 89 35; Is 45 23). 


3. The Holy One. The name Holy One (of Israel), 
used predominantly in the prophetic period, is simply 
a qualitative equivalent for God (cf. Hos 11 12). 
This is shown in the parallelisms of expression, 
where the terms are interchangeable (the ascription 
of holiness to the deity, however, is not an exclusively 
Hebrew idea). The Pheenician inscriptions contain 
the phrase ‘the holy gods.’ According to Ezekiel, 
God reveals Himself as Jehovah, the God of Israel 
the mighty and true God, by sanctifying (7.e., mani- 
festing) Himself in His holiness (20 41f., 28 22, 36 23 
38 16, 23, 397). Holiness, therefore, when predicated 
of J’’, denotes not so much an attribute of His as 


a 


357 A NEW STANDARD 


the totality of His character. It distinguishes Him 
from all other beings. 

4. Holiness and Moral Purity. When holiness 
came to be identified with divinity in its breadth, it 
necessarily placed supreme emphasis on moral 
excellence (purity), lifting this element to a deter- 
minative place in the conception. Hence, altho holi- 
ness and moral purity never seem to coalesce, yet 
absence of purity from a holy being becomes in- 
conceivable when it is associated with godhead, for 
God is supremely pure (Hab 1 12 f.). 

5. Holiness a Positive Quality. Furthermore, 
holiness is not a negative quality; it is not merely 
the absence of stain or corruption, but rather a 
positive force. It secures (1) resistance to all that is 
unholy. No one can come into the presence of God; 
for His presence is a consuming force (I S 6 20; Is 65; 
ef. also Ex 35). This is probably the connecting-link 
between the extra-biblical notion of tabu and _ holi- 
ness. When the positive energy of God’s holiness 
was realized to be a force incompatible with the evil 
of sin, it undoubtedly worked a corresponding fear 
that creature weakness likewise might perish in 
His presence, because of its frailty and unworthiness. 

(2) Self-impartation. What it does not destroy it 
changes into its own kind. If holiness in God is 
divinity, holiness in all must be grounded in and 
measured by its relation to God. Hence, those who 
are nearest to God are holiest. For this reason, to 
angels is attributed this characteristic; they are even 
called ‘holy ones’ (Job 51, 15 15; Dn 8 13), tho this 
does not mean that they are absolutely pure or 
perfect, for God finds folly in them (Job 418, 15 15). 
From this relation to Himself, which justifies their 
being called holy, they also receive the name of 
‘sons of God’ (Job 38 7). 


6. Holiness in Man. The holiness of human beings 
is based on their relation to God. But this relation 
requires both an outward and an inner character. As 
far as it is outward its ethical value les simply in 
association with and serviceableness to God. It may 
be, therefore, merely formal. Priests are made holy 
as they are by a special ceremony set apart to the 
service of J’’ (Ex 291 f.), and are to be distinguished 
and respected as such (Lv 21 8). Prophets likewise 
are called ‘holy men of God’ (II K 49; II P 1 21 
AV), and become holy by appointment of God (Jer 
15). The Nazirite during the days of his separation 
was to be called holy (Nu 6 5). In this sense the 
men with David at Nob are called holy (1S 21 5¢.), 
and the whole nation was holy (Dt 7 6, 14 2). 


7. Holiness and Righteousness. Human holiness, 
as an attribute of character, is by the same reasoning 
dependent on a true relation to God, but goes 
deeper into one’s inner being. Its mainspring and 
controlling principle are the realization of God’s 
true character (‘ye shall be holy, for I Jehovah your 
God am holy,’ Lv 191). In this command the so 
called Law of Holiness is summed up. Such holiness 
must be attained by perfect conformity to the will 
of J’, but, in accordance with the whole conception 
of the O T, this will is expressed in a system of pre- 
cepts including both moral and ceremonial pre- 
scriptions. At the heart of the system lies the moral 
element; and in the purer outbursts of devotional 


Hizki 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Holy Day 


feeling it extricates itself and finds expression in its 


| simplicity (Ps 15 1-5, 24 3). 


8. Holiness of Things. The holiness of impersonal 
beings is determined by their introduction into the 
service of religion, or, in general, into relation with 
God. Heaven as God’s habitation is expressly 
called holy (Jer 25 30; Zee 2 13). Upon earth the 
places in which He appears to men are holy ground 
(Ex 3 5; Jos 5 15). Most naturally the Temple, in 
which He had His mercy-seat and which is His 
house, deserves this epithet (Hab 2 20), and to its 
parts, according to the degree of nearness to His 
most intimate throne, are ascribed higher degrees 
of sanctity. So also Mount Zion and the whole city 
of Jerusalem (Is 11 9, 27 13, 48 2, 521; Dn 9 16, 20, 
24; Zeph 3 11), and even the whole country in which 
God’s people are to dwell, are made sharers in its 
holiness (Ex 15 13; Zec 213). Further, the articles 
to be used in His service, such as the showbread 
(I S 21 6), the incense (Ex 30 35, 37), the oil (Ex 
30 25), the sacrifices (Ex 28 38), and the priestly gar- 
ments (Ezk 42 14) are all declared holy. 

9. Holiness and Ceremonial Cleanness. The re- 
lation of the idea of ceremonial holiness to that of 
ceremonial cleanness is not simple. In general, these 
differ in degree or intensity (cf. Purirication). 
That which is holy may be declared not clean 
ceremonially, and that which is clean may not be 
holy. The holy is declared unclean in order that it 
may not be touched without penalty. The distinc- 
tion may be put in the convenient formula that the 
common and permissible stand between the two 
extremes, unclean and holy, both of which, but for 
ultimately different and contrary reasons, are pro- 
hibited. The distinction is illustrated in the rab- 
binical rule, ‘All holy Scriptures defile the hands’ 
(Ryle, Canon of O T, 1892, p. 199). 

10. Holiness in N T. In the N T the idea of 
holiness attains its completely spiritual stage. The 
standard pronounced for it is the sinlessness of 
Jesus Christ. The etymology of the words employed 
can not be pressed. The sense of these words is 
already fixed. They are not chosen for their ety- 
mological connotations. Accordingly, to give the 
essence of the N T idea would be simply to repeat 
that God only is absolutely holy (I P 1 16); all other 
holiness is derivative. But God is holy because He 
is morally good. And both impersonal and personal 
beings become holy by association with and assimila- 
tion to Him. Those who have entered into the ideal 
relation with God, as given in the person and teach- 
ing of Christ, are holy ones (saints). 

LirERATURE: W. Robertson Smith, The Propheis of Israel, 

(1882), pp. 224 ff., also Rel. of Semites, (71889), pp. 140 ff.; 

Schultz, O T Theol., Eng. tr., (1892); Davidson, O T Theol., 


(1904), pp. 142 ff.; Issel, Der Begriff d. Heiligk. im N T, 
(1887); Otto, The Idea of the Holy (tr. 1923). A.C. Z 


HOLM-TREE. See PAuestIne, § 21. 

HOLON, ho'len (jbh, 319, holon): 1. A town 
of Judah (Jos 15 51) and a priestly city (Jos 21 15, 
called Hilen in I Ch 6 58). Site unknown. 2. A 
city of Moab (Jer 48 21). Site unknown. 

HOLY. See Houiness. 

HOLY DAY: In Ps 42 4 the one Heb. word 
rendered ‘keeping holy day’ means to celebrate a 
religious festival. On Col 2 16 cf. RV. 


Holy of Holies 
Holy Spirit 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 358 





HOLY OF HOLIES. See Trmpue, §§ 8, 20; 
and TABERNACLE, §§ 2, 3. 

HOLY PLACE. See Tempty, §§ 8, 20; Tanzr- 
NACLE, §§ 2, 3; and HiegH Puacs. 


HOLY SPIRIT: The name given in the O T to 
certain phases of the action of God upon nature 
and man, and in the N T (Holy Ghost AV) to the 
inner workings of God upon the human soul, as these 
were conditioned by the incarnation, death, and 
resurrection of Jesus Christ. The name is thus given 
in Christian theology to the third person of the 
Trinity. 

1. In the O T. The word ‘spirit’? (Heb. 1, riah, 
Gr. mvedua) originally meant ‘breath.’ In the act 
of breathing, probably, all primitive peoples have 
found the seat of life. For when death comes, it is 
breathing which first seems to stop, and in the last 
act of expiration the soul departs from the body. 
Hence most languages have used the same word, 
both for the breath or the wind, and for the 
mysterious self or seat of life, even long after the 
crude first conceptions of the latter had been 
transcended. The Hebrews with their bold an- 
thropomorphism applied this term to God Himself, 
primarily as exerting power, and thus gave it a 
place of supreme importance in the religion of revela- 
tion. (1) Thus they conceived of Jehovah as ruling 
over the powers of the natural world by His Spirit 
(Gn 1 2; Job 26 13, 37 10; Is 40 7), but the allusions 
to this sphere of action are not numerous. (2) 
Much more numerous are those which describe 
man’s life as due to the power of the Spirit of 
Jehovah (Gn 27; Job 33 4; Ps 104 291.; Ec 3 18-21; 
Ezk 37 3-14). In this view, the life of man is more 
than a mere effect of the Spirit of God. It is that 
Spirit in a special form and manifestation. The 
metaphysical problems were not yet in sight. With 
complete naiveté the individual life was thus pic- 
tured as a work of the Spirit of God which, when 
life ceased, returned, not as a human soul, but as the 
product or creation of the Spirit of God to Him who 
gave it. (3) A further step is involved where the 
Spirit of Jehovah is associated with the performance 
of special feats of strength, valor, or skill, in the 
service of the theocratic kingdom (Jg 3 10, 6 34, 
11 29, 146;1S 116). So far, however, the activities 
of the Spirit are a mere manifold, and their unity 
or ethical character is not discerned. (4) This 
doctrine attains a new and most characteristic form 
when it is connected with the work of the prophets. 
True, other religions had their prophets (as the 
prophets of Baal, I K 18 19), but prophecy in Israel 
possessed features which are unique and traceable 
only to the selective will and purpose of God (cf. 
Briggs, Messianic Prophecy, ch. 1; A. B. Davidson, 
Old Testament Prophecy, chs. 1, 1X, X). No other 
people attributed their prophetic prowess to the 
Spirit of their God. This was peculiar to Israel, and 
was one of the vital elements in the development of 
their whole view of God, and His relation to men. 
At first, as in all else, this feature of Divine revela- 
tion connects itself with the crude beginnings of what 
later became distinctive and complete. Prophecy 
appeared in connection with abnormal excitation, 
and these states of frenzy and ecstasy were taken as 


manifest proofs of the Spirit’s presence and power 
(IS 10 6, 10, 19 9, 20, 23 £.). At times J’ even sent 
forth a ‘lying spirit? (I K 22 21 #.). But gradually 
this view gave way to a higher one, according to 
which the Spirit of J’’ possessed the mind and heart 
of men, who were not subjects of physical convul- 
sions, but who were in living communion with 
Himself (Mic 27, 3 8; Hos 97; Ezk 2 2, 3 12, 14, 24, 
etc.; Neh 9 30; I Ch 12 18; II Ch 151). This was 
accompanied by the growth of the conception that 
the Holy Spirit controlled the history of Israel as 
a whole (Neh 9 20 #.; Is 63 10-14), and above all was 
guiding it toward the Messianic Age, in which the 
Spirit would come upon all God’s people (Ezk 36 
26 f., 39 20; Is 4 4, 44 3; Zec 4 6; Jl 2 28 f.). The more 
direct connection of the work of the Spirit with man’s 
moral and spiritual experience appears in the directly 
Messianic prophecies, especially as they gather round 
the figure of the Servant of Jehovah (cf. Is 11 2, 4, 
421, 59 21, 611). (5) Beyond this, passages are not 
wanting which view the Holy Spirit as connected 
with the inner experience of the individual (Ps 51 
10 f., 189 7, 148 10). It was reserved for a later stage 
of revelation to bring this into full view. 

Throughout this O T usage of the words ‘Holy 
Spirit, or ‘Spirit of Jehovah,’ we do not find any 
attempt to define these terms. There is in certain 
passages (Ps 51 10; Is 48 16, 63 10-14; Ezk, passim) a 
tendency to hypostatize the Spirit. But even there 
we can not assert that a distinct subsistence 1s at- 
tributed to it. It may be still either a personifica- 
tion of an attribute or a periphrastic expression for 
Jehovah Himself. And yet the persistent, deliberate 
concentration of thought upon the idea of the Spirit 
of Jehovah as coming forth to deal with human 
nature and history has confessedly produced this 
tendency to use language which at least is not incon- 
sistent with, and to a later age may even sound like 
the recognition of distinctions within the Divine 
nature. This was a stage through which the minds 
of men were compelled to pass. 


2.In the N T. The Gospels. When we enter upon 
the N T we find the doctrine of the Spirit mar- 
velously enriched, the main idea involved being still 
that of power. Professor Wood has pointed out that 
in the Jewish period (in the apocryphal lit.) the 
Spirit is used to describe God’s relation to Israel in 
the past (O T hist.) and in the future (Messianic 
hope), but that no one claimed the gift of the Spirit 
for himself or his contemporaries. The spirit of 
prophecy had ceased. The N T is filled with the fact 
that the Messianic Age had now arrived and the 
ancient promise that the Holy Spirit would be no 
official or esoteric boon, but be poured out upon ‘all 
flesh’ was now made good (Ac 2 4, 17 f., 33, 38). 
(1) This age was heralded by the revival of the 
prophetic gift in the case of John the Baptist (Lk 1 
15-17; cf. 1 41, 67, 2 25-27, 36). But he himself claimed 
it not, conscious of the surpassing glory of the king- 
dom which was at hand (Mk 1 8, 10; Mt 3 11, 16; Lk 
316; Jn 1 32f.). (2) The Messiah Himself, Jesus of 
Nazareth, stood in relations to the Spirit of God 
which were all His own, and which yet were the 
channel through which He entered into His new 
action upon human history. (a) Even within the 


a 


359 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Holy of Holies 
Holy Spirit 





apostolic period accounts had arisen of the new 
foundations for His very self and nature, some 
accounts tracing these to the miraculous power of the 
Holy Spirit (Mt 118, 20; Lk 1 35; cf. Jn 114). (b) All 
the Gospels affirm the descent of the Spirit upon 
Him at His baptism (Mk 1 10, 12; Mt 3 16, 41; Lk 3 22, 
41,14; Jn 1 32f.). (c) Thus, Jesus asserts that the 
Messianic prophecy (Is 61 1) is fulfilled in His person 
(Lk 4 18; cf. Mt. 12 18, 28, 32; Jn 3 34). Without 
signalizing more than one or two details, the Evan- 
gelists leave us to infer from the Divine power 
manifest in His words and deeds, that He was 
Spirit-filled. And yet, in His own recorded sayings 
the mention of the Spirit does not occur often. ‘It 
is significant that in no case does Christ speak of 
the Spirit as acting upon his followers while he is 
present with them. He would keep the thought of 
the disciples fixed upon himself as the revelation of 
the Father’ (I. H. Wood, ut inf., p. 137; cf. pp. 141- 
143). Possibly, too, for Jesus’ mind the idea of His 
Spirit was included in that of the kingdom as an 
order of supernatural powers. (d) Apart from Mt 
12 28 (cf. Lk 11 20) and Lk 11 13 (cf. Mt 7 11), we 
have one reference to the prophetic action of the 
Spirit in the O T (Mt 22 43), one terrible warning 
that in resisting Him the Jewish leaders were in 
danger of the supreme sin (Mt 12 31 £.; Mk 3 29), one 
promise that the Spirit will aid His disciples in future 
emergencies (Mt 10 20; Mk 13 11; Lk 1212), and the 
final command to baptize ‘into the name of the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit’ (Mt 28 19). 


In the Fourth Gospel our Lord is represented as 
speaking at great length regarding the Spirit with 
His disciples at their last gathering. His previous 
references are even more sparse than in the Synoptics 
(Jn 3 5-8, 6 63), and the Spirit’s coming is declared 
(by the Evangelist, however, not by Jesus) to 
be conditioned by Jesus’ being glorified (739). But 
the last discourses glow with references to the coming 
of the Spirit, as to the supreme gift of God and the 
supreme experiences of man. (a) The Holy Spirit 
is the Spirit of truth, the paraclete, the comforter, 
without whom even the person and work of Christ 
in their hearts would not be complete (16 7-132). 
(b) He will open up to them the truth in its fulness 
as Jesus taught it (14 26) and as it concerned their 
destiny (1613). (c) He will not give a new revelation 
to supersede that of Jesus, but will unfold to their 
hearts and minds the whole meaning and power of 
Jesus Himself (15 26, 1614 £.). (d) This Holy Spirit 
is sent by the Father in Christ’s name (14 26); He is 
also sent by Christ (167), ‘from the Father’ (15 28), 
but He also ‘comes’ (167). It seems violent to say 
that these passages either merely personify a mode 
of the Divine action, or so identify the Spirit with 
God that He is in no way distinguished from the 
Father. While no ontological definition is given, it 
is not too much to say that an ontological dis- 
tinction is involved in this mode of speech. 


3. Acts and Epistles. Judging by the mere number 
of our Lord’s references to the Holy Spirit, we should 
be quite unprepared for the extraordinary phe- 
nomena disclosed in the remainder of the N T as 
to His presence and power. (1) In the Book of Acts, 
we find events which remind us of the O T. The 


entrance upon the new age is marked by excitements 
which affect even the physical life (Ac 2 2-4, 15 f., 
33, 38). Like phenomena occur repeatedly, not only 
to Jews (9 17), but to Samaritans (8 15-19) and to 
Gentiles (10 44, 1115). (2) Among the more striking 
results were the strange gift of tongues (I Co chs. 
12-14), working of miracles (Ac 13 9 ff.; I Co. 12 10, 
29; Gal 3 5), prophecy (Ac 11 28, 21 4, 10 £.). (3) In 
the Epistles of Paul we find abundant references 
to the Holy Spirit. There are apparently two main 
points of departure, in addition to his knowledge 
of the O T and the influence of the Christian 
community, into whose atmosphere his conversion 
brought him, viz., his own experiences of the 
transforming power of the Gospel as the organ of 
God’s Spirit, and the connection of the Holy Spirit 


with the person and work of Jesus Christ. (a) The 


inner power of the Spirit is found in the new con- 
sciousness of sonship toward God (Gal 4 6; Ro 89, 
16), through apprehension of God’s love and mercy 
(Ro 5 5; Tit 3 4-6). This Spirit is the means of our 
approach to God (Ro 8 12 £.; Eph 2 18; Ph 21, 3 3); 
the enlightener of our minds (I Co 2 10-16); the 
source of our power, as individual Christians (Eph 
3 16) and as preachers (Ro 15 19; I Co 2 4); the seal 
of our acceptance with God and the earnest of our 
immortal life (Ro 8 15 f.; I Co 6 11; II Co 1 22; Eph 
113 f., 4 30); the stimulator of acts of worship (I Co 
14 2, 12, 14 £.); the bond of Christian communion (I 
Co 1213; II Co 1314; Ph 21); the life of the Church, 
‘the body of Christ’ (Eph 4 4; I Co 6 19, 20). See 
Cuurcu Lire AND ORGANIZATION, §§ 5 ff. The 
Church is founded on the confession of Jesus as Mes- 
siah, a confession which is due to the Holy Spirit 
(I Co 12 3; cf. I Jn 4 2 £.); the confessor passes under 
‘the law of the Spirit of life? (Ro 8 2), his whole 
ethical and religious experience flows from that new 
principle (Ro 8 5-10, 12-14), the new warfare of which 
he is conscious is the proof of that Spirit’s living 
presence in him (Gal 516 f.), and his reception of the 
Spirit means the possession of all the present virtues 
and joys (Gal 5 22). Paul’s teaching on the effects of 
the Spirit in human life marks an epoch-making 
change of emphasis from abnormal phenomena to 
Christian character, from what is intermittent to 
what is ethical and permanent. (b) The Holy Spirit 
is constantly connected with the person and work of 
Christ. The Spirit without the historical Christ has 
no grip on intelligent faith, the historical Christ 
without the inner power of the Spirit has no meaning 
or relation to the individual will. The Spirit is ‘of 
Christ’? as well as ‘of God’ (Ro 89); in Him was 
the Spirit of holiness (Ro 1 4), and it is even said 
‘the Lord is the Spirit’ (II Co 3171.). Accordingly, 
the effects of the Divine grace in the heart are 
traceable to both (Gal 4.6; Eph 316f.). As was said 
of the Johannine, so of the Pauline teaching, the 
Holy Spirit is both distinguished from, and identified 
with, both Christ and God. No theological explana- 
tion is attempted. Something greater 1s here, the 
disclosure in the field of experience through inspired 
men of the threefold operation of God upon human 
nature. That the Father, Son, and Spirit, thus re- 
vealed in relation to man, are described in mutual 
relations and in a fundamental identity is the con- 


Homam 
Hosea 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


360 


LLL LED LALLA LLL LLL LL LAD 


viction which underlies all the historical discussions 

of the doctrine of the Trinity. 

Literature: For the Biblical material see A. Lewis Humphries, 
The Holy Spirit in Faith and Experience (1911); I. H. Wood, 
The Spirit of God in Biblical Literature (1904); H. Gunkel, 
Die Wirkungen d. heiligen Geistes, etc. (1899); Weinel, Die 
Wirkungen des Geistes und der Geister (1899); Dibelius, 
Die Geisterweli im Glauben des Paulus (1909); H. H. Wendt, 
Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist im Biblischen Sprachgebrauch 
(1878); E. H. Winstanley, The Spirit in the N T (1908); 
H. Wheeler Robinson, The Christian Doctrine of Man (1911). 
For the O T, A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the O T (1904); 
H. Schultz, A T Theologie (Eng. Transl., 1889); J. Koeberle, 
Natur und Geist nach der Auffassung des Alten Testaments 
(1901). For the N T, E. F. Scott, The Spirit in the N T 
(1923); J. Denney, art. “Holy Spirit” in Hastings’ DCG, 
vol. II (1906); George Stevens, The Theology of the N T 
(1899); H. J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der NT Theologie (21911); 
B. Weiss, Religion d. N T (1903) (§ 13 “f-). For doctrinal 
discussion, John Owen, Discourse on the Holy Spirit; Smeaton, 
The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit (1882); R. C. Moberly, Atone- 
ment and Personality (1901); J. S. Candlish, The Christian 
Doctrine of the Holy Spirit; A. Kuyper, The Work of the 
Holy Spirit (1900); M. Kahler, Angewandte Dogmen (1908); 
The Spirit, edited by B. H. Streeter (1919); W. T. Davison, 
in The Indwelling Spirit (1911) gives a sifted bibliography. 
For practical purposes, H. C. G. Moule, Veni Creator (1890) ; 
William Arthur, The Tongues of Fire (various edd.); J. M. 
Campbell, After Pentecost, What? (1897). 

W. D. M.—H. R. M. 


HOMAM, ho’mam. See Hemam. 
HOMER. See Wetcuts anD MrasuRgs, § 3. 


HONEST: (1) The AV use of this word to trans- 
late the adjective x«Aés, which means ‘excellent,’ 
‘beautiful,’ ‘good’ (originally in an esthetic rather 
than moral sense), was in accord with the usage of 
its day (1611). In modern English the word ‘honest’ 
is of much more restricted meaning. Consequently, 
in RV ‘honorable,’ ‘honorably’ have been substituted 
(except in Lk 8 15) as more suitable renderings (cf. 
Ro 12:17; 1 P 212; etc.). (2) In Ph 48; 1 Ti 22 for 
ceuvos, ceuvétns (‘grave,’ ‘venerable,’ and ‘gravity,’ 
‘dignity’), RV gives ‘honorable’ and ‘gravity.’ 
(3) In Ro 13 13; I Th 4 12 the Gr. eboxnudyws 
is exactly rendered ‘becomingly’ in ARV. 

E. E. N. 


HONEY. See Foon, § 7; and Patesring, § 26. 
HOOD. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, § 8. 


HOOK: The translation of several Heb. words: 
(1) waw, a ‘hook,’ or ‘peg,’ of silver fastened on, 
or in, the posts of the tabernacle to support hangings 
(Ex 26 32, 38 28, etc.). (2) hah, a ‘hook,’ or ‘ring,’ for 
the nose, used in reference to captives (II K 19 28; 
Is 37 29; Ezk 29 4, 38 4. Also Ezk 19 4,9 RV for 
‘chains’ AV). (8) hakkah, a ‘fish-hook’ (Job 41 1 
[40 25]; Is 19 8; Hab 1 15 ‘angle’ EV). (4)’ aghmin 
(Job 41 2 [40 26]), ‘hook’ AV, more correctly ‘cord’ 
RV. (5) héah (Job 41 2 [40 26]), ‘thorn’ AV, ‘hook’ 
RY. (6) sh*phattayim (Ezk 40 43), ‘hooks’ or ‘pegs’; 
by some translated ‘their edge.’ (7) tsinnadh (Am 
4 2), the ‘hook’ or the ‘barb’ of a fishing-spear. 
(8) &yxtotpov (Mt 17 27), ‘fish-hook,’ GAS Bs 


HOOPOE, hii’pd. See Pauestine, § 25. 


HOPE: Both the elements of the generic idea of 
hope—.e., expectation and desire for the thing 
expected—distinctly appear in the Biblical usage. 
As soon as that which is expected is realized, hope 
ceases (Ro 8 24). Further, the term sometimes 


designates the expectation itself, and sometimes the 
thing expected (Col 1 5 is an instance of the latter 
usage). Hope and faith are closely related, but 
whereas faith seizes upon the invisible in general, 
whether past, present, or future, hope is limited to 
the realization of future good. Faith as a living 
principle, however, includes true hope. The hope 
of the wicked shall come to naught (Pr 11 23, 24 20), 
but the hope of the righteous is not vain (Ps 115 11, 
9 18, 37 5, 40 4). Hence the definition of faith in 
Heb 111 as ‘the assurance of things hoped for.’ 
The close association of the three basal elements of 
Christian experience, faith, hope, and love, is sig- 
nificantly indicated in such passages as I Th 1 3; 
Col 14£.; I Co 1313; Ro 51-11. It was a living hope, 
full of a sense of reality, that was born into the 
world by Christianity and with which the N T is 
vibrant throughout (cf. Ro 5 2 f., 8 24f.; I P 1 3). 
The pagan world was ‘without hope’ (Eph 2 12). 
A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 

HOPHNI, hef’nai (327, hophni): One of the 
two sons of Eli, called ‘base men’ (I § 2 12, ‘sons 
of Belial’ AV). Hophni and Phineas were priests 
and through their selfish and arbitrary exercise of 
the priestly function brought disrepute upon the 
worship of J’’. For this they were twice rebuked (IS 
2 27-36, 311). Both perished in the battle of Aphek, 
whither they had accompanied the Ark of the 
Covenant (IS 411 #.). AGE: 

HOPHRA, hef’ra. See PHARAOH. 

HOR, hér (1, hdr): 1. A mountain-top on 
which Aaron died (Nu 20 22 f., 21 4 [P]; Dt 32 50, 
noted also as one of the stages in the wilderness 
wanderings, Nu 33 37), not far from Kadesh-barnea, 
identified with the modern Jebel Nebi Harun, about 
50 m. S. of the Dead Sea, near Petra, by a tradition 
as old as Josephus (Ant. IV, 47) and supported by 
Jerome (Onom. 303, 144). This mountain is nearly 
5,000 ft. in height and crowned by a rugged 
double peak. But Mount Hor is defined as ‘by the 
border of the land of Edom’; and this description 
does not suit the location of Jebel Nebt Harun. 
H. C. Trumbull (Kadesh Barnea, pp. 128 ff.) 
probably is right in locating Mount Hor at Jebel 
Madurah, NW. of Edom (cf. Buhl, Edomiter, p. 22). 
2. A peak named as the ideal N. boundary of Canaan 
in Nu 347, 8 [P]. There is nothing to determine its 
exact identity. A.C. Z. 

HORAM, ho’ram (97, horam): A Canaanite 
king of Gezer who was conquered and slain by 
Joshua (Jos 10 33, but cf. 16 10; Jg 1 29). 

HOREB, hod’reb. See Srnat. 

HOREM, hd’rem (810, hérém), ‘sacred’: A forti- 
fied city in Naphtali (Jos 19 38). Site unknown. 

CB. 

HOR-HAGIDGAD, hér”hea-gid’gad (73730 10, 
hér haggidhgaddh): A station on the wilderness jour- 
ney (Nu 33 32f.). The same as Gudgodah (Dt 107), 

HORI, h6’rai, HORIM, ho’rim, HORITES, ho’- 
raits (IM, ON, hori, hdrim): The original inhab- 
itants of Edom or Mt. Seir, who were dispossessed 
by the Edomites (Gn 14 6, 36 2 [?], 20-29; Dt 2 12, 22; 
I Ch 1 39). The name is usually held as equivalent 


861 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Homam 
Hosea 





to ‘cave-dwellers,’ and as the primitive inhabitants 
of Palestine were of this character, this explanation 
seems most reasonable. In Edom, in particular, 
there are many evidences of this. The name was 
thus probably an epithet given them by their con- 
querors. The apparent connection between the 
Heb. hort and the old Egn. term haru for 8.W. 
Pal. is not certain. HE. E. N. 
HORMAH, hér’ma (951, hormah), ‘devoted’ 
(to deity, which could be understood in several 
senses): A city in the ‘South.’ Here the Israelites 
were defeated by the Canaanites (Nu 14 45; Dt 1 44), 
but later, apparently in the same place, won a 
victory over the Canaanite king of Arad (Nu 21 3). 
Similarly, Judah and Simeon, ‘devoted’ the Canaan- 
ites of Zephath to destruction, and then called the 
place Hormah (Jg 1 17). It is possible that the 
last two references (also Jos 12 14) are to the same 
event. H. was counted both to Judah and to Simeon 
(Jos 15 30, 19 4; cf. IS 30 30; I Ch 4 30). The site is 
uncertain. E. E. N. 
HORN (17P, geren, xéoac): 1. Horns of cattle 
were used as substitutes for bottles, being made into 
flasks for carrying oil (I S 161; I K 1 39). Long 
horns (especially of rams) were also used as trumpets 
(Jos 6 5). 2. Its pointed shape makes the horn 
the emblem of a peak (Is 51, RVmg.). 3. Since 
an animal uses its horns as weapons, they are em- 
blems of power (I K 22 11; Dn 8 3 #.). To ‘exalt 
the horn’ is either to confirm power or to claim power 
for oneself (I S 210; Ps 75 4 f., 89 24). 4. The cor- 
ners of the altar were also called horns (I K 1 50 f.) 
from the horn-like extensions with which they were 
finished off (Jos. BJ. V, 56). See also Atrar, § 2; 
and Music, § 3 (2). A. C. Z. 


HORNET (YS, tsir‘aGh, from tsdra‘, ‘to strike’): 
The hornet is named as a pest through which God 
was to drive out Israel’s enemies from the land of 
promise (Ex 23 28; Dt 7 20). There is no record of a 
literal plague of hornets during the period of the 
conquest, unless Jos 24 12 be taken as such (as it is 
in Wis 12 8-10). See also PALESTINE, § 26. 

HORONAIM, her’’o-né’im (Q220N, Oh, hors- 
nayim), ‘two hollows’: A city in 8. Moab (Jer 
48 3, 34; Is 15 5, ‘the way of H.’; Jer 48 5, ‘the 
descent of H.’), near Zoar. It is mentioned on the 
Moabite Stone as a city to which one descended. It 
was probably at the foot of some cliff, and S. of the 
Arnon. See also Map II, H 1. PEAS aki 


HORONITE, hér’o-nait (2°07, hahdréni), ‘the 
Horonite’: A title given to Sanballat, who op- 
posed Nehemiah (Neh 2 10, 19, 13 28), since he was 
from Beth-horon. . age end 


HORSE. The horse was a late-comer into Bible- 
lands. It was brought into the Tigris-Euphrates 
Valley by the invading Aryans (c. 2000 B.c.), and 
was not known in Egypt before the Hyksos invasion 
(c. 1700 B.c.). It was first used in war, especially 
with the chariot. When the Israelites conquered 
Canaan they did not know what to do with the 
horses of their conquered foes (Jos 119; cf. ITS 8 4). 
See also PALESTINE, § 24; and WaRFARE, § 4 f. 


HE. EN. 


‘tions is uncertain. 


HORSE GATE. See Jerusatem, § 32. 

HORSELEACH: The Heb. term (7P1Y, ‘altiqah) 
is of uncertain significance, and may mean ‘sucker.’ 
The reference (Pr 30 15) may be to a variety of 
leaches, or bloodsuckers, well known in the East 
and very troublesome to man and beast. Some 
scholars, however, think that a mythological vam- 
pire-like creature is referred to. EK. E. N. 


HORSEMEN. See Warrarg, § 4; (For Ezk 
27 14 AV, see ErHNoGRAPHY AND ErHno.oay, 
§ 13, under Togarmah.) 

HOSAH, ho’sa (19M, hosah): I. A city on the 
NW. border of Asher, and apparently S. of Tyre 
(Jos 19 29). Site unknown, as the identification with 
Usha of the Assyr. and Usu of the Egypt. inscrip- 
II. The ancestral head of a 
division of the door-keepers of the Second Temple 
(I Ch 16 38, 26 10-16). 

HOSANNA: An acclamation which occurs in the 
Gospels in the story of the triumphal entry (Mt 
21 9, 15; Mk 11 9-10; Jn 1213), being quoted from 
Ps 118 25. It is the Gr. form of the Heb. hdshi‘ah- 
na’, ‘Save! we pray.’ The same expression occurs 
with the plural (of the object) in II K 19 19, and 
similar ones, without the particle of urgency, fre- 
quently in the Psalter. W.S. P. 


HOSEA, ho-zi’a. 1. Personal History. Hosea 
(YIN, hdshéa‘, also Osee in N T [AV], identical 
with Hoshea and Joshua in derivation and meaning), 
the son of Beeri, the first of the minor prophets 
in the order given in the Hebrew canon. His ministry 
fell within the Assyrian period, which began with the 
middle of the 8th cent. B.c., and was located in the 
Northern Kingdom (Israel). According to the super- 
scription of the book, he prophesied during the reigns 
of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of 
Judah (790-690 3B.c.), and Jeroboam, the son of 
Joash, King of Israel (784-745 B.c.). While this 
superscription may be by a later hand, there is no 
doubt that it is in general correct. But it does not 
definitely fix the length of his prophetic ministry, as 
it does not indicate how much of the reigns of Uzziah 
and Hezekiah is to be included. Yet it may be safely 
inferred that the prophet was in public life not less 
than ten years and not more than thirty—.e., from 
about 750 to about 730 B.c. Of his personal life 
and experiences nothing is known, except what is 
gathered from incidental allusions in his discourses. 
He was evidently a native as well as a prophet of the 
Northern Kingdom. He cherished a living interest 
in the affairs of his generation. Whether he occu- 
pied an official position of any sort it is not certain. 
Some have conjectured that he belonged to the 
gild of prophets, while others have inferred from 
his intimate knowledge of the corruptions of the 
priesthood that he was a priest. It is probable 
that he was a leading citizen of the realm. 

2. Domestic Experience Used as a Parable. H.’s 
call to the prophetic work came in connection with 
a sad domestic experience. He married a woman 
(Gomer) who afterward proved unfaithful to him. 
When her eldest son was born, H. gave him the 
symbolical name of Jezreel, ‘God sows (seed),’ as 
appreciative of the Divine blessing on his marriage 


/ 


Hosea 
House 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


362 





(1 4). To the next child, a daughter, he gave the 
name ‘Lo-ruhamah’ (RVmg., ‘shat hath not ob- 
tained mercy,’ 16). The next son was called ‘Lo- 
ammi’ (RVmg., ‘not my people,’ 19). After this, 
Gomer left H., and became the slave concubine of 
a man who could better satisfy her love of luxurious 
living (25). But H. persisted in his affection for her, 
sought her out, and bought her back with the price 
of a slave. She was thus brought into the new 
relation of a slave to her husband. That all this is 
the story of an actual occurrence has been denied 
by some ancient and some modern scholars. It has 
been alleged that it would be unthinkable for 
God to command conduct so contrary to His own 
moral law; that it must have taken years to bring 
into view the significance of the Divine command, if 
the prophet’s experience had been literally lived 
through; and that during this time the prophet must 
have endured mental agony on account of the com- 
pulsory but revolting relationship with an unchaste 
woman. But these considerations are based upon 
the supposition that the literal occurrence of the 
transaction followed the command; or that the state- 
ment that Hosea was bidden to ‘take a wife of 
whoredom’ (1 2) means that he was told to deliber- 
ately marry a harlot. The facts in the case do not 
bear out such an interpretation. A ‘wife of whore- 
dom’ is not a prostitute, but a woman who has 
violated her marriage vow. The case rather stands 
thus: H., being married, discovered that his wife was 
unfaithful to him, and, realizing the strength of his 
own feelings of affection toward her, was led to find 
in this feeling an illustration of God’s greater love 
for idolatrous Israel. In his taking back his unfaith- 
ful wife he was further led naturally to see God’s will- 
ingness to forgive Israel and restore to 1t His favor. 
Inasmuch as this experience was manifestly under 
Divine guidance and control, he construed it as 
God’s will that he should pass through it as a means 
of his prophetic equipment, and in the vivid style 
of the prophet represented it as God’s command. 

It is certain that Hosea often came into conflict 
with the priests of his day (49, 51, 69); but he relates 
nothing like the concrete dispute narrated by Amos 
out of his own experience (Am 710 ff.). H.’s character 
is distinguished by fulness of feeling, combined with 
a keen perception of spiritual truth, and courage in 
its expression. 


3. Contents of Book of H. The Book of H. may be 
conveniently subdivided into two main parts. Chs. 
1-3 are in narrative form and give the allegorization 
of his tragic domestic experience, as already ex- 
plained. Chs. 4-14 are a series of denunciations, 
relieved by pleas in behalf of J’, addressed to the 
people (exhortations to turn from idolatry and sin). 
A more minute analysis of this section is not 
practicable (for an attempted analysis see Harper 
in ICC., Amos and Hosea, p. elx), partly because of 
the abrupt breaks and reiterations to which the 
prophet resorts in his passionate way of preaching 
his message. In general, however, the theme of the 
whole section is given in the opening words of 41: 
“There is no truth, nor goodness, nor knowledge of 
God in the land. 

4. Condition of Text. The text of the book has 


been: very much tampered with by later hands. A 
sufficient occasion for this was furnished by the 
obscurity of H.’s style. His utterances are at times 
ejaculatory. It is doubtful, however, whether the 
amount of corruption has not been largely exagger- 
ated in recent efforts at criticism. Some instances 
where the text appears to be corrupt may be nothing 
more than the natural irregularities of the author’s 
own method of expression, or the consequences of 
the arrangement of his discourses. These were no 
doubt at the beginning fragmentary. 

5. Religious Message. H.’s religious message is 
one of the most profound and spiritual in the O T. 
While his earlier contemporary Amos stood for the 
righteousness of J’’ and named righteousness of con- 
duct as the one supreme demand of J’’ (5 24), Hoses, 
laid the emphasis on J’”’s personality and pleaded 


for a truer conception of God as a personal being. 


whose relation to His worshipers 1s that of an ethical 

personality. This means that man’s response to 

God’s demand must be in terms of personal devo- 

tion, with an intelligent appreciation of the Divine 

personality. J’’ desires ‘knowledge’ of Himself and 

‘loving-kindness’ (or ‘goodness’) more than sacrifices 

and burnt-offerings (Hos 66). For the cultus and 

the whole physical conception of the Divine nature 
on which it rested, Hosea had only condemnation. 

To him the idea at the basis of the whole ceremonial 

system was fundamentally mistaken. The highest 

and purest in human nature, Hosea felt, was the 
true if only partial key to the understanding of the 
perfect Divine personality. Rightly understood, 

Hosea is perhaps nearer to Jesus in his teaching than 

is any other O T prophet. 

LireraTuRE: Driver, LOT; W. R. Smith in Z. Brit.; Marti 
in HB; G. A. Smith in Expos. Bible, The Book of the Twelve, 
1898, vol. i; Harper in ICC, Am. and Hos., 1905; C. H. 
Cornill, The Prophets of Israel (1895); Kent-Smith, The 
Earlier Prophets, pp. 29-49 (1907); M. Scott, The Message 
of Hosea (1921). J. M. P. Smith, Hosea and Micah, in 
Bible for Home and School. A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 
HOSEN: In 16th cent. English ‘hosen’ meant a 

garment covering the legs and hips much like very 

tight trousers. In Dn 3 21 RV we read ‘their hosen, 
their tunics, and their mantles’; the AV reads 

‘their coats, their hosen, and their hats.’ The 

Aramaic gsarbal (‘hosen’ RV, ‘coats’ AV) may 

perhaps mean ‘mantle,’ tho this is not certain. 

The word pattish or p*tash (‘tunics’ RV, ‘hosen’ 

AV) is still more obscure, and no probable meaning 

can be suggested (cf. Driver in Camb. Bible, Daniel, 

in loc.). EK. E.N. 


HOSHAIAH, ho-shé’ya (7227, hédsha‘dyah), 
‘J’’ saves’: 1. The father of Jezaniah (or Azariah) 
(Jer 421, 43 2). 2. A prominent Jew in Nehemiah’s 
time (Neh 12 32). 


HOSHAMA, hegh’a-ma (YO¥IN, hdshama‘), a 
shortened form (or error) for ‘Jehoshama,’ ‘J’’ has 
heard’: A son of Jehoiachin, King of Judah (I Ch 
3 18). 

HOSHEA, ho-shi’a (Y¥I7, hdshéa‘), ‘salvation’; 
in Assyr. inscriptions, Aus?’: 1. The son of Elah, 
and the last king of Israel (733-722 B.c.) (II K 
15 30, 171 #.). Having assassinated Pekah, who had 
been defeated in his rebellion against Tiglath- 


368 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Hosea” 
House 





pileser III of Assyria, Hoshea was placed on the 
throne of a greatly, reduced kingdom by the Assyrian 
king, with the understanding that he would be an 
obedient vassal. For a few years H. proved loyal to 
the king of Assyria, and then defaulted the usual 
tribute and ranged himself with Egypt in an anti- 
Assyrian movement. Shalmaneser V, 727-722 B.c. 
invaded his territory and laid siege to Samaria. 
Sargon, 722-705 B.c., completed the work of Shal- 
maneser, captured the city, and put an end to the 
kingdom of Israel. As to H.’s fate nothing is known 
certainly; probably he was slain or captured before 
the city of Samaria was taken. 2. The original name 
of Joshua, the son of Nun (Nu 138 8, Oshea AV; 
Dt 32 44). 3. A son of Azaziah, an Ephraimite chief 
under David (I Ch 27 20). 4. A Levite who, with 
others, set his seal to the covenant (Neh 10 23). 
A. C. Z.—E. E.N. 


HOSPITALITY (g:Aogevia), ‘love of strangers’: 
Hospitality, as the act and habit of entertaining 
strangers, is not a purely Biblical or Oriental char- 
acteristic. The Greeks recognized it and sanctioned 
it by the doctrine of a patron of all travelers and 
strangers (cf. Zeus-Xenios. Hom. Odyss. LX, 270; 
XIV, 57). In the O T times the total absence of inns 
made the exercise of hospitality an indispensable 
condition of all enterprise, as well as an expression of 
kindness (cf. Abraham, Gn 18 13; cf. He 13 2; also 
other cases, Gn 19 2, 24 25; Jz 1916). The Deuter- 
onomic law expressly provides for the care of 
strangers (Dt 14 29). The neglect of hospitality was 
a defect in the perfect man’s character (Job 31 32). 
In Roman days, inns and taverns had come into 
existence, but they were notoriously dangerous, and 
often no more than houses of ill fame. Their keepers 
were for the most part unscrupulous, and their in- 
famous practises are alluded to even in legal enact- 
ments, which were designed to check and correct 
the evils of the system (Ulpian, Dig. iii, 2, 4, 2, 
xxil, 2, 43, 1; Tertullian, De Fuga in Persec. 13; 
Marquardt, Privatl. p. 471, n. 5); hence the injunc- 
tion to hospitality as a duty in Apostolic and in 
early Christian times (Ro 1213; ef. I Ti 3 2; Tit 18; 


IP 49; Clem. Ad Cor. I 10-12, 35) was not intended 


merely as a means of cultivating or otherwise ex- 
pressing good-will toward men, but also as a protec- 
tion of Christian travelers. ADG. Z. 
HOST: The rendering of (1) hayil, ‘strength,’ 
‘force,’ often used of an army (Ex 14 4, 17, 23; IS 
14 48, AV, etc.). (2) mahdneh, ‘camp,’ or ‘encamp- 
ment,’ also used frequently of a great company, or 
an army (Gn 32 2; Ex 14 24, 1613, AV, etc.). (3) 
tsibh@ (from the verb tsdbha’, ‘to carry on war’), 
‘army’ (Gn 21 22, 32; Jos 514; Jg 4 2; 1S 17 55, etc.). 
This word is very common in the O T and is some- 
times used in a broader sense of the whole body of 
Israel (Ex 12 41), very often of the multitude of the 


- heavenly bodies, 7.e., the stars (Gn 21; Dt 419, etc.), 


which were frequently worshiped (Dt 17 3; II K 
1716, etc.). The most common occurrence of the term 
is in the expression ‘Jehovah (Lorp AV) of hosts’ 
(transliterated as Sabaoth twice in N T, Ro 9 29 and 
Ja 5 4), which is found a great number of times in 
the prophets and has been called ‘the prophetical 
title of Jehovah’ (Driver). The origin of this expres- 


sion is obscure. It may have meant originally ‘J’, 
the God who leads the armies of Israel,’ and have 
been extended later to express the universal sway of 
J”’ (the prophetic idea). It is less likely to have had 
the wider meaning (J’’, ruler of the hosts of heaven) 
from the first (cf. Driver in Camb. Bible, Joel and 
Amos, p. 231 f.and BDB.s.v. pax, 4). (4) In Lk 
213 otpatie means the heavenly angelic beings who 
worship God, while in Ac 7 42 the same word refers 
to the stars as objects of worship. (5) xavdoxebc 
‘innkeeper’ (Lk 10 35). (6) &évoc, ‘one who shows 
hospitality’ (Ro 16 23). KH. E. N. 


HOSTAGE(S). See Warranrzg, § 5. 


HOST OF HEAVEN. See Semitic Retiaion, 
§ 32. 


HOSTS, LORD OF. See Host; and Gop, §§ 3, 4. 
HOTHAM, ho’fhom (O71, hdthdm), ‘seal’: 1. 
The ancestor of a clan of Asher, I Ch 7 32 (=He- 


lem in ver. 35?). 2. The father of Shama and Jeiel 
(I Ch 11 44, Hotham AV). 


HOTHIR, ho’ther (V7, Adthir): One of the 
chiefs of the Hemanites, musicians of the Second 
Temple (I Ch 25 4, 28). 


HOUGH. See Hock. 
HOUR. See Tims, § 1. 


HOUSE. I. Tur Trent or tHe Nomaps. 1. Evi- 
dence of the Early Use of the Tent. The ‘house’ of 
the nomad is the tent, ’6hel—even to-day called bait 
(‘house’) by the Bedawin. For a long period the 
Israelites, as nomads, dwelt in tents, and even many 
years after the main body of the nation had settled 
down in permanent abodes individual clans, like the 
Kenites (I S 15 6; cf. Jg 417) and the E. Jordan 
tribes, continued to use tents, because the nature of 
the land they occupied compelled them to follow the 
pastoral mode of life. 

2. Construction of the Tent. The Heb. idiom 
preserved a number of survivals from the nomadic 
days, e.g., nasa‘, ‘to depart,’ lit. ‘to pull out (the 
tent-pin)’; hadlakh l’ohdlé, ‘to go home,’ lit. ‘to 
return to his tent.’ 

The tent was either round and partly conical, or 
long—something after the form of an inverted ship’s 
hull. Usually the tent-coverings, y’r7‘dth, were woven 
from the hair of the black goat (Song 1 5), and 
stretched over three or five poles, 5 to 6 ft. high. 
In the roof of the tent were sewed wooden rings, 
which were connected by tightly drawn cords, 
méthar, with the tent-pins, ydthédh, driven fast into 
the ground. By this means the tent was held up- 
right. If a cord broke or a pin was pulled up, the 
tent collapsed (cf. Job 4 21, 30 11). Instead of hair- 
cloth, however, skins were often used for the tent 
covering. Somewhere about the middle of the tent 
a support was placed to hold up the roof. In most 
cases the tent of a Bedawi is divided into two 
parts, of which the second, or innermost, hedher, 
is specifically for the women and children, tho also 
used as kitchen and storehouse. Entrance to this 
room, in ordinary cases, is forbidden to men. Only 
one who is pursued may venture to take refuge 
here, where the real home is (Jg 4 17 ff.). 


House 
Hunting 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


364 





The booth, or hut, sukkah, constructed of branches 
or bushes, was used as a merely temporary abode, 
e.g., of the field-watcher (Is 1 8; cf. II S 11 11; Jn 
45#.), or for cattle (Gn 33 19). 


Il. Tue Houses of THE More Crvinizep PEeriop. 
3. Structure Conditioned by Climate. When the 
Israelites passed from the nomadic to the agri- 
cultural mode of life they came to erect permanent 





























key (A) lifts, by means of its pegs, three movable wedges 
in the lock (B), thus loosening the bolt. 


houses (bayith, sing.) in which work the Canaanites 
were their teachers. In Palestine, as everywhere, the 
manner in which houses are constructed is dependent 
on the character of the climate and land. As far as 
the former is concerned, inasmuch as the houses were 
not constructed to protect from the cold, but to 
furnish covering from sun and rain, there are re- 
quired, on the one hand, cool cellar-like rooms, and, 
on the other, a light, airy structure, inasmuch as 
the climate permits constant abode in the open air. 
The peasants use houses simply to protect them from 
the cool of the night while sleeping, or in order to 
enjoy their meals undisturbed by others, or to 
entertain friends, etc. It is the same with the towns- 
men. They love the outdoor life much more than 
Westerners do. In ancient times artizan work was 
carried on in houses as little as it is at present. 
It was conducted either on the street or in special 
booths, which were situated in definitely fixed 
quarters in the city, where similar crafts were near 
one another, as is the case with the Oriental bazaars 
of to-day. 

4. Structure Conditioned by the Material at Hand. 
The character of the land influenced the style of 
building to the extent at least of limiting the material 
to that which the land could furnish. High forests 
never existed in Palestine; consequently, there was 
no long timber at hand for building purposes, and 
in ordinary houses the use of wood was greatly 
limited. For such woodwork as was indispensable 
the sycamore, shiqgmah, was used (I K 10 27; Is 99). 
For large and costly buildings, where long timbers 
were needed, resort was had to imported lumber, 
such as cedar, ’erez (I K 7 2£.; Jer 2214); and cypress, 
brish (I K 9 11 £.). Olive, zayith, was used but 
seldom, and then only to a limited extent, e.g., for 
doors, windows, and similar purposes. In a hilly 
country like Palestine there is no scarcity of good 
building stone. The white limestone can be quarried 





easily, and, as it is not hard, can be worked with no 
difficulty. In the lowlands houses were constructed 
of sun-dried brick, l*bhéndh, tho occasionally the 
bricks were burned. 

5. Various Kinds of Houses. As the conditions 
of life in Palestine have remained practically the 
same for centuries, the method of building houses 
was not different in ancient times from what it is 
at present. The prosperous fellahin in the hill- 
country and in well-situated towns built for them- 
selves vaulted houses of more or less finely hewn 
stone. Such buildings are either founded upon the 
native rock, or the foundation is sunk into the earth 
to a depth about equal to the height of the building. 
The violent winter rains would soon make an end 
of a house not well founded (cf. Mt 7 24-29). The 
dwellings consist of large rooms, with high ceilings, 
and surrounded by thick walls. The roof arches rest. 
upon strong. massive pillars. In case of inability 
to procure the material for such a vaulted building, 
a square structure is erected with walls of small 
stones held together with mortar or clay. ‘These 
walls are roofed over with poles, branches, and 
brush, over which is stamped down a layer of soil 
about a foot thick. The houses in the lowlands, 
built of soft clay, are naturally very frail and liable 
to destruction. Even at the present time it can be 
noticed how quickly whole villages, when deserted, 
completely disappear, leaving no trace of their 
former existence. 

6. Details of Structure. (a) On the inner side the 
walls were often plastered or whitewashed, taphél 
(Ezk 13 10 #., 22 28). Sometimes they were also 
painted with vermilion, shdshar (Jer 22 14). More 
expensive buildings were adorned with artistically 
carved panelings (I K 7 7; cf. ceiled Jer 22 14; Hag 
1 4), decorated with ivory (I K 22 39; Am 315), gold, 
silver, or precious stones (I Ch 29 2 #.). (b) The 
floor was simply a layer of clay, or plaster, which, 
in the more costly houses, was overlaid with boards 





Larger Lock with Key. The key (A) lifts the wooden 
pegs which it touches, and thus allows the bar (B) below to 
be moved. 


(I K 615), or with marble and other expensive stones 
(Est 16). The floors were covered with rugs, or, in 
the case of the poor, with mats of straw, on which 
one might tread only without sandals. (c) The 
ordinary house of the common people consisted of 
one large room divided into two parts, ,of which one 
was somewhat higher than the other. This served 
as a living-place for the family, while the other 
was occupied by the animals, which in a sense were 
counted as a part of the family of the fellahin. In 


365 





case a man had extensive herds, he had] special 
stables for them. In the towns also the partition of 
the dwelling was not usual. (d) The roof of the 
house, which had to be repaired annually before the 
beginning of winter, was a favorite resort for pur- 
poses of evening recreation (cf. II S 11 2), or for 
private conversation (I S 9 25), or for lamentation 
(Is 15 3; Jer 48 38). From such frequent use of the 
roof we get the reason for the common law in Dt 
22 8, that roofs should be provided with a battle- 
ment. But in spite of this, one could easily leap 
from one roof to another, so that it was possible in 
this manner to go the length of whole streets (cf. 
Mk 138 15, and Jos. Ant. XIII, 5 3). Houses of the 
well-to-do were often provided with a _ super- 
structure on the roof, ‘dliyyah, used as a sleeping-, 
guest-, or sick-chamber (Jg 3 20 ff., parlour AV; I K 
17 19; II K 410f.). Here also one went for prayer 
(II K 23 12; Tob 310; Dn 611; cf. Ac 109). The roof 
usually had two places of exit, one leading to the 
lower chamber, the other directly to the street (cf. 
Mk 2 4). (e) Houses of more than one story were 
certainly very rare. According to I K 7 2 #. Solo- 
mon’s arsenal (‘house of the forest of Lebanon’), 
which rested upon four rows of cedar pillars, was of 
three stories, as were also the side structures of the 
Temple (IK 654.). (f) In most instances, as is the 
case to-day, the larger houses were probably four 
square (Job 119), enclosing a roomy court, «#3Ay (Lk 
22 55, ‘hall’ AV), hatsér (II S 17 18; Neh 8 16), sur- 
rounded with cloisters and galleries, paved, provided 
with a well (II S 17 18), and planted with trees. 
This court often served as a guest-chamber, or place 
for social intercourse. It was protected from the 
sun’s rays by awnings (cf. Est 15f.,51). (g) Very 
costly houses were adorned with marble pillars, 
‘ammidhim, not only within the court, but also 
externally (Song 5 15; cf. I K 7 15 #.; II K 25 13). 
Larger houses had also a special fore-court (Jer 32 2), 
which served as an ante-chamber. At its door a 
keeper (sometimes a woman; cf. IT |S 46, LXX.; cf. 
Ac 12 13) had his station. From this fore-court 
stairs—often of costly wood (II Ch 9 11)—led to the 
roof and upper chambers. (h) The rear rooms, 
hedher (used of the temple-chamber I Ch 28 
11, parlors AV), of the larger houses were reserved for 
the women (Jg 151; Song 1 4, 34). To these noman 
besides the head of the house had access. Here also 
were the sleeping-rooms (II § 47, 13 10; II K 11 2). 
Such a room is evidently referred to by the term 
‘inner chamber’ (closet AV), in Mt 66. (i) In the 
more elegant houses there were both summer and 
winter rooms, the situation of which was determined 
by the position of the sun. Winter rooms were heated 
by means of a brazier, ’ah (Jer 36 22), which to-day 
is made of fire-brick, and is placed in a depression 
in the middle of the room. In order to conserve the 
heat after the fire is burned out, a wooden frame is 
placed over the brazier and covered with a rug. 
(j) Windows, which were constructed only of lattice- 
work, designated by such terms as’eshnabh (Jg 5 28; 
casement Pr 76 AV) or hallén, ‘side openings’ (Pr 76), 
also hdrakkim (Song 29) and ’drubbah, ‘openings in 
the roof’ (Kc 12 8), served also for chimneys; in houses 
of to-day they are found almost wholly on the inner 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


‘back from without. 


House 
Hunting 





or court side, because of the dirt of the street. In 
ancient time, however, this was not the rule (cf. 
Jg 5 28; Pr 76). (k)Doors were sometimes of stone, 
as in the buildings in the Hauran, but usually of 
wood and somewhat low. Occasionally they were 
plated with bronze or gold (II Ch 49, 22). Such doors 
were provided above and below with bronze hinge- 
pivots, tstr (Pr 26 14), which fitted into sockets, 
pothoth (I K 7 50), in the stone threshold. Large 
doors had also several folding leaves, ts‘la‘im g¢lilim 
(I K 6 34). (1) In the door was fastened an iron ring 
for a knocker (Lk 12 36, 13 25; Ac 12 13), and a 
wooden bar, min‘al, man‘ul, and b*riah, which was 
pushed back from within. There were also others 
that by means of a key, likewise of wood, maphtéah 
(Jg 3 25; Is 22 22), could be unfastened and pushed 
(m) According to Dt 6 9 (cf. 
11 20) the door-post, m*ztizGh, was adorned with 
inscriptions, as, for example, Dt 6 4 #f., a custom that 
has spread all over the Mohammedan East. The 
same practise was also in vogue in ancient Egypt 
(see Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, etc., vol. ii, 
pp. 102, 123). (n) From Ezr 3 10 f.; Job 38 6 it is 
evident that, in the case of a large building, the 
laying of the corner-stone (always one well selected 
for this purpose) was a festal occasion. Similarly, 
when the headstone was put in position (Zech 4 7), 
and the house was dedicated (I K 8 63; Ezr 6 16), 
there was a joyous celebration. Possibly I K 16 34 
(cf. Jos 6 26) finds its explanation in some such 
ceremony. W. N.—L. B. P. 


HOZAI, h6’zo-ai (IN, hdzay): A word taken as 
a proper noun by RV in II Ch 3319. Perhaps the 
true reading is ‘his seers’ (VN). 

HUKKOK, hok’kek (PPM, hugdq): A town of 
Naphtali (Jos 19 34), Map I, E 4, tho this 
identification is not certain. 


HUKOK, hiti’kek. See HeiKarn. 


HUL, hol. See ErHnoGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, 
§ 13. 

HULDAH, hol/da (719M, huldah): A prophetess 
of repute (II K 22 14; II Ch 34 22), the wife of 
Shallum, the keeper of the wardrobe. King Josiah 
sent Hilkiah, the priest, to her to inquire about the 
law-book which had been found in the Temple. 

eats bs 

HUMTAH, hom’ta (79), humtdh): A city of 
Judah, near Hebron (Jos 1554). Site unknown. 

HUNTING: The references to hunting are not 
numerous in the O T. While the Hebrews, in their 
nomadic period, were doubtless accustomed to the 
chase (cf. and story of Esau, Gn 25 27, 27 3 #.), after 
their settlement in Canaan comparatively less atten- 
tion was given to hunting, either as a profession or 
as a pastime. No national hero is spoken of as a 
hunter. Yet this sport was not entirely unknown. 
The word tsidh (from tsidh, ‘to hunt’ meaning 
‘venison’ or ‘game’ in general Gn 27 3), is similar te 
the term for ‘victuals’ or ‘provision’ in general (Jos 
9 5,14; Jz 78; Neh 13 15, etc.), but the etymological 
connection is doubtful. If the second term also is 
derived from tstidh, ‘to hunt,’ it would indicate that 
tstdh, ‘game,’ was once the main supply of food for 


Hupham 


A NEW STANDARD 
[gal 


————<—<$< 


the early Hebrews (see IsranL, SoctaL DEVELOP- 
MENT OF, § 7). The Law provided that animals 
taken in hunting should be properly killed (Lv 
1713). The wild animals allowed to be eaten in Dt 
ch. 14, such as the gazel, roebuck, wild goat, etc., 
could be taken only in the chase, and I K 4 23 
shows that wild meat was not unknown on the royal 
table. The more dangerous pursuits, such as lion- 
hunting, a favorite pastime of the Assyrian kings, 
are not mentioned in the O T, tho indirectly the 
hunting of the hippopotamus may be referred to in 
Job 41 26-29. The hunter made use not only of 
ordinary weapons, such as the bow and arrows 
(Gn 27 3), the sword, spear, and club (Job 41 26 f.), 
but of nets, snares, and traps of various kinds, with 
which to catch both birds and quadrupeds. Several 
kinds of nets are mentioned, as the hérem (Mic 7 2; 
_ Hab 115), the mikhmar (large enough to catch an 
antelope, Is 51 20), and the resheth (the nature of 
which can be inferred from Job 18 8; Ps 9 15, 109, 
140 5; Pr 117; Ezk 12 13, etc.). The exact meaning 
of the terms rendered snare and gin is uncertain; 
méogésh perhaps means a noose, while pah refers to 
bird-traps, probably of various kinds (Ps 124 7; Pr 
7 23; Am 3 5, etc.). In Job 18 10 hebhel (‘cord’), ren- 
dered noose in RV, and malkhédheth, trap (from la- 
khadh, ‘to take’), both refer to some kind of snare. 
Fowler in Heb. is ydqish (Ps 91 3, 1247; Pr 65; Hos 
9 8; and cf. the foregoing mdqésh). Animals were 
often caught also in pits (cf. II S 23 20; Ps 35 7), 
which was perhaps the method mainly used for the 
more dangerous animals. Consult Driver in Camb. 
Bible, Joel and Amos, p. 157, and A. R. 8. Kennedy 
in £B, article Fowl. HK. E.N. 

HUPHAM, hiii’fam, HUPHAMITE, hit’fam-ait. 
See Huppim. 

HUPPAH, hop’a (181), huppah): The ancestral 
head of the thirteenth course of priests (I Ch 24 13). 

HUPPIM, hop’im (Gin huppim): The ances- 
tral head of one of the clans of Benjamin (Gn 46 21; 
I Ch 7 12, 15), the Huphamites (Nu 26 39, where the 
name is Hupham). 


HOUR, hor (73n, hr), ‘noble’ (?): 1. An Israelite 
associated with Aaron in supporting Moses at 
Rephidim (Ex 17 10, 12) and in the oversight of the 
people during Moses’ absence in the Mount (Ex 
24 14). According to Josephus (Ané. ITI, 2 4, 6, 8 1) 
he was the husband of Miriam. 2. The father of 
Caleb (I Ch 2 50; probably I Ch 41 refers to the 
same). 3..A son of Caleb and the grandfather of 
Bezaleel (Ex 31 2; I Ch 219). According to Josephus 
the same as 1. 4. A king of Midian (Nu 31 8; Jos 
13 21). 5. An officer under Solomon. See Ben-Hur. 
(I K 48). 6. The father of Rephaiah, prominent in 
Jerusalem at the restoration (Neh39). A.C. Z. 

HURAI, hii’ra-ai or hit’ré. See Hrppat. 

HURAM, hiii’ram (8°), hiirdm): 1. The ances- 
tral head of one of the clans of Benjamin (I Ch 
85). For 2 and 3 see Hiram. 

HURI, hiii’rai (1, hirz): A descendant of Gad 
(I Ch. 5 14), 

HUSBAND AND WIFE. See Faminy anp 
Famity Law, § 4 f.; and also under MarriIaGeE 
AND Divorce. 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


366 


HUSBANDMAN: An old English word mean- 
ing literally ‘master of the house,’ and used to 
translate (1) ’zkkar, ‘tiller of the soil’ (II Ch 26 10; 
Jer 31 24, etc.). From Am 5 16 we would infer that 
such persons were often asked to take the part of 
professional mourners. (2) ish ’ddhdéméh, ‘man of 
the soil’ (Gn 9 20). (8) yeweyéc, ‘cultivator of the 
ground,’ a term of general significance (Mk 12 1; 
Jn 151; Il Ti26). In II K 2512 the text is un- 
certain and in Zec 13 5 RV gives the correct render- 
ing. E. E.N. 

HUSBAND’S BROTHER. See MarriaGe AND 
Drvorce, § 6. 


HUSHAH, hiti’sha (7M, hiishah) Probably the 
name of a place in Judah, whence came Sibbecai 
(q.v.) the Hushathite, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 


4 4, ‘Shuhah’ in ver. 11; II S 21 18, 23 27; I Ch 11 


29, etc.). 

HUSHAI,” hit’Sha-ai or hit/shé (WN, hashay): 
An Archite and loyal friend of David, who used 
him as a spy in the court of Absalom to defeat the 
counsel of Ahithophel (II 8S 15 32-17 23; I Ch 27 33). 
Probably he was the father of Baana (I K 4 16). 

: CyidieL 

HUSHAM, hii’sham (03, hasham): 
of Edom (Gn 36 34 f.). 
THAIM. 

HUSHATHITE, hiii’shath-ait. See Huswan. 

HUSHIM, hiw’shim (VIN, DYN, and ON, 
hiishim): 1. The ancestral head of a clan of Dan 
(Gn 46 23, called Shuham [and the clan, Shuhamites] 
in Nu 26 42). 2. A son of Aher (I Ch 712). 3. A 
‘wife’ of Shaharaim in a Benjamite genealogy; prob- 
ably the name of a clan or place (I Ch 8 8, text un- 
certain). . 


HUSKS. See Foon, § 5. 

HUZZAB, hoz’ab (2311, hutstsabh): A word (Nah 
27 [8]) of uncertain derivation and meaning. RV 
translates ‘it is decreed.’ Many find here the name 
or title of an Assyrian queen (RVmg.). C.S. T. 


HYACINTH. See Sronzs, Precious, § 3. 
HYENA. See Paumustine, § 24. 


HYMENZUS, hai’’m1-ni’us (‘Ypévatocg): An un- 
known man (associated in I Ti 1 20 with Alexander 
and in II Ti 217 with Philetus), who without con- 
science spoke falsely of the sacred truths of the 
gospel and ‘made shipwreck of the faith.’ At the 
time of writing I Ti Paul hoped that excommunica- 
tion might prove salutary (cf. a similar case in 
I Co 55), but it did not, for at the time of II Ti 
Hymenezus still represented a deadly error, 
probably connected with Gnosticism, that was eating 
insidiously into the life of the Church. 

R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


See HauietusanH; Mosic, § 7; and 


A king 
See also CusHAN RISHA- 


HYMN. 
PRAISE. 


HYPOCRITE, HYPOCRISY, HYPOCRITICAL 
(Gr. terms from dzoxptvonat, lit. ‘to answer,’ then 
applied to actors on the stage and thus coming to 
mean ‘dissimulation,’ ‘hypocrisy’): In the O T the 
RV everywhere changes these terms to ‘profane’ or 
‘godless,’ the real meaning of the Heb. hanéph. 


i ee eS _— 


— ee a 


arise 


367 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Hupham 
Igal 





In the N T the word is always used in a religious 
sense, of those who make an outward show of being 
religious, but at heart are not so. Hence the two 
meanings practically coincide. Most of the N T 
occurrences of ‘hypocrite’ are in the sayings of 
Jesus, and have reference to groups of Pharisees 
who were active in opposing him. 
R. A. F.—E. C. L. 

HYSSOP (118, ’ézdbh): A plant described in I K 
4 33 as one ‘that springeth out of the wall.’ It was 
used in the Passover service, a bunch of it being 
dipped in the blood of the sacrificial animal, and ap- 
plied to the lintel (Ex 12 22); also in other ceremonials 
involving purification (Lv 14 6, 48; Nu 19 6; Ps 517; 
He 919). The precise species of plant meant has 
been a matter of extensive debate. Of the proposed 
identifications, two only are worthy of special men- 


IBHAR, ib’har (1)3?, yibhhar), ‘He [J’’] chooses’: 
A son of David (IIS 515; I Ch 36, 14 5). 

IBLEAM, ib’li-am (89 22°, yibhie‘am): An ancient 
Canaanite town, assigned to either Asher or Issa- 
char, but actually held by Manasseh, tho not in 
the earliest period of the Conquest (Jos 17 11; Jg 1 27). 
In or near Ibleam Ahaziah, King of Judah (II K 
9 27), and perhaps also Zechariah, King of Israel 
(II K 15 10 according to LXX.), were slain. It is 
called Bileam in I Ch 670. The identification Map 
IV, D 8 is wrong. See Bileam on Map III, F 2 for 
the right location. See also Garu-Rimmon. 

EK. E. N. 

IBNEIAH, ib-ni’ya or ib’’n1-ai’a (232, yibhneyah), 
‘J’’ builds’: The head of a Benjamite family (I Ch 
9 8). 

IBNIJAH, ib-nai’ja (73%, yibhniyyah), ‘I”’ 
builds’: The ancestor of the preceding Ibneiah (I 
Ch 9 8). 

IBRI, ib’rai (72¥, ‘“bhri): A Merarite Levite 
(I Ch 24 27). 

IBSAM, ib’sam (0¥32, yibhsém, Jibsam AV): 
The ancestral head of a family of Issachar (I Ch 7 2). 

IBZAN, ib’zan (]¥28, ’ibhisdén): A minor judge 
of Israel from Bethlehem (Jg 12 8, 10) of Zebulun 
(Jos 19 15), a town 7 m. NW. of Nazareth. He was 
the head of a large family or clan. Orga e di 


ICHABOD, ik’a-bed (T3978, ’t khabhddh), ‘no 
glory’ according to popular etymology. The real 
meaning is unknown. Cf. Driver, HTS, ad loc. The 


son of the priest Phineas, born on the occasion of the 
capture of the Ark (IS 4 21, 14 3). 


ICONIUM, ai-ko’ni-om (’Ixévov and Hixévtoy): 
Mentioned by Xenophon as a border-town of Phry- 
gia, by Cicero as the capital of Lycaonia, which 
position it retained under the Diadochi and the 
Romans. It was situated in what is practically an 
oasis in the great elevated, waterless plain of Ly- 
caonia (q.v.), surrounded by a country producing 
excellent crops of wheat and flax. I. owed its im- 
portance to its situation at the crossing of trade- 


with the ‘reed’ of the Synoptists. 


tion. Royale and Tristram regard it as the caper 
plant, a bright-green creeper, to be found plentifully 
in Bible lands. The main strength of this identifica- 
tion is that it explains Jn 19 29, where ‘hyssop’ is 
used apparently as the equivalent of ‘reed’ in Mt 
27 48 and Mk 15 36; for a reed may be secured from 
the stalk of the caper plant long enough to be used 
as indicated. The theory, however, is not entirely 
satisfactory. The caper plant is not suitable for 
sprinkling. The etymology of the word, too, points 
to a different source. Hence G. E. Post proposes 
the Arabic sa‘tar (Origanum maru, L.), which in 
other respects suits all the descriptions much better. 
But if this view be adopted, the hyssop of Jn 19 29 
must be regarded as the leaves and fruit mixed in 
pulverized form with the wine, and not identical 
A.C. Z. 


routes, and particularly on the highway leading to 
Ephesus and Rome. 

The history of Iconium is the same as that of the 
kingdom and province of Galatia (see Asta Mrnor, 
III, 5), in which it was situated until after the times 
of Paul. By the Christian era it was completely 
Hellenized; later it became a typical Greco-Roman 
city. The Zizimmene Mother was the local form of 
the Cybele-cult. Under Hadrian, I. became a 
Roman colonia. I., with Lystra, was visited by 
Paul, who made many converts, but the resident 
nationalist Jews compelled him to leave (Ac 14 1-6), 
but he returned later (Ac 16 1-5). 

J. R.S. S.4#—S. A. 

IDALAH, id’a-la (M287, yidh’dlah): A town of 
Zebulun (Jos 19 15), about 2 m. S. of Bethiehem of 
Zebulun. Map IV, C 7. 

IDBASH, id’bash (V2, yidhbash): The name of 
a small clan of Judah (I Ch 4 3). 


IDDO, id’do: The Eng. equivalent of several Heb. 
names: 1 (NY, ‘“iddd’). (a) The father of Ahinadab 
(IK 414). (b) A Levite (I Ch 6 21, ‘Adaiah’ in ver. 
41), 2. (1793, ye‘dd, and 1Y, ‘“iddo). A prophet, or 
seer, who wrote accounts of the reigns of Rehoboam, 
Jeroboam, and Abijah (II Ch 9 29, 12 15, 18 22). 3. 
(ITY, “iddd, and NITY, “iddo’). (a) The grandfather 
of the prophet Zechariah (Zec 11, 7; Ezr 51, 6 14). 
(b) The ancestral head of a postexilic family (Neh 
12 4,16). 4. (178, ’iddd). The head of a community 
of Nethinim at Casiphia (Ezr 817). 5. (172, yidd6). 
(a) Chief of the Manassites in Gilead under David 
(I Ch 27 21). (b) One who had taken a foreign wife 
(Ezr 10 43; Jadau AV). E. E. N. 

IDOL, IDOLATRY. See Greek RELIciIon; and 
Semitic Retiacion, § 23. 

IDUMAA, ai’’diu- or id’”’yu-mi’e. See Epom. 

IEZER, ai-i’zar. See ABIEZER. 

IGAL, ai’gal (OND, yigh’al), ‘He redeems’: 1. A 
son of Joseph of the tribe of Issachar, one of the 
twelve spies sent by Moses from Paran to Canaan 
(Nu 13 7). 2. A son of Nathan, one of the thirty 


Igdaliah 
Iphtah-el 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


868 





heroes of David (II 8S 23 a In I Ch 11 38 Joel, the 
brother of Nathan. 3. A son of Shemaiah, a the 


Davidic line (I Ch 3 22; Igeal AV). C. s. abe 

IGDALIAH, ig’do-lai’a (7.71, yighdalyaha), I” 
is great’: The father of Hanan (Jer 35 4). 

IGEAL, ig’1-al or ai’gi-al. See IGAu. 

IIM, ai’im (8°, “cyytm), ‘ruins’: A town in Judah 
near Edom (Jos 15 29). Site uncertain. See also 
[YE-ABARIM. 

IJE-ABARIM, ai’’ji-ab’e-rim. See IyE-aBario. 

IJON, ai’jon (1?¥, “iyydn): A town in the extreme 
N. of Israel, somewhere near Dan and Abel-beth- 
maacah (I K 15 20; II K 15 29). It was depopulated 
by Tiglath-pileser, c. 734 (II K 15 29). Site not 
certainly known. 

IKKESH, ik’kesh (WRY, ‘iqgésh): The father of 
Ira, one of David’s heroes (II 8 23 26; I Ch 11 28, 
27 9). 

ILAI, ai‘le-ai or ai’lé C29, ‘tlay): One of David’s 
heroes (I Ch 11 29, called Zalmon in IT S 23 28). 

ILLYRICUM, iirickom (TAdverméy): The Ro- 
man name of the province on the Adriatic, N. of 
Macedonia and W. of Thrace. Its southern portion 
was called Dalmatia, a name which during the 
Apostolic Age was extended to denote the whole 
province. The province, inhospitable and moun- 
tainous, ‘separates, rather than connects, Italy and 
Greece’ (Mommsen). At the same time it con- 
tained important cities. In Ro 1519 ‘Illyricum’ very 
probably means the Roman province, but whether 
Paul evangelized it can not be determined by this 
verse, some holding that his statement indicates 
merely the limit up to which his labors. reached. 
(See ICC, Romans, ad loc.) R.A. F.—E.E.LN. 


IMAGE. See Greek AND Roman Ipo.atry; 
Semitic REeiicion, § 238; and Man, Doctrine or, 
§ 3. 

IMLA, im’ls, IMLAH, im’la (822!, 722°, yimla’, 
yimlah), ‘he fills’: The father of the Buentioh Mi- 
caiah (I K 22 81.; II Ch 187tf.). 


IMMANUEL, i-man’yu-el (Dis WY, “mmani- 
’el), ‘God with us’; also Emmanuel, Mt 1 23 AV: The 
symbolical name given to the child whose birth was 
promised as a sign of safety to Ahaz by the prophet 
Isaiah (7 14), and used again in 8 8, 10, not, however, 
as the name of an individual, but in its literal sense 
(in 8 8 the text, ‘thy land [71¥ 08], O Immanuel,’ 
is probably corrupt, the final 7 standing for *9, ‘be- 
cause’; so emended, the verse should read: ‘And 
the stretching out of his wings shall fill the breadth 
of the land because God is with us’). 

In Mt 1 23, Is 714 1s quoted as a foreshadowing of 
the virgin birth of Jesus. The question has been 
raised whether this identification of Immanuel with 
Jesus was in the mind of Isaiah himself, or made by 
the evangelist either erroneously, or by way of ap- 
propriating the words of an ancient oracle as suit- 
able to his purpose, but not with the intention of 
committing their original author to his intepreta- 
tion of them. The difficulties in the way of taking it 
to be the primary intention of Isaiah to foretell the 
virgin birth of Jesus are insuperable. The meaning 


of his phraseology is so palpably fulfilled in the cir- 
cumstances of his own day that as remote a reference 
as this to the birth of Jesus seems exegetically im- 
possible. On the other hand, all interpretations 


| which find in the reference to Immanuel a double 


sense, 2.¢€., a first intention to speak of a child that 
might be born in bis own days and a secondary one 
to predict the virgin birth of Jesus, are artificial and 
arbitrary. They have the appearance of ingenious 
devices to escape a difficulty rather than natural 
explanations of the facts of the case. The only ad- 
missible view, as far as the intention of Isaiah is con- 
cerned, is that he had in mind a child born in his 
own days, whose birth would be symbolical of the 
Divine favor displayed in such manifest power as to 
assure His people that God was with them. But if 
this was Isaiah’s thought, the use of the passage by 
Matthew must be either the result of misunderstand- 


ing of the prophet’s meaning, or the appropriation of - 


his words as a formula in which the virgin birth of 
the Savior might felicitously be embodied. If the 
alternative be drawn sharply between these two 
views, the second would be by far preferable. But it 
is quite possible to suppose that the evangelist did 
see in the birth of the Savior the fulfilment of the 
hopes roused by the promise of God’s presence with 
and among His people, and expressed this thought 
by applying the old oracle to the event he was nar- 
rating. Such an appropriation altho not correct, 
judged by standards of modern literary and histori- 
cal usage, would be in perfect harmony with methods 
of using the O T at the time. FO OYA 


IMMER, im/ar (18, ’immér): I. 1. The ancestral 
head of the sixteenth course of priests, which con- 
stituted a large priestly family in postexilic days 
(I Ch 912, 2414; Ezr 2 37, 10 20; Neh 7 40, 1113). 2. 
A priest, the father of Pashhur (Jer 201). It is quite 
possible that 1 and 2 are identical. 3. The father of 
a certain Zadok (Neh 38 29). 

II. The Babylonian home of a priestly family 
(Ezr 2 59, 7 61). E. E. N. 


IMMORTALITY. See Escuaronoey, §§ 
37-39, 42 f., 49. 


IMNA, im’na (Y2>!, yimnd‘): The ancestral head 
of a family of Asher (I Ch 7 35). 

IMNAH, im’na (122°, yimnah) ‘right hand,’ 2.e., 
South (?) perhaps an allusion to the location of the 
clan: 1. The ancestral head of one of the clans of 
Asher (Gn 46 17; Jimnah AV; the Imnites, Nu 26 44, 
Jimnites AV; I Ch 7 30). 


14-22, 


EK. E. N. 

IMRAH, im’ra (1722, yimradh): A descendant of 
Asher (I Ch 7 36). 

IMRI, im’‘rai (8, ’imri): 1. A descendant of 
Judah (I Ch 94). 2. The father of Zaccur (Neh 8 2). 

INCARNATION. See Jesus Curist, § 19. 

INCENSE. See SacriFicE AND OFFERINGS, § 15. 
wRirct See CrimmsS AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 
¢). : 

INDIA, in’di-a (y4, hdddi): The only reference 
to I. in the Bible is in Est 11, 89, where it figures as 
one of the extreme limits of the empire over which 


2. A Levite (II Ch 31 14). 


ae 


369 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Igdaliah 
Iphtah-el 





the Persian king held sway. How much of the 
modern Indian world was covered by it in this con- 
nection is unknown. The term Hdéddu was intro- 
duced into the Semitic languages by way of the 
Persian Hindoo. It is highly probable, however, 
that altho the country was not clearly known, its 
wares were imported and used among the Hebrews 
in comparatively early days. A. C. Z. 
INDITE: The word rendered ‘inditing’ in Ps 451 
AV is rahash, ‘to be agitated,’ and the idea is, ‘my 
heart is moved, or stirred, with a good matter’ (cf. 
RY). EK. E. N. 


INFIDEL: This word occurs twice in AV as a 
rendering of &ttotos, for which RV gives ‘unbeliever’ 
(II Co 615; 1 Ti58). The unbelief Paul had in mind 
was not atheism, but the rejection of, or disbelief in, 
Christianity. E. E. N. 


INFIRMITY. See Distasze anp Mepicing, § 5. 

INFLAMMATION. See Disease anD MEDICINE, 
§ 4 (1). 

INGATHERING, FEAST OF. See Fasts anp 
Frasts, §§ 5, 8. 


INHERITANCE. See Faminy anp Famity Law, 
§ 8. 
INK, INKHORN. See Booxs anp Writing, § 4. 


INLAID. A term used in I Ch 29 2 (‘glistering’ 
AV) of precious stones. The Heb. 739, pukh, ‘anti- 
mony’ perhaps refers to color, and hence’ abhné phiikh 
may mean ‘stones of the hue of antimony.’ 

INN: (1) The AV rendering of malén in Gn 42 27, 
43 21, and Ex 4 24, which is rendered more accurately 
in RV by ‘lodging-place,’ since the reference is to a 
mere stopping-place for the night, not to an exten- 
sive or elaborate khan, or caravanserai. Such 
‘lodging-places,’ probably located near springs, and 
consisting of a rude hut, or shelter of some sort, 
would be found on the caravan roads through un- 
inhabited regions. (2) xatké\uua, rendered ‘guest- 
chamber’ in Mk 14 14 and Lk 22 11, is rendered ‘inn’ 
in Lk 2 7, altho it is by no means certain that a 
public lodging-house is meant. Joseph may have 
relied upon the hospitality of some acquaintance 
to place his ‘guest-chamber’ at his disposal (cf. 
Plummer in ICC, ad loc.). (3) mavdoxtov (or navdo- 
yetov, from nas and déyxec8at, ‘to receive every one’) 
in Lk 10 34 is properly an ‘inn,’ corresponding to the 
modern khdn, the innkeeper being called the rav5o- 
yebs. For an extended description of a modern 
khan see the articles on Inn in HDB and EB. See 
also Hospiratiry. HK. E. N. 

INNER MAN. See Man, Docrrinse or, § 5. 

INNERMOST PARTS. See Suirs anp Navi- 
GATION, § 2. 

INQUIRE. See Maaic anp Drvination, § 3; and 
REVELATION, § 7. 

INQUISITION. See Law anp Leaat PRACTISE 
§ 4 (2). 

INSECTS. See Pauustine, § 26. 

INSPIRATION. See Propuecy, § 6; and Rreves- 
LATION, §§ 3-5. 


INSTRUCT, INSTRUCTION. See Cuurcu Lirr 
AND ORGANIZATION, § 6; and Epucation, § 5. 


INSTRUMENT: The Heb. k-li (‘vessel,’ ‘imple- 
ment,’ etc.) was frequently translated ‘instrument’ 
in AV in places where a more specific term might 
have been chosen. In most of such cases RV has 
given more appropriate renderings (cf. Gn 49 5; 
Ex 25 9, etc.). In Ro 613 the Gr. éxA« means 
‘weapons.’ For musical instruments see Music AND 
Musica INSTRUMENTS, § 3. HK. E. N. 


INSTRUMENTS OF WAR. See Arms anp 
ARMOR. 

INTERCESSION: In the O T the Heb. 133, pagha'‘ 
(both gal and hiphil), ‘to meet,’ ‘fall in with,’ is used 
in the sense of interceding (Jer 7 16, 27 18, 36 25; Is 
538 12, 5916). In the N T we have the terms éytuy- 
yavery (Ro 8 27, 34, 11 2 ‘pleaded’ RV; He 7 25) and 
inepevtuyxavety (Ro 8 26), and altho these words are 
not used in the related passages in the LXX., they 
correspond exactly to the Heb. pdgha‘.‘To meet’? some 
one for the sake of another is to ‘intercede’ for the 
latter. K. E. N. 


INTERDICT. See Decree. 
INTEREST. See TrapE anp ComMERcE, § 3. 


INTERPRETATION: The necessity for inter- 
pretation arises whenever means for the expression 
of thought either are by nature, or become through 
lapse of time and through change, clouded and beset 
by obscurities. The interpreter’s task is to remove 
the obscurity, and let the thought expressed appear 
as fully and clearly as originally intended. In 
Biblical usage interpretation is always mentioned in 
connection with obscurities naturally inherent, and 
not with those which arise because of changed con- 
ditions. Interpretations are needed of utterances in 
unknown languages (Gn 42 23; II K 18 26, 28; 
peOcounvedety, Mt 1 23, ete.; cf. Eounveta, I Co 12 10, 
30, 14 5, 13, 26-28, of ‘tongues’); of dreams (Gn 40 5, 8, 
etc.; Dn 2 4 #.), of symbolism in visions (Dn 7 16 f.; 
ef. 9 20 #.), and of prophecy (II P 1 20). See also 
Cuyurcu LirE AND ORGANIZATION, §7. A.C. Z. 

INWARD PART: The rendering of (1) hedher, ‘a 
secret place or chamber,’ used metaphorically of the 
human motives or feelings (Pr 20 27, 30, ‘innermost 
part’ RV). (2) gerebh and %owfey, expressing the 
idea of ‘being within,’ ‘in the middle,’ or ‘in the 
midst,’ hence often used of the heart as the seat of 
emotion and determination (Ps 5 9, 49 11; Is 16 11; 
Jer 31 33; Lk 11 39; cf. Ps 62 4; Mt 715). The term 
tahoth (Job 38 36; Ps 51 6) is of uncertain meaning. 

BK. E. N. 

INWARDS. See SacrIFICE AND OFFERINGS, 
§§ 6-10. 

IOB, yob (ai, ydbh): The ancestral head of one 
of the clans of Issachar (Gn 46 13, Job AV), called 
Jashub in Nu 26 24, and I Ch 71. 

IPHDEIAH, if-di’ya (71?!, ytphd*yah, Iphe- 
deiah AV), ‘J’ redeems’: A descendant of Benjamin 
(I Ch 8 25). : 

IPHTAH, if’ta ("MD!, yiphiah, Jiphtah AV), ‘he 
opens’: A town of Judah, somewhere near Libnah 
(Jos 15 43). Site unknown. 

IPHTAH-EL, if’ta-el” (7879", yiphtal’al, Jiph- 
tael AV), ‘God opens’: A valley on the boundary 


Ir A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Isaiah , 


370 


. Ree a ERS Ee 


between Zebulun and Asher (Jos 1914, 27). Probably 
the valley near Jotapata. See Map IV, C 6. 

IR, ar (19, “Sr, ‘watcher’), IRI, ai’rai (VY, Gri, 
‘my watcher’): The ancestral head of a clan of 
Benjamin (I Ch 7 7, 12). 

IRA, ai’ra (STY, Za’): 1. A chief minister, or 
priest, in the time of David (II S 20 26). 
parallel list (II S 8 18) two sons of David are named 
in the place of Ira. 2. An Ithrite, one of David’s 


heroes (II S 23 38; I Ch 11 40). 3. A son of Ikkesh, a , 


Tekoite, also one of David’s heroes (II S 23 26; 
I Ch 11 28, 279), and captain for the sixth month. It 
is possible that 1 is identical with 2 or 3. C.S.T. 

IRAD, ai’rad (17'¥, Gradh): The son of Enoch, 
in the genealogical table of J (Gn 4 18); ef. ‘Jared’ 
in the table of P (516 f.). 

IRAM, ai’ram (O79, 
chieftain’) of Edom (Gn 36 43; I Ch 1 54). 

IRI, ai’rai. See Ir. 

IRIJAH, ai-rai’ja (MST, yir’tyyah), ‘J’’ sees’: 
The official who arrested Jeremiah at the time of the 
siege of Jerusalem (Jer 37 13, 14). 

IR-NAHASH, ir-né’/hash (W029, Gr nahash), 
‘serpent city,’ but Nahash may be a pr. n. and ‘city 
of N.’ the correct reading: A place referred to in I 
Ch 412. The text may be corrupt. The passage 
well illustrates the tendency to personify places by 
the genealogists. Site unknown. E. E. N. 


IRON, ai’ren (Ji87?, yir’dn): I. A city of Naph- 
tali (Jos 19 38). Map IV, D5. II. See Merats, § 4. 

IR-PEEL, ir’pi-el (9827, yirp’él), ‘God heals’: 
A city of Benjamin (Jos 18 27). Site uncertain. 

IR-SHEMESH, ir’-shi’mesh (VOUT), ‘ir she- 
mesh), ‘city of the sun’: A city of Dan (Jos 19 41). 
See BerH-SHEMESH. 

IRV, ai’ru (119, tra): A Calebite clan (I Ch 415). 

ISAAC, ai’zok (PU¥?, yitshag, PUY, yishag), 
‘he laughs,’ so named from the circumstances of his 
birth (Gn 17 17, 18 12, 21 6) and also, possibly, from 
two incidents in his life (Gn 21 9, 26 8), where the 
verb Pl is translated ‘mocking’ and ‘sporting,’ 
respectively: The only son of Abraham and Sarah 
and the ‘child of promise,’ through whom the 
covenant line was to be continued. His weaning- 
feast was the occasion for the expulsion of Hagar 
and Ishmael (Gn ch. 21). Abraham’s faith re- 
ceived its supreme test in the command to sacrifice 
I. (Gn ch 22). Rebekah was brought from Mesopo- 
tamia to be his wife (Gn ch. 24). His family life 
and the dissensions of his sons are told in Gn 25 19- 
289. He died at the age of 180 years (so P), and 
was buried by his sons in the cave on the field of 
Machpelah (Gn 35 28 £.; cf. 49 29-31). His name as a 
race-father occurs in oft-recurring patriarchal for- 
mulas, and by itself in Am 79,16. As if to counter- 
balance the paucity of the narrative, his character 
has been highly praised by Jewish and Christian 
expositors. 

An analysis of the chapters relating to him reveals 
two strata of presentation, one of which might be 
called personal, the other racial. The tendency to 


In the 


tram): A ‘duke’ (‘clan 





resolve the patriarchs into eponymous heroes, or 
personified tribes, has been overdone, and shows a 
lack of perspective as great on one side as the defense 
of absolute historicity involves on the other. The 
personal narratives are those concerning his sacrifice 
and the blessings of his sons. Hach is involved with 
the trials and experiences of greater characters. The 
former has its dénouement in the triumph of Abra- 
ham’s faith. The latter explains how Jacob became 
so great and won the preeminence over his more 
favored brother. In both instances Isaac is a sub- 
sidiary figure. 

The racial stories are those which record the 
struggles of the Hebrew clans with the neighboring 
races in the SW.; the strife for pasture land, and the 
dangers which the women of the tribes might under- 
go are the moving factors in the life of the Hebrews 
when Esau and Jacob dwelt together, jealous of one 


another’s prerogatives, and held to temporary com-— 


munity of interest by the need of united front when 
the aborigines shut them out from water rights in 
the hard-won oases. We see a picture of a land 
punctuated with wells whose waters are often em- 
bittered with strife, and yet a ripple of laughter 
runs through it all—of tribesmen who could stop in 
the midst of their bickerings to jest with destiny, or 
to sport even under the eye of the traditional foe. 
Isaac occupied but a corner of the land, and vanished 
from that as his more sturdy sons moved away into 
the rocky fastnesses of the desert, or seized with 
prescient faith the fertile plains of Palestine. 
A. S. C.*—O. R. S. 

ISAIAH, ai-zé’ya or ai-zai’a (INYY?,° yesha‘yaha, 
‘J’ is salvation;’ Esaias in AV in the N T: 1. Non- 
Isaianic Elements in the Book of Isaiah. The Book 
of Isaiah falls into three divisions (a) chs. 1-85, (b) 
chs. 36-39, (c) chs. 40-66. The second of these con- 
sists, apart from the Song of Hezekiah (389-20), of 
historical narratives derived from II Kings 18 13- 
20 19, which need not further concern us. The third 
division is by common consent not the work of 
Isaiah. For the conditions in which he lived and 
worked have been replaced by a wholly different 
situation. Even had he foreseen the Babylonian 
Exile, he must have spoken of it in the future tense; 
whereas in this section the Jews are described as in 
captivity and in many passages their deliverance 
is said to be at hand. The situation changes indeed 
within these 27 chapters, but in none of them is it a 
state of things which I. could have described as 
existing in his own time. Babylon is the imperial 
power which has devastated Judah and shown the 
Jews no mercy (47 6). The Temple has been burnt, 
the cities of Judah are a wilderness, Jerusalem a deso- 
lation (64 10-11), Israel has been abandoned to rob- 
bers (42 24). The Jews are in exile in Babylon 
(48 20). But deliverance is at hand. Cyrus has 
been raised up by God to deliver His people (41 2 f., 
25, 44 28, 45 1-7, 4611). Babylon will be overthrown 
(43 14, 461 £., 47, 4814). The exiles will be set free 
(48 20), with J” marching at their head they will be 
led back to Zion (409-11, 41 18-20, 43 19-21, 48 21, 51 11). 
Cyrus will decree the rebuilding of Jerusalem and 
the laying of the foundation of the Temple (44 28). 
Judah’s cities shall be rebuilt and her waste places 


4 
b 
f 
; 
j 
j 
2 
a 





nr 
et 


371 





be restored (44 26, 61 4). Moreover, the writer 
seems to affirm that the advent of Cyrus and his 
victorious career are the fulfilment of earlier pre- 
dictions, and to base on this fulfilment an argument 
for the acceptance of the predictions he is himself 
making (42 9). But if so, the prophet must be 
writing after Cyrus had appeared; for he could not 
point to events which had not yet happened as 
proofs that the prediction of them had been fulfilled, 
and as thus warranting belief in new predictions. 
The argument from the historic conditions is cor- 
roborated by the argument from style and vocab- 
ulary and the striking differences in theology. But 
the conclusion that chs. 40-66 can not be the work 
of I. has important consequences for chs. 1-35. For 
here too we are confronted with similar phenomena. 
In ch. 18 we have a prediction of the final overthrow 
of Babylon by the Medes, which also reflects condi- 
tions toward the close of the exile; and the same is 
probably true of 21 1-10. This demonstrates that 
even in chs. 1-35 there are non-Isaian elements. We 
are, then, not entitled to insist that inclusion in this 
section guarantees Isaian authorship; nor even that 
this must be assumed unless very convincing evi- 
dence can be urged against it. The presence of so 
much later matter in the book makes it precarious 
to insist on too rigorous a test. We must ask rather 
to what historical situation or stage of religious 
development any particular section is to be assigned. 
The generally accepted results may be summarized 
at this point. 131-14 23, 211-10, chs. 24-27, and 34-35 
are non-Isaianic. To this list many scholars would 
add 11 10-16, and chs. 12, 15-16, 23 and 33. Some 
scholars go still further. Moreover some oracles 
which are Isaian in basis are believed to have been 
expanded by later writers. This has been urged 
in particular with reference to the happy endings 
attached {to prophecies of judgment and the de- 
scriptions of the Messianic King (9 2-7, 11 1-9). 
Another feature of recent criticism is the tendency 
of Duhm to relegate considerable sections of this 
division of the book to the Maccabean period. 
Marti has carried Duhm’s radicalism still further, 
while Kennett has also argued for the Maccabean 
origin of the greater part of chs. 40-66. But these 
extreme positions have found little acceptance, even 
among ‘advanced’ critics such as Hélscher and E. 
Meyer. 


» 2. Life and Times of Isaiah. Since the call of I. to 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Ir 


the prophetic office came in early manhood in the . 
death-year of Uzziah (6 1), which occurred about | 


740, we may assume that his birth took place about 
760, probably in Jerusalem where he spent his life. 
His father’s name was Amoz (to be carefully dis- 
tinguished from Amos the prophet). He seems to 
have belonged to the upper ranks of society. He 
was married and his wife may herself have been a 
prophetess (8 3), altho the title more probably 
means ‘prophet’s wife.’ He had two sons who, like 
himself, bore significant names (7 3, 8 3 f., 18). Some 
would add Immanuel as another son, possibly by a 
second wife. His own name means ‘Salvation of 
Yah’ or ‘Yah is Salvation.’ Shortly before the date 
at which he received his call the international situa- 
tion had decisively changed. In 745 Tiglath-pileser 


Isaiah 
IV swept away the ineffective Government of As- 
syria and inaugurated the most splendid period of 
the Empire. The long and glorious reign of Jero- 
boam II over Israel came to a close a few years later. 
Israel and Judah had reached great heights of 
prosperity, but the social evils which aroused the 
burning indignation of Amos were still rampant in 
both. When the strong hand of Jeroboam II was 
removed, revolution after revolution shook the 
stability of the Northern Kingdom to its founda- 
tions, while civil wars exhausted its resources in 
wealth and men and introduced a fatal oscillation 
into its foreign policy. Judah was more fortunate 
in the possession of a stable dynasty with less ex- 
posure to foreign attack and a capital which, altho 
not impregnable, was exceptionally strong by nature 
and made stronger still by skilful fortification. The 
small states in and around Palestine were awaking 
to the peril from Assyria as in her western move- 
ment she strained toward Egypt, and Egypt was 
alert to use them as her pawns in the unequal con- 
test with her rival. Babylon was restive under the 
Assyrian yoke. Such then was the political situa- 
tion in which Isaiah received his call. His earliest 
prophecies (9 8-10 4, 5 25-29, 17 1-11) seem to have been 
directed against the internal abuses from which the 
Northern kingdom was suffering. Possibly 2 6-4 1, 
5 1-7 and portions of 5 8-24 may belong to the same 
period in which case the denunciation and threat of 
judgment were extended to Judah also. In 735 
Syria and Ephraim formed a coalition against 
Judah (7 1-6). Its object was presumably to force 
Judah into an alliance against Assyria and to replace 
Ahaz by the son of Tabeel (76). Ahaz in a panic was 
planning to save his throne by accepting the suze- 
rainty of Assyria (II K 167 f.). I. exhorted him to 
remain quiet and treat the futile attack upon him 
with the contempt it deserved. He offered to assure 
him by any sign the king might demand, and when 
the offer was refused gave him the sign of Immanuel. 
Ahaz persisted, and committed his country to an 
entanglement with Assyria which lasted far down in 
Judah’s history, involved the loss of independent 
action and the burden of heavy taxation, while it 
was the seed in the future of ruinous revolt. The 
prophet wrote on a placard the words ‘For Maher- 
shalal-hash-baz’ (8 1) which, as chosen witnesses 
would later attest, expressed his conviction that 
Damascus and Samaria, would be overthrown by 
Assyria. To ason born within the following year he 
gave the name Maher-shalal-hash-baz, which em- 
bodied his belief that before the child began to talk 
the overthrow of the coalition would have taken 
place. Tiglath-pileser captured Damascus in 732 
and Syria was incorporated in the Assyrian Empire. 
Samaria was spared but the northern districts of 
Israel were annexed and the people carried captive 
to Assyria (II K. 15 29). Samaria fell in 722. In 
consequence of the refusal of the king and people to 
accept his policy, I. seems for a time to have with- 
drawn from’ public life, committing his teaching to 
the circle of disciples he had gathered about him 
(8 16 £.). Meanwhile he and his sons were by their 
significant names a silent witness of the truths for 
which he stood (8 18). His warning to Philistia 





Isaiah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


372 


(14 29-32), that her exultation at the death of an 
unknown tyrant was premature, may date from 727 
when Tiglath-pileser died. 281-4 may belong to the 
time after Hoshea revolted from Assyria (II K 17 4) 
and before Shalmaneser IV began the siege of 
Samaria. But it is very striking that on an event so 
epoch-making as the Fall of Samaria (722) and the 
downfall of the Northern Kingdom no oracle of I. 
should have been preserved. He no doubt saw in 
it the fulfilment of the doom he had long foretold. 
But many in Judah may have seen in their own pre- 
servation a proof of their own superiority and a 
signal token of the Divine favor, just as the de- 
generates left in Jerusalem similarly despised the 
exiles who were deported to Babylon with Jehoia- 
chin. Possibly others saw in the fate of the sister 
kingdom a warning to repentance addressed to 
Judah, and this may have issued in Hezekiah’s refor- 
mation of the cultus (II K 184). That such a refor- 
mation ever took place has been doubted, but cf. 
II K 18 22. Whether I. had any share in it is doubt- 
ful. See Hnzmxran. It is certain that no reform of 
the cultus could satisfy him nor, apart from a radical 
moral change, would he anticipate that judgment 
would be averted. But with his hatred of idolatry 
and his knowledge of the corruptions associated 
with the local sanctuaries, he may have welcomed 
the movement as securing the suppression of many 
serious evils. So far as international politics were 
concerned he seems to have found no occasion for 
intervention till 713. Judah along with Moab, 
Edom, and Ashdod had negotiated with Egypt 
against Assyria. 'To protest against so desperate an 
enterprise I. walked for three years stripped and 
barefoot to indicate that so too would Egyptians 
and Ethiopians be led captive by Assyria. Ashdod 
was captured in 711; Judah perhaps escaped punish- 
ment because no rebellion had actually taken place. 
Sargon died in 705. Judah and Philistia were stirred 
up by Egypt to revolt. Sennacherib invaded Pales- 
tine in 701, he captured all the cities of Judah with 
the exception of Jerusalem, imposed a fabulous 
tribute, deported a great number of captives, but 
did not take the city. I. had, of course, disapproved 
of the revolt but, true to his long-held convictions, he 
affirmed in the darkest hour that Jerusalem would 
not be captured and that the Assyrians would be 
forced to retreat (37 29, 33-35). Whether a large part 
of Sennacherib’s army was struck down by plague 
(37 36) or whether he returned in consequence of 
bad news from Nineveh (37 7), or whether the com- 
bination of both causes determined his departure is 
uncertain. It has been held by some scholars that 
Sennacherib returned to Palestine in 690, and that 
accounts of the two expeditions have been blended 
in the Biblical narrative. But at present this is a 
precarious hypothesis (see Hezex1aH). To this 
period we should probably refer the Isaian elements 
in chs. 18, 22, 28-31, and parts of ch. 1. Nothing is 
known of I.’s later history. The legend that he was 
sawn asunder by Manasseh is late, and if such an 
enormity had actually been perpetrated it would 
scarcely have been omitted from the lurid record of 
II K 21 1-18 (cf. 23 26, 243 £.; Jer 15 4). 

3. The Theology of Isaiah. Any attempt to re- 


construct the theology of I. should start from his 
vision. He brought to it no doubt aset of theological 
ideas and a measure of religious experience; but in 
his vision everything was heightened and trans- 
figured and realized with a new intensity. The 
dominant element in it was his overwhelming im- 
pression of God, which did not so much convey to 
him new thoughts about God, but brought home to 
him by direct insight a crushing realization of the 
Divine holiness and majesty and with it anew sense 
of his own impurity and that of his people. But 
such a collision between the holy God and His un- 
clean people is intolerable, hence judgment is in- 
evitable unless the people repent. But from the 
first he is assured that the message he is sent to 
proclaim will harden his hearers in their sin; hence 
he expects a judgment which shall cut off the vast 


majority of people. According to the original text ~ 


of ch. 6, the extermination would appear to be 
complete; yet we have good reason for believing that 
his conception of the impending judgment was not 
so drastic as this. For he himself had been cleansed 
and forgiven, and others might share his experience. 
Moreover, Zion was the earthly dwelling-place of 
J’’, and would therefore not be destroyed. A city 
implies inhabitants, so I. presumably anticipated 
that some would be spared. And the fact that very 
soon after his vision he named his son Shearjashub, 
‘a remnant shall return’ (7.e., to God) proves that 
a doctrine of the remnant dated back to his earliest 
period. But how did he believe that the remnant 
would be constituted? It is possible that at first, 
viewing Israel as a whole, he expected that the 
Northern Kingdom, which is specially prominent 
in various prophecies, would be destroyed and that 
Judah would be the remnant. It may have been 
with this conviction that he met the crisis of 735. 
Israel has allied itself with Syria, but God will 
bring their purpose to nought, and Judah will 
emerge triumphant and unharmed. But if Ahaz 
obstinately clings to his infatuated plan of invoking 
the aid of Assyria instead of trusting in God, then, 
altho Syria and Ephraim will perish, disaster will 
be brought on Judah by Assyria. When accordingly 
the fatal step was taken, the doctrine of the rem- 
nant had to be adjusted to the new situation. 
Judgment would come on the unbelieving and dis- 
obedient people of Judah, but there would still be 
a remnant, and this remnant would consist of the 
prophet and those who shared his faith. In the 
obscurity which hangs over the date of some of the 
oracles and the identity of those against whom they 
were directed, it is not clear by precisely what 
instrument the prophet at first anticipated that 
judgment would be effected. But he mentions 
attacks on Ephraim by Syria and the Philistines 
(9 11 £.) and civil war (ver. 20 f.), and closes this 
oracle with the description of the advance of an 
unknown foe, no doubt Assyria (5 26-29). For the 
greater part of his career he thought of Assyria as 
the instrument of J’’s judgment. If ‘the riches of 
Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried 
away before the king of Assyria’ (8 4), the flood of 
Assyrian invasion is also to flow on into Judah 
and imperil the existence of the nation (87f.). Yet 


EE ee ee 





Bla eae aeat 


373 


‘A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Isaiah 





when matters seem to be in extremities J” will 
intervene and save His city and people. And this 
for two reasons. On the one hand, I. held that Zion 
was indestructible and that a remnant of Judah 
would be saved; on the other hand, he saw in 
Assyria’s blasphemous arrogance a sin which would 
involve her in utter ruin (10 5-15). For the Assyrian 
king was but the rod with which God inflicted His 
chastisement; and when it had served His purpose 
it would be broken and cast aside. Then the age of 
blessedness would begin: the Messianic king after 
smiting his foes in a glorious victory would reign 
in righteousness and wisdom as a Prince of Peace 
(9 2-7, 11 1-9). It will be clear that the basis of 
Isaiah’s teaching was his conception of God. To 
one who had seen the Lord of Nature and History 
high and lifted up (61) all earthly powers shrank 
into insignificance; not even the king of Assyria 
could overawe one to whom that insight into the 
ultimate realities had been vouchsafed. And so he 
anticipates that J’’ will execute His judgment on 
all that exalts itself in arrogance on earth. And His 
majesty is matched by His awful purity which reacts 
with terrible penalties against the obstinate sinner 
but is gracious to the men of penitence and faith. 
Yor ‘faith’ is one of the prophet’s chief contributions 
to religious thought (7 9, 28 16, 30 15). Whoever has 
once apprehended the might and majesty of God 
will feel that the greatest human empires are nothing 
in comparison with Him, and will rest in the 
assurance of His protection, tho all human forces 
may combine against Him. Hence I. deprecates all 
reliance on human alliances, whether with Assyria 
or with Egypt, or on the clever scheming of the 
politicians or on material resources and fortifica- 
tions. 


4. Criticism of Isaiah, chs. 40-66. It was natural, 
when the Seond or Deutero-Isaiah was clearly dis- 
tinguished from J. of Jerusalem, that he should be 
regarded as the author of all of the last 27 chapters 
of the book. Closer inspection revealed evidence 
that this section was of composite origin, and various 
analyses were suggested. Since the publication of 
Duhm’s commentary in 1892, critics generally have 
acquiesced in his view that the work of the Second 
Isaiah comes to an end with ch. 55. Some indeed 
have placed its conclusion at ch. 48, but this is 
most improbable. It should be added, however, 
that Duhm, in agreement with several scholars, 
holds that ‘the Servant Poems’ are not the work of 
Second Isaiah. He attributes chs. 56-66, apart from 
later insertions, to a single prophet whom he calls 
‘Trito-Isaiah.’ It is improbable, however, that 
prophecies on such different levels should all be the 
work of one man, and it is more likely that this 
section is itself composite; nor perhaps ought the 
possibility that some of Deutero-Isaiah’s work is to 
be found in it to be excluded. The date of chs. 
40-55 should be fixed toward the close of the 
Babylonian Exile, certainly so chs. 40-48 and 
probably chs. 49-55. Chs. 56-66, apart perhaps from 
63 7-64 12, may perhaps be most plausibly dated 
about the middle of the 5th cent. B.c., or possibly 
somewhat earlier. It is uncertain where the Second 
Isaiah lived—the most widely accepted view is 


that he was one of the exiles in Babylon, but some 
have thought of his home as in Palestine or in 
Hgypt. 

5. The Theology of the Second Isaiah. The 
situation to which the Second Isaiah addressed him- 
self was one of hopelessness on the part of the 
exiles, as it had been in the days of Ezekiel (Ez 
37 11). They were complaining that J’’ had for- 
gotten them (Is 40 27, 49 14). Confronted with the 
magnificence of Babylonian idolatry and the 
apparent demonstration of the inferiority of J’ 
to the gods who had destroyed His city and His 
Temple and held His people in captivity, they were 
tempted to abandon their allegiance to Him. 
Hence his first word to them in their apathetic 
despair is one of consolation. The dark night is 


ending, their guilt has been paid off, indeed they 


have suffered more punishment than their sin 
deserved (4011.). J’ has not forgotten, can not 
conceivably forget, His people (49 14-16). He is no 
weak and defeated deity but the mighty un- 
conquerable Creator, the everlasting One un- 
searchable in understanding, who knows the end 
from the beginning, and before whom the teeming 
nations are as a drop which hangs from the bucket, 
or the dust in the scale of which no account is taken 
(40 12-31, etc.). He is the Lord of history who dis- 
poses of all its forces with infinite ease and un- 
erring wisdom. Nor does the author limit himself 
to this superb and impressive confession of his mono- 
theistic faith. He demonstrates his conviction by 
an appeal to the fulfilment of prophecy (41 25-29, 
43 10-13, 44 6-9, 45 21, 469-11, 48 3-8). Only He who can 
control the future is able safely to predict it; the 
fulfilment of the predictions made by His prophets 
conclusively demonstrates His sole Divinity. Again 
and again the heathen gods are challenged to give 
a similar proof (41 21-24, 26, 447 £., 45 21). Scorn- 
fully he exposes the folly of idolatry (40 19 £., 41 7, 
44 9-20, 46 1-7). In the word J” speaks there is an 
inherent energy which enables the prophetic utter- 
ance to achieve its own fulfilment (55 11). Hence 
as the prophet utters the prediction of Judah’s 
return he releases forces which will tend to bring it 
about (cf. Ez 37 4-10). While he recognizes the 
stern side of J’’s character toward His people 
(51 17-23, 54 8), he dwells far more on His gentleness 
and graciousness and his constant theme is the 
deliverance of His people from exile, His personal 
conduct of them across the desert with all the 
difficulties and discomforts of the journey super- 
naturally removed, their joyful arrival at Zion and 
their perfect happiness and peace in their own land. 
Of special importance is the conception of the 
Servant of J’. The term is frequently applied to the 
nation in chs. 40-55, but there are four passages 
(42 1-4, 49 1-6, 50 4-9, 52 13-53 12), commonly called 
‘the Servant poems,’ which have excited very keen 
debate. The interpretations fall into two main 
groups, the individual and the collective. Undeni- 
ably in the rest of the prophecy the Servant is Israel 
and in 49 3 this identification is explicitly made; 
on the other hand, possibly in the same passage 
(cf.49 5 £.), but certainly in the present text of 53 8, 
there is a distinction between the Servant and Israel. 


Isaiah 
Ishbosheth 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY: heat 374 





Moreover the description, especially in the fourth 
poem, is so personal in its character that many feel 
that an individual and not the nation must be in- 
tended. Numerous suggestions as to the identity of 
this individual have been made. Sellin, for example, 
has suggested in turn Zerubbabel, Jehoiachin, and 
Moses, while Mowinckel has recently argued that 
the Servant was the prophet himself On the other 
hand, the general usage in these chapters and the 
explicit identification with Israel in one of the 
poems are important. The difficulty of supposing 
that any individual should be depicted as in the 
poems and so lofty a réle be assigned to him, and 
that he should be expected to rise from the dead, 
make an individual interpretation extremely difhi- 
cult. The personal traits in the description must not 
be unduly emphasized. Hebrew goes a long way in 
using such language in reference to groups. Some 
who adopt the national interpretation suppose that 
it is of the ideal rather than the actual nation that 
the prophet is thinking, but this is not the natural 
explanation of the term; it rather suggests that the 
historic nation is meant which had died in the exile 
and is to be raised again at the return. Two func- 
tions are attributed to the Servant, he is to reveal 
the true God to the Gentiles and his sufferings and 
death have been endured vicariously for the sin of 
the heathen. If this interpretation is correct, a 
large part of the Second Isaiah’s message is rightly 
summed up by Wellhausen: “There is no God but 
J” and Israel is His prophet.’ But the interpretation 
placed upon the tragic history and the fate of Israel 
is also one of his most suggestive contributions to 
religious thought. 


6. Isaiah, chs. 56-66. In view of the rather 
miscellaneous character of chs. 56-66 it is precarious 
to construct a connected statement. The general sit- 
uation is disenchanting, the wretched material con- 
ditions are traced to the grave sins which are 
rampant in the community. Most of the social 
abuses denounced by the older prophets reappear; 
and there are strong denunciations of idolatry, but 
this may not have been practised within the com- 
munity itself. The ethical standard is high, but it is 
blended with the ceremonial in a manner strange to 
the older prophets but characteristic of Ezekiel. 
Of special beauty are the glowing passages de- 
voted to the splendor of the Temple. And here 
the stress laid upon it as a place of prayer is to be 
observed. And it is to be for all nations and not 
simply for the Jews. Yet the nations are subordinate 
and tributary to the Jews (60 10-14, 615f.). There is 
a brilliant but ethically repulsive description of J’’ 
trampling the Edomites in the wine-press of His 
wrath till His garments are soaked with their blood 
(63 1-6). 

7. Non-Isaianic Matter in Is. 1-35. Of the non- 
Isaian sections in chs. 1-35 the most important is 
chs. 24-27. Here prophecy has taken on a deep 
eschatological coloring. The main body of the work 
is an apocalyptic oracle (according to Duhm, ch. 24, 
25 6-8, 26 20, and 27 1, 12 f.). It probably dates from 
the later part of the 4th cent., reflecting the con- 
ditions of Alexander’s overthrow of the Persian 
Empire. Its theology is in advance of that in 


Deutero-Isaiah. Several scholars follow Duhm in 
the view that a number of lyrical passages have 
been inserted into the oracle. It may be added that 
E. Meyer, who also emphatically rejects the view 
that it or any part of the prophetic literature could 
have originated later than the middle of the third 
century, regards the analysis of chs. 24-27 into 
several fragments as very questionable (Ursprung 
und Anfdnge des Christentums, vol. II, p. 6). Chs. 
34 f. are apparently postexilic and both by the same 
writer. The curious reference to the book of Yahweh 
(34 16), z.e., the collection of prophecies in which 
this oracle is included suggests a late date, as does 
the association of the overthrow of Edom with the 
judgment of all nations. Ch. 35 seems to depend on 
chs. 40-66. Chs. 13 1-14 23 probably belong for the 


most part to the close of the Exile, altho a few . 


scholars suppose that the ode on the downfall of an 
unnamed tyrant (14 4b-21) was written with reference 
to an Assyrian monarch. More probably the king 
of Babylon is intended and 14 1-4, apparently 
connects the two by an editorial link. Ch. 21 1-10 
is of the same period and deals with the same 
subject. It is specially interesting for the insight 
it gives into the psychology of the prophetic state. 
The oracle on Tyre (ch. 23) may be by Isaiah, 
altho the precise reference would still be uncertain; 
but more probably it is later. Vs. 15-18 seem to be 
a postexilic appendix; but the oracle itself, while 
possibly postexilic, may perhaps, if not by I., most 
suitably be referred to Nebuchadrezzar’s siege. of 
Tyre (585-577). Questions are also raised about 
other sections of chs. 1-35, the chief being about chs. 
15f., 19, 32 and33. The oracle on Moab (ch. 15 f.) is 
probably not by I., but it may be an older prophecy 
quoted and endorsed by him. If postexilic its 
date is uncertain, but it may belong to the [5th cent. 
B.c. The oracle on Egypt (ch. 19) may be I.’s, but 
more probably it is non-Isaian. But its date is 
quite uncertain. The appendix (vs. 18-25) is also 
of uncertain origin, it may refer to the temple of 
‘Yahw’ at Elephantine. Ch. 32 is probably I.’s. 


Ch. 33 may well be postexilic, but its date is quite - 


uncertain. 


Lirprature: The chief modern landmarks in the exegetical 
literature are the commentaries by Gesenius (1820-21), 
Hitzig (1833), Cheyne (1880), Duhm (1892). Duhm’s work, 
altho extreme, inauguratd so important a new departure 
alike in criticism and interpretation that the earlier litera- 
ture was largely antiquated by it. The most comprehensive 
treatise on the criticism of the Book is Cheyne’s Iniroduciion 
to the Book of Isaiah (1894). The most useful complete 
commentary in English is at present the second edition of 
Skinner (1915, 1917), which may be supplemented by 
Whitehouse (1905) and Wade (1911). Only the first volume 
of the ICC has appeared (1912). It is by G. B. Gray, and 
covers chs. i-xxvii, with great learning and thoroughness. 
G. A. Smith’s famous volumes in the Ezpositor’s Bible 
(1888-90) were published before Duhm’s commentary 
appeared, and should be supplemented and corrected by 
his article in HDB. The chief German commentaries, in 
addition to those mentioned, are by Dillmann-Kittel (1898), 
Marti (1910). In French there is a commentary by Con- 
damin (1905). Of other literature there may be mentioned 
Driver in ‘‘Men of the Bible’”’ (1893), Glazebrook, Studies 
in the Book of Isaiah (1910), Kennett, The Composition of 
the Book of Isaiah (1910), Gordon, The Faith of Isaiah 
(n.d.). There are translations by Cheyne in The Sacred 
Books of the Old Testament (1898), Box (1908), and J. E. 
McFayden (1918). 
chs. 40-66, and in particular on the Servant problem. Much 


There is a large literature on Isaiah . 





Bi 


375 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Isaiah 
hbosheth 





valuable material may be found in works on O T Theology 
or the Religion of Israel, and on the Prophets. See the 
bibliographies to the articles Renicion or IsragL and 
PropHecy, PROPHET. A. S. 


ISAIAH, ASCENSION OF. 1. Isaianic Apoca- 
lypses. The occasion for the use of the name and 
personality of Isaiah in apocalyptic writings is to be 
found probably in the fact that he was introduced 
in his ministry through the means of a vision. How 
large this use was is not positively known, but the 
titles of four Isaianic apocalyptic books are men- 
tioned by ancient writers. These are: The Martyr- 
dom of Isaiah (Origen), The Anabatikon (Epiphanius, 
probably the same as Jerome’s Ascension of Isaiah), 
The Vision of Isaiah, and The Testament of Heze- 
kiah. The only work that has survived to modern 
times, however, is entitled The Ascension of Isaiah. 
It consists of two parts, including respectively five 
and six chapters. 

2. Contents, Part I. Part I tells of how in the 
twenty-sixth year of the reign of Hezekiah, Isaiah 
prophesied that Manasseh under the influence of 
Satan, would fall away from the worship of the Lord, 
and when Hezekiah desired to prevent this by put- 
ting Manasseh to death, the prophet forbade him 
(ch. 1). His prediction was in due time fulfilled, and 
after having fled into the wilderness he was seized 
upon the charge of treason against the Holy City 
and usurpation of authority higher than that of 
Moses, and brought back before the king. (2 1-3 12). 
The real reason, however, for Satan’s hatred of 
Isaiah was the prediction of the coming of Messiah 
from the seventh heaven, and of his death, resurrec- 
tion, ascension, and second coming. The mission 
of the twelve Apostles, the persecution of the 
Christians, the coming of Antichrist, and his de- 
struction were also predicted (8 13-4 22); in 3 13b- 
4 18 Charles claims to have discovered the lost 
“Testament of Hezekiah.’) Manasseh later caused 
Isaiah to be sawn asunder (ch. 5). 

3. Contents, Part II. Part IT gives an account of 
a vision of the prophet which he saw in the twentieth 
year of Hezekiah, and told to the king and his 
counselors (ch. 6). In this vision he was taken up by 
an angel through the firmament into the seventh 
heaven, where he saw the patriarchs Adam, Abel, 
and Enoch, and was ushered into the presence of 
God Himself. But the chief object of his ascension 
was to receive the revelation of the Messiah’s 
advent to earth (chs. 7-10). Being now taken back 
by the angel to the firmament, he saw in detail the 
circumstances of the birth, life, sufferings, death, 
and resurrection of Jesus, and His ascension into the 
seventh heaven. At this point the angel left him and 
his soul returned into his body. But because he told 
this vision to Hezekiah, Manasseh put him to death 
(ch. 11). 

4. Composition, Date, Authorship. It is quite 
clear from the outline here given that the Ascension 
of Isaiah is a composite book, consisting of at least 
two principal works, 7.e., the Martyrdom and the 
Vision. Each of these is complete, and has probably 
been enlarged from a briefer original. The Vision 
was produced in the 2d cent. of the Christian era. 
The Martyrdom antedates it by a century or more, 
being, to all appearances, a reduction into literary 


form of the old tradition regarding the death of 
the great prophet. 

The Ascension of Isaiah has been edited in the 
Ethiopic text discovered by Laurence in 1819, and, 
as revised upon the basis of two additional MSS., 
by Dillmann (1877). It has been translated into 
English, and published in the Lutheran Quarterly 
Review (1878, pp. 5138 ff.). See also Kautzsch, 
Pseudepigraphen des Alten Testaments (1900), and 
Charles, The Ascension of Isaiah (1900), and in 
O. T. Apocr. and Pseudepigrapha, vol. II, 1913. 

A. C. Z. 

ISCAH, iz’ka (7992, yiskah): A daughter of 
Haran, son of Terah (Gn 11 29). If these verses 
relate to the amalgamation and relations of tribes 
instead of individuals, the meaning is that Haran 
(a tribe) was ‘father’ of not only Milcah, but also 
of Iscah (a tribe). E. E. N. 


ISCARIOT, See Jupas Iscarror. 


ISH- (in compounds): The Heb. U8, ’ish, means 
‘man,’ and is used in a few compound proper nouns 
with this significance. In most proper nouns be- 
ginning with ‘ish’ (Heb. ¥!, yish), this syllable is 
but a part of the verbal form contained in the name. 

E. E. N. 

ISHBAH, ish’ba (N23, yishbah): The clan, ap- 
parently, from which Eshtemoa was peopled (I 
Ch 4 17). 


ISHBAK, ish’bak. 
Eruno.oey, § 13. 


ISHBI-BENOB, ish” bai-bi/neb (212 °AY?, yishbi 
bhendbh): A name occurring in II S 21 16. The 
Heb. text of this and the preceding verse is doubt- 
less corrupt. The original reading probably was, 
‘and David and his servants with him went down 
and dwelt in Gob and fought with the Philistines,’ 
etc. The name of the gigantic opponent of David 
has been lost (so Driver, H T'S, ad loc. See also Gos). 


See ETHNOGRAPHY AND 


E. E. N. 
ISHBOSHETH, ish-bo’shefh (NW2 WN, ish 
bdsheth), ‘man of shame’ (also Eshbaal, ‘man of 


Baal,’ in I Ch 8 33, RVmg ‘Ishbosheth’): The fourth 
son of Saul (IIS 28). After the defeat and death of 
his father and his three elder brothers at the battle 
of Mt. Gilboa, I. would naturally have fallen heir 
to the kingdom, but the victory of the Philistines 
was so overwhelming that for the time being this 
was impossible. David soon became king over the 
tribe of Judah, but not of all Israel. After about 
five years Abner, in loyalty to his master, Saul, 

caused I. to be proclaimed king at Mahanaim on 
the east side of the Jordan. The result was a civil 
war. An effort to avert this by selecting twelve men 
on each side and allowing the issue to rest with the 
result of a combat between them proved unsuccess- 
ful, since all the combatants were mortally wounded. 

A battle was then fought in which the followers of I. 

suffered a crushing defeat. He continued to hold 
out, but when Abner transferred his allegiance to 
David on account of a rebuke which I. administered 
to him for unlawful intimacy with his father’s con- 
cubine, Rizpah, his cause became desperate, and he 


Ishhod 
Israel, History of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


376 





was himsclf murdered by two of his captains, a 
crime which David promptly punished. 
A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 

ISHHOD, ish”hed’ (TiNW'X, ’ishhddh, Ishod AV), 
‘man of glory’: The ancestral head of a Manassite 
clan (I Ch 7 18). 

ISHI, ai’shai or ish’ai (YY?, yish‘t), ‘my help’: 
I. 1 and 2. Descendants of Judah (I Ch 2 31, 4 20). 
3. A descendant of Simeon (I Ch4 42). 4. The head 
of a family of Manasseh (I Ch 5 24). All are prob- 
ably clan-names. II. (¥’S, ’ish7) ‘my man.’ Asym- 
bolic term, expressive of the ideal relation be- 
tween J’’ and Israel, meaning ‘my husband’ in a 
higher sense than ba‘ali, ‘my master’ (Ho 2 16). 


ISHIAH, ai-shai’a. See IssHrau. 

ISHIJAH, ai-shai’ja. See IssH1au. 

ISHMA, ish’ma (S2Y?, yishma’): The ancestral 
head of a clan of Judah (I Ch 4 3). 

ISHMAEL, ish’mo-el, ish’mé-, or -mé/- (?8Y29", 
yishma@‘él), ‘God hears’: 1. The son of Abraham 
and Hagar, Sarah’s maid (Gn 16 11 f.). Isaac, son 
of Sarah, Abraham’s full wife, supplanted I. as the 
heir of Abraham, and through Sarah’s jealousy, I. 
and his mother were expelled from Abraham’s home 
(Gn 17 18 ff., 21 8-21). Nevertheless, I. was cir- 
cumcised and thus (according to the late theory of 
P) viewed as having some real connection with the 
Covenant (Gn 17 23-26). I. is represented as the 
ancestor of the Ishmaelites, subdivided according to 
P, Gn 25 12 #f., into 12 tribes. The names represent 
‘the assumed eponymous ancestors of 12 tribes 
which are here treated as forming a political con- 
federacy under the name of Ishmael’ (Skinner, 
ICC on Gn 2512 f.). They were easily confused with 
the Midianites (cf. Gn 37 25; Jg 8 24). Their wild, 
warlike character is indicated by the terms applied 
to I. himself in Gn 1612 (‘a wild ass of a man’) and in 
21 20 (an ‘archer’ who dwelt ‘in the wilderness’). 
Some relationship between the Ishmaelites and the 
Edomites is implied in Gn 28 9 and ch. 36. 2. A 
man of Judah in Jehoshaphat’s day (II Ch 19 11). 
3. A Benjamite, one of Saul’s descendants (I Ch 
8 38, 9 44). 4. An officer who assisted Jehoiada in 
deposing Athaliah (II Ch 231). 5. The leader of 
a faction that conspired against and murdered 
Gedaliah, governor of Judah under Nebuchadrezzar 
(II K 25 23 f.; Jer 40 8-41 18). 6. A priest (Har 
10 22). E. E. N. 

ISHMAELITE(S), ish’mo-el-ait(s) ((O/P 728990", 
yishm:é li{m]): The descendants of Ishmael. In 
Gn 37 25 f. and Jg 8 24 they are introduced into a 
context which otherwise speaks of Midianites. Evi- 
dently such passages show different authorship and 
variant traditions. ‘Midianites’ and ‘Ishmaelites’ 
could easily be confused, as meaning Arab tribes 
inhabiting the deserts S. and SE. of Israel. See 
IsHMAEL and Mip1an. HK. E. N. 


ISHMAIAH, ish-mé’ya (2YOW, yishma‘yahi) 
‘J”’ hears’: 1. One of David’s heroes (I Ch 12 4, 
Ismaiah AV). 2. The head of the tribe of Zebulon 
(I Ch 27 19). 


ISHMEELITE, ish’m1-el-ait. See IsHmMAELire. 


ISHMERAI, ish’m1-rai or igh’mi-ré (12%, yish- 
m*ray): A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 813). 

ISHOD, ish’ed or ai’shed. See IsuHop. 

ISHPAH, igh’pa (72¥?, yishpah, Ispah AV): A 
descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 8 16). 

ISHPAN, ish’pan (]2¥%, yishpadn): A descendant 
of Benjamin (I Ch 8 22). 

ISH-TOB, ish-tob (210 W'S, ’ish tdbh): InII S 
10 6-8 AV this occurs as a proper name. RY reads, 
‘men of Tob,’ which is probably correct. See Aram, 

11. 

ISHVAH, ish’va, ISHUAH, ish’yu-a (7%, yish- 
wah), and ISHVI, ish’vai, ISHUI, ish’yu-ai (1%, 
yishwi): 1. Ishvi (‘Isui,’ also ‘Jesui’. and ‘Ishuai’ 
AV) was ancestral head of one of the clans of 
Asher, the Ishvites (Jesuites AV) (Gn 46 17; Nu 
26 44; I Ch 7 30). 
46 17 and ‘Isuah’ in I Ch 7 30 AV (omitted in Nu 
26 44) are probably only duplicates of Ishvi. 2. A 
son of Saul (IS 14 49), probably the one called else- 
where Eshbaal, or Ishbosheth. E. E. N. 


ISLE, ISLAND: These terms render the Heb. 7, 
pl. ’*<yyim—.e., a place whither one betakes himself 
for resting, from the standpoint of a mariner (Gr. 
yyatoy, vjcos). The singular is used (Is 206, 23 2, 6) 
for the ‘coastland’ RV (‘isle’ AV) of Philistia and 
Pheenicia, with the adjacent country; cf. Jer 25 22 
RVmg. If Caphtor (Jer 47 4) is Crete, the Heb. word 
is also used for an island. The plural form (Is 40 15) 
is used for islands in our sense of the word, and per- 
haps also in Jer 210; Ezk 27 6, if Chittim (Kittim) is 
Cyprus. Elsewhere the plural designates, in general, 
lands washed by the sea; in part the seacoasts and 
islands of Asia Minor (Est 101; Dn 1118), in part the 
seacoasts and islands of the Mediterranean (Gn 105; 
Ezk 26:15, 18, 27 3, 7, 15, 35; Ps 72 10; Is 11 11, 24 15). 
Distant lands are so referred to, often including the 
inhabitants (Is 41 1, 5, 42 4, 10, 12, 491, 51 5, 59 18, 
60 9, 66 19; Jer 31 10; Ps 971; Zeph 211). In Is 42 15 
‘islands’ means ‘dry land.’ In Is 18 22, 34 14; Jer 
50 39, *iyytm is wrongly translated ‘islands.’ RV 
has ‘wolves’ (margin, ‘howling creatures’). In the 
N T the translation is exact, except perhaps in Rev 
6 14, 16 20, where distant lands are meant. C.S.T. 

ISMACHIAH, is’’ma-kai’a (1292? yismakhyGha), 
‘J’”’ supports’: A temple overseer under Hezekiah (I 
Ch°31/13). 

ISMAIAH, is-mé’ya. See IsHMATAH. 

ISPAH, is’pa. See IsHpan. 


ISRAEL, HISTORY OF 


I. Tue Hesrew TRIBES II. Tus Isrartire Monarcuy 
lil. Tue Jewisa Cuurce 


I. Toe Heprew Tripes. 1. In the Desert. The 
hardy Arabian wanderers that were later called 
Israel lived meagerly, like the Bedawi Arabs of to- 
day, by pasturing their flocks of sheep and goats 
and by occasional raids into more fertile regions. 
Hunger and thirst hardened their fiber, tents were 
their protection against the heat of the day and the 
cold of the night; war was their avocation and source 
of ephemeral wealth; the family and the clan the 
only social organization. Spirits of springs, stones 


‘Ishvah’ (‘Ishuah’ AV) in Gn 


cs 


377 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ishhod 
Israel, History of 





and trees were the objects of their worship. About 
1400 B.c. such nomads were plundering the terri- 
tories of the Egyptian vassals in Southern Palestine, 
as Hittite conquerors were pouring in from the 
north. These southern invaders from the desert 
are named Habiru (Hebrews) in the letters written 
to the Pharaoh from Jerusalem; and in other letters, 
likewise found at Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, they are 
called Sa.Gaz. Some of these Habiru-Sa.Gaz may 
have been the ancestral clans of Israel; among their 
exploits may have been the disastrous attempt of 
Simeon and Levi to conquer Shechem (Gn 34). 

2. In Egypt. In the Amarna period (1400 B.c.) 
some other Hebrew clans sought pasture land in 
Goshen, on the border of Egypt. Not all of the 


Eos. 


KB 
(a om (Rt 


oan @ ew eem tt 
la— 
———J 


Lace. 


Sor 
LENRNENO ZA 
Li Lh. 


a 


AIAG 


| 


pressed clans by Moses (his name is Egyptian and 
means ‘son’), who had been called to this mission by 
J’, the God of Sinai. Leading the tribes across a 
shallow branch of the Red Sea where the pursuing 
Egyptians perished at the return of the tide, Moses 
brought the wanderers to the oasis of Kadesh, near | 
the southern border of Judah. It was there that 
the soul of Israel was born; there Moses imparted 
to his people instruction (t6raéh) and administered 
justice; there the God of Sinai, who had wrought 
their deliverance, became the God of Israel. See 
also IsrAEL, RELIGION oF, §§ 3-8. 

3. In Canaan. (a) Canaan. About 1900 B.c. 
Sinuhe, a fugitive from Egypt, found Canaan 
divided into a number of petty feudal kingdoms 


SI 


= 


SECON 
aN Na 


s 


Set 


Depa 23 
SURI AG 


ECE. 


HZ, * 
NO 4 
e 
BN 
Al 
G 


OER 


8 fea 
Stare 
eee 


Pies EEO CECET EC CRC 


4 iS 
iS 





Semitic TRADERS BRINGING THEIR WARES INTO Eaypt. 


‘12 tribes’ migrated to the land of the Pharaohs. 
The sons of Bilhah (Dan and Naphtali) and of 
Zilpah (Gad and Asher) dwelt east and west of the 
Jordan from time unknown, Of the sons of Leah, 
Judah was living in southern Palestine when his 
brothers Simeon and Levi, broken by the Shechem- 
ites, came down to swell his numbers; Issachar and 
Zebulon occupied their territories amid the Canaan- 
ites from ancient days. Only Joseph son of Rachel 
(Ephraim and Manasseh), whose southern clans 
were called Benjamin in Canaan, settled in Goshen 
and was joined, perhaps at Kadesh, by Reuben son 
of Leah. Raamses II (1292-1225) when he built 
Pithom and Raamses subjected the Hebrews of 
Goshen to forced labor. Under his successor 
Merneptah (1225-1215) (who made desolate the 
Israelites in Canaan) deliverance came to the op- 


rich in produce of the soil. Between 1500 and 1200 
Canaan remained under the sway of the Pharaohs, 
tho their hold on the land was relaxed in the Amarna 
period (1400) when the country was invaded by 
Hebrews, Hittites, and Amorites. Two new incur- 
sions took place about 1200: the Philistines, re- 
pulsed in their attempt to land in Egypt, occupied 
the southern Palestinian coast; the Israelites came 
in from the east and the south. The Canaanites, 
all Semites with the exception of the Hittites and the 
Philistines, were generally cultivators of fields, 
orchards, and vineyards. The seacoast, on the 
highway of commerce, was the seat of a cos- 
mopolitan, if corrupt, civilization. The religion 
lacked spirituality, altho prophecy in its crudest 
forms was not unknown: the local Baal worshiped 
at ‘the high place’ (seldom in a temple), where a 


Israel, History of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


378 





rude stone pillar and wooden post symbolized his 
presence, was supposed to be the giver of agri- 
cultural bounty (Hos 25). Hebrew was the language 
of Canaan from time immemorial, and after 1200 
the so called Phenician alphabet, the prototype of 
our own script, was in common use. Such was the 
land of promise which Moses is said to have sur- 
veyed from the top of Pisgah without being per- 
mitted to enter it. 

(b) The Invasion of Canaan. The kingdoms of 
Edom, Moab, and Ammon may have originated 
through the settlement of Habiru clans: this would 
explain their kinship with Israel. When the Amorites 
coming down from the north threatened to over- 
whelm Moab, Reuben and part of Manasseh 
hastened from Kadesh to the rescue. Defeating 
two Amorite kings, Sihon and Og, they settled in 
their territories east of the Jordan, together with 


" Shugalah Phan 
- Thou. 


gai 


ki Felol Yahoodiah ** 


igus Judaeorum 
oes 





Y sos. 

a 

‘S.cHeliopo 
f @MMatarteh 
/ Abassieh . 


ie 
Nec! 


Re 


\\ 


\\ 


Tur LAND or GOSHEN. 





SHOWING THE PROBABLE ROUTE OF THE Exopus. 


proved to be more arduous than the first onslaught. 
(c) The Judges. When the nomads became 
farmers they had to propitiate the local Baals; J” 
remained the God of war. In His name Deborah 
(about 1150) called ten tribes of Israel to battle 
against Sisera, but only six answered the summons 
(Ephraim, Benjamin, Machir, Zebulon, Naphtali 
and Issachar): Reuben, Gilead, Dan, and Asher re- 
mained at home; Judah, Simeon, and Levi were not 
yet in the confederation. ‘There was no central 
government; usually each tribe fought its own 
battles: Ehud freed Benjamin from the tyranny of 
Eglon, king of Moab; Jephthah drove the Am- 
monites out of Gilead; Gideon with his 300 delivered 
Manasseh from the plundering Midianites. Such 
heroes (‘Judges’), aflame with divine ardor in time 
of danger, founded no dynasty, save Gideon, whose 
seventy sons ruled after him until they were. 


Fei 





(By permission of Egyptian Exploration Fund.) 


Gad, who was long since dwelling in this region | 


(cf. the Moabite Stone, line 10). Judah, strength- 
ened by Simeon, Levi, and the Kenites, moved 
northward and occupied the region around Hebron. 
After the death of Moses, Joshua led the Joseph 
tribes across the Jordan to Jericho. Of the Canaan- 
ites some, like the Gibeonites, submitted without 
struggle, others were defeated in open battle, as at 
Beth-horon. At Shechem the newcomers made a 
compact with the Hebrews who had resided in 
Canaan since perhaps 1400 (cf. Jos 24): they all 
pledged themselves to worship J’’ and to answer 
His call to war. The first Israelite legislation, based 
in part on older Palestinian codes, can be traced 
back to Shechem (Jos 24 25 f£.; ef. 8 32). Thus 
between 1230 and 1200 Joseph entered the land of 
promise, but the consolidation of the conquest 


murdered (with the exception of Jotham) by 
Abimelech their half brother who reigned but three 
troubled years (about 1100). Israel was not yet 
ripe for a king: when however the Philistines 
menaced its hard-won territory and cherished free- 
dom, monarchy became imperative. 

II. Tue Isramtire Monarcuy. 4. The United 
Kingdom. (a) Saul (about 1028-1013). The first 
encounter between Philistines and Israelites was 
disastrous to the latter (I S 4); in a second victory 
the uncircumcised captured the ark of Jahveh 
Zebaoth, brought into the battle from Shiloh, and a 
Philistine governor was stationed in Gibeah. A seer 
living in Ramah, Samuel, in an accidental meeting 
with the son of Kish, a Benjamite landowner, 
recognized in him the man of the hour and secretly 
anointed him king. Saul’s heroic deliverance of 








379 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Israel, History of 





Jabesh-gilead resulted in his public proclamation 
as king. His immediate subjects were the Joseph 
tribes and Benjamin. Ably assisted by his son 
Jonathan, with an army of but 3,000 men he under- 
took to free Israel from the Philistines. Emboldened 
by his first signal victory at Michmash, for a period 
he waged successful war against the neighboring 
nations. But when the Philistines moved against 
him in full strength, his lack of forces and equip- 
ment decided the battle against him on the plain of 
Jezreel and he took his own life. The Philistines 
were again masters in Israel. (b) David (about 
1013-973). At first a favorite of Saul, the husband 
of his daughter and the friend of his son, David 
nevertheless had to flee from the king’s presence to 
save his life. With a band of outlaws the son of 
Jesse ranged the hills of Judah and became a cap- 
tain of a Philistine chief. At the death of Saul, 
when Abner proclaimed Ishbaal king of Israel in 
Manahaim (across the Jordan), Judah anointed 
David king in Hebron. The struggle between the 
two rulers ended in David’s favor. The first success 
of David as king of the nation was the capture of 
the Jebusite stronghold on Mount Zion. Jerusalem, 
his new capital, when the ark of Shiloh was brought 
up to the tent that served as a royal sanctuary, 
became eventually the center of the worship of J”. 
After protracted hostilities on a small scale, the 
power of the Philistines was broken: in this way, 
and by his campaigns against the Moabites, the 
Ammonites (with their allies, the Arameans), and 
the Edomites, David extended and strengthened 
the national borders, creating the first strong native 
state that Canaan had ever known. The flaw in 
the kingdom was the jealousy between Judah and 
Israel which David himself had fanned by his early 
policies and which was now beyond cure. For tho 
the strong arm of Joab quelled the dangerous re- 
volts of Absalom and of Sheba, violent manifesta- 
tions of this rivalry, the schism was averted only for 
a time and came to pass upon the death of David’s 
immediate successor. (c) Solomon (about 973-933). 
Gaining the throne through intrigue, Solomon 
established his position by the ruthless murder of 
his opponents (Adonijah, Joab). The Egyptian 
Pharaoh gave him a daughter for a wife with Gezer 
as part of her dowry. The Edomites failed to cast 
off Israel’s yoke, but in the north the Arameans, led 
by Rezon, conquered Damascus and founded a 
dangerous rival kingdom. With the ambitions of an 
eastern potentate, Solomon exacted the resources 
of his subjects to his own glory. The unassimilated 
Canaanites he made royal serfs; the territory of 
Israel (exclusive of Judah) was divided into twelve 
districts, each supporting the court one month of 
the year through taxation in kind. The Israelites 
were subjected to forced labor for the construction of 
fortresses at strategic points, barracks for chariotry 
and cavalry, store-houses, and especially for the 
transformation of Jerusalem into a capital worthy 
of such a king. The royal palace and the Temple, 
built by Tyrian architects north of the City of David 
_ (the intervening valley was filled up and therefore 
 ealled the Mill’ or filling), the wall around Jeru- 


Tyre, Egypt, and fabulous sites beyond the sea 
(Tarshish, Ophir), the birth of the arts and the new 
flowering of religion and literature, the splendor of 
court life, the size of the harem, the intricate 
bureaucracy, so impressed the imagination of the 
Israelites that, in spite of the hardships imposed 
upon his subjects by this régime, the wisdom and 
magnificence of Solomon became proverbial and in 
magnifying retrospect were later recalled as the 
acme of Israel’s worldly glory (I K 4). 


5. The Northern Kingdom. (a) Jeroboam I to Zimri 
(933-887). At the death of Solomon his son Reho- 
boam refused to grant relief to the northern tribes 
from their oppressive burdens; the result was a 
secession of the ten tribes from Dan to Benjamin 


and the proclamation of Jeroboam the son of 


Nebat (formerly Solomon’s taskmaster and then a 
rebel) as king of ‘Israel.’ The leadership passed again 
to the North; the diplomacy of David and the 
splendor of Solomon had only temporarily brought 
Judah to the front. Jeroboam, who chose Shechem 
for his capital and Dan and Bethel for his sanc- 
tuaries, was followed by his son Nadab (912). The 
reigns of Baasha (911) (who resided in Tirzah) and 
his son Elah (888) were unimportant. The mur- 
derer Zimri (887) ruled only a week. (b) Omri to 
Joram (887-843). The usurper Omri (887) was 
considered in Assyria the founder of the Northern 
Kingdom: he did for the ten tribes what David and 
Solomon had done on a larger scale for the nation. 
After overcoming Tibni, he built his capital, 
Samaria, in a strategic location; he made treaties 
with Tyre and married his son Ahab to Jezebel, the 
daughter of its king; he subjected the northern 
section of Moab and laid heavy tribute upon that 
country, but was less fortunate in his wars against 
the Arameans. Samaria was now eclipsing the glory 
of Jerusalem. Omri’s son Ahab (875) had better 
success against Benhadad II of Damascus, but 
Mesha King of Moab boasts (in the Moabite Stone) 
of his victories against Ahab. The weakness of the 
Arameans was due to the appearance in Syria of 
Shalmaneser III of Assyria (859-825): he was met 
at Qargar (854) by a coalition of Samaria and 
Damascus backed by Egypt (a vase of Osorkon II, 
the Egyptian Pharaoh, was found in Ahab’s palace). 
Ahab fell fighting against Ben-hadad II for the pos- 
session of Ramoth-gilead. The rapid assimilation 
of the culture and religion of the Canaanites 
occasioned a vigorous reaction: Nazirites and Recha- 
bites protested against the adoption of a civilization 
that threatened to extinguish the genius of Israel, 
pleading for a return to the life of the desert; the 
prophet Elijah fighting against the worship of 
Melkart (the Baal of Tyre), fashionable in the days 
of Jezebel, proclaimed J” the sole God of Israel, but 
the implications of his message were perceived only 
in the field of politics; his successor Elisha played a 
part in the movement that precipitated the downfall 
of the dynasty of Omri, whose last kings were 
Ahaziah (853) and Joram (852). (c) Jehw to 
Zechariah (843-744). Jehu (843), Joram’s com- 
manderin the fight for Jabesh-gilead, was proclaimed 
king by Elisha, through an emissary, and by the 
army officers, and he forthwith exterminated every 


{srael, History of A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 380 





member of the royal families of Israel and Judah | tho Asa (915) was able to recover Ramah from 
within reach, as well as the worshipers of the Tyrian | Baasha, aided by Benhaded I of Damascus, yet 
Baal in Samaria, This bloodshed, denounced by | with the accession of Omri (887) Israel became 


Hosea (1 4), tho it marked a de- 
cline of Israel’s international pres- 
tige, probably saved the religion of 
J” from extinction. Jehu sided 
with Shalmaneser III of Assyria 
(to whom he paid tribute; see the 
Black Obelisk) against Hazael of 
Damascus (842), little anticipating 
that the latter would ravage Israel’s 
territory beyond the Jordan. It was 
not until 773, when Assyria attacked 
Damascus, that Jeroboam IT (785), 
the successor of Jehoahaz (816) and 
Joash (800), was able to regain 
possession of this region. Victory 
marked the beginning of a reign of 
remarkable prosperity, not without 
the moral laxity and social injustice 
condemned by Amos and Hosea. 
They perceived that Assyria would 
yet attain a commanding position: 
in spite of appearances, Israel was 
but ‘a brand plucked out of the 
burning,’ and the fall of Jehu’s 
dynasty was imminent, Zechariah 
(744), the son of Jeroboam, was as- 
sassinated by Shallum (744). (d) 
Shallum to Hoshea (744-725). Shal- 
lum fell by the sword of Menahem 
(744). Anarchy and assassination 
were hastening the doom of the 
Northern Kingdom, whose erratic 
policy was swinging now toward 
Assyria (Menahem, Pekahiah 
[738]), now toward Damascus (Pe- 
kah [737]), and again toward As- 
syria (Hoshea [733]). This frantic 
helplessness (cf. Hos 8 8-10) was due 
to the revival of Assyria under 
Tiglath-pileser IV (Pul) (745-727) 
who incorporated in his empire a 
large section of the Northern King- 
dom after exiling its inhabitants; in 
732 he captured Damascus. Ho- 
shea, refusing to pay the annual 
tribute to Shalmaneser V (727- 
722), was taken prisoner; Samaria 
was besieged (725) until it fell to 
Sargon (722-705), who exiled 27,290 


Israelites and sent colonists from £, - 


Babylonia to take their place. Thus fa 


in 722, after a brief period of glory, 


the Kingdom of Israel disappeared, § 
the victim of the international sit- ¢ 


uation, and helpless ‘because the 
children of Israel had sinned against 
J” their God.’ 

6. The Southern Kingdom. (a) 
Rehoboam to Amaziah (933-780). 


py ky 
Ey 





— 
Pa >< 


aT 


iva 


5a eT 


PAY Yu v1? 


S pant 
kee 


La a 
TP cel Dy a 


ee eee' 


YY PAT HERE Foe Bi 


tet tied J 


=) es 
Peel Tee BTS 


Fans 


i Lgl i | 
fetes WAT eis B 
ee 


r tine pokes 
Bp aeat ape! salsa 
ae pal TE ET GOP 





Tue Brack OperisK or SHALMANESER. TH, SECOND SERIES 


Rehoboam (933), during whose reign Pharaoh Shi- } decidedly superior to Judah. Jehoshaphat (875) 
shak invaded Judah, and perhaps Abijah (917) | made an alliance with Ahab, marrying his son Je- 
fought against North Israel without success. Al- | horam to Athaliah, Jezebel’s daughter. Jehosha- 


= rs eesl ih IB te te ris pliner _ 


381 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Israel, History of 





er fleet for trading with S. Arabia sank when | David, with the exception of Jehoash, who was 
launched (I K 2248). Edom rebelled during the reign | rescued by his aunt, the wife of the chief priest of 
of Jehoram (851). Ahaziah (844) perished, with | Jerusalem. Six years later, when Jehoash was seven, 










epaass ats 
ATES EUR 3 & 
eR yas sgea my 
peor Sorat Sr SN Rae, 


ernment 
Se ati TAP HE ET SB aS 
pAiatneg toes y 
LEXerY pe WT ad te ee aT Ee 

Tae RYT she whet Tend 
Te See SIGE Te 
*| 7 CS a. 











pee weed eeeaee FG 
a a 


tiled 





Aes 
tes re eae eS ates ie 

5 PoE 
PA Rew 
a, wee aa Eee cents 























a tak 
Prete eat TEENY 





Sih 
Ea TRE SST Fa cee IE [eT ET 
Sis arte 


(4a5B, C0, D) eRe THE TRIBUTE Parp By JeHu oF Tatas 








7 
GT Dae rs aes 


See, 


pie 







ae 
bt Ge T ie PADIS PORTECRO NT ANY 
Erbe OPS BSE ee Soars i ss 





es ere 
ik: eater, Gani 
Sas Srree ik 





Warn TT Nr = 
Ev Pa rai apy bad MOOSE SFETBI ON Rib 3 
Fig te Eo iPox EEE’ = ipeeRTE Tali Te PERT THES BT ESSE Sy sy 
fail INT Tv Sar = Bot RTCA rR bh OTTO 
par eye reps EDT OTA THE oe HT Eo LEP we 


Se ee cae e ie 





he was proclaimed king by the 
priests and the soldiers of the guard, 
and Athaliah was put to death (837). 
The new king set apart a portion of 
the Temple’s income for the restora- 
tion of the sacred edifice and paid 
tribute to Hazael of Damascus who 
had invaded Judah. Amaziah (798) 
fought with success against Edom, 
but his challenge to Joash of Israel 
resulted in a disastrous war: the king 
was captured, the palace was plun- 
dered, the walls of Jerusalem were 
dismantled. (b) Azariah to Zedekiah 
(780-587). Azariah (Uzziah) (780) 
reconquered Elath, the gateway to 
the Red Sea, fortified Jerusalem, and 
profited from the prosperity of Israel 
under Jeroboam II. When he was 
smitten with leprosy, his son Jotham 
(740) acted as regent. Ahaz (735), a 
faithful vassal of Assyria,was attacked 
by Rezin of Damascus and Pekah 
of Israel, ‘two tails of smoking fire- 
brands’ (Isaiah 7 4). At Damascus, 
where he joined in the celebration 
of the Assyrian victory over these 
two kings and paid tribute to Tig- 
lath-pileser IV (745-727), he saw an 
altar of which he set up a copy in 
Jerusalem. Thus Judah escaped the 
fate of Samaria in 722. Hezekiah 
(720) on the contrary made common 
cause with the enemies of Assyria. 
He received an embassy of Mero- 
dach-baladan, Sargon’s Babylonian 
rival, and openly defied Sennacherib 
(705-681). But the Assyrian king 
defeated Judah and its allies at El- 
tekeh in 701, plundered 46 cities of 
Hezekiah and, according to his exag- 
gerated account, carried away 200,150 
Judeans; Hezekiah was shut up in 
Jerusalem ‘like a bird in a cage’ and 
paid a heavy indemnity. In spite of 
the deliverance of Jerusalem, which 
seemed a miraculous confirmation of 
Isaiah’s promises, Manasseh (692) 
realized the futility of further resis- 
tance to Assyria and, in open opposi- 
tion to the prophets, encouraged the 
worship of foreign gods. This policy 


4) was continued by Amon (639), who 
y was assassinated after a reign of two 


years leaving the throne to his son 
Josiah, eight years old (638). In the 
18th year of his reign (621) the party 
of the priests and prophets won over 
the young king to their reaction 


the rest of the descendants of Omri, at the hand ] against Manasseh’s religious practises by producing 
of Jehu. Athaliah (843), the queen mother, seized | the ‘Law of Moses’ (Deuteronomy, q.v.), found 
the government after exterminating the house of | in the Temple: the reformation of the worship 


Israel, History of 
Israel, Religion of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


$82 





that followed made Judaism, a combination of 
the prophetic teaching and the Temple worship, 
the official religion. The way had been cleared for 
the reformers by the rapid decline of Assyria after 
the death of Ashurbanipal' (625). The Assyrian 
régime in Syria came to an end, the Scythian 
hordes threatened Judah (Jer 4 5-29), Egypt shook 
off the Assyrian rule, Babylonia became again in- 
dependent. After the fall of Nineveh (612) Necho 
II of Egypt attempted the conquest of Syria, de- 
feated Josiah at Megiddo (607) and, refusing to 
recognize Jehoahaz (607), placed Eliakim(whom he 
named Jehoiakim) on the throne (607). But 
Nebuchadrezzar defeated Necho at Carchemish 
(605) and Judah became a Babylonian dependency 
(604). In 598 Jehoiakim rebelled, but escaped, 
through sudden death, the impending punishment. 
His son Jehoiachin (597) surrendered himself to the 
Chaldean king and was carried to Babylon together 
with the upper classes of his kingdom, among them 
Ezekiel. Zedekiah (Mattaniah) (597), the third son 
of Josiah who occupied the throne, was induced by 
the pro-Egyptian party, against the counsel of 
Jeremiah, to defy Nebuchadrezzar: in 586 Jerusalem 
was taken after a siege of one year and a half and 
burned to the ground. Many Judeans were exiled. 
The Davidic Kingdom had come to its doom, but 
Judaism, born in 621, was destined to survive to the 
present day. 


Ill. THe Jewish Courcu. 7. The Babylonian 
Period (586-538). Gedaliah, the grandson of Josiah’s 
‘scribe,’ appointed by Nebuchadrezzar as governor 
of Judah and residing at Mizpah, was murdered by 
Ishmael, a fanatical descendant of David, acting in 
connivance with the king of Ammon (586). After 
avenging their governor, a group of Judeans fled 
into Egypt forcing the reluctant Jeremiah to follow 
them. A third deportation took place in 582, bring- 
ing up the total of the exiles to 4,600 men, perhaps 
15 per cent. of the population (cf. however the 
figures in II K 24 14 #.). Only the poorest of the 
people remained in the country, truly sheep 
without a shepherd, pressed between the Edomites 
(who occupied southern Judah, later known as 
Idumza) and the Samaritans. Sacrifices were still 
offered on the Temple hill, but, amidst the pre- 
vailing gloom and poverty, ancient superstitions 
and crude religious beliefs flourished anew. The 
Exiles did not continue to sit weeping by the waters 
of Babylon, their harps hanging upon the willows 
(Ps 137). Being the leaders of the nation, they 
prospered in commerce and progressed in religion. 
Obedient to the law of Deuteronomy, they reared 
no temple, they offered no sacrifices. Zealous in 
prayer, keeping the Sabbath and circumcising their 
children, preserving and increasing their literature, 
they were building for the future. Ezekiel was 
planning anew temple with elaborate ritual, Second 
Isaiah (Is 40-55) was proclaiming a religion of self- 
sacrifice, a worship in spirit and in truth. The first 
of these currents developed into Judaism, the 
second flowed ultimately into Christianity. 

8. The Persian Period (538-333). Babylon fell 
without a struggle to Cyrus the Persian (538), who 
gave the Near-East the best government these re- 


gions had ever known. ‘Tolerant of all gods, he 
appointed Sheshbazzar governor of Judea and per- 
mitted the return of the Exiles. A few accompanied 
Sheshbazzar to the impoverished homeland, among 
them perhaps Zerubbabel and Joshua. Conditions 
in Judea did not improve. Twenty years later the 
appeals of Haggai and Zechariah and the efforts of 
Joshua, whose authority as high-priest was not un- 
challenged, induced the Jews to restore the Temple. 
It was dedicated in 515. The difficulty of the 
situation was aggravated by the animosity between 
the returned Exiles, enlightened and intolerant, and 
the natives, ignorant and superstitious. Nehemiah 
was sent to Jerusalem in 445. He rebuilt the walls 
and won the day for the Exiles by enforcing the pre- 
scriptions of the Law (particularly the prohibition of 
foreign marriages and the keeping of the Sabbath), 
and by driving out the leaders of the opposition. 
Thus he precipitated the Samaritan schism. 


9. The Hellenistic-Roman Period (333 B.c.- 
70 a.D.). When Alexander conquered the Persian 
empire, Jerusalem surrendered but Samaria had to 
be taken by force (832). After his death (323) 
Palestine remained, with few interruptions, under 
the control of the Ptolemies of Egypt, until in 198 
it became a part of the Seleucid Kingdom of Syria. 
The flourishing Jewish colony at Alexandria in 
Egypt adopted the Greek culture and translated the 
Scriptures into the vernacular (this Greek version, 
called the Septuagint, became the Bible of the 
Christian Church). The progress of Hellenism in 
Jerusalem was slower and confined to the aristocracy. 
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175-164), irritated by the 
opposition of the ‘pious’ (hasidhim) to his plan of 
Hellenization, declared Judaism illegal (168). A 
rebellion broke out. Judas Maccabeus after a series 
of heroic victories forced the abrogation of the decree 
and in 165 rededicated the Temple. His brothers 
Jonathan (161) and Simon (143) continued the fight, 
no longer for religious freedom but for political 
autonomy (achieved in 141). The new state, owing 
to the wéakness and dynastic quarrels of the 
Seleucid, extended its borders under John Hyr- 
canus (134), Aristobulus I (104), Alexander Janneus 


(102) and Alexandra (75-67), until the rivalry be- _ 


tween Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II invited 
Roman intervention. Pompey took Jerusalem in 
63. Rome ruled at first through vassal princes (like 
Herod), then through procurators, but failed to gain 
the friendship of the subjects. The outcome of 
Jewish discontent and open rebellion was the 
destruction of Jerusalem by Titus in 70 a.p. De- 
prived of its Temple, Judaism became henceforth 
strict Pharisaism, the study and observance of the 
Law. Rigid exclusivism drove many of the Jews of 
the Diaspora, and equally their proselytes, into the 
ranks of the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. 
LirEratuReE: C. Noyes, The Genius of Israel (1924) is the best 
treatment of the Preexilic period. The most useful among 
the recent histories of Israel in English are those of H. P. 
Smith (1903), Wade (1903), Cornill (4th ed., 1909), I. J. 
Peritz (1915), Foakes-Jackson (4th ed., 1921). Standard 
German books are: Wellhausen, JIsraelitische und Jiidische 
Geschichte (7th ed., 1914); H. Guthe, Geschichte des 


Volkes Israel (3rd ed., 1914); R. Kittel, Geschichte des 
Volkes Israel (2 vols., 5th and 6th ed., 1923). 
R 





Stem 


383 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Israel, History of 
Israel, Religion of 





ISRAEL, RELIGION OF 


OUTLINE 
_I. Tam Origins oF THE RELIGION 19. Hosea 
. Antecedents of the Religion 20. Isaiah 
. Patriarchal Religion V. THe REFORMATION OF JOSIAH AND THE MINISTRY OF 
The Achievement of Moses JEREMIAH 


Yahweh and Israel 

Significance of Yahweh’s Name 

. The Decalog and the Book of the Covenant 
. Mosaic Conception of Yahweh 

. Religion of Israel a Covenant Religion 


Il. THe TRANSFORMATION OF THE RELIGION IN CANAAN 
9, Agriculture and the Baalim 
10. The Cultus 
11. Politics and Religion 


IIT. Hesrew Propuzcy FROM SAMUEL TO ELISHA 
12. The Early Prophets 
13. Elijah and the Baal of Tyre 


IV. Tae EicutsH Century Propxets 
14. The Prophets as Preachers 
15. The Prophets and the Future 
16. Origin of the Prophetic Eschatology 
17. Foreign Perils and Internal Corruption 
18. Amos 


CONAN wWheH 


I. THe ORIGINS OF THE RELIGION. 


1. Antecedents of the Religion. Strictly speaking 
the religion of Israel was, like the nation, the creation 
of Moses. But it did not make an absolutely new 
beginning; such new beginnings in religion are un- 
known. The Hebrews were a Semitic stock and they 
brought much of their Semitic heritage with them 
into the religion of Yahweh. Their antecedents 
indeed are shrouded in a dim obscurity and wide 
divergence of opinion prevails even on the main 
issues. According to their own traditions their 
ancestors came from Mesopotamia; they lived for a 
time in Palestine, migrated to Egypt and escaped, 
under the leadership of Moses, from the forced labor 
exacted of them into the freedom of the desert. 
Several kinds of influence had accordingly played 
upon them and molded and enriched the primitive 
Semitic type which lay behind it all. On these 
earlier stages it is unnecessary for our purpose to 
linger in detail. But since Moses himself was 
conscious that he proclaimed to his people the God 
of their fathers under a new name, something must 
be said of the patriarchs and their religion. 

2. Patriarchal Religion. The historicity of the 
patriarchs has been denied by many scholars. But 
the attempts to prove that they were originally 
tribes or nations, or deities who have been degraded 
into men, or that they are to be fitted into an 
elaborate astral mythology, have failed to account 
for all the phenomena. That the narratives as they 
stand often reflect later ideals and conditions or 
have been shaped by motifs of great antiquity and 
wide range may perhaps be true. But that the chief 
figures of the patriarchal history are themselves 
historical, even if it can not be definitely proved, 
seems to be the most probable of the rival inter- 
pretations. The narratives date from a much later 
age, but the picture of the patriarchal religion 
appears to embody authentic elements. In par- 
ticular it is to be observed how marked a difference 
there is between the gracious Deity who, while He 
can inflict severe penalties, is yet mild and benev- 
olent to His worshipers and the terrible and tem- 


21. Deuteronomy and Josiah’s Reformation 
22. Jeremiah 
VI. Tae Exiir, Ezexret anp Sreconp Isarau 
23. The Exile and Its Influence on the Religion 
24. Ezekiel 
25. The Second Isaiah 
VII. Tar Trrumpex or LeGarism 
26. The Priestly Code and the Birth of Judaism 
VIII. Toe Prosiem or SurreRIna 
27. The Problem of Suffering 
28. The Book of Job 
29. Psalms 49 and 73 
30. Ecclesiastes 
31. Apocalyptic in the Old Testament. 
IX. PsALMISTS AND SAGES 
32. The Psalter 
33. The Book of Proverbs 
X. SommMary SKETCH OF THE HIsToRY oF THE RELIGION 
34. Summary 


pestuous character of J’’, as He is depicted in the 
wilderness narratives and not a little of the later 
history. Whether the name ‘Yahweh’ was known in 
the patriarchal period is a question on which our 
authorities differ. J uses it frequently and represents 
the name as known almost from the origin of the 
human race (Gn 4 26). Hand P on the contrary avoid 
it, the latter explicitly stating that it was not known 
to the patriarchs (Ex 6 3). The solution may be 
either that J freely carried the name back into a 
period in which it was not in use, because he 
identified the God of the patriarchs with J’; or that 
one section of what was later the composite people 
of Israel used the name and the other did not. It is 
probable in any case that it was only from the time 
of Moses that J’’ was definitely recognized as the 
God of the whole Hebrew people. 


3. The Achievement of Moses. Far more im- 
portant, however, than the problem of the pre- 
Mosaic religion is that presented by the career and 
achievement of Moses. For he was the creator of the 
religion and the nation alike; yet the most varied 
views are taken even on the crucial questions. 
Some scholars (e.g., E. Meyer and Holscher) treat 
him as a legendary figure. But his historicity is 
generally admitted and the creative character of his 
work. Here we must simply assume his historicity 
and connection with Egypt: the fact that a con- 
siderable proportion at least of the Hebrews were in 
Egypt and escaped under his leadership from forced 
service to the freedom of the desert; that they were 
saved from the pursuit of the Egyptians by what 
seemed to them a Divine deliverance; that Moses 
welded them into a single people in which kindred 
tribes who had not been in Egypt may have been 
incorporated; that he did this in the strength of the 
conviction that J’’ had chosen this people for His 
own and delivered then first from bondage, and then 
from impending ruin, by a stupendous display of 
His might. But it is very difficult to reach any satis- 
factory conclusion as to the religious beliefs of 
Moses and the characteristics of the religion he 
founded. We can not assign any of the Pentateuchal 


‘Israel, Religion of A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 





sources to him. But the earlier documents may be 
used with proper precautions, and the value of the 
tradition they contain should probably be rated 
higher than they have been by the dominant 
critical school. Since he, no doubt, drew on earlier 
religious and legal developments, our knowledge of 
surrounding peoples may be of service. But it is 
not easy to draw the right inferences, and no people 
made even a distant approach to Israel’s achieve- 
ment. We can not for example safely build on 
alleged Babylonian monotheism, nor yet on the 
monotheism of the heretic king of Egypt, Amen- 
hotep IV. Another line of approach is to work 
back from the religion as we know it in the 8th cent. 
prophets and the preprophetic literature and ask 
what it implies. Such scholars as Kuenen, Well- 
hausen, Stade, and Duhm have been inclined to 
regard the ethical monotheism of the 8th cent. 
prophets as marking an immense advance on the 
earlier religion. But with this depreciation of pre- 
prophetic religion the transition to Amos and his 
successors becomes too abrupt and steep. Only if a 
higher element than they recognized was present in 
the religion from the first, does the development in 
the 8th cent. become explicable. That the religion 
of Moses was an ethical monotheism it would be 
very hazardous to assert. But that it was an ethical 
monolatry, in other words that, while not denying 
the existence of other deities, it insisted that one 
alone was to be worshiped and that He was a moral 
God who demanded morality from His people, 
may be affirmed with confidence. The problem pre- 
sented by the history of Israel is to explain why, 
instead of resting in polytheism or even in monolatry, 
the Hebrews ultimately attained the belief that there 
was only one God, and He the God of Israel; and 
why the great prophets and other outstanding repre- 
sentatives of the higher religion of Israel attached 
such importance to morality, while ceremonial, so 
extravagantly valued by priests and people, was 
treated as trivial in comparison with it and abhor- 
rent to Him when offered by evil-doers. 


4. Yahweh and Israel. In investigating this 
problem we may start from Wellhausen’s summary 
of Mosaic religion: Yahweh is the God of Israel, 
Israel is the people of Yahweh. This, while repeated 
by many scholars, has been criticized by E. Meyer 
as ‘an empty phrase’; and with this much justice 
that the religion of Moab could be expressed in the 
same formula with the substitution of Moab for 
Israel and Chemosh for Yahweh. Yet there 
may have been differentiating qualities between 
Israel and Moab, between J’’ and Chemosh, and be- 
tween the relations of deity and people in the two 
cases. Theformula may accordingly be of real value. 
When we consider the later development of the 
religion, we are struck by the apparent paradox of 
a monotheism in which the Deity was designated 
by a proper name, and the further paradox of a 
recognition of the unity of God combined with 
belief in a national Divinity. There is only one God, 
but He is Yahweh the God of Israel. That this 
conviction goes back to Moses is not probable. 
Indeed it is easier to understand how Israel’s belief 
in God came to be formulated as it was, if on an 


original monolatry in which the national Deity was 
indicated by a proper name, a monotheistic belief 
was subsequently superimposed, the name of the 
national Divinity being still retained when there 
was no longer any need to distinguish Him from 


others of His class. But from the first the poten- 
tialities of the later development must have been 
latent in the religion. It is doubtful whether we can 
explain the uniqueness of Israel’s religion by any 
unique quality in Israel itself. There is no reason 
to suppose that the nation was differentiated from 
kindred peoples by any exceptional religious genius. 
Indeed the difficulty experienced by its religious 
leaders in detaching it from lower religious beliefs 
and observances speaks strongly against such an 
explanation. Nor is the fact that the Deity is the 
guardian of right as between man and man an 
adequate cause. For this was not sufficiently . 
exceptional to originate the uniqueness of the 
religion. Moreover, the function of the Deity may 
have been not so much to insist on the punishment of 
transgressors as to indicate by oracle or lot their 
identity. Was it then in the conception formed of 
J’’? To this point we must now turn attention. 


5. Significance of Yahweh’s Name. The first 
question touches the significance of the name 
Yahweh. Its original meaning may be entirely 
lost; but even if it is to be explained from Hebrew 
or a cognate language several interpretations are 
possible. It is a third person imperfect and the 
verb may mean ‘to fall,’ or ‘to breathe,’ or ‘blow,’ 
or ‘to be.’ And it may belong either to the Kal 
conjunction, which expresses the simple idea of the 
verb, or to the Hiphil, that is the causative. Thus 
He may be a God who overthrows cities or armies, 
or a wind-God, or a God who brings His purpose 
to pass. But the narrative in which the name is 
revealed to Moses yields us another interpretation, 
which of course is post-Mosaic but may be true to 
the interpretation placed on the name by Moses. 
According to this ‘Yahweh’ means ‘He will be.’ 
The explanation ‘I will be what I will be’ (Ex 3 14) 
is not intended to indicate that J’’ refuses to dis- 
close His name (cf. Gn 32 29; Jg 13 17), for the whole 
point of the narrative is that the name is revealed. 
The formula is suggestive just because it is in- 
finite. What He will be is not defined, it is left to 
the future to disclose: history alone is an adequate 
commentary on it, filling it with ever new and deeper 
meaning. We may say, indeed, that not time but 
eternity alone can draw out the fulness of meaning 
hidden in it. Nevertheless it must be admitted that 
the name can not be interpreted with certainty and 
no confident conclusion as to the conception of J” 
can be drawn from it. 


6. The Decalog and the Book of the Covenant. 
Positive evidence on this point might be given if 
we had any literary compositions of Moses embedded 
in the later documents. Some scholars find such 
sources in the Decalog (Ex 20 1-17, Dt 5 6-21), or the 
Book of the Covenant (Ex 20 22-23) 33). The 
Decalog, as it exists in its two versions, has probably 
been expanded from a much briefer original. The 
problem of its age and origin is very difficult. It is 
complicated by the alleged presence of another set 


385 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


‘Israel, Religion of 





of ten commandments (J’s Decalog) mainly ritual 
in character which may be disengaged from Ex 
34 17-26 (cf. ‘the ten commandments’ in ver. 28). 
The existence of this Decalog is disputed and it is 
quite a mistake to suppose that its ritual character 
speaks for its priority to the Decalog of Ex 20. But 
the prohibition of images and of work on the 
Sabbath do place difficulties in the way of assump- 
tion that the latter is of Mosaic origin. For the 
former is ignored by worshipers of J’’, as we should 
not have anticipated if it had been a fundamental 
principle of the religion from the outset; while the 
Sabbath rest is more suited for agriculturists than 
for nomads. Altho some scholars treat these 
objections as inconclusive, we can not build with any 
safety on the Mosaic origin of the Decalog. It ought, 
however, to be pointed out that the ethical standard 
of the Decalog is on the whole much more rudi- 
mentary than is often recognized; and its prohibi- 
tions can be largely paralleled from those found 
among peoples of the lower culture. Accordingly, 
even if it were Mosaic, it would not contribute much 
to the solution of our special problem. The Book of 
the Covenant incorporates much ancient material, 
as is shown by a comparison with the Code of 
Hammurabi, and not a little of it will be far anterior 
to the time of Moses. But the Book of the Covenant 
itself seems to have been composed in Palestine as 
is suggested by the reference to vineyards and 
olive-yards (Ex 22 5, 23 11). 


7. Mosaic Conception of Yahweh. In spite, how- 
ever, of our inability to point with any confidence 
to Mosaic documents, we may from the early post- 
Mosaic sources derive authentic material by which 
we can reconstruct the Mosaic conception of J’. 
He is closely associated with terrible elemental 
phenomena, earthquake, thunderstorm, and fire. 
These features appear in our earliest literature and 
are so characteristic that even in late poetry they 
are prominent in descriptions of a theophany. He 
is not, however, a mere Nature God. He works 
mightily in history, causing His people to triumph 
over their enemies. Indeed He is a God of battles, 
and war is a sacred vocation. He often pronounces 
the ban or the decree of extermination which must 
be carried out to the letter, tho admitting of grades 
of severity. He is a holy God, by which, in this 
primitive age, it is not so much His moral purity as 
His unapproachableness that is intended. He re- 
acts, at times it would seem almost automatically, 
against wilful or even incautious approach to Him 
(Ex 19 21 f., 33 20). This self-regarding quality by 
which He resents and punishes any violation of His 
holiness is shown also in His jealousy, His refusal to 
tolerate any rival or companion in the allegiance of 
His people. He is thought to possess an external 
form and a local habitation. He dwells on the 
Mount of God, altho He is not limited to this. His 
presence with the Hebrews in their wanderings is 
mediated by the Ark, perhaps because it contained 
sacred stones from the sacred mountain, in which 
He was thought to manifest Himself. It is not im- 
probable that even as early as the time of Moses He 
was thought to dwell in Heaven. He demanded 
righteousness between man and man and strict 


administration of justice. The poor, the weak and 
the defenseless were the objects of His compassion. 

8. Religion of Israel a Covenant Religion. It 
still remains to speak of the nature of the relation 
between J’’ and Israel. It has been argued by some 
scholars, notably by Budde, that J’”’ was originally 
the God of the Kenites. The relation between 
Deity and people would, like that between Chemosh 
and Moab, be regarded as a natural necessity 
grounded in the very nature of things. But J’ 
freely chose the Hebrews to be His people; hence 
the relation between them rested not on necessity 
but on free choice, the choice of Israel by J’’, and of 
J” by Israel, and in this the uniqueness of the 
religion is thought by Budde to reside. This theory 
of Kenite origin is dubious; but it is true and very 
important that the religion of Israel was a covenant 
religion; the tie which bound God and people to- 
gether was freely accepted by both. The relation- 
ship was not natural but ethical. 

Tradition represents Moses as a law-giver, and 
the codes in the Pentateuch are ascribed to him. 
This undoubtedly had a basis in fact. He must have 
formulated principles of justice, in the discharge of 
his functions as judge; he must have laid down 
regulations for the proper worship of J’. In both 
respects he drew on preexisting law and custom, 
much of it extremely ancient. (On §§ 3-8 see also 
IsRAEL, SocIAL DEVELOPMENT oF, § 18.) 


Il. Tue TRANSFORMATION OF THE RELIGION IN 
CANAAN. 

9. Agriculture and the Baalim. After the death 
of Moses the Hebrews gained a footing in western 
Palestine. Moses had fused the tribes together by, 
firing them with the central conviction of their 
religion. Thus religion and patriotism were in- 
separably blended, wherein lay the original strength 
and ultimate limitation of the religion. In Canaan 
it seemed as if national disintegration would be 
inevitable, since the settlers in Canaan fell into 
isolated groups. But an even deadlier peril 
threatened the religion through contact with the 
Canaanites and transformation in the mode of life. 
The religion was in its origin a desert religion; but 
more and more the people settled down to till the 
soil. They learnt from the Canaanites, who were 
far beyond them in civilization, not only right 
methods of agriculture but the ways in which the 
Baalim or local deities were to. be worshiped, since 
on the favor of these givers of fertility the success 
of their harvests depended. This cult was probably 
not regarded as conflicting with the worship of the 
national Deity. But it led to gross immorality; and 
at a later time, when J’, who could be quite harm- 
lessly spoken of by the colorless term ‘Baal’ (i.e., 
owner or lord), was regarded as the giver of fertility, 
His worship was degraded by the intrusion of 
elements of Canaanite ritual. Intermarriage with 
Canaanites also affected the Hebrew religion, 
especially when the woman was a Canaanite, 
owing to her influence on the children. It is not 
surprizing that the Rechabites repudiated the 
agricultural life, as involving disloyalty to J”, and 
remained nomads (Jer ch. 35). The Nazirites may 
have been influenced by similar motives. The 


israel, Religion of 





three agricultural festivals prescribed in the oldest 
legislation, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the 
Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles were 
all probably borrowed from the Canaanites. 


10. The Cultus. There was no centralization of 
the worship. The home of the Ark naturally en- 
joyed great prestige; but there were numerous high 
places or local sanctuaries which were recognized as 
legitimate. The priesthood was not restricted to the 
Levites; altho when a Levite could be obtained, 
preference seems to have been given to him (ef. 
Jg ch. 17). In addition to the custody of the sanc- 
tuary and the care of ritual observances and sacri- 
fices, the priests seem to have been charged with 
the giving of oracles, the pronouncing of judgment, 
and moral instruction. Sacrifice was a clan feast 
in which J” and the worshipers feasted together. 
The animals offered in it were such as were used for 
food. Tribute in the form of first-fruits and other 
vegetable offerings was paid to the Deity for the use 
of the fertile soil. Human sacrifice was not unknown 
(Jg 11 30-40), but it was probably rare. 


11. Politics and Religion. The political develop- 
ment was momentous for the history of the religion. 
The unification of the nation under Samuel, Saul 
and David stimulated the national sentiment and 
reacted on the devotion of the people to the national 
Deity and their estimate of Him. The breaking of 
the Philistine yoke, and then the rise of the Hebrew 
empire as the issue of David’s successful wars, fol- 
lowed by the prosperity and splendor of Solomon’s 
reign, greatly enhanced the sentiments created by 
the establishment of the monarchy. The selection 
of Jerusalem as the home of the Ark, and the erection 
of the Temple, gave the capital a religious prestige 
which was later to find expression in the centraliza- 
tion of the sacrificial worship in the Temple and the 
exclusive right of its priests to the exercise of 
priestly functions accorded to them by Ezekiel (Ez 
44 10-16). Not only the legislation of Deuteronomy 
and Ezekiel, but that of the Priestly Code, was the 
outcome of the policy of David and Solomon. The 
disruption of the kingdom put an end to imperialist 
dreams. It saved Israel from a despotism which 
would have been inimical to its higher religious 
development. It prevented the Hebrews from be- 
coming the dominant power in Syria and Palestine; 
and when the Northern Kingdom was destroyed 
by Assyria, the Southern Kingdom was left suf- 
ficiently long to secure that spiritual religion 
should survive the downfall of the State and the 
destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians. 


Iii. Hesrew PropHecy rrom SAMUEL TO ELISHA. 


12. The Early Prophets. It is at the time of the 
Philistine oppression and the rise of the monarchy 
that we meet with the prophets. They seem to have 
been ecstatics who gathered in bands and roamed 
about the country, their frenzy stimulated by 
music, their aim national independence and the more 
zealous worship of J’ (IS 105 f.). Samuel, himself 
@ seer, stands in connection with the prophets: and 
the two classes seem to have coalesced, retaining the 
name ‘prophets’ to designate the members of this 
combination. It is significant that Saul, of whom no 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


386 





one expected such a development, was himself in- 
fected with their contagious ecstasy and transformed 
into a prophet: The continuity of the name which 
designated also the later illustrious succession of 
‘men of God,’ that opened with Amos, points to some 
continuity between the primitive and the canonical 
prophets. But the modern student is struck by the 
wide gulf which separates them. The ecstatic con- 
dition reappears in the later prophets, altho it is 
questionable whether it was as characteristic as 
some scholars suppose. In any case the real greatness 
of the later prophets is not to be found in these 
psychical experiences so much as in their penetrating 
insight into religious and moral truth; their clear 
discernment of the signs of the times; their power to 
pierce below the deceptive surface and rightly to 
divine the real forces which were creating history. 
But it is best to postpone the further discussion - 
of prophecy till we meet it in its loftiest manifesta- 
tions in its golden age from the 8th cent. to the 6th. 


13. Elijah and the Baal of Tyre. In such men as 
Samuel and Nathan we may see the custodians of 
the higher type of Hebrew religion standing in the 
succession of Moses and linking him with those 
later prophets in whom the religion found its classical 
expression. But with Elijah we reach a new stage 
in the development. Even if we grant that legend 
has been busy with his figure, this testifies to the 
tremendous impression he made on his contem- 
poraries. Once again it is a political occasion which 
is responsible for the religious development. Israel 
had entered into alliance with Tyre and this had 
been sealed by the marriage of Ahab with Jezebel, 
a Tyrian princess. And, as was natural in antiquity, 
the alliance of peoples carried with it the alli- 
ance of deities. So Melkart, the Baal of Tyre, 
was placed by the side of Yahweh as the object of 
Hebrew worship. This was a new development, for 
the Baal whom Elijah denied to be the rightful 
object of Israel’s worship was not one of the local 
Baalim, whose worship might not have seemed to 
conflict with that of J’. He was himself a national 
deity, set side by side with J” on equal terms. This 
violated a fundamental principle of the religion, 
that J’’ was a jealous God who would tolerate no 
companion or rival in the allegiance of His people. 
Ahab and the court, no doubt, regarded the tolera- 
tion of the Tyrian cult, and even active participa- 
tion in it, as a matter of State policy, one might even 
perhaps say as an obligation of courtesy, not to be 
omitted without violation of good manners. He did 
not indeed carry all his subjects with him. We 
read of the seven thousand who will be spared in 
J’’s terrible judgment because they have doneno 
homage to the foreign god (I K 1918). We hear of a 
persecution of the prophets instituted by Jezebel. 
But Elijah stands as the embodiment of this protest. 
Whether in his lifetime he achieved a success so 
signal as our narratives relates has been disputed. 
But it is not easy to account for his fame unless he 
had struck the imagination of his people by some 
unparalleled achievement. While he left his work 
incomplete, it is to himself that the credit belongs 
of impressing on his people J’”’s inflexible demand for 
its undivided allegiance. He also stood in the line 





in 


387 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Israel, Religion of 





of the higher prophecy in his terrible rebuke to 
Ahab for the judicial murder of Naboth (I K 21). 
Indeed the shock given to the popular conscience 
by this dark deed may, even more than Jezebel’s 
fanaticism for her god, have prepared the way for 
Jehu’s revolution. Whether we can speak of Elijah 
as a monotheist is uncertain. If Moses was a mono- 
theist, the antecedent probability that Elijah was so 
would be great. And his mockery of Melkart on 
Carmel (I K 18 27) suggests that the Phenician god 
was for him a nonentity. But the phraseology may 
be that of the narrator; and even if Elijah’s it may 
not imply denial of Melkart’s existence, but simply 
his contemptuous repudiation of a god who was an 
intruder in J’’s domain. His conflict was con- 
tinued by Elisha, his heir, a figure cast in a far less 


heroic mold. He set in motion the rebellion of Jehu, — 


his all-too-zealous and unscrupulous tool, which 
effected the downfall, in torrents of blood, of Ahab’s 
dynasty and the extirpation of the worship of 
Melkart. Another significant antagonist of Ahab 
was Micaiah the prophet who announced his doom 
(I K 225-28). He is our earliest example of the true 
prophet, who speaks without flinching the un- 
palatable truth as God has revealed it to him, in 
conflict with the courtier prophets, who speak only 
what those in authority desire to hear. 


IV. Tue Erauta Century PRopHEts. 


14. The Prophets as Preachers. Before we indi- 
cate the special contribution of the 8th cent. 
prophets there are some general questions which 
call for discussion at this point. The reaction 
against the traditional view that Old Testament 
prophecy was mainly prediction and in particular 
prediction of Christ, went to an extreme, so that the 
predictive element in prophecy was unduly mini- 
mized. It was, of course, important to shift the 
emphasis from the future to the present and to 
make it clear that the prophets were primarily 
concerned with the conditions of their own time. 
The thought of God and His claim on His own 
people and their loyalty to Him, of righteousness in 
the government of the State and in the administra- 
tion of justice, of honesty in commerce, of tender 
compassion for the defenseless and the weak, such 
were the main themes of their message. Hatred 
and indignation for tyranny and cruelty, loathing 
for vice and disgust at luxury, repudiation of idolatry 
with its degradation of the Divine and its religious 
and moral abominations, were prominent in their 


. message. They had much to say on foreign politics, 


partly because the entanglement of Israel with 
foreign states might aggravate those social evils at 
home which the prophets so deeply deplored; partly 
because it tended to replace the nation’s trust in 
God by reliance on the help of foreign nations; 
partly because political might bring with it religious 
alliance. 


15. The Prophets and the Future. But all this 
preoccupation with contemporary conditions did 
not render them indifferent to the future. Their 
preaching was directed in the first instance against 
the false religion, the vices, and the follies of their 
own age. But the great canonical prophets of the 


period before the Exile did not anticipate that their 
message would prove effective. They were assured 
that calamity was coming. Not, be it observed, 
that they believed it to be in the nature of the case 
inevitable. On the contrary, hoping against hope, 
they strove, by pleading and by warning, with their 
stubborn and infatuated countrymen, urging them 
to amend their ways and proclaiming the certainty 
of God’s judgment, however, long delayed, on an 
apostate and impenitent people. Yet, knowing their 
own countrymen so well, they were persuaded that 
their light-hearted optimism would lure them to 
their ruin. But for the most part at any rate, they 
did not believe that judgment would be God’s last 
word with Israel. For after the judgment had been 
executed the course of history would be reversed, 
and God would pity and restore His broken people. 
They would possess their own land, in peace and 
prosperity, under a righteous king of Davidic stock. 


16. Origin of the Prophetic Eschatology. This 
brings us to the consideration of a topic which has 
recently attracted much attention. The origin of 
the prophets’ certainty of judgment has often been 
regarded as a moral postulate. Assured of the 
inflexible righteousness of God, they realize that a 
holy God can not permanently tolerate a sinful 
people. Hence calamity must come unless there is 
reform. The people believe that their election is a 
token of J’’s favor and, altho He may chasten, 
He will not destroy. The prophets, on the contrary, 
insist on the supremacy of righteousness to which, 
if necessary, even the existence of Israel will be 
sacrificed. Fiat justitia, ruat Israel. Other scholars 
think rather of a peculiar sensitiveness in the 
prophets to the drastic intervention of God in his- 
tory. They enter on their vocation when a crisis 
is approaching, they are storm-birds giving warning 
of the tempest which is about to burst. Others 
again trace their anticipations of the future to a 
keener insight than their contemporaries possessed 
into the political situation. But recently another 
theory has been propounded, that their certainty of 
disaster followed by restoration was derived from a 
preexisting eschatological scheme. This scheme, 
which is believed to have been an integral part of 
Israel’s religion from a very early period and familiar 
to the people, is thought by some (Gunkel, Gress- 
mann, E. Meyer) to have been borrowed from 
abroad; while another view (Sellin) is that, altho 
availing itself of foreign imagery for expression, the 
actual belief grew out of the native principles of 
Israel’s religion. Accordingly while there has been a 
tendency on the part of some scholars to regard 
eschatology, with Wellhausen, as a creation of 
Ezekiel, and to proceed to even greater extremes 
than he did in relegating passages of an eschato- 
logical character to a date after the Exile, those 
scholars who hold eschatology itself to be early 
freely recognize the presence of eschatologica pas- 
sages in preexilic prophecy. 

The whole question is still in debate and no 
decided verdict can be given. But the evidence for 
an Egyptian scheme, which is really parallel with 
predictions of the prophets, must be pronounced 
very dubious; and even if it existed, it is not clear 


Israel, Religion of 





that it was adopted by Israel in its early period. The 
anticipation of the future which was current in the 
pagan scheme and adopted in the popular religion 
of Israel we should have expected to be reproduced 
by the lower order of prophets. But it is the 
canonical prophets in whom the scheme of a terrible 
judgment followed by a time of blessedness, is to 
be found. It is their antagonists who are the 
optimists, who say ‘Peace’ when there is no peace 
(cf. Mi 35 8 and 11-12; also Jer 28 8 ff.). 

17. Foreign Perils and Internal Corruption. We 


may next consider the situation in which the great 
prophets of the 8th cent. did their work. Under 


Jeroboam II the Northern Kingdom had reached 


the zenith of its fortunes. The pressure from Syria 
was relieved through its exhaustion by Assyria, 
then for a time Assyria was itself quiescent and this 
gave Israel under Joash and Jeroboam II the oppor- 
tunity to retrieve its disasters. Thus the bounds of 
the kingdom were extended and wealth enormously 
increased. But at any time Assyria might resume its 
movement towards Egypt; and prophecy entered on 
its great period with the anticipation of Assyria’s 
election to be the instrument of J’’s judgment on 
His faithless people. Amos, the earliest of our 
canonical prophets, had apparently done his work 
when Tiglath-pileser came to the throne; but he had 
anticipated the coming of the Assyrians; and it was 
with the rise of this new dynasty that a new era 
opened in which the development of the religion was 
conditioned by its contact with the great empires, 
first of Assyria and then of Babylon. (See Israsgt, 
History or, § 5, (c) and (d.) 

But the internal conditions were equally im- 
portant. In the long and disastrous conflict with 
Syria or through calamities at home the peasant 
proprietors had largely disappeared. The rich 
acquired extensive estates by taking advantage of 
the owners’ necessities. These estates were in great 
measure worked by slaves. Those who did not be- 
come serfs would be driven to swell the indigent 
population of the towns. The poor fell into more 
and more desperate poverty. If they were forced to 
borrow they were charged a ruinous interest which 
hopelessly enslaved them in the creditor’s toils. 
When heavy tribute was imposed by a foreign 
state or taxation was required by an oppressive 
government, the greatest sufferers were the poor. 
They were enslaved for trifling debts or cheated 
with false weights and measures. The rapacity of 
the rich and powerful might take the form of high- 
handed oppression or effect the barefaced robbery 
of the defenseless under forms of law. The im- 
pecunious had no chance, the long purse could bribe 
the judges or hire false witnesses or even keep the 
case out of the courts altogether. This scandalous 
maladministration of justice is one of the constant 
themes of the great preexilic prophets. It was the 
more heartless that its victims were often the most 
defenseless classes of the community, the widow, 
the orphan, and the resident alien. It was the more 
hateful that the money wrung from the needy was 
wasted on ostentation, luxury, and vice and that the 
women were parties to the inhumanity and self- 
indulgence of the men. Moreover, while no regard 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





was paid to mercy or to justice, they were punc- 
tilious and lavish in their religious ceremonial. 


18. Amos. The date of Amos can not be fixed 
with certainty: probably it was about 760 B.c. He 
belonged to Judah but prophesied in the Northern 
Kingdom, from which he was expelled on the charge 
of treason (Am 7 10-17). He was the earliest of our 
literary prophets. Prophecy was still purely oral 
utterance, but a step of incalculable importance 
was taken when a written record was made of it. 
The object of this new departure is uncertain. Amos 
was silenced and may thus have been led to commit 
his message to writing; Isaiah seems to have resorted 
to it that he might vindicate by the event the truth 
of his predictions which were met with incredulity 
(Is 8 16 f.). Amos attacked the luxury of the lords 
and ladies of Israel, but still more the robbery and 
oppression of the poor by the rich, and the gross 
maladministration of justice. These sins were the 
more hateful that they were combined with a 
splendid worship of J’’, a worship itself stained with 
foul vices. The nations are condemned for outrage 
on our common humanity especially cruelty and 
atrocities. Israel is denounced for sins of the same 
type, perpetrated not on foreigners but on fellow- 
countrymen. The flaming indignation with which 
the prophet denounced inhumanity, oppression, and 
the perversion of justice had its root in his con- 
ception of God. He was at one with his people in 
the conviction that out of all the nations J’ had 
chosen Israel for His own (8 2). But while the 
people saw in this election a proof that Israel was 
J’’s favorite and could reckon on His help if only 
the cultus was maintained, Amos inferred from it a 
more exacting standard of conduct and more drastic 
punishment for their crimes. No sacrifices with their 
banquets and festal music could win the favor of 
their God or avert the merited judgment. He loathes 
their offerings and will not revoke theirdoom. Indeed 
the judgments from which they have already suffered 
might have taught them this; but they will have an 
unexpected climax in the deep gloom of the Day of 
Yahweh, to which they are looking forward with 
such misplaced optimism. For J” is the God of 
Nature and of history, the forces of Nature are under 
His control, the destinies of nations are molded by 
His sovereign will. And altho Israel may seek Him 
and live, the prophet anticipates no radical reform 
and looks forward to the destruction of the nation, 
of which apparently not even a remnant is to survive. 


19. Hosea. Hosea began his work before the 
downfall of the dynasty of Jehu; but his book 
reflects the period of disorder which followed, when 
one adventurer after another seized the reins of 
government, and when war and impoverishment 
made the condition of the people more and more 
wretched. It has been thought by most modern 
scholars that the specific contribution of Hosea to 
to the religion of Israel grew directly out of his 
own experience. In spite of the reaction on the part 
of several recent scholars against this view, it still 
seems the most acceptable solution of a difficult 
problem. Hosea, acting on what he later came to 
recognize as a Divine leading, married Gomer, who 
bore three children, a son, a daughter and a second 





389 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


| Israel, Religion of 





son (Hos 1 2-9). The first he named ‘Jezreel’ as a 
sign that Jehu’s ruthless slaughter of Ahab’s family 
would be visited upon his dynasty. The daughter 
he named ‘Lo-Ruhamah,’ a name which expressed 
J‘’s ruthlessness toward Israel. The third he named 
‘Lo-ammi’ (not my people) as a sign that J” re- 
pudiated Israel. Apparently at some point between 
the marriage and the birth of the third child the 
prophet became aware of his wife’s unfaithfulness. 
The name of the daughter may express this; but 
against it is the fact that relations between husband 
and wife seem to have continued. And her name may 
may be simply one expressive of judgment like the 
name of the elder son. But Lo-ammi does strongly 
suggest that Hosea meant to record in the name the 
conviction ‘No child of mine!’ Gomer seems to have 
gone from bad to worse, to have sunk more deeply 
in degradation, and, deserted by her lovers, to have 
been on the point of being sold into slavery. Then 
the prophet intervened and purchased her, took her 
home and trusted that in seclusion she would repent 
and reform (ch. 3). At first, then, Hosea was a 
prophet of judgment, like Amos, and embodied his 
conviction in the names of the children. But, 
musing on the dark experience through which he 
had passed, he saw a principle expressed in it which 
gave him the key to the character of God and His 
relations to Israel. For if the spring in his own 
action had been the unquenchable love which would 
not abandon the sinner, which refused to yield to 


despair and steadily worked for her restoration, 


then how much more must this be true of God, who 
had won Israel for His bride at the Exodus and whose 
love had been outraged by her unfaithfulness with 
the Baalim! He, too, would bring His loved one 
through painful discipline to repentance because His 
love, since it was Divine love, and thus far outshone 
the human love of the prophet, could never rest 
until it had restored the old happy relations (ch. 2). 
And thus while Amos proclaimed J’’s inflexible 
righteousness, Hosea revealed His patient and un- 
conquerable love. 


20. Isaiah. About 740 B.c, Isaiah received his 
call, and his long ministry of forty years had run 
nearly half its course when the Northern Kingdom 
fell. The vision, in which his call came to him, gave 
him explicitly or implicitly almost all those truths 
which he applied to internal conditions or foreign 
relations. The vision of J’ throned in majesty, the 
song of the seraphim acclaiming His holiness, 
shatter him to the foundations of his being and bring 
home to him with crushing intensity of new per- 
ception the familiar truths of the Divine purity and 
majesty and the uncleanness and unworthiness 
alike of himself and his people. He feels himself, as 
his guilt is revealed in its true character in the white 
light of God’s awful purity, to be worthy of death. 
The lips of the deeply penitent man, touched by the 
living coal from the altar, are cleansed and made fit 
for the worship of the sanctuary. He overhears J’”’s 
inquiry for a messenger and, discerning the challenge 
within it, offers himself for the service. He receives 
his commission, but is warned that his message will 
harden the people rather than bring them to 
repentance, and that judgment will come on the 


guilty nation. Thus he takes up his task, knowing 
that his mission will be a failure and that it will be 
his own fidelity to it which will insure its failure 
(Is ch. 6).. In his denunciation of the sins of Judah 
and his exhortations to repentance he followed 
Amos; but he anticipated that a remnant would be 
spared to be the nucleus of a new and righteous 
nation (cf. chs. 2-5). He met the crisis of the Syro- 
Ephraimitish invasion with unfaltering faith in 
God, a faith which he embodied in the sign of 
Immanuel (7 14). For this name would be given to a 
child shortly to be born as an expression of the 
mother’s faith that God would be with His people. 
Therefore he protests against the king’s project of 
purchasing the aid of Assyria, recognizing that Syria 
and Ephraim might inflict annoyance on Judah, but 
had no power for fatal mischief (chs. 7 and 8). But 


_ when the step had been taken and Judah grew restive 


under the Assyrian yoke and, lured by brilliant 
promises of help from Egypt, meditated rebellion, 
Isaiah threw all his influence against such folly 
(30 1-5, etc.). For he was assured that Assyria was 
the rod to execute J’’s anger and that no human 
power could successfully oppose it. Yet Assyria 
had failed to recognize that it was but the instrument 
in J’’s hands and had profanely boasted of its un- 
conquerable might, even against J’’ Himself; and 
when it had served His purpose, it would be broken 
and thrown aside (10 5-34, etc.). And since he was 
assured that Zion was J’’s earthly dwelling he was 
firm in the faith that it could not be destroyed; and 
in the darkest hour, when all hope seemed lost, 
triumphantly predicted the failure of Assyria (Is 
14 24 ff, 30 27 ff, 31 5-9, etc.). Had the fate then 
befallen the Southern Kingdom, which twenty years 
earlier had brought the Northern to its end, the 
consequences for Israel’s religion would have been 
momentous. For the Northern tribes, so far as they 
were taken into exile, seem to have lost their racial 
identity; and when the religion was torn up from the 
land in which it was rooted, it was apparently too 
feeble to survive the shock. The respite, which came 
to Judah in 701, gave it a longer lease of life; and 
so the ethical and spiritual monotheism of the 
prophets had time in which to develop and take root 
in the national consciousness so that the Exile to 
Babylon failed to destroy it. 


V. Tue REFORMATION OF JOSIAH AND THE MINISTRY 
OF JEREMIAH. 


21. Deuteronomy and Josiah’s Reformation. The 
reader is apt to be so impressed with the deliverance 
of Jerusalem that he may easily fail to recognize the 
extent of the disaster which had fallen upon Judah. 
A pillaged and devastated land, prisoners by the 
hundred thousand, and an almost incredible booty 
carried to Assyria,— such were the ghastly results of 
Sennacherib’s campaign. It is not wonderful there- 
fore that the prophetic religion seems to have fallen 
into disrepute and that the mighty gods of Assyria 
claimed the devotion of Manasseh and his people. 
The worship of the host of heaven and other forms 
of heathenism became rampant, and also the grue- 
some custom of infant sacrifice (II K 21 1-9). In 
these conditions the representatives of the higher 


Israel, Religion of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY © 


330 


es i —— 3 _ 


religion, unable to make an effective protest, may 
have turned their hopes toward the future and pre- 
pared the Law Book on which the Reformation of 
Josiah was based (II K 22 8 f.). It is, of course, 
possible that this code was as early as the reign of 
Hezekiah or as late as the reign of Josiah. For a 
hundred and twenty years it has been held by 
practically all critical scholars to be embedded in 
the Book of. Deuteronomy. Some recent scholars, 
and notably Hélscher, have denied this and seen in 
Deuteronomy a much later work. In its most con- 
sistent form this involves a drastic handling of the 
story of the Reformation in II K chs. 22 and 23, a very 
radical criticism of the Book of Jeremiah and, 
above all and most difficult to accept, the extreme 
view that the Book of Ezekiel, while containing 
some portions belonging to that prophet, is as a whole 
much later than his time. Since the current identifi- 
cation of Josiah’s Law Book has been the very pivot 
on which the arrangement of the Pentateuchal 
Codes has depended, the critical problem here is 
momentous for the history of the religion. It ought 
to be said, however, that Hélscher himself, while 
skeptical in his handling of the history of Ezra, yet 
recognizes the truth of the Grafian position that the 
Priestly Code is later than Deuteronomy and the 
Book of Ezekiel. 

Whether the attempts to relegate the Deuter- 


onomic Code to a later period will secure any exten- | 


sive support the future must determine. But here 
the generally accepted critical view must be pre- 
supposed. As a Code of laws the Deuteronomic 
legislation took up and expanded the Book of the 
Covenant, infusing into the older regulations a 
warmer humanitarianism. It was directed against 
heathen elements in the cultus and in this interest 
gave a monopoly to one sanctuary, the Temple at 
Jerusalem being apparently intended, altho not 
explicitly named. All other sanctuaries were re- 
garded as illegitimate. By this drastic remedy the 
heathen practises at the local sanctuaries were to be 
extirpated and the unity of J’ indelibly engraved on 
the minds of the people. For there was a danger in 
the multiplicity of sanctuaries that Yahweh would be 
differentiated into a number of local Yahwehs; and 
against this Deuteronomy affirms what has, in a very 
uncouth but expressive term, been described as 
‘mono-Yahwism’: ‘Yahweh our God, Yahweh is 
one.’ The problem of what was to be done with the 
priests of the disestablished sanctuaries was not 
overlooked by the legislator, who in! this, as in 
other respects, drew some of the more obvious 
inferences from his fundamental principle of the 
centralization of worship (cf. Dt 18 6-8). His solution, 
however, was too idealistic and did not reckon with 
the probable refusal of the priests at Jerusalem to 
admit the priests of the high places into the enjoy- 
ment of their monopoly (cf. II K 239). The problem 
was solved by Ezekiel, who restricted the priesthood 
to the clergy at Jerusalem, the sons of Zadok, and 
deprived the other priests of priestly rights as a 
penalty for their ministry at the high places, while 
committing to them the menial duties of the sanc- 
tuary. The Priestly Code adopts this in principle, 
but extends the priesthood to all the descendants 


predecessors. 


of Aaron and carries back the distinction between 
priests and Levites to the time of Moses, treating the 
position of the Levites not as a penal degradation 
from the priesthood but as an elevation from the 
ranks of the laity. But while Deuteronomy was the 
outcome of the labors of priests and lawyers, it was 
also an outgrowth of the prophetic movement. It 
inculcated a purified religion, an elevated theology, 
a just and humanitarian ethic. The centralization of 
the worship reduced the area of corrupt worship 
and facilitated effective supervision of the legitimate 
cultus. Faithful obedience to the requirements of the 
Law would have raised immeasurably the standard 
of purity in the service of God, and justice and 
humanity in men’s relations with their fellows. But 
the acceptance of a written law carried with it the 
germs of the later legalism and casuistry, and tended 
to check the spontaneity and unconsciousness both 
of religion and of morality. It might induce a feeling 
of self-satisfaction and so minister to spiritual 
pride. It is probable that Jeremiah welcomed, and 
even advocated, the Reformation; but if so he seems 
to have become dissatisfied with its effects. It had 
not been sufficiently penetrating, the hurt of the 
people had been too lightly healed. 


22. Jeremiah. Jeremiah’s own contribution to 
the religion was still more important. This was not 
so much in the enunciation of new doctrines, but in 
the deepening of the doctrines already uttered by his 
The fineness and penetration of his 
psychological analysis went beyond anything which 
had been attained before. He is far from indifferent 
to right conduct, to righteous administration in the 
government and the law courts, to integrity in 
international relationships. As sternly as his pre- 
decessors and even at grave risk of his life, he 
announces the Divine judgment on the sins of the 
people. He opposes their infatuated policy of 
rebellion and obstinate resistance to Babylon. But 
with all this practical interest and activity, his 
primary significance lies elsewhere. He put a 
new emphasis on the inner life. The heart, with all 
its windings and its mystery, is prominent in his 
thought. He knew sin and righteousness, as others 
had not known them, through his prolonged and 
faithful study of his own heart. And so it was natural 
that he should become the prophet of the New 
Covenant. It was in large measure due to the 
nature of his own experience that his religious genius 
found this, its loftiest expression. Deprived of a 
home of his own, excluded from the joys and 
sorrows of his fellows, the loneliness of spirit to 
which the rarity of his nature doomed him was an 
isolation more tragic still. His message was received - 
with scorn and incredulity or with hatred, persecu- 
tion and peril of imminent death. And since he 
has no refuge in man he flies for refuge to God. But 
when from broken cisterns he turns to the fountain 
of living waters, they seem to fail him and he won- 
ders if God Himself will prove a lying brook and 
waters that fail (Jer 15 18). He is dismayed at the 
burden imposed upon him, and instead of the healing 
pity he expects from God he is sharply rebuked and 
braced by the warning of still sterner conflicts. ‘If 
thou hast run with the footmen and they have 





391 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Israel, Religion of 





wearied thee; then how wilt thou vie with horses? 
and if in a land of peace thou fleest, then how wilt 
thou do in the jungle of Jordan?’ (Jer 12 5). Yet 
in his weakness and failure, his sense of discourage- 
ment, his sensitive shrinking from pain, his mourning 
over the wilfulness and waywardness of his people, 
his immeasureable sorrow at their suffering, even 
when God shows him scant sympathy there is no one 
but God to whom he can turn. And in this intimacy 
of fellowship with God he makes a new discovery: 
here in personal fellowship with a personal God he 
finds the deepest experience which religion can offer. 
And so in this he discovers the inmost reality of relig- 
ion. Thus he comes to formulate his great doctrine of 
the New Covenant which is indeed made with the 
nation but in which religion becomes an individual 
experience (Jer 31 31 ff.). For the law is written on 
the heart, it is no longer a code imposed from the 
outside, it has become one with the personality. 
Thus God is revealed to all and His will is woven 
into the inmost texture of man’s being. So Jeremiah 
becomes the prophet of individualism in religion. 


VI. Tar Extte. Ezexieu AND THE SECOND ISAIAH. 


23. The Exile and Its Influence on the Religion. 
The blow Jeremiah had awaited so long fell at last. 
But the final catastrophe had been foreshadowed in 
the captivity of Jehoiachin and the flower of the 
nation in 597 (II K 24 10-16). Since they were en- 
couraged by the optimistic prophets to anticipate 
speedy restoration (Jer 29 8 f., 24-32) and, in spite of 
the warnings of Jeremiah and later of Ezekiel, did 
not contemplate the destruction of Jerusalem and 
the Temple and the downfall of the Jewish State, 
they looked on their life in Babylon as purely 
temporary and provisional. They had not accord- 
ingly to face the problem of practising their religion 
with its old supports completely cut from beneath 
their feet. They were habituated, in the decade 
which preceded the destruction of Jerusalem, to the 
practise of their religion in such forms as were 
possible in an unclean land. Hence, when the final 
catastrophe came, they were much better prepared 
to meet it than if in its full magnitude it had burst 
upon them all at once. The perfidy of the weak 
Zedekiah in breaking his oath of allegiance to 
Nebuchadrezzar (Ezk 17 13-21) was expiated by the 
capture of Jerusalem after an obstinate resistance, 
the execution of a large number of its dignitaries, 
the blinding of the king after he had seen his sons 
slain, the burning of the city and the Temple, the 
captivity of a large proportion of the people. A 
remnant including Jeremiah was left in the land 
under Gedaliah. But the Governor was murdered 
by treachery; and the remnant, fearing that they 
might be held responsible, fled to Egypt, in spite of 
Jeremiah’s remonstrance, forcing the prophet to go 
with them. Here they relapsed into idolatry, 
alleging that nothing but calamity had followed their 
abandonment of the cult of the Queen of Heaven 
(Jer chs. 39-44). 

No doubt many of the exiles in Babylon argued 
in the same way and presumably they were quickly 
lost to their ancestral religion. The gods of Babylon 
had triumphed over J’. But others recgonized that 


the great prophets had been vindicated and that 
Judah had received at J’”’s hands the due reward of 
her deeds. Thus the exile sifted the people, and a 
more spiritual remnant emerged, with the promise 
of the future. Their racial and religious conscious- 
ness was intensified, to safeguard them from ab- 
sorption by their heathen environment. Detached 
from local limitations and a material structure, 
religion was set free to take on a more spiritual 
character. It was forced to devise for itself more 
spiritual forms of expression. If no place could be 
sacred in an unclean land, sacred seasons could be 
observed; and if no sacrifice could be offered on the 
altar, prayer and sacred song and the reading of 
the sacred books could take its place. They saved 
what they could from the wreck. The records of the 
past were diligently collected and the utterances of 
the prophets; their laws were brought together and 
reshaped to meet new conditions. The removal from 
Palestine broke off the connection with the local 
sanctuaries and thus made the Deuteronomic in- 
stitution of a monopolist sanctuary easy to attain 
when they returned to Palestine. And banishment 
from their land, whether in Babylonia or in the larger 
Dispersion, tended to an idealization of Zion which 
has ever since been characteristic of the Jews. 


24. Ezekiel. Two great teachers labored among 
the exiles, Ezekiel and the Second Isaiah. Ezekiel, 
like Jeremiah, was a priest, but presumably of the 
line of Zadok, and attached, before he left Jerusalem 
in 597, to the Temple. He received his call to Baby- 
lonia five years later, in a vision of God which 
crushed him with the sense of the sovereignty and 
glory of J” (Ezk ch. 1). His theology was dominated 
by this experience. It was largely a vindication of 
God’s ways with His people. Israel’s whole history 
from Egypt onward had been one of unrelieved 
ingratitude and apostasy. J’’ had again and again 
been provoked to anger and minded to make Israel 
a signal example of His wrath. But controlled in all 
His action by a sensitive tenderness for His own 
reputation, He had forborne to smite, that He 
might not be discredited by the heathen as too weak 
to save His own people. But now the fair fame of 
J”’ is suffering from Israel’s accumulated sin; so He 
has resolved to execute the judgment He had so long 
delayed. But the destruction of the State can not 
be the end of His relations with Israel. It com- 
promised Him in the sight of the heathen, hence He 
must restore Israel, not for Israel’s own sake but 
because He had pity for His own holy name. The 
Temple would be restored and there J’ would dwell 
in the midst of a reunited people, the schism be- 
tween North and South having been healed. Then, 
to avenge the insults offered Him by the heathen 
and to fulfil ancient prophecy, He would lure Gog 
with his vast hordes from the land of Magog to fall 
on defenseless Israel, and He would destroy the 
invaders, Israel needing to strike no blow. Thus 
He would win renown among the nations and 
finally demonstrate that not His weakness but 
Judah’s sin had been responsible for the Exile (Ezk 
chs. 38 f.). Ezekiel’s care for J’”s honor was also the 
root of his individualism. It was an answer to the 
challenge of his contemporaries that the ways of 


Israel, Religion of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


392 


a ES : iii 


J’ were unfair and that they were themselves 
suffering for the sins of their fathers. The prophet 
denies that punishment can be transferred. ‘The 
soul that sinneth it (and no other) shall die.’ Each 
individual bears his own responsibility. The 
ancient idea of solidarity is abandoned. Indeed 
the total weight of responsibility is made to rest on 
the individual’s state at the critical hour when the 
long-promised judgment comes. Long years of 
righteousness will not save the man who in that 
critical hour is found in a state of sin: nor will a 
long career of iniquity be counted against a man 
who repents before the judgment breaks upon the 
world. The prophet’s duty is thus extended from 
the State to the individual; he must warn the 
righteous to maintain his righteousness and the 
wicked that he should turn and live (Ezk 18, 33 
1-20). It will be seen that the individualism of 
Ezekiel differed from that of Jeremiah. For the older 
prophet the stress lay on personal religion and the 
conviction was rooted in experience; for the younger 
it lay on personal responsibility and was an element 
in his theodicy. Yet Ezekiel also speaks of the 
Divine cleansing from impurity and idolatry, and of 
the new heart and the new spirit (36 25-27). 

It would be difficult to overestimate the influence 
which Ezekiel exerted on the later development. 
He has not inaptly been called ‘the father of 
Judaism.’ The legislation for the returned exiles 
stands between Deuteronomy and the Priestly Code 
and to some extent mediates the transition from one 
to the other. His momentous distinction between 
priests and Levites and the degradation of the latter 
from the priesthood has been already mentioned. 
The ceremonialism and legalism, so characteristic of 
the later Judaism, were also largely derived from 
him. It is the more striking since this was the side 
of religion with which his great predecessors had 
shown the least sympathy. And that he should 
have been the junior contemporary of the great 
prophet of the New Covenant, who had found the 
essence of religion in the communion of the indi- 
vidual with God, makes his position more remark- 
able still. He is the most significant factor in what 
must from the highest standpoint seem the descent 
from the climax which prophecy reached in Jere- 
miah to the legalism which dominated the religion 
after the Return. Yet in no other way, it may be 
urged, could a community have been created which 
would have stood so firm under the assault of 
Antiochus Epiphanes or resisted dissolution under 
the subtle influence of Hellenism. 


25. The Second Isaiah. The work of the Second 
Isaiah is probably limited to Is chs. 40-55. The 
prophet points to the rise of Cyrus as the vindica- 
tion of earlier predictions; and from the fact that 
J’’ through His prophets can predict the future he 
draws the inference that J’’ controls history. He is 
also the omnipotent Creator, the one and only God. 
Therefore His people must not be dismayed by the 
apparent triumph of Babylon and her idols, for 
already the decree of their destruction is approaching 
fulfilment. The prophet lays much stress on the 
gracious aspects of J’’s nature—His gentleness, His 
tenderness to the weak, His inexhaustible affection 


for His people. We might indeed say His favoritism, 
for other nations are sacrificed for the sake of Israel 
and are destined to be its bond-servants. Yet there 
is a brighter side to this picture presented in the 
Servant poems (Is 42 1-4, 49 1-6, 50 4-9, 52 13-58 12). 
These poems are still the subject of keen debate. 
Several scholars believe that they are not the work 
of the Second Isaiah. Still more important is the 
question of the interpretation. Undeniably the 
Second Isaiah himself means Israel when he speaks 
of the Servant of Yahweh. It is also the significance 
attached to the figure in the present text of the 
servant passages: ‘ I said, Thou art my servant; 
Israel in whom I will be glorified’ (49 3). Those who 
accept the national interpretation are divided, some 
believing that the actual Israel is intended; others 
that the author means the ideal Israel; while others 
insist that the Servant must be an individual, and 


several identifications have been proposed. The 


view here taken is that the Servant is Israel in the 
strict sense of the term, the Israel who had died in 
the Exile and is to be raised to life by restoration to 
its own land. The function of the Servant is to be 
the revealer of the true God to the world and the 
vicarious sufferer for the sins of the Gentile nations. 
This is the solution given by the author for the 
tormenting problem of the suffering of the righteous. 


VII. Tue TriumpH or LEGALISM. 


26. The Priestly Code and the Birth of Judaism. 
There has been much dispute as to the Return of 
the Jews from the Exile. It is not improbable that 
the figures have been exaggerated; but it still seems 
to be the most acceptable view that a number of 
Jews availed themselves of the permission of Cyrus 
to return in 5386. The disenchanting realities chilled 
their enthusiasm; and it was not merely the hostility 
of the people of the land which delayed the re- 
building of the Temple. Their energies were roused 
by Haggai and Zechariah and the Temple was at 
last completed. These prophets anticipated the 
speedy downfall of the heathen empire and the 
inauguration of the Messianic age with Zerubbabel 
as Messianic king. The next sixty years are almost 
a blank to us. But according to the current 
chronology, Ezra came from Babylon in 458 and 
ruthlessly dissolved the marriages which Jews had 
contracted with foreigners. In 444 the Law, whether 
the Pentateuch or the Priestly Code is disputed, was 
read and accepted by the people, the reform being 
strongly supported by Nehemiah. Much skepticism 
has been expressed about these narratives which 
are nevertheless probably substantially correct. In 
any case, at some point in this period the Pentateuch 
was completed and became the controlling element 
in Jewish life. And in the Pentateuch the Priestly 
Code was the dominating factor. According to the 
generally accepted view of modern critics, this Code 
represents the final stage in the legal development. 
It included much that was ancient, not a little in- 
deed which could never have originated in a highly 
developed spiritual religion but which the con- 
servatism of the religious instinct had preserved from 
a far earlier time. For some features savage religion 
supplies the best explanation. Yet there are late 


393 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Israel, Religion of 





developments in it, by which its approximate date 
may be determined. The introduction of the Law 
and its acceptance by the people marked the birth 
of Judaism. The Jews were now governed by an 
elaborate code; but by the activity of the scribes a 
far more complicated system of laws was gradually 
built up. The dominance of the Law strangled 
prophecy of the classical type; apocalyptic more and 
more took its place. But it is only right to recognize 
how passionate an enthusiasm the Law was able to 
evoke and how many martyrs faced torture and death 
rather than be disloyal to it. 


VIII. Tue ProBLeM or SurFrERIna. 


27. The Problem of Suffering. In a sketch of 
this compass it is not necessary to linger over the 
later prophecies, altho at certain points they will 
engage our attention. But there is one problem 
that was forced on the Jews by the sufferings which 
they were compelled to endure. This was the prob- 
lem why the wicked were rich and triumphant while 
the godly were doomed to privation and suffering. 
It was suggested by Jeremiah (121), and in the view 
of many discussed by one of his contemporaries, Ha- 
bakkuk. But the Book of Habakkuk presents an 
extremely difficult critical problem and no conclu- 
sions can be affirmed with any confidence. The 
prophet takes comfort in the assurance that tyr- 
anny has within it the seed of its own ruin and 
that pride is a sure passport to destruction; but 
on the other hand righteous Israel shall live by 
its fidelity to God. 

Ezekiel, we have already seen, denied the existence 
of the problem; Divine justice meted out exact 
retribution. The Servant poems express the pro- 
found idea that suffering may be vicarious, the 
suffering of Israel is suffering which the idolatrous 
Gentiles have deserved. The miseries of the returned 
exiles, the antagonism of foes at home and the 
pressure of the foreign yoke, accentuated the prob- 
lem. Haggai and Zechariah explained their ca- 
Jamities by their failure to put God before their 
own interests. If the Temple is rebuilt, then J” will 
be gracious. After it had been rebuilt, they promised 
that the Messianic age would supervene on the 
overthrow of the heathen world. In the scene 
between J” and the Satan in Zechariah (ch. 3) the 
suffering of Israel is traced to its sin; but its present 
misery does not prove that J” is still angry. He 
rebukes the Satan, who infers its guilt from its 
miseries, and replies that He has plucked Jeru- 
salem as a brand from the burning. But conditions 
were not alleviated; and in the next century 
Malachi reports the complaint that the service of 
God brings no profit but the wicked are happy and 
prosperous. The author rebukes such impiety, but 
has no positive solution to offer. He looks forward 
like his predecessors, to the Day of Yahweh when the 
godly and the evil-doers will alike receive their 
deserts. The doubts so widely entertained were in 
truth almost inevitable when religion was con- 
ceived in so national and legalistic a way. 

28. The Book of Job. It is in the Book of Job 
that the problem received the greatest prominence. 
The book opens with J’”’s challenge to the Satan to 


find any flaw in Job. The Satan admits the fact, 
but denies the disinterested character of Job’s 
piety. He is permitted accordingly to strip him of 
all his possessions and his children. Then, when 
he asserts, unabashed by his failure, that the trial 
has not touched the sufferer to the quick, J’’ permits 
him to rack his victim with intolerable disease. 
Job still maintains his integrity and the Satan’s 
cynicism is finally refuted. But now the problem 
emerges, Why has such overwhelming calamity 
selected Job for its object? The friends who come 
to condole with him are compelled by their theology 
to infer grave sin on his part. And the attitude of 
the sufferer when he curses the day of his birth, and 
still more when he arraigns the righteousness of 
Heaven and rates the friends for their sycophancy to 
the Almighty, deepens their sense of his guilt. For 
them Job’s suffering was not really a problem; its 
explanation was only too clear. But for Job himself 
it was an excruciating problem. He was assured 
that he had committed no sin which could warrant 
losses so colossal, bereavement so bitter, torture so 
agonizing. And it was not only the calamity in 
itself but what it implied. For it could only mean in 
the eyes of his fellows that God had stigmatized him 
as a sinner beyond the common measure of trans- 
gressors. This then creates the real interest of the 
book. For its interest does not lie primarily in the 
problem of suffering and its solution; it lies in the 
reaction of Job to his sufferings, especially in his 
relation to God. For, unaware of the suspicion cast 
on his integrity by the Satan, he traced his suffer- 
ings to God; and since he was convinced they they 
were unjust, he felt that they contradicted the 
righteousness of God. But his primary concern was 
not with the problem of suffering, or with the 
righteous government of the world. It was in the 
first instance an individual question. But in debate 
he supports the particular by the general; and the 
injustice he finds in God’s treatment of himself is 
abundantly illustrated in the prosperity of the 
wicked and the miseries of the just. On the other 
hand, his memory of God’s earlier goodness comes 
back to him; and altho, at the height of his bitter- 
ness, he sees in it the sinister design of God to lull him 
into confidence and make his calamity more extreme 
by contrast with his bliss, yet the other mood, in 
which he believes in God’s earlier friendliness, is that 
in which he rests. But this does not obliterate his 
sense of God’s present hostility, which, he is assured, 
will not cease on this side of death. Hence Job must 
die, not in physical pain alone but in moral ig- 
nominy, branded by such exemplary sufferings as one 
who had sinned far beyond the common measure. 
It is this prospect which torments him, even more 
than his disease. But if even his friends refuse to 
acquit him, his contemporaries will certainly not 
right him, nor yet posterity, altho for a moment he 
dreams of this possibility. And so from earth he 
turns to Heaven, from God who is now his enemy to 
God who was once his friend and will be his friend 
again. Even now his witness is in Heaven, and after 
Job has died in dishonor, his Vindicator will stand 
upon his grave and from the apathy of Sheol Job 
will be wakened to see Him and hear Him pronounce 


Israel, Religion of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


394 





his justification. Yet strangely he still criticizes the 
Divine government of the universe, and at the close 
of the human debate God brings home to him by 
merciless questioning his incompetence for criticizing 
what he does not understand. Butitisnot here that 
the significance of the Divine intervention chiefly 
lies. It is rather in the mystical sense of God which 
Job wins through the vision of God that leads him 
to penitent self-abasement. He needs no explanation 
of his suffering since he has been lifted above the 
problem into a mystical certainty of God. This is the 
chief contribution the book makes to religion, it 
shows how a mystical solution may be reached, 
when a speculative solution is unattainable. 

But while the book gives no positive answer to 
the problem, it contributes helpful suggestions. It 
rebukes the dishonest sophistry which in the interests 
of orthodoxy refuses to face the hard facts of life. It 
negatives the axiom of the current theology that an 
inference may be drawn from suffering as an effect 
to sin as its cause. It shows that suffering may test 
the reality or improve the quality of a man’s piety, 
and should be accepted as discipline rather than 
resented as unjust. Man is reminded of the vastness 
of the universe and of its many mysteries, that he 
may learn his incompetence to criticize its govern- 
ment. He learns also that the human race is not the 
sole object of God’s concern and still less is any 
single individual. It must be remembered that when 
the book was written the higher doctrine of the 
future life had not been developed. Job suggests the 
possibility of a return to earth to resume the old 
happy fellowship with God but sets it aside. There 
is no return of the shade from Sheol or of the body 
from the tomb. 


29. Psalms 49 and 73. It is, however, to the state 
after death that the author of Psalm 49 appeals. 
The fate of the wicked is to be driven down to Sheol, 
leaving their wealth behind them, while the Psalmist 
trusts that God will deliver him from Sheol and 
take him to live with Himself. The author of the 
seventy-third Psalm was perplexed by the contrast 
between the prosperity of the wicked and his own 
sufferings. But he penetrated into God’s secrets 
and there was disclosed to him the lurid fate of the 
wicked after death. He, on the contrary, enjoys 
perfect fellowship with God who guides him through 
life by His counsel and will then receive him into 
His glory. In God he possesses his only good in 
heaven or earth, in a fellowship so deep that death 
itself can not break it, but which will continue 
for ever. 


30. Ecclesiastes. ‘The problem is viewed from 
another point in the Book of Ecclesiastes. The 
writer is oppressed by the aimlessness of life which 
consists of a cycle of recurring experiences, round 
which humanity has to march with no possibility of 
escape, with no hope of anything new. Progress 
thus becomes impossible. The order of the universe, 
which is luminous to the Creator, is an insoluble 
puzzle to man; hence he can not adjust himself to 
it, or fit his deed to the appropriate season. The 
author’s own experience had been disenchanting: 
exhaustive experiments to find satisfaction had ended 
in disillusion. He was deeply touched by the misery 


of his fellows as they groaned under the oppression 
of tyrants; and he counted it an evil in God’s 
government that the righteous might perish pre- 
maturely while the wicked grew old in evil-doing. 
Resignation was best and the fulfilment of the daily 
task, and such alleviation of the radical evil of 
existence as may be given by the simple pleasures 
of life. Of these man should make the most, 
especially in his youth; for, as his physical powers 
wither, his capacity for enjoyment will be gone, and 
in the gloomy underworld the days of darkness will 
be many. They will be many and without hope, 
for men are beasts and from the dreary tedium of 
Sheol and its inactivity there is no escape. 

31. Apocalyptic in the Old Testament. The 
pessimism of Ecclesiastes stands by itself in the 
Old Testament. The sense of human, or at least of 
national, misery was acutely felt by the apoca- 


lyptists; but it drove them for refuge to the certainty © 


of Divine intervention. Not by development but 
by sudden catastrophe, not by the evolution of 
politics, but by the direct and sudden action of 
God, deliverance was to be attained. On the basis 
of earlier prophecies, perhaps in conformity with a 
traditional scheme, they mapped out the course of 
future history, studied the times and seasons, and 
calculated the date of the crisis. A rudimentary 
apocalyptic is to be found in Ezekiel and Zechariah, 
in Joel and Is 24-27. But for an apocalypse in the 
full sense of the term we have to go to the Book of 
Daniel. This book may incorporate earlier material; 
but in its present form it is a product of the per- 
secution of Antiochus Epiphanes. As in Is 24 21, 
and probably Psalms 58 (ver. 1 cf. RVmg.) and 
82, behind the human empires stand the angelic 
princes of the nations. To their misgovernment 
or hostility to Israel the present miseries are 
largely due. And between the rival angels the 
battle is fought in heaven before the victory 
is won on earth. Antiochus is moving to his des- 
tined end; and altho the saints pass through a 
great tribulation deliverance is at hand. The 
Ancient of Days will come to judge, the bestial 
powers of evil will be overthrown and the kingdom 
will be delivered to the saints. A resurrection of the 
righteous and the annihilation of death had been 
predicted in Is 25 8, 26 19, and the anticipation is 
taken up in Dn 12 2. But here, while some are raised 
to everlasting life, others are brought back to earth 
to endure reproaches and everlasting abhorrence 
The author is probably thinking specially of the 
martyrs and the apostates in the Maccabean period. 


IX. PSALMISTS AND SAGES. 


32. The Psalter. It is not possible in the limits of 
this article to speak in any detail of one of the most 
notable portions of the Old Testament, the Book of 
Psalms. That it contains preexilic elements is 
probable; but it is in the main a monument of post- 
exilic piety. Its limitations ought to be frankly 
recognized, in particular the vindictive bitterness, 
with which the writers speak of their enemies, and 
that not merely in the imprecatory Psalms. More- 
over the Psalmists are not simply pioneers in 
religious thought. They have behind them for the 


| 
q 
| 
. 





395 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Israel, Religion of 





most part the great prophets whose original utter- 
ances they have coined into the language of devo- 
tion. And in a large measure they have behind them 
the Law, in whole or in part. They were not without 
their own originality, but it was in the region of 
experimental religion. And so Jews and Christians 
have turned to the Psalter and discovered a classical 
expression of their deepest religious feelings. Altho 
we find in the book an enthusiasm for the Law and a 
passionate attachment to the Temple, the Psalmists 
do not conceive religion as consisting mainly in 
external ritual. The deeply spiritual quality of 
Jewish piety at its best comes to frequent expression 
in it. And since, unlike the prophets, the Psalmists 
were concerned less with the circumstances of their 
own time and more with universal principles and 
experiences, their language has an immediate appeal 
and intelligibility to all ages. To present a complete 
account of its theology would be largely to describe 
the religion of Judaism. 


33. The Book of Proverbs. On the Book of Pro- 
verbs it is not necessary to linger. As the Psalms 
express the religion and theology of the prophets in 
the language of devotion, the Proverbs express in 
pithy aphorisms the current ethical principles. No 
doubt the criticism would not be unjustified that 
the precepts are the offspring of shrewd and self- 
regarding common sense, untouched by altruism or 
idealism. But the nobler and more generous attitude 
is also represented; and the testimony of the book is 
unflinching against the evils, moral or economic, 
which destroy the unity or corrupt the purity of 
social life. The conception of the Divine wisdom, as 
presented especially in Pr 8 22-31, was of great im- 
portance in pointing the way to the later recognition 
of distinctions within the Godhead, which found 
expression in the doctrine of the Logos and the 
Christian doctrine of the Trinity. 


X. SuMMARY SKETCH OF THE HISTORY OF THE 
RELIGION. 


34. Summary. It remains to summarize the 
development of Hebrew religion in the Old Testa- 
ment period and indicate the results achieved by 
the time when the Old Testament was virtually com- 
plete. It originated in the selection of a tiny people 
of crude religion and morality, led by a man of 
outstanding religious genius, administrative capacity 
and tremendous force of personality, who inspired 
them with the conviction that they were the chosen 
people of J’’ who demanded their sole allegiance. 
He was conceived of as a deity of the wilderness, 
manifested in hurricane, in thunder and lightning, 
and in earthquake, congenial expressions of His own 
stormy temper and that awful Holiness which 
reacted with swift vengeance against any violation 
of it, however involuntary. He was implacable to 
His foes, dooming them often to utter extermination. 
Yet He was gracious to His obedient people and 
demanded from them a morality which surpassed 
the ethical code of their neighbors. 

The transition from the wilderness to settled life 
and agriculture profoundly transformed the religion 
since it involved the intrusion of Canaanite 
paganism into Hebrew religion, and the assimilation 


of J’’ to the Canaanite Baalim. But the view that 
loyalty to J’ involved the rejection of civilization 
did not finally triumph; the great prophets re- 
puditated the foul accretions of paganism, while 
recognizing in J” the giver of bountiful harvests. 
Meanwhile the broken unity of the nation was slowly 
reknit, especially under pressure from the Philis- 
tines; the monarchy was established, David created 
an empire to which later ages looked back with pride, 
and a dynasty from which the Messianic King was 
expected to spring. The disruption of the kingdom 
shattered imperialist prospects, but left the religion 
free to develop. Ahab’s marriage with Jezebel and 
the introduction of the worship of the Tyrian Baal 
threatened the monopoly of Yahweh in the allegiance 
of His people; but this was secured by the religious 


triumph of Elijah and the political triumph of Jehu. 


The expansion of Israel under Jeroboam II and the 
menace of Assyria’s advance created the political 
conditions which brought the great prophets into the 
field. They advance from the earlier monolatry to 
a real monotheism; they see in J” the Lord of 
Nature and the controller of history, who uses the 
heathen nations, just as He uses Israel, to effect. His 
righteous purpose. And they insist with tremendous 
emphasis on the righteousness of God. Amos pro- 
claims His inexorable justice, altho it demands the 
annihilation of Israel; Hosea His inexhaustible love, 
which will secure Israel’s repentance and restora- 
tion; Isaiah His holiness and majesty, which will 
abase the proud and root out the sinful; leaving a 
righteous remnant, that from it a new nation may 
spring over which the Messiah will rule. But it 
must not be forgotten that the spiritual and ethical 
religion of the prophets found far too scanty under- 
standing among the people and their accepted 
religious leaders. The formal priestly system went 
on with unabated vigor. 

With the destruction of the Northern Kingdom, 
the future of the religion was committed to Judah. 
The preeminence of the Temple gave an opportunity 
for the centralization of the worship, which was 
effected by Josiah on the basis of the Deuteronomic 
Law Book. But matters had gone too far for such 
palliatives and Jeremiah realized that the destruc- 
tion of the State and the Temple was inevitable. 
Taught by his own experience he came to realize 
that in personal fellowship with a personal God the 
true secret of religion was to be found, and thus 
replaced the State by the individual as the unit of 
religion. The Exile defined the alternatives—either 
J” could not or would not save His people and they 
were thus absolved from their allegiance to Him, or 
Yahweh is the holy, omnipotent God who is chasten- 
ing us for our sins. Ezekiel drives home the moral; 
the Exile is richly deserved punishment but J” will 
restore and renew His people, and get Himself 
glory by destroying the heathen. The prophet is an 
extreme individualist who puts the stress on personal 
responsibility; but he realizes the importance of the 
communal element in religion and makes elaborate 
provision for the cultus. The Second Isaiah meets 
the dismay of the exiles at the arrogant triumph of 
Babylon over J’”’s people and its despondency at 
J’’s neglect, by the assurance of His incomparable 


Israel, Religion of 
Israel, Social Development 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


396 





might and inscrutable wisdom, His tender love for 
Israel and its restoration through Cyrus the con- 
‘queror of Babylon. Israel is the Servant of Yahweh 
declaring the true God to the heathen and suffering 
vicariously for their sin. 

The returned exiles were monotheists who had 
left idolatry behind them. The cultus was centralized 
at the Temple; confessedly heathen practises had 
been abandoned, altho much in the ritual had its 
roots in crude paganism. Sacred seasons, especially 
the Sabbath, were strictly observed, and after the 
Law had become complete, legalism gained more 
and more power. The scribe and the synagog were 
everywhere, the priest could offer sacrifice only in 
Jerusalem. Casuistry became more intricate, proph- 
ecy waned and passed over into apocalyptic. The 
Jews became more and more conscious of themselves 
as a chosen people, separate from the heathen and 
loathing their abominations. Wild outbursts of 
hate for the oppressor, savage desire for revenge, 
are to be found in the Psalms, in some of the 
prophets, and in the Book of Esther. On the other 
hand, we have the missionary enthusiasm of the 
Second Isaiah and still more of the Book of Jonah, 
the care for the stranger and the command to love 
him which we find in the Law, and the humanistic 
temper of the Book of Job. Of incalculable im- 
portance was the conception of a Canon of sacred 
books containing a history of the chosen people, 
laws for its government, prophecies of the future, a 
literature of devotion, a discussion of perplexing 
problems. Naturally the Canon was not finally 
fixed till some time after the latest book of the O T 
was written; but even before the Maccabean period 
the Law and the Prophets were recognized as 


LITERATURE: The best and most comprehensive statement 
for the English reader is probably E. Kautzsch’s article 
“Religion of Israel” in the Extra Volume of HDB. The Ger- 
man original of this was published after his death by his 
son K. Kautzsch under the title Biblische Theologie des 
alten Testaments (1911). Other works are H. P. Smith, 
The Religion of Israel (1914); J. P. Peters, The Religion of 
the Hebrews (1914). Of the earlier works which are still 
of value, mention may be made of Kuenen’s Religion of 
Tarael (1874-75); his Hibbert Lectures, National and 
Universal Religions (1882); C. G. Montefiore’s Hibbert 
Lectures, Origin and Growth of Religion (1892). 

Smaller works are R. L. Ottley, The Religion of Israel (1905); 
K. Marti, The Religion of the Old Testament (1907); A. 8. 
Peake, The Religion of Israel (1907); G. A. Barton, The 
Religion of Israel (1918); H. T. Fowler, The Origin and Growth 
of the Hebrew Religion (1916); Loisy, The Religion of Israel 
(1910). There are several comprehensive German works: 
R. Smend, Alttestameniliche Religionsgeschichte (2d ed., 
1899); B. Stade, Biblische Theologie des Alten Testaments 
(1905), second volume by Bertholet (1911); K. Marti, 
Geschichte der israelitischen Religion (3d ed., 1907); Konig, 


Geschichte des Reiches Gottes bis auf Jesus Christus (1908), 


Geschichte der Alittestamentlichen Religion (2d ed., 1915); 
R. Kittel, Die Religion des Volkes Israel (61922); G. Holscher, 
Geschichte der israelitischen und jtidischen Religion (1922). 
Of works dealing with a section of the subject, the following 
may be mentioned: K. Budde, Religion of Israel to the Exile 
(1899) (3d ed. of the German, Die Altisraelitische Religion, 
1912); T. K. Cheyne, Jewish Religious Life after the Ezile 
(1898); Addis, Hebrew Religion to the Establishment of 
Judaism under Ezra (1906); W. Robertson Smith, The 
Prophets of Israel (2d ed., 1902); W. H. Bennett, The Religion 
of the Post-Exilic Prophets (1907); Buttenwieser, The 
Prophets of Israel (1914); T. H. Robinson, Prophecy and the 
Propheis in Ancient Israel (1923); Welch, Religion of Israel 
Under the Kingdom (1912). 

Works on O T Theology frequently include a history of 
the religion, altho strictly they are specially concerned with 
the exposition of individual doctrines, or the theology as a 
whole. We may mention H. Schultz, Old Testament Theology 
(1892); E. Riehm, Alittestamentliche Theologie (1889); A. 
Dillmann, Handbuch der Alitestamentliche Theologie (1895); 
A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the Old Testament (1904); 


canonical, and large sections of the other books. 


(1913). 


H. W. Robinson, The Religious Ideas of the art om 


ISRAEL, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF. 


I. INTRODUCTORY 


i. 
ee 


Scope of the Study 
History of the Discipline 


OUTLINE 


Ill. Tue Hesrew Nomanvic Prriop 


15. 
. Origin of Israel 

. Nomadic Life of Early Israel 
. The Religion of J” 


3. Method of Study 17 
18 
Il. Tse Semitic Preriop 19 


Sources for the Period 


. The Land of Canaan 


V. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PERIOD 


. Sources for the Period 

. Founding of the Monarchy 
. Break-up of Tribal System 
. Break-up of Communistic 


System 


4. The Semites 33. The Class of the Rich 
5. Arabia, the Home of the IV. THe AGRICULTURAL PERIOD 34. The Class of the Poor 
Semites 20. Sources for the Agricultural VI. Communistic SoLUTIONS OF PROBLEM 
6. Primitive Semitic Occupa- Period 35. The Kenites 
tions 21. The Conquest of Canaan 36. The Rechabites 
7. Food in Arabia 22. Adoption of Agriculture 37. The Nazirites 
8. Care of the Body 23. Food in the Agricultural 38. The Earliest Prophets 
9. Dress Period VII. Non-Commounistic So.LurTions 
10. Dwellings 24. Dress in the Agricultural 39. The Priests 
11. Family Organization Period 40. The Wise Men 
12. Political Organization 25. Houses 41. The Prophets 
13. Economic Organization 26. Family Organization VIII. Tur Postexiric Preriop 
14. Religion 27. Economie Organization 42. Loss of National Life 
28. Religion of Agricultural 43. Decline of Ethical Religion 
Period 44. John the Baptist and Jesus 


I. InrRopUCTORY. 

1. Scope of the Study. The aim of this article 
is to exhibit in outline the social institutions, 
manners, and customs of ancient Israel. This 
study was formerly known as Biblical Archeology, 
and this usage is still retained by the recent German 
works of Benzinger and Nowack; but the name is 
unfortunate, since the facts that are investigated 


are not archeological but literary. The modern 

name Biblical Sociology is also misleading, since it 

me that a system of sociology is taught in the 
ible. ’ 

2. History of the Discipline. The story of Israel’s 
social life was given no attention either in ancient 
or in medieval times. 

With the closing years of the 16th cent., however, 





397 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY forge, gah Rejision of 


ocial Development 





there began to be a decided activity in this depart- 
ment. Sigonius treated the subject of sacred 
antiquities in his De Republica Hebraorum (1583), 
and Arias Montanus discussed the same subject in 
the Apparatus, Tom. ii, of the Antwerp Polyglot 
(1593). Biblical geography and natural history 
received a noticeable impulse from Bochart, Reland, 
Celsius, and others. Most of the writings which 
appeared before the middle of the 18th cent. are 
collected in the Thesaurus Antiquitatum Sacrarum 
of Blasius Ugolinus, 1744-69 (34 vols., folio). But 
the most of these works lack true historical method. 
It was impossible for them to secure the right insight 
into the subject, because of their adoption of the 
traditional typology, in accordance with which 
all ceremonies are to be explained preeminently as 
types and shadows of Christ. 

A new impulse, however, was given to archeolog- 
ical science by Spencer (De Legibus Hebreorum, 
1675). To be sure, many of his results are erroneous, 
his citation of proofs often arbitrary, and his inter- 
pretation still under the influence of typology. 
Nevertheless, it must be admitted that he smoothed 
the way for historical investigation in this field of 
study, recognizing and stating the problem of the 
origin of the legislation, and through his free attitude 
toward the cultus of the O T making a historical 
solution of the problem possible. 

The rationalism which prevailed in the 18th cent. 
exerted a stimulating influence on archeological 
studies. The effort was now made to understand 
Israel as one of the Semitic peoples. 

Under the stimulus of this new conception special 
attention was given to the study of the private and 
political life of Israel, and scholars sought to make 
use of the observations of numerous travelers in the 
Orient for a better understanding of Israelitic 
antiquities. Special interest was manifested in the 
sphere of the geography and topography of Palestine. 
Men like Hasselquist, Seetzen, Burckhardt, Van der 
Velde, Robinson and his traveling companion Eli 
Smith, Tobler, De Luynes, Wetzstein, and others, 
broke the spell of tradition and cleared the way 
for an untrammeled investigation in the realm of 
historical geography and topography. With due 
regard to the connection between the natural fea- 
tures of the land and its political history, Ritter 
the renowned geographer, made good use of all the 
available material on the geography of Palestine. 


In more recent years, systematic researches in | 


Palestine have been undertaken through accurate 
measurements, excavations, etc. In these enter- 
prises England (The Palestine Exploration Fund, 
1865), America (The Palestine Exploration Society, 
1871), and Germany (Deutsche Palaestina-Verein, 
1877) have been the principal participants. 

The first attempt at a purely systematic organiza- 
tion of the discipline from the historical point of view 
was undertaken by De Wette. He was, however, sur- 
passed by Ewald, because the latter not only had 
a truer appreciation of Israel’s religious character- 
istics, but also possessed a deeper insight into the 
religions of Semitic antiquity. 

Against this historico-critical treatment of arche- 
ology, a reaction arose in the school of Hengstenberg. 


It found its appropriate expression in Keil’s Archae- 
ologie. Hengstenberg, Kurz, Keil, and others all 
assumed that without symbolism and typology it is 
not possible to reach a full understanding of the 
religious institutions of Israel. 

Through the general acceptance of the modern 
Pentateuchal criticism, which is associated with the 
names of Reuss, Graf, and Wellhausen, a powerful 
impulse was given to archeological research. The 
altogether different conception of the Priestly Code 
and its assignment to the postexilic times neces- 
sitated an entirely new idea of the ritual develop- 
ment of Israel. In addition, has come the newly 
awakened interest in the history of religion, with 
fresh information in the field of Semitics, through 
the labors of W. R. Smith, Wellhausen, and others, 


and the material brought to view by the excavations, 


especially in the Euphrates valley, through which we 
have secured a clear insight into the collective life of 
these peoples. We have thus for the first time 
come to know more accurately the ground from 
which Israel sprang, and can estimate with approxi- 
mate correctness the influence which was exercised 
upon her by other peoples. 


3. Method of Study. The old method, which is 
still followed by Benzinger and Nowack, was topical. 
Everything relating to occupations, food, dress, 
clothing, family organization, political organization, 
or economic conditions, was brought together under 
a single head. This had the advantage of giving a 
complete picture of each subject, but it had the dis- 
advantage of losing historical perspective. Just as 
in ‘Biblical Theology’ the old topical method lost 
sight of the evolution of religion; and consequently, 
has been superseded by the modern ‘History of the 
Religion’ of Israel’; so also in the investigation of 
Heb. social life the topical method must be discarded 
in favor of the genetic study of institutions. In 
accordance with this method, we shall divide the 
subject into four periods, Semitic, Nomadic, Agricul- 
tural, and Commercial; and shall classify the 
material under each period topically, after the man- 
ner of the older archeologies. 


II. Tar Semitic Periop. 


4. The Semites. See ErHnoarapHy AnD Ern- 
NOLOGY, §§ 5, 8-11; and GrnraLoey. 

5. Arabia, the Home of the Semites. There is 
general agreement that Arabia was the center from 
which the Semitic peoples radiated: (1) because 
they were evenly distributed about this center; (2) 
because the earliest inhabitants of this region in the 
Bab. and Eg. monuments were Semites; (3) because 
Arabia, on account of its aridity, is just the region 
from which numerous migrations must have taken 
place; (4) because the modern Bedawin of Central 
Arabia are the best representatives of the primitive 
Semites. 

6. Primitive Semitic Occupations. In early 
times, when Arabia was better watered, and game 
was more abundant than at present, many tribes 
subsisted by hunting. The memory of this fact 
lingered in later tradition. Nimrod was a mighty 
hunter before J’’ (Gn 109, see Nrimrop), and Esau 
and his descendants were skin-clad men who lived 


Israel, Social 
Development of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





by the chase (Gn 25 27, 27 3 #f., 39 f.). Some modern 
Bedawi tribes still depend partly on hunting. The 
weapons used in the chase were the club, boomerang, 
sling, bow, knife, and snares and traps of various 
sorts (see Hunrina; Arms, §§ 1-4; Knirp; and 
FLINT). 

Fishing was practised from the earliest times on 
the coast of Arabia, and the words for fish and fishing 
are the same in all the Semitic dialects. The imple- 
ments of the art were hooks, spears, and nets (see 
Fisu, FISHING). 

Long before their dispersion the Semites had 
abandoned for the most part the life of hunters, and 
had adopted that of pastoral nomads. The native 
Arab name for such nomads is Bedawt, pl. Bedu. 
Bedawin (Bedouin) is a regular pl. that is not in 
common native use. The name is used in contrast 
to fellahtn, or ‘tillers of the soil.’ The most im- 
portant domestic animal was the one-humped camel, 
which was indigenous to Central Arabia, and without 
which life would have been impossible in that 
region (see CAMEL; and FurNiTuRE). The ass also 
was early domesticated (see Ass). From the earliest 
times the broad-tailed sheep and the black-haired 
goat have been bred by the inhabitants of Arabia 
(see Goat; SHEEP; LAMB; and Rop). Large cattle 
were not found in Arabia proper, but only on the 
rim of the peninsula where water was more abundant. 
They belonged to the half-nomads who were begin- 
ning to adopt agricultural life. Horses also were 
unknown to ancient Arabia, and are found to-day 
only among tribes who dwell near the Euphrates or 
other fertile regions (see Nomanpic Lire). 

The only agriculture known was the cultivation 
of the date-palm in oases. 

Among the ancient Semites, as among the modern 
Bedawin, the arts were all domestic, except that of 
the smith. The women molded and fired the few 
pieces of pottery that were necessary, made baskets 
of twigs, dressed skins, and spun and wove the 
cloth of hair or wool out of which tents or garments 
were made. Only the art of working metals was the 
trade-secret of a clan that wandered from tribe to 
tribe in pursuit of theircraft (see WEAVE and 
WEB). 

Trade in ancient Arabia was of the simplest sort, 
and consisted mainly in the direct barter of goods. 
Comparative philology shows, however, that before 
their separation the Semites had copper, silver, and 
gold, which they weighed in scales; and also that 
they had money-changers and money-lenders. 
These facts indicate that caravan traffic, even with 
foreign lands, must have been of early origin. 


7. Food in Arabia. Water was the first necessity 
of life. In the desert springs were rare, and their 
flow was scanty. In a dry season when the fountains 
failed, long journeys had to be undertaken in search 
of other sources, or water had to be bought from 
more fortunate neighbors (see Foop, § 12; WarTER; 
and WELL). 

In the hunting period the ancient Semites lived 
on wild fruits, particularly dates, insects, par- 
ticularly locusts, honey, fish, lizards, wild birds and 
their eggs, and the various wild animals that are 
indigenous to Arabia, all of which are still eaten 


by the modern Bedawin. Salt was used as a con- 
diment from the earliest times (see Foon, §§$ 7-9; 
Locusts; Manna; and Satur). 

Fire was known, and cooking was done on a primi- 
tive hearth of three stones (see Coau; Firu; Fire- 
BRAND; FuEL; FurNacE; and Hearts). 

When the camel, the sheep, and the goat were 
domesticated, milk in its various forms became the 
principal food of the Semites. The flesh of domestic 
animals was not eaten, except on sacrificial or festal 
occasions (see Hat; and Foon, §§ 6-11). Grain did 
not grow in the desert, but the early Semites could 
not live without it, any more than the modern 
Bedawin. Either by barter or by robbery, they 
obtained from the neighboring fellahin the wheat 
or the barley out of which they made their bread 
(see Foon, §§ 1-2; Leaven; and Mri). Coffee and 


tobacco, which are now found everywhere in the - 


desert, were of course unknown to antiquity 


8. Care of the Body. In regard to primitive 
nakedness, see NAKED; BAREFooT; MournInaG, § 1; 
and Burra, § 7). In regard to the treatment of the 
skin, see PuriricaTion, § 2; Nirer; Soap; O1ntT- 
MENTS AND PERFUMES; EyeE-Patnt; and Mark. In 
regard to the dressing of the hair, see Bearp; Harr; 
and Suave. In regard to sickness and its treatment, 
see DiszASE AND Mepicine; Leprosy; Mipwirs; 
Nurse; and SwADDLE). 


9. Dress. In the hunting period the only garment 
was a girdle of leaves, or of the skins of captured 
animals. In the pastoral period a girdle of wool, or 
hair-cloth was worn; and out of this was developed 
the kethéneth, or shirt, which was similar to the t6b 
of the modern Bedawin, over which was worn the 
simlah, or coat, which was similar to the modern 
‘abaye. The head was uncovered, except for a coil 
of camel’s hair rope to keep the hair in place; and 
the feet were bare, except for sandals that were worn 
on a journey (see Dress AND ORNAMENTS; WOOL 
and Bag). 

10. Dwellings. The earliest dwellings of the 
Semites in the hunting period were caves, or huts of 
twigs and branches (see Cave; and Boors). In 
the pastoral period tents of black goat-hair cloth 
became their habitual abodes (see Housn, §§ 1-2; 
HapsiraTion; and Lamp). The tents of a clan were 
grouped together in an encampment (see VIL- 
LAGE). 

11. Family Organization. The earliest form of 
Semitic society was matriarchal. Marriage was a 
temporary union, in which a man left his own clan 
and joined that of his wife. Under these conditions 
the children belonged to the mother’s tribe, and 
descent was reckoned entirely through the mother. 
The mother also was the head of the clan, and the 
leader of her people in peace and in war. 

Subsequently society passed into the fraternal 


polyandrous stage, in which a group of brothers ~ 


owned a wife in common. In this system the woman 
joined the men’s clan permanently; but out of the 
group of brothers it was impossible to tell which 
was the father of the child, so that descent was still 
reckoned through the mother. The mother’s poly- 
androus husband, who might be either father or 
uncle, was known by the child as ‘amm., 


398 


399 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Israel, Social 
Development of 





Long before their separation the Semites had 
reached the patriarchal stage of family organization, 
in which polygamy took the place of polyandry, the 
wife became the property of her husband, and the 
child now knew its father (see Famiiy; and KIn- 
DRED). 

Marriage with relatives nearer than a cousin was 
forbidden by custom; but except for this limitation, 
it was considered desirable to marry the nearest kin 
possible, in order to keep property in the family (see 
MARRIAGE AND Divorcg). Polygamy, concubinage, 
and prostitution were permitted to the man (see 
Harwor; and WHORE); but the strictest chastity was 
required of the woman. The husband was the ba‘al, 
or ‘owner,’ of the wife. He might divorce her at will, 
but she might not divorce him (see Woman). The 
father had absolute power of life and death over his 
children, and they had no rights over against him, 
except that of inheritance (see Famiuy, §§ 6, 8). 
Slavery was a universal Semitic institution, and the 
position of slaves did not differ greatly from that of 
children (see SLAVERY; and Master). 


12. Political Organization. From the earliest 
times the Semites organized themselves into small 
clans for defending the oases on which their water- 
supply depended. These clans were based on real, 
or assumed kinship; and were bound together by 
common interest, custom, and religion (see THov- 
SAND; KINDRED; KINSMAN; and Nriqausor). The 
law of the clan was custom (see Law, § 1). This 
guaranteed rights of life, liberty, property, truth, 
and kindness to all members of the clan, who re- 
regarded each other as brothers. The government 
of the clan was in the hands of elders, who were 
elected by the free men of the tribe, and who could 
be deposed at will. There thus existed complete 
democracy (see ELpprR; and Curer). Kindred clans 
often bound themselves together in the larger 
political unity of the Tribe (see Tripn). Toward 
members of alien clans the attitude was uniformly 
hostile, and warfare was constant. The institution 
of blood-revenge was the fundamental law of the 
desert. It required that if a fellow-clansman were 
killed, his blood must be avenged by his kinsmen 
by slaying some member of the clan of the murderer 
(see BLroop, AVENGER oF). On the other hand, 
an equally rigorous law required that a stranger 
or enemy who came as a suppliant to one’s tent 
door should receive entertainment (see Hosprrat- 
ITY). 

13. Economic Organization. The economic 
organization of primitive Semitic society, as of the 
modern Bedawin, was communistic. Land, pasture, 
water, game, oases of date-palms, and all other 
‘public utilities,’ as we should call them, were 
owned by the clan in common. Only tents with 
their funiture, clothing, and cattle were private 
property. Under these conditions no great individual 
wealth was possible. One man might have a few more 
camels, goats or sheep than another; but he lived 
in the same sort of tent, ate the same food, and wore 
the same clothes as the man who had fewer animals. 
Economic equality as well as political equality was 
thus characteristic of primitive Semitic society. 

14. Religion. See Semitic Retiaron, §§ 1-9. 


Ill. Tam Hesrew Nomapic PrErRrop. 
(Before 1200 B.c.). 


15. Sources for the Hebrew Nomadic Period. 
Our sources for the Nomadic Period of Hebrew his- 
tory are in the main the documents embedded in 
the Hexateuch. (See HexatrucHu). These documents 
are based on oral traditions, and these traditions 
are of very diverse origin, namely: (1) traditions 
which did not arise until after the conquest of 
Canaan; (2) traditions borrowed from Babylonia; 
(3) traditions borrowed from Egypt; (4) traditions 
borrowed from the Amorites who preceded {Israel in 
the land of Canaan, and (5) genuine old Hebrew 
traditions that have come down from the period 
prior to the conquest. There is thus only a small 
portion of the Pentateuchal tradition that can be 
used as a source for the Hebrew nomadic period, 
This is supplemented by comparative philology, 
comparative sociology, and comparative religion, 
the presumption being that ideas and institutions 
which later Israel had in common with the other 
Semites existed already in the nomadic period. 


16. The Origin of Israel. See IsrarL, History 
or, §§ 1-3; Rexiaion or, §§ 1-3; and Hesrew 
LANGUAGE. 

17. Nomadic Life of Early Israel. Hebrew 
tradition represents the patriarchs as nomads who 
bred camels, asses, sheep, goats, and large cattle; 
who lived in tents, who wandered from place to 
place: in search of water and pasture, and who 
regarded springs as their most valuable possession 
(see Nomanpic Lirn, § 2, Water). When they went 
into Egypt, they dwelt in the land of Goshen, which 
was desert; and still continued their nomadic life 
(Gn 45 10, 46 28, 47 27; Ex 8 22, 9 26). At the time of 
the Exodus they were able to resume the life of 
desert Bedawin because they had never really 
abandoned it. Their life in this period, accordingly, 
must be regarded as substantially identical with the 
life that we have sketched in the previous Semitic 
period. While they were in Egypt they were en- 
slaved by one of the Pharaohs, probably Ramses IT 
(1292-1225 B.c.). From this peril they were delivered 
by Moses, who brought them out of Egypt, and 
restored the communism and the economic equality 
of primitive Semitic times. 

18. The Religion of Yahweh. The chief factor in 
the emancipation of Israel from the bondage of 
Egypt was the religion of J”. J’’ was not the 
ancestral god of Israel (Ex 3 13 f, 6 2). No personal 
names compounded with J” are found before the 
time of Moses. J’’ was the god of Sinai, and of the 
Midianite Kenites who dwelt around that mountain. 
Moses first came to know Him at Sinai, and was 
instructed in His religion by his father-in-law, the 
priest of Midian. From J’ Moses received the 
commission to bring Israel up out of Egypt, and to 
bring it into Canaan. This commission involved 
(1) the moral superiority of J’ to all other gods, 
and (2) the physical superiority of J’ to all other 
gods. From these new conceptions of J” flowed 
the cardinal doctrines of the Mosaic religion: (1) 
J” alone must be worshiped by Israel; (2) since He 
took pity upon Israel’s sufferings in Egypt, Israel 
also should pity all oppressed persons; (3) J” was, 


Israel, Social 
Development of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


400 


ee NT aR LLL LLL LLL LLL LLL LAL LLL LLL LEAL 


Pa a a | 
hostile to the capitalistic, despotic civilizations of 


Egypt and of Canaan, and favored the communistic, 
democratic life of the desert. These ideas were of 
enormous importance in the later social development 
of Israel. (See also Israzt, RELIGION oF, §§ 3-8). 


IV. Toe AcricutturAL Pertop (1200-1000 B.c.). 


19. The Land of Canaan. See Pauestine, §§ 4- 
26 

20. Sources for the Agricultural Period. (See 
Hexareucn, § 9; and Jupass). These ancient 
sources are supplemented by survivals of primitive 
agricultural life among the peasantry of modern 
Palestine. 


21. The Conquest of Canaan. The conquest of 
Canaan by the Hebrews was a gradual process that 
extended over a period of perhaps 200 years. 
According to Jg 1, our oldest account of the invasion, 
the Leah tribes came first, and afterwards the Rachel 
tribes. Individual tribes pushed in between centers 
of Canaanite population, and occupied the rural 
districts; while the walled cities remained for the 
most part in the hands of the aborigines until the 
establishment of the Hebrew monarchy (see IsrRAzEL, 
History oF, § 3). 


» 22. Adoption of Agriculture. After the con- 
quest some tribes continued to lead the pastoral 
life for a long time, and cattle-breeding always re- 
mained one of the principal industries; the majority 
of the nation, however, gradually abandoned the 
nomadic life, and became agriculturists, as the 
Canaanites had been before them. The old Bedawi 
ideal of possessing ‘a land flowing with milk and 
honey’ now gave place to the fellah ideal of ‘sitting 
every man under his own vine and fig-tree.’ The 
leading men of the period of the Judges and the 
earliest kings were all farmers (see AGRICULTURE; 
FieLp; STRAW; VINES AND VINTAGE; FLAx; ALMOND}; 
Marrock; Yoxn; Cart; WHEEL; and BASKET). 


23. Food in the Agricultural Period. The ‘adop- 
tion of agriculture brought with it a large addition 
to the diet of the desert (see Foon, §§ 1-5, 13, 14; 
CisTERN; VINEGAR; and Mmats.) 


24. Dress in the Agricultural Period. No change 
was made in the primitive dress of the desert, 
except in the addition of a sort of coat over the 
tunic and under the mantle (see Druss, § 4). 

25. Houses. In this period tents were abandoned, 
and houses of stone or of clay took their place (see 
Hovuss, II; Linret; Brep; Basin; and Portrery). 
These dwellings were crowded together in villages 
and cities (see VILLAGE). The walled cities still 
remained Canaanite. 


26. Family Organization. The adoption of 
agriculture brought no change in the tribal organiza- 
tion of Israel. The family retained its patriarchal 
constitution. Members of the same clan settledin 
the same village, and the sheiks retained their 
ancient functions of judges and military leaders, 
only now they were called ‘elders of the town’ 
instead of ‘elders of the clan.’ Political equality 
also persisted during the period of the Judges: 
“There was no king in Israel in’those days, every man 
did that which was right in his own eyes’ (Jg 21 25). 


Gideon indignantly declined kingship, when it was 
offered to him, as unworthy of a free-born Israelite; 
and Jotham, in the parable of the trees that chose 
a king, taught that only a worthless Canaanite half- 
breed like Abimelech would allow himself to be 
crowned (Jg 8 23, 9 7-21). 

27. Economic Organization. The primitive com- 
munism and economic equality of the desert also 
continued in this period. Land, water, pasture, and 
other public utilities were still owned in common, 
as they had been before the conquest. According 
to tradition, Canaan was divided by lot. There 
was no permanent private ownership, but land was 
frequently redistributed, as in modern Russian 


village communities. The word ‘lot’ continued to be 


used as the name for a piece of land (see Ling; 
Lor; LANDMARK; and Portion). The institution 
of the sabbatical year seems to have been connected — 
originally with a redistribution of land every seven 
years. This communal tenure still exists in many 
villages of modern Palestine. Only houses and their 
furniture were individual property, as tents had been 
in the desert. Money was scarce during this period. 
Micah, the Ephraimite, hired Manasseh, a grandson 
of Moses, as his priest at a salary of ten silver 
shekels, or $6.00 a year (Jg 7 10). For seventy 
shekels, or $42.00, Abimelech hired a band of 
ruffians who made him king and served as his 
bodyguard (Jg 910). There were no rich men, but 
only a nation of peasant farmers. 


28. Religion of the Agricultural Period. The 
settlement in Canaan brought about far greater 
changes in the religion of Israel than in the economic 
or social life. The baals of Canaan were agricultural 
deities who presided over the planting of the seed 
and the reaping of crops. Agriculture could not be 
learned by the Hebrews without learning at the 
same time the cult of the indigenous divinities. All 
our early sources agree that Israel in the period of 
the Judges ‘served the baals’ (Jg 2 10, 13, 35f.), and 
this testimony is confirmed by the later prophets. 
Even when J” triumphed nominally over the baals, 
He Himself was regarded as similar to them; and 
His religion was permeated with elements derived 
fromthe baal-cults. Thus the conquest brought with 
it the practical disappearance of the worship of 
J’’, the God of the desert (see ISRAEL, RELIGION OF, 
$§ 9-11; H1aH Puace; and SANcTuArRy). 


V. Tar ComMeErciAL AND InpDustTRIAL PERIOD 
(1000-586 B.c.). 


29. Sources for the Period. For the times of 
Samuel, Saul and David the traditions preserved by 
the J and the E documents in the Books of Samuel 
have first-class historical value (see SAMUEL, Booxs 
or). For the time of the divided monarchy the 
Judean and the Ephraimite documents, and the tales 
of the prophets incorporated by the editor of the 
Books of Kings, were written near to the times that 
they describe, and possess high historical value 
(see Kines, Booxs or). For the times of the later 
monarchy we have the books of the prophets of the 
Assyrian period, Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah and 
Jeremiah; the law-codes of J, E, D; and the Holiness 
Code (see Hexatreucn, §§ 14, 23; and Drurmr- 





401 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Israel, Social 
Development ot 





ONOMY); and the oldest parts of the Book of 
Proverbs (see PROVERBS, §§ 4-5). 

30. Founding of the Monarchy. Through the 
efforts of Samuel and the Sons of the Prophets 
Saul founded the first Hebrew monarchy, and this 
constitution lasted down to the fall of Jerusalem 
in 586 B.c. (see IsRaAEL, History or, § 4; Kina; 
and THRONE). The kingdom brought law and order 
in the land, the conquest of the Canaanite strong- 
holds and of the neighboring nations by David, and 
control of the trade-routes which hitherto had not 
belonged to Israel. This was followed by a great 
development of commerce (see TRADE AND Com-~ 
MERCE; Inn; Suips AND NAVIGATION; WEIGHTS 
AND Mrasores; and Monny). Commerce led in- 
evitably to a growth of industry. In the days of the 
kings all the arts of the ancient world became 
indigenous in Israel. We read of smiths, founders, 
goldsmiths, silversmiths, stone-cutters, masons, en- 
gravers of gems, carpenters, image-makers, potters, 
painters, weavers, fullers, bakers, cooks, barbers, 
perfumers, apothecaries, and physicians (see ARTI- 
ZAN Lire; Merrats; HAMMER; CROWN; GuAss; 
Srones; Cotors; and BarBER). 


31. Break-up of the Tribal System. The mon- 
archy did not affect the patriarchal constitution of 
the family, but it led to the disintegration of the 
clans and tribes. The kings were hostile to the 
independent tribal authorities and favored central- 
ization of government. The royal standing army 
gradually displaced the ancient tribal militia. Instead 
of the tribal elders there now grew up the sdrim, 
or ‘princes,’ that is, the bureaucracy of favorites ap- 
pointed by the king. Trade, industry, and city-life 
also tended to loosen the tribal bonds. By the 
time of the literary prophets the social organization 
of the desert had well-nigh disappeared (see Crry; 
and CITIZENSHIP). 


32. Break-up of the Communistic System. 
Through conquest, commerce, and industry the 
wealth of Israel in the period of the monarchy was 
greatly increased. According to I K 10 27, Solomon 
‘made silver to be in Jerusalem as stones.’ Hosea 
represents the Northern Kingdom as saying, ‘Surely 
I am become rich, I have found me wealth’ (Hos 
12 8). Isaiah says, ‘Their land is full of silver and 
gold, neither is there any end of their treasures’ 
(Is 27). (See WEALTH.) 

Simultaneously with this increase of wealth, 
communal ownership of property disappeared, and 
private ownership took its place. ‘Jehovah forbid 
it me that I should sell the inheritance of my fathers 
unto thee,’ said Naboth to Ahab (I K 211-4). The 
earliest law-codes, the prophets, and the earliest 
wisdom-literature, all assume that private ownership 
of land is an established fact. 

With private ownership came also the struggle to 
increase one’s individual wealth by unjust means, 
such as (1) robbery (Hos 4 2, 69, 71; Jer 77); (2) 
false weights and measures (Am 8 5; Hos 127; Mic 
6 10 f.); (3) lying in trade (Hos 411.; Mic 6 12; Jer 
9 3-6, 23 14); (4) breaking contracts (Hos 4 2, 10 4; 
Jer 4 2, 79); (5) selling inferior goods (Am 8 6 b); 
(6) corners in grain (Am 8 4f.; Hos 7 14b); (7) taking 
pledges from the poor (Am 2 82; Mic 2 8; Ezk 18 


7, 12, 33 15); (8) exorbitant interest (Am 2 8b, 5 11a; 
Jer 15 10; Ezk 18 8, 13, 17, 22 12); (9) foreclosing of 
mortgages (Hos 5 10 f.; Is 5 8£.; Mic 21 f., 9); (10) 
enslaving of debtors (II K 41; Am 2 6, 8 6); (11) 
unjust legislation (Is 101 £.; Jer 8 8); (12) oppressive 
taxation (I K 4 7-19; IS 8 15, 17; Am 5 11, 7 1; see 
Tax, Tirme); (13) trade monopolies (I K 9 26-28, 
10 11 f., 28 £., 20 34); (14) forced labor (I K 9 20f., 
ef. 5 13, 15 f., 12 1-20; IS 8 11-18; see TasKMASTER)} 
(15) perversion of justice (Am 5 7, 6 12; Is 1 23; 
Mic 39 f.; Jer 5 5); (16) taking of bribes (Am 513; 
Is 5 23; Mic 3 12, 7 3; see Girr); (17) Oppression of 
the poor (Am 3 10, 41, 8 4; Is 3 13-15, 57; Mic 3 1-3; 
Zeph 19 b, 3 3; Ezk 34 2-4, 45 8, 4618); (18) deeds of 
violence (IS 18 11, 191 f., 22 11-23; IT S ch. 11; 1 K 
ch. 21; Hos 69; Is 1 15 b). 


33. The Class of the Rich. The result of the un- 
just acquisition of wealth was the unequal distribu- 
tion of wealth. Large fortunes were accumulated by 
a few capitalists, while the mass of the population 
was impoverished to an extent unknown in earlier 
times. The rich lived in senseless and enervating 
luxury (I K 4 22 f., chs. 5-7, 10 4 f., 10, 11 £., 16-21, 
113, 229; Am 3 12b, 15, 5 11b, 6 1-6, 8 10; Hos 2 11, 8 14, 
13 15b; Is 59, 11, 14, 22 18, 32 13 f.; Zeph 1 8). The 
wives of the aristocrats were as pleasure-loving and 
luxurious as their husbands (Am 4 1; Is 3 16-24, 32 
9-11). Drunkenness was frightfully prevalent among 
the upper classes (Am 41, 5 11 b, 6 6; Hos 4.1, 7 5, 
14; Is 5 11, 12, 281, 3, 7-8; Mic 211). Sexual licence also 
prevailed (Am 27; Hos 4 2, 10f., 13 f., 7 4; Jer 578, 
79, 9 2, 23 10, 14, 29 23). 

34. The Class of the Poor. Over against the 
small class of the rich stood the large class of the 
poor. Excessive exportation of grain by the 
capitalists made famines frequent (II S 211, 24 13; 
I K 8 37, 1712, 18 2; I K 6 25, 7 4, 81). There was a 
constant rise in the price of food, and a constant 
decline in the purchasing power of money, due to 
expansion of the circulating medium. In the period 
of the Judges the salary of a priest for a year was 
ten shekels (Jg 17 10); but in the reign of Ahab, in 
a time of exceptional plenty, aseah of fine flour cost 
ashekel, and two seahs of barley a shekel (II K 71). 
As a result of these conditions the laboring classes 
found it increasingly difficult to buy food. In times 
of war or of famine they were compelled to borrow 
of the capitalists in order to escape starvation. They 
were seldom able to repay the principal, then the 
mortgages on their farms were foreclosed and they 
themselves were sold into slavery (see Poor, 
BeGaar; and Hrrevina). Repeated revolutions in 
the Northern Kingdom were a sign of social unrest 
(Hos 41, 68, 77, 8 4; Is 31-7, 9 18-21). Such were the 
alarming social conditions that existed in the times 
of the prophets. 


VI. Commounistic SoLurIoNs OF THE SocraL 
PROBLEM. 


35. The Kenites. The Kenites were the primitive 
worshipers of J’ at Sinai who accompanied Israel 
into the land of Canaan. They were characterized 
by intense loyalty to J”, their ancestral god, and 
hostility to the civilization of Canaan. They would 
not adopt agriculture or trade, but retained the 


Israel,Social 
Development of 


4 NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


402 





primitive nomadic life and communistic social 
organization of the desert. Down to the latest 
times they stood as a protest against the religion 
and the capitalism of Canaan that Israel had 
adopted (see KENITE). 


36. The Rechabites. The Rechabites were a 
branch of the Kenites, who like them were en- 
thusiasts for J’’, the god of the desert, and for the 
social life of the desert. They dwelt in tents, and 
rejected agriculture and wine, because wine be- 
longed to the agricultural civilization of Canaan 
(see RECHAB). 


37. The Nazirites. The Nazirites were a purely 
Israelite sect, who cherished ideals similar to those 
of the Kenites and Rechabites. They were devoted 
to J’, and were hostile to the baals of Canaan. 
They also refused to drink wine, and they wore 
their hair long, because that was the custom of the 
desert (see NAzIRIrE). 

38. The Earliest Prophets. The Heb. prophets 
who preceded Amos seem to have held theories 
similar to those of the Kenites, Rechabites and 
Nazirites. They agreed with them in hostility to 
the baals of Canaan (II K 10 15-17). Samuel, the 
founder of the Sons of the Prophets, was himself a 
Nazirite (IS 111). Their battle-cry was ‘Down with 
the baals, and back to J’’, the god of the desert.’ 
They sympathized with the poor, and denounced 
the oppressions of the rich and powerful (I S 8 1-16; 
II S 7 1-11, 12 1-15, 24 1-19; I K 11 26-31, 14 1-6, 12 
91-24, 211-24). They cherished the nomadic ideal (I K 
171, 191-13; If K 1 8; Zec 184 £.). They rejected 
individual wealth (I K 137 f.; II K 5 5, 15 £., 20-27; 
ef. Mic 3 11; Am 7 12-14), and lived in societies where 
they seem to have endeavored to restore the primi- 
tive communism of the desert (I S 19 18 f., 22 £., 
201; Il K 2 3, 5, 15 £., 4 38-44, 61-3, 91). They were the 
prototypes of the Essenes, of John the Baptist, and 
of Christian Ebionism. 

The efforts of all these schools left little impression 
on Heb. society. Communism was possible in a 
primitive society where the consciousness of tribal 
unity was highly developed, but it was impossible 
in a complex civilization where individualism had 
come to prevail. These little brotherhoods con- 
tinued to exist, but the nation as a whole made no 
attempt to return to the communism of the desert. 


VII. Non-Communistic SOLUTIONS OF THE SocraL 
_ PROBLEM. 


39. The Priests. The priests show no sympathy 
with nomadic life, and no desire to return to com- 
munal ownership of land, or other public utilities. 
Instead of this, their program is wise legislation 
which will check the evils of the capitalistic system. 
(1) They forbid theft of real estate (Dt 19 14a, 
23 24, f. 27 17; Ex 22 5 f.); (2) theft of personal 
property (Ex 20 15; Dt 5 19; Lv 19 11 a, 13 a; Ex 
21 33-36, 22 1-4, 10-15; Lv 24 18). (8) They guard the 
buyer against the rapacity of the seller (Dt 25 
13-16; Lv 19 1ib, 35 f.). (4) They guard the employee 
against the injustice of the employer (Dt 24 14 f; Lv 
1913b.). (5) They guard the principal against fraud 
on the part of the agent (Ex 227-9). (6) They protect 
the debtor against the creditor (Ex 22 25 £.; Dt 


23 19 f., 24 6, 10-13; Lv 25 35-37; Ex 21 2-11; Dt 15 
1-18; Lv 25 39-43, 46-54; Dt 19 14, 27 17; Lv 25 23-28). 
(7) They prohibit the abuse of judicial and of 
executive functions in rulers (Ex 22 22-24, 23 3, 
6-8; Dt 1 17, 16 19, 24 17, 28 19, 25; Lv 19 14-16, 32). 
(8) They condemn the luxury of the rich (Dt 17 
16-20). (9) They provide for the relief of poverty 
(Ex 23 10 f; Dt 14 29, 24 19-22, 2611 £.; Lv 199 f., 23 
22, 25 2-7, 14, 20-22). (See Law; Justice; and Crimes 
AND PUNISHMENT). 


40. The Wise Men. The wise men, like the 
priests, show no sympathy with the nomadic ideal, 
and propose no return to the communism of the 
desert. They assume private ownership of property 
as an established fact, and they regard wealth as a 
blessing and poverty as a curse (Pr 10 15, 22, 129, 
13 8, 14 4, 20, 16 26, 18 11, 23, 19 4-7, 227, 277). Their 
method of solving the social problem is education. ~ 
They believe that men are rational beings; and that 
if they can be got to see the folly of certain kinds 
of conduct, they will refrain from them. Accord- 
ingly, they set themselves to point out the dangers 
of unethical conduct.. (1) They show the peril of 
overestimating the value of wealth. Rich and poor 
are alike in the sight of God (Pr 22 2, 2913). Wealth 
is easily lost (23 5, 27 24). Righteousness is better 
than riches (11 4, 28, 18 7, 15 16, 16 8, 191, 22, 221, 
28 6, 11). Love is better than wealth (15 17, 17 1). 
(2) They show the folly of seeking to get rich 
quickly (20 21, 23 4 f., 28 20f., 25), and declare that 
ill-gotten wealth brings only misery (10 2 f., 27-30, 11 
16-21, 12 2 f., 13 11, 23, 14 26 f., 15 8-10, 25-26). (8) They 
condemn theft (29 24), false weights and measures 
(111, 1611, 2010, 23), corners in grain (11 26). They 
demand truth in business dealings (12 17-22, 20 
14, 17, 21 6, 26 23-26, 28), and in matters of trust 
(13 17, 20 6, 25 13, 19). They condemn the taking of 
interest, and the foreclosing of mortgages (22 28= 
24 10 f., 28 8), and all exploiting of the poor (14 31, 
17 5, 22 16, 22 f., 28 3). (4) They exhort rulers to be 
just (16 12, 17.7, 15, 26, 18 5, 20 8, 26, 28, 24 24-26, 25 
2-7, 28 15 f., 21, 29 4, 12, 14, 25), and not to take bribes 
(15 27, 17 8, 23, 18 16). (5) They warn against the 
drunkenness and gluttony of the rich (201, 21 1, 
25 20f., 20f., 28 30-35, 2516, 287). (6) They teach the 
duty of relieving poverty (11 24 £., 14 21, 19 17, 21 
13, 26, 22 9, 24 11 f., 28 29, 297). 


41. The Prophets. The prophets seem to show 
more sympathy with the nomadic ideal than do the 
priests and the wise men. They praise the days of 
the wandering in the desert as the ideal time in the 
national history (Hos 27 b., 15b., 9 10; Jer 2 2-3); but 
this is not because of the communism that then 
existed, but because then Israel was loyal to J”. 
They predict a return to nomadic conditions (Hos 
2 3, 6, 7, 9-15, 129; Is 55 £., 9 f., 17; 6 11-13, 7 15, 21-25, 
32 13 f.; Mic 1 6, 3 12, 5 10-11); but this is not regarded 
as a blessing, but as a punishment for national sins. 
In their picture of the golden age that is coming 
there is no trace of the communism that charac- 
terizes Plato’s ideal state and the theories of the 
Essenes. Private ownership of real and of personal 
property is to continue, as it has in the past: “They 
shall sit every man under his vine and under his 
fig tree’ There is no evidence that the writing 





403 A NEW STANDARD 


prophets shared in the nomadic ideals of the earlier 
prophets. Nor did the prophets agree with the 
priests in believing in the efficacy of legislation. 
They saw that good laws require good men to make 
and to keep them, and that the best of laws are a 
dead letter, if the moral sense of the community 
does not approve them. The prophets differ from 
the wise’ men in their lack of confidence in the 
reasonableness of human nature. They see that 
ethical instruction does good in the case of people 
whose minds are made up to follow the wise and the 
right, but that it is worthless in the case of those 
whose main purpose in life is evil. They perceive 
that they must go deeper than the intellect, if 
human nature is to be changed; they must reach 
the conscience, and work a radical revolution in 
character. 

The prophets’ solution of the social problem is 
individual experience of a holy God. (1) Each of 
them had an inaugural vision, analogous to the 
Christian experience of conversion, through which 
he came to know God as the supreme reality of 
life (Am 7 1-9, 8 1-9 4; Hos chs. 1-8; Is ch. 6; Mic 
3 8; Jer ch. 1; Ezk chs. 1-3). (2) Through these 
experiences they learned that the essence of J’”’s 
nature is righteousness (Am 2 6 f., 3 2, 10-12, 4 1-3, 
5 5, 10-12; Is 5 16, 6 3, 5, 7, 10 22, 28 17; Mic 6 5, 79; 
Zeph 3 5a; Jer 9 24b). (3) J’’ demands righteousness 
of men (Am 514f.; Hos 1112; Mic 68). (4) He does 
not require sacrifices and holy days (Am 4 4 f.,, 
5 21-25; Hos 6 6, 8 13; Is 1 11-17, 22 1-14; Mic 6 6-8; 
Jer 6 20, 7 21-22). (5) The nation is not bringing J” 
the righteousness that He requires, but is full of 
social injustice (Am 2 6; Hos 41, 67, 71f., 13, 8 12; 
Is 9 4f., 10, 21,3 8f. 5 2, 4, 7, 18, 20,65; Mic 1 5, 
3 8; Jer 2 21 f.). (6) Therefore punishment is in- 
evitable. The rising Assyrian empire shall engulf 
Israel along with the other little nations of W. Asia 
(Am 2 6, 13-16, 3 2, 11-15; Hos 1 1-4, 9, 2 9-13, 3 4; Is 
1 24-31, 2 10-3 26, 5 5-30, 6 11-13; Mic 1 2-7, 3.12). (7) 
Out of the catastrophe a remnant shall survive, and 
it shall repent and become the basis of a new and 
better nation (Hos 27, 14-17, 515-6 3; Is 7 3, 10 208, 
17 7, 33 14). (8) Then the golden age shall come, 
when oppression, injustice, and strife shall cease, 
‘for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of J” as 
the waters cover the sea’ (Is 1 25-27, 9 7, 11 3-5, 28 
16 f., 29 18-21, 32 1-8, 16; Jer 31 31-34, 32 39-40; Ezk 11 
18-20, 36 25-27). This religious experience the prophets 
sought to reproduce in others, in the confidence that 
only thus could the social problem find a radical 
solution. 


VIII. THe Posrexiitic Preriop. 


42. Loss of National Life. The Babylonian exile 
(586 B.c.) brought the national life of Israel to an 
end. The Jews were gradually scattered throughout 
the ancient world, and became a religion rather 
than a nation. The feeble remnant that lingered in 
Palestine was ruled successively by Babylon, Persia, 
Greece, and Rome; and never attained indepen- 
dence, except for a short time under the Hasmonean 
priest-kings. ‘The problem of this period was the 
return of the exiles and the restoration of nationality, 
rather than the reformation of inner social con- 
ditions. 


Israel, Social 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Development of 


43. Decline of Ethical Religion. In this period 
the priests lost their function as ethical lawgivers, 
and became merely performers of the ritual. The 
Priestly Code, which was formulated in Babylonia 
about 500 B.c. and was promulgated a century later 
in Palestine by Ezra, is lacking in ethical teaching, 
and concerns itself entirely with the correct ritual. 
The ancient teaching function of the priests was 
now assumed by the scribes, whose aims were to 
gather the traditions of preexilic practise, to 
observe them, and to teach others to keep them 
(Ezr 7 10). 

The prophets of the postexilic period also lost 
their ethical message. After the fall of Jerusalem 
Ezekiel ceased to preach repentance, and concerned 
himself with the restoration of Judah. In chs. 40- 


48 he gave a purely ritual code for the use of the 


restored Temple. Second Isaiah also (Is 40-55) 
dropped ethical preaching, and proclaimed only 
the return from exile. Zechariah’s and Haggai’s 
message was, ‘Build the Temple, and J” will 
return to you with favor.’ Malachi had one echo 
of the old ethical message (3 5), but his main interests 
were the bringing of the right sort of sacrifices, and 
the prevention of marriages with Gentile women. 
Third Isaiah (Is chs. 56-66) has a number of ethical 
passages (56 1; 10-12, 58 6 f., 59 2-8, 61 8, 64 5-7), but 
these are offset by more numerous passages in which 
he emphasizes the importance of the Temple, 
sacrifice, and fasting. Soon after 500 B.c. prophecy 
died out, because it no longer had an ethical message; 
and its place was taken by apocalyptic, which con- 
cerned itself mainly with the establishment of a 
Jewish world-empire, and the destruction of Israel’s 
enemies. 

The wisdom school survived in this period, and 
produced the Books of Job, Ecclesiastes, Sirach, 
Wisdom of Solomon, Pirke Abhoth, and the later 
additions to Proverbs. These throw new light on 
the problems of suffering and of immortality, but 
they add nothing to the social ethics of the older 
parts of Proverbs. The later tendency is to identify 
Wisdom with the Law, and the wise men with the 
scribes. 

It appears, accordingly, that the postexilic 
period shows no social progress beyond the pre- 
exilic period, and that its literature makes no 
contributions to the solution of the social problems 
of preexilic times. 


44, John the Baptist and Jesus. John the Baptist 
and Jesus represent a revival of the ethical message 
of the preexilic prophets. Both came proclaiming, 
‘Repent ye, for the kingdom of God is at hand.’ 
Like the prophets, Jesus believed that the world 
could not be saved by a return to communism, or by 
any other change in material conditions. Like them, 
He held that neither legislation nor education could 
solve the problem, because they could not change 
human nature. His method of solving the social 
problem was the prophets’ method—a change in 
human nature through personal experience of God. 
He brought a revelation of the universal fatherhood 
of God, and a new power to become sons of God. 
He believed that, when men through faith in Him 
had been born anew, then they would act toward 


Issachar 
Jaazaniah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


404 





God as true children, would treat all men as their 

brothers, and would strive to realize their own 

highest possibilities as the children of God. Then 

the kingdom of God would have come, when God’s 

will was done on earth as it is done in Heaven. 

Lirerature: E. C. Bissell, Biblical Antiquities (1888); J. 
Fenton, Harly Heb. Infe: a Study in Sociology (1888); W. 
Nowack, Lehrbuch der hebrdischen Archdologie (1894); 
K. Budde, ‘The Nomadic Ideal in the O T,’ New World, iv, 
1895, p. 726 ff.; F. Buhl, Die socialen Verhdlinisse der 
Tsraeliten (1899); E. Day, The Social Life of the Hebrews 
(1901); G. A. Barton, Semitic Origins (1902);"°W. R. Smith, 
Kinship and Marriage in Early Arabia (1903); M. Lohr, 
Sozialismus und Individualismus im A.T. (1906); H. G. 
Mitchell, Hthics of the O T (1907); I. Benzinger, Hebrdische 
Archdologie, (21907); S. G. Smith, Religion in the Making, 
a Study in Biblical Sociology (1910); L. Wallis, Sociological 
Study of the Bible (1912); C. H. Cornill, The Culture of 
Ancient Israel (1914); H. Schaeffer, Social Legislation of 
the Ancient Semites (1915); T. G. Soares, The Social 
Institutions and Ideals of the Bible (1915); C. F. Kent, The 
Soctal Teachings of the Prophets and Jesus (1917); C. R. 
Smith, The Bible Doctrine of Society in its Historical Evolu- 
tion (1920); J. M. P. Smith, The Moral Life of the Hebrews 
(1923); A. S. Peake, Brotherhood in the O T weve 


ISSACHAR, is’a-kar. See Trisx, Trrsus, §§ 2, 4. 

ISSHIAH, is-shai’a (¥?, yishshiyyah): 1. The 
head of a family of Issachar (I Ch 7 3, Ishiah AV). 
2. The head of a Levite family (I Ch 24 21). 3. The 
head of a Levite family (I Ch 23 20, Jesaiah AV, 
24 25). 4. One of the ‘sons of Harim,’ who had taken 
a foreign wife (Ezr 10 31, Isshijah RV, Ishijah AV). 
5. One of David’s band at Ziklag (I Ch 12 6, Jesaiah 
AV). 

ISSHIJAH. See Issuran, 4. 

ISSUE. See Disease anp Mepicing, § 8. 

ISUAH, is’yu-a. See IsHvan. 

ISUI, is-yu-ai. See IsHvaAH. 

ITALIAN BAND. See Aucusran BaAnp. 


ITALY: The classical, as it is the modern, name 
of the European region of which Rome is the center 
and capital. It is referred to in four N T passages: 
(1) In Ac 18 2, as the country from which Aquila 
had come with his wife Priscilla, because of the edict 
of Claudius expelling all Jews from Rome (see 
Cuaupivus). (2) In Ac 27 1, as the destination of 
the company of prisoners, sent from Syria, under 
charge of the centurion Julius, of which prisoners 
Paul was one (see Paut, § 16 f.). (3) In He 13 24, 
as the country where resided the Christian brethren 
who sent greetings to the readers of the Epistle (for 
another view, see HeEBREws, Epistie ro THE, § 5). 
(4) In Ac 101, as the country that gave its name 
to the legion stationed at Cesarea, of which 
Cornelius was the centurion (see AUGusTAN Banp). 

M. W. J. 

ITCH. See Disease AnD MeEpictng, § 5 (9). 

ITHAI, ifh’a-ai or ai’thé. See Irrat. 

ITHAMAR, ith’a-mGr (ED'S, 'ithamar): The 
youngest son of Aaron and, in late priestly circles, 
considered the head of one of the two main priestly 
lines (Ex 6 23; Nu 3 2, 4, 4 28 ff., ete.; I Ch 24 3-6; Ezr 
8 2). See also PrimsrHoon, § 10. 

ITHIEL, ith’-el OMS, ‘zh7el): 
jamite (Neh 11 7). 


1. A Ben- 
2. A word of uncertain sig- 


— 


nificance in Pr 301. The rendering of the RVmg. 
altho widely adopted, is not certain. 


ITHLAH, ith’la (2m, yithlah, Jethlah AV): 


A town in the old Danite territory (Jos 19 42). Site 
unknown. 

ITHMAH, ifh’ma (")™, yithmah): A Moabite, 
one of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 46). 

ITHNAN, ith’nan (J, yithnan): A city in the 
extreme S. of Judah (Jos 15 23). Site unknown. 

ITHRA, ith’ra. See JETHER. 

ITHRAN, ifh’ran (J7, yithran), ‘eminent’: 1. 
The ancestral head of a Horite clan (Gn 36 26; I 
Ch 1 41). 2. The head of an Asherite family (I Ch 
7 37), probably the same as ‘Jether’ in ver. 38. 

ITHREAM, ifh’ri-am (OY1", yithr*‘am): A son 
of David (IIS 35; I Ch3 3). 

ITHRITE, ifh-rait (1M, yithri): 1. The desig- 
nation of a family of Kiriath-jearim (I Ch 2 53). 
2. Two of David’s heroes, Ira and Gareb, are called 
Ithrites (II S 23 38; I Ch 11 40), perhaps = Jattirites, 
i.e., from Jattir (q.v.). 


ITTAH-KAZIN, it’’td-ké’zin. See Ern-Kazin. 

ITTAI, it’ta-ai, it’é, or it-té’ai COX, 'ittaz; per- 
haps from NX&, ’éth, ‘with,’ ‘companionable’): 1. A 
Philistine of Gath, who shortly before Absalom’s 
rebellion had become one of David’s captains, and 
who remained loyal to David, accompanying him in 
his flight (II S 15 19 f.). He was made captain of 
one-third of David’s forces (II S 18 2 #.). 2. A son 
of Ribai from Gibeah of Benjamin, one of David’s 
heroes (II S 23 29 =Ithai [I Ch 11 31]). Gosia 


ITURAA. ai’’tu-ri’a or it/’yu- (Itovpata): A dis- 
trict to the NE. of Palestine, beyond the Jordan, 
in the neighborhood of Jebel Hauran. Thename, 
derived from Jetur (Gn 25 15), is thought to mean 
‘country of the mountaineers.’ The Itureeans were 
reckoned among the ‘sons’ of Ishmael (Gn 25 15), or 
desert tribes of N. Arabia; Strabo says they were 
mixed with Arabs, along with whom they inhabited 
the mountainous region. In agreement therewith 
are the inscriptions of the Hauran region, which 
cover the Ist to the 6th cent. and contain Arabic 
names of gods and men. The Iturzans were semi- 
nomads, warlike border-men, and noted archers. For 
a long period there was no defined territory called 
I., the ethnic name (Iturzans) alone being used until 
the 4th cent. a.p. (In Lk 31 the word is an ad- 
jective.) I. overlapped Trachonitis, and even 
shifted beyond Trachonitis to the Beka@‘. An in- 
dependent kingdom of I. is often mentioned in 
Maccabean times, after its conquest (105 8B.c.) by 
Aristobulus I, who partially annexed it to Judea. 
This bordered on, and at one time included, Galilee, 
and centered in the Anti-Lebanon region (Abilene). 
Its king, Ptolemeus, resided at Chalcis and harried 
the whole region until he was crushed by Pompey 
(66 B.c.), from whom he bought immunity at the 
price of 1,000 talents. He reigned from about 85 
to 40 B.c., and was succeeded by his son Lysanias I, 
who was executed by Antony, 36 B.c. Antony gave 
the tetrarchy to Cleopatra (36 B.c.), who leased it 
to Zenodorus, but as Zenodorus assisted the Arabs 





405 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Issachar 
Jaazaniah 





in their raids in Trachonitis, the leased tetrarchy 
was cut up, and part of it (Trachonitis) bestowed 
on Herod the Great by Augustus (23 B.c.). Zeno- 
dorus died in 20 B.c., when Augustus gave the rest 
of his possessions (tetrarchy of Lysanias I) to Herod. 
After Herod’s death (48.c.) it passed to his son 
Philip, who held it till his death in 34 a.v. In 
37 a.p. Caligula gave the two tetrarchies to Agrippa 
I, with the title of king, and in 40 a.p. added there- 
to the tetrarchy of Herod Antipas. Agrippa I was 
confirmed in its possession by Claudius (41 a.p.), 
who also gave him the whole kingdom of his grand- 
father Herod. On his death the tetrarchy was in- 
corporated into the Provincia Syria, and ad- 
ministered by procurators. But in 53 a.p. Claudius 
conferred on Agrippa II the tetrarchy of Philip 
and that of Lysanias I (Abilene), and they were 
held by him till his death in 100 a.p. In the reign 
of Tiberius, as is clear from an inscription found 
at Abila, Abilene was severed from the kingdom of 
Chalcis (that of Lysanias I). The tetrarch of this 
separate Abilene was a Lysanias II, and the name 
of Lysanias continued to cling to the place (Lk 31 
is correct). J.R.S.S.*—S. A. 

IVAH, ai’va. See Ivvan. 

IVORY (8°31, shenhabbim, ‘elephant’s tooth,’ 
or simply ]¥, shén, ‘tooth’; édegdvtrvos, Rev 18 12): 
Ivory was brought to Palestine both by ship 
(I K 10 22) and by caravan (Ezk 27 15). It was a 
type of richness and beauty (Song 5 14; cf. 7 4). 
Solomon’s throne was of ivory overlaid with gold 
(I K 10 18), and we read also of benches (Ezk 27 8), 
beds (Am 6 4), and houses (I K 22 39; Ps 45 8; Am 
3 15) which were apparently decorated with ivory 
inlays. L. G. L.—E. E. N. 

IVVAH, 1v’va (719, ‘iwwah, Ivah AV): A city 
probably in Syria and conquered by Sargon as 
would be inferred from II K 18 34, 19 13, and Is 


JAAKAN, jé’a-kan (]P¥?, ya‘dgan): An Edomite 
clan (I Ch 1 42; Akan in Gn 36 27). The ‘wells 
(Beeroth) of the sons of Jaakan’ are mentioned in 
Dt 106 as a station on the wilderness journey. Their 
exact location is unknown. E. E. N. 

JAAKOBAH, jé’a-k0’ba (TAP, ya‘dgdbhah): 
The head of a Simeonite family (I Ch 4 36). 

TAALA, ja-é’la (soy? ya‘al@’), JAALAH, ja-é’la 
(n?2y 2, ya‘alah): The ancestral head of a subdivision 
of ‘sons of Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 2 56=Neh 7 58). 

JAALAM, ja-é’/lam. See JaLam. 

JAANAI, jé’a-nai or né. See JANA. 

JAARE-OREGIM, jé”o-ri-6r’e-jim (O28 7192, 


ya‘ré ’or¢ghtm): Evidently a textual corruption in IT 
S 2119 for ya‘tr, Jair, which appears in the parallel 
passage (I Ch 205). The small résh in ya‘ré (see 
Hebrew text) indicates that there was inaccurate 
copying, while ’dr¢ghim, ‘weavers,’ has arisen through 
a scribe’s error in repeating the word at the end of 
the verse. See ELHANAN. A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. 


37 13. From this city colonists were brought to the 
conquered cities of Israel in Samaria, if Avvah 
(}¥, ‘awwah, II K 17 24) is the same place. 
C. S. T. 

IYE-ABARIM, ai’’ye-ab’a-rim (DIAL "Y, “iyye 
ha‘abharim, ‘iyim of the further regions’—namely 
the highlands of Moab; Ije-abarim AV): A station 
of Israel on the E. border of Moab (Nu 21 u, 
33 44), the same as Tyim (33 45, Iim AV). It is 
called Iyim of ‘the further regions,’ to distinguish it 
from Iyim in S. Judah. Ora sid 

IYIM, ai’yim (lim AV). See Iyr-apanrim. 

IYYAR, i-yar’: The second month of the Jewish 
year. See Time, § 3. 


IZHAR, iz’har (1¥', yitshdr), ‘he shines,’ or 


‘oil’: 1. The ancestral head of one of the great sub- 


divisions of the Kohathite Levites, the Izharites 
(Ex 6 18; Nu 3 19, etc.). 2. A descendant of Judah 
(I Ch 47, Jezoar AV). 

IZLIAH, iz-lai’a (ANPP, yizl’ah, Jezliah AV): 
A Benjamite (I Ch 8 18). 

IZRAHIAH, iz’’ra-hai’a (UNI, yizrahyah), ‘3’ 
is risen’ or ‘shines’: 1. The ancestral head of a 
family of Asher (I Ch 7 3). 2. A leader of the 
singers at the dedication of the wall of Jerusalem 
(Neh 12 42, where the form is Jezrahiah). 

IZRAHITE, iz’ra-hait, PINVN, yizrah{7]: The gen- 
tilic of Shamhuth (I Ch 27 8). Perhaps the same 
as ‘Zerahite’ (ver. 11), but, possibly, a copyist’s 
mistake. See SHAMHUTH. K. E. N. 

IZRI, iz’rai (1¥?, yitsrt): A Levite, the leader 
of the fourth course of musicians (I Ch 25 11, Zeri 
in ver. 3). 

IZZIAH, iz-zai’a (3?, yizztyyah, Jeziah AV): 
One of the ‘sons of Parosh,’ who had taken a foreign 
wife (Ezr 10 25). 


JAARESHIAH, jé”a-re-shai’a (YY, ya‘dresh- 
yah, Jaresiah AV): A descendant of Benjamin (I 
Ch 8 27). 

JAASIEL, ja-é’si-el (78°BY?, ya‘ds7’el) ‘God does’: 
One of David’s heroes, called a Mezobaite, (‘of 
Zobah’?) (I Ch 11 47, Jasiel AV). Perhaps the same 
person is referred to in I Ch 27 21. 

JAASU, jé’a-sti (WY?, ya‘dsaw, Jaasau AV): One 
who had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 37). 

JAAZANIAH, jé-az’’e-nai’a (GIS, TR, ya- 
dzanyaha, ya’dzanyah), ‘J’ heareth’: 1. A Maacath- 
ite, captain of some of the guerrillas left in Judah by 
Nebuchadrezzar (II K 25 23=Jezaniah, Jer 40 8), 
who came to give allegiance to Gedaliah the gov- 
ernor. 2. One of the Rechabites whom Jeremiah 
tempted with wine (Jer 35 3 f.) as an example to 
Judah. 3. The son of Shaphan, one of seventy 
elders who were seen in a vision to offer incense 
(Ezk 8 11) to idols. 4. Son of Azzur, one of the 
princes against whose counsel Jeremiah was com- 
manded to prophesy (Ezk 11 1). Cr Sik. 


Jaazer 
Jacob 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


406 


JAAZER, jé’a-zer. See JazEr. 

JAAZIAH, jé”’a-zai’a QWNY2, ya‘dziyyahi): I” 
strengthens’: A Merarite Levite (I Ch 24 26 £.). 

JAAZIEL, jo-é'zi-el (PIN, ya‘deial), ‘God 
strengthens’: A Temple musician (I Ch 15 18; ‘Aziel’ 
in ver. 20 and Jeiel in 16 5). 


JABAL, jé’bal (32, yabhal): A son of Lamech 
(Gn 4 20). With his ‘brothers,’ Jubal and Tubal, 
he is counted as one of the originators of early 
civilization. The Heb. word for ‘ram’ is very simi- 
lar to ‘Jabal’ but this may have nothing to do with 
the statement that he was the ‘father’ of tent- 
dwellers and cattle-owners, 7.e., of the nomads. 
‘Jubal,’ also, is similar to ydbhél, ‘ram,’ or ‘ram’s 
horn,’ a musical instrument. The original source of 
this genealogical list is too remote to determine what 
it actually signified. EK. E. N. 


JABBOK, jab’bak (P22, yabboqg): A river E. of 
the Jordan, named as the N. limit of the domain 
of Sihon, King of the Amorites (Nu 21 24: Jos 12 2; 
Jg 11 22). It also furnished the N. boundary-line 
of Ammon (Dt 2 37, 3 16). Its sources are in the 
vicinity of Rabbath Ammon, whence it flows NW. 
by N., approaching Gerasa and turning W., and 
emptying into the Jordan about 25 m. N. of the 
Dead Sea. It was the scene of Jacob’s struggle with 
the angel (Gn 32 22 £.). Its modern name, derived 
from its clear blue aspect, is Nahr ez-Zerka (cf. 
G. A. Smith, HG HL, p. 534 f.). Map I, F, G, 6-8. 

AOSD. 


JABESH, jé’besh (¥3?, yabhésh), ‘dry’: The 
father of Shallum (II K 15 10). 

JABESH-GILEAD, jé’besh-gil’-od (7992 22, 
yabhésh gil‘ddh), ‘the dry [place] of Gilead’ (or 
Jabesh alone, asin IS 1114., 3111 £.; I Ch 1012): 
A town of Gilead, mentioned in the late midrash in 
Jg 21 5 ff. as destroyed and depopulated by the 
Israelites, four hundred maidens alone being saved 
to provide wives for the Benjamites. A more his- 
torical notice records the rescue of the town from 
the Ammonites by Saul and the loyalty of the in- 
habitants to his memory (IS 111, 3l11#.; ILS 
2 4-7). According to Eusebius, it lay 6 Roman miles 
S. of Pella, the modern Fahil. The name survives 
in the Wddy Ydbis, which rises in the mountains of 
Gilead and enters the Jordan Valley 10 m. below 
Beth-shean. Merrill rejects Robinson’s earlier 
identification with ed-Deir (Map IV, H 2), and finds 
Jabesh in the massive ruins at Miryamim, a few 
miles NW. of ed-Deir (Am. PEFSt, 1877, p. 80 f.). 
See also F. Buhl, Geographie, 1896, p. 258, with 
bibliography. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


JABEZ, jé’bez (V3Y?, ya‘béts): I. The head of a 
family of Judah, who had large possessions (I Ch 
49 .). His name is connected with the Heb. root 
‘atsabh, ‘sorrow.’ Curtis, ICC, ad loc., suggests that 
Zobebah (I Ch 4 8) should be read Jabez, as other- 
wise Jabez v. 9 is abruptly introduced. II. A place 
in Judah inhabited by the scribes (I Ch 255). They 
are represented as descendants of the Calebite Hur, 
and related to the Kenites and Rechabites. 

(CAH Me 


JABIN, jé’bin (173), yabhin), ‘intelligent’: 1. A 
king of Hazor, who headed an unsuccessful alliance 
against the Israelites under Joshua (Jos 111). Hazor 
was captured and Jabin put to death (Jos 11 10). 
2. Another king of Hazor, probably of the same 
dynasty. He oppressed Israel during the period of 
Judges. His army led by Sisera was defeated by 
Barak (Jg 4 2 .). Possibly the two accounts refer 
to the same person. A. C. Z. 

JABNEEL, jab’ni-el (78222, yabhn’él), ‘a god 
causeth to build’: 1. The westernmost town on the 
N. border of Judah (Jos 15 11), captured from the 
Philistines by Uzziah (II Ch 26 6), where it is called 
Jabneh). It is mentioned in the Apocrypha as 
Jemnaan (Jth 2 28) and, frequently, as Jamnia (I 
Mac 4 15; II Mac 12 8, etc.). In the time of the 
crusades J. had become Ibelin. It is now Yebnah, 
a village near the left bank of the Nahr Rabin, 
on the road from Gaza to Jaffa. The site contains 
ruins dating from the crusades, while the remains 
of the ancient harbor lie near the mouth of the 
river, 5 m. to the N.W. Map I, B 8. Like most 
border cities, J. suffered severely from the vicissi- 
tudes of war. At the beginning of the Christian 
era, however, the city was large and prosperous. 
It was especially famous for its rabbinical learning, 
and, according to Jewish tradition, the Sanhedrin 
escaped hither before the destruction of Jerusalem. 
Here the canon of the O T was established, and the 
official text of the Sopherim adopted ( O T Text, 
§ 5). J. was later the seat of a Christian bishopric, 
but was then rapidly declining in wealth and popu- 
lation. See G. A. Smith, HG HL (1898), p. 193 f.; 
F. Buhl, Geographie (1896), p. 188, with bibliography. 
2. A place of uncertain location, mentioned only as a 
part of the northern boundary of Naphtali (Jos 
19 33). It is called Kaphar Yama in the Talmud, 
and may be the ruin Yemma, between Mt. Tabor 
and the Sea of Galilee.: Map IV, E 7. 

L. G. L.—L. B. P. | 

JACAN, jé’kon (12¥2, ya‘kdn, Jachan AV): The 
head of a Gadite family (I Ch 5 13). 

JACHIN, jé”’kin (19?, yakhin), ‘He establishes’: 
I. 1. The ancestral head of one of the clans of 
Simeon (Gn 46 10; Jarib in I Ch 4 24), the Jachinites 
(Nu 26 12). 2. The ancestral head of the twenty- 
first course of priests (I Ch 24 17), whose representa- 
tives are referred to in I Ch 910; Neh 1110. II. One 
of the brazen pillars of the Temple. See Tempxe, 
§ 14. . 


JACINTH, jé’sinth. See Sronus, Precious. 


JACKAL. See PALEstine, § 24. 

JACOB, jé’kab (APY2, ya‘dqobh), ‘he grasps the 
heel,’ a meaning attested by Hos 12 3: It has fre- 
quently been suggested that originally the name was 
Jacob-el; ef. the Babylonian Ya‘gub-ilu, as well as 
the Egyptian form Y‘gb’r (= ?8"apy?), on the 
name-list of Palestinian towns conquered by Thut- 
mose III, and the scarabs of a Hyksos king witha 
like name. 

1. The Patriarch. The story of Jacob is found in 
Gn chs. 25-50, tho from ch. 37 on Joseph is the chief 
figure. In Gn the word, found mostly in passages 





407 A NEW STANDARD 


assigned to JE, refers to the individual, but in the 
subsequent literature it is generally a synonym for 
the nation. In Gn the P sections relating to Jacob 
are very short. 

The stream of the patriarchal epos runs turbid and 
broken where it is concerned with Jacob. The pure 
and lofty unworldliness of Abraham and the quiet 
innocence of Isaac are entirely wanting in Jacob. 
Eddies and shoals, treacherous cross-currents and 
the deep and mighty movements of a great river, 
hastening to the sea, such are the varying phases of 
his life. To many the formal division of the narra- 
tive between J and E (see Grnzsis, § 4) may seem 
mechanical and forced; but it should be remembered 
that whoever the writer and whatever the age of 
our present document, the material and events 
come down from a remote age. The author of Gn 
was but the collector of traditions that must have 
originated in different localities and have had a 
varied history. Gunkel, in his commentary on Gn, 
has discerned several groups of traditions, which he 
designates as the Jacob-Esau, the Jacob-Laban, and 
the Canaan stories. Each of these has a somewhat 
composite structure, and each revolves about certain 
religious centers. Bethel is preeminent in one, She- 
chem in another, Penuel in a third. In part, 
these stories explain the origin of religious sym- 
bols and sanctuaries. As originally told, they were 
more concerned with the successes and exploits of 
the national ancestor than with the moral elements. 
It is manifest to all that the cleverness of Jacob is 
more emphasized than his moral obliquity. The 
way Esau despised his birthright is more the sub- 
ject of reprobation than the cold-hearted craft with 
which Jacob took advantage of him. 

The question much discussed at the present day 
is, How large a part do tribal memories play in the 
patriarchal narratives? It is evident that tribes 
often figure as sons of an individual (Gn 25 1 f.), 
and amalgamations of clans and migrations might 
easily be associated with the biography of a great 
ancestor. It seems, however, too artificial and fan- 
ciful to account for everything upon the theory 
of a personalized tribe. There must be at least a 
starting-point and a germ in a true historic existence. 
Yet personification is a frequent figure of speech, 
and no one could for an instant assume that wher- 
ever Jacob is mentioned a man is meant. The beauty 
of many a prophetic oracle is due to bold personifica- 
tion. When we ask, however, what elements of the 
story we should connect with the man Jacob, we 
are at once involved in uncertainty. Probably the 
picture is so complex that satisfactory division is 
impossible. The birth of the twins (Gn 25 24 ff.) is 
told as if it were a genuine family history, but the 
oracle (Gn 25 23) relates to nations. The bargaining 
over the mess of pottage is realistic and personal, 
but Gn 25 30 recalls the red rocks of Esau’s territory. 
Rebekah’s incitement of Jacob to impersonate Esau 
is a very human touch, but the blessing (Gn 27 27 #.) 
covers the history of races and the tragedy of 
supremacy won at the sword’s point. The vision 
at Bethel has all the pathos and intensity of a 
personal experience; the tender love for Rachel, 
lasting through the long years of a strenuous life, 


Jaazer 
Jacob 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
has little significance as a racial memory; but the 
names of the sons and the mimetic etymologies 
appear like the efforts of a later age to account for 
groupings, antipathies, and characteristics which 
antedated the historians’ memory. So, too, the 
struggles with Laban and the nomadic movements 
in Palestine are a bewildering mixture of personal 
and racial elements. 

Originally the stories were doubtless told for 
the sake of entertainment, but the prophetic pur- 
pose was edification. The picturesque element was 
retained and perhaps even heightened, but the 
prophetic writer of Gn did not care so much to tell 
how a shrine became sacred as to magnify the moral 
or spiritual significance of an event transacted there. 
We find that the question asked during the celebra- 
tion of the Passover (Ex 12 26) became the occasion 
for the recital of the old story of deliverance; un- 
doubtedly the question thus embalmed in that rite 
was the type of many asked when worshipers 
gathered at pilgrimage shrines. Curiosity might 
first have dictated the inquiry, but curiosity became 
the occasion for teaching and the answer the 
vehicle for a lesson or a doctrine. So when asked 
about the pillar at Bethel or the sanctity of Penuel, 
an answer must be forthcoming. The method at first 
might have been crude, but in the form we now 
possess the product is unrivaled. 

Archeologically it is of intense interest to trace the 
long past movements of the Jacob-clans and their 
struggle for a foothold in Canaan, to see them 
seizing upon advantage whenever a foe was off 
guard, to observe their appropriation of spots where 
they first caught glimpses of desirable pasture-lands, 
or when by a vigil they prepared themselves for a 
critical encounter; but religiously it is of greater 
value to see these events as they are interpreted in 
their bearing upon individual human life. Jacob is 
preeminently the eponymous patriarch; in him his 
children’s strength and weakness are mirrored. His 
name is theirs and each can receive reproof and take 
courage from his experience. . Hosea, in words which 
run off into obscurity, discerns this microcosmic 
analogy (Hos 12 4, 12). In Is chs. 40-66 the name is 
used in tones of tenderness, recognizing the con- 
stancy of a relation founded on a covenant. 

Not all the bitter fruits of deceit and trickery are 
described in Jacob’s history, but we are told how a 
lonely man on a barren hillside found God, how in a 
strange struggle on the borders of the wilderness he 
discerned dimly the possibilities of greater rewards. 
He won them at the cost of pain and deformity, yet 
through the struggle he gained a strength and 
majesty which make his figure loom up great tho 
human in every line. The story tells of a man 
whose aspirations and successes were along the low 
plane of the material, but who gained step by step 
a larger outlook and came into a fuller life, whose 
triumph in the dark hour before the dawn at Penuel 
was real and lasting. 

The modern tendency is to see in the two names 
Jacob and Israel two distinct national elements, the 
reminiscence of a time when a foreign wave of 
immigration swept into Palestine and was amalga- 
mated with earlier indigenous inhabitants. It may 


Jacob’s Well 
Jair 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


408 





well be that the distant memory of such events 
survives in the dual name, but it is far from the 
purpose of the writer of Gn to tell such a story. 
The man who wrestled at Penuel went into the 
contest as Jacob—‘he who grasps the heel’—seeking 
a material victory; when he comes out he is Israel— 
‘he who perseveres with God’—and has won by his 
persistence and his steady courage where before 
his work had been underhanded and ignoble. 

Outside of Gn the name is usually national. The 
locality to which it seems originally to have been 
confined was the central region—the mountains of 
Ephraim. This is confirmed by the occurrence of 
‘Jacob-el’ in the Thutmose list, where it is asso- 
ciated with other towns in this geographical area, 
and also by the fact of the strong centralization of 
the people’s life in the territory of the Northern 
Kingdom. Bethel and Shechem were the spots 
around which religious memories clustered most 
tenaciously. The father and the best-loved son, with 
little Benjamin lying to the S., were the great 
eponyms of the richest portion of the land. It was in 
the Exile that the deep consciousness of race unity 
asserted itself and the men of Judah, who were long- 
ing for the homeland, could be addressed as ‘Jacob 
my servant,’ whom a career of suffering and trial 
was to fit for a mission to the world and the in- 
heritance of long-deferred promises. 

2. The father of Joseph, husband of Mary the 
Mother of Jesus (Mt 116). A.S. C.*—O.R.S. 


JACOB’S WELL: A well mentioned only in Jn 4 
5-12, the general locality of which, however, is easily 
determined by Gn 33 19 and Jos 24 32 as near 
Shechem. A constant tradition has identified it 
with: the well near Mt. Gerizim, where the fruitful 
plain of Mukhnah turns into the Shechem valley. 
To the Samaritans, who considered themselves the 
true descendants of Jacob, the whole region about 
Shechem was full of sacred associations, all more or 
less clearly reflected in the woman’s conversation 






































The Mouth of Jacob’s Well (Present Condition). 


(cf. Gn 33 19, 48 22 [cf. RVmg.]; Dt 27 4, 12 £.; Jos 


8 30 f., 24 32). On the SW. of the well rises Mt. 
Gerizim, the sacred mountain of the Samaritans 
(4 20), on which were the ruins of their Temple, 
destroyed by the Jews 128 B.c., and across the 
valley is Mt. Ebal, on the outer slope of which lies 


‘Askar, the Sychar (q.v.) of the gospel story, a little 
over half a mile N. of the well. At the well the 
main road from the S. forks, one branch going W. 
to Shechem, 2 m. distant, and then to Galilee by 
way of Samaria and Jenin, the other N. past ‘Askar. 





_B] NECK OF WELL 






Hh 







































i) 
J 


ze e 5 
, iD = ioe 
C—O ~~ 
oy Se 
. oo cr Eee 
ae : UE ag ~ 
ss TLS 
Sor aR pe IR 
= = MASON WORK 
7 cy i Sn s 
Lo ccntiiond — 
Ss 
SOR ts 
Eames reas 
< 4 Rote St 
Ean te EEA Raa; yar 
‘<a ane 
DoS eres 
—— 5 ss 
? 4 (ie tecnico 
Sot 
a see 


Jacob’s Well (Sectional View). 


The existence of Jacob s well in this finely watered 
region has occasioned difficulty. It was dug probably 
by the patriarch for his household and cattle, in 
order to prevent trouble with his neighbors already 
in possession of other sources of supply The well, 
tho choked with rubbish, is still over 75 ft. deep. 
It is really a cistern 714 ft. in diameter, walled in 
toward the mouth, which was below the surface, 
and supplied evidently by infiltration from the 
rainfall. So it was different from the ‘living water’ 
of a perennial spring, which the woman understood 
Jesus to be speaking of. At present the well is usually 
dry from about the end of May until the autumn 
rains. The quality of the water is particularly good, 
being much superior to that of the brooks and 
springs from the limestone hills. The Greek Church, 





409 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jacob’s Well 
Jair 





which now owns the surrounding plot of ground, has 
built a chapel over the well. 
R. A. F.—E. C, L. 

JADA, jé’da (YT, yadha‘), ‘He knows’: A Jerah- 
meelite clan (I Ch 2 28, 32). 

JADAU, ja-dé’u or jé’d6. See Ippo 

JADDOA, jad-dit’a (2472, yaddiia‘), ‘known : 1. 
A chief of the postexilic community (Neh 10 21). 
2. Chief priest c. 350-300 B.c. The list in Neh 
12 11, 22 shows that he belonged to the third genera- 
tion after Nehemiah. He is, therefore, to be identi- 
fied with the Jaddua of Josephus (Ant. XI, 7 2., 
8 4-7), the contemporary of Alexander the Great 
The story in Josephus about the means taken by 
Jaddua to appease the wrath of Alexander as he 
was marching against Jerusalem is improbable. 
conflicting with other data of Alexander’s campaign. 
Its historical kernel may be only this, that Alexander 
was, on the whole, favorably disposed toward the 
Jews. K. E. N. 


JADON, jé’don (iT, yddhon): A man from 


Meronoth (site unknown), who assisted at the build- 
ing of the wall (Neh 3 7). 


JAEL, jé’el (ay, ya@‘él), ‘mountain-goat’: The wife 
of Heber, the Kenite. According to Jg 4 20f., when 
Sisera was defeated at the battle of Esdraelon and 
his army scattered, he fled to the tent of Heber, 
trusting in the peace existing between him and his 
own master Jabin. Jael received him with the 
appearance of the most cordial kindness, but when 
such suspicions as he might have had as to her 
possible attitude had been disarmed, and he had 
fallen asleep, she put him to death in a most revolt- 
ing manner by driving a tent-pin through his 
temple. In the Song of Deborah (Jg 5 24-27) she is 
represented as striking Sisera down with a ‘work- 
man’s hammer’ (probably the hammer used in 
driving the tent-pins), in the very act of drinking 
the sour milk she had given him (‘At her feet he 
bowed, he fell: Where he bowed, there he fell down 
dead’). Of the two versions the poetical is probably 
the more accurate. Sisera could not have claimed the 
rights of hospitality from Heber, the Kenite, who 
was in alliance with the Israelites. It is, moreover, 
easier to understand Jael’s renown for courage if she 
struck down a man, as the poem has it, than if she 
took advantage of him when asleep. A.C. Z. 


JAGOR, jé’gor (1, ydghir): A town in the ex- 
treme S. of Judah near Edom (Jos 15 21). Site 
unknown. 

JAH, ja (7, yah): A shortened form for ‘Jeho- 
vah’ (Yahweh), sometimes used alone, especially in 
poetry (Ex 15 2, mg.), and sometimes in compound 
proper names. See JEHOVAH. 


JAHATH, jé@’hath (O02, yahath): 1. A clan of 
Judah, living near Kiriath-jearim (I Ch 4 2; ef. 
2 52-54). 2. The ancestral head of a subdivision of 
the Gershonite Levites (I Ch 6 20, 43, 28 10, 11). 
3. A Kohathite Levite (I Ch 24 22). 4, A Merarite 
Levite (II Ch 34 12). : 

JAHAZ, jé’haz, JAHAZA, ja-hé’za or jé’ha-za, 
JAHAZAH, ja-hé’za or jéha-za, JAHZAH, ja’za 


(Vil. M$i22, yahats, yahtséh): A city of the Amor- 
ite kingdom of Sihon, where Sihon was slain by 
Israel (Nu 21 23; Dt 2 32; Jg 11 20f.). It was S. 
of Hesbon, on the main road along the table-land 
(Jer 48 21). It belonged to Reuben (Jos 13 18) and 
was given to the Levites, children of Merari (Jos 
21 36; I Ch 6 78 [63]). The Mesha inscription states 
that it was fortified by Israel, but captured by 
Mesha and added to Dibon. Not identified. 
Cosas 
JAHAZIAH, jé”hoa-zai’a. See Jauzeran. 
JAHAZIEL, jo-hé’zi-el (?8'I, yahdzi’al), ‘El 
sees’: 1. One of the thirty heroes who joined David 
at Ziklag (I Ch 12 4). 2. A priest and trumpeter 
for service before the Ark (I Ch 166). 3. A son of 
Hebron, a Kohathite (I Ch 28 19, 24 23). 4. A 
Levite, of the sons of Asaph, who encouraged 
Jehoshaphat and Judah against Moab (II Ch 20 
14 ff.). 5. A Jew in Babylon, whose son returned with 
Ezra to Jerusalem (Ezr 8 5). aba. 
JAHDAI, ja’dai or ja’dé (17, ydhday): A 
Calebite (I Ch 2 47). 
JAHDIEL, ja’di-el (8M, yahdvél), ‘God gives 
joy’: The ancestral head of a Manassite clan E. of 
the Jordan (I Ch 5 24). 


JAHDO, ja’do (17, yahdd): A Gadite (I Ch 514). 

JAHLEEL, ja‘h-el (782%, yahl’él): The an- 
central head of a clan of Zebulun (Gn 46 14), the 
Jahleelites (Nu 26 26). 

JAHMAI, ja@’mo-ai or ja’mé (PM, yahmay): A 
clan of Issachar (I Ch 7 2). 


JAHZAH, ja@’za. See Jawaz. 


JAHZEEL, ja’zi-el ON¥™, yahts’l), ‘God di- 
vides’: The ancestral head of a clan of Naphtali 
(Gn 46 24; Jahziel in I Ch 7 13), the Jahzeelites 
(Nu 26 48). 

JAHZEIAH, ja-zi’ya (MINT, yahzeyah), ‘J’’ sees.’ 
AV Jahaziah (Ezr 10 15): Son of Tikvah; accord- 
ing to RV, one of four to oppose Ezra in getting 
the Jews to put away their foreign wives. RVmg. 
and AV represent him as one who helped Ezra. 

Ba Ls 

JAHZERAH, ja’zi-ra (TUN, yahzérah): A priest 
(I Ch 912), also called Ahzai (Neh 1113, Ahasai AV). 

JAHZIEL, ja’zi-el. See JAHZEEL. 


JAIR, jé’ir (V8), yd@ir), ‘he enlightens’ (cf. 
Jairus, Mk 5 22; Lk 8 41): 1. A descendant of 
Manasseh, whom the dominant tradition made the 
conqueror of Amorite territory N. of the Jabbok, 
and the eponymous hero of the Havvoth-jair (‘tent- 
villages of Jair’), whose number varies in the different 
accounts from 23 to 60 (Nu 382 41; Dt 3 14; Jos 13 30; 
I K 413; I Ch 2 22). The date of this conquest is 
quite uncertain; recent commentators make it post- 
Mosaic, from the similarity of the narrative to Jg 
ch. 1, and because of the probable identity with the 
Gileadite judge Jair (Jg 10 3-5), who is said to have 
given his name to a,group of tent-villages. I Ch 
2 22 makes Jair a Machirite on his mother’s side and 
a Judahite on his father’s, which suggests that a 
clan of mixed lineage from the west established 


Jairite 
James, Epistle of 





itself by conquest in Gilead. Ira, the Jairite (II 
S 20 26), was probably a descendant of Jair. 2. The 
father of Mordecai (Est 2 5). 3. (V4, ya@‘Zr), ‘he 
arouses’: The father of Elhanan, the Bethlehemite 
(I Ch 20 5). A. 8. C.*—O. R.S. 

JAIRITE jé/ir-ait. See Jair. 

JAIRUS, jo-ai’rus (Iéetpoc, according to Nestle 
Heb. yar, ‘he will awaken’): A synagog ruler 
(Zeywv Mt 918) who besought Jesus to come and 
restore his daughter to health. There are slight 
variations in the Gospel traditions. In the Mt 
version no name is given. In Mk 5 22 D omits the 
name. Its insertion in most MSS. of "Mk may be 
due to effort to give vividness to the narrative. Cf. 


the somewhat similar case of Bartimzus (q.v.). 
M. T. 


JAKEH, jé’ke ("P}, yageh): The father of Agur 
(Pr 301). See Acur. 

JAKIM, jée’kim (8'P!, ydgqim,, ‘He raises: 1. 
The ancestral head of the twelfth course of priests 
(I Ch 24 12). 2. A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 
8 19). 

JALAM, jé/lom (029?, ya‘lém, Jaalam AV): The 
ancestral head of a clan of Edom (Gn 36 5, 14, 18; 
1Ch 1725). 


JALON, jé’lon (1572, yalon): A descendant of Ca- 
leb (I Ch 417). Probably a place-name. 


JAMBRES, jam’briz. 
BRES. 


JAMES (‘IdxwGoc,): The name of three prominent 
N T persons. I. The son of Zebedee (Mk 1 19) and 
Salome (cf. Mt 27 56 with Mk 15 40), and the elder 
brother of John (before whom he is always named in 
the Gospels, excepting Lk 9 28; cf. Ac 1 13), and, 
with him, one of the Apostles (Mk 3 17; Mt 10 2; 
Lk 6 14), sometimes called ‘the greater’ to distin- 
guish him from ‘James the less.’ On the supposition 
that Salome was a sister of Mary (cf. the names given 
in Mk 15 40 and Mt 27 56 with the statement of Jn 
19 25; but see SauomeE), these brothers were the 
cousins of Jesus. It would thus be due possibly to 
this relationship that Salome requested of Jesus 
special honors for them in the expected Messianic 
kingdom (Mt 20 20f. See JoHN THE APosTLE). His 
home was probably in Capernaum, and from the 
reference to hired servants in the employ of Zebedee 
(Mk 1 20) and the mention of the fact that Salome 
was one of the women who ministered of their 
substance to Jesus and His company (cf. Mk 15 41 
with Lk 8 3), the family was in all likelihood one of 
means. The passage Jn 1 35-46 leaves it uncertain 
whether J. was a disciple of the Baptist. He is 
first mentioned in the call of the four fishermen at 
the Sea of Galilee (Mk 1 16-20 and ||s). From his 
prominent position in the Apostolic lists (Mk 3 
16 f.; Mt 10 2; Lk 614; Ac 113) and his place in the 
group of Jesus’ three intimate disciples (Mk 5 37, 
9 2, 14 33; cf. also 13 3), he was with his brother 
evidently one of the foremost of those chosen to the 
Master’s service. The name ‘Boanerges’ (q.v.), 
referred to in the list of Apostles in Mk as given the 
brothers by Jesus (Mk 3 17), does not need to be 
understood as given at the time of their appointment 


See JANNES AND JAM- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


410 





as Apostles; it is likely rather to have been the 
result of later events, such as that recorded in 
Lk 9 52-54. 

Tho no mention is made of J. in the life of the 
Church until the record of his martyrdom at the 
hands of Herod Agrippa (44 a.p., Ac 12 2), the fact 
that in order to curry favor with the Pharisaic 
party he was selected along with Peter (who was 
cast into prison, ver. 3) as the first object of official 
cruelty shows, probably, that he had not ceased to 
be prominent among the Apostles and that, beyond 
his brother, he had retained his bold aggressiveness 
of character. In this he evidently shared with Peter 
and it marked them both for attack. The state- 
ments in the Hypotyposes of Clement of Alexandria 
and the Apostolica Historia of the Psuedo-Abdias 
regarding his death and those regarding his patron 


sainthood in the Church of Spain are wholly apoc- 


ryphal. 


2. The son of Alphzeus, one of the Apostles 
(Mk 3 18; Mt 10 3; Lk 6 15; Ac 1 13), possibly a 
brother of Matthew (cf. Mk 3 18 with 214). Beyond 
this, nothing certain is told us about him in the N T. 
If Alpheus=Clopas (Jn 19 25), then he was ‘James 
the less,’ his mother was Mary, and his brother Joses 
(Mk 15 40); but the identity of these names is most 
questionable (but see AtpHmus). The further 
supposition (on the basis of Jn 19 25) that his mother 
was a sister of Mary and that he was thus the cousin 
of Jesus is not warranted, in view of Mk 15 40 and 
Mt 27 56. (See above, under 1.) 


3. The brother of the Lord (Gal 1 19), a later son 
of Joseph and Mary (see BRETHREN OF THE LorD), 
in patristic literature called ‘the Just.’ The brothers 
of Jesus did not believe in Him throughout His 
ministry (Jn 7 5), J.’s conversion being due 
apparently to a special appearance of Jesus to him 
after the Resurrection (I Co 157). The N T refer- 
ences to him are thus practically confined to the 
period after the Ascension. He is first mentioned 
as remaining with his brothers in Jerusalem, in 
company with his mother, the faithful women, and 
the Apostles, awaiting the promised gift of the Spirit 
(Ac 1 13 f.). At the time of Paul’s first visit to 
Jerusalem, he was already of prominence in the 
Church (Gal 1 19); at the time of Peter’s imprison- 
ment, his importance had not decreased (Ac 12 17); 
while at the time of Jerusalem Council he is referred 
to, with Peter and John, as one of the ‘pillars’ of 
the Jewish Christian discipleship in general (Gal 
29). In fact, the Acts account of the Council shows 
him to have been the authoritative head of the 
Jerusalem community (15 13, 19), his appointment to 
this position being due to his relationship to Jesus, 
of Whom, as younger brother, he would, according 
to Hebrew custom, be the natural representative 
(Harnack, Constitution and Law of the Church, 
pp. 31-34). This explains the statement in Gal 2 12, 
where James is referred to, not as the reason for 
the influence upon Peter of these representatives of 
the conservative element in Jerusalem, but as the 
official source-of their mission. This also explains 
his prominence in the closing incident of Paul’s 
active mission life (Ac 21 17-26) as well as the reference 
to him in Gal 1 19 as one of the Apostles (see 


Se 


ee a 


4i1 


ApostLze). From I Co 9 5 it has been inferred that 
J. was married. As to his authorship of the Epistle 
which bears his name, see the following article. 


* "Tt is clear from J.’s utterances at the Council (Ac 
15 13-21) and on the occasion of Paul’s last visit to 
Jerusalem (Ac 21 18-25) that J.’s position regarding 
the observance of the Law as conditioned by the 
admission to the Church of uncircumcised Gentile 
converts is to be identified with that of the party 
of piety (the fot éx xeprtowyc, Ac 11 2; Gal 2 12) 
rather than with that of the party of bigotry (the 
wives TOV &TO THS atoécewo TtHV Paptoatwy of mwento- 
ceuxdtes, Ac 15 5). The latter held salvation 
through Christ to be impossible apart from the 
full observance of the Mosaic Law; so that they were 
opposed to the admission of Gentile converts without 
circumcision (Ac 15 1). The former were willing 
to accept these converts into all the privileges of the 
spiritual covenant people of God without submission 
to Jewish rites, but felt that the Jewish Christians 
should continue piously to observe the Law for 
themselves, even tho (inconsistently) this made 
impossible full fraternization with the Gentile 
element in the Church. From this point of view 
the recognition of Paul and Barnabas as fellow 
workers with the Jerusalem Apostles (Gal 2 9 f.) 
was for James a perfectly sincere act. On this basis 
also the pressure exerted at Antioch by the repre- 
sentatives of this piety party on Peter (Gal 2 12), 
as the acknowledged leader of this element in the 
Church, was easy to understand and not without 
justification. Its unfortunate results were due to 
the spirit in which Peter yielded to it, rather than 
to its character as a demand. (See GALATIANS 
EPISTLE TO THE, § 3.) 


According to Josephus (Ant. XX, 9 1), the Sad- 
ducees took advantage of the interval between the 
death of Festus and the coming of Albinus, in the 
year 62 a.D., through the high priest Annas, to 
summon J. before the Sanhedrin on the charge of 
breaking the sacred laws. Tho J. was found guilty 
and stoned, the indignation of the better class of 
the Jews at the high-handed action of the high 
priest was such that, on their complaint to Agrippa 
and Albinus, Annas was deposed from his position. 
This account may be accepted as in general repre- 
senting the facts in the case, tho there is no reason 
to believe that the Pharisees did not unite with the 
Sadducees in the action, or that the protest to the 
king and the governor was motived by any personal 
sympathy or regard for J. The account of his death 
given by Hegesippus (Eus. H#, IT, 23) is legendary 
—possibly derived from the apocryphal Ascents of 
James; while the tradition of his election to be first 
bishop of Jerusalem (Clem. Alex. in Eus. HZ, II, 1) 
and his exalted position of rulership over the Church 
at large (Clementine Recognitions, 1 68) are to be 
resolved into the N T statements of his leadership 
in the early Church given above. 


To James has been assigned the apocryphal 
Protevangelium Jacobi, as well as the Jerusalem (or 
Antioch) Liturgy—the earliest service of the Eastern 
Church—and the Ascents of James, unknown except 
through description by Epiphanius (Panarion, 30, 
16, 25). 





A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jairite 
James, Epistle of 





LireRATURE: In addition to works quoted under articles 
Brethren of the Lord, and James, Epistle of, see Hort, 
Judaistic Christianity (1898); and The Christian Ecclesia 
(1898); Patrick, James the Lord’s Brother (1906). 


JAMES, EPISTLE OF. One of the N T writings 
assigned to the group of the so called Catholic 
Epistles (q.v.). 

1. Form and Contents. It is peculiar in its form, 
lacking all closing salutations and having the 
briefest greeting of any N T Epistle; while its 
material is not developed argumentatively, but 
arranged as separate topics in a sequence whose 
connections it is not always easy to discover. In its 
contents, tho not possessing the literary quality of 
Hebrews, it is, like that Epistle, of a distinctively 
homiletic character, being composed almost wholly 
of éxhortations and warnings bearing upon practical 
religious living. 

It begins with a treatment of the testings involved in the 
Christian life (1 2-27), urging a joyful view of them, based on 
their influence in proving and perfecting character (1 24) 
adding an exhortation to prayer, if need is felt of spiritual 
wisdom in their enduring (1 5-8’), and to a cheerful acceptance 
of the changes of fortune which they may involve, because 
of the blessings to character which must result (1 912). This 
is followed by a warning as to a right view of the sources of 
temptation as distinct from testing (1 18-18). The readers are 
then exhorted to a proper hearing and a practical doing of the 
word, based on the essential principles involved in their 
spiritual attitude toward it (1 19-27), 

What follows to the close of the Epistle (2 1-5 2°) may 
possibly be considered in general a treatment of the relation- 
ships involved in the Christian life, tho the thought which 
leads from one exhortation and warning to the other is not 
always clearly discernible. There is, first, a warning against 
a partiality toward the rich, based on God’s honoring of the 
poor, their oppression by the rich, and the fundamental law 
of neighborly love (2 1!~!8), Possibly because of the dead 
orthodoxy involved in such a tendency to be influenced by 
the externals of life, the author is led to an instruction as to 
the true relation of faith and works (2 14-26), and possibly 
because of the element of doctrine involved in this instruction, 
he is brought to a warning against the multiplication of mere 
doctrine teachers (3 1), the peculiar danger of whose vocation 
lies in the fact that the teacher’s work is especially open to the 
abuse of speech (3 3), this being followed naturally by a 
general presentation of the importance, depravity, and un- 
tamableness of the tongue, which is illustrated by various 
examples (3 3-12), Over against such possibilities the author 
exhorts his readers to meekness and peaceableness (3 187}8). 
To this he adds a reminder that the source of factions and 
walrings among themselves is their own unspiritual living 
(4 1-6), against which he enters a strong and urgent plea 
(4 T10), There then follows an exhortation against the 
evidently related fault of uncharitable judgment, usurping, as 
it does, the place of God, as Judge and Interpreter of the Law 
(4 1 f£.), Possibly because of the idea of haughtiness in their 
thinking, the author proceeds to a condemnation of those 
presumptuous plans for the future which ignore the uncer- 
tainty of life (4 18-17). As such plans seem to be made largely 
by the self-complacent rich, this judgment upon them leads 
him to a pronouncement of wo upon this class of the Church’s 
people, because of their miserly oppression of the poor and 
their self-indulgent luxury (5 1-6). This brings him to the 
general thought of patience, which is presented from various 
points of view through the remainder of the Epistle (5 7°). 
There is, first, an exhortation to the patient endurance needed 
under such oppression, to which endurance the sufferers are 
encouraged by the nearness of the coming of the Lord, having 
an inspiring example in the O T prophets and patriarchs 
(5 7-11); then there is a warning against that mark of im- 
patience which is given by swearing (5 !), in contrast with 
which the readers are urged to turn to prayer in trouble 
(suggesting possibly the grace of praise in joy and the wisdom 
of availing themselves of the healing help of the Church in 
sickness), 5 13-15; in general, they are urged to enter into the 
fellowship of the Christian brotherhood in all their spiritual 
experience, from which habit of fellowship comes the possibil- 
ity of large service and rich blessing to one another (5 16-29), 


James, Epistle of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


412 





2. Relation of Epistle to Apostolic Age. From 

this review of the contents of the Epistle the 
question naturally arises as to the conditions in the 
Church of which it is the product. Are they the 
conditions of an early or of a later period in the 
Apostolic Age, or of a period before or after that 
age? It is on this question that the chief debate 
regarding the Epistle has centered. 
- Obviously, the general topics of the spiritual 
significance of trials, the obligations of religious 
living, the temptations which come upon, and the 
help which is open to, the poor oppressed by the rich 
belong to every age of the Church, and nothing can 
be determined froma cursory reading of the Epistle 
as to when it was written. It is only from a more 
detailed study of the contents that any definite 
conclusions can be drawn. 


2a. Readers. First, then, as to the readers of the 
Epistle: The letter was sent to Jewish Christians. 
The claim that it was originally a pre-Christian 
writing intended only for Jews (Spitta, Zur Ge- 
schichte u. Latteratur des Urchristentums, ii, 1896: 
(1) ignores the fact that the readers are not termed 
in the address (1 1) the twelve tribes of Israel (as 
in Mt 19 28; Lk 22 30; Rev 21 12; cf. also Ac 267 
and the Protevangelium Jacobi, § 1) which in the 
Dispersion of foreign lands looked to Palestine as 
their native country and to Jerusalem as their 
Holy City. The absence of this distinctive national 
term shows that they are considered rather as the 
twelve tribes which in the Dispersion of an earthly 
sojourn looked for an abiding country and city 
above—a favorite N T designation of Christians 
from the Jewish point of view (cf. He 11 13, 13 14; 
IP 11,17, 211). (2) It fails also to recognize not only 
that the purpose of the letter is to urge its readers 
against such faults as those to which distinctively 
Jewish converts would naturally be tempted—for, 
after all, such faults might belong to Jews outside 
the Church—but that its Jewish message is cast in 
a specifically Christian mold (e.g., the idea of a 
Divine birth, through the word of truth, 1 18, 21 
(ef. Jn. 113; I P 1 23]; a perfect moral law which is a 
law of liberty, 1 25, 2 12 [cf. Jn 8 32, 36; Gal 2 4]; an 
heirship in the kingdom of God through faith, 2 5 
[cf. He 11 13, 39 £.]; the contemplation of suffering 
and trial as a source of exultant joy, 1 2, 9-12 [ef. 
Mt 5 10-12; I P 4 14]). 


2b. Date. A letter, however, addressed to Jewish 
Christians covering such an extent of country as is 
implied in this idea of the Dispersion necessitates an 
early period in the Apostolic Age, when the Christian 
Church was exclusively Jewish and communities of 
this exclusively Jewish character had spread beyond 
Palestine, as far as Damascus (Ac 9 2, 26 10-12), and 
Antioch (Ac 11 20-23), and Phenicia (Ac 153). In 
this letter there is no allusion to the presence of 
Gentiles in the Church; there is no reference to sins 
of idolatry, or mention of the relation of masters and 
slaves. The readers’ surroundings within as well as 
without the Christian brotherhood are Jewish (cf. 
2 2, 6f.,8f.). This inference as to the early date of the 
letter is confirmed by the reference to the Parousia 
in 5 7-9, where the situation obviously is not one in 
which the coming of the Lord has been so long 


delayed that the expectation of it has been given up 
or questioned (as in IT P 3 3-9), but one in which it is 
still a vital hope to be summoned to one’s aid in the 
midst of trial and suffering (as in II Th 1 4-10; cf. 
also Mt 24 33). It is further strengthened by the 
unorganized condition of the church life disclosed 
in 31, where the instruction referred to is not carried 
on by special persons appointed to this function (as 
the d:ddoxcAo0t of I Co 12 28 and Eph 4 11), but in- 
discriminately by individual members of the com- 
munity (more as the S:3éoxaAo: of Ac 131 and Ro 
12 7). The elders referred to in 5 14 correspond 
to the rpecGbtepor of the primitive communities, 
whose functions were general and who were the 
natural officials (cf. the Churches of Paul’s first mis- 
sion, Ac 14 23; cf. also I Th 5 12 and see ELprErs). 
In fact, the healing with oil which they accom- 
plished is mentioned but once elsewhere in the _ 
N T (Mk 613), and is more of a forerunner of the 
later Charismata than a sequence from them. 


2c. Situation. It is clear, however, that the 
religious condition to which the letter was addressed, 
while in agreement with an undeveloped period of 
the Church’s life, at the same time discloses a falling 
away from the religious enthusiasm of the first years 
of the Church’s living, due not so much to oppressive 
measures from outside (2 6 f.) as to the loss of vital 
conceptions of religious duty and privilege on the 
part of the readers themselves (1 26 f., 2 1, 12, etc.) 
(a) There was a tendency to underestimate the 
spiritual value of the changes of fortune which came 
to them (1 9-11) and so not only to yield to the 
influences of the world in their attitude toward the 
rich (2 1-4, 9), but to adopt the spirit of the world in 
their own business (4 2-4, 13-17, 5 1-6) and to lose the 
sense of brotherly relations among themselves (1 27, 
2 8-12, 41,11f.,59). (b) There was, deeper than this, 
a tendency to forget the vital connection between 
creed and conduct—to think that faith was enough 
without its realization in life (15 -8, 214-26, 316f.)—in 
fact, to revert to their old Jewish confession of mono- 
theism (2 19) and hearing of the Scriptures (1 22-25), 
as all that was required of them, or to concentrate 
religion along certain agreeable lines, ignoring those 
which were not to their liking (2 8-13). In conse- 
quence of this lifeless orthodoxy they were possessed 
with an inordinate zeal to go about as teachers, 
imposing upon one another their own ideas (3 1), 
falling into a spirit of dogmatism and proselytism 
ruinous to peace among themselves (1 19 f., 3 2-16). 
(e) These tendencies were accompanied naturally 
by a loss of the sense of their spiritual privileges as 
Children of God (1 5, 12, 17 f., 2 5, 4 6-8a, 10, 57 f., 
13-17, 19 f.). In brief, their religious life had lost its 
spiritual fervor and was becoming hardened into the 
spirit of the world around them. That such a 
condition could have developed soon in the Jewish 
Christian communities is evident from the experience 
of the Jerusalem Church itself (Ac 5 1-11, 61). The 
enthusiasm of Pentecost did not become a per- 
manent grace. The new religion was young; it did 
not have behind it the steadying force of accumu- 
lated habit, and the same human nature was present 
that in these early days manifested itself with such 
greed of gold in the Church of Samaria (Ac 89-24) and 





413 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


! James, Epistle of 





later with such bitterness of faction in the Church 
of Corinth (I Co 110 #.). To meet such a situation 
this letter might have been written even before the 
conversion of Saul (35 a.p.). At all events, the 
treatment of faith and works in 2 14-26 makes clear 
that it must have been written before the great 
discussion aroused by Paul’s first mission journey 
—4i.e., before 49 a.p. For this treatment presupposes 
no such controversy. And if it be claimed that 
deadening of faith resulted later from the abuse of 
Paul’s Gospel and this letter simply misunderstands 
Paul’s position, it must be remembered that no letter 
written to Jewish Christian churches after the 
Council in Jerusalem could have treated the relation 
of faith and works this way; for on the basis of the 
issue before this Council the argument which would 
have been directed against the Jewish Christian 
was not that faith but works was overemphasized. 
As a matter of fact, the discussion in this second 
chapter is in no discord with the position of Paul, 
while the argument it presents is against that fossil- 
izing of faith which came from a reversion to Jewish 
formalism and not against that distortion of it which 
came from an abuse of Gentile liberty. James is not 
talking about faith as the act of entrance upon the 
Christian life, but as the habit of grace within the 
Christian life. It is the perfecting rather than the 
beginning of Christian experience which is before his 
mind (cf. 2 22 and with this cf. such references to 
faith as in 1 3, 6, 21, 5, which lead up to this passage). 
This is a situation, then, earlier than that brought 
about by Paul, and assigns the Epistle to a date as 
early at least as 48 a.p. 


3. Author. With the Jewish Christian character 
of the readers determined, and the early date of the 
Epistle assured, the problem of authorship practi- 
cally solves itself. The James of the address desig- 
nates himself not as an apostle, but ‘a servant of 
God and of the Lord Jesus Christ.’ He can not be, 
therefore, the son of Zebedee, nor the son of Al- 
phzus, but must be the son of Joseph, the brother 
of the Lord. Notice the familiarity with Jesus’ 
teachings in (a) the condemnation of ‘hearers only’ 
(1 22, 25; Mt 7 26; Jn 13.17), of critics (411; Mt 71-5), 
of worldliness (110, 25f., etc.; Mt 619, 24; Lk 6 24), 
the attitude toward prayer (1 5, etc.; Mt 77; Mk 11 
23), poverty (2 6; Lk 6 20), humility (410; Mt 23 12), 
the idea of the tree and its fruits (3 1; M 7 16)— 
see Salmond, N 7' Introd.’, p. 455—a familiarity 
that would agree with a personal knowledge of 
Jesus’ ideas, even without a formal discipleship 
during his Ministry. Also note the resemblance to 
the speech and the circular letter attributed to 
James in Ac 15. As head of the Jerusalem Church 
he would not need to assert, either in the address or 
the text of the letter, his relationship to the Lord, 
while it would be well within his rights and privileges 
to send a pastoral letter to the Jewish Christian 
communities of Syria and Phenicia, and it would be 
but natural that he should endeavor to meet their 
failing spiritual life with such exhortations and 
warnings as this Epistle presents. To claim that 
the address is the work of a 2d-cent. forger 
is to underestimate the temptation which must have 
come to one who desired to pose as this revered 


authority in the early Church so to describe himself 
in the address or so to refer to himself in the body 
of the letter as to leave no possible doubt regarding 
his identity. It is of no significance that the James of 
the Protevangelium does not clearly distinguish him- 
self. That document was a gospel and the N T 
Gospels bear no names. Our document was an 
epistle and, as a rule, the N T Epistles are clearly 
identified in the authority of their authorships. 
Obviously in a 2d-cent. forged epistle the assuming 
of an authorship from Apostolic times was solely 
for the sake of its authority and called for an un- 
mistakableness of identity. The theory that the 
Epistle is a tract by an obscure or unknown James 
in the 2d, or even in the Ist cent., hardly comports 


with its being addressed to such an extensive circle 


of readers. 


4. Relation to Other N T Writings. The deter- 
mination of the Epistle’s early date makes clear that 
being thus the earliest N T writing it is in no literary 
dependence upon any of the writings inthe Canon. 
As to the dependence of the other writings upon it, 
it is questionable whether a letter sent to Jewish 
Christian communities in Syria and Phenicia and 
dealing, not with a propaganda of the works of the 
Law, but with the danger of making faith merely 
formal, would present itself to Paul (cf. Smith in 
J BLE) asin any way affecting the great debate into 
which his Gospel had brought him, if indeed he knew 
of the existence of the letter. If it came before him 
at all, it would be in his later controversy with the 
hyper-Gentile movement, dealt with especially in 
Romans (q.v.), in which freedom from the cere- 
monial law was exaggerated into irresponsibility to 
the moral law, and in this debate Paul would have 
had to show his agreement with James and not his 
opposition to him, or his modification of his views. 
The Judaizers, as Mayor contends (Epistle of St. 
James, pp. xc ff.), may have misinterpreted James’s 
views in support of their own position, but if Paul 
had been acquainted with his letter, he would have 
pointed out the misinterpretation, as well as com- 
bated the false views. This he nowhere does. It is 
barely possible that James may have been used in 
other Epistles, tho such use would be confined to 
I Peter (cf. Mayor, pp. xevii-cili). 

5. Canonicity. It belongs to the group of the 
Antilegomena, being recognized by Eusebius as one 
of the disputed books, tho accepted by himself. 
It is omitted from some of the early lists (e.g., the 
Muratorian Canon), but included in others (e.g., 
the Peshitto). It is fully quoted as Scripture first 
by Origen. Its brief form, its unassertive authorship, 
and the fact that it was originally sent to an exclu- 
sive Jewish circle in the East may largely account for 
its tardy recognition as part of the literature of the 
Apostolic Age. 


LireratTuRE: Among the Introductions in English, Jilicher 
(transl. 1904) represents the advanced, Zahn (transl. 1917) 
the conservative German view. Consult also the Jntro- 
ductions of Moffatt (1900); Bacon (1900); Peake (1910); 
and the general work of Jones, The N T in the 20th Century 
(1914); and Wade, New Testament Histery (1923). The 
most extensive Commentaries are those of Mayor (1913); 
Carr (Camb. Grk. Test. (1896); Oesterley, Expos. Grk. Test. 
(1910); Bennett, New Cent. Bible (n.d.); and Ropes, ICC 
(1916). The most important discussion is that of Spitta, 


Jamin 
Jeduthun 





Zur Geschichte u. Litteratur d. Urchristentums, ii (1896). See 

also Harnack, Chronologie d. Alichrisilichen Litteratur, 1; 

Feine, Der Jakobusbrief nach Lehranschauungen u. Ent- 

stehungsverhdlinisse (1893); Dale, Discourses on the Epistles 

of Paul (1895). M. W. J. 

JAMIN, jé’min (1), yamin), ‘the right hand (or 
side)’: 1. The ancestral head of a clan of Simeon 
(Gn 46 10, etc.), the Jaminites (Nu 26 12). 2. The 
ancestral head of a family of Judah (I Ch 2 27). 
3. A priest (Neh 87). 

JAMLECH, jam’lek (122, yamlékh), ‘He grants 
dominion’: The head of a Simeonite family (I Ch 
4 34). 

JANAI, jé’no-ai or jé’né (2¥2, ya‘nay, Jaanai 
AV): The head of a Gadite family (I Ch 512). 

JANIM, jan’im (O'2, ydnim, Janum AV): A 
city of Judah (Jos 15 53). Site uncertain, but see 
Map II, E 2. 

JANNAI, ‘jan’no-ai (lawet, 
ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3. 24). 

JANNES, Jan’niz, AND JAMBRES, jam’briz: 
Names given in II Ti 3 8 to the Egyptian miracle- 
workers who ‘withstood Moses’ (Ex 7 11 f.). They 
are probably of Egyptian etymology. The Targum 
of Jonathan inserts them in Ex 711. An apocryphal 
document under the title of Jannes and Mambres 
(variant form for Jambres also found in the Tar- 
gumic literature), is mentioned by Origen (in Matt. 
Comm. 117), and by other early Church writers 
(Abroisiaster, Hilary, etc.). But it is doubtful 
whether this apocryphal work is the one upon which 
II Ti 38 is based. All efforts to reach further into 
the origin of these names, or to reduce them into 
some sort of mythical emblems, are for the present 
to be regarded as mere guesses. A. C. Z. 

JANOAH, ja-nd’a (M2, yandah): 1. A town 
of Naphtali, depopulated by Tiglath-pileser in 734 
B.c. (II K 15 29). Map IV, C 4. This site, how- 
ever, seems too far W. 2. A town on the border of 
Ephraim (Jos 16 6,7, Janohah AV). Map III, G 4. 

JANUM, jé-nom. See JAnim. 


JAPHETH, jé’fefh. See EranoGrapuy AND 
ErHnouoey, §§ 12, 18. 

JAPHIA, jo-fai’a (95), yaphia‘): I. 1. A king 
of Lachish, conquered and slain by Joshua (Jos 10 3). 
2. A son of David (IIS 515; I Ch 37, 146). IL. A 
town on the border of Zebulun ‘Jos 19 12). Map 
PVG a 

JAPHLET, jaf’let (02°, yaphlét), ‘He deliv- 
ers’: I. The ancestral head of a clan of Asher 
(I Ch 7 32 £.). II. A town on the SW. border of 
Ephraim, the home of the Japhletites (Jos 16 3, 
Japhleti AV). Site unknown. 

JAPHO, jé’f56. See Joppa. 

JAR: The ARV rendering of (1) kadh (I K 17 12- 
16, 18 33, ‘barrel’ AV). See Barren. (2) nebhel, 
ARV mg., Jer 1312, 4812. See Borris. 

JARAH, jé’ra (77¥2, ya‘rah): One of Saul’s 
descendants (I Ch 9 42), called Jehoaddah in I Ch 
8 36. 

JAREB, jé’reb or jar’eb (AV, yarébh): A king 
of Assyria (Hos 5 13, 10 6). As this name does not 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Janna AV): An 


414 





occur in cuneiform literature, the identity of the 
monarch to whom it refers is in dispute. Sayce’s con- 
jecture, which makes it the natal name of Sargon, 
has met with no favor. The Heb. ydrébh is com- 
monly connected with the root ribh=‘to strive,’ 
and variously translated, ‘the warlike king,’ ‘King 
Combat,’ etc. The Heb. with a different division 
of consonants may also be rendered ‘the great king.’ 
Most scholars identify Jareb with Tiglath-pileser 
Iil. JPARK: 

JARED, jé’red or jar’ed (172, yeredh): The 
father of Enoch (Gn 5 15, ete.); cf. ‘Irad’ in the 
parallel list in 4 18. 


JARESIAH, jar’’1-sai’a. See JAARESHIAH. 


JARHA, jar’ho (Y072, yarha‘): An Egyptian 
slave, who married into the Jerahmeelite family of - 
Sheshan, and became the head of a long line of 
descendants (I Ch 2 34f.). It is probable that unions 
of clans, not individuals, are referred to; possibly 
a N. Arabian, mutsri (not mitsri, ‘Egyptian’), clan 
with a Jerahmeelite one. HK. BE. N. 


JARIB, jé’rib or jar’ib (VN, yaribh), ‘He strives: 
1. See Jacutn, I, 1. 2. A teacher in Ezra’s com- 
pany (Ezr 816). 3. A priest (Ezr 10 is). 

JARMUTH, jar’muth (N3572, yarmiith): 1. A 
Canaanite royal city assigned to Judah (Jos 10 3f., 
15 35). Jerome (Onom. 266, 132) locates a Jermucha 
10 Rom. m. from Eleutheropolis, on the way to 
Jerusalem, and as this corresponds with the modern 
Khirbet el Yarmik on the one side, and the Biblical 
location of Jarmuth on the other, the identification 
is regarded as satisfactory. Map II, Dl. 2. A 
Levitical city in Issachar (Jos 21 29; in Jos 19 21 
called Remeth, and in I Ch 673 Ramoth), probably 
the modern Er-Rdme. Map III, E 2. ANGE Z: 


JAROAH, je-rd’a (M172, yardah): A Gadite (I 
Ch 5 14). | 

JASHAR, jash’ar, BOOK OF (1817 18D, sépher 
hayydshar), ‘book of the upright,’ Book of Jasher 
AV: An ancient collection of poetical composi- 
tions celebrating the earlier heroes and conquests 
of Israel. It is twice expressly quoted in the 
O T (Jos 10 13; II S 1 18). A third quotation is 
probably to be found in IK 812f. This passage is 
not given as a quotation in the Heb. text, but in the 
LXX. it appears as ver. 53b, with the addition: ‘Is this 
not written in the Book of the Song?’ which appears 
to be the rendering of an original Heb. text sépher 
hashshir, easily detected as a corruption of sépher 
hayydshér. The book was put together after the 
time of David, and before the 8th cent. B.c., and 
Jashar, ‘the upright,’ may be an ideal name for 
Israel. A. C. Z.—E. E.N. 

JASHEN, jé’shen or jash’en (1¥!, yashén): The 
‘sons of Jashen,’ in the list of David’s heroes (II 
S 23 32), stand immediately after ‘Elihaba the Shaal- 
bonite.’ The parallel text (I Ch 11 34) reads ‘sons 
of Hashem the Gizonite.’ The Heb. word for ‘sons 
of’ is similar to the ending ‘-bonite,’ and it was 


_ probably by a scribal error that ‘sons of’ crept into 


the text of II S in the place of the ‘Gizonite’ of 


_ Ch. The text of Ch is probably correct, except that 





415 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jamin 
Jeduthun 





‘Gizonite’ should be emended to ‘Gunite’ (see Gr. 
of Lucian’s text of LX X. and cf. Nu 26 48). 
EK. E. N. 
JASHOBEAM, ja-shd’bi-am_ or ja-sheb’1-am 
(BYAY?, ydshobh‘dm), ‘the people will return’: 
The son of Zabdiel the Hachmonite, the chief of 
David’s thirty mighty men (I Ch 11 u1, 126, 27 2), 
the correct reading for Josheb-basshebeth (II S 
23 8 RV), who lifted up his spear against 300 (800) 
at one time, and was commander of that division 
(24,000 men) of the army which was on duty the 
first month of the year. The Gr. versions seem to 
have read Ishbosheth (= Eshbaal). Oped Ie 
JASHUB, jé’shob or jash’ub (A1%2, ydshibh), 
‘he returns’: 1. The ancestral head of one of the 
great clans of Issachar, the Jashubites (Nu 26 24; 
I Ch 7 1; called Iob [Job AV] in Gn 46 13). 2. One 
of the ‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 29). 
JASHUBI-LEHEM, ja-shii’’bai or jash’’yu bai-li’- 
hem (on? "AW?, yashubht lehem): A word of very 
irregular formation and therefore probably not a 


proper name (I Ch 4 22). It may be the survival of 
‘and they returned to Bethlehem.’ EK. E. N. 


JASON, jé’san (Iéowv): A common Gr. name 
used by the Jews as an equivalent for Joshua or 
Jesus. 1. Jason of Cyrene, who wrote, not earlier 
than 160 B.c., a history in five books of the wars for 
Jewish freedom under the Maccabees, of which an 
epitome is given in II Macc. It is less reliable than 
I Mac. 2. Jason, second son of Simon II, and brother 
of Onias IIT. About 175 B.c. Jason secured the high- 
priesthood by bribery from Antiochus Epiphanes, 
with whom he cooperated eagerly in his endeavor to 
Hellenize the Jewish nation, introducing Greek 
practises, which were an abomination to the 
patriotic party. Being supplanted three years 
later by Menelaus, he escaped after many adven- 
tures to Sparta and ‘perished in a strange land.’ 
See II Mac 37-510. 3. Jason of Thessalonica (Ac 
17 5-9), Paul’s host, and for that reason attacked 
by the Jews—possibly the same as the Jason of Ro 
16 21, a kinsman of Paul, 7.e., a fellow Jew. 

R. A. F.—E. E. N. 

JASPER. See Sronzs, Precious, §§ 2, 3. 

JATHNIEL, jath’ni-el (982M, yathni’él): A son 
of Meshelemiah (I Ch 26 2). 

JATTIR, jat’er (1M, yatitr): A city in Judah 
(Jos 15 48, 2114; IS 30 27; I Ch 6 57). Map II, E38. 

JAVAN, jé’van or jav’ean. See HrHnoGraPHy 
AND ErHNoLoey, § 8. 

JAVELIN. See Arms anp Armor, § 1. 

JAW-BONE. See Lea. 

JAZER, JAAZER, jé’zer (WY?, VIY?, ya‘zér): A 
town of the Amorites near the border of Ammon, 
taken by Israel (Nu 21 32) and given to Gad (Jos 
13 25; II S 24 5; I Ch 26 31), who fortified it (Nu 
32 35). Later it became a Levitical city (Jos 21 39; 
I Ch 6 81). It was in a country suited for grazing 
(Nu 321, 3) and for producing wine (Is 16 8 f.; Jer 
48 32). It came into the possession of Moab 


(Is 16 8 £.), and was a city of the Ammonites in the 
time of Judas Maccabeus (I Mac 58). Eus. and Jer. 


in the Onomasticon place it 15 m. N. of Heshbon and 
8 m. W. of Philadelphia. The ruins of Khurbet Sar 
would correspond to this. For another identification 
see Map I, G8. ‘The Sea of Jazer’ (Jer 48 32) seems 
to be a corruption of the text. Cones 


JAZIZ, jé’ziz (PN, ydziz): David’s chief shepherd 
(I Ch 27 30). 

JEALOUS. See Crimes anp PUNISHMENTS, § 3 
(b); Disztasze anp Mepicine, § 7 (12); SACRIFICE 
AND OFFERINGS, § 12; and Gop, § 1. 

JEARIM, MT., ji’a-rim. Identified with Chesalon 
(q.v.) in Jos 15 10. 

JEATHERAI, ji-ath’1-rai (198?, yeathray, Je- 
aterai AV): A Gershonite Levite (I Ch 6 21; Ethni 
im ver. 41). 

JEBERECHIAH, ji-ber’1-kai’a (2973!, ybhe- 
rekhyahi), ‘J’’ blesses’: A son of Zechariah (Is 8 2). 

JEBUS, ji’bus. See JnrusauEeM, § 19. 


JEBUSITE, jeb’u-sait (?)3?, ybhist): For the 
Jebusites of Canaan see ErHNoGRAPHY AND ETH- 
NOLOGY, § 18. In Zech 97 ‘Jebusite’ seems to mean 
‘Jerusalemite.’ The prophecy looks forward to a 
time when the Philistine remnant shall be incor- | 
porated into the purified Jewish commonwealth. 
See JERUSALEM, § 19. K. E. N. 

JECAMIAH, jek’’a-mai’a. See JEKAMIAH. 

JECHILIAH, jek’’i-lai’a (m9, ykhilyah), ‘J"’ 
is able’: The mother of King Uzziah (II Ch 26 3; 
Jecholiah in II K 15 2). 

JECHONIAS, jek’’o-nai’as, JECONIAH, jek’’o- 
nai’G. See JEHOIACHIN. 

JECOLIAH, jek’’o-lai’a. See JecuHinian. 

JECONIAH. See JEHOIACHIN. 

JEDAIAH, ji-dé’ya or ji-dai’a, the translitera- 
tion of two Heb. names: 1. (MT, ydhayah). ‘J’ 
praises’: a. A Simeonite chieftain (I Ch 4 37). 
b. One who helped rebuild the wall of Jerusalem 
(Neh 3 10). 2. (MYT, yedhd‘yah). ‘J’ knows’: a. 
The ancestral head of the second course of priests 
(I Ch 9 10, 24 7; Ezr 2 36; Neh 7 39, 11 10, 12 6, 7, 19). 
b. A priest (Neh 12 21). c. A returned exile (Zech 
6 10, 14). 

JEDIAEL, fi-dai’s-el (P8Y"T, yedhi‘d’el), ‘known 
of God’: 1. The ancestral head of one of the clans 
of Benjamin (I Ch 76#.). 2. One of David’s heroes 
(I Ch 11 45, 12 20). 3. A Korahite doorkeeper (I 
Ch 26) 2). 

JEDIDAH,, ji-dai’da (71'N, ydhidhah), ‘beloved’: 
The mother of Josiah, King of Judah (II K 221). 

JEDIDIAH, jed’i-dai’a. See Sotomon, § 1. 

JEDUTHUN, ji-di’fthon (HMT, PNT, yedhi- 
thin, Kethibh of Pss 39, 62, 77 (titles); Neh 11 17; 
I Ch 16 38, y*dhtthin): According to the Chronicler, 
the name of one of the three chief singers in the 
service of the Sanctuary at the time of David (I Ch 
9 16, 16 38f., 251£.; II Ch 512, 29 14, 35 15), the same 
as Ethan (I Ch 6 44, 1517, 19). It israther the name of 
a postexilic musical gild (Neh 117) which was con- 
nected by the Chronicler with the Levites. In the 
titles of Pss 39 (‘for’ is a mistake for ‘after the 


jJeezer 
Jehoshaphat 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY | 416 





manner of’), 62, 77 the RV translates correctly 
‘after the manner of (the choir of) y*dhithtin.’ 
Oat ad My 

JEEZER, ji-i’zer, JEEZERITE, j1-i’zer-ait. See 
ABIBZER. 

JEGAR-SAHADUTHA, ji’ gar-sé’"ha - di’ tha 
(SMITTY WN, yeghar sahadhithd’): The Aramaic 
equivalent of the Heb. gal‘édh, ‘heap of witness’ 
(Gn 81 47). 

JEHALLELEL, jv-hal’i-lel (98720, ychallelél, 
Jehaleleel AV), ‘God praises’: 1. A Calebite (I Ch 
416). 2. A Levite (II Ch 29 12). 

JEHDEIAH, je-di’ya or ji-dai’a (PTT, yehde- 
yaha), ‘J’ is glad’: 1. The overseer of David’s asses 
(I Ch 27 30). 2. A Levite (I Ch 24 20). 

JEHEZKEL, ji-hez’kel (?NPIT:, y*hezge'l, Jeheze- 
kel AV), ‘God strengthens’ (cf. Ezexre.): The an- 
cestral head of the twentieth course of priests (I Ch 
24 16). 

JEHIAH, ji-hai’a (NT, yehiyyah), ‘J’ lives’: A 
Levite doorkeeper (I Ch 15 24). 


JEHIEL, ji-hai’el (28°, yehi’al), ‘God lives’: 1. 
A member of David’s court (I Ch 27 32). 2. A 
son of Jehoshaphat (II Ch 21 2). 3. A priest (II Ch 
35 8). 4. The ancestor of a family of Gershonite 
Levites (I Ch 23 8, 26 21f., here called Jehieli; 29 8). 
5. The father of Obadiah (Ezr 89). 6. One of the 
‘sons of Elam’ (Ezr 10 2, 26). On IL Ch 29 14 see 
JEHUEL. 7. A priest (Ezr 10 21). 8. The name of 
two Levites: (1) I Ch 15 18, 20, 16 5; (2) II Ch 31 13. 


JEHIELT, ji-hai’1-lai or ji’hai-i’li. See JEnrE1, 4. 


JEHIZKIAH, ji”hiz-kai’a (PIM, yhizgiyyaha), 
‘J’’ strengthens’: A chief of Ephraim under Pekah 
(II Ch 28 12). 


JEHOADDAH, ji-hd’od-da (Jehoadah AV). See 
JARAH. 


JEHOADDAN, ji”ho-ad’an (J7YIM, y*hd‘addan), 
and JEHOADDIN, ji”ho-ad’din, ‘J’’ gives delight’: 
The mother of Joash, King of Judah (II K 14 2; II 
Ch 25 1). 

JEHOAHAZ, ji-hd’a-haz (NIT, yhd’ahdz), ‘J” 
lays hold’: 1. The son and successor of Jehu as 
king of Israel (II K 10 35, 13 1-9; called Joahaz in 
II K 141), involved in unsuccessful wars with Ben- 
hadad II of Syria. He reigned 16 to 18 years (815- 
799 B.c.). 2. The third son and immediate suc- 
cessor of Josiah at Jerusalem (II K 23 30-34; called 
Joahaz in II Ch 36 2-4; apparently also called 
Shallum, Jer 22 11; cf. I Ch 315). He was raised to 
the throne by the people, possibly as the one among 
the king’s sons who was identified with the anti- 
Egyptian policy. When Pharaoh Necho, after the 
battle of Megiddo (608 B.c.), became master of the 
kingdom of Judah, Jehoahaz was seized and carried 
to Riblah and thence to Egypt, where he was de- 
tained until his death. 3. The same as Ahaziah, 
King of Judah (II Ch 21 17, 25 23). Ai. G3 Zi 

JEHOASH, ji-ho’ash (UNIT, y¢hd’ash, also called 
Joash), ‘J’ gives,’ or ‘J’’ is strong’: 1. The son 
of Ahaziah, and king of Judah (II K ch. 11 f., etc.) 
(837-798 B.c.). He was rescued as an infant by 


his aunt, the wife of Jehoiada, the chief priest of the 
Temple, from Athaliah’s effort to annihilate the 
royal family. At the age of seven Jehoiada had 
him proclaimed king, Athaliah being put to death. 
He is said to have reigned forty years, but the six 
years of Athaliah’s usurpation may be included in 
this reckoning. He undertook to raise funds for the 
repairing of the Temple at Jerusalem, and, after 
some difficulty with the Temple priesthood, he 
succeeded. Being threatened with an invasion by 
Hazael, he stripped the Temple of its gold and sent it 
to the king of Syria as a bribe. Soon afterward, he 
was assassinated by a band of conspirators. 2. See 
Joasu, 5. 3. Ason of Becher (I Ch78). 4. The keeper 
of the oil-cellars of David (I Ch 27 28). 5. The father 
of Gideon (Jg 611). 6. A son of Ahab (I K 22 26). 
7. A Judahite, son of Shelah (I Ch 4 22). 8. One of 
the mighty men of David (I Ch 12 3). 
A.C. Z.—E. E.N. 

JEHOHANAN, ji”ho-hé’nan (1371, yhdhanan), 
‘J” is gracious’: 1. One of the gatekeepers of the 
Tabernacle in the reign of David (I Ch 26 3). 2. A 
captain appointed by Jehoshaphat (II Ch 17 15; cf. 
231). 3. One of the ‘sons of Bebai,’ who married a 


foreign wife (Ezr 10 28). 4. A priest of the time of 


Jehoiakim (Neh 12 13). 5. A priest of the time of 
Nehemiah (Neh 12 42). 6. A son of Eliashib (Ezr 
10 6, Johanan AV). 7. A son of Tobiah (Neh 6 18, 
Johanan AV). A. C. Z. 
JEHOIACHIN, ji-hoi’a-kin (72217), ]2717, ycho- 
yakhin, and 122", ydyadkhin; also, by transposi- 
tion of the two parts of the name, Jeconiah [Jer 
24 1, 27 20; J Ch 3 16, 17] and Jechoniah [Mt 1 1,12], 
(Jechonias AV), also Coniah [Jer 22 24, 28,27 1]), ‘J’’ 
appoints’: The son and successor of Jehoiakim, King 
of Judah. He was called to the throne at the age of 
eighteen (598 B.c.), and reigned three months. It 
was during his reign that Nebuchadrezzar, in his 
campaign against ‘the Westland,’ reached Jerusalem, 
besieged and captured it, took all the treasures 
stored up in the Temple and the king’s palace, de- 
posed J., and, together with a large retinue of leading 
men and artizans numbering over 10,000 carried 
him to Babylon. The gate of the Court of the 
Priests, through which Jehoiachin was led out of the 
Temple on this occasion, was, according to the 
Mishna, called the ‘Gate of Jeconiah’ (Middoth 2). 
This deportation became commonly known as ‘the 
captivity of Jehoiachin’ (II K 25 27; Jer 52 31; 
Ezk 1 2), and included, besides the great number 
above alluded to, the mother and wives of the 
king. While the majority of the other captives 
lived in comparative freedom in the land, J. was 
kept in prison in Babylon during the entire reign 
of Nebuchadrezzar. At the end of that period, he 
was released by Evil-merodach (561 B.c.), restored 
to his royal rank, tho not returned to his king- 
dom in Jerusalem, and supported at the expense of 
the king of Babylon in royal state. According to a 
tradition (incorporated in T'arg. Sheni, near the 
beginning), many prominent Jews imprisoned by 
Nebuchadrezzar were also liberated at the same 
time for the sake of J. How long after this date J. 
survived, the records do not state (cf. Jer 52 31-33). 
A. Cie 





417 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jeezer 
Jehoshaphat 





JEHOIADA, ji-hei’a-da (YT, yhdyadha'), 
‘J’ knoweth’: 1. The father of Benaiah, an officer of 
David (II 8S 818; I K 18 and often; I Ch 11 22 and 
often). He resided in Kabzeel (IIS 23 20), and may 
have been a priest (I Ch 27 5, ef. 12 27, probably 
refers to the same man, unless with RVmg. we 
read ‘chief minister’ and refer it to Benaiah). In 
I Ch 27 34 we should probably read ‘Benaiah son 
of Jehoiada.’ 2. The high priest during the reigns 
of Ahaziah, Athaliah, and Joash (II K 12 10 [11]). 
Jehosheba, a sister of Ahaziah, was his wife (II Ch 
22 11). He cared for Joash, the son of Ahaziah (II 
K 11 2; If Ch 2211), who had been rescued from the 
king’s mother, and after six years placed him on the 
throne, having brought about the death of Athaliah 
(II K 114 #.; If Ch 231 f.). He led the people to 
make a covenant with J” (II K 1117), and caused the 
destruction of the temple of Baal (II K 1118). J. 
is said (II K 12 9f. [10 f.]) to have set up a chest 
beside the altar, into which was put the money that 
was brought into the house of J’. For the AV 
Jehoiada of Neh 3 6, see JOTADA. CxS aks 


JEHOIAKIM, ji-hei’a-kim (O'R, yehdyaqim), 
‘J” raises up’: A son of Josiah, and king of Judah 
(609-597 B.c.), called before his accession Eliakim, 
which name Pharaoh Necho changed to Jehoiakim 
(II K 23 34). When his father, Josiah, died in battle 
against Necho, he would naturally have succeeded 
him, but the populace enthroned his brother 
Jehoahaz, possibly because he sympathized with, 
or even headed, the anti-Egyptian party in Judah, 
while Eliakim, the elder brother, favored submission 
to Pharaoh. Necho deposed Jehoahaz, and made 
Jehoiakim king. By a systematic taxation, J. now 
succeeded in raising the tribute imposed by the 
conqueror. But the peace he thus purchased from 
the Egyptians did not prove of long duration. 
Three years after this victory Nebuchadrezzar 
overwhelmed Necho at Carchemish, and took from 
Egyptian control all the territory ‘from the brook 
of Egypt unto the river Euphrates, all that pertained 
to the king of Egypt’ (II K 247). Jehoiakim was 
thus reduced to the condition of a tributary to 
Babylonia. In his internal administration, he 
evidently wielded a strong hand. He was selfish, 
unjust, forcing workmen to build for him, but not 
paying them their wages,—all of which brought 
upon him the severe denunciation of Jeremiah (cf. 
Jer 22 13-19). He took offense at the stern rebukes 
of the prophet, burned a MS. containing prophecies 
which had come into his possession, and attempted 
to seize and punish the prophet himself, but was 
foiled by Jeremiah’s hiding himself (Jer ch. 36). In 
the 6th or 7th year of his reign, after three years of 
submission to Babylon, he rebelled. It was some 
years before Nebuchadrezzar undertook to march 
in force against him and other rebellious vassals. 
How he came to his end is uncertain. According to 
II K 24 6 he died at Jerusalem (in peace? cf, Jer 
22 18f., 36 30), but according to II Ch 36 6f. he was 
deported to Babylon. A. C. Z. 


JEHOIARIB, ji-hoi’a-rib (PUNT, yhdyaribh, 
I Ch 910, 247; 2°), ydyaribh, Neh 11 10, 12 6, 19), 
‘J’’ contendeth’: The name of one of the twenty-four 


classes of priests. It was counted the first in the 
time of David (I Ch 247), and the seventeenth in 
the time of Zerubbabel (Neh 12 6). They dwelt in' 
Jerusalem in the time of Nehemiah (cf. Neh 11, 10 
which should read as I Ch 910. See also Jotart. 
GOoBWwaLe 
JEHONADAB, ji-hon’a-dab (73, yhona- 
dhabh, also called Jonadab), ‘J’’ is noble’: 1. A 
nephew of David, who planned for Ammon the 
sin against Tamar (II S 13 3-6). 2. The son of 
Rechab (II K 10 15 f.), who organized his family 
into a clan characterized by their nomadic type of 
life and by total abstinence from wine. The strict- 
ness with which this feature of clan life was preserved 
was used by Jeremiah (ch. 35) as a ground of rebuke 
to the Israelites for their own failure to keep the 
commandments of J’’.. See REcHAB. A.C. Z. 


JEHONATHAN, ji-hen’a-fhan. See JONATHAN. 
JEHORAM, ji-hd/ram (8717, yehdram; also 
called Joram), ‘J’’ is exalted’: 1. A king of Israel 
(851-842). He was the son of Ahab, and succeeded 
his brother Ahaziah (I K 117). His reign was note- 
worthy for the revolt of Mesha, King of Moab. 
To bring Moab back into subjection to Israel 
Jehoram appealed for aid to his father’s old ally, 
Jehoshaphat, and assisted by troops furnished by 
Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom attacked Moab 
on the southern border. The allies were at first 
successful, but Mesha’s desperate resort to the 
sacrifice of his first-born appears to have struck 
terror into the allied army (II K ch. 3, esp. ver. 27). 
Mesha at last succeeded in gaining his indepen- 
dence (see MrsHa). J., assisted by Ahaziah of Ju- 
dah, was also engaged in war with Hazael of 
Damascus. While defending Ramoth-gilead against 
Hazael’s attack J. was wounded and, leaving the 
army at Ramoth-gilead, returned to Jezreel for 
healing. While here his nephew Ahaziah made him 
a visit, and both kings were surprized and slain by 
Jehu (q.v.). 2. A son of Jehoshaphat, King of 
Judah (850-843 B.c.). For the sake of cementing 
the alliance entered into by his father with Ahab, 
Jehoram married the latter’s daughter Athaliah 
and under her influence favored the introduction of 
Baal-worship into Judah (II K 818). According to 
II Ch 21 4 when he succeeded his father and found 
himself in a strong position he slew his brothers. 
During his reign (849-841) Edom and Libnah re- 
volted, the former establishing itself into a separate 
kingdom (II Ch 21 10). The mention of a letter 
written to Jehoram by Elijah (II Ch 21 i2 ff.) can 
be regarded only as an anachronism (see Exisau). 
3. A priest (II Ch 17 8). A. C, Z.—E. E. N. 
JEHOSHABEATH, ji”ho-shab’i-afh (AYAVIT, 
ythdshabh‘ath), ‘J’’ is an oath’: The daughter of King 
Jehoram and wife of Jehoiada the priest (II Ch 22 
11), who rescued and concealed her nephew, Joash, 
the young son and heir of Ahaziah. In II K 11 2 
she is called Jehosheba. CSaaas 
JEHOSHAPHAT, ji-hosh’e-fat (OPYIT?, ythdsha- 
phat; called also Josaphat in Mt 18 AV), ‘ J” has 
judged’: 1. The son of Asa, King of Judah, and 
Azubah, the daughter of Shilhi (I K 15 24, 22 passim; 
II Ch 20 31). He succeeded his father on the throne 


Jehoshaphat, Valley of 
Jeremiah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


418 





and reigned twenty-five years (873-849 B.c.). He 
at once adopted a conciliatory policy toward the 
Northern Kingdom, entering into a contract with 
Ahab, whose daughter Athaliah he secured as the 
wife of his son Jehoram. He also aided Ahab in his 
campaign against Ben-hadad II, of Damascus (I K 
2218.; IJ Ch1834.). He further took part in the 
war of Jehoram against Mesha (q.v.) of Moab (II K 
3 4), undertook an expedition into Ophir, and had a 
vessel (or, as in some texts, vessels, or ten vessels) 
built for this purpose. But as the expedition was 
wrecked in the neighborhood of Ezion-geber, he 
took this as an omen that Judah’s glory should be 
limited to land, and abstained from further enter- 
prises to build up the navy (I K 22 48). His attitude 
toward the religion of J’’ was one of enthusiastic 
adherence. According to Chronicles, both personally 
and through his officials, he undertook to instruct 
the people in the requirements of the true service of 
J’’, and did much to put an end to Asherah-worship 
and the high places within his territory. But his 
success in this regard was evidently not complete 
(II Ch ch. 19; cf. I K 22 43; II Ch 20 33). 2. The son 
of Nimshi and father of Jehu (II K 914). 3. The son 
of Ahilud and recorder under David and Solomon 
(II S 816; I K 4 3). 4. The son of Paruah and 
prefect in Issachar under Solomon (I K 4 17). See 
also JOSHAPHAT. A. C. Z. 


JEHOSHAPHAT, VALLEY OF. See JzErv- 
SALEM, § 5. 
JEHOSHEBA, ji-hesh’i-bs. See JEHOSHABEATH. 


JEHOSHDA, jji-hesh’yu-a, JEHOSHUAH, ji- 
hesh’yu-G. See JosHuA. 


JEHOVAH, ji-ho’va (TJ, yhdwah, but properly 
Mim, yahweh): The form ‘Jehovah’ is impossible, 
according to the strict principles of Heb. vocaliza- 
tion. It is due to the arbitrary transference of the 
vowels of ’ddhéndy, ‘lord,’ to the sacred name p77’ 
after the Jews became over-scrupulous as to the 
pronunciation of the Name. See Namus, § 6. In 
compound personal names J’, like ’H7 (‘God’), was 
frequently used as a component part, nearly always 
as the subject to which the other part of the name 
forms the predicate. In such names the shortened 
form yé (y*hd) was used at the beginning, and yah 
(yahi) at the end (y=j). In the Eng. translitera- 
tion the final syllable is often written ‘iah.’ This use 
of the name of J’ appears prominently first in the 
Davidic period and ultimately became very popular. 
See also Gop, § 2. EK. E.N. 

JEHOVAH-JIREH, -jai‘re (T82", yahweh 
yir’eh), ‘J’’ will see’: The name of the place where 
Isaac was brought to be sacrificed (Gn 22 14). In 
the light of the latter half of the verse it may be 
that the original reading was ‘J’’ will be seen,’ 
1.e., ‘will reveal Himself.’ The verse is a late addition 
to the earlier narrative, connecting the scene 
directly with the Temple mount in Jerusalem, and 
the proverbial expression quoted probably had 
reference originally to Mt. Zion. E. E. N. 

JEHOVAH-NISSI, -nis’sai (8]'’, yahweh nissi), 
‘J/’ my banner’: The name of the altar erected by 
Moses to commemorate his victory over the Amalek- 


ites (Ex 17 15) indicative of confidence in J” as the 
giver of the victory. 

JEHOVAH-SHALOM, ghé/lom (019%, yahweh 
shalom), ‘J’’ is peace,’ t.e., ‘well-disposed’ (Burney): 
The name given to the altar erected by Gideon after 
receiving the encouraging message ‘peace be unto 
thee’ from the angel (Jg 6 24). This altar was 
probably still standing when the narrative was 
written. 

JEHOZABAD, ji-hoez’a-bad (TAN™, yehdzabhadh), 
‘J’’ gives’: 1. One of the conspirators who slew 
Joash, King of Judah (II K 12 21). His mother 
was a Moabitess (II Ch 24 26). He was executed by 
Amaziah, son of Joash (II K 14 5), who, however, 
refrained from visiting the sins of father upon his 
children (II K 146). 2. A son of Obed-edom (I Ch 
26 4). 3, An officer under Jehoshaphat (II Ch 17 18). 

KH. BE. N. 

JEHOZADAK, jji-hoz’a-dak (P1ISiM, ychdtsa- 
dhaq; also called Jozadak and Josedech), ‘J’ is 
righteous’: A priest of the line of Zadok. He was 
the son of Seraiah and father of the high priest 
Jeshua, who accompanied Zerubbabel at the return 
from the Captivity (I Ch 6 14 f.; Ezr 3 2, 8, etc.; 
Hag 11; Zech 6 11, etc.; I Es 5 5, 48, 56, 6 2, 9 19; 
Sir 49 12). A.S. C.*—O. R. 8. 

JEHD, ji’hia (SM, yéehd), probably ‘J” is He’: 
1. The son of Hanani, a prophet who denounced 
Baasha, King of Israel (I K 16 1, 7, 12). He also 
wrote a history, including among other things an 
account of the reign of Jehoshaphat (II Ch 20 34). 
2. The son of Jehoshaphat, son of Nimshi, and the 
founder of the fifth dynasty in Israel (II K ch. 9 f.). 
He was holding the post of general in the Israelite 
army when Jehoram, the son of Ahab, retired to 
Jezreel to recover from the wounds received in the 
siege of Ramoth. The denunciations of the house 
of Ahab, based on the wicked character of Jezebel, 
by the prophets Elijah and Elisha had prepared the 
people for the overthrow of the dynasty and the 
transfer of the reins of government into new hands. 
Jehu was designated as the man best qualified to 
bring the change about, and at the same time succeed 
to the throne (I K 19 16). In accomplishing the 
task given him by the prophet, he boldly assumed 
the royal title and, being accepted by his “fellow 
officers, through a rapid movement surprized 
Jehoram at Jezreel, and without hesitation slew 
him with his own hand. He also mortally wounded 
Ahaziah, King of Judah, who was at the time 
visiting his kinsman. He then undertook to exter- 
minate the house of Ahab, which he accomplished 
by the aid of the local governors of cities and dis- 
tricts. He next laid a plot to entrap and destroy the 
priests of Baal. His motive in this course, however, 
was as much the selfish and political one of rendering 
it impossible for the adherents of the former régime 
to regain power as that of simple-hearted ‘zeal for 
J’” (ef. IT K 1016). To what extent Elisha approved. 
of all this bloodshed is not clear. A century later 
Hosea felt that the House of Jehu was still to be 
punished by J” for ‘the blood of Jezreel’ (Hos 1 4). 
Still, the House of Jehu stood for J’ vs. Baal and, 
in general, during the century of its rule there was 





419 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jehoshaphat, Valley of 
Jeremiah 





great external ‘zeal for J’” (cf. Amos and Hosea), 
but without corresponding righteousness of conduct. 
During the later half of his reign, war again broke out 
between Syria and Israel, and J. was not able to 
prevent the King of Syria from inflicting consider- 
able damage upon the Israelite domain, E. of the 
Jordan. Hazael wrested from Israel large tracts of 
land within the borders of Manasseh and Gad. 
But these operations did not lead to any decisive 
results within J.’s lifetime. J. is mentioned on the 
black obelisk of Shalmanezer IIT (860-824) as paying 
tribute to Assyria in the year 842 (see illustration 
on page 380). He doubtless put himself under the 
suzerainty of Assyria with the hope of aid against 
the encroachments of Damascus. He died at the 
end of a reign of twenty-eight years (circa 842-815), 
leaving behind him a good reputation for intrepid- 
ity and strategy. 3. An Anathothite, one of David’s 
heroes (I Ch 12 3). 4. A son of Obed, a Judah- 
ite of the the family of Jerahmeel (I Ch 2 38). 5. A 
son of Josibiah, a Simeonite (I Ch 435). A.C. Z. 


JEHUBBAH, ji-hob’ba (3M, yehubbah): An 
Asherite (I Ch 7 34). 

JEHUCAL, ji-hiti’ka: (¢299?, ythtkhal, Jehukal 
AV), ‘J’ is able’: An officer under King Zedekiah, 
and one of Jeremiah’s enemies (Jer 37 3; called Jucal 
in 38 1). 

JEHUD, ji’hud (7, ythidh): A city of Dan 
(Jos 19 45). Map III, D 4. 

JEHUDI, ji-hii’dai (VT, yehidhi), ‘Jew’: An 
officer in the service of Jehoiakim (Jer 36 14 f..), 
possibly of foreign origin and naturalized as a ‘Jew’ 
(.e., ‘man of Judah’). 

JEHUDIJAH, ji”hu-dai’ja. See Jmwess. 

JEHUEL, ji-hiti’el (2817, yeha’él, Jehiel AV): 
A Levite (II Ch 29 14). 

JEHUKAL. See JEHUCAL. 

JEHUSH, ji’hosh. See Jeusu. 


JEIEL, j1-ai/el, JEHIEL, ji-hai’el (98D, eval): 
1. The head of a Reubenite clan (I Ch 57), 2. An 
ancestor of Saul (I Ch 9 35). 3. One of David’s 
heroes (I Ch 11 44). 4. An Asaphite Levite (I Ch 
15 18, 21, 165; IJ Ch 2014). 5. A scribe under Uzziah 
(II Ch 26 11). 6. A Levite (II Ch 359). 7. One of 
the ‘sons of Nebo’ (Ezr 10 43). 8. See Jaazren and 
AzIEL. See also JEUEL. 

JEKABZEEL, ji-kab’zi-el. See Kanzeev. 

JEKAMEAM, jek’’a-mi’am (O%)P?, yeqam‘am), 
‘may the Kinsman (God?) establish’: The ancestral 
head of a family of Kohathite Levites (I Ch 23 19, 
24 23). 

JEKAMIAGH, jek’’a-mai’a (TP?, yeqamyah), ‘J’ 
establishes’: 1. A descendant of Jerahmeel (I Ch 
2 41). 2. A descendant of David (I Ch 3 18, Jecamiah 
AV). 

JEKUTHIEL, ji-kit’thi-el (98M, y-qathv’el): 
The head of a Calebite family (I Ch 4 18). 

JEMIMAH, ji-mai’ma (1)’?, yemimah), ‘dove’: 
The eldest of Job’s daughters (Job 42 14). 

JEMUEL, ji-miii’el or jem’iu-el. See NemugE.. 


JEPHTHAH, jef’tha ("92?, yiphtah; also called 
Jephthae in He 11 32 AV), ‘He [God] opens’: One 
of the major judges of Israel (Jg 11 1-12 7). He 
was a Gileadite, and became prominent, first as the 
head of a company of irresponsible men (‘vain 
fellows’), and afterward undertook successfully the 
championship of Israel against the Ammonites. 
The most interesting feature of the story of J. is 
his vow (Jg 11 31). The text leaves no room for 
doubt that in fulfilment of it he sacrificed his 
daughter. Efforts to evade this conclusion have 
proved futile. Either J. was ignorant of the law 
against human sacrifices, or he flagrantly violated 
it. The story of the yearly commemoration of the 
sacrifice of J.’s daughter (11 40) is probably an 
attempt to explain a pagan rite by referring it to 


a fact of tradition (cf. Burney, Judges, pp. 312 ff.). 


The last undertaking of J. was his successful war 
with the Ephraimites, who attacked him because 
they said he had not invited them to go with him 
against Ammon (Jg 121 #f.). Criticism has busied 
itself with the tracing of the account in Jg to its 
sources, but has not achieved a consensus. The 
story is by some (Wellhausen, Moore) assigned to 
one source, into which an interpolation has been 
incorporated (11 12-28). Moore, however (JCC, 
ad loc.), believes in the preservation of genuine 
history through this source. Others (Budde and 
Cheyne, and, more recently, Burney) assign it to 
two sources. Budde finds these preserved respec- 
tively in 11 1-11 and 11 34-40. Cheyne (#'B) finds that 
one of these originally was concerned with Jair, and 
either by textual corruption or otherwise was trans- 
ferred to J. Burney finds one narrative in 10 17, 
11 12-28, 30, 31, 33 (in part), 34-40, and the other in 
11 1-11 (except vs. 1b, 2, 5a), 29, 32b, 33 (in part), 
12 1-6. Cf. Moore, CC; Budde, Handkommentar; 
Frankenberg, Composition d. Deuteron. und Richter- 
hhicher (1895), pp. 35-88; and C. F. Burney, Judges 
(1918). A.C, Z.—E. E. N. 


JEPHUNNEH, ji-fon’e (132!, y*phunneh): 1. The 
father of Caleb (Nu 13 6, etc.). 2. The head of an 
Asherite family (I Ch 7 38). 

JERAH, ji’ra. See EruHnoGrapHy aNnpD Etrn- 
NOLOGY, § 13. 

JERAHMEEL, j1-ra/mi-el O8PNY, yerahme’él), 
‘God has mercy’: 1. The eponymous ancestor of 
the clan, or tribe, of Jerahmeelites living in the 
‘South’ of Judah (I S 27 10, 30 29) and afterward 
absorbed into the tribe of Judah, so that J. was 
reckoned genealogically as one of the grandsons of 
Judah and the brother of Caleb (I Ch 2 9, 25-27, 33, 
42). 2. A Levite (I Ch 24 29). 3. A son of Jehoiakim, 
King of Judah (Jer 36 26). 

JERED, ji’red (122, yeredh): The ‘father of 
Gedor’ (I Ch 4 18), probably the name of the clan, 
or family, which inhabited Gedor. 

JEREMAI, jer’i-mé’ai or jer’i-mé (21, y*ré- 
may, 2 shortened form of ‘Jeremiah’): One of the 
‘sons of Hashum’ (Ezr 10 33). 

JEREMIAH, jer’i-mai’a (NPT, yirmeyahi, 
MON, yirmeyah), ‘J’’ casts’ (or ‘looseneth,’ so Oxf. 
Heb. Lez.), i.e., from the womb: 1. A man of Lib- 


Jeremiah 





nah, father of Hamutal, wife of Josiah and mother 
of Jehoahaz (II K 23 31) and Zedekiah (II K 24 18; 
Jer 521). 2. The head of a family of Manasseh, 
E. of the Jordan (I Ch 5 24). 3. A Benjamite who 
used sling and bow, and who joined David at Ziklag 
(I Ch 12 4). 4, 5. Two Gadites (I Ch 12 10, 13), users 
of shield and spear, who joined David at the ‘strong- 
hold in the wilderness.’ 6. A priest who went up to 
Jerusalem with Zerubbabel (Neh 12 1), sealed the 
covenant with Nehemiah (Neh 10 2 [3]), and also 
joined in the procession in dedication of the wall 
(Neh 12 34), unless the J. in this passage is another 
man. 7. A Rechabite (Jer 35 3). 7. The prophet 
Jeremiah. See next article. Crsor. 


JEREMIAH. 1. Life and Times of the Prophet. 
Jeremiah (on the name see foregoing article) was a 
prophet of the decline and fall of the Hebrew 
monarchy (called Jeremy in Mt 2 17, 279 AV, and 
Jeremias in Mt 16 14 AV). He was of priestly 
descent, being one of a little community of priests 
settled at Anathoth (I K 2 26), 3 m. N. of Jerusalem, 
where his family owned land (82 8). As a ‘youth,’ 
of perhaps twenty, he received his prophetic call 
(1 2, 25 3) in the 13th year of Josiah (626 B.c.). His 
early predictions of judgment to be inflicted on 
apostate Judah by the foe from the north, were 
presumably connected with the peril from the 
Scythians, who were, about 625 B.c., overrunning 
Western Asia. Judah seems to have escaped serious 
damage, and thus J. had his first experience of J’”’s 
apparent failure to fulfil the predictions He had 
inspired, an experience more than once repeated, 
with momentous results for the prophet himself. 
Possibly for a time he remained silent; but when 
Josiah, on the basis of the newly-discovered law- 
book (%.e., probably the Deuteronomic Code) im- 
posed on Judah the reformation of the cultus and 
the suppression of the local sanctuaries (II K chs. 
22 f.), J. seems (111-8) to have advocated in the 
cities of Judah obedience to the law. If he was a 
descendant of Abiathar this conduct may well have 
seemed treason to his family. For the reformation 
involved the suppression of the shrine at Anathoth, 
whither Abiathar was banished (I K 2 26¢.), in favor 
of that served by the sons of Zadok, who had sup- 
planted Abiathar in the priesthood of the royal 
sanctuary at Jerusalem. It is not then surprizing 
that his kinsfolk and fellow-townsmen formed 
treacherous plots against his life (11 18-23, 12 6). 
Of his personal life during the rest of Josiah’s reign 
no particulars are known. The Assyrian empire 
was moving swiftly to its ruin; Nineveh fell in 612, 
the State survived the fall of the capital for but a 
few years. Josiah lost his life at Megiddo in an ill- 
fated attempt to oppose the northward march of 
Egypt in 609, and was mourned by J. who had a 
deep respect for him (22 15 £.). Jehoiakim was 
placed on the throne by Pharaoh-necho. Early in 
his reign J. was in serious danger of death for blas- 
phemy since he threatened that the Temple would 
suffer the fate of Shiloh unless the people amended 
their ways (71-8 3, ch. 26). In the fourth year 
of Jehoiakim (605) the defeat of Egypt by Nebucha- 
drezzar at Carchemish proved politically the turn- 
ing point of the age. J. at once grasped the situation. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 420 





He saw that Nebuchadrezzar was destined to achieve 
further successes; he greeted him with an ode of 
triumph (46 3-12), promised him the conquest of 
Egypt (46 14-26), and declared that the whole of 
Western Asia would fall under his sway (ch. 25), 
implying thereby, what he afterward taught ex- 
plicitly, that the safety of Judah lay in yielding to 
the inevitable, and accepting the condition of 
dependence upon Babylon. Jehoiakim had to 
accept the suzerainty of Nebuchadrezzar. In 604 
J. bade Baruch, his amanuensis, read a roll to 
the people in which the prophecies of his whole 
ministry up to that point were collected. The 
matter was reported to the king who read and 
burned the roll, and would have seized J. and 
Baruch but for their timely escape (ch. 36). The 
roll was written out again and numerous additions 
were made. The narrative is important as giving 
some insight into the origins of the book. When he 
had been the vassal of Nebuchadrezzar for three 
years Jehoiakim rebelled. After some delay Nebu- 
chadrezzar moved against Judah. Death delivered 
the rebel from the vengeance of his suzerain; but 
Jerusalem was captured, and Jehoiachin, with the 


flower of the nation, was deported to Babylon in 


597 (II K 24 10-16). To this period (ec. 598) the 
episode of the Rechabites (ch. 35) probably belongs. 
Zedekiah swore a solemn oath of allegiance and was 
made king over those who remained in Jerusalem, a 
people much inferior in character to the exiles (ch 
24) and led by inexperienced, vicious and incom- 
petent upstarts. Zedekiah meant well, and was 
personally friendly to J.; but he was too weak to 
rule his ministers (388 5, 24-27). He was approached 
in his fourth year by neighboring peoples to secure 
his participation in a revolt, and the prophets 
supported the enterprise. J. opposed it and came 
into collision with Hananiah (ch. 28). Nothing came 
of it; but the visit of Zedekiah to Babylon in that 
year may have been connected with it (51 59). In 
589 Pharaoh Hophra became king of Egypt, and 
Zedekiah entered into treasonable negotiations with 
him. In the following year the second siege of Jeru- 
salem by the Chaldeans began. Jeremiah now (21 


1-10) declared unambiguously that the besiegers would 


prevail, adding as a piece of practical advice to the 
people generally that desertion to the Chaldeans 
was the sole guaranty of personal safety (21 9). 
His counsel did not proceed from any unpatriotic 
motive, tho it is easy to see that it might be so 
interpreted; it was simply a corollary from the 
position adopted by him in 605 (ch. 25). On the 
ground that he was discouraging the defenders of 
the city he was kept in custody, sometimes mild 
and relatively honorable, sometimes rigorous. Once 
he was lowered into a disused cistern, there to 
perish by starvation, but was rescued by Ebed- 
melech, an Ethiopian (38 1-13). When the city was 
captured in 586, Jeremiah was treated with con- 
sideration by the Chaldeans (39 11-14, 40 1-5) who 
offered him honorable residence in Babylonia, or to 
remain in Palestine. He threw in his lot with the 
remnant left behind under the governorship of 
Gedaliah (406). After the treacherous murder of 
Gedaliah by Ishmael (40 13-41 3), the survivors asked 





421 A NEW STANDARD 


J. to ascertain the will of God as to their future, 
promising implicit obedience. In ten days he re- 
ceived the Divine answer. If they remained in 
Palestine all would be well; but disaster on disaster 
would overwhelm them if they persisted in the plan 
of taking refuge in Egypt. They went to Egypt 
nevertheless, forcing J. and Baruch to accompany 
them (421-437). Here J. predicted the conquest of 
Egypt by Nebuchadrezzar (43 8-13). The last 
scene (ch. 44) shows us the prophet, now pre- 
sumably over sixty years of age, protesting against 
the relapse of the women to the worship of the 
Queen of Heaven, z.e., the planet Venus. His 
entreaties were met with a flat refusal on the ground 
that all their misfortunes were due to the abandon- 
ment of her worship. He replied with predictions 
of the utmost calamities. His fate is unknown 
to us; possibly he may, as a late tradition asserts, 
have been stoned to death by his infuriated country- 
men. 

2. General Character of the Book. The Book of 
Jeremiah consists partly of prophecies, partly of 
narratives of events in the life of the prophet and 
the history of the nation. Its remarkable lack of 
chronological arrangement is due, no doubt, to the 
fact that it reached its present form by stages. Its 
nucleus seems to have consisted of the prophecies 
dictated to Baruch in the 4th year of Jehoiakim 
(605). After the roll had been burnt by the king in 
the following year, it was rewritten with many 
additions (36 32). This last statement is important, 
for it shows that even the prophecies dictated to 

‘Baruch by J. himself, which must have formed the 
nucleus of the present book, were not verbal repro- 
ductions of the discourses as they were originally 
delivered. The original collection comprised in all 
probability (not counting later additions) chs. 1-9, 
10 17-25, 25, 46-49 33, perhaps also parts of chs. 11-20. 
This was afterward gradually enlarged by the inser- 
tion or addition, partly of prophecies of later date 
than 605 (including some, as 10 1-16, not by J. him- 
self), partly of biographical and historical notices, 
till the book assumed its present form. The narra- 
tives in the third person about J. are generally 
supposed to be from the hand of Baruch. 

3. Contents. Chs. 1-6 describe the call of J. His prophetic 
utterance is to release the forces which will determine the 
fate of nations; J” will fulfil His servant’s word, let no opposi- 
tion dismay him! Chs. 2-6 contain J.’s earliest prophecies (626 
-619 B.c.); in ch. 2 1-44 he passes his verdict upon Israel’s history; 
censuring its declension from its original ideal and its inveterate 
idolatry, but promising, on its penitence, a return of J’’s favor; 
in 4 5-6 30, in strains of deep feeling and remarkable poetical 
power, he announces the coming,judgment to be inflicted by 
a formidable foe from the North, presumably the Scythian 
hordes. Chs. 7-10 (excluding 10 116) form a second group, 
belonging probably to the early part of Jehoiakim’s reign (cf. 
ch. 7 with ch. 26). In the striking utterance of 7 1-78 J. rebukes 
the belief of the people that the Temple was a fetish guarantee- 
ing security; this can be assured only by moral amendment. 
A series of plaintive elegies follows, bewailing the corruption 
of the people and describing their despair when the foe shall 
fall upon them. Ch. 101-16 (against dread of idols) is a much later 
insertion. In 11 '-8 J. exhorts the people to obey the Deuter- 
onomic law; but in 11 °!7 he is warned that Judah, for its 
disobedience, is doomed to disaster, and that he must not 
intercede on its behalf. In 11 18-12 6 he describs a plot of his 
townsmen against his life and the moral perplexities suggested 
by the impunity of the conspirators. Ch. 127-17 threatens exile 


to some of Judah’s unfriendly neighbors, but promises them 
restoration if they afterward embrace from the heart Israel’s 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Jeremiah 


: < 

religion, Ch. 13 emphasizes the corruption of the people and 
the certainty of exile; ver. 18 f- (cf. II K 24 8) belongs to the 
reign of Jehoiachin. Chs. 14 and 15 contain a dialog between 
the prophet and J’, arising out of a drought (interpreted as a 
sign of J”’sanger). J. intercedes for his people, pleading that 
their prophets have deluded them; but J” refuses to hear him. 
He bewails his hard fate which forces him to predict his 
country’s ruin; but is taught that his success and happiness 
depend upon his abandoning the false path of distrust and 
despair. In 16 !-17 18 the coming disaster, with its cause, the 
people’s sin, is set forth in even plainer terms than before. 
17 19-37, an exhortation to observe the Sabbath, is apparently 
not by J. In ch. 18, by observation of the methods of a potter, 
J. is taught that prophecy is conditional and thus that, pre- 
dictions of judgment notwithstanding, Judah might, but for its 
obstinacy, still repent. His words provoke another plot against 
his life (ver. 18), and the chapter ends with vehement impreca- 
tions against its authors. Chs. 19 and 20 describe how J. was 
thrown into the stocks for having declared by the symbolism 
of a broken cruse the irretrievable nature of the disaster im- 
pending upon the nation. After his release he breaks out into 


- a passionate complaint of the misery of his lot (201718); he could 


not resist the impulse to prophesy, but it had brought him 
nothing but hostility and detraction. Ch. 21 11° places us at 
the end of Zedekiah’s reign (588 B.c.); the siege has begun; 
Zedekiah sends to inquire of the prophet respecting its issue; 
he replies that the city will inevitably fall into the hands of 
the Chaldeans. Chs. 21-238 contains J.’s judgments on the 
contemporary kings of Judah; the exile of Jehoahaz (608) is 
pathetically foretold (22 1912); the exactions of Jehoiakim 
(608-597) are contrasted bitterly with the justice exercised 
by his father, Josiah (22 18-19); rejection and banishment are 
to be the fate of Jehoiachin (22 2°-8°); and in 23 1°, in contrast 
to the imperfect rulers, there is drawn a picture of the rule of 
the future ideal king, and of the happiness which he will 
secure for his people. Next, 23 % 4°, we have a polemic against 
the false prophets who misled the people by deceptive promises 
of security, and made no effort to reclaim them from their sin. 
Ch. 24 was written shortly after the exile of Jehoiachin (597); 
by the two baskets of figs the superiority of the exiles to those 
left in Judah is signified; on the former the hope of the future 
depends. Ch. 25 contains the prophecy (605) that 
Nebuchadrezzar is to have the rule of the entire known 
world. Ch. 26 tells how J. nearly lost his life for threatening 
that, if the people did not amend their ways, Jerusalem would 
share the fate of Shiloh (cf. ch. 7). Chs. 27-29 (beginning of 
Zedekiah’s reign) describe how J. exposed the futility of revolt 
from Babylon and of hoping that its domination would speedily 
cease, and how he exhorted the exiles to settle down conten- 
tedly in Babylonia. Chs. 30-33 (so far as they are J.’s) contain 
promises to Israel as well as Judah, of a brighter future; in 
ch. 32 J. by redeeming a plot of the family estate demonstrates 
his conviction that Judah will once more own her native soil; 
in 31 8!-%4 J, reaches, with his prophecy of the New Covenant, 
his most wonderful insight into the inmost nature of religion. 
Chs. 34-45 are largely historical: ch. 34 (end of Zedekiah’s 
reign), after a prediction of Zedekiah’s exile, contains a de- 
nunciation of the treacherous reenslavement of the liberated 
Hebrew slaves; in ch. 35 the fidelity of the Rechabites to their 
ancestors’ prohibition of the settled agricultural life, points 
the moral for disobedient Judah; ch. 36 records the writing, 
public reading, and burning of the roll; chs. 37-44 narrate 
J.’s history during the siege and after the fall of Jerusalem 
(see § 1); ch. 45 contains mingled encouragement and rebuke 
to Baruch. Chs. 46-51 are prophecies on foreign nations, 
declaring successively, with much variety of imaginative form, 
the doom impending upon Egypt, the Philistines, Moab, 
Ammon, Edom, Damascus, Kedar, Elam, and Babylon. On 
their origin see below. Ch. 52 is excerpted in the main from 
II K 24 18.25 89, . 

4. Personal Characteristics. J. possessed a sus- 


ceptible, deeply emotional nature. The adverse 
course of events impresses him profoundly, and he 
utters without reserve the emotions which it stirs 
within him. The trials in which his vocation in- 
volved him, the persecution and detraction which 
rewarded his unwelcome words (11 18-23, 20 7-10, 
26 11 f., 37 15 #.), the disappointment which was the 
only fruit of his efforts to convince his people of 
their sin, and the ruin to which, as he saw too truly, 
his country was hastening, overpowered his sensitive, 


Jeremiah 
Jerioth 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


422 





highly-strung organism. He breaks out into bitter 
lamentations and complaints; he bewails patheti- 
cally his nation’s doom (4 19-21, 6 26, 7 29, 8 18-22 
91, 13817, and elsewhere); he calls for vengeance on 
his persecutors; he reproaches the Almighty with 
having misled him (207) and forsaking him (15 18); 
he wishes himself unborn (20 14-18; cf. 15 10). His 
mental struggle is intense; he would gladly relin- 
quish the thankless office imposed upon him; but 
ever and again the higher voice within him bids him 
be trustful and courageous (1 7 f., 17, 19, 12 5 f., 15 
19-21, 2011,13), and his human wishes and human 
weakness are overcome. Love for his country is 
powerful within him, tho he knows it to be in vain 
(7 16); through two long chapters (14-15) he pleads 
on behalf of his erring nation. The aim of his life 
is to lead his people, if only it will be led, to better 
things. 

J.’s poetry is exquisite. It has not indeed the 
majesty of Isaiah or the brilliance of Job; but sweet 
and tender elegies, beautiful in diction and instinct 
with pathos, flow without art or effort from his lips. 
He has been well called by Cornill the ‘poet of the 
heart.’ The deep springs of human feeling toward 
his neighbor, toward his people, and toward his God, 
are revealed by him more clearly than by any other 
writer of the O T, more clearly even than by Hosea. 


5. Significance of His Work. In the history of 
religion J. marks an epoch in that he brings out, 
more distinctly than had been brought out before, 
the significance and reality of personal religion, of a 
direct relationship of the individual soul to God. A 
lonely man without domestic or social joys (162, 8, 
15 17), full of unrequited affection for his people, 
mocked and misunderstood by those whom he loved, 
he casts himself upon God, and finds a refuge and a 
solace in communion with Him. As a prophet to 
his contemporaries, his labor was in vain; but his 
life was not spent in vain, either for himself or for 
the future. “Through sorrow and wo there arose 
within him the certainty of personal fellowship 
with God, the truest essence of piety’ (Wellhausen). 
J. opens out his whole soul to God: he unfolds 
before Him his thoughts and feelings and emotions, 
and looks to Him for a response. It is in accordance 
with this sense of the religious significance of the 
individual that he emphasizes (31 30) the truth of 
individual responsibility; and that in his great proph- 
ecy of the New Covenant the essence of religion is 
identified by him with a personal knowledge of God 
implanted in the heart (31 33 f£.; ef. 3 16, where an 
external symbol of religion, as the Ark, is to be no 
more needed in the ideal future). When he had 
passed away, men began to realize the greatness 
and beauty of his character. ‘The oppressed people 
saw in his sufferings a type of itself, and drew from 
his constancy courage to endure and be true. 
Imagery from the scenes of his life and echoes of his 
words fill many of the Psalms, the authors of which 
were like him in his sorrows, and strove to be like 
him in his faith’ (Davidson). See further RELIGION 
OF ISRAEL, § 22. 


6. The Text of the Book of Jeremiah. The LXX 
text of Jer differs more widely from the Heb. than is 
_the case in any other book of theO T. The omissions 


are numerous (about 2,700 words of the Heb. text, 
one-eighth of the whole). These are often unim- 
portant; there are a few additions, variations of 
expression, and transpositions (the foreign prophe- 
cies, chs. 46-51, stand in the LXX after 25 13). 
Tho some of these differences may have originated 
with the translators, many must have existed in 
the Heb. MSS. used by them, and they combine 
with the unchronological arrangement of the Heb. 
to show that in early times many hands worked 
at the ‘redaction’ of the book, and that it must 
have assumed two forms in the process. Hach 
individual case must be judged on its own merits. 
On the whole, the Heb. text is undoubtedly superior; 
but there are certainly many particular cases in 
which the text of the LXX. is to be preferred. 


7. Recent Criticism. Until recently it was com- 
monly held that the Book of Jer contained but few 
additions from later hands, the oracle on Babylon 
(50 1-51 58) being the most notable, tho Graf argued 
for the Jeremianic origin even of this. Giesebrecht 
(1894) occupied a more critical position. Stade and 
Smend denied the New Covenant passage to J. 
Schwally and Wellhausen rejected the oracles on the 
foreign nations (chs. 46-51). Duhm accepted these ~ 
results but went far beyond them in his view that 
J. himself was exclusively a poet, and that his 
genuine literary remains consist of not more than 
about 270 couplets—each line of the couplet being 
written in the meter of the Heb. elegy. In two 
respects N. Schmidt’s article in the HB. went be- 
yond Duhm—in the rejection of the historicity of 
some previously unchallenged narratives, and his 
rejection of the sections in which J. reveals his inner 
conflicts and deepest emotions (the ‘Confessions of 
Jeremiah’). Duhm’s position has not been generally 
accepted; Cornill’s masterly work supplied the best 
corrective for its extravagance, and perhaps best 
represents the critical average of opinion. Hélscher 
in his Die Profeten (1914) and his revolutionary 
volume Geschichte der israelitischen und jiidischen 
Religion (1922) recalls the radicalism of N. Schmidt. 
Volz is akin to Cornill, but treats Chs. 49-51 with 25 
15-38 as the work of a single author who wrote about 
560, soon after the death of Nebuchadrezzar in 562. 
Lirprature: Of the older commentaries Hitzig (71866), Graf 

(1862) are the most noteworthy. The best of the recent 

German commentaries are those of Cornill (1905) and Volz 

(1922); but Giesebrecht (21907) and Duhm (1901) are both 

important. Orelli (#1905) is an excellent student’s book, 

and H. Schmidt (1915) represents the newer tendencies 
specially associated with the names of Gunkel and Gress- 
mann, There is a good conservative French commentary 
by Condamin (1920). The modern English commentaries 

are Peake (1910-12), Streane (21913), and Binns (1919). 

Two works of special value are Skinner, Prophecy and 

Religion (1922), and G. A. Smith, Jeremiah (1923). To 

these may be added Cheyne, Jeremiah, His Life and Times 

(1888); Gillies, Jeremiah the Man and His Message (1907); 

W. R. Thomson, The Burden of the Lord (1919). There 

are translations by Driver, The Book of the Prophet Jeremiah 

(1906) and J. E. McFadyen, Jeremiah in Modern Speech 

(1919). In German Wellhausen’s masterly chapter in his 

Israelitische und Jiidische Geschichte is of outstanding im- 

portance and has influenced all later discussion, Erbt’s 

Jeremia und seine Zeit (1902) is a stimulating, if too original, 

monograph. Of articles in dictionaries, A. B. Davidson in 

Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible; Buhl in Herzog-Hauck, 

Realencyclopddie; and Haller in Die Religion in Geschichte 

und Gegenwart may be specially mentioned. A.S. P 





423 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jeremiah 
Jerioth 





JEREMIAH, EPISTLE OF: A writing extant 
in a Gr. text (also in Syriac and Latin translations) 
which purports to be the letter referred to in Jer 
29 1, where the prophet is said to have sent a let- 
ter ‘unto the residue of the elders of the Captivity, 
and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to 
all the people, whom Nebuchadrezzar had carried 
away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon.’ In 
this apocryphal writing Jeremiah is represented as 
foretelling that the Captivity of the Jews should last 
for seven generations, and end in their peaceful 
return (ver. 1 f.); but in Babylon they should see 
gods of gold and silver and wood (ver. 3). They 
are warned not to be led astray by the common 
feeling of the Gentiles regarding these idols (vs. 4f.); 
for they are creatures of men’s hands, and have no 
power either to help or to harm any one (vs. 6-71); 
therefore a righteous man without regard for idols is 
stronger, for he will suffer no reproach (ver. 72). 

The production bears marks of having been 
originally written in Gr. A point of departure for 
the date of the composition is given in II Mac 2 2, 
where it is alleged that Jeremiah ‘gave the captives 
the law, that they should not forget the command- 
ments of the Lord, and that they should not be 
led astray in thir minds, seeing images of gold 
and silver and the adornment about them.’ But 
whether the Epistle of Jeremiah is an expansion and 
an explanation of this passage, or the author of IT 
Mac alludes to an already extant Epistle is an open 
question. Nevertheless, the dates of these two 
Apocrypha can not be very far apart. (Cf. C. J. 
Ball, in Charles, Apocryph. and Pseudepigr. of the 
O T, vol. I, pp. 596-611). A. C. Z. 


JEREMOTH, jer’i-meth (Mi2'T, yerémoth): 1. 
The head of a Benjamite family (I Ch 78). 2.A 
Benjamite (I Ch 8 14). 3. The head of a Levite 
family (I Ch 23 23, 24 30, here called Jerimoth). 
4. The head of Naphtali under David (I Ch 27 19). 
5, 6, 7. Three persons who had married foreign 
wives (Ezr 10 26, 27, 29, Ramoth AV). 1, 3, and 4 are 
given as Jerimoth in AV. See also Jerimoth, 4. 


JEREMY, jer’i-mi. See JerEmiay, 1. 


JERIAH, ji-rai’a (M7?, yeriyyah), ‘J’’ sees’: The 
ancestral head of one of the courses of Levites (I 
Ch 23 19, 24 23); Jerijah in I Ch 26 31. 

JERIBAI, jer’i-bai or jer’i-bé (2N, y*ribhay): 
One of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 46). 

JERICHO, jer’i-ko (I, yerthd), ‘place of fra- 
grance’ (?), also called several times the ‘city of palm- 
trees’ (Dt 34 3; ef. Jg 1 16, 3.13): A fortified city in 
the lower Jordan valley 820 ft. below the Mediter- 
ranean, Map III, G 5. The climate is subtropical, 
the natural capabilities of soil and situation are 
great, and as a defensible locality the site offers 
many points of vantage. 

Inhabited from very early days, the position of J. 
made it the key of W. Palestine (from EH. of the 
Jordan). But the enervating heat took the stamina 
from its people and, instead of being the fortress 
of Jerusalem, it was, as G. A. Smith says, only its 
pantry (HGHL, p. 268). When Israel crossed the 
Jordan it seemed a formidable citadel, demanding 


the most careful preparations on the part of the 
besiegers. At Gilgal, accordingly, the reproach of 
Egypt was rolled away (Jos 5 9), and by special 
rites the people became a consecrated host. The 
capture of Jericho was to be no wild scene of un- 
restrained license and plunder, but as first-fruits 
of conquest it was devoted to J’. The graphic 
description of the seven days’ circuit and the falling 
of the walls (Jos ch. 6) isnow thought to rest on ase- 
vere earthquake which laid the city open to the in- 
vaders. Recent excavation and research by Sellin has 
shown that the entire city was not destroyed but that 
some of it had continuous existence from the earliest 
historic times. The walls, set on a hill some 40 feet 
above the plain, were better constructed even than 
those of Megiddo. In the city were found many 
pieces of pottery, decorative figures, bronze vessels 
and 22 blank writing tablets. It is not certain that 
Hiel the Bethelite (I K 16 34) built on the Amorite 
mound. But the rich plain of the Jordan at the base 
of the mountain land was too attractive to remain 
unused. In Elisha’s day prophets dwelt there (II K 
2 5, 15). At the Return, 345 men of Jericho are 
reckoned in Nehemiah’s census (Neh 7 36), and this 
city also furnished workmen who helped rebuild the 
walls of Jerusalem (Neh 3 2). These later towns were 
for the most part S. of the old Jericho, and the plain 
up to the entrance of the Wddy el- Kelt is dotted with 
ruins. Cleopatra’s concession, taken by Herod, was 
here, and Roman ruins are visible, including plaster 
still bright with the red so dear to Roman eyes. In 
one of these structures Herod the Great died. 

Christ’s feet trod this region more than once, and 
the scene of the Temptation may well have been 
in the forbidding mountains above. To reach the 
reputed place of the Baptism He must have passed 
through the streets and villas of the town. The 
road that leads to Jericho He made the backgrond 
for a parable (Lk 10 30). His last journey to 
Jerusalem led Him into Jericho, where He healed 
Bartimeeus (Mk 10 46) and met Zacchzeus (Lk 191f.). 
One does not wonder, then, at the numerous monas- 
teries once to be found here. But the Moslem’s 
touch has blighted the palm-groves, and er-Riha, 
the present village, with its few hundred dark- 
visaged, Egyptian-like inhabitants, is but a travesty 
of past magnificence. Cf. Sellin und Watzinger, 
Jericho (1918); G. A. Barton, Archaeology and the 
Bible (1916), pp. 98 f., 117, 123 ff. 

A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8S. 


JERIEL, jer‘i-el or ji’ri-el (28°, yri’él), ‘God 
sees’: The ancestor of a clan of Issachar (I Ch 
rh Dp 

JERIJAH, ji-rai’ja. See JerRiau. 


JERIMOTH, jer’i-moth (M2, yrimoth): 1. 
The ancestor of a clan of Benjamin (I Ch 77). 2. 
One of David’s warriors (I Ch 12 5). 3. A son of 
David (II Ch 11 18). 4. A Hemanite musician (I 
Ch 25 4; Jeremoth in v. 22). 5. A Temple overseer 
in Hezekiah’s day (II Ch 3113). See also JEREMOTH. 


JERIOTH, jer’i oth or ji’n-ofh (MYT, yrtth): 
Azubah (‘forsaken’) the ‘wife’ of Caleb was the 
‘daughter’ of Jerioth (‘tents’) (I Ch 2 18). Perhaps 


Jeroboam 
Jerusalem 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


424 





a symbolic way of describing the abandonment by 
nomadic people of one abode for another (cf. ICC, 
ad loc.). E. E. N. 
JEROBOAM, jer’’o-bd’am (YAN, ydarobh‘am), 
probably ‘the people increases’: 1. The son of 
Nebat of the tribe of Ephraim, and a resident of 
Zereda, (I K 11 26). He was the leader of the ten 
tribes in their revolt against Rehoboam, and became 
the first king of the Northern Kingdom (931-915). 
It is difficult to gain a perfectly clear account of J.’s 
part in the revolt of the northern tribes against 
Rehoboam. The text of some MSS. of the LXX. 
gives a quite different account from that of our 
present Heb. text, which also is not altogether clear 
or self-consistent. J. appears to have attracted 
Solomon’s notice as a man of energy and ability, 
and was appointed by the king as overseer of the 
contingent from the house of Joseph engaged in 
work upon the fortifications of Jerusalem and 
similar undertakings in other places. But, instigated 
by the prophet Ahijah of Shiloh, he rebelled against 
his master, and was compelled to flee to Egypt, 
where he took refuge with Shishak. As soon as 
Solomon died, according to one account, J. returned 
and put himself at the head of the people, now 
fully determined no longer to endure the yoke of 
heavy taxation imposed upon them during the reign 
just closed. When the overtures made to Reho- 
boam had been flatly rejected, the northern tribes 
seceded and Jeroboam was made their king. Accord- 
ing to another account J. was not at the public 
assembly that delivered the ultimatum to Reho- 
boam but was sent for after the revolt took place 
(cf. I K 12 3 with ver. 20). He first fixed his capital 
at Shechem, but probably changed it to Tirzah. 
J. had before him a difficult task, for the northern 
tribes were not easily disposed to act in unison. 
We know practically nothing of how he undertook 
the work of organizing his new kingdom. Very 
little is known of his conflict with Judah. Perhaps 
both kingdoms soon became engaged in a more 


Seale in Feet 
200 400 600 800 


City of David on Ophel 
(Site of Old Jebusite City) 


2279 ft. 
Level of Pool 
_of Siloam 


2129 ft. 
above Sea Level 


AR ROIRE 


ER Y EVAN 


‘ae Valley 
later filled up 


Area of Excavations 


epee, 8 


absorbing warfare with Shishak. For the purpose of 
preventing the people of the Northern Kingdom 
from gravitating back to the house of David, Jero- 
boam revived two old shrines at Bethel and Dan, 
setting up golden calves as images of J’. By the 
prophets of J’ this was denounced as a capital sin, 
and the words ‘like Jeroboam who made Israel to 
sin’ constantly recur as the refrain in the story of 
all but three of the subsequent kings of Israel. 
2. Jeroboam IT (784-744), the son of Jehoash, of 
the dynasty of Jehu (II K 1313). Under his govern- 
ment Israel reached the summit of her power, extend- 
ing her control over nearly the whole territory ruled 
by David (except Judah). This was rendered pos- 
sible by the weakening of the countries E. of the Jor- 
dan through repeated Assyrian invasions, a condi- 
tion of things predicted by Jonah, the son of 
Amittai (II K 14 25). 
ligious, social, and moral conditions of the people 
reached a low ebb, against which the prophets 
Amos and Hosea, contemporaries of this king, en- 
tered a vigorous protest in the name of J”. 
A.C. Z.—E. E. N. 


JEROHAM, ji-ro’ham (89?, yrdham), ‘may he 
have compassion’: -1. An ancestor of Samuel (I S 
11). 2. The father of Joelah and Zebadiah (I Ch 
127). 3. The head of a Benjamite family (I Ch 8 
27,98). 4. A Danite (I Ch 27 22). 5. The father of 
Azariah (II Ch 231). 6. A priest (I Ch 9 12; Neh 
cde): 

JERUBBAAL, jer’’ob-bé’al or ji-rub’ba-al. See 
GIDEON. 

JERUBBESHETH, jer’’ub-bi’sheth or ji-rub’bi- 
Sheth. The element ‘besheth’ in this name (in IIS 


11 21) is a substitution for the original ‘baal.’ For 
the reason see BAAL. 


JERUEL, ji-ri’el or jer‘iu-el (281%, yerw’él): A 


portion of the wilderness of Judah (II Ch 20 16). 
Map II, F 2. 


(Dome of the Rock) 


Present Haram 
ae Sherif 


4 ia 
SSO ET NINE, 
i SS / 


Te al : 
K NAS IEMIEW/A=")\ wae Cr EN 
‘ ries =\ ex re ? fa ff ; , 
— “ 
Vw Keine a aie Temple Hill 
DN tae (Mt. Zion of the 0. T.) 


Veo 


Fountain 





W. Cross-Section (E. AND W.) OF THE SITE OF JERUSALEM, SHOWING ELEVATIONS. E. 


! 


At the same time the re- ~ 


ee 


ee ee 


4 oe ee ee 


Pd oo ad 








JERUSALEM 


SHOWING THE 
GROWTH OF THE CITY 
































\ 
From David to New Testament Times 8 
Reed [' 
— 
i— 
yok fe 3 
Stal th S Ss 
ae 9 xp 
yok 1. +t N 
A f\ ¥ 
“aie . 
e Ss 
cist x s 7 
ioe ~ 
AS ~ 
AG \ 
‘ ~ 
\ . 
1 
5 Secs 1 
(Za 
e 2 ~ 
nN RS WY \ananel Tower s = 
9! \ 3 
(Damaséus Gate) % \ a 
\ Fish Gate,or | * \\ 
Ways Middle Gate~_\y : *~ 
15 % 
oot fp my 
Ty S 
o ; 2 
WZ AS 3 
NY ORS Eo ee 
: o vs ees 4 jamin. Gat 
SECOND QUARTE %, Fo" es Sheemrlpnenac Benjamin Fate 
< $ N Z vy, < Ascentof Corner 
Xo} ire) 4 
a w a 
\ Church of the oae\G Pa 
N.W. Holy Ks ; e | L Miph\kad Gate Oo 
Se / Sepulchre ¥ SOO ptan PY | 
> 
2s 
—o ms 2 wey) ll 
~~ == 





—_ 
‘Ne teach aoe. 
(Jaffa Gate) Ol Eons gan 2 gains 
= ~ |ICotner Gate 

Heérodss Palace 


i | id Prcetortum 
I 


ippicus 


C. 


UPPER CITY 


rome 






NW tye ee 
~*"atilo [Corne 


~ 





S.W. 


Mies 

eu P yal N F . } AVID fs entjof Wall 
Si ’ ye 

Furnace|Tower oq Fountain\@ate 

x rau of Wal vere Pobl 3) bar 


col NX Sta Irs 
Valley Gate or 


(\ 
Harsith Gate oS Ai P. Sy 
3 oars ms 
on» Sey N s es 
ety Q ng’s Garflen 


<eZ 
s 
ees 0g 
GE ai 
OF HH IN N Dung Gate 


2550. 
S 
~ 







(wady_| 
Qa 2 meme 9 mee 















\ 


ee. Te 


g 














S 2 oo 
Present Wall ots 8 = 3 3 2 8 2 
Remains of Walls ————$—> ———— S SN Ane aS enn 
David's Wall —{-—1I-1—-1— N 
Solomon’s Wall —?—2—2—2— 
Hezekiah’s Wall —3-3-3—3— En R 

n Rogel 

Manasseh's Wall —4—4—-4-4— S g 


Agrippa's Wall 


425 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jeroboam 





Jerusalem 
JERUSALEM, ji-rii’so-lem 
OUTLINE. 
INTRODUCTORY 16. Zion IV. Period of Hezekiah and Manasseh 
1. Historical and _ Religious 17. Ophel 33. Interval Between Solomon 
Importance 18. Moriah and Hezekiah 


2. Location and Climate II. History 
I. ToroGRAPHY 


3. Method of Study 


I. Canaanite Period 
19. Jebusite Jerusalem 


34. Hezekiah’s Conduit 
35. Hezekiah’s Wall 
36. Manasseh’s Wall 


4. Location of Temple II. Davidic Period V. Persian, Greek, Maccabean, and 
I. The Valleys of Jerusalem 20. Millo Herodian Periods 
5. The Kidron 21. David’s Wall 37. Nehemiah’s Wall 
6. Hinnom 22. David’s Palace 38. Gates, etc., in Nehemiah’s 
7. Rephaim 23. The Guard-House Wall 
8. The Vale of Shaveh 24. David’s Sepulcher 39. Between Nehemiah and N T 
9, The Tyropcon III. Solomonic Period Times 
II. The Springs of Jerusalem 25. The Temple VI. New Testament Period 
10. En-rogel 26. The King’s House 40. Extent of the City 
11. Gihon 27. The House of Pharaoh’s 41. Jesus’ Visits to Jerusalem 
III. The Pools of Jerusalem Daughter 42. The Upper Room 
12. Bethesda 28. The Porch of Judgment 43. The Palace of Caiaphas 
13. Siloam 29. The Porch of Pillars 44, The Pretorium and Pave- 
IV. The Hills of Jerusalem 30. The House of the Forest of ment 
14. Topographical Arrange- Lebanon 45. Golgotha, Calvary 
ment 31. Solomon’s Wall 46. Akeldama, Potter’s Field 
15. The City of David 32. Gates in Solomon’s Wall 47. Synagog of Theodotos 
INTRODUCTORY. with a stony but fertile soil, in which olives, walnuts, 


Jerusalem (a 2wI77, yrushalaim; Amarna let- 
ters, Urusalim; Assyr. Ursalimmu; Syr. Urishlem; 
Gr. ‘IepovoxAnu, ‘IepocdAuuan; Lat. Hierosolyma; 
Arab. El-Kuds, ‘The Holy’). 

1. Historial and Religious Importance. An an- 
cient royal city of the Canaanites, captured by 
David about 1000 B.c., and the capital, first of the 
united Hebrew monarchy, and then of the king- 
dom of Judah. It was the site of the Temple of 
Solomon, and as such became the ‘Holy City’ of 
Judaism. It was the scene of the activity of all 
the writing prophets except Amos and Hosea, and 
in it most of the books of the O T were written. 
It was destroyed by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.c.; 
but was rebuilt after the Exile, and was invested 
with ever-increasing sanctity by the Jews during the 
Persian, Greek, and Roman periods. It was the 
scene of a considerable part of the ministry of Jesus 
and of His death, resurrection, and ascension, thus 
gaining new holiness in the eyes of the Christian 
Church. It was destroyed by Titus in 70 a.p., but 
was rebuilt by Hadrian in 136. In 637 a.p. it was 
conquered by the Calif Omar, was connected with 
the tradition of the Prophet Mohammed, and soon 
became the most important holy place of the Moslem 
world after Mecca and Medina. In 1099 a.p. it 
was taken by the Crusaders, and in 1517 by the 
Turks, in whose hands it remained until its occupa- 
tion in 1917 by the Allied Forces under command of 
Gen. Allenby. It is now administered by Great 
Britain under a mandate from the League of Nations. 

2. Location and Climate. Descriptions in ancient 
writers and numerous archeological remains leave 
no doubt that modern J. stands on substantially the 
same site as the ancient city. It is situated 33 m. 
E. of the Mediterranean, 14 m. W. of the Dead Sea, 
133 m. SW. of Damascus, on the high central ridge 
of Judea, at an altitude in its highest parts of 2,500 
ft. above the sea. The hills consist of bare white 
rocks of Eocene limestone and chalk. The lower 
slopes and the bottoms of the valleys are covered 


and various fruit-trees, barley, wheat, and vege- 
tables flourish. The climate is similar to that of 
northern Italy. The winters are cold and consider- 
able snow falls, which, however, does not lie long. 
The temperature drops as low as 35° Fahr. and palms, 
oranges, and lemons can not be cultivated. The 
heat of the summer is tempered by the altitude of the 
city, and the average maximum temperature is not 
over 86°. The hottest months are May and October, 
when the sirocco blows. Rain falls only between the 
months of November and March, with an annual 
average of 22 in.—about the same as that of London. 


I. Tur ToroGRAPHY OF JERUSALEM. 


3. Method of Study. The problem of the topo- 
graphy of the ancient city is much complicated by 
the scantiness of records, the repeated destructions 
and rebuildings, the absence of inscriptions, and the 
misleading testimony of Jewish, Christian, and 
Mohammedan tradition. In a scientific study of 
the topography of J. legend must be disregarded, 
and one must go back to the evidence of the Bible 
and of other ancient writings. The testimony must 
be arranged in chronological order, and the greatest 
importance must be attached to the earliest state- 
ments. Under no conditions should we start with 
tradition and work backward, endeavoring to twist 
ancient statements into conformity with it; and 
where ancient evidence is lacking tradition may be 
used only with extreme caution. So much for the 
method in general. In particular, the investigation 
should proceed from the more certain to the less 
certain. The most certain thing in the topography 
of ancient Jerusalem is the location of the Temple. 
This, therefore, should be the starting-point of our 
study. Next to this the valleys, springs, and pools 
of antiquity are most easily identified, and after 
these the hills and city quarters. These main 
physical features that remain unchanged down to 
the present time having been determined, we may 
then proceed to study in chronological order the 
buildings, such as palaces, walls, gates, etc., that 


Jerusalem 





from time to time have been erected in the city. 
We take up, then, first the location of the Temple. 


4, The Location of the Temple. The Temple is 
one of the few fixed spots in the topography of an- 
cient Jerusalem. Solomon’s sanctuary remained 
undisturbed until its destruction by Nebucha- 
drezzar in 586 B.c. During the brief period of the 
Exile its site was not forgotten (cf. Jer 415; Hag 2 3; 
Ezr 312). It was rebuilt by Zerubbabel in the old 
place in 516 B.c. (Ezr 615). Herod’s Temple, accord- 
ing to Josephus (Ant. XV, 11 2; BJ, V, 51), was 
merely an enlargement and beautification of its 
predecessor. An unbroken tradition of Jews, 
Christians, and Mohammedans places it on the 
site of the Haram esh-Sherif, the ‘Noble Sanctuary,’ 
or Mosque of Omar. The correctness of this tradi- 
tion is confirmed at every point by archeology (see 
TrempLe). From this fixed point we must set out in 
our study of the ancient city. 


I. The Valleys of Jerusalem. 


5. The Kidron. The one most often named is the 
nahal, or ‘brook’ Kidron (qidhroén, Gr. Kedpsy). 
Frequently ‘Kidron’ is omitted and it is called 
simply ‘the brook’ (II Ch 32 4). This designation 
suggests that it is to be identified. with Wddy Sitti 
Maryam, the deep gorge on the E. of Jerusalem, 
since this is the only one of the valleys that has a 
perennial flow of water. This identification is con- 
firmed by all the Biblical references. From II S 
15 23, I K 2 37 (cf. IL 8 16 5) it appears that the 
Kidron lay E. of the city; from I K 15 13=II Ch 
15 16; II K 23 4, 6, 12; Jer 31 40; II Ch 29 16, that it 
was adjacent to the Temple. II Ch 32 4 describes 
it as flowing through the midst of the land, and as 
containing much water. Nehemiah on his night-ride 
around the wall rode down the valley on the W. and 
S. of the city and then (Neh 2 15) up ‘the brook.’ 
According to Jn 18 1, Mk 14 26 Jesus crossed the 
Kidron (Cedron AV) in going from the city to the 
Mount of Olives, but the location of the Mount of 
Olives on the E. side of the city is established (cf. 
Jos. Wars, V, 2 3, 61, 12 2; VI, 3 2). The Valley of 
Jehoshaphat (‘Yahweh judges’) in Jl 3 12 f. is prob- 
ably a place invented as a scene for the final judg- 
ment. Its identification with Wddy Sitti Maryam 
(the Kidron) is not found before the 4th cent. a.p. 
and is destitute of authority. 


6. Hinnom. ‘The valley of the ‘Son (Sons) of 
Hinnom’ (hinndm), or simply ‘valley of Hinnom,’ 
is always called the gay, or ‘broad, open valley,’ in 
contrast to the nahal, or ‘brook,’ of Kidron. This 
name suggests that it is to be identified with the 
modern Wddy er-Rababi, the broad valley that en- 
closes Jerusalem on the W. and 8. All the O T 
references favor this identification. According to 
Jos 15 8, 18 16 Hinnom was the boundary-line be- 
tween the tribes of Judah and Benjamin; but 
Jerusalem lay wholly in the tribe of Benjamin (cf. 
Jer 6 1 and the frequent phrase ‘Judah and Jeru- 
salem’), hence Hinnom can not be identified either 
with Wddy Sitti Maryam or with El-W4d, the valley 
that runs through the heart of the city. The valley 
gate of Neh 2 13 must have opened upon the Valley 
of Hinnom, but the excavations of Bliss seem to have 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


426 


proved that this gate was situated near the SW. 
corner of the modern city. The Arabian geographer 
Idrisi (1154 a.p.) applies the name Jehenndm, that 
is, Gé-hinndm, or Valley of Hinnom, to Wédy er- 
Rababi, and in 1838 Robinson found this name still 
attached to it. This identification is generally 
accepted by modern topographers, but W. Robert- 
son Smith, followed by a few others, identifies Hin- 
nom with the modern El-Wdd. Hinnom was the 
place where children were sacrificed to the god 
Melek (Molech) (q.v.), according to Il K 23 10; 
Jer 2 23, 7 31f., 19 2, 6, 82 35. Later Jewish abhorrence 
of this practise caused the name Gehenna, or Valley 
of Hinnom, to be used as a name for Hell. 


7. Rephaim. According to Jos 15 8, 18 16, the 
‘vale of Rephaim’ lay W. of Hinnom, and formed 
part of the boundary-line between Judah and 
Benjamin. It is to be identified with the modern 
Wady el-Werd through which the railway runs from. 
Jaffa to Jerusalem. 


8. The Vale of Shaveh. In Gn 14 17f. it is stated 
that Melchizedek, King of Salem, met Abram in 
the ‘émeq, or ‘enclosed plain,’ ‘of Shaveh (the same 
is the King’s Vale).’ If Salem be J. (§ 19, below), 
then Shaveh may be one of the plains near J. In 
II § 18 18 Absalom is said to have built himself a 
monument in the ‘king’s dale.’ According to Jos., 
Ant., VII, 10 3, this monument was two stadia dis- 
tantfrom J. It,has been conjectured that the Vale of 
Sheveh is the broad, open headof Wddy er-Rababi (the 
Hinnom) W. of the city. This isnow known as Wddy 
el-Més. Through it Abram might naturally have 
passed in coming from Damascus to Hebron. 

9. The Tyropceon. The valley called the Tyro- 
poeon (% tay tupototmy gkeay&, ‘the valley of 
the cheesemakers’) is mentioned by Josephus, BJ, 
V, 41. He says that it divided the Upper City from 
the Lower City, and that it came out at the Pool 
of Siloam. Siloam is known to be identical with the 
modern ‘Ain Silwadn, and consequently the Tyro- - 
poceon must be identified with some part of Hl-Wad, 
the valley that runs through the heart of the city. 
The only dispute is, which of the branches of EIl- 
Wadd is to be identified with the upper course of the 
Tyropceon. The common view is that it is the N. 
branch, which runs under the Damascus Gate. This 
is most likely, since this is the deeper depres- 
sion, and since it is the one which the people of 
modern J. regard as the main valley. A rival theory, 
first suggested by Robinson, is that the upper course 
of the Tyropceon is to be found in the W. branch of 
El-Wad, that comes down from the Jaffa Gate 
under the modern David Street. Stillanother theory, 
advocated by Tobler and Mommert, is that the 
Tyropceon is the slight depression that runs from the 
SW. corner of the city and joins Hl-Wad at a point 
a little way above Siloam. Both of these theories 
identify the Tyropceon with small branches of the 
city valley such as Josephus would never have 
selected as a main division between the two hills, 
and neither of these identifications would ever have 
been thought of but for erroneous ideag concerning 
the location of the Lower City. The Tyropceon is 
perhaps identical with ‘the Maktesh’ (Zeph 1 it 
‘mortar’ mg.; cf. § 36). 


Lief yy RNS WAY 

bey , \ \ 

“fyl| iit 
eal 
He 


, = j 7 VIINS ZB wy) yy) wens! \ NY 
Z LUTIONS ON TEM ONS SS WY yt 
Z Upygod Si #, <= Za MIN WN. SASS \ 
“4 . < | 
i UZ; é Z SS y WSS: 
Win, \ 


Topographical Features showing 
altitude above Mediterranean Sea 
Ny 


Yes, \ 


H} 


NS 


NSS 
\ 
SY 


YS 


\ 
NK 


WS 


\ 


\\ 


é w } Y) Wy 


SS WG if; 


= 


Ns", : 


xy 


l 
ji 


itt 
a) 
id 


Ut} 


Hl 


\\ ZL 


Lif 
He tt 


1 
Usp nisi) 
dH MH 
HY 
HH Ht 


i 


i} 
wi 


/ 
' 


Wy, 
Lyi 
Uff} 


WY 
\ 
wy » 


yi) 
y 


Hy 
y 
Y) 


Why ihy,, . ‘ r 

Lf! . : 
i; Uy -\\: AS 
MH Z cs Uff / NN 


OT 


SSS 
| Wy Ty 5 . SS : 
bh Whi. “iff, 4) fff vi HAA wy 
{ 44, y SN 
Mt. hy 
4 
UY Uf ETT 
fj hy L~,. Hs 


Yj, 
WU 


j B \\\ 
veh }} 
Nt 

SSH) 


\ 
i 


\\ S) 
Ki 

MV 
Hint 


} (| i) 

AL AMAY} \ i i) i 

he HiT NSS 

init Neh Dai Ht LS Zz 

Hi) i hit Ne : 

} j MHL VON WISQ 

i) Ml ) Hii \ .. \ 
TOA \s 

\ 


e \ . 
MINS : y \ 
NX 


£ 


\ 
AKON 
NNN) 


dl AY ih \ HIN : \i oY ) i 
SEZ Gi / y ef Dahan) i \ x) Mi ) 
iy fy ff ) ; At ey: Mv a \ 
Wi Aize¢ thes hy H 2279 HH) Wi! i AN ; | 
Wg "yyy iy § i | 


CG y i AN 
NS 

17 { | Mi NY Hy 

EP mn | 


bal 


Fi 
WV a7 
; hi 


ca 
eee 








427 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jerusalem 





II. The Springs of Jerusalem. 


10. En-rogel. Closely connected with the question 
of the valleys is the question of the springs and 
pools. Two springs, En-rogel and Gihon, are men- 
tioned as near Jerusalem. These can not be identical, 
because in I K ch. 1 the coronation of Adonijah 
takes place at En-rogel, while that of Solomon 
takes place at Gihon. There are only two springs in 
the neighborhood of the modern city: ‘Ain Um ed- 
Deraj, ‘Spring of the Mother of Steps,’ as it is called 
by the Moslems, or ‘Ain Siti Maryam, ‘Spring of 
the Lady Mary,’ as it is called by the Christians, 
which lies in the Wddy Sitti Maryam, a short dis- 
tance from the SW. corner of the city; and Bir 
’ Hiytib, ‘Job’s Well,’ which lies in the same valley 
a short distance below its junction with Wddy er- 
Rababi. 


must be identical. The evidence is clear that En- 


rogel is Bir ’Hiyib. According to Jos 15 7, 18 16, | 
it was reached by going down the Valley of Hin- | 
nom. According to IZ S 1717 and I K 19, it was 
out of sight 


Cuda ate Ly Yyp vA 


remote from 
it: The 
name may 
mean ‘Spy’s 
Spring,’ cer- 
tainly not 
‘Fuller’s 
Sp faimg 
Apparently 
it is the same 
as the Drag- 
on’s (jackal’s 
RV) Well of 
Neh 2 13. 

11. Gihon. 
If En-rogel is 
Bir ’ Kiyib, 
then Gihon 
must be the other spring of Jerusalem: namely, 
‘Ain Sitti Maryam, the Virgin’s Fountain. This is 
an intermittent spring to which the name of Gihon 
or ‘gusher,’ is peculiarly appropriate. According to 
I K 1 33, it was close to Jerusalem and within hearing 
distance of En-rogel. II Ch 33 14 states that it lay 
in the nahal or Kidron valley, and II Ch 32 30 con- 
nects it with the rock-hewn conduit which still leads 
from the Virgin’s Fountain under the E. hill to 
‘Ain Silwan. Other theories which identify Gihon 
with one or other of the pools on the W. side of the 
city ignore the fact that it was a spring (cf. Jos., 
Ant., VII, 145). The sanctity of these two springs 
which led them to be selected as places of sacrifice 
and anointing, is noteworthy. Near Gihon, where 
there was plenty of water, was the fuller’s field 
(II K 18.17; Is 7 3, 36 2). 


III. The Pools of Jerusalem. 

12. Bethesda. Bethesda (Bethsaida, or Beth- 
zatha; cf. RVmg.) is mentioned in Jn ch. 5 as the 
scene of the healing of a lame man by Jesus. Our 
only clues to the location of this pool are that it was 








With these springs En-rogel and Gihon | 















rte ZY y 
SRA Se 
ie is Pees J) 
ff 
S; = rant ceeeere—— ea 
, SE PRES We vet te ssi bE 





Sait aes Sey See ae GaSe OD 
SECTION OF THE UNDERGROUND CONDUIT AT THE VIRGIN’S FouNTAIN. 


near to something connected with sheep, that it 
had five porches large enough to hold a multitude 
of sick people, that its waters flowed intermittently, 
and that it lay outside of the city, so that Jesus 
violated the Jewish Sabbath law in telling the man 
to carry his mat to his home. On the hypothesis 
that the reoBattxn was the Sheep Gate in the N. 
wall of the Temple, Bethesda has been traditionally 
identified with Birket Isra’il, a large pool N. of 
the Haram. The excavations of the White Friars 
near the Church of St. Anne have disclosed a vaulted 
cistern, which the Crusaders believed to be the Pool 
of Bethesda. Neither of these sites, however, fulfils 
all the conditions of the narrative of John. The 
Gihon, or Virgin’s Fountain, is the only inter- 
mittent spring in the vicinity of Jerusalem (see § 8, 
above) and, therefore, this is probably the site of 
Bethesda, where the waters were periodically 
troubled. It is true that no remains of porches are 
to be seen here, but no excavations have been 
undertaken at this point. In all other respects this 
identification fulfils the requirements of the Gospel 
narrative. See Masterman, PHFQ., li (1921), 
pp. 91 ff. 

13. Siloam. The names Shiloah (Shelah, Neh 
3 15, Siloah AV) and Siloam are the exact equivalent 
in Heb. and Gr., respectively, of Silwdn, in the 
modern Arabic name (‘Ain Silwén) of the pool at 
the mouth of Hl-Wad. All the an- 
cient references agree with this iden- 
tification (cf. Neh 3 15; Jos., BJ, V, 


At 2° O19 
ns MU), oS ae bic ie 
Lee ry, Entrance to Sprmg 4, 12 2; II, 

V9 Kidron Valle 


4, 
16.3 5 Viewene: 
85). In spite 







GY’ of its modern 

V/ Beis _ designation 

oes ees, as an ‘ain 
es eae (‘spring’), 





(} 
WEY 
‘$, 


Ae Rais. Cte Siloam is not 
a spring, but 
is fed by a 
tunnel cut through the rock from the Gihon, or 
Virgin’s Fountain. Before this tunnel was con- 
structed a channel on the surface of the ground, 
perhaps constructed by the Jebusites early in 
the history of the city, and discovered by Schick 
in 1886, led the water of Gihon to the Old 
Pool, or Lower Pool, which is identical with the 
modern Birket el-Hamra, below ‘Ain Silwan, at 
the mouth of Hl-Wdd. Is 8 6 (reign of Ahaz) 
probably refers to this when it speaks of ‘the 
waters of Shiloah that go softly.’ According 
to IT K 20 20; Is 229, 11; II Ch 32 4, 30, Hezekiah, in 
anticipation of the coming of Sennacherib, stopped 
up the channel on the surface of the ground and 
diverted the water of Gihon from the Old, or Lower 
Pool, through a subterranean conduit to the New, 
or Upper Pool, which lay within the fortifications 
(see § 34, below). This conduit to the Upper Pool 
is referred to in II K 18 17=Is 36 2, and in Is 7 3. 
In Neh 2 14 it is called the King’s Pool, either be- 
cause it was built by {King Hezekiah or because 
it was adjacent to the King’s Garden (see § 38, 
below). 


Jerusalem 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


428 


ca a en ne 


IV. The Hills of Jerusalem. 


14. Topographical Arrangement. The two main 
valleys of Jerusalem, the Kidron and the Hinnom, 
form a V-shaped plateau that is connected with the 
table-land of Judea only on the N. This plateau is 
divided by the Tyropceon, or {central valley, into 
two unequal divisions, which we may call the W. 
hill and the E. hill. The W. hill is three times as 
large as the EH. hill, and at its highest point near the 
SW. corner of the city rises to a height of 2,550 ft. 
above sea level, so that it overlooks the Temple 
mount (about 100 ft. lower). By the arms of the 
Tyropceon this hill is subdivided into four smaller 


acete 
Sebo eed aS 


CoursE oF UNDER- 
GROUND ConpDviItT 
FROM THE VIRGIN’S 
FounTAIN TO THE 
Poou or SInoam. 


Seen 
pride 


Meeting Place’ 
the i 


ce) ‘ 
Excavators .,' 
er 


Church over 
the pool 


A 

Zz al 
0 1 NLiccgtn \ 
Oem TS 


3 ‘. A 


° ‘AKO 
7 pt 
OW 
\c Ce = 
‘ 





“ills, which we may designate for convenience as 
TW, N, SW, and C (Central). The E. hill, on 
vhich the Temple stood, is subdivided by branches 

of the Kidron into three summits, which we may 
designate as NE, E, and SE. The task now before 
us is the identification of the hills and city quar- 
ters of antiquity with the seven summits of the 
modern city. 

15. The City of David. The term ‘city of David’ 
occurs first in II S 5 6-8=I Ch 115 f. as the name 
which David gave to the stronghold that he took 
out of the hand of the Jebusites. ‘This fortress must 
have been near a water-supply. and the Gihon, or 
Virgin’s Fountain, is the only spring close to J. This 
suggests that the City of David lay on SE. ITS 15 23 
and I K 1 33 both suggest its nearness to the Kidron 


and to Gihon. Nowhere is one said to go up fo the 
City of David; but, on the other hand, one goes up 
from it to the Temple and to the palace which ad- 
joined the Temple (cf. I K 81, 9 24). This language 
is explainable only if it lay on SE, which is con- 
siderably lower than the Temple hill. Is 291, 2,7 
connects the City of David with the Temple in such 
a way as to show that it must have lain on the HE. 
ridge. Ezk 43 7 accuses the kings of Judah of 
defiling the Temple by putting their sepulchers 
close to it, but according to I K 11 43, 14 31, etc., 
these were in the city of David. NE. was not built 
upon until a much later date, consequently the City 
of David must have lain on SE. Neh 3 15 shows that 
the City of David lay close to the Pool of Siloam 
(cf. Neh 12 37). II Ch 32 30 shows that it lay between 
Gihon and Siloam; II Ch 33 14, that it lay due west 
of Gihon. According to I Mac 1 33, 7 32 f., 14 36, it 
was identical with the Akra of the Syrians and was 
in immediate proximity to the Temple. Jos (Ant. 
VIII, 3 1-2) also equates the City of David with the 
Akra of the Syrians. 

In BJ, I, 1 4; V, 41, 61, he identifies it with the 
Lower City, and says that it was separated from the 
Upper City by a deep valley. There is universal 
agreement that the Upper City of Josephus is SW, 
but in regard to the identification of the Lower City 
there has been a great variety of opinions. Brocar- 
dus, Robinson, Conder, Fergusson, De Saulcy, 
Pierotti place it on NW; Fallmerayer, Williams, 
Lewin, De Vogiié, Warren, Merrill, Schick place it 
on N; Schultz, Kraft, Schafter on NE; Tobler and 
Mommert on C; von Alten and Thrupp on E; Ols- 
hausen, Caspari, Menke, Riess, Furrer, von Klaiber, 
Wilson, Benzinger, Buhl, Guthe, W. R. Smith, G. 
A. Smith, and most recent authorities on SE. The 
last theory is the only one that does justice to all 
the statements of Josephus in BJ, V, 41. SE 
is lower than SW, the Upper City; it is separated 
from it by a deep valley, the Tyropceon; it is lower 
than the Temple hill; and there is no valley at 
present between it and the Temple, altho the 
excavations of Guthe and Macalister show that such 
a valley once existed (cf. Ant. XIV, 16 2; BJ ,II, 17 
5; IV, 19 2; VI, 6 3, 7 2). The controversy has re- 
cently been settled in favor of SE. by the excavations 
of Parker, Weill, and Macalister on this hill (see 
LireRATURE). The discovery of scarabs of the 
XIIth Eg. dynasty and of old Amorite pottery 
proves that this is the most ancient part of Jeru- 
salem. The excavations now in process are revealing 
many interesting facts regarding the old Jebusite 
city and its fortifications, its capture and the 
strengthening of its northern wall by David and 
other details of the past history of this very impor- 
tant site; see especially PHFQ for 1924). After the 
destruction of J. the thread of authentic tradition 
was broken, and the City of David was supposed to 
have lainon SW., where to-day the tomb of David 
is shown by the Moslems; but of this tradition 
there is no trace before the 4th cent. a.p.,"and it is 
worthless over against the unanimous ancient testi- 
mony in favor of SE. 


16. Zion. In regard to the location of the hill 
Zion (tstyyén, Gr. tov), theories have been as 


(ALIO AHL dO HN) SOdOOS WOU WHTVSONgL 








OPHEL—PORTION OF THE WALL OF THE OLD JEBUSITE CITY 


The breach in the wall made by David when he captured Jerusalem 
(IIS. 5 ®®). The replacing of this breach by a new structure 
was called ‘Millo’ (‘filling’) (from P.#.F.Q. April, 1924. 

By permission of the Palestine Exploration Fund). 





OPHEL. PORTION OF THE OLD WALL OF DAVID’S CAPITAL 


The North Bastion and Tower (from P.E.F.Q. July, 1924. 
By permission of the Palestine Exploration Fund). 


oy 


429 





diverse as they have been in regard to the City of 
David. The tradition of the Greek and Latin 
Churches since the 4th cent., followed by Brocardus, 
Robinson, Williams, and Lewin, places Zion on 
SW. Aben Ezra, De Lyra, Lightfoot, Fergusson, 
and Thrupp identify it with NW; Clark, Bucking- 
ham, and Ritter, with the Hill of ‘Evil Counsel’ 8S. 
of the city; Caspari, Birch, Weikert, Socin, Guthe, 
Benzinger, Buhl, G. A. Smith, and most modern 
investigators, with the entire E. ridge. The argu- 
ments in support of this last view are as follows: 
(1) All the early references identify the City of 
David with Zion in such a way as to show that both 
must have lain on the same ridge (cf. IIS 57=I Ch 
115;1 K 81=II Ch 5 2). (2) The preexilic prophets 
speak of Zion as in a peculiar sense the abode of J”. 
This shows that it was the hill on which the Temple 
stood (cf. Am 1 2; Is 2 3, 45, 8 18, 14 32, 187, 291, 
7, 8, 31 4, 9, 33 20; Mic 3 12, 47; Jer 8 19, 31 6, 12). 
(3) The early prophets mention Zion as the residence 
of the king and the nobility, but Solomon’s palace is 
known to have stood on the E. hill near the Temple 
(cf. Am 61; Is 3 16f., 161, 28 16; Mic 4 8; Song 3 11). 
(4) The exilic writings connect Zion with the Temple 
as frequently as do the preexilic writings (cf. La 1 4, 
2 6f., 411; Ob ver 17; Is 527 f., 60 14, 64 10 f.; Jer 
50 5, 28, 5110). (5) The postexilic prophets in like 
manner speak of Zion asthe dwelling-place of J’’ 
(cf. Zech 2 10, 8 2£.; Jl 2 1, 15, 3 16, 17, 21; Is 24 23). 
(6) In the Psalter, Zion is scarcely ever mentioned 
except in connection with the Temple and its 
worship (cf. Ps 20 2, 78 68 £., 87 2, 5, 48 2, 74 2, 76 2, 
99 2, 132 13, 146 10, 9 11, 14, 2 6, 53 6, 87 2, 147, 50 2, 
110 2, 128 5, 183 3, 1384 3, 5118 f., 651, 847, 137 1, 3, 
102 21, 147 12, 1251). (7) In the Apocrypha, Zion 
is identified with the Temple mount in the same 
manner as in the earlier literature (cf. I Mac 4 37f., 
5 54, 7 32, 14 27; Sir 24 10; I Es 8 81). (8) Josephus 
never uses the name Zion, but in Ané. I, 13 2 he 
states that David’s tent for the Ark (on Zion, accord- 
ing to II S 6 12) was pitched on the same mountain 
on which the Temple afterward stood. We thus 
find an unbroken tradition from the earliest times 
down to about 100 a.p. identifying Zion with the E. 
hill. In certain poetical passages Zion is used in 
parallelism with J., as tho it were a name for the 
whole city, but this is evidently a case of synecdoche. 
In prose Zion is never anything else than the Temple 
hill. The modern tradition which identifies Zion 
with SW is probably derived from the old ‘Zion’ 
Church that stood in this quarter (see § 42, below). 


17. Ophel. The hill of Ophel (‘6phel) is first men- 
tioned in Mic 4 8 as ‘the hill [‘Ophel’ mg.] of the 
daughter of Zion.’ Since Zion was the E. ridge, 
Ophel must have lain on the same ridge. From Neh 
3 26f., 11 21; II Ch 27 3, 33 14; Jos., BJ, V, 4 2, 61, it 
is certain that Ophel was the part of the E. hill 
immediately S. of the Temple. 


18. Moriah. The use of the name ‘Moriah’ for 
the Temple mount is peculiar to II Ch 31. Gn 22 
2, 14 (editorial) seems also to know it, since it ex- 
plains it as meaning the place where men ought to 
appear before J’’; that is, the Temple. In all early 
writings Zion is the name for the Temple mount. 
Moriah is apparently a late Jewish designation that 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jerusalem 








has arisen from the conjecture that the altar on 
Zion was the scene of Abraham’s sacrifice of Isaac 
(in Gn 22 2 it is described as one of the mountains 
of the land of Moriah). If this is a real name, it 
must be supposed to refer to one of the smaller 
peaks of the E. ridge, or Zion. Moriah will then be 
the northern summit, Ophel the central, and City 
of David the southern. ; 


II. History or JERUSALEM. 


I. The Canaanite Period. 


19. Jebusite Jerusalem. Concerning the origin 
of the city of Jerusalem we have no information. 
Even the etymology of the name is uncertain. Ezk 
16 3 says of the city: ‘Thy birth and thy nativity 
is of the land of the Canaanite; the Amorite was thy 
father, and thy mother was a Hittite.’ In Gn 14 18 
it is uncertain whether Salem, the residence of Mel- 
chizedek, has anything to do with Jerusalem (see 
SaLeM). The identification first appears in Ps 76 2 
and is followed by Jos. Ant. I, 10 2; VII, 3 2. Even 
if Salem be Jerusalem, the story of Melchizedek is of 
such uncertain origin that it throws no light upon 
the early history of the city (see MrLcuizEDEK). 

In the Tell-el-Amarna tablets (1400 s.c.) the city 
appears as Urusalim (Winckler, Tell el-Amarna 
Letters, Nos. 179-185; Knudtzon, Die El-Amarna 
Tafeln, Nos. 285-290). Its king Abd-hiba appeals 
to the Pharaoh Amenhotep IV for help against an 
invading people called the Habiru (Hebrews). J. 
next appears at the time of the Israelite conquest 
about 1200 B.c. According to Jos 1 10, its king 
joined with the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, 
and Eglon in a confederacy against the Israelites. 
He was defeated by Joshua, but his city was not 
taken (cf. Jg 11-7). According to Jos 15 63; Jg 1 21, 
19 12, the city remained in the hands of Jebusites. 
The Jebusites appear in lists of the tribes of Canaan 
in JE (Gn 10 16, 15 21; Ex 3 8, 17, 33 2, 34 1; Nu 
13 29), in D (Ex 18 5, 23 23; Dt 71, 2017), also in Jos 
310, 91, 11 3, 12 8, 24 11; Jg 3 6; IK 9 20=I1T Ch 
87; Ezr 91; Neh 98. They were doubtless of the 
same Semitic stock as the other Canaanites. In the 
light of Urusalim in the Amarna letters it seems 
likely that Jebus, as a name for the city, is a late 
formation out of Jebusite. The stronghold of the 
Jebusites was subsequently called the City of David. 
It must, therefore, have lain on the S. end of the E. 
hill, near the spring of Gihon. Whether settlements 
had also been made on the W. hill we have no means 
of determining. The possibility that this was the 
case is suggested by Jg 19 11 £.; Jos 15 8; Jos. Ant. 
VII, 3 2; BJ, V, 41. 


II. Davidic Period. 


20. Millo. According to IIS 56f.=I Ch 11 4t., 
David captured the stronghold of Zion, made it his 
residence, and called it the City of David. Here he 
undertook the following operations: A structure 
called ‘Millo’ is mentioned in II S 59; I K 9 15, 24, 
11 27; II Ch 32 5. From these passages we gather 
that it was a fortification of some sort, which was 
already in existence when David took the city, and 
it could be successively enlarged by David, !Solo- 
mon, and Hezekiah; that it lay in the City of David; 


Jerusalem 





and that it defended this city on its weakest side. 
Apparently it was a rampart, which protected the 
N. end of the SE. hill. The LXX. identifies it 
with the Akra, a citadel S. of the Temple. The name 
millo’, ‘filling,’ like Assyr. mula, or tamla, suggests 
that it was a double wall filled in with earth, such as 
the excavations have disclosed in the contemporary 
city of Gezer. (Cf. Macalister’s report in PHFQ., 
April, 1924). 

21. David’s Wall. In II § 59 it is stated that 
‘David built round about from Millo.’ This can 
only refer to a wall enclosing the City of David. It 
began at the Millo, or embankment, which crossed 
the S. portion of the E. hill, followed the Kadron at 
some distance above its bed, encircled the rocky 
cliff at the 8. end of the hill above Siloam, and then 
ran up the E. side of the Tryopceon valley to join 
the Millo once more. Traces of this wall and of the 
rock scarps that formed its foundation were dis- 
covered by Bliss on the E. and S. sides of the SE. 
hill. In this wall perhaps was the Tower of David 
(Song 4 4). The tower near the Jaffa Gate, known 
to-day as the Tower of David, is really the tower 
Phasaélus, built by Herod as a part of his palace. 

22. David’s Palace. In IIS 59 (LXX.), 5 11 it is 
recorded that David built him a house in the City 
of David. Neh 12 37 indicates that it stood at the 
N. end of the city. According to II S 5 un, it was 
erected by Tyrian workmen sent by Hiram. The 
walls were of stone, and it was roofed with cedar 
beams from Lebanon (cf. II 8 7 2, 11 8, 9, 27, 15 16, 
19 11, 30, 20 3). 

23. The Guard-House. Neh 3 16 mentions, as 
situated in the City of David, the ‘house of the 
mighty men.’ This seems to have been a dwelling 
for the men of the body-guard, whose names are 
recorded in IT § 23 8-39. 


24. David’s Sepulcher. I K 2 10 tells us that 
‘David slept with his fathers and was buried in the 
City of David.’ All the other kings of Judah down 
to Ahaz were buried in this tomb, according to the 
Book of Kings. Ezk 43 7 speaks of it as adjoining 
the wall of the Temple. Neh 3 16 mentions it as 
lying between the Pool of Siloam and the Water 
Gate on the E. side of the city. These statements 
are inconsistent with the traditional location of the 
Tomb of David on the §S. end of the W. hill (cf. 
Jos. Ant. XIII, 8 4; XVI, 71; Ac 2 29). 


III. Solomonic Period. 


25. The Temple. With Solomon a new building 
era began in Jerusalem. The following structures 
are ascribed to him by the Book of Kings: The 
‘house,’ or sanctuary proper, stood on the summit 
of the E. hill a little W. of the sakhra, or ‘Rock’ 
under the Dome of the Rock, which marks the site 
of the altar of burnt offering. The name dbhir 
(‘oracle’) for the Holy of Holies means properly 
‘west,’ and shows that it lay at the W. end of the 
Temple (cf. Ezk 8 16). The Temple proper was sur- 
rounded with a court, which in I K 6 36 is called the 
inner court, to distinguish it from the great, or 
outer court, that enclosed all Solomon’s buildings. 
In Jer 36 10 it is called the upper court, because it 
stood on a higher level. Unlike the later Temples of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


430 


Zerubbabel and of Herod, Solomon’s Temple had 
only one court (see TEMPLE, §§ 6, 24, 27, 31 f.). 
26. The King’s House. According to I K 31, 
71, 91, 10, 15, 10 4, 5, 12, Solomon built a palace for 
himself at the same time that he reared the house 
of J’. This is frequently mentioned in the later 
history under the name of the ‘king’s house.’ From 
many passages it is clear that it adjoined the 
Temple (cf. I K 6 36, 7 8, 12; Is 1 26 f.; Ps 26; II K 
12 18, 1414, 168, 18 15, 2413, 259; Jer 3612#.). It can 
not have adjoined it on the N., because that quarter 
was not yet enclosed, nor on the E. or W., because 
there was no room. It must accordingly have 
lain S. of the Temple. With this agree numerous 
passages which speak of the palace as higher than 
the City of David and lower than the Temple (cf. I 
K 81, 9 24, 10 5; IK 1119; Jer 221, 2610; Mic 48). 
27. The House of Pharaoh’s Daughter. Adjacent 


to Solomon’s palace, probably on the W., was the- 


house of Pharaoh’s daughter, or the Harem (I K 
7 8, 9 24). These two buildings were surrounded 
with a court spoken of as ‘another court’ (I K 7 8), 
or the middle court (II K 20 4 mg.), or the court of 
the guard (Jer 32 2; II K 11 5, 19; If Ch 23 5; Neh 
12 39, 3 25). The N. wall of this court was identical 
with the S. wall of the inner, or Temple court. 

28. The Porch of Judgment. According to I K 
7 7, S. of the middle, or palace court, stood the 
‘porch of judgment.’ It served as the royal audience- 
chamber, and contained Solomon’s throne of ivory 
and gold (I K 10 18-20). 

29. The Porch of Pillars. A little S. of the porch 
of Judgment stood the ‘porch of pillars’ (I K 7 6), 
which measured 50 by 30 cubits. Apparently, it 
served as an anteroom to the throne-room in which 
Solomon held audience. 


30. The House of the Forest of Lebanon. The 
most southerly of the buildings on the Temple hill 
was the ‘house of the forest of Lebanon’ (I K 7 2). 
Its dimensions were 100 by 50 cubits. Its roof was 
supported by forty-five pillars of cedar wood in 
three rows. According to I K 10 16 f., Is 22 8 (ef. 
39 2=IT K 2013), it wasused asa royalarmory. Its 
name was derived from the cedar trunks that formed 
its pillars. Its proximity to the palace is shown not 
only by the narrative of I K ch. 7, but also by I 
K 1016 f., which states that the shields were kept in 
it that were borne before the king on festal occasions. 
The last three buildings, as well as the inner and the 
middle court, were included in the outer, or great 
court, which surrounded all Solomon’s edifices 
(I K 7 12). See LEBANON. 


31. Solomon’s Wall. According to II S§ 59, David 
built the wall of the City of David. According to 
{K 31, 915, Solomon built the wall of J. round about. 
Jerusalem must be a larger idea than the City of 
David, and this new wall must have enclosed part 
at least of the W. hill, which before this time had 
been undefended. In I K 81=II Ch 5 2; II K 9 28, 
14 20; Is 10 12, 32, 22 10, 30 19; Jer 51 35; Zec 1 14; 
Neh 8 15, 12 37 the City of David, or Zion, is dis- 
tinguished from J. as a part from the whole. This 
indicates that even in preexilic times the city had 
spread to the W. hill. On the N. Solomon’s wall 
probably coincided with the first, or inner, wall 


_ 


431 A NEW STANDARD 





described by Jos. BJ, V, 4 2, which ran from the 
Tower of Hippicus, near the modern Jaffa gate, 
straight E. to the W. wall of the Temple. On the 
S. it probably followed the inner line of fortification 
discovered by Bliss around the S. summit of the W. 
hill. Not until a later time was it found necessary 
to enclose the lower S. slopes of the W. hill (see 
§ 35, below). 

32. Gates in Solomon’s Wall. The upper gate, 
or gate of Benjamin, is described in I K 15 33=I Ch 
27 3; II Ch 23 20; Jer 20 2, 37 13; Ezk 8 3, 14, 9 2; 
Zec 14 10 as lying in the N. wall of the Temple court, 
which was at the same time the N. wall of Solo- 
mon’s city. The gate of Ephraim, according to II K 
14 13=II Ch 25 23; Neh 8 16, 12 39, was situated in 
the N. wall on the W. hill, 400 cubits from the NW. 
corner of the city. The corner gate, according to 
II K 14 13=IT Ch 25 23, 269; Jer 31 38, lay at the 
NW. corner of Solomon’s city, substantially on the 
site of the modern Jaffa gate. The valley gate, 
according to II Ch 269, Neh 2 13-15, 313, opened upon 
the Valley of Hinnom, and is to be identified with 
the ancient gate which Bliss excavated on the SW. 
slope of the W. hill. It was probably the same as the 
gate Harsith of Jer 19 2. Just beyond this lay the 
‘turning of the wall’ (II Ch 269), which corresponds 
with the bending northward of the inner wall dis- 
covered by Bliss. The horse gate, according to II 
K 11 16=IT Ch 23 15; Jer 31 40; Neh 8 28; Jos. Ant. 
IX, 7 3, lay in the E. wall near the SE. corner of the 
Temple enclosure. 


IV. Period of Hezekiah and Manasseh. 


33. The Interval between Solomon and Heze- 
kiah. After the death of Solomon J. does not seem 
to have received any enlargement for nearly 200 
years. It was not until the Northern Kingdom 
began to decline after the death of Jeroboam IT in 
744 B.c. that the fortunes of Judah revived. Uzziah 
is the first king of whom extensive building opera- 
tions are recorded (cf. II Ch. ch. 26; Jos. Ant. IX, 
11 2). His son Jotham, according to II Ch 27 3, 
‘built the upper gate of the house of Jehovah, and 
on the wall of Ophel he built much’ (cf. Jos. Ant. 
IX, 11 2). Under Hezekiah (719-691 B.c.) still more 
extensive public works were undertaken. 


34. Hezekiah’s Conduit. II K 20 20, 18 17=Is 36 
2; II Ch 32 4, 30; Is 7 3, 229, 11 speak of a new conduit, 
constructed by Hezekiah in anticipation of Sen- 
nacherib’s invasion, to bring the waters of Gihon 
down to the W. side of the City of David. This can 
only be the rock-hewn tunnel under the E. hill, 
which leads the waters of the Virgin’s Fountain to 
the upper pool of Siloam. In this an ancient Heb. 
inscription has been found, the so called Siloam 
Inscription, which reads as follows: ‘The tunnel. 
And this was the history of the tunnel. While still 
. . . the picks were each over against one another, and 
while three cubits still [remained to be excavated 
there was heard] the voice of one calling to the 
other, for there was a zdh in the rock, toward the 
south and toward the north. And on the day of the 
tunnel the quarrymen struck pick against pick, one 
over against the other. And the waters flowed from 
the source to the pool, one thousand two hundred 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Jerusalem 


cubits. And a hundred cubits was the height of the 
rock over the head of the quarrymen.’ This was 
doubtless erected by Hezekiah’s workmen, and is the 
oldest Israelite inscription of any length that has 
come down to us. The word mdtsa’ which this 
inscription uses for ‘source’ is the same one that II 
Ch 32 30 uses for the ‘spring’ of Gihon (see §§ 11 and 
12, above). 


35. Hezekiah’s Wall. From II Ch 325; Is 2210¢. 
it appears that Hezekiah built a new outer wall. 
Two outer walls are known to archeology, one on 
the N., the other on the S. From the expression 
‘between the two walls,’ which Is 22 10 f. (701 B.c.) 
uses of the upper pool of Siloam, it appears that 
Hezekiah’s wall must have been the outer wall on 
the 8., since the two walls can only have been the 
wall on the W. side of the E. hill, and the wall on the 
E. side of the W. hill. This is the wall described by 
Nehemiah in 3 13-15, 12 31-37; Jos BJ, V, 4 2, and 
it is the outer line of fortification on the S. excavated 
by Bliss. It ran in a long loop around the extreme 
S. end of the W. hill, crossed the Tyropceon above 
Siloam, and there joined the wall of the City of 
David. 


36. Manasseh’s Wall. According to II Ch 33 14, 
Manasseh ‘built an outer wall to the city of David, 
on the west side of Gihon, in the valley, even to 
the entrance at the fish gate.’ The mention of the 
fish gate shows that Manasseh’s construction was the 
second wall on the N., in which the fish gate is known 
to have been situated (Neh 3 3, 1239). The mishneh, 
or second quarter, college AV (II K 2214=II Ch 
34 22; Zeph 1 10), which lay near the fish gate, is not 
mentioned before Manasseh. Manasseh and his 
successors are the first kings who are said to have 
been buried in J., but not in the City of David 
(II K 21 18; II Ch 33 20; II K 21 26, 23 30=II Ch 
35 24). Apparently, therefore, the mishneh was the 
new quarter enclosed by Manasseh’s second wall on 
the N., and in this quarter were the tombs of Manas- 
seh and his successors. Here also was the makhtésh 
(Maktesh Zeph 1 11), or ‘the mortar’ (mg.), a region 
inhabited by Canaanites= ‘traders.’ This outer wall 
was the one rebuilt by Nehemiah (Neh 8 1-8, 12 39) 
and described by Jos BJ, V, 4 2. From neither of 
these descriptions can the course of this wall be 
traced with certainty, and the evidence of arche- 
ology is equally obscure. Only one fact is certain, 
namely that an ancient wall followed the line of the 
present N. wall from the Jaffa gate to the Damascus 
gate. Whether this was the second or the third wall 
described by Josephus (BJ, V, 4 2) is one of the most 
difficult problems of Jerusalem archeology, in regard 
to which there is as yet no consensus of opinion. The 
theory which identifies the present wall with the 
third wall appeals to the location of the Church of 
the Holy Sepulcher inside of this wall. Christ was 
crucified outside of the second wall; hence it is 
claimed that the present N. wall can not be the 
second. Unfortunately the genuineness of the Sep- 
ulcher rests upon too slender historical evidence 
for its location to be a decisive argument in the case. 
It is also claimed that remains of the second wall 
are found inside of the Church of the Sepulcher; but 
a careful examination of the stones makes it doubtful 


Jerusalem 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


432 





whether any of them ever belonged to a city wall: 
The wall as laid down by Schick inside of the Sepul- 
cher follows an inconceivably bad course, running on 
low ground all the way, and making three rectangular 
bends without reason. It does not correspond with 
Josephus’s description of it as ‘circling about,’ and 
it does not do justice to his statements in regard to 
the distance between the second and the third wall, 
the size of the city, and the distance of the third wall 
from the monument of Helena and from Scopus. 
We must conclude, accordingly, that the remains 
along the line of the present N. wall are to be iden- 
tified with Manasseh’s wall, the second wall of Jo- 
sephus; and that the third wall built by Agrippa 
in 43 a.D. is to be sought still further N. in the re- 
mains described by Robinson in 1838. 

V. Persian, Greek, Maccabean, and Herodian 
Periods. 


37. Nehemiah’s Wall. Nehemiah rebuilt on the old 
lines and included all that had been added by the 
early kings. On the E. and W. his line coincided with 
that of David and Solomon, on the 8. with that of 
Hezekiah, and on the N. with that of Manasseh. 
His account of it is found in Neh 2 2-15, ch. 3, 12 27- 
40. This was identical with the wall of Josephus (BJ, 
V, 42), exclusive of the third, or outer wall on the N. 


38. Gates, etc., in Nehemiah’s Wall. From Neh 
3 1, 32, 12 39, it appears that the sheep gate was 
identical with the upper gate, or gate of Benjamin 
(see § 32, above), and lay on the N. side of the 
Temple enclosure. A little NW. of this lay the 
tower of Ham-meah, Meah AV (Neh 31, 12 39). 
This is identical with the birdh, or castle, which 
Neh 2 8 describes as ‘the castle which appertaineth 
to the house (of Jehovah)’ (cf. Neh 7 2). The word 
is the Assyr. birtu, ‘fortress,’ and is not found in the 
O T before the Persian period. The castle was the 
residence of the Persian governor and later of the 
Hasmonean (Maccabean) priest-kings. Josephus 
(Ant. XV, 11 4; XVIII, 4 3; BJ, I, 21 1) calls it 
Baris. It was rebuilt by Herod the Great and was 
named Antonia in honor of Mark Antony. Josephus 
gives a detailed description of it in BJ, V, 4 2, 58. 
From this it appears that it lay on the side of the 
modern Turkish barracks, ona cliff near the NW. 
corner of the Temple court. According to BJ, V, 
5 8, it was connected with the Temple by a portico. 
It was garrisoned with a strong force of Roman 
soldiers, who were ready to rush out in a moment, 
if there should be any commotion in the Temple 
(ef. Ac 21 30-40, 23 10, 16, 32). This castle should be 
carefully distinguished from the Akra, or ‘citadel,’ 
which lay S. of the Temple (see § 15, above). 

Still further NW. was the tower of Hananel, 
Hananeel AV) (Neh 31, 12 39; Jer 31 38; Zec 1410), 
on the cliff near the present Damascus gate, at the 
N. corner of the city. Just beyond this was the fish 
gate (Neh 3 3, 12 39; II Ch 33 14; Zeph 1 10), which 
is to be identified with the modern Damascus gate. 
Apparently it was the same as the middle gate 
(Jr 391-3). The old gate (Neh 36, 12 39; Zec 14 10, 
read jw’, ‘old,’ instead of jw, ‘first?) is iden- 
tified by Zec 1410 and by the order in Neh with 
the corner gate that stood in the NW corner of 


Solomon’s wall (see § 32, above). The broad wall 
(Neh 3 8, 12 39) corresponds with the present W. 
wall of the city 8S. of the Jaffa gate. The tower of 
the furnaces (Neh 3 11, 12 38) corresponds with the 
rock-cut foundations of a tower known as Mauds- 
lay’s Searp in the grounds of Bishop Gobat’s School. 
The valley gate (Neh 2 13, 3 13, 12 31) we have met 
already at the SW. corner of Solomon’s wall (see 
§ 32, above). The dung gate (Neh 2 13, 3 13, 12 31) 
is the ancient gate excavated by Bliss at the extreme 
S. corner of the city. The fountain gate (Neh 2 14, 
3 15, 12 37), as its name implies, lay close to the 
fountain of Siloam at the point where the wall 
crossed the Tyropceon valley. It is the same as 
‘the gate between the two walls’ (II K 25 4; Jer 
39 4, 527). Next came the pool of Siloam (Neh 
2 14, 3 15; see § 13, above). The king’s garden 
(II K 25 4; Jer 89 4, 527; Neh 3 15) was the fertile 
tract in the mouth of the Tyropceon that was 
watered by the overflow from Siloam. Here ap- 
parently were situated the king’s wine-presses 
(Zec 1410). The stairs of the City of David (Neh 
3 15, 12 37) correspond with rock-hewn steps that 
may still be seen at the 8S. end of the E. hill. The 
wall described in Neh 8 16-26 followed the line of 
the one excavated by Bliss and Guthe on the E. side 
of the E. hill. The ‘tower standing out’ is the 
tower excavated by Warren S. of the Haram. The 
water gate (Neh 3 26, 12 37, 81) lay near this tower 
and gave access to the spring of Gihon. The horse 
gate (Neh 3 28) we have met already in Solomon’s 
wall by the SE. corner of the Temple court (see 
§32, above). The gate of Hammiphkad, ‘the mus- 
tering’ (Neh 3 31), was identical with the old east 
gate of the Temple (see TmMpLp, § 8). 


39. Between Nehemiah and N T Times. During 
this interval J. had come to be the religious center of 
world-wide Judaism. Under the Maccabees and, to 
a still greater degree, under Herod the Great, its 
population increased rapidly. The Maccabean 
princes paid much attention to buildings and fortifica- 
tions. On the W. hill they erected their palace. On 
the same hill Herod the Great erected his most mag- 
nificent palace (Jos. BJ, V, 4 4). Herod greatly 
strengthened the fortifications of the city, notably 
by the erection of the three imposing towers, Hippi- 
cus, Phasaélus, and Mariamme, all in the W. wall. 
A hippodrome, a gymnasium, and a theater were 
also features of the J. of Herod. It was under the 
same king that the Temple underwent a complete re- 
construction (see TEMPLE, §§ 29-34), involving ex- 
tensive alterations in the walls and fortifications of 
the Temple hill. In fact, the J. of the N T times was 
practically a new city. 


VI. New Testament Period. 


40. Extent of the City. Nehemiah’s wall was the 
outermost wall in the time of Christ, and there was 
probably a large extramural population. The third 
wall on the N. was not built by Agrippa until several 
years after the Crucifixion. 


41. Jesus’ Visits to Jerusalem. Christ’s relation 
to J. was only that of an occasional visitor. His first 
three appearances are connected with the Temple 
(Lk 2 22-39, 41-50; Jn 2 13-22); His fourth, with the 


438 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jerusalem 





Pool of Bethesda (Jn ch. 5; see § 12, above); His 
fifth, with the Temple (Jn ch. 7 f.); His sixth, with 
Siloam (Jn ch. 9; see § 13, above). On His seventh 
and last visit He made His triumphal entry into the 
Temple and taught there on Sunday, Monday, and 
Tuesday of Passion Week (Mk chs. 11-16, and ||s). 

42. The Upper Room. On Thursday Jesus ate 
the Last Supper with His disciples. The scene of 
this meal was a large upper room (Mk 14 15), prob- 
ably in the home of Mary, the mother of Mark. This 
same upper room seems to have been the meeting- 
place of the infant Church after the Ascension. 
Epiphanius records (Weights and Measures, ch. 14) 
that Hadrian, on his visit to J. (135 a.p.), found this 
-building still standing in spite of the destruction of 
the city in 70 a.p. This testimony is confirmed by 
other early evidence, and there seems, accordingly, 
good reason to believe that the traditional Coena- 
culum on the S. end of the W. hill (now the Moslem 
Tomb of David) is the real scene of the Last Supper, 
of the descent of the Holy Spirit, and of the founding 
of the first church of Christendom. Adjoining the 
Ceenaculum a building known as the ‘Church of 
Zion,’ or ‘Church of the Apostles,’ existed as early 
as the 4th cent. 

43. Palace of Caiaphas. From the Last Supper 
Christ went to the Garden of Gethsemane on the W. 
slope of the Mount of Olives (Mk 14 26; Jn 18 1). 
Here He was apprehended by the officers and taken 
to the High Priest Annas, and by him sent to 
Caiaphas (Jn 18 12, 24). A tradition which goes back 
to the Bordeaux Pilgrim (333 a.p.) places the priestly 
palace on the W. hill near the Ccenaculum. This is 
probably correct, since this was the quarter in which 
the Jewish priestly aristocracy dwelt. 


44. The Pretorium and Pavement. From the 
palace of Caiaphas He was taken to the Pretorium 
(Gr. nxoattwprov, judgment-hall AV) of Pilate (Jn 
18 28). Tradition identifies this with the Castle of 
Antonia atthe NW. corner of the Temple area, on the 
site of the modern Turkish barracks (see § 38, 
above); but it is unlikely that the governor made his 
residence with the common soldiers in the fortress, 
and the best recent authorities are agreed that by 
Pretorium is meant the palace of Herod the Great, 
on the site of the modern Citadel, near the Jaffa 
gate. The Jews were unwilling to enter the 
Pretorium for fear of ceremonial defilement, so 
Pilate went out to them to a place called Gabbatha, 
or Pavement (Jn 1913), which was probably the large 
open court in the center of Herod’s palace, cor- 
responding with the court in the center of the modern 
Citadel. Pilate sent Jesus to Herod Antipas, 
Tetrarch of Galilee, who was probably residing at 
the old palace of the Hasmoneans on the HE. side of 
the W. hill opposite the Temple, on the site of the 
modern Ashkenazi Synagog (cf. Jos. Ant. XIV, 
fem4a 2013 3 f.; XVIII, 4 3; XX,.8 11; BJ, 1 611, 
13 3 f.; II, 16 3, 17 6), and Herod returned him to 
Pilate. Pilate then sentenced Jesus to death, and 
He was led out to be crucified. 

45. Golgotha, Calvary. The traditional scene of the 
Crucifixion and entombment is the Church of the 
Holy Sepulcher in the NW. quarter of the modern 
city. If the second wall on the N. ran inside of this 


site, it may be genuine; but if, as is probable (see 
§ 36, above), the second wall corresponds with the 
present N. wall, from the Jaffa gate to the Damascus 
gate, then the traditional Sepulcher can not be 
genuine, for all our authorities agree that Jesus was 
crucified and buried outside the city wall (Mt 27 
32; Mk 15 20; Jn 19 17, 21, 41; He 13 12). Where the 
real place of crucifixion was must remain a matter 
of conjecture. Our only clue for its identification is 
its Aram. name Golgotha, skull (Lat. Calvaria, Eng. 
Calvary), which can hardly have been given because 
it was a place of execution, or because of a*tradition 
connecting it with the skull of Adam, but must 
have referred to its shape. There is a knoll just out- 
side of the Damascus gate which bears a singular 
resemblance to a skull, and many modern travelers 
have conjectured that this is the real Golgotha. 

46. Akeldama, Potter’s Field. ‘Akeldama’ (from 
the Aram. 89720, hagald¢m@’, ‘field of blood’) was 
the name of a piece of land near J. that was used 
for the burial of strangers. According to Mt 27 3-9, 
it was originally a potter’s field, and received the 
name Akeldama from the fact that it was bought 
with the money paid Judas to betray Jesus, and 
subsequently returned by him to the chief priests. 
According to Ac 1 18 f. it was called the ‘field of 
blood’ because Judas here committed suicide. 
Harmonistic commentators have supposed that Judas 
bought the field with the price of his treachery, 
killed himself there, and that then the field was 
bought by the priests with the money that he had 
returned. More probably Akeldama is an old name 
for which Christian tradition has given two indepen- 
dent interpretations. Since the 7th cent. a place 
known as Hakk ed-Damm, ‘price of blood,’ on a 
cliff S. of the Wddy er-Rababi, SW. of Siloam, has 
been regarded as Akeldama, and its possession as a 
holy place has been keenly contested by the 
Christian sects. Whether there is any authority for 
this identification we do not know. The absence of 
clay in the neighborhood makes it an unlikely 
location for a potter’s field. 

47. The Synagog of Theodotos. In 1914 remains 
of a synagog of the early Christian era were dis- 
covered on the E. hill south of the site of the 
Temple with an inscription stating that it was 
erected by Theodotos, son of Vettenos, for the use of 
strangers coming from outside. This is an interest- 
ing monument of the Jews of the Diaspora. See 
PEFQ, LIII (1921), 2 ff., 175 ff. 

LiTERATURE: General Discussions: Robinson, Biblical Re- 
searches (1838), and Later Biblical Researches (1852); Guthe, 
in PRE; Conder, E. W. Wilson, and C. M. Watson, in 
EB"; Conder, in HDB; Meyer and Gottheil, in JH; Wilson, 
in Smith, DB?; W. R. Smith, in # Brit.°; Benzinger, in 
Baedeker’s Palestine (41906); G. A. Smith, Jerusalem, From 
the Earliest Times to A.D. 70, 2 vols. (1908); Sanday, Sacred 
Sites of the Gospels (1903); Wilson, Jerusalem, the Holy 
City (1888); Merrill, Ancient Jerusalem (1908); Paton, Jeru- 
salem in Bible Times (1908); C. R. Conder, The City of 
Jerusalem (1909); F. Kirmis, Die Lage der alien Davidsstadt 
(1919); H. Vincent and F. M. Abel, Jerusalem: Recherches 
de topographie d’archéologie et d’histoire, 2 vols. (1920-22); 
G. Dalman, ‘‘Zion,”” Pal. Jahrb., XI (1915). 

Excavations: Wilson, The Recovery of Jerusalem (1871); War- 
ren, Underground Jersualem (1876); Warren and Conder, 
Jerusalem: Work from 1867-1882, Pal. Expl. Fund; Guthe, 


Ausgrabungen bei Jerusalem, ZDPV (1882); Bliss and 
Dickie, Excavations at Jerusalem (1898); H. Vincent, Jerue 


Jerusah 
Jesus Christ 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


434 





salem sous terre (1909); Eng. transl (1911) (on the results 
of Capt. Parker’s excavations on the E. Hill); R. Weill, 
La Cité de David (1920); R. A. Macalister, Ezcavations on 
the E. Hill, PEFQ, (1924-25). On Hezekiah’s Wall: Paton, 
JBL, (1906), part,i. On the Holy Sepulcher and the second 
wall: Wilson, PEFQ, (1902-03); Schick, ZDPV, (1885); Pa- 
ton, JBL, (1905), part ii.; C.W. Wilson, Golgotha and the Holy 
Sepulchre (1906); G. H. Jefferey, A Brief Description of the 
Holy Sepulchre (1919); H. T. F. Duckworth, The Church of 
the Holy Sepulchre (1922); G. Dalman, ‘‘Golgotha,” Pal. 
Jahrb., xvi, (1921). On Nehemiah’s Wall: Schick, ZDPV, 
(1891); Mitchell, JBL, (1903), part ii.; Annual, Amer. School 
in Jer.,i., (1919). On other special topics connected with, 
Jerusalem see the Index Vol. of the PEFQ, (1869-92); and 
the Index Vols. of the ZDPYV. 

Maps: Wilson, Ordnance Survey of Jerusalem (1867-70); 
Zimmermann, Karten u. Pline z. Topographie des alten 
Jerusalem (1876); Schick, Karte der weiteren Umgebung von 
Jerusalem (1897); and the Map in G. A. Smith, Hist. Atlas 


of the Holy Land (1915). Pa ite, 
JERUSAH, ji-ru’sa (NYI7?, yerisha’) and 
JERUSHAH, ji-ru’sha (WI), yrtshah): The 


mother of Jotham, King of Judah (II K 15 33; IT 
Ch 27 1). 


JESAIAH, jji-se’ya (7Y¥?, y*sha‘yah), and 
JESHAIAH, ji-shé’ya (NYY, yesha‘yahi), ‘J”’ 
saves’: 1. A descendant of Moses (I Ch 26 25). 
2. The ancestral head of one of the courses of musi- 
cians (I Ch 25 3, 15). 3. A descendant of David (I Ch 
3,21). 4. One of the leaders of Ezra’s company (Har 
87). 5. A Merarite Levite (Ezr 8 19). 6. A de- 
scendant of Benjamin (Neh 11 7). 


JESHANAH, jesh’a-na or ji-shé’na ("}Y?, y*sha- 
nah)- A town of Ephraim, near Bethel, captured 
by Ahijah, King of Judah (II Ch 13 19). It has re- 
cently been located at Burj el Isdneh, a hill about 
3,100 ft. high, 5144 m. N. of Bethel (see Bul. ASOR., 
Feb., 1923). See also SHEN. E. E. N. 


JESHARELAH, jesh”e-ri’la (T?82W',  y*shar- 
’élah): The ancestral head of the seventh course of 
musicians (I Ch 25 14). See also ASHARELAH. 


JESHEBEAB, ji-sheb’1-ab or ji-shi’bi-ab (3RZV?, 
yeshebh’abh): The ancestral head of the fourteenth 
course of priests (I Ch 24 13). 


JESHER, ji’shor (1W?, yesher): The ‘son’ of 
Jerioth, ‘wife’ of Caleb (I Ch 2 18). Probably a 


place-name. 


JESHIMON, jesh’i-men or ji-shai’mon (110°), 
y’shtmon), ‘barren desert’: In a few instances this 
word is regarded as a geographical term. In Nu 
21 20 Pisgah is said to look down upon Jeshimon. 
Some scholars locate the place here referred to in the 
Jordan Valley, NE. of the Dead Sea. At the same 
time, however, it is the name of the desert into 
which David retired before Saul. It was near Ziph 
and Maon, which lay to the SE. of Hebron, and, con- 
sequently, designates the E. section of the Judean 
hills, which stretch toward the Dead Sea. This is 
an absolutely barren region with many natural fast- 
nesses, and has ever been the home of the outlaw 
(I S 23 19, 24, 261, 3). JAK, 


JESHISHAI, ji-Shai’shai or ji-ghai’shé ((0'0?, 
y’shishay): A Gadite (I Ch 5 14). 


JESHOHAIAH, ji’’sho-hé’ya or jesh’o-hé’ya 
(UMW? yeshohayah): A Simeonite (I Ch 4 36). 


JESHUA, jesh’u-a (¥9¥2, yéshia‘), ‘J’ is salva- 
tion’; another form of ‘Joshua’: I. 1. A name used 
once for Joshua, the son of Nun (q.v.) (Neh 8 17). 
2. The name of the 9th of the twenty-four classes of 
priests (I Ch 24 11, Jeshuah AV). 3. The name 
of a family of Pahath-moab, which returned with 
Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 6; Neh 7 11). 4. One of the 
Levites in charge of the distribution of the tithes 
(II Ch 3115). 5. The high priest who returned with 
Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 2; Neh 7 7, called ‘Joshua’ in 
Hag 11, and Zec 31#.). He helped in rebuilding the 
altar (Ezr 3 2, 8) and the house of God (Ezr 4 3, 5 2; 
cf. Ezr 10 18; Neh 12 1, 7, 10, 26). 6. A Levitical 
family, or its heads, who assisted in rebuilding the 
Temple (Ezr 39), in expounding the Law (Neh 87), 
and in sealing the covenant (Neh 10 9 [10]; cf. Ezr 
2 40, 8 33; Neh 3 19, 7 43, 9 4, 5, 12 8, 24). 

II. A postexilic town in the 8. of Judah (Neh 
11 26). Conder identifies it with Khirbet Sa‘wi, 
Map II, D 4. Perhaps it is the same as the Shema 
of Jos 15 26 (Sheba in Jos 19 2). C. 8. T. 


JESHURDN, jesh’u-ron (117¥?, yshirin), \‘up- 
right one’: A poetical name of Israel designating it 
under its ideal character. In Dt 32 15 it is used in 
reproach of Israel, which had departed from its 
ideal; elsewhere it is a title of honor (Dt 33 5, 26; 
Is 44 2). C. 8. T: 


JESIAH, ji-sai’a. See IssHran. 
JESIMIEL, ji-sim’i-el (NW, ysim’él), ‘God 
places’: A Simeonite (I Ch 4 36). 


JESSE, jes1 (@, yishay): The grandson of 
Boaz (Ru 4 22; Mt 15), and, apparently, a prominent 
inhabitant of Bethlehem. From his descent we 
should assume that he was the chief man of the 
village. He is almost always mentioned in con- 
nection with his youngest son David (IS 161 #., 
etc.). David, during his pursuit by Saul, sent his 
parents, who must have been aged, to the king of 
Moab (IS 22 3f.). So to treat with a neighboring 
prince indicates the prominence of David and his 
family. J.’s name appears also in Is 11 1, 10, where 
the contrast is between small beginnings and future 
glory, as in Mic 5 2. 

A.S. C.*—O.R.S. 


JESUI, jes’iu-ai. See Isavag. 


JESUS (Inootcs): The Gr. form of ‘Joshua,’ or 
‘Jeshua.’ See JosHua. 1. For Joshua (so RV), the 
son of Nun, in AV (Ac 7 45; He 48). 2. A Jew in 
Rome called Justus, a fellow worker and comforter 
of Paul (Col 411). 3. An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 29, 
Jose, AV). 4. Jesus, the Christ, Son of Mary (see 
next article). ‘ 


Ses 
> oe 


43bB 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jerusah 
Jesus Christ 





JESUS CHRIST 


OUTLINE. 


I. InrTRoDucroRY 

1. Sources 
2. Chronology 
3. Environment 

Il. Events PRELIMINARY TO 

MINISTRY 

4, The Forerunner 
5. The Baptism of Jesus 
6. The Temptations 

Ill. Tae Ministry 

I. Chronological Arrangement 15. His 

7. Opening Events 
8. Early Judean Period 
9. Galilean Period 
10. North Galilean Period 


THE 


I. InrrRopucToRY. 

1. Sources. The only sources for the life of Christ 
which need to be considered are the four Gospels. 
The reference in Tacitus (Ann. XV, 44) merely 
alludes to Christ as the originator of an exitiabilis 
superstitio, which in spite of His execution under 
Pilate succeeded in reaching Rome; that in Josephus 
(Ant. XVIII, 33) is a Christian interpolation. The 
later calumnies of the Talmud and the Toledoth Jesu 
show the relation of Jews to Christians, but have 
nothing to do with the life of Jesus (cf. Herford’s 
Christianity in Talmud and Midrash). Even the 
other writings of the N T add nothing to speak of. 
In Ac 20 35 we have the one word of Jesus outside 
of the Gospels which is indubitably authentic; 
there may be another concealed in I Th 415. The 
&yeapa, or unwritten sayings of Jesus, have been 
collected by Resch and sifted by Ropes (Texte u. 
Untersuchungen, V, 4; XIV, 2), but they do not add 
to our knowledge of Him; and the same must be said 
of the apocryphal gospels, not excepting the Gospel 
of Peter, a large fragment of which was discovered in 
1892, and of the Adyta ’Incod (1897), and New 
Sayings of Jesus (1904), published by Grenfell and 
Hunt. The interest of religion and of history in Jesus 
must be satisfied from the canonical Gospels, or not 
at all. The indubitable Pauline epistles, of course, 
establish the fact that He lived, and that He made 
an extraordinary impression on His followers; but 
they hardly yield any picture of His life. It is im- 
portant, therefore, to indicate the nature and value 
of our Gospels. 

Taking together Mk, Mt, and Lk, there are some 
points on which scholars are practically agreed. 
(1) The common framework of the narrative—that 
is, the general order of the events—is originally due 
to Mk. Hence in questions of order, Mk, Mt, and 
Lk, as against John, are not three witnesses, but 
one. Mk’s narrative, according to the unanimous 
tradition of the Church, represents the teaching of 
Peter; but the oldest tradition (Papias’ elder in 
Kuseb. HE, III, 39) does not claim for it the merit 
of chronological order. (2) The great mass of words 
of Jesus, common to Mt and Lk, but not found in 
Mk, probably came from a document used in a some- 
what different form by the first and third Evan- 
gelists; this document in its original form was older 
than Mk (tho Wellhausen, EHinleitung, S. 73 ff., 
denies this), and was the work of the Apostle 
Matthew. (8) Taking into account the space be- 


11. Later Perean and Judean 
Period 
II. The Work of Jesus 
12, The Miracles of Jesus 
13. The Teaching of Jesus Re- 
garding the Kingdom of 
God—General 
14. The Teaching of Jesus Re- 
garding the Kingdom of 
God—Specific 
Teaching Regarding 
Himself 
(a) The Christ 
(b) Son of God 
(c) Son of Man 


(d) Son of David 
(e) Savior 
(f) His Teaching Con- 
cerning His Death 
16. The Prophetic Teaching of 
Jesus 
IIT, Closing Scenes 
17. The Last Days of Jesus 
IV. The Resurrection 
18. The Resurrection 
IV. APPENDED Discussion 
19. The Birth of Jesus (The 
Incarnation) 


tween the baptism and the death of Jesus, the matter 
peculiar to Mt belongs to what is historically of least 
value in his Gospel, that peculiar to Lk to what is 
of most value in his. (4) The use which a historian 
can make of John has been and is much disputed. 
The extremes are represented by Loisy (Le quatri¢me 
Evangile) or Wrede (Charakter und Tendenz des 
Johannesevangeliums) on the one hand, who do not 
regard it as historical at all in comparison with the 
Synoptics, and by Westcott or Godet on the other. 
Sanday’s Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905) gives 
a fair survey of the whole question, as also Stanton’s 
TheGospels as Historical Documents, Part III (1920), 
The Fourth Gospel. The difficulty arises from the 
juxtaposition in the Fourth Gospel of what seem 
irreconcilable things; on the one hand, an element 
that is either irreducibly historical or, which is an 
impossible alternative, gratuitous fiction—notes of 
time, place, personal names, and characters, more 
vivid and precise than anything in the Synoptics; 
and on the other, especially in the discourses 
ascribed to Jesus, something at once systematic 
and elusive, a mingling in uncertain proportions of 
tradition, symbol, and doctrine, which makes the 
page waver as we read, as the colors waver in 
watered silk, and suggests that what we hear is 
not so much the voice of Jesus, as He spoke in 
the fields of Galilee or the streets of Jerusalem, 
as the voice of the Risen Lord, speaking through His 
Spirit in the soul of an aged, deeply experienced, 
and profoundly reflective disciple. This state of the 
case has simply to be recognized. The notes of time 
and place in John are of the highest value, especially 
where they seem intentionally to correct the 
Synoptic tradition (eg., Jn 3 24, compared with 
Mt 412); but for the historical form of the teaching 
of Jesus we must depend mainly on the Synoptics. 
Garvie in his book, The Beloved Disciple (1922), 
has sought to discriminate more exactly what is 
historical testimony and what is theological inter- 
pretation in the Fourth Gospel. He distinguishes 
the Synoptic element (the appendix and other 
passages dealing with the Galilean disciples), the 
Ephesian element (the Prolog, and other theological 
explanations), and the contribution of an eye- 
witness, consisting of his reminiscences after a lapse 
of many years, and his reflexions on these remi- 
niscences, for him not distinguishable, but the 
truth into which the Spirit had guided him in the 
interpretation of the facts. A new line of investiga- 


Jesus Christ A NEW STANDARD 


tion has been opened by C. J. Burney in his book 
The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (1922). He 
regards the Gospel as a Greek translation of an 
Aramaic original composed in Antioch about a.D. 
75-80. His view has not found general acceptance, 
and the data on which he relies seem to be equally 
explicable by the assumption that the Greek 
original was written by one whose mother-tongue 
was Aramaic. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake, 
in The Beginnings of Christianity, part I, vol. 
i, set aside the Fourth Gospel entirely, and use 
only Mark, supplemented by Matthew and Luke; 
and even as regards these sources exercise a radical 
criticism, which reduces the historical reality of 
Jesus to that of a puppet, who proclaimed the 
coming of the Kingdom of God, and called the 
people to repentance. At many parts their criticism 
appears to be arbitrary, and does not command 
confidence. See also GospELts and THe Synoptic 
PROBLEM. 

2. Chronology. The life of Jesus, so far as it is 
covered by the apostolic testimony—in other words, 
so far as we have strictly historical evidence for it— 
extends from the baptism of John to the Ascension 
(Ac 1 21). To know the length of this period is more 
important than to be able to date either its beginning 
which is elaborately done in Lk 31) or its end. The 
Synoptics mention only one passover, that at 
which Jesus died, and leave a prima facie impression 
that His ministry lasted a year or rather less (Lk 419 
was interpreted thus by many of the Fathers and 
perhaps by the Evangelist); but John corrects this. 
He mentions at least three passovers (2 13, 6 4— 
this is shown to be a passover by the ‘much grass’ 
in ver. 10, even if the words +d x&cya were not 
originally in the text—and 121); that is, he extends 
the ministry of Jesus to somewhat over two years. 
References in the Synoptics yield undesigned and, 
therefore, strong support to this. Thus the ‘green 
grass’ in Mk 6 39 suggests the spring season, as in 
Jn 6 10, and, tho the incident may be misplaced, 
the same holds of the plucking the ears of corn 
Mk 2 23. Harlier visits of Jesus to Jerusalem, tho 
not mentioned by the Synoptics, are suggested not 
only by Mt 23 37 (‘how often would I have gathered 
thy children together’), but by Lk 10 38 (the village 
is Bethany, close by Jerusalem), and by the friends 
and acquaintances whom Jesus evidently had in the 
capital (Mk 1413 f., 15 43. Probably ‘the hundred 
and twenty’ of Ac 1 15 were not all Galileans). 
Hence we adopt the chronological,which carries with 
it the geographical, framework of John; and hold 
that the public life of Jesus extends over two years 
and some months, and was carried on in Jerusalem 
and Judea and, even on occasion, in Samaria, as 
well as in Galilee and Perea. As Jesus comes to 
fulfil the promises of God in the Old Testament 
Scriptures concerning the Messiah, it seems not only 
probable, but even certain that He would offer Him- 
self to the faith of the Jewish people at the very 
center of its religious life—Jerusalem—on the occa- 
slions—the feasts—when the largest numbers of 
Jews could be reached. The presence of a multi- 
tude of Galileans at these feasts would afford Him 
some protection against the hostility of the Jewish 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


436 





rulers, very soon made evident (Jn 2 18; Mk 14 2). 
It is true that the almost total absence of chrono- 
logical data within the Synoptics, and the unques- 
tionable fact that incidents are narrated in them 
(e.g., in Mk 2 1-3 6) in an order determined not by 
time, but by some inward affinity, make it im- 
possible to distribute the matter of the Synoptics 
with any certainty over the time assumed by John; 
but this does not affect the truth either of his 
chronology or of their facts. It only means that we 
can not draw up a calendar of the life of Jesus. 
If we look at the date, as opposed to the duration 
of the ministry, our starting-point must be Lk 3 1. 
The fifteenth year of Tiberius is from 28-29 a.p., 
counting from the death of Augustus in 14 a.p. 
But as Tiberius had been associated in the govern- 
ment from the end of 11 or the beginning of 12 a.p., 
Jesus might have appeared as early as 26. Allowing 
for uncertainties in the counting of parts of years, ~ 
Luke’s date synchronizes fairly well with that of 
Jn 2 20. The building of the Temple began in 20- 
19 B.c., and forty-six years brings us to 26 or 27 
A.D. The most probable result of careful investiga- 
tion is that the three passovers in the ministry of 
Jesus were those of 27, 28, and 29 a.p. On the whole 
of this intricate subject cf. C. H. Turner, Chronology 
of the N T, in HDB, also Andrews, Life of Our 
Lord, and Stevens and Burton, Harmony of the 
Gospels for Historical Study. 


3. Environment. When Jesus was born Herod 
the Great ruled all Palestine under the suzerainty of 
Rome. On his death his kingdom was divided, and 
Jesus became politically the subject of his son Herod 
Antipas—the person who is always meant when 
Herod is mentioned in the Gospels without any 
addition (Mk 614#.; Lk 13 31, 238). When He visited 
Jerusalem, He passed from Herod’s jurisdiction and 
came directly under that of Rome; for Judea on the 
death of Archelaus (Mt 2 22), 6 a.p., had been in- 
corporated in the Roman province of Syria, and 
was governed by a procurator (éx{teotos, hyewoy, 
Lk 31; Mt 27 2), who resided at Caesarea and alone 
had the power of life and death. In internal affairs 
much was left to the Sanhedrin, or council of elders, 
chief priests, and scribes, and especially to the high 
priest. During the whole public life of Jesus, Herod 
Antipas was tetrarch of Galilee and Perea, Pontius 
Pilate procurator of Judea, and (Joseph) Caiaphas 
high priest in Jerusalem. By this political envi- 
ronment we can not say that Jesus was influenced 
at all. The one thing He resolutely excluded from 
His conception of the Kingdom of God was the 
political and national hope of Jewish patriotism. 

We might almost say as much of His relations to 
the religious parties, the characteristics of which are 
known to us from the Gospels and Josephus. He 
had attended none of their schools (Jn 7 15). The 
Sadducees had the center of their power in Jerusa- 
em. He can have been little in contact with them, 
and their worldly, rationalizing, unspiritual temper 
must have been extremely antipathetic to Him. 
The Pharisees were to be found everywhere They 
represented the popular conception of religion. 
Having a zeal for God, tho it was not according 
to knowledge, they might have been expected to 


437 A NEW STANDARD 


command a certain amount of sympathy from Jesus, 
and indications have been sought in the Gospels 
that He tried to form some kind of connection with 
them (Lk 7 36, 11 37, 141; cf. Mt 23 2£.), but without 
success. It is not improbable, however, that at the 
beginning of the ministry the Pharisees sought some 
understanding with Him. Nicodemus (Jn 3 1-10) 
does not appear as a solitary, anxious enquirer, but 
rather as representing the class, and Jesus’ treat- 
ment of him does correspond with his attitude to 
this religious type. Jesus never appears in the 
Gospels except as the critic and eventually the judge 
of Pharisaism (Mt chs. 5-7, 15, 23). Of the Essenes 
of Josephus (Bell. Jud. II, 8) there is no trace in the 
Gospels, not even in connection with John the 
Baptist. 

The religious environment of Jesus in His early 


years was that which we see in Lk chs. 1 and 2. He 


was brought up among lowly people, dutifully 
observant of the commandments and ordinances 
of God, and devoted to the hope of Israel. The 
religion of obedience and of hope could degenerate, 
and no doubt it had degenerated in multitudes, 
and especially in the Pharisaic party, into what 
may be called legalism and apocalyptic (cf. Holtz- 
mann, Neut. Theol., I, 30)—a religion which affected 
in its own strength to fulfil punctiliously all God’s 
requirements, to put God by doing so under obliga- 
tion to it, and then to claim from Him, as of right, 
the fulfilment in a blankly supernatural fashion of 
the wildest national ambitions. But it could also 
be saved from degeneration, and doubtless was, in 
people like Zacharias and Elizabeth, Joseph and 
Mary, Simeon and Anna, and ‘the poor’ or ‘the 
meek,’ in the land generally. It was among them 
that Jesus was brought up, and the purest tradition 
of Jewish piety was continued in Him. Apart from 
this the Gospels allow us to see only two forces 
which counted for much in His life, the O T and 
John the Baptist. 

Of the O T Books he makes most frequent refer- 
ence to Deuteronomy, the Psalms, the second part 
of Isaiah, and Daniel, but is evidently familiar also 
with the historical books. To John, as the one 
contemporary spiritual influence the power of which 
He amply acknowledged, it is necessary to pay more 
attention. 


II. Events PRELIMINARY TO THE MINISTRY. 


4. The Forerunner. The relation of John to 
Jesus, as Jesus Himself understood it (Mt 11 10; Lk 
7 27), was that of one who prepared the way for a 
greater to follow (Mal 31). Itis Jesus who makes 
the quotation; observe the change from ‘my face’ in 
Mal to ‘thy face’ in the Gospels, in order to apply 
the prophecy to Jesus instead of God). It does not 
follow that John understood this. Jesus knew the 
Baptist’s significance better than he did himself. 
When the Jews asked John, ‘Art thou Elijah?’ (Jn 1 
21), he said, ‘I am not.’ But Jesus said of him to the 
people: ‘If ye are willing to receive it, this is 
Elijah, that is to come’ (Mt 1114). This may partly 
explain the difference between the Synoptics and the 
Fourth Gospel in their representation of this subject. 
In the Synoptics, tho John baptizes Jesus, he bears 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Jesus Christ 


no express testimony to Him; the one greater than 
himself, who comes after him and is to baptize with 
the Holy Spirit and with fire, is never in so many 
words identified with Jesus. What John does, as 
Jesus represents it, is to initiate a powerful moral 
movement associated with Messianic expectations 
(Mt 1112), which, so far as it does not come to noth- 
ing through moral relapse (Mt 12 43-45; Jn 5 35), finds 
its goal and satisfaction in Jesus. The one moral 
peril the Baptist has to encounter is the possibility 
of being ‘offended’ in Jesus (Mt 11 6); 7.e., of failing 
to see that in Jesus the hopes which inspired and 
had been inspired by his own work were finding 
their true fulfilment, and, therefore, of turning from 
Himinunbelief. This is unquestionably the strictly 
historical view. The réle of forerunner was one 
which John filled to a large extent unconsciously; 
when, therefore, the Fourth Gospel represents his 
functions as summed up in bearing witness to Jesus 
(Jn 1 6-8, 3 26, 5 35), and includes in his testimony 
the sublimest doctrines of the Christian faith (1 15, 
1 29-34, 3 31), it is putting explicitly into his lips 
something which was in a way involved in his rela- 
tion to Jesus, but which he could not have so ex- 
pressed. The description of Jesus as the Lamb of 
God in Jn 1 29-34 may, however, be authentic, if at 
this time Jesus already thought of Himself as ful- 
filling the part of the Suffering Servant, if before 
His baptism He had some conversation with John, 
in which He confessed His hopes and aims, and if 
for the moment at least, the Baptist was raised above 
his own conception of the Messiah. Jesus realized it 
as the truth of John’s relation to Himself, but John 
could not. The depth of the impression John made 
on Jesus is seen by Jesus’ frequent references to him, 
His extraordinary appreciation of his greatness, and 
the recurrence in His own utterances of impassioned 
phrases of the Baptist (Mt 11 7-19, and || in Lk; Mt 
17 10-13, 21 23-32; 7 19; cf. 3 10; 23 33, cf. 37). Jesus 
recognized unequivocally the Divine mission of 
John, and regarded acceptance of his baptism as 
included in the fulfilment of all righteousness (Mt 
3 15; also Jn 3 5). Accordingly He came from 
Galilee to Jordan to be baptized with the rest. 


5. The Baptism of Jesus. The baptism of Jesus 
was a crisis in His life, and the occasion of a great 
spiritual experience. The narrative in Mk may be 
read as tho no one were concerned but Jesus. It is 
He who sees the heavens rent asunder and the Spirit 
as a dove descending; it is to Him that the voice 
comes out of the heavens, “Thou art my beloved 
Son, in thee I am well pleased’ (Mk 1 9-11). In Jn 
on the other hand, the occasion is one on which the 
Baptist receives this same revelation; and the third 
person (‘This is my son’) in Mt 3 17 and |the ‘bodily 
form’ in Lk 3 22 suggest that these evangelists also 
conceived that others as well as Jesus heard and saw. 
However the literary and historical questions thus 
raised are to be settled, they do not affect the 
intention of Jesus nor His experience. The great 
difficulty in the baptism has always been to under- 
stand how one whom the Evangelists, like all N T 
writers, regarded as sinless could submit to a bap- 
tism of repentance having remission of sins in view. 
The difficulty was felt by John himself, no doubt 


Jesus Christ 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 438 


= fram = 


after some intercourse with Jesus (Mt 3 14f.), and it 
was felt by the author of the Gospel of the Hebrews 
(cf. Nestle’s N T Grect supplementum, p. 76). There 
is no answer to it unless we can say that Jesus in pure 
love identified Himself with His people, made com- 
mon cause with them as a sinful people, mourn- 
ing over their sin and repelling it as they did, only 
with a far deeper sense of what it meant. In doing 
this He ‘fulfilled all righteousness,’ 7.e., He did 
justice to all the moral interests of God and man 
involved in the situation. He exhibited the grace 
of God to the sinful in an act which showed Him 
inexorable to sin. It was not a chance that He 
heard in that hour, and not another, the heavenly 
voice which declared Him Son of God. The heav- 
enly voice spoke in O T words, since the Divine as- 
surance of what He was and was called to be was 
mediated to Jesus through Ps 27 and Is 421. He 
was to unite in His own person and work the 
victorious Messianic King of the Psalm, and the 
Servant of the Lord, ‘graced with meekness and 
constancy,’ whom we see in the prophet. This is 
the revelation of the baptism for us. It shows that 
Jesus, in His own consciousness, from the very 
beginning of His ministry, united these two char- 
acters which His people had never been able to 
relate to each other. How two ideals, apparently 
so disparate, came to coalesce in His mind, we can 
not tell. We know nothing of a growth of the 
Messianic consciousness, at least not within the 
period of the public ministry. No doubt it had 
psychological antecedents and conditions, which 
prepared for it and made it possible, but we can only 
conjecture vaguely upon them. (Garvie, in his 
Studies in the Inner Life of Jesus (1907), has at- 
tempted as far as the data allow to explore the self- 
consciousness of Jesus in its development.) How the 
seemingly inconsistent elements in it were to be 
fused only His future life would show. But see 
GosPEL, GOSPELS, § 6. 

Can we tell, then, what is meant by the Spirit 
descending and abiding on Him? The Spirit in the 
O T means God in act, God putting forth His power, 
and the nearest synonym for spirit here would be 
one suggesting this. Compare Ac 10 38 and Lk 4 14, 
and the fact that Jesus did no mighty work till 
after this time, and referred such works to the Spirit 
(Mt 12 28). Jesus was from this time on divinely 
empowered for the work He had to do. Without 
such ‘accesses’ of Divine excitement as are elsewhere 
referred to the Spirit (Ac 4 31, 13 9), He had God 
always with Him in the power His work required— 
to heal (Lk 5 17), to preach the glad tidings (Lk 4 18), 
to be gentle and constant till He had achieved 
victory for God (Mt 12 18), to read men with super- 
human insight (Jn 2 24 f.). 
raised here about the personality of the Spirit, or 
the similarity of the experience of Jesus to that of 
Christians who received the Spirit after Pentecost 
(on this last subject, cf. O. Holtzmann, War Jesus 
Ekstatiker?). Thus divinely assured of His calling 
and divinely empowered for it, Jesus was prepared 
to face His life’s work. He never returned to 
Nazareth to resume the old family and business 
relations. As the end of an old life and the begin- 


No question can be | 


ning of a new, baptism was to Jesus what it was to all 
who heard John’s summons, but in one important 
respect it differed. For the others baptism with 
water and baptism with the Spirit were contrasted, 
for Him they coincided. Their normal coincidence 
was to be the rule in the Church (Jn 3 5), and in this 
sense the baptism of Jesus is the type of Christian 
baptism. 

6. The Temptations. Jesus was now empowered 
for His work, but He was not to enter on it at 
random. It was His task, in the Messianic con- 
sciousness revealed in the heavenly voice, to bring 
in the Kingdom of God among men; but how? 
What paths were open to one who was called to win 
or to exercise ascendency among men for God? This 
is the problem we see Jesus confronting in the 
Temptation. The same spirit with which He was 
anointed drove Him into the desert to face it alone. 
It was a terrible experience, and in the narratives 
we find in Mt and Lk He gave His disciples some 
idea of it. The occasion was probably the remon- 
strance of Peter at Caesarea Philippi, and the story 
was told to justify the severity of the rebuke of 
Peter as Satan (Mt 16 22-23). The ideal of Jesus was 
opposed to the popular expectations, as shared 
by the disciples, which rested on prophetic predic- 
tions of the Messianic Age, taken with prosaic 
literalness. The form is largely poetic and imagina- 
tive, the essence is spiritual. The temptations, if we 
may use such a distinction, are not personal, but 
official; or rather they are the temptations of Jesus, 
not in a private capacity (e.g., as a carpenter of 
Nazareth), but in His new Divine calling as the Son 
of God and Servant of the Lord. They are tempta- 
tions all of which throw light on the Kingdom of 
God, rather than on the moral trials of common hfe. 
Jesus has in His mind the heavenly voice and the 
calling which is involved in it, and as He looks 
on the actual world in which that calling has to be 
realized, what are the paths which lie open and in- 
viting to Him? (1) The first is that which suggests 
that an easy way to win ascendency over men for 
God is to supply their bodily wants, turn the stones 
to bread, base the Kingdom on material comfort. 
This was a real temptation, which Jesus encountered 
in His work. When He fed the five thousand, they 
wanted to take Him by force and make Him 
(Messianic) King (Jn 615). But He resisted it from 
the beginning, and in spite of His compassion for the 
destitute, which makes humanity the principle 
of the last judgment (Mt 25 35-42), He insists on 
giving a primacy to the spiritual. He says here to 
Himself what He says to all in Mt 6 33. (2) As the 
first temptation deals with the nature of the King- 
dom, so the second deals with the methods to be 
used in its establishment. To cast Himself down 
from the pinnacle of the Temple, and, upheld by 
angels, to alight unhurt, was to appeal to men by a 
miracle of ostentation; it was to take leave of piety 
and of moral sanity, and to try by dazzling [men’s 
senses or dumfounding their understandings to win 
them for God. This temptation also often came to 
Jesus. We see it in the characteristic temper of the 
Jews (I Co 1 22), as again and again they ask a sign 
from heaven (Mt 12 38, 161; Jn 6 30). Jesus steadily 


— ——< 


439 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jesus Christ 





declined it. He always acted within the limits of 
piety and sanity. His miracles were works of mercy, 
wrought in and for faith. He was no thaumaturge. 
He decided from the beginning that, as the Kingdom 
was spiritual in its nature, only spiritual methods 
were open to Him in introducing it. He would 
‘speak the word’ unto them—that was all. (3) The 
third Temptation deals with the power at His dis- 
posal in founding the Kingdom. Any one born to 
rule, as Jesus was, sees at a glance what enormous 
power in the world is wielded by evil. It has vast 
resources at its command, great bribes to offer. Lk 
46is a temptation, only because it is true. But can 
any one who is to carry out the vocation of the Son 
of God and the Servant of the Lord consent to take 
help from evil? Can he for the sake of some supposed 
advantage, present or remote, allow, so to speak, its 
right to exist? Can he compromise with it, only for 
the moment of course, till by its help he gets into a 
position where he can repudiate it? For a man 
who is in dead earnest to accomplish something in 
this present evil world, this is the most importunate 
of temptations, but Jesus discerns and repels it 
from the first. He repels it with passion (Mt 4 10), 
as seeing in it the utmost malignity of the Tempter. 
He can make no compromise with evil; His only re- 
source must be God. And here again He says to 
Himself what He says later to all: ‘What doth it 
profit a man to gain the whole world and forfeit his 
life (7.e., himself)?? (Mk 8 36). In this spiritual 
conflict, in which He was sustained by heavenly 
help (Mk 1 13), Jesus overcame in principle all the 
kinds of temptations which He encountered in His 
calling. They recurred continually (Lk 22 28), but 
once decisively vanquished (Mk 8 27 and ||s), the 
prince of this world had nothing in Him (Jn 14 30). 


Ill. Tue Ministry. 
I. Chronological Arrangement. 


7. Opening Events. The ministry of Jesus begins 
after the Temptation, and in some special sense after 
the arrest of John (Mk 1 14; Lk 4 14, cf. 3 19 £.; Mt 
412). How it was related to the last, except chrono- 
logically, is not apparent. Even the chronology was 
not clear to the synoptists; for Jn 3 24 consciously 
corrects them, and so makes room for a Judean 
ministry, including at least the events of Jn 1 19-4 45, 
before the Galilean ministry, as recorded by the 
synoptists, begins (cf. Tischendorf, Synopsis Evan- 
gelica, §§ 14 ff.). The two returns of Jesus from 
Judea to Galilee, mentioned in Jn 1 43 and in 41-3, 
had somehow ceased to be distinguished in the 
primitive oral tradition, and with this confusion of 
perspective the ministry in the Synoptics is shortened 
by nearly a year (cf. Godet on Jn 3 24). During this 
period, the work of Jesus is of a preliminary charac- 
ter; as Godet puts it, He had to act as His own 
forerunner. After receiving testimony from the 
Baptist, He attracts His first followers from the 
Baptist’s circle (Jn 1 29-51), impressing them by the 
superhuman penetration with which He reads their 
characters, and wakening from the first the highest 
hopes in their minds. The miracle at Cana, as the 
frontispiece to John’s Gospel, represents for him the 
significance of Jesus, just as Lk 4 16 #. does for the 


earlier Evangelist, altho what it meant has to be 
inferred as it is not explicitly stated. Jesus is for 
John the person who raises religion from a lower to 
a higher power, transforming the cold baptism of 
His forerunner into the glowing baptism of the 
Spirit. How the brief visit to Capernaum (Jn 2 12) 
is related to the settlement there which made 
Capernaum His own city (Mt 413) we do not know. 


8. Early Judean Period. It was followed by the 
journey to Jerusalem for the first passover in the 
ministry (27 a.p.) Here John puts the cleansing of the 
Temple (2 13 ff.). It is generally maintained that two 
cleansings of the Temple are inconceivable, and that 
we must choose between John and the Synoptics. 
Nevertheless, might not the second be a deliberate 
repetition at the close of the ministry of the spon- 
taneous act under the impulse of the Spirit at the 
beginning? Why could not such an appeal to the 
Jewish rulers be made twice? If, however, only one 
cleansing is to be assumed, it is probable that John 
has placed it rightly. The tradition, preserved in 
the Synoptics, according to which Jesus visited 
Jerusalem only once, had really no choice in placing 
this incident if it was to be recorded at all. Its 
spontaneity does not deprive it of the character of 
an appeal to all whose hearts were right with God 
to rally round Jesus as representing His Father (ver. 
16), and the words about the destruction of the Tem- 
ple and the rebuilding of it in three days have the 
originality of Jesus in them, and explain, as nothing 
else does, the charges of the false witnesses in Mt 
26 61 and ||. For the rest, John tells little of a 
ministry which probably extended over three-fourths 
of a year. The passover was in the spring; the 
‘yet’ in Jn 4 35 probably implies December or the 
January following. It was a ministry including 
miracles (Jn 2 24), and begetting a kind of faith. 
Men believed in Jesus, but He did not believe in 
them (2 25). The chief persons to whom it intro- 
duces us are Nicodemus and the woman of Samaria. 
What we learn from the first is the gulf which had 
to be bridged before a Jew could comprehend 
Christianity as the Evangelist had come to com- 
prehend it, and as it was enshrined in the sacrament 
of the new birth. While in the intention of the 
evangelist the reference in 3 5 to Christian baptism 
is indisputable, yet if the saying itself is at all 
authentic, as Jesus used these words, or words 
similar, the reference would be to John’s baptism 
and the baptism of the Spirit, as He Himself had 
experienced both. The Spirit which regenerates 
is that which is normally coincident with baptism 
in the name of Jesus, uplifted on the cross, in a 
death of atonement for sin (Jn 314f.,1 29). Inthe 
woman of Samaria we see the thirst of the soul for 
God in the most unexpected quarter, and the in- 
credible grace and joy with which it is satisfied by 
Jesus. That the woman who had had five husbands 
may to some extent represent the Samaritan people, 
so that in this or that trait the narrative has a 
symbolic rather than a literal value, is, in view of 
many features in John, not improbable (cf. Holtz- 
mann, Hand-Commentar), altho the assumption 
that the narrative is substantially historical can not 
be ruled out altogether. Nevertheless, the work of 


Jesus Christ A NEW STANDARD 





Jesus in Samaria is not a reflection into His lifetime 
of what only took place later; it is a preparation 
for and anticipation of Ac 8 5. 


* 9. Galilean Period. The ministry of Jesus in 
Jerusalem secured for Him a welcome when He 
returned to Galilee. The Galileans received Him 
gladly, having seen all that He did at the feast 
(Jn 4 45). From this point on, we have to dispose of 
the whole material of the Synoptics (Mk 1 14 f.; 
Mt 4 12 #f.; Lk 4 14 ff.) as well as the few incidents 
selected for interpretative comment by John. Any 
arrangement of the synoptic manner in the Johan- 
nine framework is precarious, for reasons already 
stated (see § 7., above). The order of eventsin Mkis 
often topical, rather than chronological. In Mt the 
teaching of Jesus is arranged in long discourses (chs. 
5-7, 10, 18, 18, 23-25), which, as compositions, are 
the work of the Evangelist, and unite matter of 
various dates. Lk also, in the long insertaion (9 51- 
18 14), connects with the last journey of Jesus to 
Jerusalem practically everything which Mk had not 
located in Galilee, while the topography of this 
journey itself is in Lk very hard to make out. It is 
scarcely exaggerating to say that the synoptists have 
no chronology; they have a certain plan and struc- 
ture which exhibit their conception of the work of 
Jesus, and enable us to get a grasp of it as a whole; 
but there is scarcely another note of time to set 
beside Mk 9 2, till we come to Passion week. The 
clearest indication, if not of a precise sequence of 
events, yet of a certain movement in the life of 
Jesus, is given in the Gospel of Mt. The whole is 
broken into two periods marked by the identical 
phrase, ‘from that time Jesus began’ in 4 17, 16 21. 
The first was mainly occupied with preaching, the 
second with teaching; the first was more public, and 
if the word may be used, evangelistic; the second 
more private, and devoted to the instruction of the 
Twelve; the first presents Jesus proclaiming the 
Kingdom of God, interpreting its laws, and calling 
men into it; in the second we see Him preoccupied 
with His own Person and death in their relation to 
the Kingdom. The healing ministry, as dependent 
in some way upon the people, is more conspicuous 
in the first period than in the second; altho Mt, when 
Jesus toward the close of His life comes again into 
contact with multitudes, notes that this side of His 
activity was renewed (19 2, 20 29 f., 2114). Besides 
this broad distinction it is possible to trace a gradual 
change within the first period. From 4 17 to 111 we 
have hardly the sense of a check in the story, tho 
Pharisaic opposition appears in 9 1-17 (9 34 is probably 
an anticipation of 12 24). The Evangelist evidently 
means to suggest that the course of Jesus began 
with a great and growing promise of success. This 
is the import of 4 23-25 and of 9 35-38; this is the 
force, too, of such remarks as 7 28 f., 8 27, 9 33. His 
work increased upon His hands till He had to share 
it with the Twelve (Mt 101), whom He had chosen 
that they might be with Him, and that He might 
send them forth to preach and to heal (Mk 3 14 ff.). 
The sending forth of the Twelve on a kind of 
apprentice mission marks the culminating point of 
the hopeful activity of Jesus. From this time forward 
untoward events multiply, and from 11 2 to 16 20 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


440 


almost every section in Mt might be headed oxéyia- 
Aoy, or ‘offense.’ For one reason or another, Jesus 
proved unacceptable to His own people. Super- 
ficially attracted as they almost always were, they 
came at last on something in Him to which they 
could not be reconciled. Thus in 11 2 we hear how 
the Forerunner hesitated. Jesus was not the Messiah 
he anticipated, the awful Judge with the ax and the 
fan. The hostility of the Pharisees was probably 
stimulated by emissaries from Jerusalem (Mk 7 1). 
In 12 1-14 we have two of the Sabbath controversies, 
and words of Jesus in connection with them which so 
angered the Pharisees that they conspired to kill 
Him. Later in the same chapter we see Pharisaic 
antipathy culminate in blasphemy against the Spirit 
of God at work in Jesus to redeem men from the 
tyranny of the devil, and even His own kinsfolk 
fail to appreciate Him (Mt 12 46 f.; Mk 3 21, 31 f..). 
In the beginning of ch. 13 the parable of the sower is — 
spoken in the mood of despondency, or pathetic 
irony, as we see from the quotation of Is 69 f. (Mt 
1313 f.), and at the end Jesus is rejected in Nazareth. 
In ch. 14, when Jesus on the return of the Twelve 
feeds the 5,000, they want to ‘take him by force 
and make him a king’ (Jn 6 15), and He has to 
compel His disciples (Mt 14 22), who are susceptible 
to the same politically Messianic hopes, to enter the 
boat and face a storm, while He gets rid of the 
crowds. It was inevitable that multitudes who 
found their hopes so inexorably treated should turn 
away, as the Fourth Gospel tells us (Jn 6 66). 


10. North Galilean Period. Finally, in Mt ch. 15 
(|| Mk ch. 7) we have a decisive breach between Jesus 
and the religious authorities of His nation on the 
subject of tradition—a breach so violent that it led 
to His retreat into the northern lands beyond Pales- 
tine, and the practical close of His ministry in 
Galilee. It is not possible to say more of the course 
of events in the first part of Jesus’s life than that it 
had this general character. When it culminated in 
the conclusive falling away of the people from Him, 
He turned to devote Himself in private to the 
education of the men who had become sure in spite 
of everything that He was the Christ, and that He 
had ‘words of eternal life’ (Jn 6 68). To trace the 
sequence of events after Jesus withdrew to the parts 
of Tyre and Sidon (Mk 7 24) is all the more difficult, 
as at this point in the synoptic story there is possibly 
a series of doublets (Mk 6 33-7 37 being in much 
parallel to, and perhaps another tradition of, Mk 8 
1-26). But the confession at Caesarea Philippi marks 
a decisive moment in the history, and so does the 
Transfiguration a week later. With it Jerusalem 
enters the horizon of the synoptists, and tho Jesus 
seems to bid a kind of farewell visit to His own city 
(Mk 9 33 f.), He does not wish any one to know of 
His passing through the country (9 30). His work in 
Galilee is done. 


11. Later Perean and Judean Period. He goes 
up to Jerusalem via Perea and Jericho. Itis only in 
the Fourth Gospel that the program of these last 
months can be more fully traced. From this source 
we see that Jesus went to Jerusalem at the Feast 
of Tabernacles 28 a.p. (Jn 7 2), having also paid a 
brief visit at Pentecost (5 1, ‘a feast of the Jews,’ 


441 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jesus Christ 





since ch. 5 should probably follow ch. 6), remaining 
there apparently till the Feast of Dedication in 
December of the same year (10 22); that He then 
retired to Perea (10 40), to the district with which He 
had been familiar in the days of the Baptist, return- 
ing thence after about three months on hearing of the 
illness of Lazarus; and that after this last event He 
withdrew once more to a city called Ephraim, only 
coming back, about a fortnight later, for the last 
passover (29 a.p.) and what followed. (For an 
arrangement of the events lying within the second 
great period of Jesus’ ministry, see Stevens and 
Burton’s Harmony, part vi, f.; Gilbert’s Student’s 
Life of Jesus, pp. 140 ff.). 


II. The Work of Jesus. 
Without pursuing the purely historical question 


further, we may now attempt to give some idea of 


the teaching of Jesus. We may trace a progress in 
His teaching, but hardly in His mind; it is for 
pedagogic reasons that subjects emerge in one order 
rather than another. Speaking broadly, He may 
be said to teach, first, about the Kingdom of God; 
then about Himself, and especially His death; while 
in all the Gospels this is followed by what may be 
called prophetic, or eschatological teaching,, dealing 
either with a spiritual and immediate future, as in 
Jn (the coming of the Holy Spirit), or with a tran- 
scendent and to some extent indefinite future, as in 
the Synoptics (the coming of the Son of Man). This 
is the outline we shall follow, but as the ministry 
included healing as well as teaching it will be con- 
venient here to refer to the miracles. 


12. The Miracles of Jesus. All our sources speak 
of wonderful or mighty works done by Jesus. The 
usual name for them in the Synoptics is bduvdéuets, 
‘deeds of power,’ and in Jn onusia, ‘signs,’ or Zoya, 
‘works.’ The Evangelists do not think of defining 
them, as theologians have sometimes done, by rela- 
tion to laws of nature, of which they had no concep- 
tion, and for the religious appreciation of them it is 
not necessary that we should do so either. The N T 
interpretation of them is entirely personal and 
ethical. The wonderful works of Jesus show what 
God can do and is minded to do through Him for 
those who need and seek His help, and they show 
to some extent the conditions on which His help is 
given. The great mass of them consisted of works 
of healing. Among diseases specially mentioned are 
leprosy, fever, paralysis, blindness, deafness and 
dumbness, epilepsy, and insanity. In addition to 
disease in its more ordinary or manageable forms 
there is what is known as ‘possession’ by a demon, 
or demons (not by ‘the devil’). But besides in- 
dividual healings narrated in the Gospels, Mk, Mt, 
and Lk all refer in general terms to the healing 
ministry of Jesus as a great and characteristic part 
of His work (Mt 4 23 f., 9 35, cf. 101, where He ex- 
tends His power to the Twelve, 19 2, 21 14; Mk 
1 32 f. Lk 911). Indeed, it has been held that in 
Mk we have the argument from miracle, as in Mt 
that from prophecy, that Jesus is the Christ. The 
healings worked by Jesus were personal, not scien- 
tific, achievements. He did not use any of the re- 
sources of medical science; He had no treatment, no 


regimen, no arts of any description. What we read of 
in Mk 7 382 ff., 8 23 #.; Jn 9 6 has symbolic or educa- 
tional significance for the sufferers (whose infirmities 
made it difficult to communicate with them), but not 
medical value. The great word in all the wonderful 
healings is faith (xfotts). The healer must have 
faith, z.e., such a dependence on God and such an 
assurance of God’s will and power to help as con- 
ducts the Divine power to the case before him. 
While Jesus never failed in this respect (Jn 11 41 £.) 
His disciples sometimes did (Mt 17 19 £.). But 
those who were to be healed also required faith, 7.e., 
such an attitude of the soul to God as recognized and 
took hold of His saving power present in Christ and 
operative through Him. Faith in this sense estab- 
lishes a sympathetic personal relation between Je- 
sus and those who seek His help, and it is on such 
a relation that His power to heal ordinarily depends 
(Mk 65f.). The miracles of healing, therefore, have 
an essentially spiritual side. They imply a relation 
to Jesus which has no precise counterpart in the 
relation of his patients to a modern scientific practi- 
tioner (altho here also confidence in the physician 
favors a cure). Much of the interest of the miracle 
narratives in the Synoptics lies in the picture they 
present of the struggle of faith to come to birth in 
the soul, and to maintain itself through trial to 
triumph. This is so whether the faith is that of the 
person requiring help, or the ‘vicarious’ faith of 
friends who seek it for those who are physically or 
mentally incapable of it (cf. especially Mk 2 5, 5 38, 
9 19-24; Mt 9 28 f., 15 21-28). The many memorable 
words of Jesus about faith—almost all spoken in 
connection with His miracles and intelligible only 
in their context—are the strongest evidence that 
the miracles were actually performed (cf. Bruce, 
Miraculous Element in the Gospels, p. 104). Among 
the mighty works of Jesus, those on which the 
Apostles (Ac 10 38) and He Himself (Mt 12 28; Lk 
11 20) laid greatest stress were the cures of demoniacs. 
Possession by demons was the theory of the time for 
the explanation of many morbid conditions of the 
mind and body, but no science, either medical or 
psychological, has accepted it as a working hypoth- 
esis in modern times. As Jesus did not come to 
teach medicine or psychology, but to reveal the Fa- 
ther in delivering men from all that disabled and 
ruined life, it does not matter that on the cause of 
such illnesses He shared the opinions of those around 
him. What matters is the fact that by the power 
of God bestowed upon Him He actually delivered 
men from them. It is hardly possible to argue 
that out of the many instances of possession recorded 
in the Gospels those are to be distinguished as truly 
such in which the possessed recognize Jesus as the 
Messiah (cf. Gilbert, Student’s Life of Jesus, p. 192; 
Alexander, Demonic Possession; Weiss, Leben Jesu, 
I, 436 ff.). Matthew Arnold (Literature and Dogma 
pp. 143-144, explained the healing miracles by 
moral therapeutics. Harnack, (Das Wesen des Chris- 
tentums, p. 18), asserts that the influence of a per- 
sonality such as Jesus is adequate to account for the 
cure of certain diseases. Dr. Ryle, (‘“The Neurotic 
Theory of the Miracles of Healing,” Hibbert Journal, 
V, p. 585), has endeavored to prove that many 


Jesus Christ 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


442 





of the diseases recorded in the Gospels are not in 
the present state of medical science amenable to 
such treatment. More recent experience, however 
(Baudouin’s Suggestion and Auto-Suggestion, 1923), 
makes it more difficult to draw a sharp distinction 
between functional and organic diseases, and to 
limit the efficacy of psycho-therapy to the one class. 
The matter is still swb gudice. Even if it should, how- 
ever, be proved that the cure of all the diseases 
recorded in the Gospels is in this way explicable, 
altho that need not at present be conceded, yet what 
remains certain is that Jesus Himself wrought His 
miracles in confident reliance on the exercise of 
Divine power through Him, and that His certainty 
evoked that assurance of faith in others which was 
the condition of cure. Neither the Healer nor the 
healed were consciously relying on a recognized 
method of medical treatment. If He and they 
anticipated by their faith in God what medical 
science is only now discovering, it was not by acci- 
dent, but of God’s grace, nor must we assume that 
God is not active as Healer, even when medical 
science is consciously employed. As this explana- 
tion, however, can not be applied to the ‘nature 
miracles’—the feeding of the multitude, the stilling 
of the storm, the walking on the sea, and the raisings 
of the dead—these have to be peremptorily ex- 
cluded, and accordingly in regard to them the 
trustworthiness of the Gospels cannot be main- 
tained (Harnack’s aim in advancing this theory). 
It can only be said here that these things can not be 
judged alone. All of them are represented in the 
oldest stratum of apostolic tradition in Mk, and the 
first in particular is connected, as an event which 
made an overwhelming impression on the multitudes, 
with a crisis in the life of Jesus (Jn 615 and ||). When 
the supreme miracle of the resurrection of Jesus 
Himself is admitted, there is no @ priori reason for 
questioning these. In the Fourth Gospel the miracles 
are the same in kind as in the others, with the 
exception that no case of possession is mentioned. 
But the mode in which they are conceived of is dif- 
ferent. The motive of Jesus in them is not repre- 
sented as compassion (as in Mk 1 41 and often), but 
as the manifestation of His own or the Father’s 
glory (Jn 2 11, 11 4). Where faith is spoken of, it is 
not so much as the condition of healing, but as a 
consequence of it (2 11, 4 53, 11 45). Altho faith 
which had only this basis did not command the 
confidence or approbation of Jesus (2 23 f., 4 48, 
20 29), yet not to be moved to faith by the wonderful 
works of Jesus is a sin (12 37 f., 14 11, 6 26; cf. Mt 
11 20 f.). Another peculiarity in John is that the 
miracles are all treated as symbols and made texts 
for discourses of Jesus (ch. 5, on Life and Judgment; 
ch. 6, on the Bread of Life; chs. 8 and 9, on the 
Light of the World; ch. 11, on the Resurrection and 
the Life). 

Without attempting any chronological outline, 
we may now try to present the main features of the 
teaching of Jesus on the basis indicated above. 

13. Teaching Regarding the Kingdom of God— 
General. The Synoptics represent Jesus as beginning 
His ministry with an announcement of the Kingdom 
of God (Mk 1 15; Mt 4 17; Lk 4 43). He is sent to 


preach it as glad tidings, and its near approach 
(Hy ytxev) is made the ground of appeal for repent- 
ance and faith. What is meant by the ‘Kingdom of 
God’? The expression does not occur in the O T, tho 
the idea is common enough there that God is King 
and exercises sovereignty. The phrase ‘the King- 
dom of Heaven’ does not occur in the Apocalypses, 
except III Bar 11 2, which may possibly be a 
Christian passage. (See Charles’s index to Apocry- 
pha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, 
vol. II, p. 856.) The conception itself, however, 
was current among Jesus’ contemporaries, and 
was related in some way both to their history 
and to the promises of God. It is from the idea of 
sovereignty, or reign, rather than from that of 
kingdom that we must start in attempting to grasp 
the teaching of Jesus. The exercise of royal power 
by God is primary, not the sphere within which it is 
exercised, nor the community subject to it, nor the. 
blessings attendant on its establishment. All these 
are involved, but the main thing is that God takes 
to Himself His great power and reigns. In start- 
ing from this point Jesus started with the O T 
behind Him and could hope to be understood. 
Micaiah (I K 22 19) and Isaiah (Is ch. 6) had seen 
God as a King on His throne surrounded by minister- 
ing spirits. In many of the Psalms He is celebrated 
in this character (97 1, 103 19, 145 13). There are 
O T passages which present this as Israel’s ideal: 
God its King, and no other (e.g., 1S 87#.). Of all 
O T passages, however, the most important for the 
N T idea of the Kingdom is Dn ch. 7. The sover- 
eignty had belonged to a succession of brutal powers 
(Dn 7 1-8), but is at last to be transferred by God to 
humanity. ‘One like unto a son of man’—that is, 
a human form—is brought before the Ancient of 
Days, and ‘there was given him dominion, and 
glory, and a kingdom, that all the peoples, nations, 
and languages should serve him; his dominion is an 
everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, 
and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed’ 
(7 14). It is the explanation of this when we read 
(7 27): ‘and the kingdom and the dominion, and 
the greatness of the kingdoms under the whole 
heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints 
of the Most High [i.e., to the faithful Jews]: his 
kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and all nations 
shall serve and obey him.’ From this time forth, 
ideas connected with this passage entered into all 
Jewish thoughts about the Kingdom. It was a 
Kingdom which in some sense came from heaven; it 
was set up by the direct interposition and act of 
God. It was a Kingdom which was at once univer- 
sal and everlasting. What the precise relation is 
between this Kingdom and the existing Jewish 
people is not made manifest. We are not told how 
the sovereignty of God is to be wielded over Israel, 
or through it, and in dealing with conceptions so vast 
and undefined there is nothing of which the human 
mind is so capable as inconsistency. Men did not 
believe in a political, or an eschatological, or a 
spiritual, Kingdom of God. In various moods, of 
at various times, they believed in varying propor- 
tions in all three. If instead of politicai we say his- 
torical, it may even be said that Jesus believed in 


4435 A NEW STANDARD 


all three. He was ‘a minister of the circumcision,’ 
in the interest of God’s truth, to confirm the promises 
made to the fathers (Ro 15 8). Tho He utterly 
renounced the zealot’s idea of a national Kingdom 
of God, loyalty to which required the repudiation 
of allegiance to Cesar (Mk 12 13 ff. and ||), it was no 
part of His purpose to deny Israel’s prerogative. 
The choice of Twelve as apostles, and the striking 
promise of Mt 19 28; Lk 22 30 preclude the thought. 
If Israel actually excluded itself, it was not He who 
questioned its historical preeminence (Mt 10 5 f., 
23, 15 24-26). Excellent illustrations of the ideas 
which went to constitute ‘the Kingdom of God’ in 
the popular religious mind are seen in the Benedictus 
(Lk 1 68-79) and in the famous prophecy Is 2 2-4; 
Mic 41-5. In the last, especially, we see the min- 
gling of what might seem inconsistent elements. 


There is something national, for Jerusalem and Zion 


are represented as the city of the Great King, to 
which all nations go on pilgrimage; there is some- 
thing eschatological, or apocalyptic, in the super- 
natural elevation of the Temple hill to overtop the 
highest mountains in the world; but the essential 
thing is the universal diffusion of the true religion, 
and the universal peace and felicity consequent 
upon it. When Jesus speaks of the Kingdom, His 
range of utterance is not narrower. Sometimes 
we have the day of judgment in O T colors, the 
future sovereignty coming gloriously to view; some- 
times the thought is that of an inner coming of the 
Kingdom which is already in process, and takes its 
start from the message of Jesus (cf. Harnack, What 
is Christianity? p. 34). The relation of the different 
views is undetermined. Just because His teaching 
is always practical, never abstract, Jesus speaks in 
all tones; in one moment possibly meeting hearers, 
whose minds are not open to us, half-way, using 
their language, and partly accepting, partly ignoring, 
partly enlarging or correcting their thoughts; at 
another giving expression intentionally to what is 
characteristically new and original in His own view 
of the Kingdom. This must be remembered in any 
attempt to systematize His words. 


14. Teaching Regarding the Kingdom of God— 
Specific. The essential truth about the Kingdom is 
that it is the Kingdom of God; its nature is deter- 
mined by Him. The various ideas of it have the 
unity which belongs to the personality and life of 
Jesus, in whom God is revealed. Jesus did not preach 
a new God, but He embodied a new revelation of 
God, and the Kingdom which He preached is specifi- 
cally the Kingdom of the Father (Mt 6 10, 13 43, 
26 29). It is the Father’s good pleasure to give it 
to His children (Lk 12 32). Those who inherit it at 
its consummation are the blessed of the Father (Mt 
25 34). The fullest idea of what is essential to it 
may be derived from the study of the Beatitudes, 
which show the rare and difficult virtues on which 
its citizens are felicitated; from the Lord’s Prayer, 
or, as it should rather be called, the disciples’ prayer, 
which shows the spiritual aspirations of those who 
are to possess it; and from the healing miracles, as 
Jesus interprets them in words like Mt 11 5, 12 28, 
in which its redemptive character is declared. Pro- 
ceeding empirically, we notice the following points: 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Jesus Christ 


(a) Jesus is sure of its coming. When anything 
is urgently needed and longed for, assurance, ex- 
pressed in terms of time, becomes imminence. 
The Kingdom has drawn near. When Jesus speaks 
of it, He speaks, like all the prophets and like the 
seer in the Apocalypse, of things which must shortly 
come to pass (Rev 11, 22 6). The much-discussed 
question whether the Kingdom is present or future 
is another form of the question whether it is spiritual 
or eschatological (transcendent). The answer is 
that it is both, and that in the perspective of Jesus 
(cf. Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. I, 215) the difference 
tends to disappear. The end is near, the dawn is 
part of the morning, the present time part of the last 
time. It is perhaps not fanciful to say that on this 
question the Gospels reflect to some extent the 
mood of different periods in the life of Jesus. At 
first, there is confident hope, the Kingdom has 
drawn near (fyytxev, Mt 417). This rises into as- 
surance that the Kingdom is actually present, as 
in His victories over Satan Jesus realizes that the 
redeeming love of the Father is here and now over- 
turning the tyranny of the devil and establishing 
its own sovereignty on earth (Mt 12 28; &0acey 
ép’ bua fh Bactrela tod Oe0d). At a later stage, 
when the shadow of the Cross fell on His path, 
the final coming of the Kingdom withdraws into a 
future beyond death. The two conceptions of it 
as present and future, spiritual and eschatological, 
seem to be combined and indeed organically con- 
nected in Mk 10 15 #f., ‘Whosoever shall not receive 
the [present] Kingdom of God as a little child, he 
shall in no wise enter therein [in its future glory]. 
For a consistent but paradoxical argument in favor 
of the exclusively eschatological view of the King- 
dom, cf. Johannes Weiss, Die Predigt Jesu vom 
Reiche Gottes. This view has also been maintained 
by Schweitzer, (The Quest of the Historical Jesus) 
who asserts that the only alternative is thorough- 
going scepticism or thoroughgoing eschatology. A 
brilliant exposition of the idea is given by Loisy, 
L’ Evangile et ? Eglise, the classic of Roman Catholic 
Modernism; Father Tyrrell in his posthumous work, 
Christianity at the Cross Roads, accepts the position. 
Jackson and Lake, however, maintain that Jesus 
taught that the Kingdom was both present and 
future. ‘The preaching of Jesus was directed to 
impress men with the importance of recognizing 
the present Sovereignty of God in order that they 
might live in the Age to Come,’ op. cit., p. 282. 


(b) It is the supreme good, the sum of all possible 
blessings. Jesus shows this in various ways. Every- 
thing else is to be made secondary to it (‘Seek first 
the Kingdom,’ Mt 6 33; Lk 12 31). No price is too 
high to pay for it (Mt 13 44-46). Tho it is God’s 
gift, we have to count the cost of accepting it, and 
not only to count but to pay (Lk 14 25 #.). The 
salvation of the Kingdom is not only a gift, but a 
high calling, and the ethically indispensable con- 
dition of accepting the calling may be the most 
painful sacrifice of nature and of natural affections 
(Mk 9 47; cf. vs. 43 and 45, where Cw is synonymous 
with the Kingdom of God). The Kingdom is not 
bought with such sacrifices, as if the paying of them 
gave men a claim upon God; it is rather a sphere of 


Jesus Christ 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


444 





reality of such a kind that a man must remain 
permanently alien to it, if he allows any natural good 
to rival this supernatural and Divine one. It is in 
this connection that we should have to appreciate 
the vehement words Jesus speaks about money (Mk 
10 23. and ||, and many more). As a permanent 
possibility of all kinds of power and enjoyment 
money is infinitely fascinating, and whether as pos- 
sessed or coveted it is the great foe of the supreme 
good. The worth of the Kingdom is further shown 
by the incomparable greatness which belongs to its 
members. The least in it—the least who has got 
from God that which Jesus was conscious of possess- 
ing—is greater than the greatest outside. In some 
sense he is nearer and dearer to God (Mt 18 10, 11 11. 
The ‘little ones’ in Mt 18 11 are the children of the 
Kingdom; see ver. 6). 

(c) The conditions of membership in the King- 
dom, or perhaps we should say the ideal of citizen- 
ship, are illustrated in all the teaching of Jesus, but 
especially in the Beatitudes, in such discourses as 
the Sermon on the Mount (Mt chs. 5-7), the teach- 
ings on humility, forgiveness, and self-denial with 
a view to avoiding ‘offense,’ either in self or in 
others (Mt ch. 18), and, by contrast, in the criticism 
and denunciation of spurious piety (Mt ch. 23), 
or of pride, ambition, and similar faults in disciples 
(Mt 20 25 #.). But the great lesson is that which 
is given in the spirit and life of Jesus Himself. The 
Kingdom is here in Him, and He is not only its 
founder, but its ideal citizen. Hence the final im- 
portance in His teaching of words like Mt 11 29; 
Jn 1315. To be a genuine citizen or member of the 
Kingdom is to be in Him (Jn ch. 15). 

(d) There are ranks, or degrees, in the Kingdom, 
tho the principles on which they are assigned 
are not those that prevail in the kingdoms of this 
world (cf. Mt 5 19, 18 1-4, and especially 20 21 ff.). 
No one can enter at all except in the uncalculating 
spirit of the child, who, when Jesus says ‘Come,’ 
goes to Him with no reserve. No one can be great 
in it except by service. Even the Son of Man, 
who sits on its throne, is subject to this law. He 
attains to the dignity of the throne by a career of 
unexampled service, not stopping short of the sur- 
render of His life for others (Mk 10 45). 

(e) The mysteries of the Kingdom (i.e., the laws 
of God’s working in it)—once hidden but now an 
open secret—are revealed in the parables of Jesus, 
and in the interpretation of them to His disciples 
(Mt 13 11 #.). Thus it is like a seed, the fortune of 
which depends on the soil into which it is cast 
(Mt 13 3 ff., and ||). Like a seed, it has in it an 
incalculable vitality and power of expansion (Mt 
13 31 f#f., and ||). Further, like a seed, it hag an 
internal law of development—‘first the blade, then 
the ear, then the full corn in the ear’—which can 
not be precipitated or reversed by any effort of man 
(Mk 4 26 f.). It is another mystery of the Kingdom 
that Jesus anticipates for it in the world a mixed 
and disappointing history (Mt 13 24 ff., 36 ff., 47 ff.). 
This, of course, is denied by those who hold an 
exclusively eschatological view of the Kingdom, and 
they accordingly assign to the Evangelist, not to 
Jesus, the heading of such parables as the Tares and 


the Drag-net. But it is impossible to carry the 
eschatological view of the Kingdom consistently 
through the Gospels; and tho the Kingdom is 
properly an ideal state in which there are no oxdvdaha 
(‘things that cause stumbling,’ Mt 13 41), no person 
that works [avout (‘iniquity,’ tbid.), nothing caxpédy 
(‘bad,’ Mt 13 48), it does not exist as such in history. 
Even the institutions and persons by whom God is 
actually represented in this world represent Him 
very imperfectly and ineffectually, and they get 
inextricably interwoven with persons and interests 
which do not represent Him at all. What both the 
parables teach is that this is not final, but that it 
lasts as long as time. 

(f) In the consummated Kingdom Jesus anticipates 
reunion with His own, and the fulfilment of all 
longings unsatisfied here (Mt 26 29; Lk 22 16). It 
is in this connection that life (Mt 7 14, 18 8 f., 19 17), 
or eternal life (Mt 19 16, 29, 25 46; cf. Mk 10 30,. 
‘in the world to come, eternal life’), is used as a 
synonym for the Kingdom of God. The life of the 
world, or age, to come, or the life of the consum- 
mated Kingdom of God, is life in a new mode or 
order. It is not the restoration of nature with all 
the natural relations—a conception which is quite 
unrealizable. To assume that it is would be to 
discredit the idea of immortality altogether, as the 
Sadducees tried to do by this very plan (Mt 22 23#.). 
As Jesus argues against them, ‘the power of God’ 
(Mt 22 29) is not exhausted in the natural order with 
which we are familiar. God can sustain being in 
other modes—in an order, e.g., in which men neither 
marry nor are given in marriage—in which all 
relations are spiritual, not physical, and in which 
the problems raised by the Sadducees simply lapse. 
It is into such a world that the resurrection of Jesus 
gives us a glimpse; and the children of God, or the 
children of the Kingdom, can be ultimately described 
as children of the resurrection (Lk 20 36). 


15. Teaching Regarding Himself. It is assumed 
in all Jesus’ teaching about the Kingdom of God that 
He Himself has a relation to the Kingdom and its 
coming which can be shared by no other. The great 
cause of God is in some way identified with His per- 
sonality, and men’s relation to it is determined by 
their relation to Him. This may be said to be quite 
explicitly the burden of the Fourth Gospel: ‘If ye 
believe not that I am’—that is, that Iam the great 
decisive Personality on whom everything in the 
relations of God and man turns—‘ye shall die in 
your sins’ (Jn 8 24); but it is implied throughout the 
Synoptics. (Jackson and Lake, op. cit., pp. 345-418, 
subject the Christology of the Synoptics to a learned 
and searching criticism, and treat most of the 
utterances about Himself ascribed to Jesus as later 
developments of the faith of the Church, leaving us 
but a common prophet, conscious of inspiration, but 
not a historical reality adequate to be the object of 
the Christian faith, the founder of the Christian 
Church, or the explanation of the Christian ex- 
perience and history. Their criticism, however, 
rests on an assumption so remote frem the stand- 
point of Christian scholarship generally, that it is 
impossible to take account of their conclusions in 
detail.) Jesus’ consciousness of what He is in 


445 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jesus Christ 





relation to God and His Kingdom comes out, indeed, 
more impressively for us in words like ‘for my sake’ 
(Mt 5 11), or ‘Many shall say unto me in that day’ 
(Mt 7 22)—the voice of Jesus at the day of Judgment 
being that on which eternal destiny depends—or ‘He 
that loveth father or mother more than me is not 
worthy of me’ (Mt 10 37), than in any of the titles 
used to describe Him, either by Himself or others. 
What we overhear is more weighty even than what 
we hear. Yet it is necessary to pass these titles in 
review, and to apprehend their meaning as far as 
we can. 

(a) All the Evangelists call Jesus the Christ (Mt 
11; Mk 11; Lk 211; Jn 20 31). ‘Jesus is the Christ’ 
was the earliest Christian confession (Ac 2 36, 17 3), 
and in a sense it is the Evangelist’s business to 


prove that He is. He may appeal to prophecy, as. 


Matthew does, or to miracles, as Mark virtually 
does, or he may conduct the argument in a higher 
sphere like John, but in any case this is his faith. But 
did Jesus share it? Did He claim to be the Christ, 
or ask men to accept Him in this character; and if so, 
what did the term mean for Him? It is quite true to 
say that Jesus was made the Christ only by His 
exaltation (Ac 2 36), and that, therefore, while He 
was on earth He was not so much the Christ as the 
person who was destined for that dignity; but it does 
not follow that He did not claim the dignity, or that 
it was not recognized by the disciples as inherent 
in Him. It is not fancy which recognizes in the day 
at Cesarea Philippi a great crisis in the relation of 
Jesus and His disciples (Mt 16 13 f., and ||); and 
whether we say, with interpreters generally, that 
here the Twelve first became convinced of and 
confessed the Messianic dignity of Jesus, or, with 
Weiss, that here the Twelve persevered in their 
belief in His Messianic character, when the mass of 
His followers gave up the hopes they once had 
cherished that this was the great deliverer (Jn 6 66) 
in either case the Messianic consciousness is revealed 
as present in the mind of Jesus. Not only to others, 
but to Himself, He bore this character. He was 
the Christ, the Anointed of the Lord. If the his- 
toricity of this could be regarded as doubtful, it 
would be quite impossible to make any use of the 
Gospels as historical documents. (For an elaborate 
attack on it see Wrede, Das Messiasgeheimniss in 
den Evangelien, 1902. Jackson and Lake also deny 
this. ‘This was the belief of the disciples: it may 
have been, but probably was not, the belief of 
Jesus; it was not part of his ‘gospel’ tho it was the 
center of theirs’ (op. cit., p. 283.) Butitisraised be- 
yond doubt by its association with such an un- 
questionable fact as Mt 16 22, by the triumphal entry 
in which Jesus deliberately acts in the Messianic réle 
(Mk 119f.), by the accusation before Pilate (Mk 15 
2), by the title on the cross (Mk 15 26), and by the 
consent of all existing evidence. When ‘the Christ’ 
became a technical or proper name for the expected 
deliverer of Israel we do not know. It seems to occur 
first in Psalms of Solomon, 17 36. The essential 
element in the meaning is that the person so desig- 
nated is God’s King. He has a’place in the King- 
dom and in relation to its establishment into which 
no other can intrude. To call Jesus the Christ is 


to recognize His unique and incomparable signifi- 
cance in religion. It is to declare that through Him 
God’s sovereignty is to be realized, and all God’s 
promises fulfilled (II Co 1 20). No doubt men 
might have wrong conceptions of the Kingdom and 
of the King. They might try to take Jesus by force 
and make Him a king after their own ideas (Jn 
6 15), compelling Him to enlist under their banner, 
instead of enlisting under His. Such possibilities 
constrained Jesus to reserve in the use of this title. 
He did not go about proclaiming Himself the 
promised King. He silenced the possessed whom 
Mk represents as knowing Him to be the Christ 
(1 34, 312). He straitly charged the disciples, even 
after the confession at Cesarea Philippi, to tell no 
one of Him (8 30). The sense in which He is the 
Christ is apprehended only when God reveals it 
(Mt 16 17) or—which is the same thing—when it is 
experimentally discovered through intercourse with 
Jesus. It only leads to confusion to snatch at the 
word, and suppose that we can fill it with the 
proper meaning from prejudices or hopes of our 
own, or even from the letter of theO T. It was to 
prevent such misconceptions and interruptions of 
His work by false hopes that Jesus, till close upon 
the end of His life, avoided Messianic claims. It 
does not follow, of course, that He was not conscious 
of His Messianic Kingship from the first. The 
very reverse was the case (see §5, above). It was 
for pedagogic reasons that He revealed the nature 
of the Kingdom before He explicitly put Himself 
forward as King. 


(b) Closely connected with the title Christ is that 
of Son of God. Here it is necessary to distinguish 
between the direct use of this title by others and the 
virtual use of it by Jesus. It throws no light on His 
mind to observe that He is spoken of as Son of God 
by the demoniacs (Mk 3 11, 57; Mt 8 29), or by the 
men in the boat when He stilled the storm (Mt 
14 33), or by the centurion who saw Him die (27 54). 
In this last passage, where the speaker may be a 
pagan, the meaning is indeterminate; in the first, 
‘Son of God’ is probably equivalent to ‘Messiah,’ 
as in Mt 26 63; Jn 1 49. In Mk 11, ‘Son of God’— 
if the reading is correct—may be used in this 
Messianic or, as it is sometimes called, ‘official’ 
sense, or it may be used in the full Pauline sense; 
in Mt and Lk (cf. Mt 1 22 f£. and Lk 1 34 f.) the 
Divine sonship is regarded by the Evangelists as 
dependent on the supernatural birth. But what 
Jesus meant by the Divine sonship which was 
attested at His baptism, and in the consciousness 
of which He lived and died, is another matter. 
That it included the Messianic vocation is certain 
from the baptism narrative, but is that all? The 
present writer can not think so. There are various 
ways in which Jesus brings out what is involved in 
His relation to God, and they all point to something 
more profound, and, if it may be so expressed,more 
essential. (1) There is the parable in Mt 21 33-46, 
and ||. Here, all God’s previous messengers to 
Israel are represented as S000 (‘servants’), while 
Jesus is vtdc (‘Son’) and xAnpovénoc (‘heir’). This 
generalizes, so to speak, the earlier saying, ‘A 
greater than Jonah, than Solomon, than the Temple, 


Jesus Christ 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


446 





is here’ (Mt 12 6, 41 f.). As Son—+.e., as one whose 
relation to God was distinct from that of all others 
—Jesus was greater than all. (2) There is the 
striking saying, ‘Of that day and that hour knoweth 
no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the 
Son but the Father’ (Mk 13 32; Mt 24 36). The 
limit here put on the knowledge of Jesus shows 
that this is a genuine word. A later generation 
would rather have expunged than invented it. It 
gives Jesus a place above both men and angels, a 
place in which ‘the Father’ and ‘the Son’ are used 
in absolute correspondence with each other. We 
see that there could no more be another who was 
‘the Son’ than another who was ‘the Father.’ 
This is the truth which is covered and secured in the 
Fourth Gospel, when it calls Jesus the ‘only be- 
gotten Son’ (Jn 1 14, 18, 3 16, 18; cf. 1 Jn 49). (8) 
There is the passage Mt 11 25 f., with the || in Lk 10 
21 ff. (The authenticity of this passage is challenged 
by Jackson and Lake. See op. cit., p. 331). Here 
an important light is thrown on the contents of the 
relation of the Son to the Father. According to 
Harnack, what this passage teaches is that the 
Sonship of Jesus consists in His knowledge of the 
Father. It is as the person who perfectly knows 
the Father that He is the Son (What is Christianity? 
p. 128). But there is more than this. First, there 
is the idea that sonship implies absolute dependence. 
‘All things have been delivered to me of my Father.’ 
This is the idea which pervades the Fourth Gospel: 
‘The Son can do nothing of Himself,’ ‘My teaching 
is not mine,’ etc. (Jn 5 19, 7 16; etc.). Further, 
there is the idea that as Son Jesus has absolute 
competence in His vocation, the power to make all 
men His debtors for the knowledge of God. The 
‘all things’ which have been delivered to Him must, 
in agreement with the context, refer to the whole 
contents and administering of God’s revelation; 
in this work of self-revelation the Father has no 
organ but Jesus, and in Jesus He has an adequate 
organ. This is an anticipation of Jn 14 6; but even 
when we have grasped it, a mystery remains. For 
Jesus goes on to declare that in His own relation to 
God there is something which has no parallel else- 
where: ‘No one knoweth the Son save the Father; 
neither doth any know the Father save ‘the Son, 
and he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal 
him.’ He is so far from standing on a level with 
all men as a son or child of God—an expression 
never applied to Him—that as ‘the Son’ He stands 
between God and all others, and they can not know 
God as Father without coming under obligations to 
Him. (4) One other passage is of importance for 
the light it casts on the consciousness of Jesus as 
Son of God, Mt 17 24-27. Here we see that to know 
God as Father is to be emancipated from the obliga- 
tions of the ritual law: the Son is not bound to pay 
a Temple tax. The filial spirit is in such things a 
law to itself. The Pauline conception of Christian- 
ity is here traced to its source in the mind of the 
Son, and the Pauline idea that liberty is to be used 
only in accordance with a law of love is in harmony 
with the iact that out of consideration for others 
(‘Lest we cause them to stuinble,’ ver. 27) Jesus 
did not exercise the liberty which He claimed. 


For the connection of sonship and liberty in His 
thoughts, see also Jn 8 32-36. If we take these 
passages together, we conclude that, in the mind of 
Jesus, to be the Christ and to be the Son of God 
were not identical. The Divine Sonship was His 
nature; it was primary and essential; the conscious- 
ness of it stirred in Him (Lk 2 49) long before He 
entered on His public work; it was the basis on 
which His unique vocation to be the Christ—.e., to 
be the Son of God in the historical sense suggested 
by Ps 27, 89 26; II S 7 14—rested; but it was not 
exhausted in this. Messiahship was the form which 
Divine sonship naturally took in the historical 
situation; but both in Himself and for us Jesus is 
something more and greater than the Messiah. 
It should be noted that the Synoptics give no in- 
stance in which Jesus expressly calls Himself Son of 
God (yet see Mt 27 43, and the narratives of the 
Baptism, Temptation, and Transfiguration). He, 
however, speaks of God as the Father, where the 
correlative is not sons, but the Son; He says ‘my’ 
Father and ‘your’ Father, but never unites with 
others (not even in the Lord’s Prayer, which is 
indeed rather the disciples’ prayer) to say ‘our’ 
Father; and He speaks of Himself as ‘the Son,’ 
simpliciter. This last use—which is found in Mt 
11 27, 24 36; Mk 13 32—becomes predominant in Jn. 


(c) To judge from the Gospel record, the mind 
of Christ about Himself is expressed most character- 
istically in the title the Son of Man (4 vids tod avOee- 
mov). This is found in all the Gospels, and practi- 
cally from beginning to end (Mt 8 20, 26 64; Mk 2 10, 
14 62; Lk 5 24, 22 69; Jn 1 51, 13 31). In all, itis 
used by Jesus alone. (Here Jackson and Lake also 
oppose the common opinion, and deny that Jesus 
openly identified Himself with the Son of Man, 
op. cit., p. 283). Except in Ac 7 56, it is not found 
elsewhere in the N T. In Rev 1 13, 14 14 the refer- 
ence is not to the Gospels, but to Dn 713. Obviously, 
in the Gospels it is a technical or proper name, 
and a Greek reader could not without guidance 
discover what it meant. The catechists, or Evan- 
gelists, who coined the Gr. phrase 6 utds tod 
évOemrov and gave it currency must at the same 
time have explained the sense in which they used 
it. No doubt it represented something in Aramaic, 
but the fact that Aramaic scholars find it difficult or 
impossible to conjecture what the Aramaic original 
can have been is not a sufficient reason for con- 
cluding that Jesus did not and could not have 
used any such title at all. For this paradoxical 
view, see Lietzmann, Der Menschensohn (1896); 
Wellhausen, Skizzen und Vorarbeiten, VI, 187. 
Against it, Fiebig, Der Menschensohn (1901); 
Dalman, The Words of Jesus (1902), pp. 234ff.; 
Driver, ‘Son of Man’ inHBD. Assuming that Jesus 
did use, as a designation of Himself in the third 
person, Aramaic words which were represented in 
Gr. by 4 utd¢ tod &vOpaxou, the question remains: 
What did He mean by this title, and how did it 
originate? It is natural to think of O T ante- 
cedents for this as well as for ‘Son of God’ or ‘the 
Anointed’; and three O T sources have been sug- 
gested for it. First, there is the frequent use of 
‘son of man’ in Ezk (21, 3, 8, etc.; ninety times in 


447 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jesus Christ 





all), where it contrasts the prophet as a frail human 
creature with God. But there is no indication in 
the Gospels that Ezekiel was ever in the Speaker’s 
mind in His use of the term. Second, there is the 
notable passage in Ps 8 4, ‘What is man that thou 
art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou 
visitest him?’ This passage is messianically in- 
terpreted in He 2 6, and the application of words 
from Ps 8 to Christ in I Co 15 27 is evidence that 
Paul knew of this interpretation, and probably 
therefore, of ‘the Son of Man’ as a designation of 
Jesus.While there is no explicit reference in the 
Gospels to the Psalm, yet the combination in the 
sayings about the Son of Man of dignity and 
‘humility show a marked correspondence of thought. 
The third possible source has already been referred 
to in speaking of the Kingdom of God (see above, 
§ 6). It is Dn 7 13 f£.: “There came with the clouds 
of heaven one like unto a son of man... and 
there was given him dominion, and glory, and a 
kingdom.’ There is undoubtedly an allusion to this 
in passages like Mk 14 62; Mt 16 28, 24 30. The 
difference is that the indefinite ‘one like unto a son 
of man’—that is, ‘a human form,’ as contrasted 
with the brute forms in the earlier visions—has 
become definite. The description has become a 
title, the significant common noun—to use the 
grammatical distinction—has become a meaning- 
less proper noun, and we are left to discover its 
import as we can. In Dn, the ‘human form’ repre- 
sents the people of the saints of the most high; it is 
a symbol of the faithful Jews, God’s people, as the 
beasts are of the pagan empires; but in the mind of 
Jesus it is individualized and definitely identified 
with Himself. Probably the individualizing inter- 
pretation had become current in the interval be- 
tween the writing of Dn and the ministry of Jesus; 
at all events in that part of the apocalyptic Book of 
Enoch called “The Book of Similitudes,’ which 
most scholars allow to be pre-Christian, this change 
has been effected. There we find a Son of Man, a 
person existing with God, a person who sits on the 
throne of glory and has the sum of judgment com- 
mitted to him. If the Jude who wrote the Ep. of 
Jude is the same as the Lord’s brother of that name 
(Mk 6 3), then Jesus may have known the Book of 
Enoch, for Jude quotes it (ver. 14 f.; see JupE, Epis- 
TLE OF, § 2). But whether or not, it is clear that He 
individualized the human form to which the ever- 
lasting Kingdom is to be given, and that He identi- 
fied Himself with it (cf. Charles, The Book of Enoch, 
1893). 

In this sense, ‘The Son of Man’ may be said to be 
a Messianic title. When Jesus used it, He meant to 
convey the idea that in spite of appearances He 
was the person who was yet to come in that heavenly 
glory. It is to be defined by relation to ‘the Kingdom 
of God’ just as clearly as ‘the Son’ alone is to be 
defined by relation to ‘the Father.’ It is natural 
to argue that, if it is a Messianic title, Jesus could 
use it only after He had been acknowledged as 
Messiah—i.e., after the day at Caesarea Philippi— 
and among those whom He allowed to speak of Him 
in this character—i.e., among the Twelve. This, 
of course, is not what the Gospels represent. He 


seems to use it all along, and in any audience. How 
is this to be explained? We may say either (1) that 
the term is not so unambiguously Messianic as has 
been suggested, and that Jesus, using it to veil as 
well as to reveal His thought, might employ it 
freely under any circumstances. This may be re- 
garded as a possible explanation. Or (2) we may 
say that some of the passages have been chrono- 
logically displaced, and, tho they come early in 
our Gospels, are really late in the life of Jesus— 
e.g.. Mt 10 23. Or (8) we may say that in some 
passages Jesus has been misunderstood by a trans- 
lator from the Aramaic, and is represented as saying 
the ‘Son of Man,’ and speaking of Himself, when 
He really said ‘man’ and meant something of 
universal application. This last explanation has 
been given of the two passages Mk 210, 28, where it 
is said logic requires ‘man’ generically, not the 
individual ‘the Son of Man’; and it is pointed out 
that when these two are disposed of, there are no 
others in Mk till after Caesarea Philippi. For the 
application of (2) and (8) with a view to getting 
rid of all the passages in which the Gospels present 
the title prematurely, see Wellhausen, as above 
To investigate the literary question here is im- 
possible, but the elements of meaning associated 
with the title must be indicated. (1) It always 
includes the idea of ultimate triumph. The Son of 
Man, as reminiscent of Dn 7 13, is never anything less 
than the destined King in the coming Kingdom of 
God. It is this which gives the power and pathos 
to words like Mt 8 20, 20 28. (2) In the express 
teaching of Jesus, it always includes the idea of the 
path of suffering which leads to triumph. After 
the confession at Czsarea Philippi Jesus began to 
teach the Twelve that the Son of Man must suffer 
many things (Mk 8 31 and ||, 9 31, 10 33, 14 21, 41). 
To represent His sufferings and death as those of the 
Son of Man is to bring them within His vocation as 
founder of the Kingdom of God, and to give them 
an essential place in His work. It is to carry 
through in His mind and life the fusion of the ideals 
of Ps 2 and Is chs. 42 and 53—the Messianic King 
and the suffering Servant of the Lord—announced at 
His baptism: the suffering of the Son of Man, so 
repellent and unintelligible to the disciples, is a 
summary formula for this fusion. (3) In the title 
‘Son of Man,’ as used in the Synoptics, we may 
fairly emphasize the idea of humanity, as it is em- 
phasized in Dn 7 13. It is humanity, however, in 
the ethical, not metaphysical sense—humanity, not 
as contrasted with divinity, but as opposed to brutal- 
ity. The Kingdom which comes with the triumph 
of Jesus is at the same time the Kingdom in which 
humanity attains its rights. The reign of inhuman- 
ity, of violence and wrong, comes to an end. Hence 
everything in the work of Jesus which is congruous 
with this—all that is human, sympathetic, redemp- 
tive, emancipating—is ascribed to Him as the 
‘Son of Man.’ See especially Lk 19 10; Mk 10 45; 
Mt 8 20, and even Mt 11 18 f., where Jesus contrasts 
Himself with the less human Baptist, who had in a 
way renounced the society of his kind. But the 
supreme proof of this is Mt 25 31 # When the 
Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory to judge 


Jesus Christ 





all nations, the principle of His judgment is human- 
ity. It is by this men stand or fall before Him. 
Inhumanity is to Him the unpardonable sin. ‘I 
was an hungered and ye gave me no meat’ is the 
damning accusation. There seems some echo of 
this in Jn 5 27, but the peculiarity of the Fourth 
Gospel is that it associates the title with the pre- 
existence of Jesus in a way to which we have no 
analogy in the other three (Jn 3 13, 6 27, 62). Apart 
from this, John throws no further light on Jesus’ 
consciousness of Himself as thus expressed. But 
it is clear from all that has been said that Jesus is 
not merely a son of man, a human being simpliciter, 
any more than He is only a child of God, a creature 
with our common relation to the Father. Just as in 
relation to God He calls himself absolutely the Son, 
so in relation to the Kingdom of God, which is at 
the same time the Kingdom of humanity, He is not 
merely one of our race, but the Son of Man who 
has the unique vocation of establishing the Kingdom 
of God through His ministry, His sufferings, and His 
glory. Both titles, the ‘Son of God’ and he ‘Son 
of Man,’ have this incomparable character. If we 
think of Jesus as Jesus thought of Himself, we can 
not think of anybody else in His place, or fulfilling 
His function. The titles, however, are not to be 
contrasted, nor interpreted of a human and a Divine 
nature. There is no suggestion of such a contrast 
in the Gospels, not even where some have found it, 
in Mt 16 13, 16 (‘the Son of Man... the Son of 
the living God’). To say that He gives us the 
knowledge of the Father and makes us sons of God, 
and to say that He makes us men and partakers in 
the triumph of humanity in His everlasting King- 
dom, is not to say two things, but one and the same. 
On the Incarnation cf. § 19, below. 


(d) In comparison with the ‘Christ,’ the ‘Son 
of God,’ and the ‘Son of Man,’ small importance 
attaches to the title the ‘Son of David.’ It was a 
designation for the Messiah as at once descendant 
and representative of the great King. The Evan- 
gelists and the scribes agreed in regarding Davidic 
descent as a mark of the Christ (Mt 11, 22 42 £.; 
Ro 1 4; II Ti 2 8), and Jesus was hailed as Messiah 
under this title at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem 
(Mt 21 9, 15), and by various persons who sought His 
help, or saw it rendered (Mt 9 27, 12 23, 15 22, 20 30f.). 
It has been argued that in Mt 22 42 f£. and || He 
disclaims Davidie descent, but this is more than 
doubtful. Probably His descent from David was 
taken for granted by Himself, as it is throughout 
the N T, and the aim of His appeal to the Scribes is 
to show that it is not a relation to David—a relation 
no doubt shared with others—which is the essential 
thing in Messiahship, but a relation to God. Not 
any son of David is Messiah, but only that greater 
than David to whom the Lord has said, ‘Sit on 
my right hand.’ The Davidic title, as the one 
which most easily attracted those political associ- 
ations of Messiahship which Jesus utterly rejected, 
would inevitably be attractive to the people, and as 
inevitably appeal less to Him than ‘Son of God’ or 
‘Son of Man.’ 

(e) The only other title of Jesus found in the 
Gospels is Savior, and this is not in His own words. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





448 





It occurs in the angelic annunciation of His birth 
to the shepherds (Lk 2 11), where the meaning is 
undetermined, and it is implied in Mt 1 21, ‘Thou 
shalt call his name Jesus, for it is he that shall save 
his people from their sins.’ The phrase ‘his people’ 
here probably means Israel, and the salvation is 
probably conceived of in that half-spiritual, half- 
national fashion which is so vividly illustrated in 
Lk 1 68-79. Throughout the ministry of Jesus 
otety (‘to save’) is mostly used of miracles of 
healing, or deliverance from bodily danger (eg., 
Mt 9 21 £., 8 25, 14 30); but, as these were conditioned 
by faith, which involved a personal and spiritual 
relation to Jesus, blessings of a higher order were 
involved, and these are no doubt often included in 
such expressions as, “Thy faith hath saved thee.’ 
When we read that the Son of Man came ‘to save 
that which was lost’ (Lk 19 10), it is the profounder 
spiritual sense which is in view, and in the Fourth 
Gospel this preponderates to the practical exclusion 
of the other (Jn 3 17, 5 34, 109, 12 47). Here also 
Jesus is expressly characterized as ‘the Savior of 
the world’ (Jn 4 42). It is His vocation to bring 
eternal life to all men. 

(f) In close connection with the revelation of the 
self-consciousness of Jesus stands His teaching on 
His death. All the Evangelists represent Him as 
devoting much attention to this—indeed, making 
it the main subject on which He instructed the 
Twelve—during the last period of His life (Mk 8 31, 
9 31, 10 33 #., and ||s). It does not follow that He 
Himself first thought of it or realized it then. The 
allusion to the suffering Servant of the Lord in the 
voice at the Baptism, the spiritual conflict in the 
Temptation in which He renounced all compromise 
and defied evil to do its worst, beatitudes like Mt 
5 10 f., the fate of the prophets and the forerunner 
and the sense of antagonism in the world around 
Him, must have suggested the actual issue of His 
career; and the beautiful and ominous word in Mk 
2 19 ff., which evidently belongs to the earlier and 
more radiant period of the ministry, proves that it 
was habitually latent in His thoughts long before He 
spoke of it. The one idea on which stress is laid in 
the reiterated teaching referred to is the necessity 
of His death. That it was historically necessary 
was apparent, if Jesus remained true to God and to 
Himself; He had irreconcilable enemies who would 
scruple at nothing to put Him out of the way; 
the forces were actually at work around Him which 
could and would kill Him. The problem, humanly 
speaking, presented to Him was to discern in this 
historical necessity a Divine necessity; to see that 
what came upon Him as an inevitable fate was also 
the will of the Father, to which it was indispensable 
that He should submit in order to the fulfilment of 
His vocation. If His death was to be interpreted as 
a part of His work, it must be not merely endured, 
but accepted; His passion must become a great ac- 
tion, in which something infinitely important is done 
for the establishment of the Kingdom of God. That 
this was the conviction of Jesus, the whole Christian 
faith of the N T is the proof, and it is fair to infer 
from all the evidence at our disposal that He was 
assisted in giving shape to it by the prophecies of the 


449 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jesus Christ 





O T and especially of Is ch. 53 (cf. Lk 22 37;Mk 
10 45, where the peculiar expression ‘for many,’ 
in connection with the idea of ‘giving the life’ or 
‘the soul,’ is an illusion to Is 53 10-12, where both 


ideas occur in combination). The two notable 
sayings of Jesus on the significance of His death 
(Mk 10 45, and ||, 14 22 #., and ||) can not be fully 
discussed here. Briefly, it may be said that, ac- 
cording to the first saying, His death is conceived 
of as having a liberative power; it is at the cost of it 
that many are set free; He could not render them 
the service essential to them at a lesser cost. How 
the figure here is to be reduced to terms of thought 
is not expressly said; the circle of ideas in which 
‘the mind of Jesus moves is the same which is repre- 
sented in Ps 49 7-9; Job 33 22-24; Mk 8 36 f. Inthe 
second saying, His death is represented as the basis 
of a new covenant, %.e., a new religious relation 
between God and man. In virtue of that death, 
somehow, men can enter into this new relation— 
the new relation, undoubtedly, which is predicted 
in Jer 31 31-34—a relation in which the law is written 
on the heart, and all men know God, because He has 
forgiven their iniquities and remembers their sins no 
more. Here, again, it may be said, problems are 
stated rather then solved; but it is important to 
notice that the connection of the death of Christ 
with the forgiveness of sins, which is central in 
apostolic teaching, is explicitly covered by the 
word of Jesus, in which He describes His blood as 
covenant blood. In no single utterance is the unique 
self-consciousness of Jesus more amazingly revealed 
than in that in which He bases on His own death 
the establishment for sinful men of the perfect and 
final relation to God. Within the covenant, God 
and men form one community; they have a common 
life and common aims; God enters into the life of 
men, men are partakers in the eternal life of God, 
and all this has been made possible through the 
death of Jesus. For fuller examination of this see 
Denney’s Death of Christ (1902), pp. 36-60. 


16. Prophetic Teaching of Jesus. By this we 
understand the teaching of Jesus about what lay 
beyond His death. It is impossible to be certain 
here that in no respect has the teaching of Jesus 
been misapprehended by those who reported it, 
or unconsciously colored by hopes which they did 
not directly owe to Him, or by ideas and expecta- 
tions to which His teaching only indirectly gave 
birth in their minds. But the following points may be 
regarded as certain: (1) Jesus foretold His own resur- 
rection. All the three predictions of the passion (see 
foregoing) end with ‘and after three days’—or ‘on 
the third day’—‘rise again.’ ‘After three days’ and 
‘on the third day’ are in meaning exactly the same (cf. 
Mt 27 63, 64). Jesus’ prediction of His resurrection 
was as special as that of His death. Any Jew then 
could predict His own death and resurrection, as 
any Christian can now; but it was the resurrection 
not at the last day (Jn 11 24), but after so brief 
an interval, that was as incomprehensible tothe 
disciples as the death (Mk 9 10). (2) Jesus taught 
that the prophecy of Dn 7 13 would be fulfilled in 
Him; i.e., He would come again in glory, bringing 
in the perfected Kingdom of God and humanity 


Son of Man). The N T Church certainly held this 
coming to be one in visible splendor, in the clouds 
of heaven, and quite distinct from the resurrection. 
(3) Of the time of this coming Jesus expressly de- 
clared Himself ignorant (Mt 24 36; Mk 13 32) yet 
He is often represented as speaking of it as certain 
to occur within the lifetime of those He addressed 
(Mt 10 23, 16 28; Mk 91). This is not open to 
question, even if we admit that passages like Mk 
13 30 refer not to the Advent but to the destruction 
of Jerusalem, and it has caused much difficulty. 
Jesus has not come as the N T Church believed He 
had promised to do. Was He mistaken, or was He 
misunderstood? 

In answering these questions we must remem- 
ber that almost all the language of Jesus which 
has given rise to them is apocalyptic, and that 
it is not quite plain how much in such language 
is literal, and how much has to be spiritual- 
ized. If no one takes the four great beasts and the 
sea literally in Dn ch. 7, is it certain that ‘coming 
on for with] the clouds of heaven’ is to be taken 
literally? Peter saw at Pentecost (Ac 2 16-21) the 
fulfilment of Ji 2 30, tho at Pentecost there was 
no ‘blood and fire and vapor of smoke.’ Is it not 
possible that the Early Church took Jesus’ words 
too prosaically, and cherished and transmitted 
hopes not really to be traced to Him? We are the 
more led to ask such questions because in Mt 26 64 
and || the final word of Jesus to His accusers repre- 
sents the exaltation of the Son of Man and His 
coming on the clouds of heaven as something of 
which they could be conscious from the moment of 
His condemnation on. He did come in Divine 
power, and fill Jerusalem with His presence as it 
had never been filled while He lived. This, too, 
in spite of occasional references to ‘the last day’ 
(Jn 6 39, 44, 54, 11 24, 12 48), and tothe Judgment 
(5 28), seems to have been the ultimate deposit of 
truth and meaning which the prophetic teaching of 
Jesus left with the Apostle John. In his Gospel 
there is no reference whatever to the coming of the 
Son of Man on the clouds of heaven; the place of 
this is taken by the coming of the Spirit, which is 
the same as the coming of Jesus in the Spirit, to 
dwell with His people and to be in them forever 
(Jn chs. 14-16). The tension of perpetual watch- 
fulness (Mt 24 42, 25 13) finds a moral equivalent in 
the sense of the perpetual presence of Jesus. The 
idea of a final Parousia and a spectacular consumma- 
tion of all things is not excluded by Mt 18 20, 28 20; 
Jn 14 23; but it is in some sense held in abeyance 
while yet its motive power is not lost. It is in this 
way also that we must appreciate much of what is 
said in pictorial forms about the Judgment accom- 
panying the Parousia (Mt 16 27, 25 31 ff.) Wherever 
Christ is, men are judged by Him, (Jn 3 17-19, 9 39); 
they gather to His side or are repelled from Him, 
and a day is coming in which it will be apparent 
that this is so, and that it is final. All the most 
solemn and inexorable words about judgment and 
its finality are from the lips of Jesus; it is almost as 
tho no lips but those of love incarnate were at 
liberty to say things so tremendous. 


Jesus Christ 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


450 





III. Closing Scenes. 


17. The Last Days. Reverting from the teaching 
of Jesus to the outline of His life (cf. § 7 ff., above), 
we come now to the closing scenes—the Passion 
week. For all the Evangelists, this begins with 
the processional entry into Jerusalem, in which 
Jesus deliberately acts in the Messianic character. 
We can not be sure that the controversies and 
parables with which the week is filled in the Gospels 
all belong to this visit to Jerusalem, or even to this 
environment. The important events are the Last 
Supper, the prophetic discourses of Jesus as_ re- 
corded in the Synoptics and John respectively, the 
Agony in the Garden, the Betrayal, Trial, Cruci- 
fixion, and Resurrection. 

All Gospel Harmonies and Lives of Jesus show a distribu- 
tion of the events according to days from Palm Sunday to 
Easter Sunday. For an examination of the chronological 
difficulties see Sanday in HDB, II, 633 ff.; Gilbert, Student’s 
Life, 311 ff.; Andrews, Life of Our Lord, 447 ff. The chief 
difficulty is that arising out of the fact that Mk, Mt, and Lk 
clearly regard the Last Supper of Jesus with the Twelve as a 
passover, while in John the passover as obviously is not 
celebrated till the next day; cf. Mk 14 14; Lk 22 15; Jn 13 29. 
18 28. In other words, John puts the Last Supper and the 
Crucifixion a day earlier in the month than the synoptists. 
Yet all four agree in putting the Crucifixion on the same day 
of the week—Friday (Mk 15 43; Mt 27 62; Lk 23 5; Jn 19 14. 
31, 42; ‘preparation’ [mapaoxeunh]=Friday). Of these per- 
plexing phenomena, which may be due conceivably either to 
some confusion in the synoptic tradition—which is virtually 
only one witness—or to some modification of the history in 
Jn under the influence of a theological motive (e.g., to make 
Jesus, as our Paschal Lamb, die at the very hour when the 
Passover was slain), no satisfying, harmonizing explanation 
has ever been offered. The best, as resting on the fullest 
knowledge of Jewish customs and possibilities at the time, 
is that of Chwolson in Das letzte Passahmahl Christi, 1892; see 
also § 11, above. 


When Jesus left the upper room, He went to the 
Mount of Olives and there, in Gethsemane, after the 
Agony, He was betrayed to His enemies by Judas. 
According to Jn (18 12) ‘the (Roman) cohort and 
the tribune’ took part with ‘the servants of the 
Jews’ in the arrest; but this can hardly be historical. 
What follows, on to the sentence of Pilate, is usually 
described as the Trial of Jesus. It has been mi- 
nutely scrutinized in the light of legal and historical 
knowledge. For a critical examination of it, see, 
besides the Lives of Jesus, and Commentaries on the 
Gospels, Brandt, Kritik der evangelischen Geschichte 
(1893); Taylor Innes, The Trial of Jesus Christ 
(1899); Rosadi, Trial and Death of Jesus Christ 
(Eng. transl., 1905). Jesus was taken first before 
Annas, the ex-high priest, who retained great in- 
fluence, and there in the early hours of morning 
subjected to some formal questioning (Jn 18 19) 
and insult (ver. 22). A little later He was passed on 
to the legal high priest, Caiaphas. So John records, 
while the other evangelists bring Him straight from 
Gethsemane to the high priest’s (Caiaphas’, Mt 
26 57) house. As John connects Peter’s denial with 
both scenes (18 17 is in Annas’ house, 18 25—after 
ver. 24—in Caiaphas’; it is probable that there has 
been some displacement here), it would seem that 
the two residences were contiguous, and had a court 
in common. What took place before Caiaphas and 
such members of the Sanhedrin as could be gathered 
together so early (Mk 14 53; Mt 26 57) is usually 
called the Jewish Trial. It ended in the condemna- 


tion of Jesus to death for blasphemy (Mk 14 63 f.; 
Mt 26 65 f.). But what was the blasphemy? Ac- 
cording to Mk and Mt, it was the claim to be the 
Christ, and especially to be the Son of Man who 
should come in the clouds of heaven. This also is 
all that is alluded to by Luke, tho he does not 
call it blasphemy (22 66-71). Many authorities 
hold that it was not blasphemy, and that the real 
blasphemy for which Jesus could be and was con- 
demned was that of saying He would destroy the 
Temple and replace it in three days (Mk 14 58; Mt 
26 61; cf. Ac 6 11-14). This is the view, e.g., of Well- 
hausen. But it is impossible to set aside the direct 
evidence of the synoptic tradition (Mt 26 64 and ||). 
There were many ways in which the memorable 
words of Jesus to the high priest could become 
known to Christians, and there is no difficulty in 
believing that it was some assertion of His personal 
claims which His unscrupulous enemies construed 
as blasphemy (cf. Mt 93and ||). A claim to Messiah- 
ship is not in itself blasphemy, for there must be one 
true claim; but such a claim by such a person as 
Jesus was constructively blasphemy to all whose 
Messianic hopes were irreconcilable with calling 
Him King. But those who condemned Him as 
worthy of death could not carry out their sentence. 
The Roman governor had the power of life and 
death in his own hands, and there had to be a fur- 
ther consultation or conspiracy (Mk 15 1; Mt 27 1) 
to secure his support. This leads to the Roman 
trial. The charge of threatening to destroy and 
rebuild the Temple would have been vain here, and 
it is certain that in substance the charge made 
was political. This is apparent from the title on the 
cross, and from Pilate’s question, ‘Art thou the 
King of the Jews?’ which appears in all the Evan- 
gelists (Mk 15 2; Mt 27 11; Lk 23 3; Jn 18 33). Ina 
sense it was the same charge—that of claiming to 
be Messiah—on which they themselves had con- 
demned Him, but with a difference. In reality, 
Jesus was rejected by His nation and condemned by 
the Sanhedrin because, tho avowing Himself Mes- 
siah in some sublime sense, He refused to do any- 
thing for the national and political ideals which 
they called Messianic; whereas Pilate was asked to 
condemn Him on the ground that, as a claimant of 
the Messianic dignity, He was inevitably a public 
danger (Lk 23 2; Jn 19 12). Nothing could have 
been more unscrupulous or insincere, and Pilate 
saw through it all; but he dreaded an accusation 
at Rome, and after repeated attempts to get rid 
of Jesus—by sending Him to Herod (Lk 23 7), by 
trying to shame the mob into accepting Him, instead 
of Barabbas, as the subject of amnesty at the feast 
(Mt 27 15 f. and ||), by emphatically asserting His 
innocence (Lk 23 22), and even, after the scourging 
and the mockery by the soldiers, appealing to their 
compassion (Jn 19 5)—he finally gave way, and 
delivered Jesus up to their will (Lk 23 25). The 
execution followed immediately upon the sentence 
of Pilate. It is told with most tragic simplicity in 
Mk, which has only one word uttered on the cross 
(15 34=Ps 22 1), no accompanying marvel but the 
three hours’ darkness (ver. 33), and no incident of 
purely spiritual meaning except the rending of the 


451 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jesus Christ 





Temple veil (ver. 38). In Mt the desire to see proph- 
ecy fulfilled has modified a historical detail (cf. 
27 34; Ps 69 21, with the fact in Mk 15 23), and it is 
difficult to believe that in 27 52 ff. we are not in the 
domain of legend. Luke’s Gospel, as usual, has 
preserved all that was touching and pathetic in the 
tradition: the daughters of Jerusalem (23 27 f.), 
the penitent robber and the royal promise of Jesus 
to him (ver. 39 ff.), and the prayers of Jesus Himself 
(vs. 34, 46), not to mention the impression made on 
the multitude (ver. 48). John claims for one incident 
connected with the death of Jesus, to which he 
attached great importance (cf. I Jn 5 6), the author- 
ity of an eye-witness (19 35), and possibly this ex- 
tends to his whole narrative here. He seems to 
have attached special significance to fulfilments 
of prophecy at the cross (19 23 f., 28, 36, 37), and 
perhaps to correspondences between the death of 
Jesus and that of the Paschal Lamb; so that 19 36= 
Ex 12 46, rather than Ps 34 20. All the Evangelists 
record the burial of Jesus by Joseph of Arimathea, 
a member of the Sanhedrin, who had not shared in 
the responsibility for His death. With, him John 
associates Nicodemus (19 39), combining at the same 
time embalming and entombment (ver. 40). 


IV. The Resurrection. 


18. The Resurrection. On the third day after 
He was buried—on the Sunday after the Friday— 
Jesus appeared to His own, and the Christian 
Church was born in faith in His Resurrection. The 
Evangelists are not the oldest nor the most impor- 
tant witnesses for the Resurrection, nor is the 
evidence for it sensibly affected by the difficulty of 
combining their accounts. An older and fuller 
traditon than they yield is preserved in I Co 15 3-8, 
and the essential evidence for the Resurrection must 
always consist of this, and of that which is pointed to 
by Peter in Ac 33; ‘He hath poured forth this, which 
ye see and hear.’ On the one hand, the historical 
testimony of the Apostles—whose function was to 
be witnesses to the Resurrection (Ac 1 22), as their 
qualification was to have seen the Lord (I Co 91)— 
and, on the other hand, the new life, Spirit- 
quickened, both of which are still with us in the N T 
as a whole and in the specifically Christian life of 
the Church, are our assurance that Christ has risen. 
This assurance is quite independent of any per- 
plexities which may arise from the study of the 
Gospel narratives. 

These narratives were composed at a time when 
it was no longer possible to recover exactly the 
notes of place or sequences of time which would 
have enabled the writers to present a story con- 
cordant in all its details; and it may not have been 
their intention to present such a story at all. Their 
literary or practical purpose may have been quite 
different. The following points should be noted: 
(1) All the evangelists represent Jesus as foretelling 
His Resurrection (see § 16 (1), above). (2) Mk and 
Mt agree verbally (Mk 14 27 £.; Mt 26 21 £.) in what 
is virtually a program of the Passion and its sequel: 
‘All ye shall be offended in me [this night]; for it is 
written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep 
shall be scattered abroad. Howbeit [but], after 


I am raised up I will go before you (xpoaEw bd, 
as the shepherd goes before his flock) into Galilee.’ 
(3) In Mt this program is carried out. The risen 
Jesus does not appear to His disciples in Jerusalem; 
on the contrary, first the angel at the tomb (28 7) 
and then Jesus Himself (28 10) intimates to them 
through the women that Galilee is the rendezvous. 
There eventaully they do see Him and receive the 
great commission (28 16). Appearance to the Eleven 
in Jerusalem is clearly and intentionally excluded. 
(4) Mk also, it can hardly be doubted, carried out, 
like Mt, the program announced in 14 28. It is 
expressly referred to in 167, and it is to the present 
writer inconceivable that Mk 167 was not—in the 
original conclusion of the Gospel—carried out as in 
Mt ch. 28. The present conclusion of Mk (16 9-20) is 
secondary, and is based on various passages in Mt 
ch. 28, Lk ch. 24, Jn ch. 20, and Ac (passim). (5) 
While Mk and Mt were originally at one in recording 
only an appearance of Jesus to the Eleven in Galilee, 
Lk proceeds on quite another line. He omits the 
Passion and the Resurrection program of Mk 14 271.; 
Mt 26 31 f. He changes the words spoken to the 
women at the tomb. Tho Galilee is mentioned, 
it is not as the place where Jesus has appointed to 
meet His disciples, but as the place where He was 
when He spoke of His Death and Resurrection 
(Lk 246 f.). In conformity with this, Jesus, who 
has already appeared to Peter and to two disciples 
on the way to Emmaus, appears also on the Resur- 
rection Day to the Eleven and their company in 
Jerusalem (24 36), and after reassuring them as to 
His identity by such material proofs as Lk is partial 
to (vs. 39-43, cf. 3 22; Ac 10 41), forbids them to 
leave the city till they are endued with power from 
on high. Here appearances in Galilee are clearly 
and intentionally excluded. The most natural ex- 
planation of the differences between Mk and Mt on 
the one hand and Lk on the other is that it was no 
part of an Evangelist’s conception of his duty to give 
all the appearances of Jesus, with details of time and 
place. All the Evangelists must have been familiar 
with the tradition summarized in I Co 15 3-8, yet 
all of them ignore it. The idea was rather to give 
one appearance only of Jesus to the Eleven, and to 
impart to that one a representative or universal 
character, by connecting with it, through a great 
commission, the whole significance of the Resurrec- 
tion for the apostolic Church. This is what Mk, 
Mt, and Lk alike do—in substance it is what Jn does 
also in ch. 20—and the key to their treatment of the 
Resurrection is, therefore, theological, or literary, 
rather than historical. As for the divergence be- 
tween Lk and the other Synoptics as to the scene 
of this representative appearance, it is clear that, 
if Jesus appeared in different places—as John shows 
—the scene must be arbitrarily chosen. The Pe- 
trine tradition in Mk*and Mt makes it Galilee, as 
was natural to one who had chiefly associated with 
Jesus there; Lk as naturally makes it Jerusalem, 
for to him, a Gentile believer, Jerusalem, and not 
Galilee, was the native seat of the Christian faith. 
The literature on this subject is inexhaustible, but 
not very profitable. When the possibility of the 
Resurrection is denied, and it is assumed that 


Jesus Christ 


Jew A NEW STANDARD 





apologetic and other impulses produced all that is 
put forward as fact in the Gospels, from the empty 
tomb to the Ascension, in which Jesus withdrew in a 
kind of solemn pomp from His post-resurrection 
intercourse with His disciples, and when attempts 
are made to show how this production of facts 
actually proceeded, the mind has entered a region 
practically without law, in which its operations 
cease to interest. For criticism of this whole area 
cf. Schmiedel in ZB, cols. 4039 ff., and the list of 
English books and articles appended by Moffatt, 
ib. col. 4086 f. Add Meyer, Die Auferstehung 
Christi (1905); Orr, The Resurrection of Jesus (1908), 
and the admirable summary by Chase in Cambridge 
Theological Essays (1905), pp. 393 ff., also Jackson 
and Lake, op. cit., pp, 302-304. 


IV. APPENDED DISCUSSION. 


19. The Birth of Jesus. The Christian religion 
rests on the testimony of the Apostles to Jesus, and 
the area covered by that testimony is that of the 
foregoing paragraphs—‘from the baptism of John 
unto the day that he was received up’ (Ac 1 22). Into 
this testimony the birth of Jesus, His childhood and 
youth, His years as the carpenter of Nazareth, do 
not enter. They are not part of the Gospel which the 
Apostles preached; it is not in them that the revela- 
tion is made which brings redemption to mankind. 
To say this is not to set aside what is properly called 
the Incarnation. The Incarnation means the pres- 
ence of the Divine in the human, and to base our 
faith in it on the apostolic testimony means that 
to become conscious of his presence of the Divine 
in Christ we must look at Christ where, through the 
apostolic testimony, He offers Himself to our eyes— 
that is, in the life which He lived among men, and in 
which He revealed Himself as Son of God, Son of 
Man, and Savior. The Life, Death, and Resurrec- 
tion of Jesus, as covered by the apostolic testimony 
and in particular the mind of Jesus Himself—His 
consciousness of His own unique relation to God and 
to the human race—are the original and sufficient 
basis of Christianity, whether we are, or are not, 
able to answer questions as to the mode in which this 
Jesus, the Person in whom we recognize that God is 
with us, actually came to be—a man among men. 
Apart from the Gospels of Mt and Lk the N T does 
not raise such questions. Mt and Lk do, and they 
agree in representing Jesus as supernaturally born 
of a virgin. The personality of which they speak 
owes its origin to an immediate act of God, an act 
of which we must conceive, not as sexual but as 
creative. It is this act in virtue of which Jesus is 
to the Evangelist ‘Son of God’ (Lk 1 34 f£.). God 
makes the second Adam as truly as He made the 
first; only, not of the dust of the ground, but of the 
common stock of humanity already existing. The 
new humanity, so to speak, is engrafted on the old 
by the direct interposition of God. The way in 
which this is put in Mt and Lk is that Jesus had 
no human father. In the nature of the case there 
can be no question of historical evidence here, as for 
the events of Jesus’ life. The impression such a 
conception as that of the supernatural birth makes 
on us depends on the impression which has already 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


452 





been made by the life and especially by the self- 
consciousness of Jesus. If we are sensible to some- 
thing in Him of which we are compelled to say, 
‘It was not nature nor humanity which produced 
this from its own resources; this is Divine, it is of 
God and of God only,’ the idea may carry evidence 
of its truth along with it, otherwise it will fail to 
impress. The witness of the Evangelists is com- 
plicated by the fact that, while both teach a super- 
natural birth, both give genealogies of Jesus which 
connect Him with David and Abraham, not through 
Mary—tho Weiss and others interpret Lk’s gene- 
alogy in this sense—but through Joseph. However, 
with Joseph He has no connection whatever, and 
hence the genealogies are quite unreal. It is not 
unnatural to suppose that they were drawn up by 
people who wished to demonstrate the Davidic 
descent of Jesus, and were in the habit of thinking 
of Him, as His contemporaries did, as the son of 
Joseph (Mt 13 55; Lk 4 22), and that they were 
adapted by our Evangelists to their use by the modi- 
fications in Mt 1 16; Lk 3 23. It readily occurs to 
one that N T writers, like Paul and John, who 
believed in the preexistence of Christ, and thought 
of His coming from heaven to earth, must have 
conceived of this coming as supernaturally mediated 
(I Co 86; II Co 89; Ro 8 3; Ph2 5; Jn 8 58, 17 5). 
The second Adam, the Eternal Word, can not have 
come into the world in the ordinary course of nature. 
But two considerations make us pause in appealing 
to these Apostles to support Mt and Lk. The first 
is their silence on the subject. John believed in 
Jesus as the Word Incarnate. But, tho he had 
seen the Father in the Son—and it is in words like 
Jn 149 that the true meaning of the incarnation is 
expressed—he raised, so far as appears, no physical 
and no metaphysical question as to the mode of His 
coming. He knew only that we are from beneath, 
and He is from above; that we are in the world and in 
our sins, and that He confronts us in the light and 
life of God for our salvation. How He came to be 
here in this character he never seems to ask. He 
does report sayings referring to preexistence (8 58, 
17 5). If these are authentic, we must not assume 
that there was a continuity of consciousness in 
Jesus; but that, as His claim of Sonship was chal- 
lenged, He gained intuitively the certainty that 
His was a relation to God not begun in time. It is 
the same with Paul—tho one may wonder whether, 
an intimate friend of Luke could be ignorant of 
or indifferent to, Lk chs. 1 and 2. He is interested 
in the motive of Christ’s coming to earth, not 
in its method (Gore on II Co 8 9). The second 
consideration is that Mt and Lk do not at all, like 
Paul and John, conceive of a preexistent Divine 
person coming into the world, Their Gospels con- 
tain no hint of the preexistence of Jesus; His super- 
natural birth is for them the origination of His 
personality. In this respect the Evangelists have no 
contact with the Apostles. The most we can say 
is that as their genealogies connect Jesus with O T 
history, in Lk with universal human history, and 
with the Divine purpose in process of achievement 
there, so the story of the virgin birth connects Him 
with the creative power of God. In both connec- 


453 A NEW STANDARD 


tions there is a great truth. He does fulfil the 

Divine purpose in Hebrew and in human history, 

and He does in some peculiar way come from God; 

but whether the genealogies are accurate, and 

whether the peculiar relation to God involves a 

virgin birth, are questions on which Christian 

faith is not dependent. One of the weightiest 
arguments for the virgin birth is found in the diffi- 
culty of explaining the existence of the story ex- 
cept on the assumption of its truth. It can not 
have been produced in the interest of asceticism, to 
glorify virginity as opposed to marriage. There is 
no trace of this in Mt or Lk, and Mary had other 
children (see BRETHREN OF THE Lorp). It can 
-not have been invented in view of Ps 51 5 to assert 
the sinlessness of Jesus. Sinlessness is not physical 
but moral, and there can be no physical guaranty of 
it. The purity and beauty of the narrative, also, 
as contrasted with the mythological stories of 
antiquity, where the gods are invested with the 
passions of men—stories which have their real 
parallel in the fall of the angels (Gn 61), not in Mt 
and Lk—argue for its truth. In particular, the 
primitive Palestinian character of the hymns, and 
of the whole scenery, characters, and language in Lk 
chs. 1 and 2, is in favor of historicity. It seems to 

exclude Greek influence entirely, and as the idea of a 

Son of God in the physical sense is as repellent to the 

Hebrew as to the Moslem mind, and can not have 

originated spontaneously, the inference is that the 

narrative is based on fact. It is not against this 
that it provides a way of expressing the assurance 
that the life of Christ is throughout Divine. His 
coming into the world is mediated by His mother’s 
faith responsive to, and receptive of, the grace of 

God (Lk 1 30-38). If He was Son of God at all, He 

did not begin to be so at any given age—at twelve 

(Lk 2 49), or at the Baptism (Mk 1 11), or at the 

Transfiguration (9 7), or at the Resurrection (Ac 

13 33; Ro 1 4). He never was anything else. It is in 

harmony with that unique relation to God and man 

which is of the essence of His consciousness, that 
there should be something unique in the mode of 

His entrance into the world as well as in that of His 

leaving it. The possible points in a line of trans- 

mission for Lk’s narrative are suggested by Sanday, 

Expository Times, vol. xiv (1902-3), pp. 296 ff. See 

also Box in Preuschen’s Zeitschrift (1905); Gore’s 

Hssay in his Dissertations (1895); Orr, The Virgin 

Birth of Christ (1905). 

LirERATURE: For the literary and historical criticism of the 
Gospels, see Synoptic GospELs. 

Out of the enormous list of works on the Life and Teach- 
ing of Jesus the following are selected as fairly representa- 
tive of different views and as most helpful to the Bible 
student. 

Lire or Curist: Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ (1905), 
for its summary character; Holtzmann, O., Leben Jesu 
(English translation) (1904), and Weiss, Leben Jesu (English 
translation) (1883), the two best German Lives—Weiss 
supplementing Holtzmann with an Evangelical attitude; 
Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (one-volume 
edition) (1890), for its Jewish background; Garvie, Studies 
in the Inner Life of Jesus (1907), for its presentation of the 
mind of Christ; Smith, David, In the Days of His Flesh 
(1905), for popular presentation of the story; Papini, The 
Story of Christ (1923), for spiritual appreciation of the story; 
Headlam, The Life and Teachings of Jesus Christ (1924), 
the best modern book—tho incomplete as a Life and without 
considerations of vital problems. 


Jesus Christ 
Jew 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Tue THAcHINGS or Jesus: The relevant sections in the N.T. 
Theologics, e.g., of B. Weiss (1896), English translation 
(1883-4); W. Beyschlag (21896), English translation (11895); 
A. Schlatter (1909): Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity 
(Tr. 1903); H. Weinel (1911); P. Feine ($1923); G. B. Stevens 
(1899), Works on the whole or special phases of the Teachings 
of Jesus; H. Wendt, The Teaching of Jesus (tr. 1892); G. H. 
Gilbert, The Revelation of Jesus (1889); A. B. Bruce, The 
Training of the Twelve (1906); A. Harnack, What is 
Christianity (tr. 1901); W. Bousset, Jesus; T. R. Glover, 
The Jesus of History (1916); Chas. Gore, Belief in Christ 
(1923); James Denney, Jesus and the Gospel (1909); F. 
Peabody, Jesus Christ and the Social Question (1901), and 
Jesus Christ and Christian Character (1906); S. Mathews, 
The Social Teaching of Jesus (1897); Simkovitch, Joward 
the Understanding of Jesus; Jenks and Kent, Jesus’ 
Principles of Living (1920); Dougall and Emmett, The Lord 
of Thought (1922); N. Micklem, The Galilean (21921); 
J. R. Seeley, Ecce Homo (1865), a great work of permanent 
significance. J. D.*—A. E. G. 


JETHER, ji’ther (2, yether), ‘abundance’: 
1. In Ex 418 for Jethro, father-in-law of Moses (see 
RVmg.). 2. The first-born son of Gideon, a youth. 
He feared to draw his sword to slay Zebah and 
Zalmunna (Jg 8 20). 3. The Ishmaelite husband of 
Abigail, David’s sister (I Ch 217; in II § 17 25, called 
‘Ithra the Israelite,’ a textual error for Ishmaelite) 
and father of Amasa (I K 2 5, 32). 4, 5. Two men of 
Indah (I Ch 2 32, 417). 6. A man of Asher (I Ch 
7 38). Gisvil. 

JETHETH, ji’theth (0D), yethéth): A clan-chief- 
tain of Edom (Gn 36 40; I Ch 1 51). 

JETHLAH, jeth’la. See IrHuan. 

JETHRO, jeth’rd or ji’thra (9M, yithrd): A 
sheik and priest of the Kenites (Jg 1 16), a Midianit- 
ish tribe among whom Moses found an asylum on 
his flight from Egypt (Ex 2 15 #.). The Israelitish 
leader married Zipporah, a daughter of Jethro, and 
the intimate relationship thus formed brought 
Jethro to the camp of Israel at Rephidim where he 
assisted Moses in organizing the tribes for ad- 
ministrative purposes (Ex ch. 18). There is some 
confusion as to his name in the O T narrative, for 
in’ Ex 2 18 and Nu 10 29 he is called Reuel. (See 
Hosas.) That Jethro and Reuel are names of the 
same person is an explanation as old as the LXX., 
the latter being regarded as an official title. 

UN Re 

JETUR, ji’tor. See EranocrapHy AND Era- 
NOLOGY, § 13, and Iruraaa. 

JEUEL, ji-G’el, jitvel, orFji’u-el (28°92, y*wel): 
1. The ancestral head of a clan of Judah (I Ch 9 8). 
2. A Levite (II Ch 29 13). 3. A leader of Ezra’s 
company (Ezr 8 13). 2 and 3=Jeiel AV. 

JEUSH, ji’ush (W1Y?, y°‘ash), ‘he comes to help’: 
1. A son of Esau by Oholibamah (Gn 36, 5, 14 
[Kethibh, y°%sh], 36 18; I Ch 1 35). 2. A Benjamite 
(I Ch 7 10 [Kethibh, y*‘ish]). 3. A Levitical family 
(I Ch 23 10, 1). 4. A son of Rehoboam (II Ch 11 
19). 5. A Benjamite of the family of Saul (I Ch 8 
30, Jehush AV). Ore Fil be 

JEUZ, ji’oz (V'9?, yedts), ‘He counsels’: A 
Benjamite (I Ch 8 10). 

JEW (TM, yhidhi, Gr. "Iovdatoc): This word 
does not occur in O T literature earlier than the 
period of Jeremiah. It then meant a citizen, or 
subject, of the kingdom of Judah (II K 25 25; 


Jewel 
Job 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


454 





Jer 32 12, 349, etc.). In II K 166 it means Judeans 
in contrast to Syrians (or Edomites?). As early as 
the days of Hezekiah the language of Judah was 
called Jewish (MT), yhidhith). The exiles were 
called Jews because they came from Judah. As these 
exiles from Judah became the main historical repre- 
sentatives of ancient Israel, the term ‘Jew’ became 
equivalent to ‘Israelite,’ and this is its general sense 
in the later literature (cf. its usage in Ezr-Neh, Est, 
Dn, the N T, Josephus, etc.). In the N T there is a 
contrast at times between the Jew (Israelite) and the 
Gentile (Mk 7 3; Jn 26; Ac 10 28; etc.; cf. also Jewess, 
Ac 161, 24 24), or the Samaritan (Jn 4 9), and at 
other times between the Jews and Christ, or Chris- 
tianity (Jn 218; II Co 11 24, etc.). K. E. N. 


JEWEL. See Srones, Precious; and also 
DRESS AND ORNAMENTS, II. 

JEWESS, THE (WM, yhidhiyyah, Jehudijah 
AV): The wife of Mered, the Calebite (I Ch 4 18). 
Her name was Bithiah. She is called ‘the Jewess,’ 
possibly because of the foreign extraction implied in 
her designation ‘daughter of Pharaoh.’ E. E. N. 


JEWRY. A term used three times in AV (Dn 
5 13, ‘Judah’ RV; Lk 23 5 and Ju 71, Judea RV). 

JEZANIAH, jez’’a-nai’a. See JAAZANIAH. 

JEZEBEL, jez’1-bel (732, ‘izebhel): The daughter 
of Ethbaal, King of Tyre, and the wife of Ahab 
(IK 1631). In her own home, she had been educated 
as a zealous Baal-worshiper. As the queen of Ahab 
she not only claimed the right of continuing in her 
ancestral religion, but tried to impose the same 
upon the people of Israel. She succeeded so far 
as to induce Ahab to erect a temple to Baal, and 
import a large retinue of Baal priests (I K 16 32). 
The movement was unflinchingly resisted by the 
prophets of J’’, headed by Elijah. When the latter 
prevailed in the test at Mt. Carmel, she threatened 
him with death, and thus caused his flight and 
temporary retirement from public life. Later, she 
secured Naboth’s vineyard for Ahab by causing its 
owner to be judicially murdered, and confiscating 
his property (I K 217 #.). This brought Elijah once 
more to the front denouncing the crime and pre- 
dicting the speedy punishment both of J. and 
Ahab. The prediction was fulfilled when Ahab died 
from wounds received in battle, and Jehu, after 
his encounter with Joram and Ahaziah, came to 
.Jezreel and demanded the life of J. (II K 9 30 &.). 
The name of Jezebel became in later times the apoc- 
alyptic symbol of seduction to idolatry (Rev 2 20). 

A. C. Z. 

JEZER, ji’zer, JEZERITE, ji’zar-ait (¥2, -TF?, 
yétser, yitsrt): The name of a clan of Naphtali (Gn 
46 24; Nu 26 49; 1 ch 713). See also ABIEZER. 


JEZIAH, ji-zai’a. See Izzran. 


JEZIEL, ji’zi-cl (78'N, yrzi’él): One of David's | 


soldiers (I Ch 12 3). 
JEZLIAH, jez-lai-a. See Iziran. 
JEZOAR, ji-zo’ar. See IzHar. 
JEZRAHIAH, jez’’ra-hai’a. See IzRantan. 
JEZREEL, jez’ri-el (28D IP, yizre‘e’l), ‘God sow- 
eth’: I. 1. A descendant of Judah (I Ch 4 3). Per- 


haps a place-name, cf. No. 1 under II. 2. The name 
of the first-born of Hosea the prophet (Hos 1 4; see 
Hossa). II. 1. A place in Judah, near Carmel (Jos 
15 56; I S 25 43; probably also I Ch 4 3). David's 
wife Ahinoam, the Jezreelitess, probably came from 
this place (I S 27 3, 305; ILS 2 2, etc.). Map II, 
E 3. 2. A town E. of the great plain of Esdraelon, 
formerly identified as modern Zer‘in, now considered 
of doubtful location, Map IV, C 8. The 
deep vale (valley of Jezreel) that led down from 
Jezreel to the Jordan was the gateway for the 
tribes of the desert, attracted by the rich harvests of 
the plain. Upon such a motley horde, Gideon’s 
little band fell like a thunderbolt from the heights 
above Jezreel (Jg 6 33-7 23). There are no certain 
references to Jezreel as a fortress until Ahab’s day, 
when with Samaria it was made a royal residence 
with a palace and strong towers (I K 18 45 f.,211f.). 
From the E. tower Jehu was seen coming up from 
the Jordan, and here Jehoram and Jezebel met their 
death (II K 8 29, 9 10-10 11). The horror at Jehu’s 
bloody deed was echoed later in the prediction of 
judgment to come on Jehu’s house (Hos 1 4). 
A. 8. C.*—O. R. S. 

JIBSAM, jib’sam. See Ipsam. 

JIDLAPH, jid‘laf (121, yidhlaph): The ancestral 
head of a Nahorite clan (Gn 22 22). 

JIMNA, jim’na, JIMNAH, jim’nd, JIMNITE, 
jim’nait. See ImMna, Imnaun. 

JIPHTHAHEL, jif’tha-el’’. See IpHtTarn 

JIPTAH, jif’ta. See I[ppran. 

JOAB, jo’ab (ANY, yd’abh), ‘J’ is father’: 1. 
The son of David’s sister Zeruiah and general-in- 
chief of David’s armies (II S 20 23). His appear- 
ance in public life coincides with David’s struggle 
for the throne against Abner and the forces of 
Ishbosheth. When Abner transferred his allegiance 
to David, J. murdered him with his own hand, 
taking vengeance for the death of his brother Asahel 
(II S 3 27). J. had charge of David’s military 
operations and conquered the Syrians (II S 10 13) 
and the Ammonites (II S 11 1), whose capital, 
Rabbah, he besieged, but refrained from taking the 
citadel, in order to afford David himself the glory 
of storming it. He also conquered the Edomites 
(I K 11 15). J. was thus one of the chief factors in 
the creation of David’s empire. When David 
wished to have Uriah out of the way, that he might 
marry Bathsheba, it was J. who was entrusted with 
the task (II S 11 14). In the affair of Absalom’s 
rebellion, J., altho previously kindly disposed to- 
ward Absalom, was loyal to David, and afterward 
dealt with the rebellious son with a strong hand (II 
S 13 1-18 33). He also met the revolt of Sheba 
(altho the command in this case had been 
given to Amasa, whom J. treacherously murdered), 
and promptly put it down. At the end of David’s 
reign, J. espoused the cause of Adonijah,who claimed 
the succession, and was slain by Benaiah at the 
command of Solomon (I K 2 34). 2. A Judahite, 
descendant of Caleb (I Ch 254 AV). 3. The son of 
Seraiah (I Ch 4 14). 4. The founder of a family 
names of members of which occur in the list of the 
returned exiles (Ezr 2 6,89; Neh 711). A.C. Z, 


455 A NEW STANDARD 


JOAH, jo’a (M81, yd’ah), ‘J’ is brother’: 1. An 
officer under Hezekiah (II K 18 18, 26; Is 36 3 f.). 
2. A Levite (I Ch 6 21; II Ch 29 12). 3. A door- 
keeper (I Ch 26 4). 4. An officer under Josiah (II 
Ch 34 8). 

JOAHAZ, jo’a-haz (N81, yd’ahdaz), ‘J’ strength- 
ens’: The father of Joah (II Ch 34 8). See also 
JEHOAHAZ. 


JOANAN, jo-an’en (‘Iwavéy, Joanna AV): An 
ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 27). 


JOANNA, jo-an’a (lwéwa): The wife of Chuza, 
superintendent of the estates and household affairs 
of Herod Antipas. She became a faithful disciple 
of Jesus, helped Him with her means, and accom- 
panied Him from Galilee to Jerusalem. She was 
also one of the women who went to the tomb in- 
tending to embalm the body of Jesus, and there re- 
ceived the message of His resurrection (Lk 8 3, 2410). 

E. BE. N. 


JOASH, jo’ash (UNV, YN’, yo’dsh), a shorter 
form of Jehoash: 1. The father of Gideon (Jg 
6 11). The narratives in Jg chs. 6-8 represent J. 
as a man of rank and influence notwithstanding 
Gideon’s words (Jg 6 15). He was of the Abiez- 
rite clan of Manasseh, the owner of a holy tree 
(Jg 6 11) and proprietor of the altar of Baal in 
Ophrah (Jg 6 29-31). Jg 6 31 represents him as giving 
Gideon the name of Jerubbaal. 2. A son of King 
Ahab, who perhaps represented the king in Samaria, 
during his absence on the field of battle. Ahab sent 
the prophet Micaiah, after he had prophesied un- 
favorably, to J. to be put in prison (I K 22 26 f.; II 
Ch 18 25). Some are of the opinion that ‘king’s 
son’ is a title. 3. A descendant of Judah (I Ch 
4 22). 4. A Benjamite who joined David at Ziklag 
(I Ch 12 3). 5. A king of Israel (the third King of 
the Jehu dynasty), 799-784 B.c. (II K 13 10-25, 
148-16), also called Jehoash; J. appears to have had a 
successful reign. The long conflict with Syria, in 
which, in the reigns of his father and grandfather, 
Israel had been brought to the verge of destruction 
(ef. II K 18 7) turned in Israel’s favor (II K 13 5, 
22-25), due to pressure on Syria by Assyria. J. was 
encouraged in this struggle by the aged prophet 
Elisha, the friend of the dynasty and foe of Syria 
(cf. II K 13 14-19). J. also accepted (tho unwillingly) 
the challenge of Amaziah of Judah and successfully 
defeated A. and capturing and despoilng Jeru- 
salem (II K 14 8-14). 6. A King of Judah; see 
JEHOASH. C.S. T.—E. E.N. 

JOASH (YY, yd‘dsh), ‘J’ hath aided’ (?): 1. A 
Benjamite, son of Becher (I Ch 7 8). 2. A man in 
charge of David’s oil-cellars (I Ch 27 28). C.S. T. 

JOATHAM, jo’a-tham. See JorHam. 

« JOB: A pr. n. in Gn 4613 AV. See Ios. 

JOB, job (28, ’tydbh), meaning unknown. An 
ancient patriarch, hero of the book bearing his 
name. 

1. The Job of Popular Story. The Book of Job 
is highly composite, and can be most intelligibly 
handled by tracing historically its probable origin 
and growth. (1) The Hebrews had a story of a 
Job, righteous and holding by God in an evil 


Jewel 
Job 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
generation (Ezk 14 14, 20), a prophet (probably) 
and upright (Sir 49 9), and patient (Ja 511). Later 
still in legend and comment the same ideas are 
found attaching to the name. (2) On the evidence 
of the book itself there existed a prose story of 
Job, the beginning and end of which form the 
present Prolog (chs. 1, 2) and Epilog (42 7, end); 
the middle has been removed. This story told of 
Job’s trial by God at the instance of the Satan (‘the 
Accuser’)—how he was tempted by his wife and 
withstood her—how his friends spoke unseemly 
things of God, but he did not, remaining patient 
and upright—how the Lord appeared and rebuked 
the friends, praised Job for his constancy, and 
restored unto him double. It had been shown that 
Job would serve God for naught, and it was sug- 
gested that the apparently unmerited afflictions of 
the righteous might all be such trials as this. The 
evidence for this isin the Epilog with its blame of 
the friends and praise of Job and its crude restitu- 
tion, and in the current Hebrew views of Job in 
(1) above. Of the source of this story there are two 
possibilities: one that it was a pure folk-tale, of 
popular origin, for edifying amusement; the other 
that it was a bit of the Wisdom literature, carefully 
told by a wise man for a purpose, 7.e., to explain 
the misfortunes of the righteous. On the first 
hypothesis it was like the stories of Elijah and 
Elisha; on the second, like the Book of Jonah. The 
probabilities are with the second, and it may even 
have been constructed to suggest an explanation 
to the people of their misfortunes. It may well be 
that the Prolog at least had been rewritten by the 
Poet for his own purposes. In any case a folk-tale 
lies behind. 


2. The Use Made of This Story by the Poet. 
Chs. 3-31. But the Job of this story was a quite 
impossibly stolid and wooden figure. No real man 
could have behaved so. A poet then appeared who 
took this figure and situation and humanized them. 
We are no longer to have a puppet representative 
of the oppressed righteous but a great living tragic 
figure. The change begins with the friends of Job. 
They sit now in silent sympathy, but thinking their 
own thoughts, which are thereafter to make them 
the ‘Job’s comforters’ of all time. Under their eyes 
Job, now human, breaks down and curses the day 
of his birth which brought him to this pass (ch. 3). 
He is conscious of no sin meriting such punishment 
and would have recoiled in horror from a God who 
made such a bargain in flesh and blood with the 
Satan as had passed in heaven. The God he had 
known was not such a God, and thus he could not 
explain what had befallen him. The tragedy is to be 
his awakening to the real God, and to an indepen- 
dent sense of right within himself to which he must 
hold. This is developed in the colloquies with his 
friends which follow in three cycles, the last incom- 
plete, of six speeches each, one by each friend with a 
reply from Job (chs. 4-27). In these the friends, too 
develop. Their first view is that Job’s suffering 
is intended to awaken him and lead him away from 
sin; soon, however, they conclude that it is absolute 
punishment for gross sin. In Job himself two 
ideas war—and if the book is a drama this is its 





ee A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY ase 
action—the remembrance of his past loving inter- | Nahor, brother of Abraham (Gn 22 21). All the 


course with God and his idea of justice. He is led 
to look around on the world, and he sees that there 
injustice seems to triumph even as in his case. He 
is driven to the conclusion that the rule of the world 
is non-moral. If God would only appear and explain; 
but let Him not come in awful might and in a whirl- 
wind to crush him (917). So he tries to divide God 
into Him of the past and Him of the present, and to 
the first he makes appeal. The details of the long 
discussion we need not follow. There is much repeti- 
tion, but also a steady development. We can see 
two sides to the artist. He was creating a great 
tragic character and in so doing was working at 
one of the greatest human problems. But he was 
a Semitic artist also, and loved brilliant words and 
pictures for themselves. These, often, are weari- 
some and do not appeal to us. His problem he 
did not solve; his tragedy did not reach ‘reconcili- 
ation.’ Perhaps he could not; certainly the defec- 
tive sense of structure in the Semitic mind stood 
in his way. Ch. 24'is very disjointed; ch. 25 is a 
very short speech by Bildad; ch. 26 an equally short 
reply by Job; 27 1-6, a continuation by Job; 27 7-end, 
is in the tone of the friends, and may be Zophar’s 
last speech; ch. 28 is a poem apart, telling that man 
can reach anything in the earth except Wisdom— 
this God has kept for Himself; chs. 29-31 are a 
final clearing of himself by Job. So far certainly, 
except for ch. 28 and stray verses interpolated, we 
have the great unknown poet. 


3. The Speech of Elihu (Chs. 32-37) and Chs. 
38-42. Chs. 32-37 are the speech of Elihu, an un- 
doubted interpolation to supplement the supposedly 
imperfect defense of God by the friends. In reality 
it repeats, and adds nothing. Artistically, too, it is 
inferior. Then, chs. 38-41 give a long and disjointed 
speech by God out of a whirlwind, broken (40 3-5) 
and followed (42 1-6) by very humble withdrawals 
of everything by Job. Finally, we have the Epilog 
referred to above. 


4. The Problem of the Book. The problem is the 
relation of these parts. This problem is twofold: 
(a) Is this dénouement the work of the Poet? If so, 
it is the most terrific irony and puts the author in 
the position of the author of Ec, only in open revolt. 
God crushes Job with His wisdom and might, but 
does not solve his moral problem. At most, He 
exhibits to him the esthetic anodyne of nature. 
God’s attitude here is much the same as in ch. 28. 
Beyond this, His position is essentially that of the 
friends; but they had no whirlwind and storm. The 
fact that the poetry in this speech is quite as 
magnificent as that of the colloquies and a com- 
parison of this with 9 17, where such a divine 
method of, crushing him is deprecated by J., suggests 
that the speech may be by the Poet. If not, it must 
have been written, and by some other great poet, to 
make a suitable transition to the Epilog—a theory 
beset by difficulties. But (b) the problem of the 

_Elihu speech may suggest a different result. The 
author of this speech certainly expresses his own 
‘mind. He does not create Elihu; he speaks through 
him. Also he fits him to the patriarchal scheme; 
Job is from Uz; Elihu is from Buz; both sons of 


names in the book, apart from Job, belong to 
side-lines of the patriarchal genealogies, except 
Barachel (‘God [’#I] blesses’) and Elihu (‘He is 
my God’). These meanings indicate an attitude 
and can not be accidental. ‘Elihu,’ then, considered 
that Job was wrong, but that the friends had failed 
to answer him. He tries, and practically repeats 
them; his position and theirs are one. But this 
is also the same as the position taken in the speech 
of the Lord. In what condition, then, did the book 
lie before ‘Elihu’? It is hard to think that he would 
have written as he did, if it had been complete 
except for his speech. The Lord’s condemnation 
of the friends and praise of Job would have pre- 
vented. His position would have been to condemn 
the whole book as profane. And even if the book 
had ended for him with 42 6, 7.e., had only contained 
the speech of the Lord and Job’s submission, but no . 
condemnation of the friends, the speech of the Lord 
would have satisfied him that he could not write 
anything further. Apparently, then, he added his 
protest to a copy which ended with ‘The words of 
Job are ended’ (81 40). This means that the speech 
of the Lord is not by the Poet of the colloquies. 
Again there is an essential difference of attitude 
between the speech of the Lord and all the other 
parts of the book. In that speech man is treated as 
simply one element in this manifold world; it could 
exist without him and the Lord is equally interested 
in the sprouting grass and the creatures of the wild 
nature where man has never been. Everywhere 
else in the book, the world, explicitly or tacitly, 
exists for the sake of man. Further, it can hardly 
be doubted that the Poet would have rejected 
with scorn the essential argument in that speech 
that because J. admittedly could not control and 
rule the world any more righteously than the Lord, 
or even at all, he had no right to criticize the Lord’s 
rule as faulty. From the Poet this could only have 
been the irony of (a), above. These critical results 
(a and b) can only be left face to face: the problem 
is still unsolved. But the balance distinctly inclines 
in favor of (b). 

Another question may be raised. Could the Poet 
of the colloquies have reached a ‘reconciliation,’ 
starting as he did? (a) If the Lord had appeared, 
not in storm but calmly, and had said to Job, ‘What 
you have said is true, and what your friends have 
said is not true. But you knew me as your friend 
in the past; can you not trust me now? Consider 
this sense of justice in yourself which you say I 
violate. Did I not make you and it? Must it 
not be in me also?’ Strangely, no Hebrew writer 
seeks refuge in this last idea, neither the author of 
Ee nor this Poet. But the latter could not. The 
Prolog stood there with the story of the Satan, and 
how Job was being sacrificed for naught (2 3). (b) 
Would a vision of spiritual immortality and recom- 
pense have satisfied Job? Almost certainly such a 
thought was current in his time (it is the thought, 
in one form or another, of all Apocalyptic), but 
could not help him in the position he ultimately 
reached. The burden of the painful earth, full of 
wrong and injustice, was on him and could not be 


457 A NEW STANDARD 


lifted by such a bribe. Also, it was vindication here 
that he demanded. It is hard to see, then, how the 
Poet could have loosed his knot; the prose tale 
had tied it too hard. Finally, if we imagine that 
Goethe had died before finishing his ‘Faust,’ leaving 
the first part published, the second part unarranged, 
with the parallel passages uncanceled, and the dé- 
nouement unwritten, and then that some mechan- 
ical editor had taken it all, strung it together 
and ended it with the end of the Volksbuch 
of Faust, we shall have a rough external parallel to 
the present state of the Book of Job. Whether 
this parallel will lead or mislead us as to its origin 
is still the question. That several authors worked 
at the problem in succession seems to be certain. 

5. Date. The date obviously can not ke fixed. 
The separate elements may scatter anywhere from 
the late 7th to the 4th cent. B.c. Job himself, 
probably, is a figure from the earliest popular 
legend and, whether historical or not, well served 
the purpose of the author. 

LireraturEeE: None of the English versions is even remotely 
adequate. The best guide, in exegesis, for the English reader 
is Davidson in the Cambridge Bible. But he is timid in hand- 
ling results, and may be supplemented by the extremely 
suggestive article by Cheyne in HB. A full bibliography 
will be found there. The com. of A. S. Peake (New Century 
Bible) will also be found useful. More recently several good 
technical commentaries have appeared: James Strahan (1914); 
S. R. Driver and G. B. Gray (2 vols., ICC, 1921); C. J. 
Ball (1922); M. Buttenwieser (1922). D. B. M. 
JOBAB, jo/bab (237, ydbhabh): 1. One of the 

sons of Joktan (Gn 10 29; I Ch 1 23). The sons of 

Joktan were a tribe of Semites allied to the Sabe- 

ans, whose inscriptions contain the name yuhaibab 

(Glaser, Skizze, II. 303; and Mittheilungen, 3 ff. 

See ErHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13). 2. The 

second king of Edom (Gn 36 33). 3. A king of Madon 

(Jos 111). 4. A Benjamite (I Ch 89). 5. Another 

Benjamite (I Ch 8 18). A. C. Z. 


JOCHEBED, jok’i-bed (1291, yokhebhedh), ‘J’ 
is glory’: The wife of Amram, and the mother 
of Aaron and Moses (Ex 6 20; Nu 26 59, P). In the 


old document E she is designated, not by name, 
but as ‘the daughter of Levi’ (Hx 21). E. EH. N. 


JODA, jo’da (1wsé, Juda AV): An ancestor of 
Jesus (Lk 3 26). 

JOED, jo’ed (71¥V, yd‘edh): A Benjamite (Neh 
1h) 

JOEL, ja’el(?8", yo’al),‘J” is God’ (?): 1.One of the 
so called minor prophets. See Jorn (the Prophet). 
2. The eldest son of Samuel (I S 8 2; I Ch 6 33 [18] 
RV, 6 28 [13]). 3. An ancestor of Samuel (I Ch 
6 36 [21], called Shaul in 6 24 [9]). 4. A Reubenite 
of Aroer (I Ch 5 4, 8). 5. A Levite (I Ch 157, 11, 17). 
6. A Levite (I Ch 23 8, 26 22). 7. A Levite (II Ch 
29 12). 8 A Gadite (I Ch 512). 9. A Simeonite 
prince (I Ch 4 35). 10. A chief of Issachar (I Ch 
73). 11. One of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 38). 12. A 
chief of Manasseh (I Ch 27 20). 13. One who had a 
foreign wife (Ezr 10 43). 14. A Benjamite over- 
seer (Neh 11 9). Ou bk: 


JOEL, joel (P78, ya’al), I” is God’ (?). 1. The 
Prophet. Son of Pethuel, and one of the minor 
prophets. Of his personality nothing is known 


Job 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Tel 


except that his ministry was exercised in Judea, 
and more particularly in Jerusalem. It is clear also 
that he was a man of great moral force and insight. 
2. Contents of the Book. The Book of Joel 
consists of three discourses. The first two are 
addressed to the people by the prophet himself 
(1 2-2 17); the third is represented as spoken by J’”’ 
(2 18-3 21). The first two discourses (1 2-20 and 
2 1-17) are upon the same subject—the invasion of 
the country by a plague of locusts. In the first, 
the announcement of the calamity is followed by a 
call to recognize in it God’s judgment. The second 
enters into a highly picturesque description 
of the army of locusts. The third discourse in 
the book presents J’’ as giving His word of promise 
that His blessing would yet be bestowed upon the 
distressed land (2 18-3 21). 
_ 3. The Locusts. The subject throughout is the 
plague of locusts. Whether this means literal locusts 
or must be figuratively taken, and if figuratively, 
whether it is an allegory or an apocalyptic descrip- 
tion have been much-mooted questions. If the 
representation is an allegory, the locusts stand for 
hordes of enemies overrunning the country and 
leaving ruin and devastation all along their track. 
If it is an apocalyptic vision, they are the emblems 
of world-forces which would appear in the last 
days. But neither of these interpretations is satis- 
factory. They create more difficulties than they 
explain. All the conditions of the prophet’s de- 
scription are best met by the assumption of a plain, 
matter-of-fact pest of actual locusts. 


4. Date: Early? The historical situation por- 
trayed is so void of the coloring, either of the 
Assyrian period (c. 800-650 B.c.) or the Babylonian 
(c. 650-538) that it is necessary to locate Joel’s 
ministry either in the 9th cent. B.c. or in the 4th 
(possibly later). The place of the book in the Canon 
certainly reflects an ancient opinion that Joel was 
one of the earlier prophets of Israel, approximately 
of the same date as Hosea and Amos. All the other 
considerations, however, adduced in support of this 
view are of the nature of efforts to remove diffi- 
culties and objections to it, or to combat the 
alternate view of a postexilic date. 


5. Date: Postexilic? In favor of the postexilic 
date stand the following considerations: (1) The 
kingdom of the Ten Tribes is not within the 
prophet’s horizon. Whenever he uses the name 
Israel, he means Judah (cf. 2 27, 3 2, 16). (2) The 
people are scattered among the nations (3 2). (3) 
Jerusalem was not to be molested by strangers 
any more (3 17); which indicates that at the time 
of the writing it was, or had been, subject to such 
molestation. (4) On the other hand, the city was 
not in the hands of strangers, for the Temple 
service was in active observance. This is evident 
from the numerous allusions to priests and sacri- 
fices (1 9, 13, 2 14, 17), which, however, are inter- 
rupted, because of the ravages of the locust plague. 
Even the house of J’ is specifically mentioned 
(114). (5) The walls of the city were either stand- 
ing, as before the capture by Nebuchadrezzar in 
586, or as rebuilt by Nehemiah, preferably the latter 
(29). (6) Altho the allusion to the Grecians (3 6) 


Joelah 
John the Apostle 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


458 


wee. te aS 


may be a reference to sporadic cases of the subjec- 
tion of Hebrews to bondage and their sale as slaves, 
it is not likely that such individual occurrences 
could have attracted attention and been made the 
subject of public discussion, except as the Jews 
came to realize the important menace to their 
national life in the growth of the Macedonian power. 
(7) The style and diction of Joel presuppose the 
earlier prophets. His language is smooth as if the 
use of centuries had had its effect upon literary 
expression. It also contains some echoes of the 
earlier prophets (Am 1 2=J1 3 16; Am 9 13=Jl 3 18; 
Ob 17 =Jl 2 32; Ezk 471=J13 18). Accordingly, the 
most recent scholarship is almost unanimous in 
assigning Joel a postexilic date and more especially 
the 4th cent. B.c. An exception to this is 
Baudissin’s exposition of reasons for a preexilic date. 
6. Religious Thought. The religious thought of 
Joel centers very largely around the idea of the 
visitation of judgment by J’. From this general 
thesis suggested by the calamity of the locusts, the 
prophet rises to the portraiture of the Great Day 
of J’’. He sees the principles underlying God’s 
dealings with Israel in their world-wide application, 
and predicts the outpouring of the Spirit upon ‘all 
flesh’ which is recognized in the N T as finding its 
fulfilment at Pentecost (Ac 2 16 #.). His general 
attitude too is inward and spiritual (cf. ‘Rend your 
hearts and not your garments’ 2 13). 
LirTERATURE: Driver, LOT (91899), pp. 307 ff. (also in Camb. 


Bible) (1897); G. A. Smith, in Hzpositor’s Bible (1898); 
Horton in New Century Bible; Bewer, J. A., in ICC (1911). 
A. C. Z. 


JOELAH, jo-i/la (M2NYV, yoe’lah): One of Da- 
vid’s soldiers (I Ch 12 7). 

JOEZER, jo-i’zar (UVP, yd‘ezer), ‘J’ is help’: 
One of David’s warriors (I Ch 12 6). 

JOGBEHAH, jeg’bi-ha (TIAN, yoghbehah), ‘ex- 
alted’ (?): A fortified city in Gad (Nu 382 35; Jg 8 11). 
It is the modern Khirbet-Agbéhat, NW. of ‘Ammén, 
about midway between that place and es-Salt. 
Map III, J 4. PS. 0. 

JOGLI, jeg’lai C22, yoghit), ‘exiled’: A Danite 
(Nu 34 22). 

JOHA, jo’ha (SMV, yoha’): 1. One of David’s 
soldiers (I Ch 11 45). 2. A Benjamite (I Ch 8 16). 

JOHANAN, jo-hé’nen (129), yohdndn, shortened 
from y’hohdnadn, the Heb. equivalent of John), 
‘J’ is gracious’: 1. A captain, apparently of an 
escaped remnant of Zedekiah’s army, who sub- 
mitted to Gedaliah, the governor appointed by 
Nebuchadrezzar, and opposed the conspirator Ish- 
mael. After Gedaliah was assassinated, he was one 
of the leaders who, contrary to Jeremiah’s counsel, 
led the remnant down into Egypt, taking the 
prophet with them (I K 25 23; Jer 40 8-43 5). 2. The 
eldest son of Josiah, King of Judah (I Ch 3 15). 
3. A descendant of David (I Ch 3 24). 4. A Levite 
(I Ch 69 f.). 5, 6. Two of David’s soldiers (I Ch 
12 4,12). 7. An Ephraimite (II Ch 28 12). 8. One of 
the leaders in Ezra’s company (Ezr 8 12). 9. A 
high priest, the predecessor of Jaddua, the con- 
temporary of Alexander the Great (Neh 12 221.) 
This J. is also mentioned on the papyri recently dis- 


covered at Elephantine, Egypt. Here we learn that 
J. was High-priest in the 17th year of Darius II 
(i.e, 408 B.c.), and to him, among others, the 
Elephantine Jews appealed for help in getting 
their case against their Egyptian neighbors to the 
attention of the Persian officials (see Cowley, 
Aram. Papyri of the Fifth Century, No. 30). The 
same J. is also mentioned in Josephus (Ant. XI, 
7 1) as having trouble with the Persian Governor 
because he (J.) slew his brother in the Temple. 
See also JEHOHANAN. HK. E.N. 
JOHN (of the Sanhedrin): The John mentioned 
in Ac 4 6, as being in the gathering of the Sanhedrin 
hurriedly summoned to take action against the 
rapid influence among the people of the teachings 
of the disciples of Jesus. Nothing is known regard- 
ing him. Lightfoot’s attempt to identify him with 
the famous Johanan ben Zacchai, president of the 
Great Synagog at Jamnia, is not convincing. 
M. W. J. 
JOHN (the father of Simon Peter): The name 
is variously spelled in different MSS. and VV. In 
Mt 16 17 the undisputed reading is [Bao]twva, 
rendered Jona (AV) and Jonah (RV). But in Jn 
1 43 (§B*L) and in Jn 21 15 ff. (§ BD) the best 
attested reading is "Iwkwys (Jonas AV). While 
it is possible, as Chase suggests (HDB, vol. II, p. 
677a), that the father of Simon had a double name, 
Jona-Jochanan or Jona-Johannes, the variation is 
more likely to be due to the freedom with which 
Gr. writers rendered the Heb. Yohanan. The LXX., 
e.g., in II K 25 23, has ’Iwvé; in Jer 47 (=ch. 40 
in Heb.) 8, *Iwvév; and in II Ch 28 i2, ’Iwéyvqe. 
Nothing is known of this John beyond his relation- 
ship to Simon and Andrew. J aveL 


JOHN THE APOSTLE (’Iwéwys): The son of 
Zebedee (Mk 1 19) and Salome (cf. Mt 27 56 with 
Mk 15 40), the brother of James, and, with him, 
one of the Apostles (Mk 3 17and ||s). These brothers 
may have been cousins of Jesus (see JAmzEs, 1). 
The first distinct mention of him is in Jesus’ call of 
the four fishermen at the Sea of Galilee to His 
discipleship (Mk 1 16-20 and ||s). His home was 
most likely in Capernaum, and his family perhaps 
one of means (see JAMES, 1). 

Throughout the Synoptic narrative J. appears as 
one of the intimate disciples of Jesus (at the raising 
of Jairus’ daughter, Mk 5 37 and ||s; at the Trans- 
figuration, Mk 9 2 and ||s; at the agony in Gethsem- 
ane, Mk 14 33 and; ||s with Andrew also, at the last 
teaching before the Passion, Mk 13 3, and with Peter 
alone in the preparation for the Last Supper, Lk 
22 8), and was doubtless, with his brother, promi- 
nent among those whom Jesus chose specially for 
his service (see JAMES, 1). The name ‘Boanerges’ 
(q.v.), referred to by Mark in his list of the Apostles 
as given to the brothers by Jesus (3 17), was doubt- 
less suggested later by some such incident as that 
referred to in Lk 9 51 ff., in agreement with which is 
the spirit of John’s action in the case of the man, 
outside the discipleship, who was casting out demons 
in Jesus’ name (Mk 9 38f. and ||s). It may have been 
because of the above possible relationship of these 
brothers to Jesus and their acknowledged intimacy 
with Him that their mother requested special 


459 A NEW STANDARD 





honors for them in the coming Messianic Kingdom 
(Mt 20 20 ff.), or their impetuous character may 
have been largely responsible for the request, if it 
did not lead them to present it first themselves 
(cf. Mk 10 35 f.). 

Tho J. seems in the Synoptic narrative to have 
been equally pronounced with his brother in im- 
petuous and ambitious characteristics, he does not 
appear from the record of Ac to have developed 
into the same aggressiveness in the propaganda of 
the new religion; for when Herod laid his persecuting 
hand on the Church James was the first object of his 
cruelty. At the same time, he is mentioned with 
Peter twice in the public life of the Jerusalem 
Church (Ac 3 1-11 [with 4 1-23], 8 14-25), tho in each 
case Peter precedes him in word and action. Further- 
more, Paul refers to him in his account of the 
Council as, along with Peter and James, one of the 
‘pillars’ of Jewish Christendom, tho his name is the 
last of the three (Gal 2 9). 

If to this record in Ac and the Synoptics there be 
added the references to himself by the author, or 
the editors, of the Fourth Gospel as applying to 
this Apostle, as we believe they do (see JouHN, 
GosPEL or, §§ 2-4), these milder characteristics of 
the man are more fully brought to light. In this 
Gospel he is first mentioned in connection with the 
coming to Jesus of disciples of the Baptist for per- 
sonal acquaintance (1 35-40). At the close of Jesus’ 
ministry, at the Last Supper, he reclined at the 
table in front of the Master and, at Peter’s sug- 
gestion, asked Him who it was that should betray 
Him (13 23-25). It is he also through whose acquaint- 
ance with the high priest Peter was admitted to the 
court of Caiaphas’ house (18 16), and to whom at 
the cross Jesus committed the care of His mother 
(19 26). He and Peter were the first of the disciple 
band to receive the announcement from the 
women of the open tomb and to investigate the 
facts (20 1-10). In the closing chapter of the Gospel 
he figures prominently in Jesus’ revelation of 
Himself at the Sea of Galilee. He was the first to 
recognize the Master (ver. 7), and received from 
Him an intimation of the long-continued service 
he was to render to His cause (vs. 20-23). 

The tradition which attaches itself to the name of 
the Apostle John is considerable in extent. In brief, 
it gives us to understand that his later life was 
passed in missionary activity in Ephesus and the 
surrounding region; that in the persecution of Domi- 
tian (81-96 a.p.) he suffered banishment to the island 
of Patmos, from which exile, on the accession of 
Nerva (96 4.p.), he returned to Ephesus, where he 
continued to live and work until his death in the 
reign of Trajan (98-117 a.p.). The chief witnesses 
for this tradition are Irenzeus, Polycrates of Ephesus, 
and Clement of Alexandria. In their corroborative 
support of one another they would appear to furnish 
us reliable facts. The credibility of their statement 
has been assailed however, on the basis that they 
confuse the Apostle John with another John, known 
as the Presbyter John, whose existence and im- 
portance are claimed to be proved by the statement 
of Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, in the prolog 
to his expository work on the Oracles of the Lord, 


Joelah 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Fouat tha A doatle 


preserved by Eusebius (HE, ITI, 39). In this state- 
ment, however, Papias may not be distinguishing 
between two Johns, one of whom he classes with 
the Apostles, Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, 
James, and Matthew, and the other with the 
disciple Aristion. As given in Eusebius, his state- 
ment reads as follows: 

‘But I shall not hesitate also to put down for you, along 
with my interpretations, whatever things I have at any time 
learned carefully from the Elders (moecitepot) and care- 
fully remembered, guaranteeing their truth. For I did not, 
like the multitude, take pleasure in those that speak much, 
but in those that teach the truth; not in those that relate strange 
commandments, but in those that deliver the commandments 
given by the Lord to faith, and springing from truth itself. 
If then any one came who had been a follower of the Elders 
(weeoBUteeot) I questioned him in regard to the words of the 
Elders—what Andrew or what Peter said (e{xev), or what 
Philip, or what Thomas, or James, or what John, or Matthew, 
or any other of the disciples of the Lord said, and what things 
Aristion and the Elder (xpecBitepoc¢) John, the disciples 
of the Lord say (Aéyousty). For I did not think that what 
was to be gathered from books would profit me as much as 
what comes from the living and abiding voice.’ 

From the wording of the statement it is quite 
possible that the distinction Papias is making may 
not be between an Apostle John and an Elder John 
—the John in both groups is an Elder, and Elder 
would naturally have the same meaning in both 
groups—but between the classes of people from 
whom he sought his information (1) The first 
class would comprise those who had heard the 
words of the Elders, Andrew, Peter, Philip, Thomas, 
James, John, Matthew, and of necessity had been 
long in Palestine where these Elders had lived 
and worked. (2) The second class would be made 
up of those who were hearing the words of Aristion 
and the Elder John and did not need to have been 
in Palestine, outside of which Aristion and John 
were then living and working. From both classes, 
however, he could ask for the words of John, since 
he had been in Palestine and was now in Asia, 
outliving the other Elders (Zahn, N T' Introduction, 
li, 435-488, 451, note 18). 

At all events, it is quite impossible to ignore 
the difference between ‘said’ as applying to the 
first class, and ‘say’ as applying to the second. 
The onlyj alternative is to refer ‘say,’ not to 


’ oral teachings but to written words (Drummond, 


Authorship Fourth Gospel, 199-202), which 
requires considerable ingenuity to reconcile 
it with what Papias immediately adds, that he 
made these inquiries because he did not think 
that what was to be gathered from books would 
profit him as much as what came from the living 
voice. 

The claim, therefore, that the witnesses above 
referred to (Irenzus, Polycrates and Clement) con- 
fused the Apostle John with another, a Presbyter 
John, would deserve more consideration if it were 
more certain that such a Presbyter existed. In 
fact, all the references in post Apostolic literature 
to a Presbyter John as distinct from the Apostle 
John are based on the assumption of Eusebius that 
such a distinction was intended by Papias in the 
statement from his works which he quotes in his 
History. But as long as that statement is capable 
of an interpretation which identifies the two Johns, 
the belief in the existence of a separate Presbyter 


‘John the Baptist 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


460 


ren I 


John must be open to grave and serious doubt. 

See Zahn, as above, and Overbeck, Das Johannes 

Evangelium (1911), pp. 209-212. It is indeed some- 

what surprizing (1) that there is no reference to 

the Ephesian residence of John by such older fathers 
as Ignatius and Polycarp, especially by the former 
in his Epistle to the Ephesians, and (2) that we 

have a definite statement of Papias presented (a) 

in the Chronicle of Georgius Harmartolos (9th cent.) 

and (b) in the Fragment from Philippus Sidetes 

(5th cent.) to the effect that John suffered martyr- 

dom along with his brother James at the hands of 

the Jews. That these are possible of explanation, 
however, and afford no evidence against the com- 
mon tradition is clear from the argument of 

Drummond, Character and Authorship of the Fourth 

Gospel, pp. 214-219, 228-254. 

In view of such testimony there does not appear 
to be justifiable reason for doubting at least the 
main facts which tradition has handed down as to 
the later life and activity of the Apostle John. As 
to the bearing of this tradition on the authorship of 
the Fourth Gospel see JoHN, GOSPEL oF, § 3. 

The material for a consideration of the religious 
thought of John lies so exclusively within the con- 
tents of the Fourth Gospel and the First Epistle 
that the reader is referred to these articles for its 
presentation. 

LiTERATURE: Besides the list given under art. Jonn, GosPpEL 
or, reference may be made to the larger lives of Christ, e.g., 
Edersheim (41884); Weiss (Eng. transl., 1894); Holtzmann 
(Eng. transl., 1904); Smith, In the Days of His Flesh (1905); 
to special works such as Macdonald, Life and Writings of 
St. John (1877); Niese, Leben des Heiligen Johannes (1878); 
Culross, John Whom Jesus Loved (1878); Gloag, Life of St. 
John (1891); Rankin, First Saints (1893); Abbé Fouard, St. 
John (1905), and to arts. by Strong in HBD, Riggs in 
DCG, and Zahn in PRE; Beckwith, The Apocalypse of 
John (1919), pp. 362-393. M. W. J. 
JOHN THE BAPTIST. (Iwéwns 6 Bantrorhs, 

Mt 31; I. 6 Gaztitwy, ‘J. the baptizer,’ Mk 1 4): 

The son of the aged priest Zachariah and his wife 

Elizabeth, and the forerunner of Jesus Christ. 

1. The Sources. The sources for our knowledge 
of John the Baptist are: (1) The references to him 
in the Synoptics, with which we may also place those 


in Ac; (2) the references in the Fourth Gospel; and ° 


(3) the brief acount in Josephus (Ant. XVIII, 5 2). 
It will be helpful to note at the outset the general 
character of these somewhat different representa- 
tions, beginning with the one mentioned last. 


Josephus says that some of the Jews looked upon ; 


the defeat of Herod Antipas by Aretas, King of 
Arabia, as a Divine judgment on Herod for his 
treatment of ‘John who was called the Baptist, for 
Herod slew him who was a good man and had com- 
manded the Jews that they should practise virtue 
both in respect to righteousness toward one another 
and piety toward God, and that they should come 
together in a baptism. For baptism would thus 
appear acceptable to him, not when they used it as a 
request for the forgiveness of certain sins, but as a 
purification of the body after the soul had been 
thoroughly cleansed by righteousness.’ And he goes 
on to say that Herod feared lest John’s popularity 
might lead to some political disturbance and so he 
thought it best to forestall any such thing by putting 


John out of the way. He therefore sent him to 
the castle of Machzerus, where he was executed. This 
notice in Josephus is of great importance, for back 
of its somewhat vague generalities there must 
have been facts substantially the same as we have 
in the Synoptics. The great popularity of John, 
the appellation ‘the Baptist,’ his insistence upon 
righteousness, the relatively great importance at- 
tached to the rite of baptism, the unrest that might 
easily flame into political disturbance, the fact that 
it was Herod Antipas who put John to death—these 
are all chief points in the Synoptic account also. 
But Josephus’ superficial explanation of the pur- 
pose or character of the baptism of John is hardly 
adequate, and is even inconsistent with the earnest 
insistence on righteousness he justly ascribes to 
him. Furthermore, that Herod Antipas put John 
to death merely to forestall the possibility of his 
heading a revolution is altogether vague and im- 
probable. Something more definite must have been 
the reason for Herod’s hostility. Whether Josephus 
knew of Herodias’ hatred of John is, of course, not 
certain. Josephus’ silence about the ‘Messianic’ 
element in John’s preaching is not at all surprizing. 

The references to John in the Synoptics center, in 
the main, about the relation of the work of John to 
that of Jesus. This is viewed as a preparatory work, 
to ‘make ready the way of the Lord.’ His was 
thus essentially a prophet’s work, and John is 
viewed as the last of the prophets, the one who 
closed the succession by ushering in the new 
Messianic Age. The Synoptic account is frag- 
mentary. Only fragments of what must have been 
once a large amount of information have been pre- 
served. The broken character of these notices, the 
disagreement between John’s proclamation and the 
actual course of events that followed it, the remark- 
able strictures uttered by Jesus on the man He so 
highly honored—all make strongly in favor of the 
genuineness of the Synoptic account. ‘The story 
of John’s birth in Lk ch. 1 is not, of course, a part of 
the common Synoptic tradition. Except to those 
who are consistently skeptical of nearly everything 
in the Gospels, there is little, however, in Luke’s 
account of the birth of John that should occasion 
serious difficulty. The beauty and simplicity of the 
narrative; the ‘Hebraistic’ style, indicating that his 
information was drawn from an Aramaic source; the 
type of thought, which is that of the pre-Christian 
Messianic expectations rather than what became 
current in the Apostolic Age—all tell strongly in 
favor of the historicity of Luke’s account (cf. Plum- 
mer in ICC, Luke, p. 6, and see also Luxgz, 
GOSPEL OF). 

The references to the Baptist in the Fourth Gospel 
share the peculiarity of that Gospel’s account of the 
teachings of Jesus. At times it is difficult to draw 
the line between the words of the Baptist and those 
of the Evangelist, his reporter (e.g., 3 30f.), and at 
others between what the Baptist himself may have 
said or meant and the interpretation put upon his 
words by the Evangelist after years Of meditation 
on the significance of John’s appearance (e.g., 1 29). 
To the author of the Fourth Gospel this significance 
was solely that of a ‘witness’ (1 8, etc.; cf. 5 33). The 


461 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


John the Baptist 





baptism of Jesus by John is implied in 1 31 f., 
which indicates the importance attached to it by 
the Evangelist. If this Gospel was written by one 
of the disciples of the Baptist whose ‘witness’ to 
Jesus led him to the One in whom he found life 
eternal, it is not surprizing that this testimony to 
Jesus was so important in his eyes. 


2. Life of John Previous to His Public Ministry. 
The parents of John were an aged couple of priestly 
lineage (Lk 1 5, 7). Tho a priest, Zachariah, 
his father, had little sympathy with the worldly 
and corrupt Sadducee class in Jerusalem. His 
home in the ‘hill-country’ of Judea (exact location 
unknown) was characterized by the best type of 
Jewish piety, in which the ardent hope of the 
speedy fulfilment of Messianic prophecy was no 
insignificant element. As the son of a priest he must 
have been well versed in the traditional learning 
and, especially, well acquainted with the Scrip- 
tures. Knowledge of the portentous expectations 
awakened by his birth may have driven him to 
profound meditation upon the problem of Israel’s 
‘salvation’ (1 15 ff., 68 ff.). The death of his parents 
when he was still a youth may have been the occa- 
sion of his withdrawal into ‘the deserts’ (1 80) in- 
stead of taking up the active work of a priest. In 
these solitudes he pondered over the problem of the 
age, feeding his soul on the sterner aspects of the 
messages of O T Prophecy, giving less attention to 
those of a different cast. Any direct communica- 
tions with the Essenes is improbable, tho he must 
have known of them. John learned his lesson at the 
feet of no human teacher. His doctrine was formu- 
lated by himself in the years of solitary communion 
with God and the message of Scripture in the 
wilderness. 


3. John’s Mission. At last, coming forth from 
his retirement, he began to preach (for the date see 
CHRONOLOGY OF THE N T), not for self-aggrandize- 
ment, not to organize a new sect, or to inaugurate a 
new political movement, but to proclaim a great mes- 
sage and issue a greatsummons. ‘The word of God’ 
(Lk 3 2) called him forth like one of the prophets of 
old. Clad in simplest garb, like Elijah (Mk 1 6; 
Mt 3 4; cf. II K 1 8 RVmg.; Zec 13 4), using the 
plainest speech, with no fear of man before his 
eyes, he made a profound impression. No such 
voice had been heard in Israel for centuries. The 
crowds came from near and far, and the excitement 
was intense. 

And no wonder. For the main burden of John’s 
message was something to which no Israelite could 
be indifferent. That the long-looked-for era, so 
often foretold in Prophecy, was at last at hand was a 
startling message (Mk 1 2 f.; Mt 3 2). But no less 
startling was the announcement of the way in which 
this age was to be ushered in. Not by animmediate 
and glorious victory over Israel’s enemies (John was 
not a Zealot), but by a judgment on Israel herself, 
searching and thorough, in which every unworthy 
unrepentant Israelite should be destroyed. John’s 
message was virtually a summons to repentance, 
in view of the speedy appearance of Another, 
through or by whom the judgment should be 
executed (Mk 17 £.). The moral earnestness of 


the man is seen in the scathing rebuke he adminis- 
tered to the hypocritical religious authorities (Mt 3 
7-10; Lk 3 7-9), and in the common-sense advice he 
gave to those who inquired of him ‘what shall we 
do? (Lk 3 1014). The common people and even 
those who were viewed as openly sinful were deeply 
moved and gave a heartier response to John than 
did i religious leaders (Mk 11 29-33 and ||s; Lk 
29 f.). 

In view of these considerations it is easier to 
understand the significance of baptism as ad- 
ministered by John. This was but a preparatory 
step. It is called ‘a baptism of repentance unto 
remission of sins’ (Mk 14). Both the repentance and 
the remission found their reason solely in the 
expected ushering in of the Kingdom by a great 
judgment. John called upon all to repent and 
confess their sins and lead a better life and to 
symbolize and seal this new purpose by a bap- 
tism. It was all temporary, in the sense that it 
looked forward to being completed in or through 
the new developnents to follow. Thus John’s 
baptism, tho having the same moral end as Christian 
baptism, can never be identified with it. So well 
expressed is this difference in Ac 19 4 that further 
comment is unnecessary (see also Baptism). 

4. John and Jesus. While John referred most 
positively to One who was to follow him, he re- 
frained from describing Him except in mostigeneral 
terms. He was ‘mightier’ than he, and His sandals 
John was not worthy even to unloose; and while 
John baptized with water, that One was to baptize 
with the Holy Spirit and with fire (Mk 1 7f£.). 
The way in which He was to execute the judgment 
was also described in figurative language (Mt 3 10, 
12; Lk 317). All this would seem to indicate that 
John, like the prophets of old, spoke out of a general 
inspiration which left him free to construct the 
details of his representation according to his best 
judgment. Whatever the degree of acquaintance- 
ship between the families of John and Jesus, it is 
evident, apart from Jn 1 31, 33, that the divergence 
between the views of John and Jesus makes it 
impossible that the two could have met and talked 
over their respective missions until Jesus presented 
Himself to John for baptism. Each went through his 
own peculiar preparatory experience whithout hold- 
ing any communication with the other. And yet it 
can scarcely be doubted that it was John’s proclama- 
tion that gave Jesus to understand that His time 
also had come. 

The significance for Jesus of His baptism by John 
is discussed in the article Baptism. Here we con- 
sider only the effect of this meeting on John. This 
seems to have been twofold: (a) On the one hand, 
John was profoundly impressed by the personality of 
Jesus. He drew back from Him, instinctively feel- 
ing his unworthiness to baptize Him, and in the 
profound experiences of those few moments John 
had a vision of the Divine perfection of a Sinless 
One. It was not the awful visage of a terrible judge 
that he looked upon then, but of One willing humbly 
to ‘fulfil all righteousness,’ and who was also the 
beloved Son of God (Mt 313-17). This brief interview 
with Jesus must have suggested to John that some 


John the Baptist 
John, Epistles of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


462 





of his ideas of the Coming One needed revision. 
(b) Consequently, we find soon after that John’s 
view of the Messiah’s work had undergone some 
change. Only thus can we account for his words 
to his disciples, ‘Behold the Lamb of God who 
taketh away the sins of the world’ (Jn 1 29). If we 
bear in mind that these words were spoken after 
his meeting with Jesus, the contrast between them 
and the report in the Synoptics will be less surpriz- 
ing. John may have been led by that meeting to 
ask whether he had taken account of all that 
prophecy taught concerning the Messiah. What 
of the great passage on the Suffering Servant in Is 
ch. 53? The sight of Jesus might easily have led him 
to ponder over that prophecy, and while still under 
the spell of that impression he again saw Jesus once 
or twice and pointed Him out as ‘the Lamb of God.’ 
Yet. John could not have had that full light on the 
person and work of Christ which the Fourth Gospel 
imparts to him, and still have been subject to the 
limitations Jesus assigns him (Mt 11 1=Lk 7 28; 
ef. Mk 2 18-22), or have sent from prison to ask Jesus 
whether He were really the One who was to come 
(Mt 11 2 #.=Lk 7 13 f.). Thus the meeting with 
Jesus and observance of His work had a rather per- 
plexing effect on John. He certainly did not revise 
at once or altogether his Messianic program, and he 
could not easily adjust it to the facts as they actually 
transpired. On the whole, the conviction that the 
Messiah must sooner or later bring matters to 
a great crisis and execute the Divine judgment on 
the sinful nation remained fundamental with John. 
It was not given to him to see that the fundamental 
note of the Messianic era was love, not wrath. 


5. John’s Further Ministry, Imprisonment, and 
Death. Thus awaiting some definite, signal mani- 
festation on the part of Jesus, John continued his 
ministry even after he had baptized Him. He could 
not see his way clear to lay it down before the 
judgment had begun. For his bold rebuke of Herod 
Antipas for his unrighteous union with Herodias, 
he was imprisoned. According to Mk 6 19 ff. it was 
Herodias rather than Herod who was angered at 
John. And it was her relentless hate that at last was 
gratified by gaining Herod’s consent to the execu- 
tion of the fearless preacher of righteousness (Mk 
6 17-29=Mt 14 3-12). John’s influence did not die 
with him. Some of his disciples betook themselves 
to Jesus. Others probably sought to perpetuate his 
work independently of Jesus, and traces of their 
influence we meet with, twenty-five years later, in 
Asia Minor (Ac 18 25, 19 1 ff.). A superstitious 
feeling that John might rise from the dead and re- 
appear, or that he might be reincarnated seems to 
have been prevalent for a time (Mk 6 14-16; ef. Lk 
9 7-9; Mk 8 28 and |[s). 

6. Jesus’ Opinion of John. The significance of 
John can not be a matter of doubt to one who takes 
Jesus’ words as authoritative. He was a prophet, 
the last and greatest of the prophetic succession 
under the old dispensation (Mt 11 9, 13; Lk 16 16). 
His personal righteousness and integrity were un- 
questioned (Mt 117 f.=Lk 7 24 f.). To him was 
granted an honor greater than ever befell any other 
man, that of being the forerunner to prepare the 


way of the Lord (Mt 11 10f.=Lk 7 27f.). He was 
in truth the Elijah who was to come (Mk 912f.= 
Mt 17 1 £.; Mt 1114). He was the herald of a new 
age, through whom many had been stirred up to 
press into the Kingdom of God (Mt 1112; Lk 16 16). 
And yet John did not belong to the new era. In- 
cidentally, the rules of fasting he laid upon his 
disciples showed this (Mk 2 18-22 and ||s). Butit was 
in his whole view of the Messianic Age, in which 
judgment, not mercy, was uppermost, and in his 
altogether one-sided view of the Messiah’s work 
that he was not one of the great ones in the (new) 
Kingdom of God according to Jesus (Mt 11 11.= 
Lk 7 28). This was not a judgment on John’s per- 
sonal character, or a dictum regarding his final 
salvation. It had to do altogether with the value 
of John’s view of the Kingdom. And it was out of 
His loving wisdom that Jesus sent John’s messengers 


back, not with a categorical answer to his question, 


but with one well calculated to give John the clue 
to the truth he was seeking. See in addition to 
Comm., A. T. Robertson, John the Loyal (1911); 
A. Blakiston, John the Baptist and His Relation 
to Jesus (1912). EH. E. N. 


JOHN, EPISTLES OF: Three N T writings be- 
longing to the group of the so called CatHo.ic 
EPISTLES (q.v.). 

J. First Epistyx. 


1. Authorship. The First Epistle, in spite of its 
anonymous character, is generally recognized as 
being so similar to the Fourth Gospel in its language 
and thought as to have been from the same author. 
If, therefore, the Gospel is from the Apostle John 
(JoHN, GosPEL oF, § 2a), the Epistle also is to be 
considered as from him. 

2. Literary Relation to Fourth Gospel. The fact 
however, that the Epistle is not addressed to any 
one church, or to any particular group of readers, 
and the peculiar form of its opening verses, in which 
a reference to the facts of the historical Gospel as 
in some way underlying the Epistle’s message is so 
evident, raise the question of the literary relation 
between these two writings of the Apostle. — 

This question can be answered only by a con- 
sideration of the contents of the Epistle and the 
situation which these contents present. 


(a) Contents. The Epistle opens with a preliminary statement 
in which is given the basis of its message, viz.: the historical 
fact of the Word of life and the Apostle’s personal relation 
to it—a fact already announced to the readers with a view 
to their spiritual fellowship with him. On the basis of this 
historical fact the Apostle states his purpose in writing the 
letter, in order that his joy may be fulfilled (1 1-4). 

There follows then a summation of the truth heard from the 
Word of life, viz.: that God is light and is without darkness, 
with its bearing upon the readers’ fellowship with one another 
and their common relationship to Jesus Christ and to God 
(1 51°), This constitutes the introductory part of the Epistles. 

The message proper is then begun with a further statement 
of the purpose of its sending—that the readers may not sin 
(2 18), accompanying which is a pastoral reminder of their 
privileges and obligations in their consciousness of sin (2 1b- 
ll), bringing the Apostle to a restatement both of the present 
and of a previous message, from the point of view,of the younger 
and the older classes among his readers (2 1274), 

This is followed by an exhortation against a love of the 
world, with reasons for the urging (2 17) and a statement 
in general of the fact of Antichrist (2 182%), accompanied by 
assurances of the fact of their spiritual life (2 2° f.. 29), which 


othe a 


463 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


John the Baptist 
John, Epistles of 





brings him to a presentation of the theme of the love of God, 
exhibited in the Christian’s relation of spiritual sonship to 
Him, with what this relationship involved for the future 
(31 !-) and its practical bearing upon the present life (3 3~!2), 

This leads the Apostle to a statement and discussion of the 
main theme of the Epistle, viz.: the love of the brethren. 
This theme is taken up by calling attention (1) to the natural- 
ness of the world’s hatred of the Christian (3 13) and (2) to the 
evidential nature of a love of the brethren (3 14 t-), with a 
statement of the necessary reason for the having of such love 
(3 16) and the necessary inference from its non-possession 
(3 17), closing with an exhortation to the possessing of it in its 
‘reality (318), with the reasons which lie in its contribution to 
an assurance of the spiritual life (3 19724), 

After a short digression (4 16), there is given an exhorta- 
tion to brotherly love, with reasons for the exhorting (4 74), 
‘followed by a more formal discussion of its bearing upon (1) 
God’s relation to us (4 1216) and (2) our confidence in the 
future (4 17 /.), leading to a statement (a) of the reason of such 
love (4 19), (b) of what it involves in confession of love to God 
(4 2°), and (c) of its basis in the command of God (4 2), 

There follows then a discussion of the allied theme of faith 
in Jesus as the Christ (51-12), consisting of a statement (1) of 
the relation of such belief to spiritual sonship with God 
(5 18), together with the consequences which follow as to love 
of the brethren (5 14); (2) of the relation which love to God 
and obedience to His command have to love of the brethren 
(5 2); (3) of the relation which love to God and faith in Jesus 
as the Christ have to obedience to God’s commands (5 35); 
(4) of the fact of Christ’s mission in the world and the witness 
to it of the Spirit (5 6-8), together with the obligation which 
rests upon us of receiving such witness (5 9712), 

This brings the Apostle to his conclusion, which consists in 
a restatement of the purpose of his writing, from the point 
of view of the readers’ assurance of eternal life (5 18), followed 
by a statement of varied spiritual results which issue from 
such assurance (5 14-2°), closing with an exhortation to the 
guarding of the spiritual life (5 21), ’ ; ; 

(b) Situation. The situation disclosed by this 
review of the Epistle’s contents is evidently one in 
which the spiritual life of the readers was in need of 
stimulating in the direction of its holiness, its 
brotherly fellowship, and its assurance of the facts 
which were basal to it. At the same time, it is clear 
from the polemic tone of certain passages (e.g., 
218 ff., 37 ff., 41 ff.) that this need was due to false 
teachings which were dulling the readers’ spiritual 
perception and leading them into false views of the 
truth. ; 

When we come to study the Epistle closely it is 
apparent from such passages as 2 20, 4 6-8, 5 13, 19 f., 
where the question of real spiritual knowledge is 
claimed, 4 2 (cf. 1 2), where the fact of Christ’s 
coming in the flesh is emphasized, 4 10, 14, 5 10 £."(cf. 
21 .), which accent Christ’s redemptive functions 
as Son of God, especially 5 5 f., which claims deity 
for Christ at His death as well as at His baptism, 
that the Epistle moved in very much the same 
‘Gnostic surroundings as the Gospel! (cf. in the 
Gospel such passages as 14 7-9, 17, 20, 17 3, 25, which 
assert this spiritual knowing; 1 14, which declares 
this fact of Christ in the flesh; 6 50-58, 12 27, 16 15, 
17 f., 28, 32, 17 1, 11, 18 11, which show Christ as Son 


of God in His death for the world’s salvation). 





1 Cerinthus, whose teaching that only 'the human Jesus 
suffered on the Cross seems specially referred to in 5 5 f-, as 
also indirectly in 2! f-, 4 19, 14, 5 10 f., was a contemporary of 
the Apostle in Ephesus; also Docetism, which held that the 
Jesus who appeared on the earth was not possessed of a real 
physical nature and which is clearly opposed in 1 2, 4 2, 5 20, 
was an element in Gnostic thinking long before it became a 
distinct heresy in the teachings of Valentinus (c. 150 a.p.); 
while the boast of Gnosticism that it alone possessed knowl- 
edge of spiritual things, which obviously is denied in 2 29, 
4 68, § 13,19 f.. was the fundamental claim of this way of think- 
ing from its beginning. See Gnosticism, §§ 4-6. 


The announced purpose of the Gospel’s writing 
(20 30f.) that the readers might have a more abun- 
dant spiritual life through their faith in Jesus as the 
Son of God brings the Ep. into further alignment 
with the Gospel (cf. Ep 2 1a, 3 3-12, 18-24, 5 13-21). 

This similarity in the surroundings is made more 
evident by the fact that both Gospel and Epistle 
have in view a tendency among their readers to 
ignore the commands of God, especially at the point 
of love—not only to God, but to one another (ef. 
Gospel 14 15, 21, 23 £., 15 9 f., 12-14, 17-19; Ep 3 7-12, 
21-23, 4 20 f.)—a tendency with which we are made 
familiar in the later stages of Paul’s ministry, 
especially in the Ephesian region (see EpHEsIAns, 
EpistLE To, § 4). 


(c) Place, Date, and Occasion. If then both 


' writings disclose the same general conditions in 


their surroundings, we have not only an idea of the 
time and the place of the Epistles’ origin (see Joun, 
GosPEL oF, §§ 2b, 2c), but more particularly some 
hint at the relation which the Epistle sustained to 
the Gospel; for if, as we have seen, the Epistle takes 
up these points brought out in the Gospel’s presenta- 
tion of Jesus and develops them in their bearing 
upon the practical life, then it would seem that the 
Epistle was written either to introduce to more 
careful attention the Gospel which was to follow it 
(Lightfoot), or—which is much more likely—that it 
was written to follow the Gospel and make effective 
on these practical lines the historical facts of the 
Divine Personality which it presented. This would 
serve to explain the unique beginning of the Epistle, 
basing as it does the message that follows on the 
historical facts which already had been announced 
to the readers.2 What was the occasion of the 
Epistle’s writing and how soon it followed upon the 
Gospel, if it was not sent along with it, it is im- 
possible to say. All that seems clear is that the 
specific message of the Gospel was in the Apostle’s 
mind when he wrote and that it was his purpose 
to apply its great truths to the practical living of 
his readers. 


3. Thought of the Epistle. The consideration of 
this question of relationship between the Epistle 
and the Gospel gives a special interest to the 
Epistle’s thought. In general, it is apparent that, 
while this does not, as the Gospel’s, gather around 
the personality of Christ, yet it is Christ not simply 
in His redemptive relations to us but in Himself that 
forms its background. He is never called the Son of 
Man, yet not only is the fact of His incarnation 
asserted (4 2; cf. 1 2), but His nature as the Son of 
God is constantly kept at the front. It is as the Son 
that He manifests the eternal life, which was with 
the Father (12; cf. 5 20), so that it is with Him, 
the Son, as well as with the Father, that we have 
our spiritual fellowship (1 3, 2 24). It is the confession 
of Him as Son that constitutes this fellowship (4 15), 
and it is the denial of the Son, as well as of the 
Father, that constitutes the Spirit of Antichrist 
(2 22b, 23). It is thus as Son that He has come 





2 It is interesting to note the acceptance of some such re- 
lationship between these two writings by Schmiedel, who 
opposes the genuineness of both (Religionsgeschichtliche 
Volksbitcher, I, Reihe 12, Heft II, 1906, pp. 28-32). 


John, Epistles of 
John, Gospel of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


464 





into the world in His redemptive mission (49 f., 14, 
3 8), and through Him as Son that God has given 
us eternal life (5 10-12). As Son, therefore, He 
cleanses us from sin through His death (17). At 
the same time, He is the Christ. As such He came 
into the world and accomplished His mission (56). 
As such He is the propitiation for sin (2 2, 4 10) 
and the Advocate with the Father in the sinner’s 
behalf (2 1). With Him both as Christ and as 
Son is our fellowship (5 20). The denial of Him as 
Christ is, therefore, of the same Antichrist spirit 
as the denial of Him as Son (2 22 f., 4 2 £.), and 
belief in Him as Christ is of the same Divine spirit 
as belief in Him as Son (38 23, 4 2; ef. ver. 15, 5 1, 5). 
He is termed also in one passage the Word (Aéyos) 
of life (1 1). 

God is represented as Spirit, apprehensible only 
by the spiritual attitude of life (4 12; cf. 3 23). It 
is to this spiritual sense that God reveals Himself 
in His relations to us (47 f£.). He alone is the true 
God and the only source of spiritual life (5 20; cf. 
2 29, 310). He is presented to us as the Father 
(2 1, 3 1); He is also presented to us under the 
figure of love (4 8, 16), which is viewed not simply 
as an attribute, but as an energizing activity, im- 
parting itself to us and in us, not only evidencing 
our possession of the Divine nature and fellowship 
(4 7, 12, 16), but perfecting itself in our obedience 
to God’s commands (25; cf. vs. 15-17, 314), especially 
in that command which brings us into love of one 
another (3 23, 412). This love has prompted God 
to send His Son for the saving of the world (4 9 f.) 
and to bring us into filial relations with Himself 
(81). Further, He is presented under the figure of 
light (1 5), which is viewed specifically as an energi- 
zing activity. In fact, since this statement is pre- 
sented as summing up the message of the Epistle 
and since the theme of this message is brotherly 
love, which is born of the love God has imparted to 
us, it would seem that this figure of light. was an 
emphatic way of bringing out the energizing power 
of love, since the characteristic element in light is 
its pervading, infusing power (cf. Gospel 1 4,9, 3 20f., 
11 9 £., 12 35f.; cf. also Lk 11 33-36). This would 
seem to be evident from the fact that this Divine 
light is represented as producing practically the same 
results in us as those produced by love (cf. 1 6 f., 
2 8-11, where walking in the light, as a sphere of ac- 
tivity to whose influences we are open, is evidence 
not only of fellowship with God but of the outgoing 
of our love in fellowship with one another). So the 
Holy Spirit is presented as given us by God not only 
to inform us of truth (as Gospel 14 26, 16 13 £.), but 
by His energizing within us to produce in us an assur- 
ance of our relation to God (8 24, 413) and to bring us 
to a living confession of Christ (4 2). Over against 
this is the energizing of the spirit of Antichrist (4 3). 

As a consequence of all this, eternal life is pre- 
sented not as a future possession but as a present 
activity. It is the Christian’s present spiritual 
living. The world lies in the power of the Evil One 
(5 19; cf. 3 8410); consequently, sin is not simply 
unrighteousness (1 9, 3 6-8, 5 17) and lawlessness 
(3 4), it is also hatred (8 10-12, 15), and darkness 
(1 6, 29-11), and death (8 14), and it can not escape 


our notice how these qualities of sin are interwoven 
to make up the general idea of sin as a resultant 
force, contrasted with the composite resultants of 
God’s Divine energizing in the life of the soul. The 
forces of sin are gathered up in the term Antichrist, 
which is not necessarily an individual (in spite of 
the personal cast of 2 18 f.), but simply the per- 
sonfication of the principles of evil (2 22, 4 3), a 
persistent yielding to which may result in the hope- 
lessness of spiritual life (5 16 f.). As a remnant of 
the old dominant forces of the evil life sin is still 
in the Christian (1 8-10, 2 1b) but no longer as the 
habit of life—as such it is impossible in one begotten, 
of God (3 6, 9). Consistently with this idea of the 
energizing of God in the spiritual life the Christian 
is the product of the life of God (2 29, 39, 47, 51 
4, 18), and faith is distinctively the overcoming by 
Him of the evil influences of the world (5 4 f.). 


II. SEconD AND THIRD EPISTLES. 


4. Writer’s Designation of Himself. The point 
of chief interest in the study of these Epistles is the 
question of their authorship. They both claim as 
author one who designates himself ‘the Elder’ (6 
meecbUtepos), the question being who is to be 
understood by this name. 

The likelihood of a satisfactory answer to this 
question lies naturally along the line of an induc- 
tion of the contents of these letters, tho such in- 
duction can not promise much because of the 
restricted form of the writings. 

5. Situation. The situation presented by the 
letters is briefly as follows: 


(1) The Second Epistle was written to the mother of a 
household, certain members of which were walking in the 
truth, presumably certain others not so walking (ver. 4). It 
was written to urge three things: (a) The following out of the 
command already given and known, viz., brotherly love (ver. 
5 f.); (b) the careful preserving of faith already possessed and 
the preventing of its further loss (ver. §-); (c) the non-receiving 
of false teachers already among them (ver. 1¢ f-)—all these 
things being urged until the author might personally come to 
them and restore their joy (ver. }2). (2) The Third Epistle 
was written to a certain Gaius, a prominent member, if not 
an officer, in one of the churches over which the author was in 
charge. It was written (a) to commend him for his reception 
of certain brethren who had come to him on their journey 
(vs. 5-8); (b) to inform him of a letter which they bore from 
the author to the church, and of a contrary attitude toward 
himself on the part of a certain Diotrephes, another prominent 
member, perhaps an officer of the church in question (ver. °); 
(c) to announce his plan personally to come and rebuke this 
attitude (ver. 1°); (d) in the meanwhile to warn Gaius against 
following this example of Diotrephes, to encourage him in his’ 
good conduct until they should see each other (vs. 11, 18,14), 
and particularly to commend to Gaius Demetrius, who prob- 
ably was accompanying the brethren and was not in good 
favor with the Church (ver. !2). 


From this it is clear: (1) That these were purely 
personal letters. (2) That the II Ep. moves in a 
surrounding which reminds us of that of the I Ep., 
which is confirmed by a closer study of the false 
teachers referred to in the former, showing them to 
have been (a) of the same Cerinthian class, denying 
the Divine Sonship of Jesus (vs. 3, 9; ef. I Ep. 4 10, 14, 
5 10 f.); (b) of the same Docetic class, denying that 
Jesus is come in the flesh (ver. 7; cf. I Ep. 4 2 £.); (e) 
of the same Antinomian class, ignoring the com- 
mands of God (vs. 4, 6, 9; cf. I Ep. 3 7-12). (8) That 
the III Ep. shows the author to be in responsible 
charge of a certain church, or churches, with con- 


465 A NEW STANDARD 


fidence enough in his influence to quell by his 
personal presence ambitious opposition to his au- 
thority when absent. 

6. Time and Place. Nothing definite is disclosed 
in the letters as to the time and place of their 
composition, tho the similarity of conditions be- 
tween II Ep. and I Ep. would seem to associate 
them in the Ephesian region and at the time of the 
labors of the Apostle John (q.v.). 

7. Readers. The persons to whom the letters 
are sent seem distinctly enough designated, at least 
in the case of the III Ep.; yet nothing can be deter- 
mined as to their identity. The phrase of address in 
the II Ep. (‘the elect lady,’ éxAextH xvelg) has been 
variously interpreted, but obviously is nothing more 
than an indefinite term for the individual to whom 
the letter is sent. The Gaius of the III Ep. may be. 
any one of those of the same name mentioned in 
the N T (Ac 19 29, 20 4; I Co 1 14; Ro 16 23), or may 
be another person. The name was a common one. 
The Diotrephes of the III Ep. is mentioned no- 
where else in the N T, while the Demetrius is not 
likely to be identified with the Demetrius of Ac 
19 23 ff. 

8. Authorship. This all comes to the general 
result that while the Epistles disclose nothing 
which definitely decides their authorship, such 
indications as they give are in the direction of an 
authorship by the Apostle John. The only question 
is whether the author’s peculiar designation of him- 
self as ‘the elder’ is one which the Apostle could and 
naturally might, in the circumstances of these 
letters, use of himself. 

In answering this question we must remember 
that the only testimony we have as to the existence 
of a so called Presbyter (Elder) John is the assump- 
tion of Eusebius that Papias distinguishes between 
an Apostle John and a Presbyter John in the state- 
ment which he quotes from his works in his Eccle- 
stastical History (III, 39), while there is absolutely 
no proof of the residence and work in Asia and the 
Ephesian region of such a John as distinct from the 
Apostle (cf. Drummond, Character and Authorship 
of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 194-235, and JoHN, THE 
ApostLE). When we recognize, however, that in 
Papias’ statement the Apostles, including John, 
are designated elders (xeecQdtepot), and when we 
consider the fact that in the N T this term is not 
used exclusively in an official sense (cf. Ac 14 23, 
where it refers evidently to a class of mature men, 
appointed to the general oversight of the com- 
munity [f. I Th 512]; I Ti 51, where obviously age 
is meant [cf. Tit 2 2-8]. See AposrieE), it is clear 
that the author may have used the term here of 
himself, as Papias may have used it of the Apostles 
in his statement, to designate one who belonged to 
the older generation which was passing away. See 
Zahn, N T Introduction, II, 435 f. 

’ Such a term would be quite in accord with the 
situation presented in these letters. To this Chris- 
tian mother, in trouble about her household, to 
this Christian Gaius in the emergency of his church 

3 If the term be taken as a mystical designation of the 

church addressed, it may be that this II Ep. is the letter to 


the local church referred to in III Ep. ver. 9 (cf. Zahn, Introd., 
§ 71). 


John, Epistles of 


BIBLE DICTIONARY John, Gospel of 


administration, it would give his encouragement 

and warning a peculiar appeal, through this relation- 

ship which he held to the venerated past. If Paul 
could use’a similar term (‘the aged,’ rpecitys) in 

his personal letter to his friend Philemon (ver. 9), 

John might with even greater propriety use this 

term in his personal letters to these friends. 

9. External Evidence. These letters came to be 
fully accepted by the Church only at a relatively 
late date. For a considerable while they were 
placed in the class of Antilegomena, and in Jerome’s 
day were generally denied Apostolic origin and 
assigned to authorship by the ‘Presbyter.’ The 
earlier tradition, however, and that held by prom- 
inent Fathers such as Irenzeus and Clement of 
Alexandria, was that they came from the Apostle, 
the ‘Presbyter’ tradition arising later. This may 
be accounted for by the fact that as private letters 
they would be relatively slow in coming to light and 
when known would be naturally questioned as to 
their Apostolic credentials, especially as they did 
not contain an Apostolic name (as Philemon did). 
This would tend to confirm such doubt as might 
arise from the slowness of their appearance and 
formulate it into an assignment of them to the 
assumed ‘Presbyter’ of Papias. The fact, however, 
that when they first appeared they were held to 
have come from the Apostle by persons who in 
those times were the best informed and that this 
view persisted even when the suspicion regarding 
them formulated itself into the other view shows 
that the evidence for the earlier opinion must have 
been peculiarly strong. 

LiterRATURE: Among Introductions, those of Jiilicher (Eng. 
transl. 1904) and Zahn (Eng. transl. 1917) will best pre- 
sent the opposite positions of modern German scholarship. 
Among Commentaries, the following will be found most 
helpful: Ebrard (Eng. transl. 1860); Haupt (Eng. transl. 
1879); Westcott (1886); and Weiss, in Meyer Krit.-exeget. 
Kom. tib. d. N T (1899); Brooke, in ICC (1912) is scholarly 
and exhaustive. See also Smaller Comm., Plummer (Camb, 
Greek Test. (1896); Bennett, New Century Bible (n.d.), and 


Law, Tesis of Life, a study of First Ep. (Kerr Lectures for 
1909). Also the art. by Salmond in HDB. MisWwet 


JOHN, GOSPEL OF. The fourth of the N T 
Gospel Writings, commonly known as the Fourth 
Gospel, because of its distinctive difference in con- 
tents and character from the other three (see 
GosPEL, § 3). 

1. Criticism of the Gospel. This difference has 
always been recognized, but it was not until the end 
of the 18th cent., during the Deistic movement in 
England, that it was made the reason for a definite 
attack against the Gospel’s genuineness (Evanson, 
1792)—an attack which was repeated on broader 
grounds (Eckermann, 1796; Vogel, 1801) during the 
similar movement in Germany. Tho no lasting im- 
pression was made by these attacks, hostility against 
the Gospel was renewed a quarter of a century later 
(Bretschneider, 1820) with particular emphasis upon 
the differences in form and contents between the 
discourses of the Fourth Gospel and those of the 
Synoptics. Because of the critical uncertainty, if 
not weakness, with which it was met by the spiritual 
school of Schleiermacher (1825), this hostility grew 
until the purely mystical character of the Gospel was 


| asserted (Strauss, 1835) and it was relegated to the 


John, Gospel of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 466 





category of fanciful productions (Bruno Bauer, 
1850). , 

In the meanwhile the Tiibingen School (1835) 
strengthened the unfavorable position in which the 
Gospel had been placed by returning to the differ- 
ences which the Gospel presented to the Synoptic 
narratives and disclosing the historical situation by 
which they claimed these differences were accounted 
for. This situation they held to be that of the 2d 
cent., and the Gospel to be the natural product of 
the theological controversies of that age. 

In proportion as this criticism was positive and 
constructive it appealed to the judgment of scholars, 
tho its essential ignoring of the field of external 
evidence opened the way for a vigorous opposition, 
which was carried on until the fundamental prin- 
ciples of Tiibingen criticism in general were shown to 
be unfounded in fact (Ritschl, 1857) and the re- 
action against the claims and the conclusions of the 
School began. In this reaction the Gospel returned 
to a relatively favorable position, opponents and 
defenders drawing appreciably nearer together in 
the admission, on the one side, that much of its 
material was of actual Apostolic date, if not of 
Apostolic origin, and, on the other side, that there 
was a subjective element in the writing which had 
molded in form and substance much, if not all, of 
its narrative and its discourses. 

Later, however, this middle position gave way to 
one of distinct antagonism, the question as to con- 
tents being not whether the record is more or less 
historical, but whether it is actually historical or 
purely fictional, the question as to the author being 
not whether it was the Apostle himself, or one of 
his disciples or contemporaries, but whether it was 
a writer of the Apostolic Age, or one who lived and 
wrote after that age had passed away and thus had 
no personal contact with it whatever. This flow of 
hostile criticism, Drummond’s notable work, The 
Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1904), 
more or iess obstructed through its thorough study 
of the external evidence for the dating of the Gospel, 
and of the internal evidence for its authorship, 
establishing the conclusion (p. 514) that the work 
belongs to the Ist cent. and that, while the Johan- 
nine authorship can not be absolutely demonstrated, 
it can not be denied.! 

Shortly after Drummond’s book there came to 
light a Syrian manuscript of the Odes and Psalms 
of Solomon (published by Rendel Harris, Cambridge 
University, 1909), a production recognized as be- 
longing to the later Apostolic century. Their sig- 
nificance lay in the fact that, whether they were of 


1 An interesting contribution to the early date of the 
Gospel is given by Lamberton, Themes from St. John’s Gospel 
in Early Roman Catacomb Paintings, Thesis for the Ph. D., 
Princeton University. (n.d.) An examination of the frescoes of 
what is known as the Greek Chapel, located in the primitive 
portion of the catacombs and dating from the time of Hadrian, 
or Trajan, at the latest, revealed that underneath the vari- 
ous strata of plaster on the walls a first stratum was found 
containing reproductions of scenes distinctive of the Fourth 
Gospel (e.g., the Raising of Lazarus, and the Talk with the 
Samaritan woman). If these scenes were executed even as late 
as 130 a.p., it would presuppose, not only a circulation and 
acceptance of the Gospel in the Church some time previous 
to this in Rome, but the origin of the Gospel some time even 
earlier in the East. 


Christian origin (Harris), or of Jewish origin, with 
Christian editing (Harnack), they showed a striking 
resemblance to the thought of the Fourth Gospel, 
and yet disclosed their thinking as Jewish and not 
Hellenic. The argument naturally followed that if 
this Jewish document of Ist cent. origin contained 
the same mystical thinking as the Fourth Gospel, 
then the Gospel did not need to be considered of 
Hellenic 2d cent. date, but could be Jewish and of 
the Apostolic age.? 

This gave further pause to the hostile criticism 
of the Gospel, tho the main contention still centered 
at the point of the historic value of its contents; 
criticism moving away from the earlier and cruder 
theories of documentary partition into the more 
refined field of editorial revision, with more or less 
of Apostolic or first hand element in the original 
material, Dr. Garvie’s, The Beloved Disciple (1922), 
being the most recent and finest type of thismethod. 

In view of this present day criticism, the study of 
of the Gospel requires, not merely a general con- 
sideration of the Gospel’s contents to determine 
whether they can have come from the Apostolic 
Age, but a more specific study of them, to ascertain 
to what extent they give us the personal and not the 
edited experience of the author, and to what degree 
they show the author to have participated in the 
events which he records. 

We come, then, to the disclosures which the 
Gospel itself makes of itself. 

2. Relation of Contents to Origin of Gospel: 
Outline. It presents to us, in spite of the deeply 
doctrinal character of its contents, a relatively 
simple plan of narrative which gathers around a 
framework of visits to Jerusalem (cf. Sanday, 
Criticism, p. 117) that extend from the beginning 
of the ministry to its end, tho, as will be seen later 
(note 4, p. 470, and § 4), all but one occur after the 
close of the Galilean work. 

After the Prolog (1 1 8)—whose opening statements re- 
garding the preexistence of the Logos (1 1 f-), His creative 
relation to the Universe (1 3), and His spiritually vital and 
illuminative relations to the soul of man (1 4 f-) are among the 
most profound utterances of Scripture, and whose following 
statements regarding the relation of this incarnate Word to 
the spiritual faith and life of men (1 914: 16-18) give an inspiring 
insight into the thought of all the Gospel—the narrative (1 19~ 
20 #1) begins. 

It opens with the Baptist’s confession to the Jerusalem 
delegation which came to inquire as to the authority of his 
work (1 19-28)—a confession prepared for in the Prolog itself 
(1 8-8, 15) and followed by the Baptist’s testimony to his own 
disciples (1 29-86), which issues in the first disciple adherence 
to Jesus (vs. 37), 

This occurring at Jordan, there are then related events 
which presuppose a return of Jesus and His new-found dis- 
ciples to Galilee (2 1~2), from which region He makes the first 
visit of His ministry to Jerusalem (2 18-3 36). 


This visit, which is at the time of Passover (2 }8), is evidently 
undertaken in the spirit of reform, the corruptions of the 


2 This conclusion has been given confirmation by the 
publication of a careful study of the Fourth Gospel by C. F. 
Burney, Oxford University, entitled The Aramaic Origin of 
the Fourth Gospel (1922), in which it is claimed that the 
language, as well as the thought, of the Gospel is Semitic, 
even in the Prolog, which has been the mainstay of those who 
held the Gospel to be Hellenic in its ideas. . 

8 Bert’s Das Evangelium Johannes (1922) is an excep- 
tion to this analytical method, forming a return to 
the earlier allegorical idea and treatment of the Gospel’s 
contents, 


=. 


467 


national worship being attacked in the cleansing of the 
Temple (2 !4*16—Evangelist’s comment ver. 17), It is so under- 
stood by the religious leaders of the people (2 182°—Evangel- 
ist’s explanation ver 2! f.), 

The effect of this opening ministry is then given (2 %— 
Evangelist’s qualifying remark ver. * f-), an illustration being 
added in the visit of Nicodemus (3 17!5—Evangelist’s ampli- 
fication 3 16-21), 

From Jerusalem there is a departure of Jesus and His dis- 
ciples into Judea (3 2%), issuing in a ministry in the neighbor- 
hood of the Baptist’s work (3 33 f-). A dispute between the 
Baptist’s disciples and the Jews about purifying introduces a 
further testimony of the Baptist to Jesus (3 %%°—Evange- 
list’s amplification 3 31-36) and leads the way to a statement 
of the reasons for Jesus’ final return again into Galilee 
(4 1-3—Evangelist’s explanation ver. 2). Events on the 
journey through Samaria are given (4 442—Evangelist’s ex- 
planations ver. 8) and His reception in Galilee (4 445) with 
miracles at Cana and Capernaum (4 46%—HEvangelist’s com- 
ment 4 5), 

There is then narrated a second visit to Jerusalem (ch. 5), 
the main incident in which is the healing of the impotent man 
at the Pool of Bethesda (5 2-8—excise vs. 8». 4), which de- 
velops a strenuous opposition on the part of the Jews to 
Jesus’ disregard of the Sabbath laws and an open vindication 
by Jesus of His position (5 19-47), At the beginning of His reply 
His assertion of the relation He bore to God (ver. 17) inflames 
the Jews to murderous hostility (ver. 4) from which new 
element the rest of the discourse develops. 

Ch. 6 furnishes the one point of detailed contact with the 
Synoptic narrative, presenting to the readers the feeding of 
the multitude with which Jesus’ Galilean ministry was 
brought to its close (cf. Mk 6 32-4 and ||s). It gives in ad- 
dition, however, the subsequent address of Jesus in the syn- 
agog at Capernaum before the crowd which had followed 
Him back to the other side of the lake (6 35*8—Ev’s state- 
ment ver. 5%), with its effect on the people (6 664a—RHiy’s 
explanation 6 %b,. 6) and on the Twelve (6 %-7_—KHvy’s ex- 
planation ver. 71, and statement as to effect on Jesus of the 
hostility of the Jews 71). [In consulting this analysis one 
should keep in mind the disarrangements of the material. See 
Note 4, page 470]. 

There then follows Jesus’ final departure from Galilee at 
the time of the Feast of Tabernacles, for His closing ministry 
in Jerusalem (7 271°), the state of feeling in the city concerning 
Him (7 1-13) with His teaching in the Temple and its effect 
upon the people (7 4-81); the effort of the Pharisees and chief 
priests to arrest Him, with Jesus’ reply and its popular effect 
(7 *56), and finally His appeal on the last day of the Feast 
and its effect (7 §7-44—-Ev’s explanation ver. 39), closing with the 
report of the officers to the Pharisees and chief priests and 
the effort of Nicodemus to stay action (7 45-53—Ev’s explana- 
tion ver. 5°), 

Then is given Jesus’ further public teaching—probably in 
connection with this same Feast—with the Pharisaic hostility 
which it developed and Jesus’ escape from the city (8 12-59— 
excise episode of the woman taken in adultery, 7 58-8 11), Jesus’ 
return to the city at the Feast of Dedication (Ev’s statement 
ver. 22) and His healing of the blind man with the hostility it 
aroused (9 !~38) and Jesus’ discourse (9 39-10 2!), leading up to the 
Jews’ demands on Him for a plain statement of His Messiah- 
ship and Jesus’ answering discourse (10 2%), its irritating 
effect upon the Jews, and Jesus’ escape to the other side of 
the Jordan, followed by a sympathetic multitude (10 89-4), 

Ch. ‘1 presents Jesus’ return from the east of the Jordan 
to Bethany upon announcement of the sickness of Lazarus 
(11 }-6—Ev’s explanation ver. 2 and prefacing statement ver. 
5), whom He raises from the dead (11 17-44), the effect of the 
miracle upon the Jews who were present (11 45 f.) and upon 
the Pharisees and chief priests (11 47-53), with the departure 
of Jesus and His disciples to Ephraim (11 54), 


There is then presented Jesus’ last visit to Jerusalem— 
closing the main narrative of the book (11 55-20 31), This 
large section opens with a statement of the coming Passover 
Feast, the curiosity of the people, and the command of the 
Pharisees for Jesus’ arrest (11 5-57), Following this come 
Jesus’ arrival at Bethany and the supper given Him in 
Lazarus’ home (12 !-®—Ey’s explanation ver. 6 and additional 
pemient ver. *), the council of the Jews against Lazarus (12 

OP Ag esus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, with its effect on 
the Pharisees (12 12-19_Ev’s comment vs. 1-18), the desire of 
certain Greeks to see Him, with His remarks and His with- 
drawal from publicity (12 2-8—Ey's statement as to the 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


John, Gospel of 


persistent unbelief of the Jews, with confirmation from 
prophecy, (12 87-43), with His further remarks (12 445°), 

This brings the narrative to the Passover Meal of Jesus with 
His disciples (13 1), which is given in detail, with the preceding 


‘controversy among the disciples (13 2-29), the disclosure of the 


betrayer during its course (13 21%), and the questions of the 
disciples (13 36-88), leading up to His consolatory discourse 
(chs. 14-16), and valedictory prayer (ch. 17). 

There then follow the departure of Jesus and His disciples 
from the room and their arrival in Gethsemane (18 1), with 
the narrative of the betrayal (18 2"}2), the taking of Jesus 
to Annas (18 18a—Ev’s explanation vs. 1b; 14), Peter’s first denial 
(18 5-18), the trial before Caiaphas (18 19-24), Peter’s second and 
third denials (18 25-27), the presentation of Jesus before Pilate 
for judgment (18 %), with the details of His examination by 
that official (18 29-19 12), and the final surrender to the demand 
of the crowd for His Crucifixion (19 13716), 

This is followed by a narrative of the Crucifixion (19 17-37— 
Ev’s explanation 19 %™ and self-testimony vs. %5-37), the 
Burial (19 38-42), and the Resurrection, with its accompanying 
appearances to the disciples (20 1-29), closing with the Ev’s 
statement as to the motive of the narrative (20 39 f-), 

Ch. 21 is added evidently by way of supplement or epilog, 
giving an appearance of Jesus to His disciples at the Sea of 
Tiberias (21 1-6), with its effect upon the disciples (21 7 t-— 
Ev’s explanation vs. 7, 8b), the following meal upon the shore 
(21 *4—Hv’s statement ver. !4), Jesus’ questions to Peter, 
with Peter’s responses and the commissions given him (21 
15-17) and finally Jesus’ prophecy regarding Peter, with Peter’s 
query and Jesus’ response (21 18 3—Ky’s explanation ver. !9 
and statement ver. 28). 

This is closed with a formal assurance by those who pub- 
lished the Gospel as to the reliability of the record, with the 
impression of the writer representing them as to its relation 
in extent to the whole of Jesus’ life (21 24 f-), 


(a) Bearing upon Authorship. When we come to 


study the material covered by this outline we find at © 
outset that while the author is not named there is 
used an expression in referring to one of the dis- 
ciples which is significant as appearing to be either 
the author’s designation of himself or the designation 
of him by a later hand, or hands (see 21 24 in con- 
nection with 21 7, 20 (‘the disciple whom Jesus 
loved,’ 13 23, 19 26, 20 2, 217, 20). Naturally such 
a phrase turns us to one of the three disciples— 
Peter, James, and John—who were on terms of in- 
timate fellowship with Jesus. Of these three, how- 
ever, Peter is excluded, because of his being definitely 
named along with this peculiarly described disciple 
(13 23 £., 20 2-10, 217, 20, 23; cf. 1815 f.). James is also 
excluded because of his early martyrdom (Ac 12 2, 
44 a.p.). John alone remains, and while he is not 
described elsewhere in the N T by this phrase, he is 
found in such companionship with Peter in the 
Jerusalem Church life (Ac 3 1-11, 41-22, 8 14; cf. also Gal 
29) as would correspond with the companionship of 
Peter and this peculiarly described disciple in the 
Gospel narrative (see passages above; cf. also Lk 
22.8). Assuming that the Apostle John is thus re- 
ferred to, is he to be identified with the author of 
the Gospel? In answer to this question there are 
certain things which a more detailed study of the 
Gospel renders quite evident. 

(1) Such study shows that, whoever the author 
may have been, he was a Jew. The evidence for this 
is briefly: (a) His familiarity with the situation of 
Jewish national affairs—e.g., («) the loss by the 
Jews of the legal right to put to death (18 31, 19 7)3 
(8) the function of the high priest in the trial of a 
prisoner (18 19, 24, as compared with 18 13); (y) 
Pilate’s unstable position at Rome (19 12-15, 21). 
(b) His familiarity with the J ewish parties—e.g. , (a) 
the party composition of the Sanhedrin (7 45-52); 


John, Gospel of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


468 





(@) the identification of the chief priests with the 
Sadducees, as in their subordination to the popular 
leadership of the Pharisees (passim), and their 
haughty aristocracy of manner (11 49). (c) His 
familiarity with Jewish customs—e.g., («) the minor 
feasts—as Dedication (10 22; cf. I Mac 4 59); (@) the 
custom of attending the feasts in Jerusalem (7 2-13), 
the habit of the Galileans in particular (4 45), as well 
as the ceremonial details during their observance— 
e.g., those of the last day of the Feast of Tabernacles 
(7 37); (y) the necessity which controlled the Sab- 
bath of the Passover (19 31, 42); (8) the law of de- 
filement during the feast (18 28) and of purifica- 
tion before the feast (11 55); (¢) the marriage cus- 
toms (21 ff.) and the manner of burying (11 44, 
19 39 £.). (d) His familiarity with ideas and con- 
ceptions peculiarly Jewish—e.g., («) the relations 
between the Samaritans and the Jews (49); (8) the 
Rabbinic avoidance of conversation with a woman 
(4 27); (y) the importance attached to education in 
the Rabbinic schools (7 15, 49); (8) the Messianic 
expectations among the people (ch. 7). (e) The 
fact that he was acquainted with the Hebrew text 
sufficiently to correct the LXX. rendering of his 
quotations by the original reading—e.g., the citation 
from Is 6 10 (12 40), and that from Ps 41 9 (13 18). 
Finally (f) the fact that his style bears a Hebrew 
stamp and betrays a Hebrew influence—e.g., («) the 
repetition of phrase with advancement of thought 
in 1 1-5, 10 11-16, 15 1-10, 17 2-5, 9 f., 15-17); (@) the 
parallelism of ideas with contrasted juxtaposition 
of words in 6 35, 12 44 f., 13 20; (y) the symbolic 
tendency of thought in 1 4f., 5 25, 6 55 f., 12 32, 14 19. 

(2) It shows the author was a Palestinian Jew— 
i.e., a Jew who knew the land through a personal 
acquaintance which came from living in it. From 
the frequency and detail of geographical and topo- 
graphical reference in Mt and Mk, as over against 
Lx, it would seem that such a characteristic agreed 
with the Palestinian residence of the first two writers. 
But this characteristic is more marked in the Fourth 
Gospel than in either Mt or Mk, and is often of a 
peculiarly detailed and descriptive kind—e.g., (a) a 
distinguishing of places from others of similar name 
(1 28, 21, 11), (b) a definiteness regarding out-of-the 
way places (38 23, 1154), (c) a descriptiveness regard- 
ing well-known places (4 5f., 11, 20), (d) a familiarity 
of detail regarding Jerusalem and the Temple (2 20, 
5 2, 8 20, 10 23, 181, 19 13, 41). The significance of 
these references is evident in the fact that several 
of them are to places destroyed or lost sight of in 
the fall of Jerusalem and consequently which could 
only with difficulty have been known of in the 
2d cent. (For fuller treatment of these two points, 
see Drummond, pp. 352-374). 

(3) It shows the author was an eye-witness of 
the events which he describes. Obviously, in propor- 
tion as the foregoing points have to do with occur- 
rences in Jesus’ ministry, the familiarity which they 
disclose is that which goes most naturally with an 
actual participation of the narrator in what occurred. 
Obviously also, as this familiarity discloses itself to 
be the characteristic of the narrative in general, the 
inference of personal contact with the events re- 
corded is strongly confirmed. Now, as a matter of 


fact, Matthew and Mark display this characteristic 
in their general narrative, as over against Luke, 
whose versatility would have enabled him easily to 
crowd his record with the marks of personal partici- 
pation in its events if he had had it. This participa- 
tion, however, Matthew did personally have (see 
MatrHew, Gospret or, § 1j), while Mark had it 
through Peter—from whom he got his material and 
who was one of Jesus’ most intimate and perhaps 
most impressionable disciples. It is interesting, 
therefore, to note that this familiarity is character- 
istic of the Fourth Evangelist’s narrative to a greater 
degree than it is even of Matthew’s or Mark’s. It is 
not a mere definiteness of statement that is dis- 
played, since this is possible where there has been 
no personal presence (cf. Mt 413, before Matthew’s 
call); much less is it mere length of statement, for 
this is even more possible without a personal — 
presence (cf. Mt 4 24 f£., before Matthew’s call); 
but a familiarity of touch which gives to the narra- 
tive a personal cast that most naturally involves 
a personal contact with the events (cf. e.g., 1 35-51, 
4 4-42, 6 1-14, 11 1-46, 19 25-27—notably in comparison 
with Synoptic parallels 7 2-10 (cf. Lk 9 51-56], 12 1-8 
[ef. Mk 14 3-9; Mt 26 6-13], 13 1-20 [cf. Lk 22 24-30] 
18 2-12 [ef. Mk 14 43-52; Mt 26 47-56; Lk 22 47-53)) 

The author is constantly throwing into the narra- 
tive words and phrases and remarks that have no 
value apart from their connection with his own 
experience in the events he records. Note, e.g., 
(1) The incident of Peter and ‘that other disciple’ 
at the tomb (20 3-8)—there is no call for the details 
of his outrunning Peter and yet hesitating to enter 
until encouraged by Peter’s impulsiveness, and then, 
when he saw the disposal of the napkin and the 
linen cloths, coming as by a shock to the conviction 
of the Master’s return to life. There is no call for 
these details apart from his memory of the changes 
through which his thinking went in those swift 
moments. (2) The minute description of what took 
place on the Lake the morning after the multitude 
had been fed (6 22-24). Nothing of what happened 
the evening before, or in Capernaum afterwards, 
calls for these details—details so unimportant in 
themselves that they would never be looked for in 
the story, and yet, so interesting to the author that 
he could not refrain from giving them, because they 
were part of what to him was the crisis in the 
Master’s Galilean Ministry. So (8) the note added 
to the discourse at the Feast of Dedication (10 22). 
Nothing in the discourse, or in the dispute that 
followed it, depends on that note. Also (4) the 
mention of Sychar and Jacob’s well (45 f.); Bethany 
beyond Jordan (1 28); Aunon, near Salim (3 23); 
the city called Ephraim (11 54). None of these lend 
any weight to, or derive any significance from, the 
narratives with which they are connected. (For 
elaboration of this idea see Dr. H. Scott Holland’s 
The Fourth Gospel (posthumously published, 1923) 
pp. 53-62. 

This personal cast comes to its finest expression 
in the passages where the author gives the character 
of the disciples and some of the followers of Jesus 
(e.g., Philip, 6 5-7, 147-9; Thomas, 11 16, 14 5, 20 24-29; 
Peter, 13 6-9, 20 2-10, 21 3-22 [cf. Mt 14 28-31]; Martha 


469 


and Mary, 11 20-32, 39 [tho see 12 2 in comparison 
with Lk 10 38-41]). There is an intimacy of knowl- 
edge in what is said, as tho the subjects had been 
studied not only at close range, but from the view- 
point of Jesus’ own knowledge of them. In fact, 
there is a frequent appreciation of Jesus’ own less 
evident intimations and allusions and a profound 
entrance into His action and thought which would 
most naturally accord not simply with a personal 
participation in His ministry, but with a peculiar 
closeness of companionship in all the life he was 
privileged to live with the Master (cf. 4 34-38, 6 6, 
64 f., 71, 115, 1311, 28 f.). If it be said that this, after 
all, might be the result of a native power of vision 
into the self of Jesus and of a keenness in the reading 
of the disciples’ character exercised by some spiritual 
genius a hundred years after the earthly ministry 


had been finished, the question immediately arises _ 


whether such vision and insight would not have been 
immeasurably more possible under the stimulus of a 
personal contact with Jesus and His disciples 
in the actual events which that ministry produced. 
Altogether, the author’s narrative has nothing in it 
of the artificial. The statements of fact are not 
forced. The reproductions of impressions are not 
labored. The undesigned way in which they appear 
bears the stamp of naturalness. The very frankness 
with which sometimes the impressions of the event 
are corrected by the better undersanding of later 
years (2 22, 1216), and the independency with which 
in essential matters the Synoptic point of view 
—which by the 2d cent. had attained a position of 
authority in the church—is handled (e.g., as to the 
scene of the ministry, the duration of the ministry, 
the cleansing of the Temple, the date of the Last 
Supper, and the Crucifixion) betray a first-hand 
knowledge of the facts. 

In fact, if one considers the Gospel’s general 
relation to the Synoptic narrative, it is not easy to 
escape the conviction that the author had a knowl- 
edge of the Master’s ministry without which it would 
be difficult fully to understand the narrative which 
the Synoptics give. That narrative presents us 
with a ministry of Jesus for which it offers practi- 
cally no explanation. It does not tell us (1) why 
John’s imprisonment made it necessary for Jesus 
to leave Judea and retire into a region removed 
from what was taking place there (Mk 1 14 f. and ||s; 
(2) why Jesus throughout his Galilean work was so 
careful that the news of His startling deeds should 
not be spread abroad and the Messianic acclaim of 
Himself should be suppressed (Mk 1 43 and _ |ls, 
312, 543, 7 36); (3) why He followed up His feeding 
of the multitude with an abandonment of this 
Galilean ministry and retired with His disciples into 
the sparsely settled regions of Northern Galilee and 
the Decapolis (Mk 7 24, 31 and |ls); (4) why, after 
this period was over, on the disciples’ confession of 
their belief that His Messiahship was spiritually 
something more than a national Messiahship, He 
declared that because of this fact He must go up to 
Jerusalem to be betrayed into the hands of the 
religious leaders and by them be put to death 
(Mk 8 31 ff. and ||s);_ (5) how, when approaching 
he Holy City, He should weep over its coming rejec- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


John, Gospel of 





tion of His message and mission (Lk 19 41 ff.); (6) 
or how,when He arrived there, He found a group of 
adherents and friends ready to do Him service (Mk 
11 2 ff. and |ls, 12 1 #. and |/s, 14 13 ff. and 11 3). 
But the reason for these things is given in the 
Gospel: (1) Jesus left Judea on the imprisonment 
of John because He already had a ministry there in 
which His venturesome cleansing of the Temple 
had set Him in the public eye as a reformer in 
Israel (2 13-22, 4 1-3); He is careful about the spread- 
ing of His Messianic fame, not only because He 
feared to rouse the people’s nationalism (6 15), but 
because He had already tested the religious leaders 
in the Holy City and found them unresponsive to 
His mission (2 23-25, 3 31-36); (3) He abandons His 
Galilean work after the feeding of the multitude ' 
and retires into the regions beyond the Jewish 
border, not only because that provided meal had so 
inflamed the nationalism of His followers that He 
had to meet it with a clear challenge of His spiritual 
claims (ch. 6), under the depression of which His 
following faded away, but because, when after 
that defection He went up again to the Holy City 
to take up there His work, the murderous hostility 
of the religious leaders so threatened a fatal ending 
to His ministry that, not only could His work there 
not be done, but He must withdraw with His dis- 
ciples from all public activities and prepare them for 
the now inevitable end with which His ministry was 
confronted (5 18 and 7 1); (4) so, when that prepara- 
tion had brought the disciples to an acceptance of 
His spiritual Messiahship, He declares to them that 
He must go up to Jerusalem and be put to death, 
it 1s because His previous visit to the Holy City had 
shown the certainty of this outcome and that the 
time had come to make plain to them what they 
must face (5 18 f., 7 25, 8 37, 40,59, 10 11, 15,17f., 11 53); 
(5) so He weeps over the city because His previous 
visits had shown Him with increasing clearness how 
hardened to His claims were even the Covenant 
People of God (2 23-25, 7 31-40; chs. 8, 9, 10); (6) 
And when He came there, the friends and adherents 
He found, fewin number and for the most part of 
small influence, were those who, apart from the un- 
receptive crowd, on these previous visits had doubt- 
less attached themselves to Him (see 31 with 7 50 f., 
7 31, 40, 9 38, 10 21, 40, 11 45, 12 11). 

But, more significantly, the Synoptic narrative 
actually fails to give us any explanation of why it 
was that, in spite of the fact that Jesus’ disciples 
had practically all been followers of the Baptist, 
whose message had emphasized the sinfulness of 
Israel, yet, when Jesus at the very outset of His 
ministry began to forgive people’s sins, to the out- 
raged amazement of the Pharisees and Scribes (Mk 
9 5 and ||s, Lk 7 48), it produced apparently no sense 
of strangeness in the disciples. For this the Fourth 
Gospel offers not so much a doctrinal as a practical 
explanation when it discloses to us in Jesus the 
consciousness of a life and a character that, long 
before any doctrinal reasoning crystallized it in 
their mind, must, through the daily contact of an 
intimate fellowship, in some way have shown them 
the reasonableness and naturalness of the pre- 
rogative He assumed. (See Holland’s striking pres- 


John, Gospel of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


470 





entation of this idea in his above-mentioned book, 
Part I.) 

If behind the Synoptic Gospels lay the faith of 
the Early Church, the question naturally forces 
itself upon us, Where did the Church get that 
faith? The Synoptic narrative leaves us confused 
in the answer to that question unless we can under- 
stand that throughout His ministry Jesus was con- 
scious of a character and life that found their 
natural reason in His unique relation to God. If 
He was, it is not difficult to realize how such a per- 
sonality must have so impressed itself upon the 
disciples as to lead up to the faith that formed the 
life of the Church. It did not need to unfold itself 
to the disciples generally in such a profound way as 
it did to John, nor as fully to them as it did to him 
after it had been broadened and deepened by his 
experience, but that some such a personality as the 
Fourth Gospel discloses could have been among 
the disciples and not impressed itself upon them is 
difficult to believe. If it did, the source of the 
Church’s faith is given us. Ii, however, no such 
personality companied with the disciples through 
those two years of Jesus’ life and work, then it is 
hard to know what it was that produced that faith. 

The same consideration should hold in judging 
the account in Ac 1-12 as to its value as revealing 
the real faith in and appreciation of the person of 
Jesus which was after all the most powerful factor 
in the situation. The record in Ac shows us the 
externals—a group of men and women who had 
known Jesus and who now were seeking to prove 
to their Jewish brethren that He was the Messiah. 
But what He was to them personally, what they 
had found or seen in Him that had spoken to their 
souls was hard to put into words. No Christian 
terminology was yet at hand, and would have 
been of little significance then as proof to others of 
the Messiahship. In the nature of the case that 
proof had to be drawn mainly from Scripture as 
fulfilled by him or from evidence of His super- 
natural power (His resurrection, miracles, etc.). The 
deeper, more personal experience, necessarily, came 
to expression later in such a writing as the Fourth 
Gospel, which is conditioned by just those circum- 
stances which made possible and needful such ex- 
pression. This experience, however, must have been 
present from the first, for without it there would 
have been no faith. 

In view, then, of this indirect testimony as to 
the eye-witness character of the record, such pas- 
sages as 19 35, where the author calls upon Christ 
Himself (éxetvoc; ef. Zahn, Introd., § 65) to witness 
to the truth of what he says, and 21 24, where those 
who publish the Gospel indorse the truthfulness of 
its contents, are most significant. The first passage 
is the outpouring of the author’s own soul in memory 
of the closing scene of the great tragedy on Calvary; 
the other is the deliberate assurance of those who 
knew him and his personal contact with the history 
which he gives. 

4That the Gospel shows signs of editorial work is, of 
course, to be frankly admitted, in view of such a statement 
as that in 21 24; In fact it may be that the designation of 


the author as ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved’ (13 2%, 19 26, 
20 2, 21 2°) is more likely to have come from those who knew 


(b) Bearing upon Date. As to the time when the 
Gospel was written, on the supposition that ch. 21 
is by another hand or hands, ver. 24 would appar- 
ently show by its use of the present tense that the 
editors were contemporary with the author. Apart, 
however, from any testimony in this ch. the lateness 
of the Gospel’s writing is evident from the maturity 
which pervades the Gospel’s thought, as seen in the 
principle which evidently controls the selection of 
material—e.g., (a) the production of Jesus’ profound 
discourses (chs. 2-8, 10-17), (b) the development of 
thoughts present germinally in the Synoptics (cf. Mt 
11 4-6 with Jn 5 36, 10 25, 38, 1411, 15 24; Mt 915, 26 11 
with Jn 18 1-3, 33, 36, 7 34, 8 21, 14 2 f., 12, 19, 28, 16 5, 
10, 16, 17 11). But this maturity of the Apostle’s 
thought would in all probability be due to lateness 
in the Apostolic Age; since it is difficult to under- 
stand where the reason for such selection would be— 
even with a mature mind—unless it was in the 
author’s times. His advance upon the Synoptists 
finds its natural explanation in the advance of the 
thought of the Church, which must have progressed 
with the lapse of time. 

(c) Bearing upon Place. As to the place of writing, 
there is nothing in the Gospel to determine it; altho 
from what has been shown as to the lateness of its 
date it is not likely that it was written in Palestine. 

(d) Bearing upon Readers. As to the readers, it 
is clear from 20 30f. that they were already Christians 
—evidently those with whom the author had come 
in contact in his work and whom he sought by this 
presentation of Christ’s life to win to a more vital 
faith in Him. 

(e) Bearing upon Purpose. As to the purpose of 
the writing, it is clear the author was not aiming at 
producing a history; the narrative is too meager 
for that. Nor did he have in mind the writing of a 
biography; there are only glimpses of the life which 
are given to us. His object was religious, as 20 30 f. 
makes plain and clear. And if it be said that all the 
Synoptists had a similar object (GospEL, GosPELs, 
§ 3), it is apparent that the religious object of this 
Fourth Gospel in a unique way centered itself on 
bringing out the personality of Christ as it had 
impressed itself upon the author’s own spiritual life 
—not by a display of His miraculous deeds, for the 
miracles given are few; nor by a disclosure of the 
people’s enthusiasm for Him, for it is the popular 
the author’s relationship to Jesus than from this self-elimina- 
ting author himself; while the Baptist’s designation of Jesus as 
‘the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world’ 
(1 29, 386) is so different from his conception of the Coming One 
as given us in the Synoptics as to suggest a development of 
his spiritual ideas by others (see Jonn THE Baptist, § 4). 
Obviously, the displaced arrangement of the Gospel’s ma- 
terial (e.g., ch. 5 before ch. 6, tho directly connected 
with 7 15-24; 7 1-14 before vs. 15-24, tho they stand rightly 
before vs. 25-36; 7 45-82 after vs. 87-44, tho they properly 
precede them; 12 36b-43, before vs. 44-59, tho they properly 
come after them; chs. 15, 16 after 14 3!, which is clearly the 
close of the discourse, instead of after 13 2°, or the ‘Jesus 
saith’ of 13 31; 18 19-24 between vs. 18 and 25, which properly 
belong together, instead of after ver. 13, to which they clearly 
relate)—all this displacement is most naturally accounted 
for by editorial manipulation of the original material (see 
Burton, Short Introduction to the Gospels (1904),pp. 117-129; also 
Lewis, Disarrangements in the Fourth Gospel (1910). Such 
editing, however, does not affect the bearing of the general 


material of the Gospel upon its authorship as presented in the 
foregoing section. 


471 A NEW STANDARD 


coldness and hostility to Him which characterize the 
record, but by a presentation of Jesus’ own con- 
sciousness of His divinely human self. 

This constitutes the internal evidence. It would 
seem to establish the identity of the author referred 
to in § 2(a), above.® 

3. External Evidence. External evidence is 
practically at one in ascribing to the Gospel a 
Ist-cent. origin and an authorship by a John whose 
contact with the Gospel history is of first-hand 
character. In fact, it is so clear that by this John 
external evidence understands the Apostle that such 
scholars as Drummond (Character and Authorship of 
the Fourth Gospel, pp. 346-351), Stanton (The Gospels 
as Historical Documents, Part I, pp. 231-238), 
Sanday (Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 238-248), 
Ezra Abbot (The Fourth Gospel, pp. 75 f., 84 f.), 
Harnack (Chronologie d. alitchrist. Literatur, I, p. 
677, and Overbeck, Das Johannes Evangelium, p. 
123), on careful and painstaking investigation 
frankly admit it. This evidence is, in brief, that at 
the close of the 2d cent. the Gospel was universally 
accepted throughout the Church as the Apostle 
John’s. From this date its acceptance as John’s 
can be traced back to Irenzeus’, the significance of 
whose assignment of it to this source lies in the fact 
that he was a pupil of Polycarp, who was himself a 
pupil of the Apostle John. At the same time its 
use, independent of assignment to Apostolic author- 
ship, can be traced to the first decade of the 2d 
cent., showing it thus to be a product of the 
Apostolic Age. That external evidence, therefore, 
unchallenged at the time as it was by those whose 
every interest would have been to dispute it, 
confirms the evidence from the Gospel itself as to 
the identity of the author, not only with a John of 
Jesus’ disciple band, but with the John of His 
Apostolic circle, would seem too strong to be 
successfully controverted. (For full discussion of 
the tradition see Zahn, N T Introduction, § 64.) 

This John external evidence locates at Ephesus, 
from which place he carried on his later work 
throughout the surrounding region, until his death in 


the reign of Trajan (see JoHN THE APOSTLE). The | 


importance of this testimony in connection with the 
character of the Gospel’s contents is obvious; for 
Western Asia was a field of speculative thought even 
in the Apostolic Age (see CoLossiANns, EPISTLE 
TO THE, § 4), and developed along lines which bear 
significantly upon the so called philosophical ele- 
ment in the Gospel. This fact has been used, conse- 
quently, to show that the Gospel is the product of 
its environment, and thus, after all, a philosophical 
treatise, and not a record of historical fact. To this 


5 For a discussion of the theory that the Apostle was 
martyred with his brother James in 44 a.p., see Drummond, 
Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, pp. 228-235, 
and for a discussion of the theory of Delff, which would sup- 
plement it, that the author was a younger disciple attached 
to the circle of the Twelve, see Sanday, Criticism of Fourth 
Gospel, pp. 19, 99-108. For other suggestions of authorship, 
see Jackson, The Problem of the Fourth Gospel (1918), 
Excursus II. 


6 In explanation of the failure of Ireneus distinctly to 
identify this John with the Apostle (Bacon, in Hibbert Journal, 
April, 1903), see Drummond (Character and Authorship of the 
Fourth Gospel, pp. 241-245). 


BIBLE DICTIONARY John, Gospel of 


end the Ephesian residence of the Apostle is disputed 
and the authorship of the Gospel assigned to another 
John of Ephesus—the Presbyter—with whom it is 
claimed the Fathers have confused the Apostle, 
who lived and died in Palestine and who had neither 
the ability nor the quality which would produce 
such a speculative work. (See JoHN THE APOSTLE.) 
This is one of the points of the revived attack upon 
the Gospel to-day (Harnack, Chronologie, I, pp. 
675-680; Jiilicher, Introduction, pp. 402-429; 
Schmiedel in #B, II, cols. 2506-2514; see also 
Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, II, p. 275). 
It has secured naturally considerable weight through 
the confirmation given by the De Boor fragment 
(Texte und Untersuch., V, 2, pp. 170, 177) to the 
theory of the Apostle’s martyrdom in 44 a.p. (see 
Note 5, this page). The effort, however, to sweep 
away the evidence for the Asian residence of the 
Apostle John must be considered a failure. There 
is no confusion in the minds of the Fathers as to 
the John whose life and work in Ephesus they 
assert. He is clearly the John of the Apostolic circle. 
In fact, for the residence in Asia of another so 
called Presbyter John we have absolutely no proof. 
(Drummond, Character and Authorship of Fourth 
Gospel, pp. 194-235, and Bacon, Fourth Gospel in 
Research and Debate [1910], p. 452 f.). 

It would seem, therefore, that external evidence 
confirms the conclusions reached from internal 
evidence that the author of the Gospel was 
Apostle John. 


4. Objections to the Discourses. In all the 
criticism of the Gospel the main point of objection 
has practically always been and remains to-day 
the difference between the discourses of Jesus given 
in the Fourth Gospel compared with those presented 
in the Synoptic narrative, the contention being that 
the difference between these two sets of discourses 
is of such a peculiar kind that the same person 
could not have delivered both’. 

In proof of this position it is held that the Fourth 
Gospel presents us not simply with a more elevated 
form of discourse in place of the simple talks of the 
Synoptics—nor simply with an allegorical form of 
statement in the place of the parabolic form of the 
Synoptics, but rather that the Fourth Gospel almost 
exclusively substitutes Jesus Himself as the subject 
of the discourses in place of the varied and practical 
topics of the Synoptic talks (cf. Mt chs. 5-7, 11-13, 
18, 20-23, 25; Mk chs. 6, 7, 10, 18; Lk chs. 10-18, 
15-18); while it treats this self-subject of Jesus 
almost exclusively at the’ point of His Divinity and 
His relation to the Unseen World (cf. chs. 1-3, 5-8, 
10-17)—in other words that the discourses of the 
Fourth Gospel are transcendental, philosophical 
and speculative, and unthinkable as having been 
uttered by the Jesus whom we know in the Synoptic 
narrative. 

In considering this objection we must remember 
that these differences are not absolute. There are 
traces of Fourth Gospel peculiarities in the Synoptics 
(cf. Mt 11 25-30; Lk 4 16-30) and traces of Synoptic 





7 Wendt’s position, Das Evangelium Johannes (1900) (Eng. 
transl. 1902), is an exception in its acceptance of the dis- 
courses as primary. 


John, Gospel of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


472 





peculiarities in the Fourth Gospel (cf. 4 35-38); while 
certain expressions of Jesus have entered commonly 
into both sets of discourses and entered so naturally 
as to make it plain that in neither case are they 
artificial (cf. 219 with Mk 14 58, 15 29; 4 44 with Mk 
6 4; 6 20 with Mt 14 27, etc.). 

When, however, apart from these similarities, we 
ask a reason for the differences, the question arises 
whether one can wholly ignore the difference in the 
surroundings in which they were delivered, the 
difference in the audiences to which they were 
spoken, and the difference in the narrators by whom 
they were reported. Had the Synoptics reported 
Jesus as delivering to the country folk of Galilee, 
who were largely loyal to Him, and during the early 
practical period of His work, when He was gathering 
around Himself a discipleship from the people, the 
same sorts of discourses, on the same sorts of themes 
as the Fourth Gospel reports Him as delivering to 
the speculative Scribes and Pharisees of Jerusalem, 
who were largely hostile to Him and during the later 
theological part of His work, when He came to 
present His Messianic claims to the leaders of the 
Nation, the credibility of the Synoptics would have 
been justly called in question. On the other hand, 
had the Fourth Gospel reported Him as delivering 
the same sorts of discourses to the Scribes and 
Pharisees in Jerusalem, largely at the close of His 
ministry, as the Synoptics reported Him as deliver- 
ing to the Galilean peasants at His ministry’s be- 
ginning, the credibility of the Fourth Gospel would 
have been more doubted than it is now. In propor- 
tion as the discourses of the Synoptics are suited to 
the people and circumstances of Galilee and the 
early Galilean work and those of the Fourth Gospel 
to the people and circumstances of Jerusalem and 
the later controversial stage of the ministry—in 
that proportion are both sets of discourses sup- 
posable. 

This is confirmed by the significant fact that the 
only discourse delivered outside of Jerusalem and 
to a Galilean audience so effectually confused and 
confounded those who heard it that it practically 
ended Jesus’ successful work in this region. (See 
ch. 6.) Such discourses could not have been delivered 
to the Galileans from the beginning of the ministry 
and the ministry have accomplished what it did. 
This becomes all the more evident when it is remem- 
bered that through dislocations of the original order 
of the Gospel’s narrative (see Note 5, page 471), 
among other changes, ch. 5 follows ch. 6—as must be 
obvious from a study of the connections between 
these chs. and ch. 7. This change, however, places 
the discourse of ch. 5 along with the other contro- 
versial discourses in the later Jerusalem ministry 
and adds to the isolated character of the discourse 
of ch. 6. 

But, whether delivered in Jerusalem or in Galilee, 
one can hardly fail to note the naturalness with 
which they grow out of the situations with which 
they are connected and develop through the dis- 
cussions they produce. ‘Their relation to the cir- 
cumstances in which they are delivered is no more 
artificial than that of the Synoptic discourses to the 
conditions which called them forth. 


If it be claimed, that however illumining all this 
may be, it does not adequately explain the differ- 
ences in the discourses—that Mt and Lk give a 
record of the later Jerusalem ministry and yet do not 
present Jesus as discoursing in the way characteristic _ 
of the Fourth Gospel—it is to be remembered that 
while this is so they do not, on the other hand, 
present Jesus as speaking in the same way as in His 
early Galilean work. There is a tone of judgment in 
Jesus’ later discourses as given by them which does 
not appear in His earlier talks on practical every- 
day themes. 

If it be further queried—on the basis that both 
kinds of discourses were actually delivered by Jesus 
in His later work—why one kind shouid be so 
markedly confined to the Synoptics and the other 
kind with equal exclusiveness limited to the Fourth 
Gospel, it must be remembered that we have to deal, 
not only with differences in surroundings and in - 
audience, but with differences in narrators as well, 
and that it is not impossible that the Fourth Evan- 
gelist saw a different side of Jesus from that which 
the Synoptists saw and in these discourses has given 
us that different side, which, as a matter of fact, 
must have disclosed itself in largest measure in 
Jesus’ later ministry. If it be demurred finally that 
it is unthinkable that a Galilean peasant, such as the 
son of Zebedee, should have been capable of seeing 
such a side of Jesus if it did exist, and capable of 
giving it to usif he saw it, we must not forget that if 
John belonged to the intimate circle of Jesus’ dis- 
ciples, and if, in this circle, he could be designated as 
the disciple whom Jesus specially loved, then there 
must have been in the relation of the disciple to 
Jesus that personality of acquaintance with the 
Master which could have formed the foundation 
of such a knowledge of the deeper and more thought- 
ful side of Jesus which would have made possible 
an attention to and a reproduction of just such 
discourses as this Fourth Gospel characteristically 
gives. If it is natural for the more pragmatic 
Matthew and Peter to have caught the more 
practical side of Jesus’ ministry and reproduced it in 
their narratives, is it beyond all naturalness that a 
more mystical John could have caught the more 
thoughtful side of Jesus’ ministry and reproduced it 
in his narrative—especially when the manifestation 
of that side must have been so largely confined to the 
later Jerusalem ministry which he makes substan- 
tially the content of his record? Much is and ought 
to be made of the subjective element disclosed in the 
author’s handling of his material. On this very 
basis, however, if the Gospel was written when and 
where tradition places it, the environment of thought 
and life in which the author found himself must 
have stimulated him to just such a deeper recollec- 
tion and profounder presentation of the life which 
he had witnessed and the personality with which 
he had come in contact. Such a character as is here 
presented may not have been created by the philo- 
sophical and theological atmosphere of Western 
Asia at the close of the ist cent., but: the deeper 
appreciation of it as it had actually shown itself and 
the more thoughtful disclosure of it as it had come 
to be appreciated must have been influenced by 


478 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


John, Gospel of 





such surroundings, as they could not have been 
by the simpler life and thought of the early years 
of the Apostolic Age. It is, of course, urged that in 
the riticism of the Epistle to the Hebrews it is 
claimed that a man like Paul could not possibly have 
written in such an elevated style and with such 
strange philosophical ideas as the writer of this 
Epistle, which is all that is claimed against the 
Fourth Gospel. This ignores, however, the impor- 
tant fact that the cases are not similar. Paul has 
given us an established character of style and views 
in his accepted Epistles. Disagreement with these 
on the part of the author of Hebrews is so great that 
there can be no identity of authorship. On the other 
hand, John has given us no such standard. In fact, 
we get a picture of the man from the Synoptic 
history and from the Book of Acts and from acknowl- 
edged tradition which shows him to have been in 
the direction of just such a writing. The question 
is simply whether he could have grown, not changed, 
to it. As a matter of fact, the whole problem re- 
duces itself to the query whether it is easier to un- 
derstand the Apostle as reproducing Christ’s own 
expression of His personality, as he had come 
spiritually to appreciate it under the pressure of his 
environment, or an unknown genius of the 2d cent. 
as creating this personality itself as a product of his 
own idealizing through the suggestion of his sur- 
roundings. It has been due not a little to a realizing 
of this impossible alternative that recent criticism 
has moved so definitely in the direction of recog- 
nizing more or less of a historical basis in the 
contents of the book. 


5. The Thought of the Book. I. The thought of 
the Gospel gathers around the Person of Christ. By 
this is meant not merely that the Evangelists makes 
Jesus’ discourses the contents of his Gospel, but that 
Jesus makes the content of His discourses Himself 
(see preceding §). This is their characteristic; their 
subject is the self of Jesus. That personality of 
whose presence we are so conscious in the Synoptic 
narrative is presented to us here with a directness 
and a fulness that have made these discourses the 
storm-center of the Gospel’s criticism. If it can 
be gathered from the Synoptics that Jesus’ con- 
sciousness of His self was the source of His con- 
sciousness of His Messiahship and created not 
only the spirit in which, but the view-point from 
which, all His Messianic work was done, then from 
these discourses it must be convincingly clear that 
this self-consciousness of Jesus was the ever-present 
fact of His life, the eternal convicition in all that He 
said, and the undying motive and reason in all that 
He did. Jesus’ teaching regarding Himself is thus 
naturally the heart of the Fourth Gospel’s thought 
(see GosPpEL, GosPELs, § 6). 

In this teaching Jesus speaks of Himself in three 
ways: (1) As the Christ, (2) as the Son of Man, 
(3) as the Son of God. (1) As the Christ, Jesus came 
necessarily face to face with the traditional national- 
ism of the Jews, especially in the later controver- 
sial stage of His ministry. Over against their con- 
ception of what the Messiah should be stood the 
Spiritual conception with which He informed the 
title. As Messiah He was not a political revolu- 


tionist (6 14 f.), not even the king who should fulfil 
the theocratic ideal (1 41, 49-51); He was the repre- 
sentative of a new spiritual order which, apart from 
all theocratic conditions, was to establish the will 
of God in the hearts and lives of men (cf. the talk 
with the Samaritan woman, leading up to His 
acknowledgment of Messiahship, 47-26). Naturally, 
therefore, He does not enter into the political de- 
bates of the people regarding His Messiahship (ch. 
7), nor answer their request for a plain announce- 
ment of His Messianic claims (10 24). What He was 
as Messiah was so far above what they thought the 
Messiah to be that He could not use the title with 
any hope of being understood. It is only with the 
Samaritan woman at the beginning (4 26) and with 
the disciples at the end (17 3) that the title is as- 
sumed; but the conception of the spiritual opposite 


to their ideas is always present.. When we examine 


this conception we find that Jesus practically 
identifies it with His conception of Himself as the 
Son of Man (cf. 7 31-34 with 12 34-36) and as the 
Son of God (cf. 9 22 with ver. 35; 10 24 with vs. 25-38; 
ef. also Martha’s unrebuked identification, 11 27). 


(2) As son of Man, Jesus came again in conflict 
with traditional Messianic conceptions, tho at a 
farther remove from popular ideas; for whatever 
the people may have known of it from its usage in 
the O T (Dn ch. 7), they had no distinct under- 
standing of it (12 34). Jesus was, therefore, more 
free to use it and to put into it His consciousness of 
His relationship to man. As He presents it, this 
relationship is that of One who had descended from 
Heaven as His abode (3 13) and was, therefore, to 
ascend again into Heaven (6 62), and who was thus 
to establish in Himself communication between 
Heaven and Earth (1 51). Because of this heavenly 
origin and consummation, He was the dispenser of 
eternal life to men (6 27, 33, 51-54) and, at the same 
time, the executor of judgment among them (5 27). 
In this mission, however, He was to be lifted up upon 
the Cross (8 14, 8 28, 12 32), and through this Cross 
to be glorified (12 23 f., 13 31). This title designates 
thus the unique character of His personality as the 
Founder and Head of the Kingdom of God, and in 
proportion as it resolves into itself the title of 
Messiah shows His conception of His Messiahship 
to involve in itself a nature beyond that of man. 

(8) This is brought out distinctly in His use of 
the title Son of God; for through this title Jesus 
presents His more intimate relationship to God in 
His origin with God (8 42), whom He knows thus in 
a primary way (8 55) and whose heavenly glory He 
possessed before His coming into the world (17 5), 
in the character of His work as perfectly represent- 
ing the will of God (5 30, 6 38, 8 29, 46), and thus 
as perfectly revealing God’s truth (8 40-46, 14 6 f., 
18 37; cf. 8 26 with vs. 31 f. and 36; cf. 17 4, 6-8 with 
vs. 14-17), and in the character of His own self, as 
one with God not only morally (17 21-23), but 
actually (10 38, 149, 11) and essentially (10 30, 17 5). 
Such a title, whether understood by the people 
in a Messianic sense or not (1 49; ef. Mt 26 63), was 
certain to arouse the fiercest resentment from their 
monotheism (5 18, 8 58 f., 10 30-39), and we might 
have thought that for this reason it would have 


John, Gospel of 
Joiada 


A NEW STANDARD 
been declined by Jesus. Its use is, therefore, all 
the more significant as showing that, while Jesus 
avoided the political controversy into which the 
title of Messiah would have inevitably brought Him, 
He did not hesitate to face the people with the title 
which expressed the fundamental claim on which 
He was conscious the whole character of His work 
for the salvation of the world depended. At the 
same time, it is evident that with Jesus these two 
titles, Son of Man and Son of God, involve much of 
the same idea. In His discourse at the unnamed 
Feast [Pentecost] (ch. 5) He speaks of His work as 
The Son, asserting the power which He possessed as 
Son of God to raise the dead (vs. 25-29) and at the 
same time the judgment He was to execute as Son of 
Man (ver. 27). So in His discourse after the feeding 
of the multitude (ch. 6) He declares that through 
acceptance of the Son men were to have eternal 
life and be raised at the last day (ver. 40), and along 
with this asserts that it is His prerogative as Son of 
Man to give to men eternal life (ver. 27); in fact, that 
eternal life and resurrection at the last day are 
possible only through acceptance of this Son of 
Man (ver. 53 f.), and that spiritual life is to be 
found only in His words, who as Son of Man is to 
ascend where He was before (ver. 62 f.; cf. ver. 68). 
Again, in the discourse following the Feast of 
Tabernacles (ch. 8), He speaks of the accord of His 
words as the Son of Man with what had been taught 
Him by His Father (ver. 28). It is plain, therefore, 
that in a real sense His prerogatives as Son of God, 
His origin as Son of God, His character as Son of 
God, belong to Him also as Son of Man and so, in 
fact, as Messiah. In other words, Jesus’ whole 
presentation of Himself rests upon and is derived 
from the unity of His consciousness of the unique 
relation which He sustained to God. 

When we come to study the Evangelist’s own 
conception of Jesus as apart from Jesus’ conception 
of Himself,we find that, while he does not use the 
term Son of Man, he speaks of Jesus as the Messiah 
through whom has come into the world the revela- 
tion of God and spiritual life (1 17; cf. ver. 18), and 
as the Son of God whose origin was with God (13 3) 
and with whom He is in unique relations (1 18)— 
involving, according to 1 1-3, 10, a fellowship with 
God and an instrumentality in His creative activity 
before the world was—who was commissioned by 
God to the redemption of the world (3 16 f., 34 f.; 
ef. 1 9-14), and through whom alone this redemption 
is possible (3 18, 36). These titles he unites in his 
declaration of the purpose for which his Gospel 
was written (20 31). 

If it be urged that he uses such Philonic terms as 
& Adyog (1 1, 14) and 6 povoyevfs (1 14, 18, 3 16, 18) to 
express his conception of the person of Christ, it 
shows, even if we do not accept the Semitic possibil- 
ity of these terms (as contended for by Harris, The 
Prologue to the Fourth Gospel [1917], and Burney, 
The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel [1922]), that 
he is interpreting his idea for the Hellenic world 
around him. But there is no evidence that this 
interpretation goes so far as a misrepresentation of 
Jesus Himself, in which the author struggled un- 
successfully to fuse the actual statements of Jesus 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 474 


with the philosophy of his day (as maintained by 
Scott, The Fourth Gospel [1906], ch. xii). For in the 
first place, it is to be noted that these terms are 
rigidly excluded from the discourses. They appear 
only in those passages which represent the Evan- 
gelist’s own interpretation of this Personality; in 
fact, they stand conspicuously as the expression of 
his own ideas. Furthermore, it is clear that the dis- 
courses themselves show nothing short of a perfect 
consistency between Jesus’ statements regarding 
Himself and that fundamental consciousness of His 
separate relationship to God which He possessed 
in virtue of a sinlessness it was not possible for 
humanity to posit of itself, and of functions human- 
ity itself could not exercise. This is all the more 
significant when we realize that this consciousness is 
disclosed in the Synoptic record which is claimed 
as the standard of Jesus’ thought and life (see 
GosrEL, GospELs, § 6). This being, then, the 
teaching of Jesus and of the Evangelist on the 
doctrine whose presentation is characteristic of the 
Gospel, the remaining points in its thought can be 
briefly stated. 

II. The idea of God. The statements of Jesus 
and of the Evangelist regarding the nature of God 
and His relationship to the world do not differ es- 
sentially from the presentation given us by the Syn- 
optists. There is the same monotheism (5 44, 17 3), 
the same Fatherhood—in a general way toward 
all men (3 16, 4 23), and in a unique way toward 
Jesus Himself (3 35, 5 20, 10 17, 15 9, 17 24) and 
through Him toward His disciples (14 23, 16 27, 17 23). 
His commission of Jesus is the supreme evidence of 
His love to the world (8 16), which He desires not to 
condemn but to save (3 17, 5 22), tho judgment, 
in the sense of testing, is essentially involved in the 
revelation of Jesus’ mission (12 47-50). At the same 
time, God is in His nature Spirit (4 24), and so can be 
apprehended only by spizitual vision (6 46, 149), and, 
tho the giver of spiritual life to the world (5 26, 
6 57; cf. 1 12 f.), can in this giving be appropriated 
only by a spiritual attitude (5 40, 6 37-40, 14 21-23). 

III. The idea of the world. As the physical 
universe, it has come into being through the in- 
strumentality of Jesus in His preexistent relation- 
ship with God (1 3, 10); as the world of human life, 
it was entered by Jesus as its spiritual light (8 19, 
8 12, 9 5, 12 35 f., 46); as the human world alienated 
from God—which is the characteristic idea of the 
world in this Gospel (8 23, 12 31, 14 17, 30, 17 14, 25, 
18 36)—it was the object of God’s redeeming love 
(3 16) and of Jesus’ redeeming mission (12 46 f£.). Its 
sin is represented as a darkness, which is complacent 
with itself and hates to subject itself to the light 
(3 19-21), is of misleading influence (12 35) and of en- 
slaving power (8 34), is a state and condition of the 
soul, whose sinful acts are simply manifestations of 
itself (8 24, 34), and has its source and impersonation 
in the devil (8 44). . 

IV. The idea of the Holy Spirit. As distinct in 
His personality from Jesus (14 16, 26, 15 26, 16 7), 
He is a teacher of the truth which Jesus Himself 
revealed (16 13-15), and thus the glorifying witness 


8 Ch. 17 17 is not a Logos passage, and the Nicodemus dis- 
course ends, obviously, with 3 15, 


475 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


John, Gospel of 
Joiada 





to Him (15 26, 16 14), dwelling within His disciples 
and inspiring them to an understanding of His 
words (14 26) and transforming them in character 
and life (7 38 f.). In relation to the world, He con- 
victs it of its sin, convincing it of the righteousness 
of Jesus and bringing it to realize the judgment 
which rests upon it (16 8-11). The Spirit thus con- 
tinues Jesus’ redemptive work, fostering the spiritual 
life of the disciples and giving effectiveness to His 
message of truth to the world. 


V. The idea of eternal life. It is a condition of 
the soul, the opposite of its condemned alienation 
from God (38 16-21, 36, 10 28). It is made possible 
by the death of Jesus (8 14 f., 6 51, 10 10-18), through 
faith in whom it is made effective (3 16-18, 6 40, 47, 
11 25). This faith is a personal relation to Jesus, 
in which one is united spiritually to Him as the 
branch is united to the vine (15 1-8). It is called 
by Jesus a knowing of God and Himself (17 3), which 
is that conscious attitude of the soul in which it 
not only spiritually apprehends God, as revealed 
in Christ, but so opens itself to Christ’s incoming 
that He becomes the ruling power of its life. It is 
—as is its opposite—a present spiritual state and 
condition, tho it is—as is also its opposite—to be 
consummated in the future world (6 54). 

6. Personality of John. From the facts of the 
Apostle’s life (see JoHN THE AposTLE) and from the 
thought of his Gospel (see preceding §) and of his 
Epistles (see preceding art., § 3), it is plain that 
he presents to us a personality which commands 
our attention. 

Such impetuousness as he showed in his early 
discipleship seems to have been the outcome of a 
nature whose strength lay in the intensity of its 
affections. He was not a ‘Son of Thunder’ in the 
same way as was his brother. Herod did not find 
in him the aggressive propagandist he did in James 
(Ac 121 f.); the Master did not find in James the 
devoted ‘son’ He did in him (Jn 19 26 £.). The 
stories told us by tradition of his rushing from the 
public bath when he knew the heretic Cerinthus was 
under the same roof, and of his allowing himself 
to be taken captive by a robber band in order to 
reclaim a youth whom he had converted and who 
had fallen again into evil life, if they are to be 
accepted as true, show, after all, the man of intense 
emotions rather than the man of aggressive action. 
This was really at the heart of what in the Gospel 
story he did with the exorcist (Mk 9 38 f.) and what 
with his brother he proposed to do with the Samari- 
tans (Lk 9 51-54). From the day of that first 
acquaintance with Jesus at the Jordan to the morn- 
ing of the Resurrection Day at the empty tomb, 
he loved. Tho he outraced Peter to the sepulcher, 
Peter pushed ahead of him into the darkened place, 
yet he was the first to understand and to believe. 

The influence of this character upon his thinking 
is evident. It is not so much that he has flung 
his faith against the error with which he was sur- 
rounded, but rather that he has taken the greatest 
truth of that faith—the person of his Lord—and 
made it his message to his day. This it would not 
have been possible to do had he not first thrown 
himself into that truth and been mastered by it. 


He is not speculative in his presentation of Christ. 
He is not a dialectician like Paul. The words of 
Jesus, as he heard them in those Gospel days, dis- 
closed to him the unfathomable truth of that Divine 
life, and he meditated upon them in all the experi- 
ence of his after-life, but with a profoundness of 
spiritual vigor he could never have possessed had 
he surrendered himself less intensely to Him who 
spoke them. The wondrous vision of that Divine 
personality burned itself into his soul and he con- 
templated it, but with the open eye of spiritual 
strength impossible in one who loved less passion- 
ately than did he. John is a mystic, but not a weak 
one. His thought is strong, because his nature was 
intense. His truth is profound, because his love of 
Him who incarnated it and revealed it in Himself 
was the passion of his life. 


Literature: Among Introductions those of Jilicher (Eng. 
transl. 1904) and Zahn (Eng. transl. 21917) are the best 
representatives respectively of the liberal and conservative 
tendencies of modern German scholarship. See also Bacon, 
N T Introduction in N T Handbooks (1900); Peake, N T 
Introduction in Studies in Theology (1910); Overbeck, Das 
Johannes Evangelium (1911); Jones, N T in the Twentieth Cen- 
tury (1914). Wade, NT History(1922); Perhaps the most com- 
plete introductory works on this Gospel representing present 
English and American scholarship are Drummond’s Char- 
acter and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel (1904), and Bacon’s 
The Fourth Gospelin Research and Debate (1910); see also 
Moffatt, Introduction to the Literature of the N T (1941). 
Among the Commentaries those of B. Weiss in Meyer’s Krit. 
exeget. Kom. tiber d. N T (1902) and Zahn in Kom. z. N T 
(1908) are conspicuous for their exegetical insight; that 
of Holtzmann in Hand-Com. z. N T (1891) for its critical 
refinement. The comprehensive Commentary of Godet 
(Eng. transl. 1887) is in critical and exegetical protest 
against the liberal tendencies of his day. The English 
works of Dods, in Expositor’s Greek Test. (1897) and West- 
cott (!41902) are scholarly and thorough. The smaller work 
of Milligan and Moulton in the International Revision 
Commentary (1908) is exceedingly clear. See also the smaller 
Comm. of Plummer (Cambridge Greek Test., 1900); Mc- 
Clymont (New Century Bible, n.d.); Clark (Westminster N T, 
n.d.); New Testament Theologies, Weiss (Eng. transl. (1888); 
Beyschlag (Eng transl. 1895); Holtzmann (1897), and 
Feine (21912, 31919). See Stevens, in the International Theo- 
logical Library (1899). His single work on the Johannine 
Theology (1894) fails to distinguish in the Gospel between 
the teaching of Jesus and the conceptions of the Evangelist. 
See also as most suggestive: Forrest, The Christ of History 
and of Experience (1897); Garvie, Studies in the Inner Life 
of Jesus (1907); Denney, Jesus and the Gospel (1909); 
Moffat, The Theology of the Gospels in Studies in Theology 
(1913). Of special critical works those to be recommended 
are Sanday, The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel (1905); 
Stanton, The Gospels as Historical Documents (Part iii, 
1920); Harnack, Chronologie der altchrist. Lit. (1897-1904). 
See also Lewis (Mrs.), Light on the Fourth Gospel from the 
Sinai Palimpsest (1913); Strachan, The Fourth Gospel, its 
Significance and Environment (1917); Jackson, The Prob- 
lem of the Fourth Gospel (1918); Burney, The Aramaic Origin 
of the Fourth Gospel (1922); Garvie, The Beloved Disciple 
(1922); also article by Reynolds in HDB. 


For full bibliographies on the Gospel, tho necessarily 
lacking the recent books, reference may be made to lists 
contained in Luthardt, St. John the Author of the Fourth 
Gospel (Eng. trans] 1875), in the Eng. transl. of Meyer’s 
Krit-exeget. Kom. tiber d. N T (1875) and in Watkins’ 
Modern Criticism in Its Relation to the Fourth Gospei 
(Bampton Lectures for 1890). M. W. J 


JOHN MARK. See Marx. 


JOIADA, jei’a-da (YT, yoyadha‘), ‘J’ knows’: 
1. One of those who repaired the wall of Jerusalem 
(Neh 3 6, Jehoiada AV). 2. A high priest, son of 
Eliashib. He was a contemporary of Nehemiah 


Joiakim 
Jonas 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


476 





and held office c. 480, but the exact dates of his 
rule are not known (Neh 12 10f., 22, 13 28). 
EK. E. N. 

JOIAKIM, joi’a-kim (8’P2", ydydqim), ‘J’’ sets 
up’: A high priest, son of Jeshua (cf. Ezr 5 2, etc.). 
He ruled c. 500-450, but exact dates can not be 
given (Neh 12 10, 12, 26). E. E. N. 

JOIARIB, jei’a-rib (2° RV, yoyaribh), ‘J’ will 
contend’: 1. The head of a priestly family (Neh 11 
10, 12 6, 19; Jehoiarib in I Ch 910). 2. One of Ezra’s 
assistants (Ezr 8 16). 3. A descendant of Perez 
(Neh 11 5). 

JOKDEAM, jek’di-am (8Y1P?, yogd‘am): A city 
of Judah (Jos 15 56). Perhaps the same as Jorkeam 
(I Ch 2 44). Site unknown. 

JOKIM, jo’kim ([’P), yoqim), ‘J’ will set up’: 
Probably the name of a postexilic family (I Ch 4 22). 

JOKMEAM, jek’mi-am (O99P!, yogm“adm): 1. 
A Levitical city in Ephraim (I Ch 6 68), called 
Kibzaim in Jos 21 22. Site unknown. 2. A city 
mentioned in I K 412, Jokneam AV, site unknown. 

JOKNEAM, jek’ni-am (8%), yogn‘am): One 
of the royal Canaanitish cities situated on Carmel 
(Jos 12 22). It lay on the SW border of Zebulun 
(Jos 19 11), and became a Levitical city (Jos 21 34). 
It is the modern Katmién on the E. slope of Carmel. 
Eusebius mentions it as 6 m. N. of Legio, on the road 
to Ptolemais. It has ruins of buildings, and is in a 
well-watered region. On I K 4 12 see JOKNEAM. 
Map III, E 1. CES 


JOKSHAN, jek’shen. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND 
ETHNOLOGY, § 13. 


JOKTAN, jek’tan. 
ETHNOLOGY, § 13. 

JOKTHEEL, jok’ the-el (28NP?, yogth’ él), a name 
probably of Arabic derivation: 1. A town of Judah 
(Jos 15 38). Site unknown. 2. The name given 
by Amaziah of Judah to a place in Edom which he 
conquered. Its former name was, apparently, 
Sela, ‘the cliff,’ usually, but probably wrongly, 
identified with Petra, the capital of Edom (II K 
147; cf. II Ch 25 11 f.). Site unknown. EH. EH. N. 

JONA, j0’na, JONAS, jo’nas. See JouN. 

JONADAB, jen’a-dab. See JHHONADAB. 

JONAH, jo’na (737, yodnah), ‘dove’; in N T, 
Jonas (Mt 12 39 #.; Lk 11 29 #. AV): 1. A prophet, 
the son of Amittai (II K 14 25; see Jonan, Boox 
oF. 2. The father of the Apostle Peter (‘Jonas,’ AV 
Jn 2115). See Joun. 

JONAH, BOOK OF. 1. Place in the Canon. 
The place of Jonah in the O T is among the twelve 
minor prophets. But whereas the other books in 
this group contain for the most part prophetic dis- 
courses with just enough narrative material at 
intervals to show the occasion upon which these 
were delivered, the Book of Jonah is occupied mainly 
with a story, and the prophetic message in it is 
given as it were incidentally. 

2. Contents. Ch. 1 begins with the account of 
Jonah’s call to preach at Nineveh, tho what his 
message was to be is not yet stated (verif.). To 
avoid obedience to this command he takes passage 


See ErHNOGRAPHY AND 


on a ship for Tarshish (ver. 3). On the way a storm 
imperils the safety of the vessel with all on aboard, 
and the crew, on the assumption that their danger is 
due to the anger of the god of some one on the vessel, 
cast lots to find out who this may be, and Jonah is 
taken (vs. 4-7). This leads to their ascertaining his 
identity and the cause of the wrath of his god (vs. 
g-10). A consultation on what should be done results 
in his being cast into the sea; but a monster especially 
prepared by J’’ swallows and holds him for three 
days and three nights (vs. 11-17). Ch. 2 gives the 
prayer of Jonah ‘out of the fish’s belly.’ The lan- 
guage of the prayer, however, is that of one who 
speaks as if surrounded by waters and sea vegeta- 
tion rather than of one imprisoned in the body of a 
living monster (vs. 1-10). Ch. 3 tells of the recom- 
missioning of Jonah and specifies his message (vs. 
1-4). The people of Nineveh listen to the message, 
repent and are saved from the destruction predicted 
by the prophet (vs. 5-10). In ch. 4 Jonah is repre- 
sented as grieving because his prediction of wrath 
had not been realized (vs. 1-5). But J’’ teaches him, 
through his regret at the withering of a gourd plant 
grown in the night, that He Himself could not 
easily consign to perdition such a large city as 
Nineveh, full of His own living, feeling, creatures 
(vs. 6-11). 

3. Jonah, the Prophet. The identity of the Jonah 
of this book with the prophet of that name who 
lived in the days of Jeroboam II (782-740), and 
predicted the restoration of ‘the border of Israel 
from the entrance of Hamath unto the sea of the 
Arabah’ (II K 14 25) can not reasonably be doubted. 
The question is whether the book was written by 
this prophet, and designed to be a record of his own 
experiences or a work of fiction with a moral lesson 
at the center of it, composed by some anonymous 
prophet of a much later date.. The correct under- 
standing of the message of the book will depend on 
the answer to this question. 


4. Miraculous Element. One view of the book is 
that it contains a plain statement of facts. The 
reasons for this view are primarily the traditional 
acceptance of the book as true history, as far back 
as its existence can be traced. References to it are to 
be found in the Apocrypha (II Es 1 40; To 14 4, 8; 
III Mac 6 8; cf. also Jos. Ant. [X, 10 2). Moreover, 
it is to all appearances used in the N T as reliable 
history. Objections to its historicity drawn from 
the predominance of the prodigious element in the 
story are answered by the counter-proposition that 
similar objections would hold against the acceptance 
of all accounts of miracles, that there is nothing 
impossible in the miracles narrated, and that these 
are indeed on a level with those ascribed to Jonah’s 
earlier contemporaries, Elijah and Elisha, in the 
Book of Kings. 


5. Historicity of Contents. On the other side, it 
is alleged that the appeal to tradition is ineffective. 
Tradition expresses the mind of witnesses quite re- 
mote from the time of the composition of the book. 
The earliest point to which it can be traced is at 
least 200 years short of the latest date assigned te 
the writing, and more than 600 years after the date 
claimed by the historical view; and within this period 


ATT 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Joiakim 
Jonas 





a false conception of it was, in the circumstances, 
bound to grow. The use of the book as history in the 
N T is only apparent. The N T does not commit 
Jesus Christ or its own authors to one or the other of 
the contending theories. If the understanding of the 
N T men was that the book is an allegory, a parable, 
a legendary story, or any other form of fiction, they 
could not have used it in any other way than they 
do; and if so, the method of its use does not indicate 
what their view of it was. 


6. N T Does Not Support Historicity. On the 
use made of the book in the N T, especially by 
Jesus, it may even be argued that it is inconsistent 
with the conception of it as a narrative of facts. 
Jesus refers to the story of the Ninevites as a great 
moral fact, which would put to confusion the men of 
His own generation at the Day of Judgment (cf. 
Lk 11 29 #.; Mt 12 30 #.). This, however, is quite 
different from His considering it historical in the 
strict sense of the word. For if the repentance had 
actually occurred, He must have viewed it either 
as transient or as permanent. He could not have 
viewed it as transient and deduced from it the argu- 
ment He did. On the other hand, He could not have 
viewed it as permanent in face of the silence of the 
Books of Kings, and the still more significant silence 
of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Nahum, and 
Zephaniah. He must, therefore, have used the book 
as a prophecy or, better, as a prophetic parable, in 
which the repentant Ninevites represent those Gen- 
tiles who saw the excellency of the religion of J’. 
(Cf. C. H. H. Wright, Essays, 1886, The Book of 
Jonah, etc.) 


7. Positive Proof Against Historicity. Date. 
The grounds upon which criticism builds a con- 
clusion opposed to that of tradition are: (1) The 
impossibility of harmonizing the contents of the 
book with the setting within which it must have 
arisen, if it is to be taken as history. In the days of 
Jonah, ‘the son of Amittai,’ Nineveh did not possess 
the magnitude and importance assigned to it in the 
book. This feature of it is easily understood and 
appreciated as a skilful, artistic touch in a work of 
imagination, but it becomes gross misrepresentation 
if the work is to be judged strictly as history. It is 
clearly settled from the well-attested evidence in the 
case that the city of Nineveh was enlarged, embel- 
lished, and fortified by Sennacherib (701-687 B.c.), 
who also made it the capital of his empire. It had 
indeed served as such before the year 880, when 
Asshurnazirpal, on ascending the throne, made Calah 
the seat of government and royal residence. Calah 
remained the capital between 880 and 701 B.c. 
Precisely in the days of Jonah, therefore (c. 781- 
741), Nineveh had fallen into a secondary place. 
Sennacherib found it ‘a wretched poor place.’ No 
matter how one may interpret the description of it 
as ‘an exceeding great city of three days’ journey’ 
(Jon 3 3), it is impossible to take the description 
literally, in view of the testimony of the monuments. 
(2) The silence of the Hebrew records with reference 
to such a signal triumph of the religion of J’, as the 
acceptance of it by the king of Assyria, is unaccount- 
able. (8) At the time the book was written the 
greatness of Nineveh was a thing of the past (‘Nine- 


veh was an exceeding great city’). This fixes the 
date of its production to later than 612 B.c., when 
Nineveh was destroyed. (4) From ch. 2 it appears 
that the author was acquainted with and used 
several of the later Psalms in composing the prayer 
of Jonah. (5) The character of the language of the 
book is that of the postexilic period, not that of the 
8th cent. Its affinities relate it with Ezra~-Nehemiah. 
It contains Aramaic elements and the grammatical 
constructions, which in the O T are found in the 
latest books (cf. G. A. Smith in Hzpositor’s Bible). 
(6) The book does not claim to be a work of Jonah, 
but one about Jonah. If it were by a contemporary, 
or even by an immediate follower, it might still be 
regarded as a true account of the prophet’s ex- 
periences, but since it is a late production, it can 
only be considered a work in which Jonah figures as 
the central person of a story. Upon these grounds, 
especially the affinity with Ezra-Nehemiah in lan- 
guage, and an allusion to Joel, the date of the book 
is fixed at some year not much earlier than 300 B.c. 
Its acceptance in the Canon in this case as one of 
the twelve minor prophets becomes perfectly natural. 
8. Jonah a Parable. The conclusion to which 
these considerations point is that the Book of Jonah 
was produced as a protest against the extreme form 
of Jewish nationalism in the latter half of the 4th 
cent. B.c., that in literary form it is an imaginative 
work with a moral lesson, and that the ancient 
prophet is chosen as its hero for his known anti- 
Assyrian bias. It is no valid objection against this 
view to say that the prophet Jonah is a historical 
character and the weaving of his personality into a 
work of imagination is improper, for that is precisely 
what all historical fiction has been doing through 
the history of literature. The lesson of the story is 
that J’’ is the God not of the Jew only, but also of 
the Gentile; that He is patient and merciful; that 
His love extends far beyond the limits of the Jewish 
world into the remoteness where Nineveh lies; that 
it includes not only the Ninevites, but the heathen 
sailors whose prayers He hears; that He cares even 
for the cattle (4 11). Contrasted with the true 
breadth of God’s love stands the narrowness of 
Jonah’s own view of the heathen world. Rather 
than carry a message to Nineveh, he tries to escape 
in an opposite direction. He has no desire to share the 
favor of God with others, and would even rejoice at 
their destruction. His attitude of mind, however, is 
the correct one from the point of view of the later 
Judaism; for this included, as a counterpart of the 
exaltation of Israel, the doctrine of the subjection of 
the Gentiles or their annihilation. Jesus fixed on this 
as the central theme of the book, and used it asa 
means toward arousing greater zeal for the Kingdom 
of God among the Jews of His own day. In a word, 
the lesson of the Book of Jonah is analogous to the 
foreign-mission idea of developed Christianity. 
Lrrerature: C. H. H. Wright, Bib. Ess. (1886), pp. 34-98; 
Nowack, Handk. z. d. Kl. Proph. (1897); Perowne, in Camb. 
Bible (1898); G. A. Smith, in Ezposiior’s Bible (1898); 
R. F Horton, in New Century Bible; J. A. Bewer, in ICC 
(1912). A. C. Z. 
JONAM, jo’nam (‘Iwvéy, Jonan AV): An ances- 
tor of Jesus (Lk 3 30). 


JONAS, jo’nas. See Jonan and JouN. 


Jonathan 
Jordan 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


478 





JONATHAN, jen’s-fhan (927, yonathan, and 
HM, ychonathan), ‘J’’ has given,’ also Jehonathan: 
1. A son of Saul (I S 14 6, 8), and one of the most 
attractive figures in the early period of the mon- 
archy. He appears first as an officer in his father’s 
army (I § 13 3) during the war with the Philistines, 
and wins the love of the whole nation through the 
exploit at Michmash, through which he secured a 
decisive victory for Israel (I S 141 ff.). His friend- 
ship for and loyalty to David furnished a theme 
for one of the most touching passages in Hebrew 
literature (I 8 chs. 18-20). The genuineness, dis- 
interestedness, and constancy of this affection were 
displayed in the way in which he effaced himself 
in the effort first to save David from his father’s 
jealousy and then to promote his interests. The 
manly courage of Jonathan led him to lay down 
his life in the battle of Mount Gilboa, in the hope 
of saving Israel from the general wreck accompany- 
ing Saul’s downfall (IS 31 2). David’s appreciation 
of Jonathan’s friendship is embodied in a beautiful 
elegy composed on the occasion of the latter’s 
death (IIS 117 f.). 2. A son of Gershom, therefore 
a descendant of Moses (Jg 18 30). The AV reading 
‘Manasseh’ is based upon a correction of the text 
by the insertion of an ‘n’ into the Heb. word for 
Moses, probably to obviate the supposed difficulty 
of a descendant of Moses becoming the priest of 
an idol. The old tradition represents him as the 
Levite engaged by Micah in Ephraim, but carried 
away by the Danites to their city, where he became 
the founder of a priestly family (Jg ch. 17 f.) 3. A 
son of Abiathar, the high priest in the time of David 
(IIS 15 27). 4. A son of Shimea, a nephew of David 
(IIS 21 21; in I Ch 27 32, David’s uncle RV, but 
brother’s son RVmg.). 5. One of David’s heroes 
(II S 23 32; 1 Ch 11 34). 6. A son of Uzziah, one of 
David’s treasurers (I Ch 27 25). 7. A son of Jada 
(I Ch 2 32). 8. The father of Ebed (Ezr 8 6). 9. A 
son of Asahel (Ezr 1015). 10. A Levite (II Ch 17 8). 
11. A son of Joida of the house of Jeshua (Neh 12 11). 
12. A priest (Neh 12 14). 13 A son of Shemaiah, a 
Levite (Neh 12 18, 35). 14. A scribe in whose house 
Jeremiah was imprisoned (Jer 37 15). 15. A son of 
Kareah, probably same as 14 (Jer 408). A.C. Z. 


JONATH-ELEM-REHOKIM, j6’noth-i’lem-n- 
ho’kim. See Music, § 6. 

JOPPA, jop’a (N!5}, yapho’, Gr. ’Iéxny): The 
modern Jaffa, on the Mediterranean, 34 m. NW. 
of Jerusalem, the scene of the ancient legend of 
Andromache and Perseus. The border of Dan was 
‘over against Joppa’ (Jos 19 46, Japho, AV), but 
apparently it was never an Israelite city. The 
cedars of Lebanon, both for Solomon’s temple (II 
Ch 2 16), and the second temple (Ezr 3 7), were 
brought by sea as far as Joppa. Jonah found there 
a ship going to Tarshish (Jon 1 3). These references 
indicate that it was more or less in control of the 
Phenicians until the Persian period. It was brought 
under Jewish control by the Maccabees (1 Mac 
10 74 #.), and Simon fortified it, enlarged its har- 
bor, and attempted to make it a Jewish town by 
driving out many of the heathen population and 
planting therein a strong Jewish colony. Pompey, 
in 63 B.c., made it a free city, but Cesar sixteen 


years later restored it to the Jews. From the time 
of Herod the Great it formed a part of Judea and 
was intensely Jewish in spirit. In the Jewish war 
of 66 a.p., because of its fanatical opposition, the 
Romans, under Cestius Gallus, massacred 8,400 of 
its inhabitants. It recovered, but was reconquered 
and destroyed soon after by. Vespasian. As the 
only harbor on the Palestinian coast between Egypt 
and Carmel, Joppa was of great commercial im- 
portance, being the one port of Judea and Jeru- 
salem, just as to-day it is the terminus of the railway 
from Jerusalem to the Sea. Christianity early found 
its way to Joppa (Ac 9 36-ch. 10), and in this exclu- 
sive Jewish city Peter had his vision with its lesson 
of the universality of the Gospel. The modern town 
with a population of about 40,000, built on a rocky 
ridge and surrounded by fruit gardens, is quite 
picturesque. R. A, F.—E. C.'L. 


JOPPA, SEA OF: Only in Ezr 3 7, where we 
should read, with RV, ‘to the sea, to Joppa.’ 

JORAH, jo’ra (1", ydrah): The ancestral head 
of a large Jewish family (Ezr 2 18), called Hariph 
in Neh 7 24. 

JORAI, jd’ra-ai ("1”, yoray): The ancestral head 
of a Gadite family (I Ch 5 13). 

JORAM, jo’ram (27, ydradm): 1. For the men- 
tion of the name in II § 810, see Haporam. 2. For 
the two kings, one of Israel, the other of Judah, 
sometimes called Joram, see JEHORAM. 3. A Levite 
(I Ch 26 25). 

JORDAN, jér’dan (117, yardén; in prose usually 
with the article, Gn 13 10, etc.): The great river of 
Palestine. 

1. Name. The name is supposed by some to be 
derived from ydradh, ‘to go down,’ with the ending 
en for an, 1.e., ‘the descender’ (Olshausen, Heb. Gr. 
215 c.). Others, however, regard it as a name 
borrowed from a non-Semitic stock. The ancient 
derivation given by Jerome (on Mt 16 13), which 
makes it a compound from y’’6ér and ddan, ‘river of 
Dan,’ or ‘the river with the two sources, Jor and 
Dan,’ is no longer entertained. 

2. The Sources. The Jordan springs from four 
sources in the foothills of Mount Hermon. The first 
is a small stream, Nahr Bareighit (‘Flea River’); the 
second, and most northerly, is the modern Nahr el 
Hasbany, springing out of a basalt cliff on the W. 
side of the base of Hermon, 12 m. N. of Tell-el- Kadi, 
near Hasbeiya. The third is the Nahr el-Leddan, 
which issues out of Tell-el- Kadi (the ancient Dan). 
The fourth is the Nahr Banias, which gushes out of 
a cavern in a rocky ledge at Cesarea Philippi 
(modern Banias). The final confluence of these 
streams takes place about 5 m. S. of Tell-el- Kadi, at 
which point the course of the Jordan strictly begins. 

3. General Course. The entire length of the river 
is, however, generally reckoned from Hasbeiya to 
the Dead Sea, and in a straight line measures 135 m., 
but the windings of the channel lengthen this line to 
about 250 m, In its progress it falls 2,000 ft., or an 
average of 22 ft. to the mile. Its width varies from 
80 to 180 ft. and its depth from 5 to 12 ft. except at 
the fords, where it runs shallower. Beginning at a 
point on Lake Huleh, it runs below the sea-level 


479 A*NEW STANDARD 
through the remainder of its course, the only stream 
in the world, so far as is known, to do this. Between 
the Hasbany source, however, and Lake Huleh, it 
falls nearly 1,200 ft., while from Lake Huleh it drops 
690 ft. to the Sea of Galilee (682 ft. below the Sea), 
and thence another descent of 610 ft. brings it into 
the Dead Sea, so that at its mouth it is 1,292 ft. 
below the level of the Mediterranean. Its course is 
interrupted by the two lakes just named (Merom, or 
Huleh, and the Sea of Galilee, or Tiberias). This 
breaks the Valley of the Jordan into three natural 
divisions. 

4. The Upper Jordan. The northernmost section 
is known as the Upper Jordan Valley, and runs 
through a rich grazing district, the plain of Huleh 
(the O8A48a of Josephus, Ant. XV, 10 3; XVII, 2 1), 


sinking, however, at its lower end into a morass | 


overgrown with reeds and papyrus rushes, and 
offering a favorite resort to a large variety of water- 
fowl. 

5. Middle Jordan. Four m. 8. of Lake Huleh 
the river strikes a channel running comparatively 
straight N. and S. with a stony bed and basalt cliffs 
on each side. Between these the water runs for 
10 m. almost in the form of continuous whirling 
rapids. It is arrested and slackened by a bar of 
sediment, entirely the result of its own activity, a 
short distance from the Sea of Galilee, into which it 
finds its way. It reappears at the SW. end of the 
lake, apparently directed toward the W., but soon 
turns 8. 


6. Lower Jordan. The third portion of the river’s 
course is quite different from either of the preceding. 
The valley, called el Ghér (‘the deep,’ in the O T 
‘the Arabah’), is 3 m. wide at the N. end, but 
spreads into a plain 12 m. in width in the neighbor- 
hood of Jericho. Within this valley the river has 
cut for itself a bed (called Zor) 20 ft. wide at the 
N. extremity, and 200 ft. at the S. The Ghdr is very 
fertile, and nearest the river banks it becomes a 
thick jungle, consisting of semitropical vegetation. 
In modern times these woods furnish a home for 
wild boars, gazels, and other similar fauna (see 
PALESTINE, §§ 24-26); but in the ancient period 
leopards and lions were known to haunt them (Jer 
49, 19, 50 44; cf. 12 5). 


7. The Tributaries. The tributaries of the Jordan 
from the W. are not significant. They include the 
Wady Feggas, the Wdady el-Bireh, the Nahr Jalud, 
the Wddy el-Gozeleh (Wdady Fara), and the Wddy 
Kelt (the brook Cherith?). Of these the Jalud, 
flowing from Beisan, and the Fara, rising near 
Shechem, are the most important. From the E. 
the Jordan is fed by the Jarmak (Nahr Yarmtk) 
and the Jabbok ( Nahr ez-Zerka). Besides these, the 
Wady Jabis, the Wddy Ajlin, the Wddy Nimrin, 
and the Wddy el- Kefren also join the Jordan from 
the E. 

8. The Fords. The Jordan was the ‘great divider’ 
between E. and W. Palestine. It is not, however, 
the stream itself that constitutes the greatest barrier; 
for to pass from one bank to the other is no serious 
task, except in times of flood; it is rather the 
generally precipitous aspect of the banks, with their 
steep bluffs on each side. The crossing of the Jordan 


“BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jonathan 
Jordan 


is effected either at certain places where it runs 
shallower—fords—or over bridges. Of the fords 
there appear to have been a large number. Five are 
known to exist on the ‘Middle Jordan,’ and fifty- 
four on the ‘Lower Jordan.’ The latter are unequally 
distributed. Above the juncture with the Jabbok 
they are numerous; but from that point to Jericho 
they cease and recur in the neighborhood of Jericho 
to the number of five. These last are probably those 


_ mentioned in Jos 27; Jg 3 28. Of these fords perhaps 


a dozen are passable ordinarily, but they are at the 
present day known only to those who dwell in their 
immediate neighborhood. One of the most famous 
is that of Adama (mod. Tell ed-Damiyeh), believed 
by some to be the spot at which the hosts of Israel 
crossed under Joshua (Jos 3 4). Another is Beth- 
Barah (Jg 7 24; Bethabarah in Jn 3 26; see § 12, 
below). 

9. Bridges. In the Biblical period bridges over 
the Jordan were unknown. The word does not occur 
in the O T. It was only after the Roman conquest 
that any were built, and of these all the earlier ones 
have been washed away by the annual floods, some 
possibly by waterspouts. The ruins of five or six 
may be seen just below the Sea of Galilee. Three 
comparatively modern ones are still standing. The 
Jisr Benat Yakub (‘bridge of Jacob’s daughters’), be- 
tween Lake Huleh and the Sea of Galilee, has prob- 
ably been in existence for 500 years at least. Another 
is to be found about two hours’ ride S. of the Sea of 
Galilee, and a third at Jericho. 


10. Jordan in History. Political Significance. 
From the nature of the case, it was to be expected 
that such a feature as the J. should play a very im- 
portant part in the history of Palestine. Accord- 
ingly, it is met at the very beginning as a boundary 
and division line. As a boundary it figures in Jacob’s 
retrospect of his experiences (Gn 82 10), in the defini- 
tion of the relations of the nine and one-half tribes 
to the two and a half (Dt 3 20, 27 4; Nu 34 10-12), and 
in the prospective view just before the conquest (Jos 
1 2). It is also given as the ideal boundary-line of 
the land by Ezekiel (47 18). But as such it seems, 
with a single exception, never to have served as the 
scene of armed conflict. That exception is the case 
of an attack by Jonathan Maccabeus against the 
tyrant Bacchides (I Mac 9 45 #f.). Nevertheless, it 
was always recognized as a natural line of separa- 
tion between the two sides of the land through 
which it flowed. 


11. Historical Associations. Besides its political 
meaning, the Jordan providentially acquired also a 
spiritual significance, through the associations 
created about it by the great figures of Elijah, 
Elisha, and John the Baptist. Elijah made his 
appearance in Israel from some point on the E. side, 
and when he felt the approaching end of his early 
career (II K 27) he turned toward the river. Here, 
by the wonderful occurrences through which the 
transmission of his spiritual power and work to his 
successor was signified, the river seemed to be con- 
secrated to spiritual ends. Elisha’s bidding Naaman 
to wash in the Jordan (II K 5 10) was in perfect har- 
mony with his new and sacramental view of the 
waters of the river. Whether or not John the Baptist 


Jorim 
Joseph 





was moved by its associations with the ministry of 
Elijah and Elisha in selecting it as the scene for 
his own work, he certainly found in its waters a 
convenient emblem of the purifying spiritual power 
of righteousness, which he so emphatically preached. 

12. Special Sites. Places specially noted along 
the Jordan are: (1) the ‘plain,’ kekkar, 2.e., ‘round,’ 
or rather more properly ‘oval’ (district) (Gn 13 
10 f.; I K 7 46; IL Ch 4 17; IL 8 18 23, ete.), which 
consists of the broad valley spreading out from the 
confluence with the Jabbok as far S. as the lost cities 
of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 19 24, 28, 18 12). The 
term, however, is especially applied to the environs 
of Jericho (Dt 343; Neh 3 22, 12 28). The name 1s also 
used in various senses (cf. Oxf. Heb. Lex.). (2) The 
name ‘great valley’ is applied in I Mac 5 52 to the 
region W. of the Jordan, in the vicinity of Beth- 
shean. (3) The scene of the baptism of John is laid 
at ‘Bethany (Bethabarah, or Betharabah AV) be- 
yond Jordan’ (Jn 1 28, 3 26), a much-disputed site, 
but as ‘adbharah is in II S 19 18 rendered ‘ferry-boat’ 
(‘convoy’ mg.) and in II § 15 28, 17 16 ‘fords of the 
wilderness’ (‘plains’ AV), the term indicates the 
existence of a resting-place (‘house of the ford’) on 
the E. side, and a suitable locality for John’s work. 
Cf. G. A. Smith, HG HL, pp. 467 ff., and consult 
index; also Libbey and Hoskins, The Jordan Valley 
and Petra (1905), Vol. I. See also PALzesTINne, 


§ 12. Ay Ge 
JORIM, jo’rim (‘Iweety): An ancestor of Jesus 
(Lk 3 29). E. E. N. 


JORKEAM, jér’ki-am, JORKOAM, -ko-am. See 
JOKDEAM. 


JOSABAD, jes’a-bad. See JozaBan. 
JOSAPHAT, jés’a-fat. See JEHOSHAPHAT. 


JOSE, j6’s1. See Jusus, 3. 


JOSECH, jé-sek (Iwonx, Joseph AV): An ancestor 
of Jesus (Lk 3 26). E. E. N. 


JOSEDEK, JOSEDECH, jos’i-dek. See Jenoza- 
DAK. 

JOSEPH, jo’zef: (91, ydséph), ‘may he add’ 
(according to Gn 30 24, but in 30 23 derived appa- 
rently from ’dsaph, ‘to take away,’ 7.e., the reproach 
of barrenness): The name may have been originally 
yoséph-él or yosébh-él; the list of Thutmose III gives 
a Canaanite town Yshp’r, and there is a Bab. name 
Jashub(p)-ilu. 1. J., son of Jacob. The account of 
J.’s birth is given briefly in Gn 30 22-24, while Gn 
chs. 37-50 are occupied with the details of his career. 

(a.) General Characteristics of the Narrative. Of 
all the patriarchal stories this is the most artistic, 
its composition showing a high development of the 
literary faculty. A striking peculiarity of the story 
is the individuality and marked personality of the 
hero. The typical element prevails in the case of 
Abraham, Isaac, and even of Jacob. They are pre- 
sented as examples of the life of faith, or as expres- 
sions of national ideals. But Joseph is many-sided; 
he is a man whose life displayes the noblest traits, 
not in one direction only, but in all. As his character 
presented itself to the minds of the narrator and his 
hearers, there was in it no flaw of passion or pre- 
judice. As slave, prisoner, interpreter of dreams, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


480 





grand vizier, he passed through every phase of 
life unscathed and unsullied. Furthermore, the 
story 1s remarkable for the vividness of its local 
color. The dreams have a detail that is unlike 
anything else in Genesis. The harvest picture (Gn 
377) with the sheaves forming a circle in the field; 
the vine with its processes of growth from budding 
leaf to perfect fruit (Gn 40 10); the white bread 
different from the common food of the country 
(Gn 40 16); the sedge of the Nile on which the 
cattle feed, and the blighting east wind (Gn 41 2-6) 
are literary touches most lifelike. To these may be 
added the account of Joseph’s preparation to go to 
Pharaoh (41 14), his courtly response (41 16), the 
particulars of his agrarian policy (41 33 ff., 48 ff., 
56, 47 13-26), the allusion to the interpreter (42 23) 
and to the table customs (43 32). Very interesting 
is the picture of the nomads, entirely out of their 
element in the cultured life of Egypt. 

There is no particular Palestinian habitat for the 
story. Hebron, Shechem, and Dothan (Gn 87 12, 14, 
17) are mentioned, but the narrative does not find 
its locus in any of them. The climactic form is 
rather of the novel than of the sanctuary story, 
told to explain the origin of altar or of cultus. It 
is a task quite apart to determine the actual histo- 
ricity of the narrative itself, but to the narrator it 
is evident that Joseph was as real a character as 
Samuel, Saul, or David, and it is probably vain to 
seek an origin for the main outlines of his story in 
the migrations and mutations of tribal life. 


(b.) Analysis of the Narrative. Gn chs. 37-50 have 
been divided into thirteen sections by Gunkel. 
Most of the sections have each its special climax and 
crisis. (1) Ch. 37. Joseph’s preference by his 
father, his brothers’ consequent jealousy, his sale 
into Egypt, and complete disappearance from 
the homeland. (2) Ch. 38 accomplishes two pur- 
poses: first, it serves to intensify the sense of Joseph’s 
loss by the picture of the life in Canaan going on 
without him. He has vanished completely, and while 
Judah’s story is being told, the mind of the reader is 
held in suspense. But secondly, the conduct of 
Judah and his sons forms a sharp antithesis to 
Joseph’s (ch. 39). (3) Ch. 391-20b. Joseph tho a slave 
is in high favor with his master, but at the moment 
of prosperity the sinful passion of his master’s wife 
is turned to hate by his resistance to her advances, 
and to the humiliation of slavery is added that of 
imprisonment. (4) Chs. 39 20b-40. In prison he 
grows in favor and is able to interpret the dreams of 
officers near to Pharaoh, but they leave the prison 
and he is forgotten. (5) Ch. 41. Pharaoh dreams, 
and when all others have failed to interpret, the 
butler remembers Joseph, who, as the result, is 
suddenly exalted to power and influence. (6) Chs. 
42-45 24 (sections VI, VII, VIII of Gunkel’s divi- 
sion) are better treated as one—Joseph’s power 
and the way he used it. The crisis of the story is 
reached in these chapters, and two delicate touches 
appear. First, it is Judah who stirs Joseph so 
deeply. The two representatives of the great divi- 
sion of the Hebrew race are brought face to face, 
one as suppliant, the other as superior, yet both are 
dignified; there is no cringing on the one side nor 


481 


haughtiness on the other. The one is ready to 
scarifice himself for the good of all; the other acts, 
not from the privileges of his station, but from the 
impulses of his heart. There seems to be an echo 
of this in Dt 337. It is as if the writer, weary of the 
division of the two kingdoms, pictured the union 
that might come through noble self-renunciation 
wherein neither thought of himself, but only of his 
brethren’s welfare. Again, it is a fine sense of art 
which makes Joseph conceal his identity until the 
last. His severe dealings are all in the character 
of the ruler of Egypt. When he reveals himself, 
the princely disguise is thrown aside entirely. A 
less artistic narrator, or a less magnanimous brother, 
would have terrified the brethren at the outset with 
the fact that they were in the power of one whom 
they had cruelly wronged, but no such bitter memory 
is left to rankle in their hearts. (7) Chs. 45 25- 


47 12, 27. The journey of Jacob into Egypt, and the 


settlement in Goshen, illustrating Joseph’s fore- 
thought and care. (8) Ch. 47 13-26. Joseph’s agrarian 
policy, an episode illustrating his statesmanship. 
(9) Chs. 47 28-31, 48 1-22. Jacob’s last will and 
testament. (10) Chs. 49-50 3. Jacob’s blessing and 
death. (11) Ch. 50 4-26. Jacob’s burial and Joseph’s 
death. 


(c.) Critical Analysis. With the exception of 371, 
2a, 41 46, 46 6-27, 47 5, 6a, 7-11, 27b, 28, 48 3-6, 7 (7), 
49 1a, 28b-33, 50 12, 13, which are extracts from P, 
and carry along the chronological and genealogical 
threads of the narrative, chs. 37-50 belong to JE. 
The documents are closely interwoven and the same 
essential elements are behind each source. See 
GENESIS, § 4. 


(d.) Egyptian Analogs. ‘The Tale of the Two 
Brothers’ (cf. Petrie, Anc. Egyptian Tales) is fre- 
quently cited as the parallel, if not the original, of 
Gn 39 1-20. It would be difficult to deny the depen- 
dence of the one upon the other, tho the conclusions 
of the two are different. Both reflect the same 
conditions of life, and the Egyptian background is, 
therefore, consistent and authentic. The gold 
collar and the garment of byssus (Gn 41 42) were 
parts of the regular investiture of a high court 
official. Abrech (q.v.), ’abhrékh (41 43 mg.), may be 
the Assyrian word abarakku, the title of a dignitary, 
such terms readily passing from land to land. The 
names (Gn 41 45) have been variously identified, but 
they have an undoubted Egyptian stamp, tho they 
have undergone considerable phonetic change in 
becoming Hebraized. The famine, whose length is 
remarkable, finds two or three parallels in Egyp- 
tian history, and one which occurred in the XVIIth 
dynasty has been by some identified with the Bib- 
lical account. The crown ownership of the land, 
together with the rate of taxation and the exemption 
of the territory of the priests, recorded and explained 
(Gn 47 13-26), are well-evidenced economic conditions. 

It is difficult to determine under what Pharaoh 
Joseph flourished. The best evidence locates him 
at the end of the Hyksos period, perhaps under 
Apepi II. All such calculations must, however, be 
received with great caution (see Driver in HDB, 
art. Joseph). 

(e.) Purpose and Teaching. ‘The story has been 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Jorim 
Joseph 


read as if intended merely to glorify the progenitor 
of the leading tribes of the Northern Kingdom and 
to answer questions about the origins of tribal life. 
We need not reject such theories altogether, but we 
should miss much if we took the tale simply for an 
attempt to minister to ancestral pride. Asin mostO T 
stories the ethical element predominates, but there is 
more init than virtue triumphant. Joseph presents a 
noble ideal of character, remarkable as so many O T 
representations are, because the features most ex- 
alted are those least often seen, such as faithful- 
ness in public and in private, and gentleness where 
harshness might be condoned, with no trace of 
rancor for injuries most deep. In the speech of 
Judah (44 18 ff.) the grand note of self-sacrifice is 
struck, which glorifies the narrative and reads almost 
like a foregleam of the Suffering Servant. Of what 
is called theology there seems to be little, yet that 
little is like a deep undertone. ‘How then can I 
do this great wickedness and sin against God’ 
(39 9), he exclaims in the stress of temptation. And 
after keeping his brethren in ward for three days 
he says, “This do and live; for I fear God’ (42 18). 
The miraculous appears only in dreams and their 
interpretation, which are narrated as signs that an 
unseen God is shaping events for His children. The 
relation of Joseph to God differs much from that of 
other O T characters; there is a modernness to the 
picture which is noteworthy, God’s dealings being 
providential and not apparitional (Gn 50 20). 


(f.) The Tribe. ‘Joseph’ is frequently used to de- 
note the combined tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh 
or the N. Kingdom as a whole (Gn 49 22 #.; Nu 1 
32; Dt 33 13 ff.; Jos 161,;.4: Jg 1-22; 1 K 11 98:1 Ch 51; 
Ps 78 67, 801, 81 5 [Asaphite]. An interesting prob- 
lem is presented by the possibility of early settle- 
ments by this tribe in Canaan before the Exodus. 
The probable occurrence of the place-name Joseph-el 
in the lists of Thothmes III suggests this, and I Ch 
7 21 ff. seems to refer to an old invasion by the way of 
Philistine territory and to the establishment of 
Joseph clans on the slopes of the mountains of 
Ephraim. The early alliance of Gibeon with Israel 
and the decisive battle of Beth-horon, fought on 
adjacent territory, the close connection of Joshua 
with the region, the age-long holdings at Shechem, 
where the first (Manassite) king held sway (Jg 9 6), 
and the appropriation by the Northern Kingdom of 
the name Israel, indicate that Mt. Ephraim was 
very early a center of national life. ‘Joseph’ is 
equivalent to the people as a whole in Ps 80. The 
Song of Deborah (Jg ch. 5) places the Joseph 
tribes in the forefront of the muster, while Judah 
does not appear at all. It must also be noted that 
of all the twelve sons of Jacob, Joseph alone is 
given a position in the Genesis narrative alongside 
of the great fathers of the race. These facts can 
best be accounted for on the theory that the 
national life attained in Joseph its highest develop- 
ment and argues strongly for an early and long- 
continued hegemony of the tribe. In the Blessings 
of Jacob (Gn 49 22) and of Moses (Dt 33 13 ff.) 
the chief glories of the Hebrew race are made to 
cluster around the head of him who was separate 
from his brethren, and, in spite of all the vicissitudes 


Joses 
Joshua, Book of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


A82 





of the ages, the overthrow and the defeat, the 
ruthless destruction by foreign invaders, in spite 
of all attempts to crush and annihilate every vestige 
of national life, in spite of scorn and repudiation 
by his brethren to the South, tho the archers have 
sorely grieved him and shot at him and persecuted 
him, it is at Shechem and upon the heights of Geri- 
zim alone—the hard-won inheritance of Joseph (Gn 
48 22)—that the light of early Hebrew faith con- 
tinues to burn and to shed its poor flickering rays 
over the mountains and valleys, where dwelt the ten 
thousands of Ephraim and the thousands of Manas- 
seh (see SAMARITANS; Fasts AND Feasts, § 7). 
LirerRATURE: Tomkins, Life and Times of Joseph; Erman, 
Life in Ancient Egypt (1895); Petrie, History of Egypt, 
and Egyplian Tales; Breasted, History of Egypt. Consult 
Commentaries on Genesis, especially those by Driver 
(Westminster Series). Gunkel, Ryle (Camb. Bible), and Skinner 
(ICC). A. 8S. C.*—O.R.S8. 
2. See Nu 137. 3. A ‘son’ of Asaph (I Ch 25 2, 9). 
4. One of the ‘sons of Bain’ (Ezr 10 42). 5. A 
priest (Neh 12 14). 6, 7. Two ancestors of Joseph, 
husband of Mary (Lk 3 24, 30). 8. Joseph of Ari- 
mathea, a wealthy Jewish counselor, friendly to 
Jesus (Mk 15 43 and |\s). 9. The husband of Mary, 
see Mary, THE VirGIN. 10. One of the brothers of 
Jesus (Mt 13 55, Joses AV; also called Joses Mk 
6 3, 15 40, 47 and || in Mt). See BrerHREN OF THE 
Lorp. 11. Another name of Barnabas (Ac 4 36, 
Joses AV). See BarnaBas. 12. See Bar-SaBBas. 


JOSES, j6’siz or j0’zez (Iwoys): 1. One of the 
brothers of Jesus (Mt 13 55, Joseph RV; Mk 6:33), 
called also the son of Mary (Mt 27 56; Mk 15 40, 47). 
See BRETHREN OF THE Lorp. 2. Another name of 
Barnabas (Ac 4 36, Joseph RV). 


JOSHAH, jo’sha (YV, yoshah): The head of a 
Simeonite family (I Ch 4 34). 


JOSHAPHAT, jogh’a-fat (O2Y), yoshaphat), ‘I’’ 
is judge’: One of David’s heroes, from Methen, 
site of which is unknown (I Ch 11 43). 2. A priest 
(I Ch 15 24, Jehoshaphat AV). 


JOSHAVIAH, .josh”a-vai’a (NYY, ydshawyah): 
One of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 46). 

JOSHBEKASHAH, josh”bi-ké’sha = (TUPAY?, 
yoshb¢qashah): In the common Heb. text this is read 
as one of several proper names (I Ch 25 4). It is 
probable that these should be read as constituting 
a hymn of praise (see W. R. Smith, The O T in the 
Jewish Church, p. 1438, also Curtis in ICC, ad loc.). 
The combination occurs again in ver. 24. E.E.N. 

JOSHEB-BASSHEBETH, j6’’sheb-bas-shi’beth. 
See JASHOBEAM 

JOSHIBIAH, jesh’i-bai’a (723Y1, ydshibhyah, 
Josibiah AV): The head of a Simeonite family (I Ch 
4 35). 

JOSHUA, jesh’iu-a (YVIT, yhdshia‘), “JI” is 
salvation’: 1. The son of Nun (originally Hoshea, 
Nu 18 8, 16, Oshea AV, changed by Moses to Joshua. 
In AV of Ac 7 45 and He 48 Jesus.) 

(1) Early Life. By appointment of Moses he led 
an attack upon the Amalekites at Sinai, gaining a 
briluant victory (Ex 17 10 f.); accompanied Moses 
as his ‘minister’ to the summit of the mountain 


(Ex 24 13, 32 17), and cared for the Tent of Meeting 
erected by Moses. He was next chosen to represent 
his tribe (Ephraim) among the spies (Nu 18 8). 
When these returned with their discouraging report, 
J., with Caleb, urged trust in J’ and immediate 
advance on the land (Nu 14 6). For this he was 
rewarded with long life (Nu 14 38), and was even- 
tually appointed by the laying on of hands in the 
presence of the priests (Nu 27 18f.) tosucceed Moses. 

(2) Story of Life in Book of Joshua. The story of 
of his public life from this point onward is given in 
the book that bears his name. As this is a compila- 
tion from various sources, most of them of very much 
later date than J.’s own time, the book gives on the 
whole an unhistorical rather than a historical repre- 
sentation of J.’s career. As the story now stands, 
as soon as Moses died J. took charge of the people 
and led them across the Jordan. In a quick succes- 
sion of campaigns he attacked and took Jericho and 
Ai (Jos chs. 1-8). Being then confronted with the 
alliance of the five kings, which was headed by 
Adonizedek of Jerusalem, he waged a warfare of 
conquest against these, and practically broke all 
opposition to the entrance of the Hebrews into 
the land (ch. 10). The resistance made by Jabin, 
King of Hazor, with his allies on the plain beside 
Lake Merom was not vigorous enough to turn the 
tide backward (ch 11). There remained the task 
of distributing the conquered territory among the 
tribes of Israel, which occupied Joshua during the 
remainder of his career (chs. 13-19). Meanwhile 
he did much to strengthen and complete the 
worship of J’ and nationalize the religion. But to 
what extent his activities in this direction reached, 
and what their success was, the working over of the 
sources by later hands does not permit us to say. 
He is represented as closing his career with two im- 
pressive addresses, in which he put high ideals of a 
national life controlled by the religion of J’’ before 
the people, and induced them to establish a cove- 
nant upon this basis (ch. 23 f.). (For literary and 
other questions see JosHuA, Book oF.) 

2. A man of Bethshemesh in the days of Samuel 
(IS 614,18). 3. The governor of Jerusalem in the 
days of Josiah (II K 238). 4. The son of Jehoza- 
dak (also called Jeshua), high priest at the time of 
the return under Zerubbabel (536 B.c.) (Ezr 2 2; 
Hag 11, 12, 14; Zec 31, 3, etc.). In Zechariah’s third 
vision, he was chosen as the representative of the 
Jewish people, and through the taking off of his 
filthy garments and the putting on him of clean ones, 
the expiation of the sins of the people through the 
sufferings of the Captivity was symbolized. As 
the representative of the people he also received the 
announcement of the coming of the Messiah under 
the name of the Branch (Zec 3 1-8). 

A. C. Z.—KE. E. N. 


JOSHUA, BOOK OF: The sixth book of the 
O T, constituting the last portion of the Hexateuch 
(q.v.). 

1. Name. The Book was named from Joshua, the 
leader of Israel in the conquest of Canaan, narrated 
in the book, perhaps because he was considered the 
author of most of its contents. According to the 
later Jewish scholars, Jos was the first of the four 


483 


‘former Prophets’ (Jos, Jg, 8, K. See O T Canon, 
§ 8). 
2. Contents. The contents of Jos may be analyzed 
as follows: 
I, Toe Crossina or THE JORDAN AND ESTABLISHMENT OF 
THE Camp aT GILGAL (chs. 1-6) 
1. Preparations for the crossing (1 1-3 18) 
2. The crossing of the Jordan (3 14-4 18) 
3. The camp at Gilgal (4 19-5 12) 
4. The capture of Jericho (5 13-6 27) 


II. Tae Conquest or THE INTERIOR HiaHuLANp (chs. 7-12) 
1. Conquest of Ai (and Bethel), etc. (7 1-8 29) 
2. Law read on Mts. Ebal and Gerizim (8 9-35) 
3. Defeat of the confederacy against Gibeon (9 1-10 27) 
4, Other conquests in the W. and S. (10 28748) 
5. Defeat of the Canaanites in the N. (11 15) 
6. Summary of conquests under Joshua (11 16-12 24) 


Ill. Tue First ALLOTMENT oF TERRITORY (chs. 13-17) 
1. The earlier allotment by Moses to the E. Jordan 
tribes (ch. 13) 
2. The allotment by Eleazar at Gilgal (chs. 14-17) 
(1) Of Judah (chs. 14-15) 
(2) Of the House of Joseph (chs. 16-17) 


IV. Tue Seconp ALLOTMENT, AT SHILOH (chs. 18-21) 
1. Of seven tribes (chs 18-19) 
2. Of the cities of refuge (ch. 20) 
3. Of the Levitical cities (ch. 21) 


V. Dismissau or EK. JorpDAN Warriors (ch. 22) 
VI. JosHua’s Last Days (ch. 23 f). 
1. A farewell address (ch. 23) 
2. The farewell address at Shechem (24 1-28) 
3. Joshua’s death, ete. (24 29-33) 

3. Contents Not Homogeneous. A close examina- 
tion of Jos will reveal the fact that the narrative is 
not homogeneous, and is also in some instances in- 
consistent, either with itself or with statements in 
other O T books. Some of the more significant in- 
consistencies may be cited as examples of many 
others of like character. In 2 15 Rahab’s house is 
on the wall of Jericho, but in 6 22, after the wall has 
fallen down flat, Joshua sends men into the city 
to find the house and bring out the woman. In 4 2 fi. 
twelve stones from Jordan are to be set up as a 
memorial on the bank (at Gilgal, ver. 19), but in 
ver. 9 they are set up in the bed of the river. In 
8 3 ff. an ambushment of 30,000 men is placed near 
Ai, while in ver. 12 an ambushment of 5,000 men 
is placed in exactly the same spot for the same pur- 
pose. The section 8 30-35 demands a much longer 
time and a more complete work of conquest than 
is suggested in the preceding account. In 10 29- 
43 J. is represented as completely conquering all 
S. Canaan, including the towns of Hebron and Debir, 
but in 14 6 ff. this same region is asked for by 
Caleb, given to him, and in 15 13 ff. conquered by 
Caleb as a part of the inheritance of Judah (cf. 
also Jg 1 2-20). In 13 1-7 J. is an old man, and, 
the main work of the conquest being over, he is 
directed to allot the land to the nine and one-half 
tribes, but in 14 6 ff. the hill-country of Judah is 
not yet conquered, and in chs. 14-17, instead of 
nine tribes, only Judah and the house of Joseph 
get their allotment at this time; 13 1-7 is, therefore, 
no suitable caption for what follows. In the story 
of the second allotment (ch. 18 f.) the introductory 
statement, 18 1-2, has no connection with, nor does 
it find any explanation in, the preceding narrative. 
Finally, that two farewell addresses should have 
been delivered by Joshua (chs. 23 and 24) is in 
itself remarkable, and the more so when we com- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Joses 
Joshua, Book of 


pare them and find them so different in style and 
point of view. See also Hexarrucn, § 20. 

4. Explanation of This Lack of Unity. The only 
satisfactory explanation of such inconsistencies is to 
be found in the theory that in Jos several originally 
separate narratives have been combined into one 
somewhat incoherent whole. The main thread of 
the narrative in chs. 1-12 (Div. I and II) was prob- 
ably drawn from the old J and E narratives, but 
not until after these had undergone some revision 
under the influence of the conditions of later times. 
1 10-11a, 2 (all but 9b-11 and 24b), 3.1, 5, 9-10a, 11, 17, 
4 ib-7a, 8, 10b-11, 18, 20, 5 2-3, 8b-9, 13-15, 6 (all but 
18-19, 24b), 7 (except ver. 1), 8 (all but 1b-2a, 27 £., 
30-35), 9 3-9a, 11-15a, 16, 22 f., 26, 10 1-7a, 9-14, 16-24, 26-27, 
111, 4-9, may with reason be assigned to this source. 
In chs. 138-24 (Div. II-VI) the later Deuteronomic 
and Priestly elements predominate, especially the 
latter. Only 18 1, 7, 13, 15 14-19, 63 (cf. Jg. 1 10-15, 21), 
16 1-3, 10 (cf. Jg. 1 29), 17 11-18 (cf. Jg 1 27b), 18 2-6, 
8-10a, 19 47, and ch. 24 (except vs. 13 and 31) seem to 
belong to the ancient JE narrative. 

For the passages that seem to have belonged to 
the Priestly narrative see HexaTrucn, § 28 (end). 
The remainder of the material is ‘Deuteronomic,’ 
that is, it was written under the influence of the 
great ideas of Dt in which Israel’s history is viewed 
almost exclusively on its religious side (see DEUTER- 
onomy, § 6). 


5. Process of Composition. The problem of the 
process of composition of Jos is a complex one. The 
following view, it is believed, will be found to satisfy 
the main conditions. The old JE narrative probably 
included an account of the conquest of Canaan, 
ending with Joshua’s farewell and death' (see Hrxa- 
TEUCH, §§ 12 and 20). In consequence of the com- 
bination of JE with Dt, the connection of the 
material in JE relating to the conquest with the 
earlier portion ending with Moses’ death was 
broken. This later part of JE was then worked over 
in the spirit of the Deuteronomic school more exten- 
sively than were the preceding portions, giving a 
distinctively ‘Deuteronomic’ history of the con- 
quest (see Hexarnucu, § 20). Later, these older 
portions of the Hexateuch were combined with the 
Priestly narrative, and either then, or not long after, 
all the material relating to the conquest was 
separated from the preceding, resulting in the forma- 
tion of the Pentateuch (as the Law) and the present 
Book of Joshua (see Hrxarrnucn, § 30). 


6. Historical Value. Notwithstanding the late 
character of much of its material, Jos contains 
historical information of the highest value. With 
Jg ch. 1 the JE portions of Jos give us practically 
all we possess of the early tradition of the conquest 
of Canaan by Israel. While a complete account of 
the conquest is not given, the main outline of the 
movement has been preserved. But even in J and 
E the exact course of events is no longer clearly 
perceived. The traditions have become obscured 
or confused. The later unity of the Kingdom period 
(when J and E were written) was projected back 
into the earlier period. It is in the Deuteronomic 
and Priestly parts, however, that the most glaring 
historical inconsistencies are found. The Deuter- 


Josiah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 484 


Judas of James 





onomic writers failed to remember that the actual 
work of conquest was difficult and gradual, and 
accomplished largely by the different tribal elements 
of Israel, each working out its problem largely by 
itself; hence the résumé of Joshua’s work in 10 28 ff. 
and ch. 12, so contrary to the older notices in JH, in 
Jg 1, and in other early accounts. Ch. 23 reveals the 
‘Deuteronomic’ point of view perfectly. It was 
forgotten by both the Deuteronomic and Priestly 
schools that the work of conquest broke Israel into 
a number of separate, detached elements, and that 
the unity under one military leader (Joshua) and 
one priestly head (the high priest) never really ex- 
isted. That was an ideal of later and especially post- 
exilic days projected back into the remote past. It 
is only in the ideals they set forth, not in their actual 
historical characters, that such elements are of value 
to the historian of Israel to-day. The geographical 
notices giving the tribal boundaries and the cities 
belonging to each tribe (chs. 13-19) contain valuable 
information on the historical geography of Palestine. 
LireraTurRE: Driver, LOTS, pp. 103-116; Carpenter-Harford, 
The Comp. of the Hexateuch (1902), pp. 347-378, 522 f.; 
H. W. Robinson in The New Century Bible; G. A. Cooke in 
Camb. Bible (1918). K. E. N. 
JOSIAH, jo-sai’a (YN, ys’shiyyaha), ‘J’ sup- 
ports’: 1. The son of Amon and Jedidah, the 
daughter of Adaiah, and king of Judah (638-609). 
He was raised to the throne at the age of eight, 
upon the assassination of his father (II K 21 23, 25.) 
It was in the eighteenth year of his reign that his 
distinctive policy was inaugurated. In that year 
he sent Shaphan, the scribe, to superintend some 
repairs in the Temple. While engaged in this work, 
Shaphan was given ‘the book of the law’ by the high 
priest, Hilkiah, which the latter said he had found 
in the Temple. The book was read to the King and 
by him believed to be the ideal national constitution 
of Israel. Upon its basis, Josiah instituted thorough- 
going religious reforms, centralizing all the worship 
of the land at the Jerusalem Temple (II K 22 1-20). 
It is generally agreed that this book was the code 
now found in Dt chs. 5-26 (or at least chs. 12-26), but 
that it was forged for the purpose of furnishing the 
king with the instrument of his reformation is not 
to be thought of. It is probable that it had taken 
form gradually as an ideal around a nucleus of 
Mosaic prescriptions. But it can hardly be ques- 
tioned that in Josiah’s reformation the Deuteronomic 
legislation for the first time became operative as the 
national constitution (see also DrurERonomy). In 
609 Pharaoh Necho made an invasion into Palestine 
which Josiah undertook to resist, and in doing so 
lost his life in the battle of Megiddo. 2. A son of 
Zephaniah, contemporary of the prophet Zechariah 
(Zec 6 10). A. C. Z. 


JOSIBIAH, jes’’i-bai’a. See JosHrpran. 


JOSIPHIAH, jos’i-fai’a (M2PV, ydsiphyah), ‘J’ 
adds’: The father of Shelomith (Ezr 8 10) 


JOT (the letter 7, the Gr. tét«): The smallest 
letter of the Greek alphabet (Mt 5 18). If Jesus 
spoke in Aramaic His reference was to yédh (°), the 
smallest letter of the Aramaic and Hebrew alphabets. 

EK, E. N. 


JOTBAH, jet’ba (799), yotbah): The native 
place of Meshullemeth, mother of Amon, King of 
Judah (II K 21 19). Site unknown. 

JOTBATHAH, joet’be-fha (1930),  yotbathah, 
also Jothbath AV): A station on the wilderness 
journey (Nu 33 33 f.; Dt 107). Site unknown. 

JOTHAM, jo’them (ON, yatham), ‘J’’ is per- 
fect’: 1. The youngest of the seventy sons of 
Gideon, who alone of all his brothers escaped the 
murderous designs of Abimelech. Through the 
parable of the trees selecting the bramble to be their 
king he warned the Shechemites against Abimelech 
(Jg 95,7, etc.). 2. A son of Uzziah (Joatham in Mt 
19 AV) and king of Judah (c. 750-734 B.c.). He be- 
gan his reign as coregent, when leprosy appeared 
upon the person of his father (II K 15 5). He is said 
to have fortified and extended the dominion of 
Judah over the Ammonites (II Ch 27 3-6), and to 
have built the upper gate of the Temple. 3. A son 
of Jehdai (I Ch 2 47 AV; Jothan, RV). A.C. Z. 


JOTHAN, See Joruan, 3. 


JOURNEY, SABBATH DAY’S. See Wetaurs 
AND MEASURES, § 2. 

JOZABAD, joz’a-bad (1311, ydzabhadh), ‘J’ 
gives’: 1, 2, 3. The names of three of David’s soldiers 
(I Ch 12 4 [Josabad AV], 20). 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. The 
name of six Levites (II Ch 31 13, 35 9; Ezr 8 33, 
10 23; Neh 87, 11 16). 10. A priest (Ezr 10 22). 

JOZACAR, joz’a-kar (13!", ydzakhar, Jozachar 
AV): One of the conspirators who slew King Joash 
(II K 12 21). In II Ch 24 26 by a scribal error he is 
called Zabad. His mother was an Ammonitess. 

EH. E. N. 

JOZADAK, jez’a-dak. See JEHOZADAK. 


JUBAL, ji’bal (29°, yubhal): A son of Lamech, 
legendary originator of the art of music (Gn 4 21). 
See also JABAL. 


JUBILEE, YEAR OF. See Fasrs anp Fuxasts, 
§ 2; and Sapparu, § 5. 


JUBILEES, BOOK OF: An apocryphal writing, 
commonly classed with the Apocalypses. It was 
known to the ancients and to medieval Christian 
writers under the name of the Little Genesis, but 
having disappeared in the 14th cent., it was for- 
gotten until the middle of the 19th. The missionary 
Krapf brought an Ethiopic MS. of it to Europe in 
1848, which was published by Dillmann. It re- 
produces the contents of Genesis and of Exodus as 
far as ch. 14, with many additions and embellish- 
ments of a legendary nature. It appears to have 


_ been composed by a Pharisee between 100 B.c. and 


100 a.p. Cf. R. H. Charles, The Book of Jubilees 
(1902), and in Apocr. and Pseudepigr. of the O T, 
Vol. IT (1913). AD Cae. 

JUCAL. See Jenucat. 

JUDA, jt’de, JUDAH, jii’da. See Jupag, I. 

JUDAA, ju-di’a. Classic form of JupEA. See 
PALESTINE, §§ 33, 34. 

JUDAH, ji’da (THM, yhadhah), ‘J” praised ’(?): 
I. As a tribe, see Trises, §§ 2-4. II. As a kingdom, * 
see ISRAEL, History oF, § 6. III. For topography, 
see PALESTINE, § 7. 


OO 


485 


JUDAS, jii’das ('Lot3ac): The Gr. form of the Heb. 
name Judah, a common one among the Jews (Mt 
10 4, 18 55; Lk 6 16, etc.). It was possibly endeared 
to late Judaism by the heroism of Judas Maccabeus 
(I Mac 2 4). R. A. F.—E. C. L 


JUDAS, an ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 30) 


JUDAS, THE LORD’S BROTHER: One of the 
younger sons of Mary, the mother of Jesus (Mk 6 3; 
Mt 13 55). With his other brothers he evidently 
misunderstood Jesus until after the Resurrection 
(Mk 3 31; Jn 7 5, 19 26, 27; Ac 114). Later, he seems 
to have been known in Paul’s circle as engaged in 
the work of the Gospel (I Co 9 5), tho never as 
prominent as his brother James (Gal 2 9, 12; Ac 
15 13-21, 21 17-25). If, as may well be, he wrote the 
Epistle of Jude (q.v.), he shrank from calling himself 
‘the brother of the Lord,’ desiring to be identified 


as the brother of the well-known James. Hegesippus | 


says that his grandsons, arrested for claiming descent 
from David, tho they were poor peasants, were 
scornfully discharged from custody by Domitian. 
(See BRETHREN OFTHE Lorp.) R.A. F.—E.C.L 


JUDAS BARSABBAS. See BarsasBBas. 


JUDAS OF DAMASCUS: The person in whose 
home the converted Saul of Tarsus was found by 
Ananias (Ac 9 11). Otherwise unknown. 

R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


JUDAS OF GALILEE: So called, tho a native 
of Gamala in Gaulonitis. Together with a Pharisee, 
Sadduk, he led an agitation against the Roman 
authority when Quirinius undertook a census for 
the purpose of taxation—probably in 7 a.p., after 
the deposition of Archelaus (Ac 5 37). It was 
essentially a religious movement, based on the belief 
that God alone was to be their ruler, and from it 
sprang the Zealots (see CANANEAN), who became 
a distinctively political party over against the more 
or less religious sects of Pharisees, Sadducees, and 
Essenes. Josephus says nothing about the death of 
Judas and his followers, but his sons perished in 
later revolts. R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


JUDAS ISCARIOT, is-kar’i-at. One of the twelve 
disciples, the betrayer of Jesus. In each of the 
three lists of the Twelve (Mk 3 19 and ||s) he stands 
last—a position suggestive of his tragic failure (cf. 
Jn 6 70 f.). 

1. Origin. In the Synoptics he is called ‘Iscariot,’ 
but in the Fourth Gospel his father, Simon, is also 
so named (671, 13 26), and evidently the term means 
‘man of Kerioth.’ Kerioth is either the modern 
Karjetan, 8. of Hebron, Map II, E 3 (cf. Jos 15 25), 
or Kuriut, Map III, G 4 (Koree, Jos. Ant. XIV, 
3 4), on the extreme northeastern border of Judea. 
Judas was, perhaps, the only Judean in the circle. 

2. Call. From Mk 3 14 f.; Jn 6 70, it would seem 
that Jesus selected those to whom He was to entrust 
His gospel with the greatest care, but in view of 
Jn 6 64 the choice of Judas is very perplexing. 
Attempts have been made to explain it as a conscious 
submission by Jesus to the Divine plan for effecting 
His redeeming death, but the Synoptics require a 
a different solution. Judas must have promised 
well, and Jesus with His insight into character saw 
that in the Messianic enthusiasm of this Judean 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Josiah 
Judas of James 


there were great possibilities for good—or evil; and 
out of His loving heart He took the risk and gave 
him his chance. If any of the band should prove 
disloyal, Jesus knew from the beginning who it was 
that should betray Him. Judas shared all the 
poverty and hardship of the itinerant discipleship 
without suspicion on the part of his comrades, for 
they made him their steward (Jn 12 6). 

3. Betrayal of Jesus. The crisis was probably 
brought on through the announcement in Jesus’ 
Capernaum address of the spiritual character of 
His mission (Jn ch. 6) involving the necessity of 
His death (Mk 8 31). Upon this announcement the 
enthusiasm of the Galileans died out, and whereas 
in the other disciples their love for Jesus struggles 
victoriously with their disappointment, in Judas it 
settles into demonic hatred (Jn 6 70), and at last 
utterly ruins his soul (17 12). Possibly the evil 
showed itself in pilfering from the common fund, and 
he may have been.detected by John, who of all the 
Evangelists has the most aversion for him (Jn 12 6). 
The actual betrayal (Mk 14 10 f., 18-21, 42-46; Mt 
26 14-16, 21-25, 46-50; Lk 22 3-6, 21-23, 47, 48; Jn 13 2, 
10 f., 18 f., 21-30, 18 2-9) presents difficulties, but we 
infer—(a) Jesus knew that Judas was betraying 
Him, and Judas was conscious of this knowledge at 
the Last Supper, which he seems to have left before 
the Eucharist was instituted; (b) the disciples, 
shocked at the possibility of such treachery, do not 
suspect Judas, for Jesus simply says that one of those 
in table fellowship with Him will betray Him. (c) 
Avarice was a partial motive (Mt 26 15; Jn 12 6), 
but Judas also was a tool of Satan (Lk 22 3; Jn 
13 2, 27). (d) Judas knew the resort of Jesus and took 
every precaution to avoid miscarriage of his plans, 
but at the garden seems to have been disconcerted 
by the Master’s self-possession. It is not quite clear 
how the kiss of the traitor can be adjusted to the 
Johannine account. 

4. Final Estimate. The two narratives of Judas’ 
death (Mt 27 3-10; Ac 1 18 f.) present serious dis- 
crepancies, which can only be reconciled with much 
ingenuity. Mt emphasizes the traitor’s remorse, 
while Ac brings into prominence his fate. The 
attempt to interpret the conduct of Judas favorably, 
as, e.g., that he wished to force Jesus to lead a 
popular movement, is inconsistent with the narra- 
tives. His remorse shows that he was not wholly 
bad. Avarice, desire to save himself since the death 
of Jesus was inevitable, despair at being involved 
in a spiritual movement which was issuing in a 
Messianic fulfilment wholly different from what he 
had hoped for, intolerance of the constant rebuke 
of his selfish nature by the penetrating insight of 
Jesus, all contributed to the awful ruin. 

R. A. F.—E. E. N. 


JUDAS OF JAMES. One of the Twelve, accord- 
ing to Lk 616 and Ac 1 13 (but not in the list as given 
in Mk 316 #.=Mt 102 8.). The phrase ‘of James’ 
would be taken ordinarily to mean ‘son of James,’ 
but it may mean ‘brother of James.’ The same per- 
son is referred to probably in Jn 14 22 (‘Judas, not 
Iscariot’). Many think he is to be identified with 
the Thaddeus of Mk 318 (= Lebbzus in Mt 10 3). 
Nothing certain is known of him other than what 


Judas Maccabeus 
Judges 





is contained in the references just cited (see also 
TuappgEvus). It is possible that this is the Judas 
who wrote the Epistle of Jude (q.v.). H. BE. N. 


JUDAS MACCABEUS. Sce MaAccaBEEs. 


JUDE, EPISTLE OF: 1. Authorship. Who was 
Jude or Judas who claims (ver. 1) to be the author 
of the Epistle? He simply calls himself ‘a servant 
of Jesus Christ and brother of James.’ If there are 
no cogent reasons to the contrary, it is natural to 
identify him with the brother of Jesus mentioned in 
Mark 6 3. 

2. Apocalyptic Influence. No weight can be 
attached, as by some, to the fact that he quotes 
from apocalyptic literature. Thus ver. 14 £. is taken 
from the Book of Enoch, which has influenced 
various passages in the Epistle. Ver. 9,is quoted 
from the Assumption of Moses. And there are 
further traces of apocalyptic influence. 


3. Date. These apocalypses were in existence 
long before the 2d cent. If we could speak more 
definitely of the incipient Gnostic tendencies 


attacked throughout the Epistle, we might venture 
to be more dogmatic about the date. There is an 
ancient tradition quoted by Eusebius (H £, 3 19 f.) 
as to the grandchildren of Judas, the brother of 
James of Jerusalem, being brought before the Em- 
peror Domitian, which makes it necessary to place 
the Epistle early in his reign or before it. 

As to attestation, it may be said that by the close 
of the 2d cent. it was acknowledged by such writers 
as Clement of Alexandria and Tertullian as genuine, 
and it appears in the Muratorian Canon. 

Its destination must be pure conjecture. 

4. Aim. The aim of the Epistle is entirely prac- 
tical. The writer is seriously concerned by the in- 
roads of false teaching in the community or com- 
munities he has in view. Assuming that his readers 
understand the errors against which he warns, he 
gives no minute definition of them. He speaks of 
the abuse of love-feasts (ver. 12), of antinomianism 
(passim), of denying Christ (ver. 4). But we have 
no grounds for connecting them with any theoretical 
errors like that of Cerinthus. 

5. Errors. Plainly sexual abuses and covetousness 
were rampant. The false teachers are described as 
having ‘creptin.’ Moffatt thinks that the references 
point to ‘a familiar type of the prophet or mystagog 
who traded on the credulity and generosity of his 
dupes.’ The identification of them with definite 
groups of heretics such as the Ophites or Carpocra- 
tians is quite unwarranted. But they possessed some 
of the characteristics which already marked out 
those Gnostics who were beginning to be influential 
in the Christian community. Thus they were 
exclusive, prided themselves on their special attain- 
ments (so the author deliberately names them 

Yuxtxét, denying them the rye), and so lacked the 
true spirit of the Christian brotherhood. 

For the relation of the Epistle to Second Peter, 
see the article on that book. 

LITERATURE: The best English Commentary is that of J; B. 

Mayor (1907). A very full and well-balanced account of all 


the questions at issue is given in the relevant section of 
Moffatt’s Introduction to the Literature of the N T (1915). 


HAAS, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


486 





JUDEA, ju-di’a. See Pauestine, §§ 33, 34. 
JUDGE. See Law anp Leaatu Practisex, §§ 2,4. 
JUDGES: The eighth book of the O T. 

1. Name. The name ‘Judges’ was given to it 
because the main portion of the book relates the 
deeds of leaders who are said to have ‘judged’ Israel. 
The Heb. term shdphét, translated ‘judge,’ must 
not be understood in an exclusively judicial sense. 
As used in the book of Jg, is practically equivalent 
to ‘ruler.’ 

2. Contents. The analysis of Jg is simple. The 
book consists of three main divisions 

I, A FRAGMENTARY ACCOUNT OF THE CONQUEST OF CANAAN 

BY THE DIFFERENT TRIBES (1 1-2 5) 
1. The movements of Judah and Simeon (1 1-21} 
2. The conquest of Bethel by the House of Joseph 
(1 22-26) 
3. aes Rao Set Canaanite cities in various tribes 
4. ie rebuke by the angel at Bochim (2 15) 
II. Isrann UNDER THE ‘JUDGES’ (26 -16 31) 
1. Introductory, giving the religious significance of the 
history of the judges (2 ®-3 8) 
2. The deeds of the judges (3 7-16 31) 
III. An Apprenpix, ConTainrine Two Stories OF THE TIMES 
OF THE JuDGEs (chs. 17-21) 
1. The migration of the Danites, and the establishment 
of the sanctuary at Dan (chs. 17-18) 
2. The outrage at Gibeah, and the vengeance visited on 
the tribe of Benjamin (chs. 19-21) 

3. Unity. The unity of Jg is only superficial. The 
three main divisions have no real internal connec- 
tion. They do not form, taken together, a pro- 
gressive, self-consistent narrative. The introductory 
statement, ‘And it came to pass after the death of 
Joshua,’ prefaces a narrative that deals with events 
which took place while Joshua was yet alive. Much 
of the material in ch. 1 is found also in Jos., partly 
in identically the same words (cf. 1 10-15 with Jos 
15 13-19; 1 21 with Jos 15 63), and relating to Joshua, 
and his contemporaries. The question (ver. 1b), 
‘who shall go up for us first against the Canaanites,’ 
plainly refers to the beginning of the conquest, and 
can not be applied to a time after Joshua’s death. 
The next notice of Joshua’s death in 2 8 is in perfect 
order, for there it serves to introduce the history 
of the age succeeding Joshua. The first words of 
Jg are then either out of their original place (2 11 ?), 
or are merely a late editorial addition to connect 
the book with the preceding Book of Joshua. 

In the second main division a distinct difference 
is to be observed between the introductory section 
(2 6-3 6, with the setting, e.g., 37 f., 12 f., 41, ete., 
given to the separate stories of the judges) and the 
stories themselves. The stories themselves say little 
about the religious situation, but in the long intro- 
ductory section and in the shorter interspersed com- 
ments this is the aspect on which all the emphasis is 
laid. The stories were, therefore, not composed by 
the author of the context in which we now find them, 
but were already at hand and used by him to point 
out the religious lessons of Israel’s early history. 
The two stories in the third division are likewise in 
no close logical or chronological connection with 
the rest of the book. Neither of them relates to 
the deeds of a judge, and both concern events that 
were thought to have taken place very soon after 
the Conquest. 

4, Composition of Judges. The critical problem 


487 


presented by Jg is complex. Two features stand 
out clearly: (1) the abundance of very old material 
in the book and (2) the use made of this material by 


later writers, who belonged to an entirely different. 


age, and whose main interest was not historical but 
religious. The oldest material in Jg is to be found in 
the stories of the deeds of deliverance wrought by 
heroes of the olden time, and in the poem in ch. 5. 
Such material was preserved in the first place in the 
various localities where the valiant deeds were per- 
formed, and was there available for later collectors. 
The evidences of a double thread of narrative in the 
old stories, e.g., in that of Gideon, in which the 
characteristics of both J and E appear, have led an 
increasing number of scholars to conclude that these 
documents, or the literary work of the schools that 
produced them, included not only the history of the 
Conquest but the later period down to the time of 
Saul and David or even later. 
complicated literary problem see Driver, LOT®, or 
such comm. as those of Moore in JCC, or Burney 
(1918). 

The collector (or collectors, if we adopt the view 
that this was the work of ‘J’ and ‘E’) of these stories 
was interested, naturally, in the religious significance 
of Israel’s early history. But his (or their) view- 
point was that of the early Kingdom pd. (the pre- 
Deuteronomic pd.). Consequently the theory of 
religious defection and its punishment does not 
appear in this older material. It was a later hand, 
anticipating the more fully developed view of the 
‘Deuteronomic’ school who worked over the stories 
as already collected and provided them with the 
general introduction and setting, to which reference 
has been made above (§ 3), but whose religious 
pragmatism was not so pronounced as that of the 
later Deuteronomic school. This pre-Deuteronomic 
collection of stories of the ‘judges’ was then revised 
by a later writer of the Deuteronomic school, who 
omitted the El and Samuel parts (probably also 
chs. 9 and the older elements in 17-21), added the 
story of Othniel (8 7-11), and worked over the intro- 
duction (2 6-3 6) and similar passages, in the spirit 
of the rigid pragmatism of the Deuteronomic 
writers. At a still later date this Deuteronomic 
‘Judges’ was enlarged by the addition of 1 1-2 5, and 
the restoration of chs. 9 and 17-21 (considerably 
worked over), thus producing the book in its 
present form. 

This theory of the composition and tormation of 
the Book of Judges (essentially that of Burney) 
gives an adequate explanation of the facts dis- 
coverable on close study. For somewhat divergent 
theories consult Driver, LOT’ or the various comm. 


5. The Chronology of the Judges. In Jg the 
periods covered by the different oppressions, the 
careers of the various judges, and the era of peace 
are given in great detail. The total amounts to 
410 years. If we add to this sum the years of the 
wandering (40), of Joshua’s life (80?), of Eli (40), 
and Samuel (40?), Saul (20?), David (40), we have a 
total of over 600 years between the Exodus and the 
building of Solomon’s Temple. But this figure is 
altogether too high. It contradicts the statement in 
I K 61 that the Temple was begun 480 years after 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


For details of this’ 


Judas Maccabeus | 
Judges 


the Exodus, which is itself an excessive estimate, 
probably based on an artificial scheme of twelve 40- 
year periods from Moses to Solomon. Since the 
Exodus could not have taken place much before 
1200 B.c. and David’s accession must be placed circa 
1000 B.c., only about 150 years can be assigned to 
the period of the judges. The simplest solution of 
the problem is that the stories of the various judges 
were originally independent of each other and that 
the judges themselves were really local heroes, whose 
authority was in most cases limited to the tribe to 
which they belonged. Many of them were probably 
contemporaries. It was through the later arrange- 
ment of the stories in a chronological succession that 
the excessively long sum total was obtained. If we 
assign 50 years to the era of Deborah (including 
Othniel, Ehud, and Shamgar), 50 more to the era of 
Gideon (including Abimelech, Tolah, and Jair), and 
50 more to the era of Jephthah and Samson (with 
the rest of the ‘minor’ judges), we shall have an 
approximately correct chronological distribution of 
the material in the book. (See also CoHrRoNoLOGY 
OF THE O T.) 


6. The Historical Value of Judges. In estimating 
the historical value of Judges a distinction must be 
drawn between the statements made by the editors 
of the old stories and the stories themselves. The 
later editors (especially those after the original 
collector) viewed the early history almost entirely 
from a religious standpoint. The reverses and mis- 
fortunes narrated in the old stories were, therefore, 
interpreted as indisputable evidence of religious 
defection, which was thus punished by J”, who 
also in His gracious forbearance took pity and 
raised up deliverers. That there is a certain amount 
of truth in this ‘pragmatic’ view of the history no 
one would care to deny, but it is nevertheless a late 
interpretation by writers who failed to see the real 
character of Israel’s early life in Canaan as revealed 
in the old stories and poems (see Hrxatrrucn, § 14 
f.). Apart from these late editorial sections Jg must 
be considered of great historical value. The first 
part (1 1-2 5) was drawn largely from the old JE 
history and contains just the information needed to 
supplement and correct the narrative in Jos 
(see JosHuA, §§ 3-5). In the second part (2 6-16 31) 
the stories of Deborah, Gideon, etc., well reveal the 


- character of the struggles and problems of the pre- 


kingdom period. The loose tribal organization, the 
jealousy and strife between different tribes and clans, 
the great degree of intermixture (both social and 
religious) with the Canaanites, the conflicts with 
invading barbarians, the beginnings of the long con- 
test for supremacy with the Philistines (Samson 
stories) and with the Ammonites (Jephthah story), 
the generally rude and rough character of the age, 
and the fundamental religious basis of the unity 
of Israel (loyalty to J’’)—all are well reflected in 
these ancient stories. The Ode of Deborah in Jg 
ch. 5 is one of the most important historical docu- 
ments in the O T. Evidently composed on the 
occasion of the great victory over Sisera, it gives 
us a view of the times of the greatest value, both for 
what it tells us of the conditions in Israel in that 
day, and for the historical presuppositions as to the 


Judgment 
Justification 





preceding Mosaic period. No theory of Israel’s 
early history that is inconsistent with the Ode of 
Deborah can be accepted as correct. The two 
stories in the Appendix (chs. 17-21) differ in his- 
torical worth. The first one (ch 17 f. )is full of most 
reliable and valuable information regarding early 
religious conditions in Israel. The second story as 
it stands is less trustworthy. The account in ch. 
19 is in the main old and historical. But this was 
used by a later writer as a basis for a narrative, 
which is artificial and contains many historical im- 
probabilities. While some early disaster may have 
befallen Benjamin, and while very probably the 
maidens of Shiloh were accustomed to dance at the 
annual feast of J’’, the main narrative, which thinks 
of all the tribes of Israel as acting in that early period 
as a religious unit, is contradicted by all that we 
know of those times, which were characterized by 
anything but unity. 

LirpratuRE: G. F. Moore in ICC (1901), and the Com. on 
Judges by C. F. Burney (1918) are all that can be desired. 
Briefer Coms. are those in the New Century Bible and in 
the Camb. Bible. See also Driver in LOT®. 
JUDGMENT. See Escuatouoay, §§ 29, 36, 39, 

41, 46-49. 


JUDGMENT HALL. See Prerorium. 


JUDGMENT SEAT: In ancient Israel the judge 
was accustomed to sit in giving judgment (Ex 1813), 
and the royal throne was preeminently a seat of 
judgment (I K 77; Is 16 5; Pr 208). It was thus 
natural that J’’s throne should be thought of as a 
judgment seat (Ps 97; J1 312; Dn 79 f.). The N T 
speaks not only of the throne of God (Rev chs. 4-5, 
etc.), but of the judgment seat of Christ (Ro 14 10; 
II Co 5 10) as the bar before which all men must 
appear (cf. Mt 25 31). In a figurative sense, Jesus 
told His disciples that they also should sit on 
thrones to judge Israel (Mt 19 28; Lk 22 30). 

The term @jue is used in a strictly technical 
sense in Mt 27 19; Jn 19 13; Ac 18 12-17, etc., of the 
judgment seat of the Roman governor, and in Ac 
25 17 of the tribunal of the emperor himself at 
Rome. K. KE. N. 


JUDITH (MM, yehiidhith), ‘woman of Judah’: 
1. A daughter of Beeri the Hittite and one of the 
wives of Esau (Gn 26 34). 2. The daughter of 
Merari, of the tribe of Simeon, and the widow of 
Manasses of the same tribe (Jth 81, 2), the heroine 
of the Book of Judith. J.S. R.—E. E. N. 


JUDITH, BOOK OF: One of the O T Apocrypha. 

1. General Character. It is a romance written 
with the purpose of encouraging the people in their 
fidelity to the God of Israel, and stimulating them 
to a careful observance of the precepts of the Law. 
Under names that belong to a much earlier time 
than that from which the book dates, it veils situa- 
tions which are the reasons for its religious exhorta- 
tions. There is a difference of opinion among scholars 
as to just the time of the situations thus veiled, 
whether they belong to the period of the approach 
of Pompey to Jerusalem (Gaster), or to the days 
of Trajan (Volkmar), or to the Maccabean era 
(Schiirer). Each supposition has had strong support, 
but the last seems most probable. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


488 





2. The Story of the Book. Nebuchadrezzar, King 
of the Assyrians, in the 12th year of his reign, made 
war with Arphaxad, King of the Medes, and defeated 
him. To help him in this undertaking he had sum- 
moned many peoples far and wide, among them the 
Jews. They, as well as others, refused to go to the 
help of Nebuchadrezzar, and he determined to 
punish them. Holofernes, one of his great generals, 
was sent westward for this purpose. The Jews 
fortified themselves as best they could, and prayed 
earnestly for the help of the Lord. Holofernes 
blockaded Bethulia (Shechem), and cut off the 
water-supply. The situation was becoming desperate 
when Judith, a widow, rich, beautiful, and devout, 
offered to try to save her people. 

Arraying herself in her most beautiful garments 
and accompanied by her maid, she found her way 
to the tent of Holofernes, professing to all who met 
her that she wished to help the Assyrians to victory. 
Holofernes himself, greatly pleased with her beauty 
and apparent sincerity, provided for her sojourn in 
his camp. On the fourth day, he invited her to a 
banquet in his tent. The unwary general gave him- 
self up to the merriment of the hour, and stupefied 
himself with wine. This was Judith’s opportunity. 
With his own sword she cut off the head of the 
drunken sleeper, and, putting it into a sack, hurried 
back to Bethulia. Great was the rejoicing in Israel, 
and equally great was the consternation among the 
Assyrians, so great, indeed, that they fled before 
the attack of the Jews, and the land was saved. 

3. Texts and Versions. The original language of 
the book was Hebrew, the standard Greek text being 
a translation from this. Three Greek recensions 
have been preserved: (1) the standard text, as given 
in most MSS. (including BAN); (2) a text found in 
Codex 58 (Holmes and Parsons); (3) a text closely 
related to (2), found in codices 19 and 108 The 
story is also extant in several Hebrew versions. 
Ancient versions of it are in Old Latin, Syriac, and 
Ethiopic. Jerome prepared the Vulgate with the 
help of an Aramaic version. 

4. Date and Author. In what is said above re- 
garding the situations revealed in the story: itself 
must be found the means for estimating the time 
of writing. These, especially the references to legal 
observances and the Pharisaic theology, point to 
a late date (not before 150 A.p.). The author was 
undoubtedly a Jew. J. 5. R.—W. G. J. 


JULIA, jii/li-a (’TouAfa): One of a group of persons 
greeted in Ro 1615. Probably the group represents 
a Christian household (cf. Ro 16 3), in which case 
Julia is the wife of Philologus, and the mother of 
Nereus and his sister. J. was a common feminine 
name, occurring frequently among slaves and freed- 
men (cf. CIL, VI, 20416). J. M. T. 


JULIUS, ji’/li-os (IodXt0c): The name of the 
centurion of the Augustan band (q.v.) into whose 
keeping Paul and other prisoners were committed 
on their journey to Rome (Ac 271). He treated the 
Apostle with considerate kindness, permitting him 
to go ashore at Sidon to visit his friends; (ver. 3), 
and, tho he ignored Paul’s warnings in the earlier 
part of the voyage (ver. 10 f.), he followed his counsel 
later (ver. 31 f.), and in order to save Paul’s life pre- 


489 


vented the soldiers from following the Roman custom 
of killing the prisoners lest they should escape (ver. 
42 f.). It is not unlikely that the privilege of 
separate residence which Paul enjoyed on his arrival 
at Rome (28 16), besides the favorable elogiwm from 
Festus, was due to Julius’ report of the voyage. 
W.J. 
JUNIA, ji’ni-a, or JUNIAS, ji’ni-as: Only the 
acc. form, louviav, is found in Ro 167, which may 
represent either the fem. Junia, or a contraction of a 
masc. name Junianus. In view of the large number 
of names of women and of Christian households in 
this ch. (cf. vs. 3, 6, 13, and 15), the former seems 
most likely. Probably J. was the wife of Andronicus. 
The expression tod¢ ouvyyevetcs, ‘kinsmen,’ merely 
implies that they were of the writer’s race (cf. 
Ro 9 3), while cuvaryyaratous, ‘fellow prisoners,’ 
may be used either literally or figuratively. The 
words xat ted éu00, ‘before me,’ may indicate that 
J. and Andronicus were among the very early 
converts to Christianity. 4 aioe iia bs 


JUNIPER. Sce Pauzsrine, § 21. 
_ JUPITER. See Greex RELIGION. 
JUSHAB-HESED, jii’’shab-hi’sed (100 IVY, yi- 
shabh hesedh): A descendant of David (I Ch 3 20). 


JUSTICE: In the Eng. Bible the word ‘justice’ 
is used in an intermediary sense between the two 
(much more frequent) terms ‘judgment’ and 
‘righteousness.’ The word mishpdt, ‘judgment’ 
(primarily the decision of a judge), is sometimes, 
especially in RV, rendered ‘justice’ (Job 29 14, 
36 17; Am 5 24, etc.). On the other hand, tsedheq 
and ts¢dhdqah, ‘righteousness,’ or ‘the right,’ are also 
frequently rendered ‘just’ or ‘justice’ (Dt 16 20; Ps 
89 14 AV; Jer 31 23 AV, etc.). See JuDGMENT and 
RIGHTEOUSNESS. In Ac 28 4 4 Six (‘vengeance’ AV) 
means the divine nemesis, which was popularly sup- 
posed to pursue a criminal until it was satisfied by 
his punishment. E. E. N. 


JUSTIFICATION: This word is used in N T to 
describe the act of God in which a sinful man is for- 
given and received into the fellowship of God through 
his faith in Jesus Christ. (1) Literally, the verb 
(Stxatody) means ‘to pronounce righteous’; in other 
words, it affirms that, in spite of past sin, an accused 
person now stands in right relations. It does not 
mean that he has become a righteous character 
(see SANCTIFICATION), nor that he has not sinned 
in the past (see ConDEMN, CONDEMNATION), but 
that now God, his holy judge, treats him as right- 
teous. This is the righteousness or justification 
(Stxatocdvn) of God (Ro 117, 3 21-26), which makes the 
fundamental difference between the Jew and Gentile 
and the Christian man. It is made the subject of 
full and explicit discussion in Paul’s letters to the 
Galatians and the Romans. His argument has its 
force in the fact that it brings to light the inner 
meaning of the Divine forgiveness and the human 
responsive faith, which form for all N T writers the 
kernel of the Gospel, and of the new experiences 
which it has created (on the significance of the term 
‘sanctification’ in the Ep. to the Hebrews, see A. B. 
Davidson’s Commentary, in Handbooks for Bible 
Classes, pp. 203-209; cf. also Moffatt in ICC (1924), 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Judgment 
Justification 


especially the Introduction, pp. xxx ff.) (2) This 
act of God stands in contrast (a) with the ideal of 
law, according to which God’s approval depends on 
man’s independent achievement of personal right- 
eousness (good works, or works of the law, Gal 3 
10-12); and (b) with the state of condemnation 
(‘cursed’) in which every man, because guilty of 
sin, must find himself, apart from God (Jews, Gal 
3 10; Gentiles, 3 8, 13 f.; Ro 1 18-32; all men, Ro 3 9). 
(3) This act of God has been made possible (a) by 
the death of Christ, who assumed the curse (Gal 
313), and became propitiatory, through the shedding 
of His blood (Ro 3 25, 8 3; cf. I Jn 2 2, 4 10; He 9 
11-14; I P 119, 318; Mk 10 45, 14 24) (see Reconcinia- 
TION and ATONEMENT). The man who sees in this 
death the atoning act of God will see in it the offer 
of mercy to himself; but (b) to see this, with inward 
trust, is for a sinner the supreme act of faith in 
God. For the awakened conscience the dream of 
immunity is the worst defiance of God. But in the 
cross of Christ God is revealed as at once righteous 
and merciful (Ro 3 26, 5 8-11). Consequently, our 
trust for the removal of guilt is fixed on that holy 
will, so rich in mercy (Eph 1 6f., 24 f.). (4) This 


‘act must be distinguished from the process of 


sanctification. It conditions, underlies, and makes 
possible that process, but its power lies in its being 
directly apprehended in its own meaning and glory. 
Te be real it must be continuously realized, and that 
can only be in a life which is its confirmation and 
its fruit (Ro 5 17, 21 [8x«tocbyn]; Gal 5 2-6). (5) 
Dr. Sanday says, ‘The Christian life is made to 
have its beginning in a fiction’ (ICC, Romans, 
p. 36). Not so; the Apostle says explicitly ‘faith 
is reckoned for righteousness.’ We must re- 
member that faith is viewed by the N T as the 
act in which the fundamental right relation with 
God is really established. The man who trusts in 
God is righteous. Without that no man can be right- 
eous toward God, since it is faith that creates the 
base and quality of all action. The fear that thus a 
a doctrine of works is reestablished and that this 
view of faith would imply that man is saved by his 
own merit is groundless. For (a) faith is the trust 
of man’s soul in God, whose redeeming love in 
Christ and that alone made faith possible. Faith 
is not the result of man’s age-long progress in the 
search for God; it is the response to God’s goodness. 
And (b) faith is thus in its very spring and essence 
the denial of personal merit, the acceptance of 
grace. To claim merit for it would be to stifle its 
very life. To class it with ‘works’ because we call 
it a human and righteous act would be to ignore its 
fundamental difference from all ‘works.’ When, 
therefore,God reckons the believing man as righteous 
there is no fiction on God’s part and no merit on 
man’s part. And yet he 7s righteous. 

The danger of making ‘justification’ a strictly 
legal process and interpreting relations with God 
exclusively through that must be avoided. It is an 
aspect, or element, in those relations; but the moral 
action and reaction between the Divine and the 
human is manifold and has other no less real aspects 
and elements. (See ForGIvVENESS; GRAcE; LovE, 
§ 2; REGENERATION, etc.) 


Justus 
Kenite 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


490 





The principle of justification by faith is implicit 
in the teaching of Jesus, as in the prayer of the 
Publican (Lk 18 19 ff.), the reception of the Prodigal 
Son (Lk 15 11 ff.), the treatment of the Sinful Woman 
(Lk 7 36-50), throughout His teaching about forgive- 
ness at the hands of the Father, and in His own 
treatment of those who came to Him for rest. 
LireraturRE: Cremer’s Lexicon has a full and careful dis- 

cussion (s.v. d{xatog and derivatives); Sanday and Head- 

lam, on Romans in ICC (1895), is a mine for Pauline the- 

ology, as also P. Feine, Theologie des N T (31919); D. W. 

Simonin HDB s.v. See also for systematic discussion Rit- 

schl’s Rechtferligung und Verséhnung, vol. III 1883) (trans- 

lated under the title Justification and Reconciliation) (for 
the Biblical material, see vol. II); A. B. Bruce, The Chris- 
tianity of St. Paul (1894); J. Oman, Grace and Personality 

(1919), pp. 196-211; Burton on Galatians in ICC (pp. 460- 

474). Consult also the main works on N T et 


JUSTUS, jus’tus (’Iotctos): The surname of three 
persons mentioned in the N T. 1. Joseph, called 
Barsabbas, who was one of the two from whom the 
disciples chose the successor of Judas, the lot falling 
upon his colleague Matthias (Ac 1 23 f.). 2. Titus 


KAB, kab: See Wetaurs AND Muasurss, § 3. 


KABZEEL, kab’z1-el (Nap, gabhts’ él): A town 
in the extreme S. of Judah (Jos 15 21), the home 
of Benaiah, captain of David’s guard (II S 23 20). 
It was reinhabited by the Jews in postexilic times 
(Neh 11 25; here called Jekabzeel). Site unknown. 

HK. HE. N. 


KADESH, ke’desh (WP, gddhésh, ‘holy’) or 
KADESH-BARNEA, -bar’ni-a (¥272 YIP, gadhésh- 
barnéa‘), ‘the holy place of Barnea’: A city located 
at the S. end of the Israelite territory, according to 
Ezk 47 19 (‘Meriboth-kadesh’) between Tamar and 
the river of Egypt, but according to Nu 34 4 between 
the latter point and Akrabbim. According to Gn 
20 1 it was near Gerar. It was for a long time the 
site of the camp of the tribes of Israel (Nu 201 [J]; 
27 14; 33 36; Dt 1 46). The modern site has been 
made the subject of dispute, but it is more than 
probable that Trumbull was right in identifying it 
with Ain Kadts in the plateau between Nakb es 
Safat and E. of Wdady Gertr, where a rich spring with 
several wells and pools contribute toward rendering 
the place an oasis. It was also called En Mishpat, 
‘fountain of judgment’ (Gn 147), evidently because 
the locality served as a seat of judgment for a time 
(cf. H. C. Trumbull, Kadesh Barnea, 1884, pp. 
238-332). A. C. Z. 


KADMIEL, kad'mi-el (9827P, qadhmval), ‘El 
is the ancient one’: 1. The ancestral head of a Levit- 
ical family which returned with Zerubbabel (Ezr 
2 40; Neh 7 43, 12 8, 24). 2. One or more individual 
Levites of this name and family may have assisted 
in rebuilding the Temple (Ezr 3 9), in the services 
of the day of humiliation (Neh 9 4, 5), and in sealing 
the covenant (Neh 10 10). Cee DT: 


(Tittos, WH), a proselyte whose house Paul made 
his home and doubtless the center of his mission, 
when the opposition of the Jews in Corinth com- 
pelled him to abandon his teaching in the Synagog 
and give himself to work among the Gentiles (Ac 
187f.). 3. Jesus, who was one of the fellow workers 
of the Apostle who proved a comfort to him in his 
first Roman imprisonment, and from whom he sent 
greetings to the Church at Colossz (4 11). In the 
case of 1 and 3, ‘Justus’ is a Gentile surname assumed 
by a Jew; in the case of 2, it is the surname of a 
Roman, who had associated himself with the worship 
of the Synagog (ceBbuevog tov Oedy). M. W. J. 


JUTAH, jot’a, JUTTAH, jot’ta (TOY, yiatah 
[Jos 15 55], 1, yutiah [Jos 21 16]): A town in the 
hill-country of Judah, 8. of Hebron, which was 
given to the priests for a city of refuge. It is the 
modern Yutid, a large Moslem village standing on 
a high ridge, with stone houses, cisterns, rock-tombs, 
and rock wine-presses. The inhabitants are rich in 
flocks. Map II, E 3. Ciba 


KADMONITE, kad’men-ait (227P, gadhméni): 
The Heb. word signifies a dweller in the East, and is 
synonymous with ‘sons of the East.’ It refers to the 
Arabs of the Syrian desert (Gn 15 19). See also 
ETHNOGRAPHY AND Erunotocy, § 138. J. A. K. 


KAIN, kén (7?P, gayin): I. Another term for the 
Kenites (Nu 24 22, RVmg.; ‘the Kenite’ AV); see 
KCENITE. 

II. A town in the mountains of Hebron (Jos 15 57; 
Cain AV), more correctly Hakkain, probably an 
old Kenite settlement, traditionally the tomb of 
Cain. Supposed to be identified with the modern 
Yukin, near Hebron (Buhl, Pal. p. 162). Map II, 
E. 3. 

KALLAI, kal’lo-ai (?P, gallay): A priest (Neh 
12 20). 

KAMON, ké’mon (j19?, gamén, Camon AV): 
The burial-place of Jair, one of the Judges (Jg 105). 
Map IV, F 8. 


KANAH, ké’na (2P, gandh), ‘reed’: 1. A brook 
forming the boundary between Ephraim and 
Manasseh (Jos 168,179). Map III, HE 4. (Identifi- 
cation not certain.) 2. A city of Asher (Jos 19 28). 
Probably the modern Kanah near Tyre (Man IV, 
C 4). 


KAREAH, ko-ri’a (1R, garaah), ‘bald’: The 


‘father of Jonathan, a leader of the remnant of the 


Jews (II K 25 23, Careah AV; Jer 408 #.). 

KARKA, kar’ka (TYP 1P, garqa‘Gh, Karkaa AV): 
A town on the 8. border of Judah (Jos 15 3). Site 
unknown. 

KARKOR, kGr’kér (1P 712, garqor): The place where 
Gideon overthrew Zeba and Zalmunna (Jg 810). It 
lay E. of Jogbehah, but its site is unknown. 


491 A NEW STANDARD 


KARTAH, kar’ta (9 P, gariah): A city of Zebulun 
assigned to the Levites (Jos 21 34). It may be the 
same as Kattath (19 15). 


KARTAN, kar’tan (J97P, qartdn): A city of 
Naphtali, assigned to the Levites (Jos 21 32), called 
Kiriathaim (Kirjathaim AV) in I Ch67. Site un- 
known. 


KATTATH, kat’tath ("8P, qgatiadth): A city of 
Zebulun (Jos 19 15). Perhaps the same as Kartah 
(21 34), and Kitron (Jg 1 30). Site unknown. 


KEDAR, ki’dar ("7P, gédhar): One of the sons of 
Ishmael (Gn 25 13; I Ch 1 29) and the eponym of an 
important tribe of nomads of Arabian origin (Jer 
210). Their flocks and tents were famous (Ezk 
27 21; Jer 49 28 f.), and served as familiar embellish- 
ments of poetic speech (Ps 1205; Song 15). But in 
Is 42 11 they are said to inhabit ‘villages,’ and in 
Is 21 16 f. to furnish mighty ‘archers,’ which may 
mean either that a portion of the people had settled 
down to agriculture and military life, or that the 
‘villages’ were simply encampments and the war- 
riors only such as a nomad people might develop. 
There seems to be no doubt, however, that the 
name did not always indicate the small section of 
Ishmael alluded to in Gn. In the Assyrian records 
K. is placed in juxtaposition with Nebaioth, as it 
is also in Is 607 (cf. COT, I, p. 133 f.; II, p. 107 f.), 
and its religion is said to be the worship of Syrian 
deities. See also ErHNoGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, 
§§ 11 and 13. peal a sia A 


KEDEMAH, ked’i-ma (791, gédhmah), ‘east’: 
An Ishmaelite tribe (Gn 25 15; I Ch 1 31). See 
IsHMAEL; and ETHNOGRAPHY AND ErHnooey, § 13. 


KEDEMOTH, ked’i-moeth (NiD1P, gdhémath), 
‘east (regions)’: 1. The wilderness of K. was near 
the upper waters of the Arnon on the E. of Moab 
(Dt 2 26). 2. The city of K. assigned to Reuben 
(Jos 13 18, 21 37; I Ch 6 79) was probably in the same 
locality, some miles E. of Dibon. Map I, G 10. 

E. E. N. 

KEDESH, ki’desh (WP, gedhesh), ‘holy place’: 
1. A city in Naphtali, often mentioned. It was an 
old Canaanitish city with a king (Jos 12 22) and 
fortified (19 37), more definitely designated as ‘K.- 
naphtali’ (Jg 4 6) and ‘K. in Galilee’ (Jos 207, 21 32) 
in the hill-country of Naphtali. It was a city of 
refuge and a Gershonite Levitical city (I Ch 6 76 [61]). 
In Jg it is mentioned as the home of Barak, where 
he and Deborah gathered their forces to fight against 
Sisera (4, 6,9 f.). It was taken by Tiglath-pileser 
(IK 15 2). Jonathan Maccabeus defeated De- 
metrius, King of Syria, at this place (I Mac 11 63, 
73), and Josephus (BJ, IV, 2 3, etc.) mentions that 
it lay between Galilee and Tyre, to which it belonged, 
and was hostile to the Jews. It is the modern 
Kedes, on the EH. slope of a hill, NW. of Lake Huleh, 
in a fruitful country with spring and cistern, and 
many Romanruins. MapIV,E5. 2. A Gershonite 
Levitical city in Issachar (I Ch 6 72 [57]), probably a 
mistake for ‘Kishion’ (Jos 19 20, 21 28). 3. A place in 
the S. of Judah (Jos 15 23) to be distinguished from 
Kadesh-karnea, Oa tad Wt 


Justus 
Kenite 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 

KEEPERS: In Ec 12 3 ‘keepers of the house’ 

is applied figuratively to the arms or hands as the 

guardians of the body. In all other cases in the 

Bible ‘keeper’ means ‘watchman,’ ‘guard,’ or ‘care- 
taker.’ KE. E. N. 

KEHELATHAH, ki”hi-lé’tha (7N27P, qehalathah): 
A station on the wilderness journey (Nu 38 22 f.). 
Site unknown. 

KEILAH, k-ai/la (72°YP, g°lah): 1. A walled 
city in the lowland of Judah, which David protected 
against Philistine raiders (Jos 15 44; I S 23 1-13). 
It is mentioned in the Tell el-Amarna tablets as 
Kiltt. In Nehemiah’s time it was a double district 
(Neh 3 17f.). This once important city is probably 
to be identified with Khurbet Kila, a ruined village 
on a terraced hill 7 m. E. of Eleutheropolis. Map 
II, D2. 2. ‘Keilah the Garmite’ (I Ch 419). Many 
of the names in this chapter refer to localities, and 
Keilah is apparently the same as 1 above. The 
meaning of ‘Garmite’ is unknown. 

L. G. L.—L. B. P. 

KELAIAH, ki-lé’ya (22P, gélayah) also Kelita 
(8B 2P, gelita’): One who married a foreign wife (Ezr 
10 23). He is also mentioned among the expounders 
of the law as read by Ezra (Neh 87), and among the 
signers of the Covenant (Neh 10 10). 

KELITA, kel’i-ta. See Kenaran. 

KEMUEL, ki-mid’el (PSP, gemial): 1. The 
ancestral head of the Nahorites, from whom Aram 
was descended (Gn 22 21; but cf. 10 22). 2. A prince 
of Ephraim (Nu 34 24). 3. A Levite (I Ch 27 17). 

KENAN, ki’nan (1?’P, géndn, Cainan AV): The son 
of Enoch in the Sethite genealogy (Gn 59; I Ch 1 2), 
the equivalent of Cain in the genealogy of 41, 17 &. 
It is also the name of a Sabean deity (Skinner, JCC, 
ad loc.). 

KENATH, ki’noth (MJP, genath): A city in E. 
Gilead (I Ch 2 23). In Nu 382 42 it is said to have 
been taken by Nobah (a Manassite clan?) and called 
Nobah. Tho there was a Nobah near Jogbehah 
(q.v.) (Jg 811), there may also have been another. If 
so, K. may possibly be identified with Kanewdt in 
the Hauran, beyond the NE. border of Gilead at the 
E. end of Map I, J 4). E. E. N. 


KENAZ, ki’naz (P, q’naz), also KENEZ: The 
ancestral head of an Edomite clan of the same name 
(Gn 36 11, 15, 42; I Ch 1 36, 53). K. (Kenizzite RV, 
Kenezite AV) is also named as the clan to which 
Caleb (Nu 82 12; Jos 14 6, 14) and Othniel (Jos 15 17; 
Jg 113, etc.) belonged. K. (Gn 15 19) thus appears 
to have been either an Edomite clan, a part of which 
was absorbed into Judah, or an independent clan, 
one portion of which became Edomite, while the 
other united with Judah. Its seat was in S. Judah in 
the neighborhood of Hebron. E. E. N. 

KENITE, ki’nait (2, génz, Gentilic of VP, gayin, 
Kain [found in Nu 24 22; Jg 4 11]): The Kenites were 
a nomadic people whose original home lay in the 
region S. of Palestine. Moses’ father-in-law, Hobab, 
was a Kenite (Jg 1 16, 411), and hence we may infer 
that they were originally counted with the Midian- 
ites. The Kenite clan of which Hobab was chief 


Kenizzite 
Kingdom of God 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


492 





threw in its lot with Israel on the march from Horeb 
to Canaan, and later joined Judah when that tribe 
undertook to conquer 8. Palestine (Jg 116#.). The 
Kenites took possession of a district to the S. of 
Judah proper, and there became closely identified 
with the Amalekites (in Jg 1 16 read ‘and they went 
and dwelt with the Amalekites’; cf. Moore in 
ICC, ad loc.). -Asmall clan led by Heber after- 
ward moved to N. Palestine (Jg 4 11). When Saul 
marched against Amalek he warned the Kenites to 
save themselves by separating from the Amalekites 
(I S 15 6). They occupied a distinct part of the 
Negeb near the Jerahmeelites (I S 27 10, 30 29). Later 
they were reckoned as an integral part of Judah 
(I Ch 255), and it was the Kenite Hammath who was 
considered the ancestor of the Rechabites (q.v.). 
The Kenites are mentioned in the enigmatic oracle 
ascribed to Baalam (Nu 24 21 f.). Many recent 
writers have advocated the theory that the Kenites 
were originally worshipers of J’, and that it was 
from them that Moses derived his knowledge of J”, 
but this theory is beset with many difficulties. 
E. E. N. 
KENIZZITE, ki-niz’zait. See Kmnaz. 


KERCHIEF: The rendering of the Heb. mispahah 
(Ezk 13 18, 21), a head-covering or veil of some sort, 
the exact nature of which is unknown. See also 
Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 8. 


KEREN-HAPPUCH, ki’ren-hap’ok (VP 17P, 
geren happikh): One of Job’s daughters (Job 42 14). 
The name means ‘horn of eye-paint,’ the reference 
being to the black antimony dye used for the eye- 
brows and eyelashes. 


KERIOTH, ki’ri-oth (A? 7), geriyydth, in Jer 48 41 
with the article), the pl. of giryadh, ‘city’: A place 
in Moab (Jer 48 24) with royal palaces (Am 2 2), 
perhaps the capital city. On the Moabite Stone (see 
Mesa) it is mentioned as containing a principal 
sanctuary of Chemosh. Buhl (GAP) identifies it 
with Rabbath Moab, the capital city of the district 
‘Ar, S. of the Arnon. isis bs 


KERIOTH-HEZRON, ki’ ri-efh-hez’ron. 
HEZRON. 


KEROS, ki’res (27’P, gérds): The ancestral head 
of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2 44= Neh 7 47). 


KETTLE: The rendering of didh (IS 214). See 
Foon, § 11. 


KETURAH, ki-tii’ra (THOP, q*tirdh), ‘frankin- 
cense’: The wife or concubine of Abraham, perhaps 
like Hagar taken during Sarah’s lifetime. She was 
the mother of six sons, representing Arab tribes 8S. 
and E. of Palestine. But the episodical nature of the 
passage (Gn 25 1-6), the plurals in ver. 3, and the 
broad geographical distribution of her descendants 
argue strongly for a tribal interpretation of Keturah’s 
personality. A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8. 


KEY, See Houss, § 6 (1). 

KEZIAH, ki-zai’a (TX'SP, qetst‘ah), 
One of the daughters of Job (Job 42 14). 

KEZIZ, :VALLEY OF, ki’ziz. See Emex-Keziz. 


See 


‘cassia’: 


KIBROTH-HATTAAVAH, kib”refh-hat-té’a-va 
(TSAI MIP, gibhroth hatta’ dwah, ‘graves of lust’: 
A station on the wilderness journey from Horeb 
to Kadesh (Nu 11 34f., 33 16f., Dt 9 22). It was the 
scene of the wonderful supply of quail, the greedy 
eating of which brought on a plague causing the 
death of many in the camp. Site unknown. 

KIBZAIM, kib-zé/im (@°$4P, qibhtsayim): A 
Levitical city of Ephraim named in connection with 
Gezer and Beth-horon (Jos 21 22), called Jokmeam 
(q.v.) in I Ch 6 68. 


KID. See SacriricE AND OFFERINGS, § 5; Foon, 
§ 10. 


KIDNEYS: In the O T the Heb. k*laydth is used 
in two senses. (1) Literal—of the kidneys with their 
fat. In one passage the term is used to indicate the 
choicest part of the wheat (Dt 3214). See SAcRIFICE 
AND OFFERINGS, § 10. (2) By metonymy—for the 
emotional nature of man with its impulses and © 
affections. In such passages it was rendered in AV 
by reins, for which RV substitutes ‘heart’ (cf. also 
Rev 2 23). See Man, Docrrine or, § 8. E.E.N. 

KIDRON, kid’ren (JiN1P, gidhrén): The name of 
the valley E. of Jerusalem, the stream of which is dry 
during the greater part of the year. Originally the 
spring Gihon (see JERUSALEM, § 11) emptied its 
waters into this part of the valley. The Valley of 
Jehoshaphat (Jl 3 12) is not to be identified with the 
Kidron, at least that portion of it near Jerusalem. 
See also JERUSALEM, § 5. EK. E. N. 


KINAH, kai’na (7P, gindh): A town in the ex- 
treme 8S. of Judah (Jos 15 22). Site unknown. 


KINDRED: The translation of a number of Heb. 
and Gr. terms in AV, most of which have been more 
correctly rendered by other words in RV. Atten- 
tion may be called to the following: 1. In the O T. 
(1) In Ezk 11 15, the term rendered ‘kindred’ means 
‘redemption.’ This gives no good sense, and it is 
probable that the original reading was ‘captivity,’ 
or ‘exile,’ giving the meaning ‘fellow exiles.’ (2) 
In Ru 3 2, the Heb. means literally ‘acquaintance.’ 
(8) In Gn 24 7, ete., the Heb. word (rendered 
‘nativity’ in RV) is the same as that rendered 
‘kindred’ in 121, etc. It is derived from the verb 
meaning ‘to give birth to,’ and both senses are 
correct. In Est 210, 20, 86it might be rendered ‘race.’ 
(4) The Heb. word for ‘family’ is sometimes used in 
a broad sense for ‘kindred’ (Gn 24 38; Ps 22 27, etc.). 
2.In the N T. (1) In Ac 46 yévosg means ‘family,’ 
while in 7 13, 19 it has its usual meaning of ‘race.’ 
(2) In Ac 8 25 xator&, family,’ is used in a very broad 
sense, almost equivalent to ‘race,’ or ‘nation.’ (3) In 
Rev 17, 59, etc., the RV ‘tribe’ is the literal meaning 
of the Gr. guAn. E. E. N. 


KING: The Heb. melekh, ‘king,’ appears to be 
derived from a root, mlkh, meaning ‘to decide’ or 
‘to give counsel,’ (cf. the status of the head of a 
tribe, whose main function was to give counsel rather 
than to rule absolutely). The verb mdlakh, ‘to rule,’ 
or ‘to reign,’ is denominative from melekh. The 
original constitution of Israel was patriarchal (see 
FaMILY AND Famity Law, §§ 2, 4; and IsRag., 
SocraL DreveLoOpMENT oF, §§ 11, 12) and tribal. 


493 A NEW STANDARD 


There was no central authority, even in religion. 
Individual leadership in war or in time of peace was 
after all, subordinate to the government of the tribes 
through their ‘elders.’ As Israel in Canaan entered 
into the experiences of a settled, instead of a nomad- 
ic, life, the essential weakness of the tribal constitu- 
tion became only too evident. The invasion by the 
Midianites (Jg chs. 6-8) and the conquest of central 
Israel by the Philistines (I S chs. 4-6) showed the 
need of union under one capable head. Gideon 
refused the offer of a crown (Jg 8 22 f.), and the 
attempt to found a kingdom by his incapable son 
Abimelech was abortive (Jg ch. 9). It was in the 
days of Samuel that the desire for a king came to be 
generally prevalent. The oldest narrative (I S 9 1- 
10 16, 11 1-13) represents Samuel (and J” also) as at 
one with the people in this matter, and gives as 
the motive the desire for a leader to save Israel from 
the Philistines. Saul was the choice of both J” and 
His people. As king, Saul’s status was midway 
between that of the chief of a tribe and the more 
fully developed regal state exhibited by David. 
Saul was the war leader of all Israel, and in war his 
authority was supreme. But in other respects his 
court and the organization of his government were 
crude and primitive. It was otherwise with David 
(q.v.), in whom Israel found a man of truly regal 
character. David was chosen king by the tribal 
‘elders,’ first of Judah (II S 2 4), then, seven years 
later, by those of all Israel (IIS 53). Asking, David 
was the military head, the supreme judge, and the 
religious head of all Israel. His authority was not 
absolute, for there were many ancient customs and 
rights which he was expected to uphold, not to 
annul (cf. the later case of Ahab and Naboth, I K 
ch. 21); still, in many respects his will was the su- 
preme law of the land, and in the selection of his 
officials, both military and civil, less attention was 
paid to the local tribal nobles and more to persons 
who would be directly dependent upon the king him- 
self. As the supreme court of appeal, this king and 
his officials practically supplanted the old tribal 
courts in matters of great importance. In these and 
other respects the tendency of the kingdom was to 
break down the old tribal system. Under David the 
kingly government was organized, and there was a 
real court and cabinet (II S 8 15-18, 20 23-26). Under 
Solomon, this organization was extended to cover 
the economic measures for the maintenance of the 
royal establishment (I K 4 1-28), and also the royal 
prerogatives were insisted upon in an autocratic 
spirit (cf. I K 12 8-11) unknown in earlier days, and 
exceedingly distasteful to the majority of his sub- 
jects, especially those outside of Judah (I S 8 10-18; 
I K 12 4-7). The northern tribes therefore at the 
death of Solomon refused their allegiance to his 
son, who declined to renounce the autocratic policy 
of his father. The Northern Kingdom thus origi- 
nated in a protest against absolutism. Omri, the 
fifth king, was the real organizer of the Northern 
Kingdom. Being the choice of the army, he had the 
power to enforce his authority. He diminished the 
independent power and significance of the old local 
and tribal constituencies, and made the throne 
supreme, and under the Omri dynasty the Northern 


Kenizzite 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Kingdom of God 


Kingdom came to be as closely organized about and 
dependent on the throne as was that of Judah. See 
IsRAEL, SoctaL DEVELOPMENT OF, §§ 30, 31. 

There was something ideal in the conception of a 
king to the mind of the ancient Israelite. The limits 
of the royal authority were somewhat vague, and 
hence there was all the greater need that, as the 
final court of appeal and the fountainhead of justice, 
the king be perfectly just and impartial. As the 
head of the state, he was to be the successful leader 
of its armies, the wise provider of all things con- 
ducive to public welfare, having at heart his people’s 
interests, quick to detect and punish the evil and 
reward the good (Dt 17 14-20; 1 K 127). As the chief 
of his people, he was also their representative before 
God. He was ‘J’’s anointed’ (I § 26 11, ete.) and 
really their high priest. He officiated at the national 
sacrifices, prayed for his people, and blessed them in 


‘the name of J” (IS 14 33f.; ITS 618f.; I K 812 f., 


13 4, etc.). It was easy, therefore, for the Messianic 
thought at times to conceive of the ideal future as 
the time when a perfect king should reign on David’s 
(ideal) throne as God’s own representative, and his 
kingdom be the realization of the rule of God in 
Israel and on earth (Is 9 6-7, 11 1-5, 321 ff.; Jer 23 5; 
Ezk 32 22-24, etc.). On the other hand the monarchi- 
cal idea had its opponents, perhaps from the first. 
The later strands of the narrative in I § view the 
desire for a king and the choice of Saul as equivalent 
to rejection of J’”’s leadership (cf. IS 8, 10 17-24, 
12, 15). These late passages may well preserve the 
memory of early opposition which later was more 
fully developed and formulated. Solomon’s auto- 
cratic tendencies aroused opposition. Prophets 
boldly stood out against royalty; Dt 17 14 f. only 
grudgingly sanctions the kingdom. While no definite 
conflict between king and priesthood developed dur- 
ing the period of the monarchy, the priestly system 
formulated in the Law left practically no place for a 
monarch. It reduced him to a mere figurehead in 
an ecclesiastical state at the head of which was the 
high priest, wearing insignia proper to royalty 
(Ex 28 36 ff.; 39 38-31). EK. E. N. 


KINGDOM OF GOD: 1. Usage of Terms. A N T 
phrase based upon and expressing in its final form the 
O T idea of the spiritual rule of God over men. The 
phrase kingdom of heaven (GactAela taHv obpavay) 
is used in the N T by Mt only, and is an exact 
equivalent of the phrase ‘kingdom of God’ (factAret« 
cod Qe00). The substitution of ‘heaven’ for ‘God’ is 
based on the popular superstitious feeling in later 
Judaism, which led to the avoidance of the Divine 
namesin common speech. Outside of the N T, it was 
in use as the Targumic name of the Messianic em- 
pire (malkhith@ dhishmayy@), an alternate form of 
the older phrase, which, however, it never completely 
displaced. Which of the two expressions Jesus 
himself adopted, and whether He limited Himself to 
one or the other are open questions. (Cf. Stanton, 
The Jewish and Christian Messiah [1886], pp. 209-210; 
Dalman, Words of Jesus [1902], pp. 91 ff.). Less 
technical and formal expressions denoting the same 
idea are, ‘kingdom of their [my, Mt 26 29] father’ 
(Mt 13 43), ‘thy kingdom’ (in the Lord’s Prayer, 
Mt 6 10), ‘the kingdom,’ without qualification (Mt 


Kingdom of God 


8 12); and, after the recognition of Jesus as the Me- 
siah, ‘kingdom of Christ’ (Pauline usage, I Co 6 91.; 
Gal 5 21). 

2. The Idea in the O T. The essence of the con- 
ception of the kingdom of God is to be found in the 
O T. In one of the passages of the Hexateuch (Ex 
19 5f. [J, or perhaps the redactor of JE]), Moses is 
represented as bringing the promise of J” to the 
people of Israel that they should be ‘a kingdom of 
priests and a holy nation.’ This was distinctly as- 
sumed by later writers as substantially realized in 
the last stages of the period of Judges. Gideon re- 
fuses the throne offered him upon the ground that 
J’ only must rule over Israel (Jg 8 23). When the 
people demanded a king from Samuel and he took 
the matter to J’, according to the later narrative 
(see SAMUEL, Books oF) he received the answer that 
it was not himself that the people had rejected but 
J” (IS 87; ef. 1212). In its simplest form, the idea 
expressed in these passages may be put in the prop- 
osition: Israel’s government is ideally a theocracy, 
z.e., The reign of God, and Israel, accordingly, the 
kingdom of God (see Kine for the older narrative 
with a somewhat different view; also cf. Saunt and 
SAMUEL, Books oF). With the establishment of 
the monarchy this idea naturally receded into the 
background, but the thought that God was the 
true king of Israel was never completely lost to 
sight. In the dark days of the exile, as Israel’s 
need became great, the prophets foresaw the re- 
establishment of the reign of J’’ in the future as the 
only effective remedy for the ills from which the 
nation was suffering. 


3. Apocalyptic Development of the Idea. The 
root and ground of this hope was naturally the belief, 
becoming stronger from generation to generation, 
that Israel’s God was by right the sovereign of the 
whole world, the king of all the nations (Ps 74 12, 
47 6-8). His restoration of Israel to supreme power 
and his return to the visible throne of his own peo- 
ple would only be the manifestation of an inner 
reality. The apocalyptic type of thought seized 
upon this idea and brought it into a new and rather 
elaborate phase of development. It transformed it 
into a comprehensive eschatological conception 
incorporating into it all the expectations quickened 
by the older prophets. Among these was first and 
foremost that of the coming of an ideal king (Mes- 
siah) after the type of David (a Son of David). 
Next, since the Messianic era was not in the way of 
coming quietly through a historic and gradual un- 
folding, the expectation arose that it would be 
brought in through a sudden break of the existing 
order by God’s interference from above. This was 
interlinked with the notion of the ‘Ages.’ The 
present age would be supplanted speedily and 
suddenly by the new (coming age). So great a 
change was naturally looked upon as ‘the end of the 
world,’ altho the phraseology used only designates 
the end of an age or dispensation. Finally, God’s 
assumption of the visible rule would involve the 
judgment of all enemies (sinners), both in Israel and 
without. This was the development and reassertion 
of the doctrine of the Day of J’, promulgated as 
early as by Amos (5 20). 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


494 


The word Kingdom came to be applied to this 
expected new and ideal order (cf. Slav. En. 41, 52 4; 
Pss Sol. 5 21; Ass. Mos. 10 1) and the phrase ‘king- 
dom of God’ [‘kingdom of heaven’] passed into the 
Targumic usage (cf. Targum, Is 40 9; Mic 4 7; also 
Targ. Jon. Is 53 10, “The kingdom of the Messiah’; 
see also Cremer, Bibl. Theol. Lex., BactAebs; Schiirer, 
HI POU iieL70)3 

4. Teaching of Jesus. John the Baptist, basing his 
expectation, as did the men of his age, on Dn 2 44, 
took the imminence of the kingdom as the occasion 
and motive of his preaching of repentance (Mt 8 1). 

But it was the use of the conception by Jesus that 
has lifted it into the place of its supreme importance. 
In fact, according to the synoptists, He made it the 
substance of His preaching. His theme was ‘the Gos- 
pel of the Kingdom’ (Mt 4 23). 

The usage of Jesus represents the kingdom (1) 
figuratively, under the form of a place. This is the 
case in all expressions involving the act of entering 
into the kingdom (Mt 7 21, 18 3; Mk 10 15, 23; Lk 
18 24 f.). Sometimes, the place is more narrowly 
presented as an enclosure, or walled territory, or 
city with gates that can be closed (Mt 2314). It is 
better to enter into the kingdom of heaven with one 
eye than, having two, to be cast out (Mk 9 47). Men 
are said to be ‘near’ or ‘far’ from the kingdom 
(Mk 12 34). It requires effort to enter (Mt 11 12). 
But the difference between those who enter and those 
who do not is not the difference between the Jew and 
the Gentile, but that between those who possess a 
certain fitness for it and those who do not (Lk 9 62). 
But after entrance has been secured, it is a place of 
enjoyment, a place where even Jesus Himself shall 
eat and drink (Mt 26 29; Mk 14 25; Lk 22 16, 18). 
(2) In a second class of passages, the kingdom is 
represented as a possession. Of the poor in spirit 
and of those who are persecuted for righteousness’ 
sake it is said, ‘theirs is the kingdom of heaven’ 
(Mt 5 3, 10; Lk 18 16f.). It is something that can 
be given and taken away. It will be taken from the 
Jews and given to a nation bringing forth the 
fruits trereof (Mt 21 43). It is promised to the little 
flock (Lk 12 32). The parables of the treasure 
hidden in the field and the merchantman seeking 
goodly pearls (Mt 13 44-46) give this view of it. It 
is the most valuable of possessions, and it is the 
height of wisdom to seek for it and the summit of 
prosperity to secure it (Mt 6 33; Lk 12 31). (3) A 
third class of passages represents the kingdom of 
God as an organization, constituted of a certain 
class of men. It is a body politic, growing from 
small beginnings into large proportions and power 
(Mt 13 31; Mk 4 26, 27). Its members are the chil- 
dren of the kingdom (Mt 13 38). Like every human 
organization this, too, must have its offices and 
officers; but to suppose that these are to be ap- 
pointed without reference to their character and on 
the same principle as in the political sphere—in 
order to lord it over their fellow members—is a 
grievous error. They that rule shall be they that 
serve. They shall rule in the very act of serving 
their brethren (Mt 20 21 #.). (4) A fourth class 
of passages designates the kingdom as an order of 
things, or a dispensation. In the vision of Daniel, 


495 A NEW STANDARD 


it had been foreshadowed that with the coming 
of the fifth kingdom (that of the ‘saints,’ Dn 7 14, 
22, 27) a revolution would occur in the affairs of 
Israel and, in fact, of the whole world. And it 
was the nearness of this new order of things that 
John the Baptist had preached. Jesus came with 
the same message, and taught His disciples to an- 
nounce the coming of the kingdom, to pray for it, 
and to prepare for it (Mt 6 10-13; Lk 9 2,11). The new 
feature of the dispensation thus announced is its 
spirituality. Its laws are essentially ethical. It is 
an order of things in which humility and purity 
count for more than self-assertion and outward con- 
formity to standards (Mt 11 11; Lk 7 28). It is an 
administration of justice and equity. Faithfulness 
and diligence are rewarded in it and sloth and un- 
brotherliness are punished (Mt 21 43; cf. 251#.). See 
also Jnsus Curist, §§ 138, 14. 


5. Parallel and Contrasted Conceptions. 
His answer to the rich young man who asked Him 
what he must do to inherit eternal life, Jesus turned 
to His disciples and said, ‘How hardly shall they 
that have riches enter into the kingdom of God’ 
(Lk 18 24), and His disciples asked Him, “Then who 
can be saved?’ (Lk 18 26). In this passage the three 
phrases ‘kingdom of God,’ ‘eternal life,’ and ‘be 
saved’ are applied to the same thing. Whether the 
conversation is reported verbatim or as later inter- 
preted it is certain that it indicates at least what the 
kingdom of God was understood to be when Luke 
wrote. The Fourth Gospel also uniformly presents 
the ‘eternal life’ as the great theme of Christ’s 
teaching, thus putting it in the place occupied by 
the idea of the kingdom in the Synoptic account. 

Further, the kingdom of God is contrasted with 
the kingdom of Satan (Mt 12 26; Mk 3 24; Lk 11 18). 
This kingdom involves an organization controlled 
by one dominating power, and it is necessary that 
its law should be harmoniously observed by its 
subjects, else its integrity disappears and it collapses 
(Mt 12 25 £.; Lk 11 18). The kingdom of God is 
finally identified with the ‘coming age’ of the apoca- 
lyptic literature (Lk 18 30; Mk 10 30), and the ‘pres- 
ent age,’ being the obverse of the coming, falls into 
the place of opposition to the kingdom of God. 

In making the idea of the kingdom of God the 
main subject of his preaching, Jesus adopted what he 
found current in his age. At the same time he gave 
the conception a new intepretation. Just how much 
of its old content he retained and how much of his 
own he added has been a question much debated. 


6. The Coming of the Kingdom. On the one side, 
it is claimed that His thought on this point coalesces 
with that of the Apocalyptists (apocalyptic-escha- 
tological view), and that, like them, He looks upon 
the coming of the kingdom as an outward event to 
be ushered in with a unique display of supernatural 
power (J. Weiss, Predigt Jesu vom Retiche Gottes 
121906]; Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu 
[21903]; Bousset, Die Predigt Jesu in thren Gegensatz 
zum Judenthum [1892]; Schweitzer, Von Reimarus 
zu Wrede, E. T., The Quest of the Historical Jesus 
[1910]). On the other side, His utterances are inter- 
preted as representing the kingdom as a present 


evolving organism (ethico-religious view). Exclusive- | 


After: 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Kingdom of God 


ly taken, either one of these views fails to account for 
all the facts in the case, some of which seem to sup- 
port one and some the other. Thus arises a problem 
which might be solved by denying the genuineness 
of either class of utterances attributed to Jesus. The 
eschatological discourses may have been incorporated 
into the ethico-religious teaching of the Master by 
His reporters, because these were unable fully to ap- 
preciate His pure religious thought; or, less probably, 
the ethico-religious elements may have been read 
back into His speeches, tho developed later in the 
course of Apostolic activities; or the eschatological 
may have been but the form current in His day 
which Jesus used as a medium for His ethico-religious 
ideals; or, again, the eschatological may have formed 
the chief content of His teachings, and those in- 
stances of His usage in which the kingdom appears 
as a present reality may be proleptical. All these 
methods of dealing with the data do more or less 
critical and exegetical violence to them. The truth 
is that the primary element in Jesus’ conception is 
the ethico-religious, and the eschatological is used, 
partly as a vehicle for conveying this, and partly asa 
possible culmination and expression outwardly of the 
inner reality. The kingdom is then a present and 
growing power, whose final triumph might be con- 
ceived as taking place in the form ordinarily repre- 
sented in the Apocalyptic writings. 


7. The Kingdom in Apostolic Teaching. The 
Apostolic teaching continues this blended presenta- 
tion without any tendency either toward the absorp- 
tion or toward the expulsion of the one view by the 
other. In the Epistles of Peter, the eschatological 
idea prevails. The kingdom is a future manifesta- 
tion (I P 17 f., 413); Christ Himself would come in 
glory and establish it (I P 45f.). In the Epistle of 
James, it is a privilege to be enjoyed by those who 
love Jesus as Christ that they shall inherit the king- 
dom (Ja 25). On the other hand, in Revelation, it is 
more than a future reign of God. With the ascen- 
sion of Jesus, Satan has been overthrown, and the 
kingdom has come (12 10). Believers are already 
rulers in it (16,510). The Seven Churches are in the 
domain of Christ. In the Johannine writings, the 
conception and phraseology of the kingdom yield to 
those of eternal life, which is represented as a present 
good secured by faith in Christ (Jn 3 36, 6 54; I Jn 
511,13). But most clearly does this alternation of the 
idea from a present to a future reality appear in 
Paul’s system of thought. Here the two advents of 
Christ mark the developments. The first coming 
has already resulted in the establishment of a king- 
dom of which His disciples are fellow citizens, Eph 
2 19; a dispensation of the fulness of the times, 
Eph 1 10; the body of Christ, Eph 1 23, 412, etc., con- 
stituted by the predominance of certain inner 
realities (Ro 14 17; I Co 4 20). Men are transferred 
into it (‘the kingdom of the Son’) by faith in God 
through Jesus Christ (Col 113). Yet this kingdom 
is associated with the future coming of Christ (II 
Ti 41), and is to be inherited (Gal 5 21; I Co 69f.). 
Paul also distinguishes between the kingdom of God, 
pure and simple, and the kingdom of Christ; but the 
difference is simply that the former represents an 
earlier stage in the Apostle’s thought and the latter 


Kingdom of God 
Kings, Books of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


496 





a later one. Yet the kingdom of Christ is the means 
of furthering the kingdom of God (I Co 15 24-27). It 
was only after the close of the Apostolic period that 
the identification of the kingdom of God with the 
Church of Christ began to be made. 


8. The Kingdom and the Individual. The new 
meaning thus imparted to the conception of the 
kingdom of God broke down the older barriers of 
mere national and racial privilege about it. Both 
in the teaching of Jesus, and still more clearly in the 
system of Paul, the kingdom was to extend over the 
great heathen world (cf. Eph 3 6, where Gentiles are 
referred to as fellow heirs, fellow members of the 
body, and fellow partakers of the promise), and 
even possibly leave out some of the old Jewish 
communities (Ro 9 31-£.). From being the common- 
wealth of Israel, it came to be regarded as the com- 
munity of the righteous within Israel, and, finally, 
as the righteous among all nations. The conditions 
of membership are, accordingly, placed within the 
reach of the world at large, and consist in repentace 
from sin and trustful acceptance of the Christ as 
Savior (Mt 16 16; Ac 18 39, 319, 17 30; Ro 116). The 
privileges of such membership are correspondingly 
lifted out of a material sphere (currently expressed 
in such phrases as ‘eating bread in the kingdom of 
God’ [Lk 14 15], ‘partaking in a banquet of manna,’ 
or ‘of the flesh of leviathan,’ or ‘Behemoth’) into the 
more spiritual one of the vision of God, the recog- 
nition of sonship, the satisfaction with righteousness, 
the communion with the devout of past ages, and 
the completion of communion with God already 
begun. But on their part, the members of the king- 
dom must maintain a Christian character. As such, 
they are to be distinguished by humility, meekness, 
a forgiving spirit, a devout and prayerful attitude 
toward God, earnest aggressiveness in extending the 
kingdom, and a fraternal loving attitude toward 
their fellow members. Over one another they are to 
watch with care (Mt 18 15-20), and serve one another 
with devotion. 


9. Later Interpretations of the Idea. When the 
Christian Church became a fully organized institu- 
tion and entered upon its career of influence in the 
world, the tendency arose to identify it with the 
kingdom of God (Augustine). This view continued 
to the days of the Reformers, who, for obvious 
reasons, amended it by identifying the kingdom of 
God with the invisible church. In more recent times 
the inclination prevailed to view the general sov- 
ereignty of God, morally and providentially exer- 
cised, as the true notion of the kingdom (F. D. 
Maurice). But the eschatological idea also is widely 
held. It is interpreted, however, as involving the 
notion that the original intention of Jesus was to 
establish a visible kingdom such as was expected by 
the Jews of His time. But since the Jews rejected 
Him, the kingdom was not then set up. It is held 
in abeyance until some time in the future when at 
his Second Coming he will establish it. 

10. Summary. The Biblical idea of the kingdom of 
God may then be said to center about the thought of 
a special order of things or dispensation, the chief 
characteristic of which is that men recognize God as 
absolute sovereign. But they do so because, in the 


person and teaching of Jesus Christ, He is revealed 

to them as their Father. The relation of the indi- 

vidual to the kingdom is thus established by faith 

z.e., by the acceptance of the revelation made by 

Jesus; but those who accept Him irrespective of 

previous station in life or nationality are banded 

together as His new people. The order of things 
thus begun is to be completed in the future. Yet 
its complete manifestation at the last will not bring 

a new reality into existence, but will only fill out 

and reveal its outline. 

LiTERATURE: In addition to the works mentioned in the article, 
the following may be consulted: Bruce, Kingdom of God 
(31890) ; Candlish, Kingdom of God; Matthews, Messianic Hope 
in the N T (1907); Scott, E. F., The Kingdom and the Messiah 
(1910); A. G. Hogg, Christ’s Message of the Kingdom (1912); 
Dougall and Emmett, The Lord of Thought (1922). 

A. 


KINGS, BOOKS OF. In the Heb. Canon Jos, Jg, 
I and II S (as one book), and I and IT K (as one) 
form a group called the ‘Early (or Former) Prophets.’ 
How old this grouping is can not now be ascertained, 
but it antedates the LXX. and persisted (in Heb. 
MSS.) until the age of printing. 

1. Name and Place in the O T Canon. Both Origen 
and Jerome speak of the difference between the 
LXX. division into two books (Third and Fourth 
‘Kingdoms’) and the Heb. designation of the whole 
as one book of ‘Kings.’ Our subdivision of S and K 
into two books each, based as it is on the LXX.., is of 
no special significance, and is purely arbitrary, hav- 
ing no basis in the text. The dividing line between 
K and § has also been drawn somewhat arbitrarily, 
since I K chs. 1 and 2 are really the conclusion of the 
history of David narrated in II S. Lucian, in his 
recension of the LX X., made a much more natural 
division between II S and I K at I K 2 12, perhaps 
following ancient Heb. authorities in so doing. The 
exact relation of the original Heb. book of ‘Kings’ to 
the preceding historical books is obscure. It is 
certain that the older material in them all has been 
edited by compilers in the same spirit, and that 
together they form a closely connected series. But 
whether they were originally planned as such a series, 
and were once but four parts of one large work all 
edited by the same hand, are questions that can 
not be answered definitely. 


2. General Structure and Purpose. Disregarding 
the artificial subdivision into two books, the entire 
work consists of three main parts: (1) The history of 
Solomon’s reign (I K chs. 1-11). (2) A synchronous 
history of the two kingdoms (I K ch. 12-IT K ch. 17). 
(3) The history of Judah from the fall of the North- 
ern Kingdom to the Exile (II K chs. 17-25). 
Throughout each of these three parts we find evidence 
of the use by the editor, or compiler, of a variety of 
sources, sometimes quoted verbatim in longer and 
shorter excerpts, at other times used more indirectly, 
but always in accord with one ruling purpose, to set 
forth the history from a religious rather than from a 
political point of view, and to show what lessons 
were to be learned from it regarding J’”’s dealings 
with His people. In political events or measures, as 
such, the compiler took little interest. ‘Of the 
careers of some of the most important kings (e.g., 
Omri and Jeroboam II) he gives only the briefest 


497 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Kingdom of God 
Kings, Books of 





notices. The record of a half-century is compressed 
into a few lines (e.g., the reign of Manasseh). This 
was due simply to the ‘pragmatic’ or didactic aim of 
the historian. He selected from his sources only 
those things that seemed best suited to his main 
purpose. The signs of the compiler’s hand are mani- 
fold. (1) He makes definite reference to three works 
as authorities (cf. I K 11 41, 14 19, 29, and see below, 
§ 4). (2) The constant recurrence of certain favorite 
formulas, which form the framework, as it were, of 
the whole. (a) Those by which a reign is introduced, 
which include, when complete, the synchronism 
with the contemporaneous reign in the other king- 
dom, the name of the king, his age, length of reign, 
name of queen-mother, and a statement as to his 
character (I K 14 21, 22 41 f., etc.). (b) Those by 
which the account of a reign is closed, which include 
a reference to the editor’s authority, a notice of the 
king’s death and burial, and the name of his suc- 
cessor (I K 11 41 ff., 14 19 f., 29, 31, 157 f., etc.). (3) 
The synchronistic scheme, according to which the 
accession of a king in one kingdom is dated accord- 
ing to the regnal year of the contemporaneous king 
in the other. This appears as a regular element of 
the formula (2) (a) just noted, and is carried through 
the entire period of the divided kingdom. It is not 
likely that these synchronisms were in the original 
authorities; they were probably computed by the 
editor on the basis of figures found in his sources. 
(4) The presence of a large number of passages, 
scattered through the work, all revealing the same 
religious point of view and holding a most important 
place in the general composition of the work. Some 
of them appear conspicuously in the framework (cf. 
(2) above) as judgments on the character of the 
individual kings, while others of more didactic 
character seek to show why misfortunes came upon 
different kings or the nation (e.g., I K 111-13, 32-39, 
15 4 f., 29-31; IL K 17 18-23, ete.). The standpoint 
from which these are written is the ‘Deuteronomic.’ 
Kings are condemned for worshiping at the high 
places, a practise clearly contrary to the Deuter- 
onomic theory of one only legitimate sanctuary. The 
sins of Solomon, of Jeroboam, of N. Israel in general, 
and of Manasseh are all of just the kind that are 
especially condemned in Dt. The doctrine that the 
national prosperity was directly dependent upon its 
loyalty to J’’, and that disloyalty would surely be 
visited with heavy retribution is also a cardinal doc- 
trine of Dt (see DrurrRonomy, § 8). Along with 
such passages as these, a number of others, which 
are similar in literary style and mode of thought, will 
naturally be classed as from the compiler rather than 
from his sources. 


3. Date. The narrative of K is carried down to the 
time when Evil-merodach, King of Babylon (562-560 
B.C.), released the captive Jehoiachin, of Judah, from 
prison, 7.€., some time later than 561. This makes 
the book, as it stands, of exilic (or possibly post- 
exilic) date. There are also a number of editorial 
sections, such as II K 17 19 f., 21 10-15, 23 26 £., pos- 
sibly also I K 9 6-9, where an exilic point of view seems 
presupposed. But over against these indications of 
exilic date there are others which imply an earlier 
date for large portions of the work. (1) The fre- 


quently recurring expression ‘unto this day’ can be 
assigned often only to the editor (not to his source), 
and refers to conditions that passed away with the 
Exile (cf. I K 88, 9 21, 1219; II K 8 22, 166). Inother 
instances, as I K 1012; II K 17 23, 41, a preexilic date 
for the phrase is not certain, but it is probable, while 
in others, as IT K 10 27, it may belong to the source 
used by the compiler. (2) The presence of two 
separate strata in the editorial matter. One such 
stratum has just been referred to as evidence of 
exilic, or postexilic, date. The other, however, seems 
to demand a preexilic date—that is, there seems to be 
no consciousness, on the part of the writer, of the fall 
of Jerusalem, or of the cessation of the rule of 
David’s line, or of the captivity of Judah (e.g., I K 
8 22-43, 11 29-39; II K 8 19, 17 18-23, in which vs. 19 f. are 
a later insertion). The conclusion, therefore, to 
which the evidence seems to point is that the work 
was composed before the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.c.), 
and that during or shortly after the Exile it was 
revised, and also supplemented by the addition of 
the account of the downfall of the Judean kingdom, 
all in the same spirit as that in which the original 
book had been written. The work as we have it is 
thus, in the main, the work of two editors, whom we 
may call R! and R?. 

The date of the first draft of the work by R! can 
not well have been earlier than the publication and 
adoption of the book of Deuteronomy as the stand- 
ard exposition of Israel’s religious constitution in 621 
B.c. (see DEUTERONOMY, § 5). The influence of Dt 
is evident in all parts of the work. It extends even 
to minute points of phraseology (cf. the long lists 
of identical, or similar, expressions in K and Dt 
collected by Driver, LOT, pp. 200-203, and by 
Burney in HDB, II, pp. 859-861). The probability 
is, therefore, that some one, profoundly influenced 
by Dt and the reformation of Josiah’s time, also per- 
haps by the earnest appeals and denunciations of 
Jeremiah, undertook to compile a history of the 
kingdom in which the great religious and moral 
teachings of Dt would be seen to be illustrated and 
enforced in the actual course of events. The exact 
date of R! can not be fixed. In view of his reference 
in II K 245 to one of his sources as containing a full 
account of Jehoiakim’s reign (608-597), it is probable 
that he wrote in Zedekiah’s reign (597-586), on the 
eve of the fall of the kingdom. The date of the 
second revision by R? does not need to be placed 
later than the Return (536). Somewhere between 
561 and 536 satisfies all conditions, as the few pas- 
sages that seem to show acquaintance with the 
Priests’ Code (I K 6 ta, ‘most holy place’ 616, ‘the 
golden altar’ 7 48, a few expressions in 8 1-7, and 
II K 18 31b) can easily be accounted for as late glosses. 

4. Sources. The compiler R! had at his disposal a 
number of sources, some of which he names, while 
others can be detected by close study of the work. 
The sources named are ‘the book of the acts of Solo- 
mon’ (I K 11 41), ‘the book of the chronicles of the 
kings of Judah’ (I K 14 29, etc., cited for all reigns 
except those of Ahaziah, Athaliah, Jehoahaz, 
Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah), and ‘the book of the 
chronicles of the kings of Israel’ (I K 1419, etc., cited 
for all reigns except those of Jehoram and Hoshea), 


ings, Books of 
Kirieth A NEW STANDARD 
' (1) The ‘book of the acts of Solomon’ must have 
been one of the main sources used by R! for his 
history of Solomon’s reign (I K chs. 1-11). But he 
did not draw all his information from this work. The 
introductory part of the account of Solomon (I K 
chs. 1-2) was, in the main, taken from the history of 
David’s reign in Jerusalem (see Davin, § 2 (8), and 
SAMUEL, Books or. The remainder of the account 
of Solomon’s reign (chs. 3-11) comprises three main 
kinds of material: (a) Annalistic and statistical 
notices, such as we find in 3 1, 4 1-28, 9 10-28, 10 14-20, 
26, 28 f.; (b) an extended account of the building of 
the Temple and of its furnishings in 6 2-7 51; (c) a 
series of notices, all serving to show Solomon’s 
great wisdom and glory (8 6a, 7-13, 16-28, 51 f., 6-11, 13- 
18, 8 1-13, 62-66 [?], 10 1-10, 13), with which 11 14-25 may 
be connected. Of these three groups it is likely that 
(b) was taken by R! from a larger description of the 
Temple, perhaps preserved in its archives; (c) com- 
prises just the kind of material we should expect to 
find in a ‘book of the acts of Solomon,’ while (a) was 
probably derived ultimately from the royal annals of 
Solomon’s reign. Whether (a) was found by R! in 
the ‘book of the acts of Solomon,’ or was gathered 
by him directly from the royal archives or through 
some intermediate source is difficult to decide. It is 
more probable that (a) was not a part of the ‘acts.’ 
“ (2) The exact nature of the two books ‘of the chron- 
icles of the kings’ of Judah and Israel is difficult to 
determine. The designation ‘book of the words 
(i.e., deeds or affairs) of the days’ is the technical 
term for official records (7.e., chronicles) such as 
would be kept by one of the court officials (I K 4 3; 
ef. Ezr 4 15, 19, 517, 61£.; Neh 12 23; Est 2 23, etc.). 
And as these works are referred to as sources of 
information for only such things as would naturally 
have a place in official records, it is natural to infer 
that such records are meant by this term. Modern 
scholars generally, but for no cogent reasons, reject 
this view, and think that two comprehensive his- 
torical works (perhaps based largely on the archives) 
were meant. In any case, much of the precise de- 
tailed information in K regarding the two kingdoms, 
such as the length of the different reigns, the specific 
events of these reigns, etc., must have been derived 
primarily from official records. But there is also 
much in K that may well have been drawn by R! 
from other sources. The story of Elijah, especially 
in I K chs. 17-19 and 21, and most of the story of 
/Wlisha in II K chs. 2-8 were derived probably from 
written ‘prophetic’ histories of these men. There 
are also accounts too extended and of too general a 
character to have been drawn immediately from 
official annals, tho largely political in character, 
and not marked by that specifically religious tone 
that distinguishes the ‘prophetic’ stories. These may 
well have been taken from written narratives of a 
popular nature, dealing with important events of 
both kingdoms. Another special source seems to 
have been a biography of Isaiah, used for certain 
events of Hezekiah’s reign. The following tabular 
presentation of the distribution of the sources (with 
the symbols by which they are frequently designated 
by modern scholars) used by R! may be found 
useful: 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 498 


A. (Annals, or official records including the ‘books of the 
chronicles of the kings’), I K 3}, 4 1-19, 22 £., 26-28, g 10-28, 49 11 f. 
(2), 16-20, 26, 28 f., 1] 26-31, 40, 12 1-16, 18-20 7.4 16, 12, 17, 25-290 1 5 16-22, 
27-29a, 16 9-11, 1ba-18, 21 f., 28b-24, 34; 99 46-49. TT K 1 1, 8 20-22, JQ at., 
11 1-2, 1217 f., 13 3, 7, 22, 24f. 1.4 7-14, 19-22, 25 15 5, 10, 14, 16, 19 f., 
25, 29 f., 16 5-9, 17 f., 17 3-6, 24-28 (2), 18 4(?), 8(?), 9-1 (in part), 
13-16, 21 23 £., 22 3-15, 20b, 23 Im4a, 6-15, 21-24, 29-30, 33-35, 24 1, 7, 

S. (Acts of Solomon), I K 3 46a, 7-13, 15-28, 4 21, § 1b, 6~11 (2), 
13-18 8 1-9 (nearly all), 19-13, 10 1710, 13, 14 14-25, 

T. (History of the building of the Temple and Palace), 6 2-6, 
8-10, 15-21, 23-28, 317 51, 

Ej. (Stories of Elijah), I K 17 1-18 30, 32b-19 9a, 11b-21, 9] 1-20a, 
27-29. TT K J 2-17, 

Es. (Stories of Elisha), II K 2 1724, 4 1-6 23, 8 1-15, 13 14-21, 

N. (Stories of the Northern Kingdom), I K 20 !-%, 22 1-37, 
II K 3 4-27, 6 24-7 20, 9 1-6, 10b, 11-28, 30-10) 27, 

Jud. (Judean stories), II K 12 4-17, 16 1916, 

Is. (Biography of Isaiah), II K 18 17-20 19, 

The remainder of the work, not covered by these references, 
can be considered as editorial, belonging either to the main 
editor (R }), or to his later reviser (R?), or to later hands (R1). 
Sections that may be assigned to R2 or Rl are: 1 K 3 2, 4 20f-. 
24 f., 29-34 § 44-61, Q 6-9, 29, 10 21-25, 97, 19.17, 32 f. 13 1-88a, 15 Sb, 32, 
16 7, 1821, 19 9b-1a, 20 35-48, 90 38. TT K 1 9-17, 13 4-6, 12 f., 28 14.17, 
26 f., 17 7-17, 19, 29-40 9] 7-15, 28, 25 f. 93 16-20, 26 f. 242 f., 8.25 30, 


5. Chronological Scheme. In K there are two 
separate sets of chronological data. (1) The lengths 
of each reign in both kingdoms. (2) The synchro- 
nism of each reign with that of the contemporary king 
in the sister kingdom. Theoretically, these two 
ought to harmonize perfectly, and ought to agree also 
with the well-established data of contemporary As- 
syrian chronology. But this is not the case, nor do 
the two parallel lists of figures for the separate reigns 
of the two kingdoms for a given period, when added, 
give the same total. Thus for the period from the 
disruption to the contemporaneous accession of Jehu 
in Israel and usurpation of Athaliah in Judah we 
have these figures: 


JUDAH. ISRAEL 
Rehoboam...... 17 years (16) Jeroboam....... 22 years (21) 
Abijant, :/caenen sa eae (2) ON adab tie 8 oe oe (1) 
ARDS ot toeelicon 4 i ea! AOA DAA cht a 24 eos) 
Jehoshaphat... core ra (24) eee Be) oe ee ee (1) 
Jehoram........ Sia (7) VA veri ibahae Nee) (7 days) 
Ahaziahiesuane ae Lippe Clee Omri ota ages 12 years (11) 

Ahab cw onwee ee 22 1 Sera 
Ahaniaih's: sees Pha ty (1) 
Jehoram........ 1270 Cee) 


95 years (90) 98 years (90) 
Here is an apparent discrepancy of 3 years. But the 
length of each reign is evidently only approximate. 
Rehoboam’s reign, é.g., was not exactly 17 years to a 
day, but probably 16+ or possibly even 16—, the 
year to which the last part of one reign and the first 
part of the next belonged is counted twice, and in the 
case of short reigns (1 year or 2 years) even a few 
months might be reckoned as 2 years. Consequently 
there is probably no real discrepancy between these 
two lists. But if, on the basis of these figures, one 
attempts to construct a synchronistic table, he will 
find that it will not agree with the synchronisms 
given in K and supposedly constructed from the 
same figures. In most instances, in the synchronism, 
1 year is deducted from the figures given for the 
separate reigns, but this is not always the case. For 
the next period, from the accessions of Athaliah and 
Jehu to the fall of Samaria, the difference between 
the totals of the two lists is about 20 years—about 
160 years for Judah and 144 years for Israel—and as 
the actual length of the period was only about 120 
years (842-722 B.c.), it is evident that serious errors 


499 


must be charged to the text as we now find it. For 
the next period, from 722 to 586 (the fall of Jeru- 
salem) the (single) list of figures for the kings of 
Judah is approximately accurate. The necessary 
corrections to be made in the figures of the second 
period can be seen in the article on O T Curo- 
NOLOGY. 

6. Text. The Heb. text of K as now found in MSS. 
presents serious difficulties, and in many places the 
difference between it and the ancient versions, es- 
pecially the LXX., is very considerable. Further- 
more, MSS. of the LXX. reveal the presence of at 
least two different types of text as known to these 
translators. For details, reference must be made to 
the literature noted below. The textual history of K 
may be roughly represented thus: 

X1= Original book compiled by R14. 


X2= Revision made by R?. 


| 


A B 8C_ (etc.) = Various types of text, all differ- 


ing from one another, because of the 
addition of supplementary glosses, 
mistakes, etc., 5th to 2d cent. B.c. 

L Other forms of Heb. text, readings of 
which are found in Lucian’s recension 
of the LXX, and in other witnesses. 

G Heb. text used by the LXX. and now found in 
most MSS. of the LXX, 

H Present Heb. text. 

7. Historical Value. In spite of the fact that K isa 
didactic or ‘pragmatic’ historical work, there is no 
sufficient ground for charging the compiler (R 1) with 
wilfully distorting or suppressing the truth. He 
gave the facts as he found them in his sources, altho 
he selected only such facts as he thought useful for 
his general purpose. His interpretation of the facts 
was also dictated by an earnest and high-minded 
motive. That he took Dt as a standard was due to 
the commanding influence that book had attained in 
his day. The legendary character of a part of his 
material, e.g., some of the stories told of Elijah and 
Elisha, can not be laid to his charge. It was a most 
important task to which he addressed himself, and 
it is due to him alone that we of to-day possess a 
working outline of the history of Israel during its 
most important period. 

LITERATURE: The commentaries of Benzinger (1899), Kittel 
(1900), and Skinner (New Century Bible, 1905); Driver, 
LOT (91916); Burney, Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books 
of Kings (1903), also his article on Kings in HDB. 

EK. E. N. 

KING’S DALE (in Gn Il. 17 referred to as ‘the 
vale of Shaveh, the same is the King’s Vale’ [‘dale’ 
AV]): The place where Abraham was met by the 
King of Sodom and Melchizedek on returning from 
his victory over Chedorlaomer. It is also mentioned 
as the place where Absalom erected a memorial to 
himself (IIS 1818). It was probably near Jerusalem. 
The word rendered ‘vale’ means ‘valley land,’ or a 
‘low lying plain,’ in distinction from hilly land. See 
also JERUSALEM, § 8. E. E. N. 

KING’S POOL. See JERUSALEM, § 13. 

KINSMAN, KINSWOMAN, KINSFOLK, etc.: 
(1) In the majority of the occurrences of this term in 
the O T, it is the rendering of gd’él, ‘redeemer,’ 
‘avenger,’ ptepl. of g@’al, ‘to redeem,’ ‘toavenge.’ It 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 








Kings, Books of 
Kiriath 


referred originally to the duty of every tribesman, or 
clansman, to support or avenge the cause of his 
tribe, clan, or family, and thus easily became the 
term whereby to designate one’s nearest relatives. 
(2) In Ru 21, 3 2, II K 10 11 (cf. RV), and Pr 7 4 the 
Heb. term means literally ‘acquaintance.’ (3) In 
Job 19 14 and Ps 38 11 (cf. RV) the Heb. means ‘one 
who is near.’ (4) In Lv 18 12 £., 17 and Nu 27 11 it 
means ‘flesh,’ 7.e., ‘blood relation.’ (5) In the N T 
the one term is ovyyevys, 2.e., ‘relative’ (in various 
degrees: Mk 6 4; Lk 1 36, 58, 2 44, 14.12, 2116; Jn 18 26; 
Ac 10 24; Ro 9 3, 167, 11, 21 when ‘fellow Jew’ is per- 
haps meant). See also KinpRED; and FAMILY AND 
Famity Law, § 8. K. E. N. 


KIR, ker (1"P, gir), ‘wall’: 1. A land and a people 
under Assyrian rule. According to Am 9 7 it wasthe 
original home of the Arameans (7.e., those of Damas- 
cus) and the country to which they were deported 
(Am 15; II K 169) by Tiglath-pileser. The LXX., 
however, omits Kir in II K 169, and it may have 
been inserted from Ami5. This people served in the 
Assyrian army (Is 226). No mention of the place has 
been found in inscriptions. The more common 
identification of Kir has been with the river Kur in 
N. Armenia. A comparison of Is 21 2 and 22 6 sug- 
gests that it was in the far East, as in 21 2 Media and 
Elam appear, and in 226 Kir and Elam. 2. ‘Kir’ is 
also used as the first part of the names of Moabite 
cities (see next article). ORBAa 


KIR (of) MOAB (ANIO°1P, gir-mo’abh): The 
name of an important city of Moab, and connected 
with Ar (of) Moab (Is 151). Some consider the two 
places identical. Buhl (Geog. des alten Paldstina, p. 
269 f.) suggests that Ar of Moab is the name of a 
district S. of the Arnon, of which Kir Moab, the 
modern Rabba (Rabbath Moab), was the chief city. 
Others identify it with Kir-hareseth (q.v.). C. 8. T. 


KIR-HARASETH, ker’’-ha-ré’seth, -HARESETH, 
-ha-ri’seth, -HARESH, -hé’resh, -HERES, -hi’res 
(nYID VP, gir-haraseth (IL K 3 25], NYO 'P, -hdre- 
seth [Is 16 7], YI 'P, -hdres [Is 16 11; Jer 48 31]; 
WIN 'P, -heres [Jer 48 36]): The Targum has Kerak 
in all five passages, and ‘Kerak in Moab’ for ‘Kir 
Moab’ in Is 151. Itis the modern El-kerak, fortress 
on the wédy of the same name, E. of the Dead Sea, 
above the peninsula, Lisén. From II K 3 21, 24f. it 
was evidently not far from the southern boundary of 
Moab and was a fortified city. It lies on a precipi- 
tous hill, only slightly connected on the eastern 
side with the highlands. Its summit was originally 
accessible only through two rock tunnels. The 
present walls are largely medieval; only the lower 
portions are ancient. Water was provided by means 
of deep wells, cisterns, and tanks. The present popu- 
lation of a few thousand consists of several groups, 
each under its own sheik or head, and among them 
are many Greek Christians. They are half nomadic, 
rough, and hostile. Buhl identifies Kir-ha-raseth 
with Kerak, but not with Kir Moab (Is 151), which 
he places farther to the north. Co Sa 


KIRIATH, ker’i-ath ((20P, giryath, Kirjath AV), 
‘city of’: K. is the construct form of giryah, ‘city,’ and 
forms the first element in a number of compound 


Kiriathaim 
Know 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


500 


IS  ETTTE EIS aEEIEEIEEEEE SIU SESS 


city-names. 1. K. is found alone once (Jos 18 28) for 
K-jearim (see 5 below). 2. K.-arba, ‘city of Arba,’ 
an ancient name for Hebron (Gn 23 2; Jos 14 15, etc. 
See Hresron). 3. K.-arim and K.-baal, see 5 below. 
4. K.-huzzoth ( K-hiitsdth), ‘city of streets’ (tho the 
LXX. favors ‘city of sheepfolds’), a city of Moab 
(Nu 22 39). Site unknown. 5. K.-jearim, ‘city of 
forests (or thickets).’ An important town of Judah, 
on the W. boundaryline of Benjamin (Jos 15 9, 60, 
18 14f.). Once it is called Kiriath (Jos 18 28), also 
Baalah (Jos 159; I Ch 136), K.-baal (Jos 15 60, 1814), 
and Baale-judah (II S 62). It was an ancient Ca- 
naanite city, one of the league to which Gibeon 
belonged (Jos 9 17), and was doubtless once a seat of 
Baal worship. It was here that the Ark of J’ rested 
after the Philistines returned it to Israel, until 
David removed it thence to Jerusalem (IS 6 21, 71f.; 
1S 62f.;1 Ch135¢.; II Ch 1 4; cf. Ps 1326). K. 
was the home of the prophet Urijah, who was put 
to death by Jehoiakim (Jer 26 20 ff.). The town was 
reoccupied in postexilic times (Ezr 2 25; Neh 7 29). 
At some time during its history it seems to have 
received a contingent of Calebites from Hebron 
(I Ch 2 50-53). In spite of its importance and the 
many references to it, the site of K. is uncertain. It 
was near Mt. Jearim (Jos 15 10), and according to 
Eusebius (Onom.) 9 Rom. m. from Jerusalem on the 
way to Lydda (Map II, E 1 gives the usual identifi- 
cation with Kh. Erma; others prefer K. el- Hnab 
[Kiriath on the Map]; and recently H. Guthe 
[ZDPV, 1913, pp. 81 ff.] argues for El- Kubébe about 
3 m. N. of Kiriath). 6. K.-sannah and K.-sepher, 
two names for the town otherwise known as Debir 
(q.v.) (Jos 15 49, 1515 £.; Jg 111#.). E. E. N. 

KIRIATHAIM, ker’'i-a-fhé’im (B@0I0P, girya- 
thayim), ‘double city’: 1. A city in the old Moabite 
territory assigned to Reuben (Nu 32 37; Jos 13 19), 
and afterward reoccupied by Moab (Jer 48 1, 23; 
Ezk 259). Shaveh-Kiriathaim, 7.e., ‘the plain of K.’ 
(Gn 14 5), was probably the level highland around 
K. Map II, J 2. See also Moabite Stone, line 10, 
under MzsHa. 2. See KarTAN. 

KIRIATH-ARBA, -ar’bo. See HEBRON. 

KIRIATH-ARIM, -@’rim. See Kirrars (5). 

KIRIATH-BAAL, ker’’i-ath-bé’al (oyan2 7p, qir- 
yath ba‘al), ‘city of Baal.’ See Krriara (5). 

KIRIATH-HUZOTH, -hiii’zofh (ISTP, gir- 
yath hitséth), ‘city of streets’: A city of Moab (Nu 
22 39). Site unknown. 

KIRIATH-JEARIM, -ji’a-rim. See Krriata (5). 

KIRIATH-SANNAH, -san’a. See Krriatn (6). 

KIRIATH-SEPHER, si’fer. See Krriatu (6). 

KIRJATH, ker’jafh (and compounds). See 
KiriaTH and compounds. 

KISH, kish (V’P, gish; Cis in N T, Ac 13 21 AV), 
probably the name of an old Semitic deity (cf. Well- 
hausen, Reste arab. Heidenthums?, p. 67): 1. A 
wealthy man of the tribe of Benjamin. He was the 
father of Saul, the first king of Israel (IS 91f., 10 11; 
I Ch 8 33, etc.). A variant genealogy appears to be 
given in I Ch 8 30, but the text here (in vs. 29-32) is 
confused, or some other Kish may be meant. 2. A 


Levite (I Ch 23 21£., 24 29). 3. Another Levite (II Ch 
2912). 4. An ancestor of Mordecai (Est 2 5). 
E. E.N. 
KISHI, kish’ai (YP, gisht): A Levite (I Ch 6 44; 
called Kushaiah in I Ch 15 17). 


KISHION, kish’i-on (1%, gishyon): A city of 
Issachar (Jos 19 20) assigned to the Levites (21 28 
Map III, F 1. 

KISHON, kish’on, and KISON, kis’en (0p, 
gishon, always with nahal, river), ‘stream of (the god) 
Kish’?: The name of a river watering the Plain of 
Esdraelon or Megiddo, the modern Nahr el-mugatta‘. 
Map IV, B 7, C 8. Its N. arm rises in springs (el- 
Mezra‘ah) W. of Tabor, its S. arm near Mt. Gilboa 
(Jelbén), which meet in the plain under Megiddo 
(called the ‘waters of Megiddo,’ Jg 519). The river 
then flows between Carmel (I K 18 40) and the 
southern Galilean hills, across the plain of Acre, 
emptying into the bay of Acre N. of Haifa. Water 
is found in its bed during the whole year only in the 
last 7 m. of its course, in which it receives an abun- 
dant supply from springs in Mt. Carmel, and from 
two streams from the NE. emptying into it in the 
plain of Acre. In the rainy season, however, the 
streams from the hills of Galilee and Ephraim be- 
come rushing torrents, dangerous to chariots and 
horsemen (Jg 47, 13, 5 21; Ps 839 [10]), and overflow 
the whole plain, which is settled only on the higher 
ground about it (cf. G. A. Smith’s instructive descrip- 
tion of the campaign against Sisera in HGHL, pp. 
391 ff.). There are always deep and treacherous 
pools along its course, and in the plain of Acre it 
seems to lose itself in marshes E. of Haifa. It is 
probably ‘the brook before Jokneam’ (Jos 19 11). 

OnSiek: 


KISS: The kiss was the expressive token of a 
variety of sentiments: (1) Friendship, especially in 
greeting among equals (Ex 4 27). ‘The abuse of it 
constituted the aggravation of the treachery of Judas 
(Mt 26 49). (2) Good will at parting (Gn 31 28; Ru 1 
14). (3) Submission, or reverence (Job 31 27; Ps 212). 
(4) Worship, especially in idolatrous practise (I K 
19 18; Hos 18 2). A. C. Z. 

KITE. See Pauestine, § 25. 

KITHLISH, kith’lish. See Currs.isu. 

KITRON, kit’ron. See Karrara. 

KITTIM, kit’im (8°93, kitttm; frequently Chit- 
tim AV): According to the table of nations (Gn 10 4), 
Kittim, with Elishah, Tarshish, and Dodanim, are 
the ‘sons’ of Javan, 7.e., they are the Ionian Greeks. 
In Phenician inscriptions Cyprus is known as 
Kition (kty). Originally this was the name of a 
town on the S. coast of the island, now known as 
Larnaka. This place was of such importance that 
the Hebrews applied the name to the inhabitants of 
the entire island. The exclusive application of the 
term Kittim to the Greek inhabitants of Cyprus 
(Gn 10 4) is based upon the knowledge that there 
was a Greek population before the Phenician im- 
migration, but in Is 23 1, 12 the prophet uses this 
name for the Phenicians who had colonized the 
island. The ‘isles of Kittim,’ the antipodes of Kedar 
(Jer 2 10), form a comprehensive geographical term, 


501 A NEW STANDARD 


in all probability including the coasts of Greece and 
Asia Minor, as well as the islands of the E. Mediter- 
ranean. In Dn 11 30 it is predicted that the ships of 
Kittim will come against one of the kings of ‘the 
North,’ z.e., Antiochus Epiphanes. In this instance 
the reference is to the Romans, as the LXX. clearly 
proves. According to I Mac 1 1, Alexander the 
Great came from tne land of Kittim; here it is 
equivalent to Greece. The last two passages, to- 
gether with Nu 24 24, point to the conclusion that 
Kittim was used as a comprehensive geographical 
designation, including Italy and Sicily, as well as 
Greece and her islands. In Ezk 27 6 Kittim is 
spoken of as a source of boxwood for the Tyrians. 
See also ErHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. 

. Je ALS 

KNEADING-TROUGH. See Foon, § 2. 


KNEEL: This is the primary meaning of the 
Heb. barakh, also signifying ‘to bless,’ ‘to pray (for 
blessing).’ It also renders the Gr. yovuerety, ‘to fall 
on the knees,’ also the nouns berekh and yévu, 
‘knee,’ in construction with such verbs as ‘to 
bend,’ ‘bow,’ etc. A man knelt to show homage or 
reverence to God (Is 45 23; Ro 14 11; Ph 210) or 
Baal (I K 1918; Ro 11 4), and to worship and pray, 
usually with the hands stretched out, as if before 
an idol (I K 854; II Ch 613; Ezr9 5; Dn 610; Lk 22 
41; Ac 7 60, 9 40, 20 36, 215). By kneeling as well as 
by prostration (Ru 210; Lk 1716), a man did hom- 
age to his king or superior (Lk 5 8); in mockery, 
Mk 15 19). This homage he showed often when 
presenting a petition (II K 113; Mt 17 14; Mk 1 40, 
10 17). CEST 


KNIFE: The earliest knives were of flint (Jos 5 2f.; 
ef. RV), which are found in abundance in the lower 
strata of excavated sites in Pal. and which were 
gradually displaced by those of bronze and, later, 
iron. The shape of an ordinary knife was that of 
a dagger or dirk. In Gn 226,10; Jg 19 29, and Pr 
3014, the Heb. term ma’dkheleth signifies the large 
knife used for slaying animals. In Jos52f.,1K 
18 28, and Ezk 51f., the term herebhis that usually 
rendered ‘sword.’ In Pr 23 2 and Ezr 19 the text 
is perhaps corrupt, originally not reading ‘knife.’ 
See also ARMs AND ARMOR, § 2, and Foon, § 11. 

HK. E. N. 


KNOP. See Trempte, § 13. 


KNOW, KNOWLEDGE: The several Heb. and 
Gr. terms rendered ‘know’ (yddha‘, the most com- 
prehensive term in Heb.; nadkhar, ‘to scrutinize care- 
fully,’ and then ‘to know’; ytvacxety and com- 
pounds; of8a, érfotauot, and their derived nouns) 
are used to express many shades of meaning, too 
numerous to be discussed at length here. These 
meanings vary from the simplest kind of objective 
perception to the more subtle processes of moral and 
religious understanding. The Biblical writers had 
no philosophic theories of knowledge, and no ab- 
struse metaphysical meanings should be read into 
their words, which are always to be taken in the 
sense naturally suggested by their contexts. 

God’s knowledge is not specifically differentiated 
from man’s. The distinction drawn by the Biblical 
writers is one of degree rather than of kind. Where- 


Kiriathaim 


Know 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


as man’s knowledge is limited and also seriously 
impaired by his moral imperfection, God’s knowl- 
edge, not subject to such limitations, is all-compre- 
hensive and perfect. The deep-seated reverence of 
the Semitic mind tended to check undue curiosity 
in prying into such secrets. The Hebrew was con- 
tent to say ‘such knowledge is too wonderful for 
me’ (Ps 139 6). The skepticism which carelessly 
said ‘What doth God know?’ (Job 22 13; Ps 73 11; Is 
5 19 ff.; cf. 22 13 f., 29 15) was utterly revolting to the 
devout Hebrew. The primitive anthropomorphic 
mode of thought shows itself occasionally, as in the 
old narratives in Gn ch. 3 f., 111-9, etce., where God’s 
ability to know or discover all things—e.g., human 
actions—is not viewed as immediate omniscience, 
but as dependent partly upon investigation. How- 
ever, as time passed the sense of His omniscience 
impressed itself ever more strongly, and was expressed 
most significantly in passages like Job 21 22, 23 10, 
28 23, chs. 38-40; Is chs. 40-48, etc. Especial em- 
phasis was laid upon God’s knowledge of the human 
heart, and in this fact the devout Israelite found 
great comfort (cf. Pss 1 6, 37 18, 44 21, 69 5, 94 11, 108 
14, 139 1 ff., etc.). Naturally, this conviction of the 
all-knowing and all-directing wisdom of God was a 
fundamental postulate of Hebrew prophecy. 

As to man’s knowledge, that on which the Bible 
lays especial emphasis are its religious and moral 
aspects. In the O T knowledge of God is the 
essence of religion, and while God is held to be 
infinite and surrounded by mystery and so, in a 
sense, unknowable (cf. Job 36 24 ff.), this was not 
allowed to interfere with religion or ethics, both of 
which, in Hebrew thought, rested on a knowledge of 
God. Even the strong sense of the limitations of 
human knowledge did not drive the author of Ec to 
atheism, irreligion, or immorality. It was all-im- 
portant that the Israelite should know that ‘J’’ is 
God’ (Ex 7 17, 16 12, 31 13; Ezk 67, ete.). But such 
knowledge, which might be purely theoretical or 
formal, or might be taught by the sever discipline 
of events, still lacked something. Not simply to 
know ‘that J’’ is God,’ but to ‘know him’ as God 
personally, experientially is the supreme demand of 
the religious teachers of the O T, especially the 
prophets (e.g., Hos 4 6, 6 6; Mic 6 8; Jer 31 34, etc.). 
That this involved necessarily a moral surrender on 
man’s part, and was thus very different from specu- 
lative intellectualism, or from mere formalism, should 
need no proof to any reader of the O T. It is the 
‘fear’ (i.e., reverence) of J” that is the ‘beginning’ 
of knowledge (Pr 1 7). 

Inthe N Tit is the knowledge of God in or through 
Christ that is set forth as the climax of spiritual as 
well as moral attainment (Mt 11 27; Jn 17 3; Ph 3 
8-10, etc.). Christ Himself alone knows God the 
Father fully (Mt 11 27; cf. Jn 7 29, 855, etc.) as well as 
knowing all that is in man (Jn 2 24). Consequently, 
through Him alone man can come to the highest 
knowledge of God. But both in the Fourth Gospel 
and in Paul, this knowledge is never allowed to 
pass over into intellectual speculation or to become 
mere theory. It is always held to consist in the 
highest and fullest development of the moral nature. 
It always necessarily includes the surrender of the 


Koa A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Lamentations 





will to, and the bestowal of the affections upon, 
Jesus Christ in a personal, not theoretical, act which 
is to be completed in a life full of good and loving 
service to God and man (cf. Jn 7 17, 8 31 f., 10 14, 
147 #.; Ro 1 21; I Co 13 2, 83; 1 Jn 2 3, etc.). And 
while Paul sometimes finds it hard to choose words 
adequate to express his rapture as he thinks what it 
means to ‘know’ God in Christ, it is very instructive 
to note how he always holds himself and his readers 
down to the fundamental personal, ethical, experi- 
ential elements of this knowledge (e.g., in I Co ch. 
IDIOMS, K. E. N. 
KOA, ko’a (¥1P, goa‘): A term mentioned only in 
Ezk 23 23 (‘Pekod and Shoa and Koa and all the 
Assyrians’). Shoa and Koa are often coupled in 
the Assyrian inscriptions, however, where they ap- 
pear as the Sut@ and Kuta (or Guti; cf. ‘Goiim,’ 
Gn 141), peoples dwelling E. of the Tigris on the 
steppes between the upper courses of the Adhem and 
Diyaleh rivers. L. G. L.—E. C. L. 
KOHATH, ko’oeth (MP, qhath): One of the sons 
of Levi (Gn 46 11; Ex 6 16-18; Nu 3 17, etc.) and the 
reputed ancestor of one of the great divisions of the 
Levites, the Kohathites. See PrisstHoop, § 9d. 


LAADAH, lé’a-da (7719?, la‘daéh): Probably a 
late clan of Judah, inhabiting Maresha (I Ch 4 21). 

LAADAN, lé’a-dan. See Lapan. 

LABAN, 1é’ban (122, labhan), ‘white’; possibly so 
named because he was fair in comparison with his 
bedawin neighbors: A descendant of Nahor, and 
brother of Rebekah. His covetousness 1s well-char- 
acterized in Gn 24 30, where the sight of the presents 
sent by Abraham makes him obsequious in his 
courtesy. He is no more attractive on his next ap- 
pearance, and his attempt to overreach Jacob by 
giving him Leah instead of Rachel (Gn 29 23) receives 
its reward in more than one stroke of poetic justice. 
The bargain which he makes with Jacob (Gn 380 31 f.), 
laughing in his sleeve the while at Jacob’s simplicity, 
leaves him unexpectedly with a dwindling flock (Gn 
ch. 31), while Jacob drives his sheep to a safe dis- 
tance, providing beforehand for a three days’ start 
when the time should be ripe for flight (Gn 30 36, 
31 25). But the most unexpected blow of all was 
that Rachel should steal his teraphim (Gn 31 19). 
His story carries with it a satire upon the Arameans, 
who had to be watched lest they fleece their own 
kin, but whose cleverness often overshot itself. 
Laban and his sons left behind on the hither side of 
Galeed (Gn 31 48) are like a racial vestige, sloughed 
off as the Jacob-Israel nation developed into its 
larger heritage. A. 8. C.*—O. R. 8S. 


LACE: This word is the rendering of pathal (in 
Ex 28 28; etc.), which means the ‘thread,’ or ‘string,’ 
by which the rings of the breastplate were joined 
(laced) to the rings of the ephod. 

LACHISH, lé’kish (¥’22, lakhish): A royal Ca- 
naanite city captured by Joshua (Jos 10 3, 31 f., 





502 





KOLAIAH, ko-lé/ya (™@2iP, galayah), ‘voice of 
J’’: 1. The father of the false prophet Ahab (Jer 
29 21). 2. The head of a Benjamite family (Neh 117). 

KORAH, ko’ra (1P, gérah), ‘baldness’: 1. A son 
of Esau (Gn 386 5, 14, 18; I Ch 1 35). 2. One of the 
‘dukes’ of Esau =Edom, perhaps a mere duplication 
of 1 (Gn 3616). 3. A ‘son’ of Hebron (I Ch 2 43; cf. 
12 6, Korhite AV), probably a clan of Judah. 4. A 
Levite and the ancestral head of one of the gilds of 
Temple musicians, the Korahites (Ex 6 21, 24, 
Korhite AV; Nu 26 58, Korathite AV; I Ch 6 22; 
II Ch 20 19, Korhite AV; cf. the titles of Pss. 42, 44, 
45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 84, 85, 87, 88), also of a body of 
doorkeepers and assistants (I Ch 6 37, 9 19 [here the 
name is spelled Kore, 871P, qéré’], 31, 26 1, Korhite 
AV, 19). It was this K. who rebelled against Moses 
in the desert (Nu 16 1-49, 26 9-11, 27 3; Jude 11, Core 
AV). On the significance of this story see Prizst- 
HOOD, § 9a. HE. E. N. 

KORE, ko’ri (S71P, goré’): 1. A Korahite clan 
(I Ch 9 19, 261; on 2619 cf. RV). 2. A Levite under 
Hezekiah (II Ch 31 14). 

KOZ, kez. See Hakkoz. 


KUSHAIAH, kiu-shé’ya. See Kisut. 


12 11, 15 39) and assigned to Judah. It was made a 
fortress for the defense of Judah (II Ch 119). It 
was to L. that Amaziah fled, but in vain, when he 
discovered that a conspiracy had been formed against 
him (II K 14 19; II Ch 25 27). Later (701 B.c.) 
Sennacherib besieged it (II K 18 17), and from his 
camp sent messengers to Hezekiah summoning him 
to yield to Assyrian suzerainty. It was to L., there- 
fore, that Hezekiah sent the tribute required and 
made his submission (II K 1814). Nebuchadrezzar 
also laid siege to the city (Jer 347). In the Amarna 
letters L. is represented as under Egyptian control. 
Until the excavations conducted in behalf of the 
PEF by Flinders Petrie (Tell el-Hesy, 1891) and 
F. J. Bliss (A Mound of Many Cities, 1898) the 
modern site was supposed to be Umm Lakis. These 
excavations have shown that 7'ell el-Hesy is the real 
site. (Map II, C 2. Cf. G. A. Smith, HGHL, p. 
234.) Umm Lakis, 3 to 4 miles from the site, may 
be a New Lachish settled by the returned exiles 
(Neh 11 30) and so named from its proximity to the 
ruins of its predecessor. AUC Nee 


LADAN, le’don (12, la‘dén, Laadan AV): 1. An 
Ephraimite (I Ch 7 26; cf. Eleadah, ver. 20). 2. The 
ancestral head of a division of the Gershonite Levites 
(I Ch 23 7-9, 26 21). See also Lipnt. 


LADANUM, lad’a-noum, the Gr. rendering of Heb. 
o>, lot (Gn 37 25 Myrrh AV). In Gn 4311 both EVV 
render ‘Myrrh.’ An aromatic gum. See Pa.zs- 
TINE, § 22. 

LADDER: The translation of the Heb. sullam, 
which occurs only in Gn 28 12. A better rendering 
from the root-meaning would be ‘a flight of steps.’ 
The figure was suggested by the conformation of the 


503 A NEW STANDARD 


mountains near Bethel, and was used to signify the 
communication between heaven and earth. Cf. ver. 
17, ‘the gate of heaven.’ Oe Pr be 

LADY: In Is 47 5,7 the RV gives the more correct 
rendering ‘mistress.’ In Jg 5 29 and Est 118 the Heb. 
sGrah means a ‘princess,’ or woman of rank. On II 
Jn 15 see Joun, EristiEs oF. 

LAEL, 1é’el yd. la@’él), [belonging] ‘to God’: A 
Gershonite Levite, father of the ‘prince’ of the 


family (Nu 3 24), to which was entrusted the care of . 


the tabernacle and tent (Nu 3 25f.). It is one of the 
many names in Nu in which ’é appears as a suffix. 
Bagg = ea bs 


LAHAD, lé’had (772, lahadh): The ancestral head 
of a Zorahite family in Judah (I Ch 4 2). 

LAHAI-ROI, la-hai’rei. See BreER-LAHAI-ROI. 

LAHMAM, li’mam (ORN?2, lahmam, in some MSS. 
lahmds): A city of Judah (Jos 15 40). Map IT, D 2. 

LAHMI, 1a’mai: In I Ch 20 5 we read, ‘Elhanan 

. slew Lahmi brother of Goliath.’ In the |], II 

S 21 19, we read ‘Elhanan . . . the Beth-lehemite 
slew Goliath.’ In the Heb. ‘Beth-lehem’ and ‘[the] 
Lahmi’ are almost identical in appearance, and 
might easily be confused. But it is more likely that 
in Ch the text of II 8S has been altered to avoid 
contradicting I S ch. 17. E. E. N. 

LAISH, 1é’ish (°?, layish, ‘lion’): I. The original 
name of the city Dan in the extreme N. of Israel 
(Jg 187 #f.), also called Leshem (Jos 19 47). See 
Dan. On Is 10 30 see LaisHan. II. A Benjamite 
(IS 25 44; ITS 3 15). 

LAISHAH, lo-ai’sha (7¥?, layshah): A city of 
Benjamin, not far from Anathoth (Is 10 30). 

LAKE OF FIRE. See Escuatroioey, § 48. 

LAKKUM, lak’kum (03P?, lagqiim, Lakum AV): 
A city of Naphtali (Jos 19 33). Site unknown. 

LAMB: This term is in the Bible used in different 
senses: (1) In the literal sense, as the name of the 
young of the sheep, either male or female. As this 
animal was common in Palestine (see PALESTINE, 
§ 24), there are many Heb. terms rendered ‘lamb.’ 
These are: (a) kebhes, kibhsah, and kabhsGh (Ex 29 
38; Gn 21 28; Lv 1410). (b) kesebh, kisbah (Gn 30 40; 
Lv 5 6). (c) taleh (I S 7 9; Is 65 25), also tl@’%m 
(Is 40 11). (d) kar, especially of a half-grown ram 
(Dt 32 14; Am 64; Ps 37 20). (e) tsd’n, ‘flock’ (Ex 
12 21), also ben ts6’n, ‘a son of the flock’ (Ps 114 4, 6). 
(f) seh (Gn 227: 18 17 34). (g) ’immertn (Ezr 69). 
(h) dvds (Jn 1 29). (i) &evdc (Lk 10 3). (Jj) devtov 
(Jn 21 15; Rev 56, etc.). The place of the lamb 
in the sacrificial system was a conspicuous and 
important one (see SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, 5 ff.). 
In common life, its flesh furnished a delicate article 
of food (Am 6 4). It was not lawful to slaughter a 
lamb before it was eight days old (Lv 22 27). (2) 
Metaphorically, the figure of the lamb appears in 
poetic phraseology designed to convey the idea of 
harmlessness as contrasted with ferocity (Is 11 6), 
of guilelessness as contrasted with cunning (II S 
12 3 #.; Jer 11 19; Is 53 7), and of playfulness (Ps 
114 4, 6). (8) Symbolically, the ‘Lamb’ was a 
designation of Christ, with a twofold reference to the 
OT. In the testimony of John the Baptist (Jn 1 29, 


Koa 
Lamentations 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


36) to Jesus, the dyuvé¢ is evidently the lamb of Is 
53 7, but in Rev 5 6 and passim the meaning is un- 
doubtedly sacrificial, and Christ is viewed as the 
antetype of the paschal lamb. A. C. Z. 


LAME, LAMENESS. See Diszase anp MepI- 
CINE, § 6. 

LAMECH, 1é’mek (722, lemekh): This name oc- 
curs in both of the genealogies of the antediluvian 
patriarchs (Gn 4 1-24 [J]; Gn ch. 5 [P]). In the 
former list, known as the Cainite genealogy, Lamech 
appears as the son of Methushael, and is represented 
as introducing polygamy into human society by 
marrying two wives—Adah and Zillah. The former 
is the mother of Jabal, who is the father of tent- 
dwellers and herdsmen, and of Jubal, the ancestor 
of musicians—the latter bears Tubal-cain, the 
founder of metal industries. Thus the sons of L. are 
looked upon as the founders of civilization and the 
originators of the arts. The song of L. is a sword- 
lay, the boasting of an Arab sheik after the slaughter 
of his enemies (Gn 4 23-24 [J]).. The ninth member of 
the second, or Sethite, genealogy also (Gn 5 26-29 [P]; 
ef. Lk 3 36) is Lamech, aman of exemplary piety and 
father of Noah. The latter, like the sons of L. in 
the first list, figures as the promoter of civilization 
by being the first to introduce the culture of the vine 
(Gn 9 20). If the two genealogies are different 
Heb. versions of the same prehistoric Semitic tradi- 
tion, as is now usually held, then instead of two 
patriarchs we have one. The Babylonian counter- 
part of L. (2) is Otiartes, or Ardates, the ninth of the 
antediluvian kings, who, according to Berossus, 
reigned for 12 sars, or 432,000 years. As L. is the 
father of Noah, so Otiartes is the father of Xisuthros, 
the hero of the Babylonian flood story. J. A. K. 


LAMENTATION. See Mournine anp Mourn- 
ING Customs, § 5. 


LAMENTATIONS: 1. Name. One of the poetical 
books of the Bible usually placed in the EVV be- 
tween Jeremiah and Ezekiel and attached to Jer as 
Ru is to Jg. The Eng, name is derived from the 
Latin Lamentationes Jeremie, which was used by 
the Fathers. The Vulgate title of the book, how- 
ever (Threni Jeremie), is not a translation but a 
transliteration of the LX X. Opfhyo: *Iepeutov. In the 
Heb. Bible the book is called 19°8, ’ékhah, ‘how?’ 
from its first word, in analogy with many other 
Biblical books (see Gmnusis, § 1; Exopus, § 1, etc.), 
and is placed in the third division of the Canon, the 
writings, and not among the Prophets, as in the Eng. 
Bible. In the usage of the Synagog it is reckoned as 
one of the Five Rolls (Megilloth, z.e., Song, Ruth, 
La, Eccl, and Esther). 

2. Structure and Contents. As extant, La consists 
of five chapters, each one of which is complete in 
itself (in spite of Ewald’s contrary view). The first 
four of these consist of verses which are alpha- 
betical acrostics. But here the identity of structural 
plan ends. In chs. 1 and 2 each letter of the Heb. 
alphabet is assigned one verse, and each verse con- 
sists of three members [clauses]. In ch. 3 each 
letter of the alphabet is given three verses, but each 
verse consists of a single member. In ch. 4 each 
letter is given one verse, and each verse consists of 


Lamentations 
Laodicea 


two members. Moreover, in chs. 2-4 the alpha- 
betic arrangement deviates from the present order 
of the Heb. letters by placing 5 before y, a trans- 
position which has never been satisfactorily ex- 
plained. Finally, ch. 5, tho consisting like the others 
of twenty-two verses, is not arranged as an acrostic. 
The literary form is that of the elegy (ginadh) charac- 
terized by a special meter, the second line of 
which is shorter than the first—usually three accents 
followed by two. If this be regarded, as it is almost 
universally, the true form of Lamentations, each of 
the first four chapters is a separate elegy, and the 
fifth is a prayer. The general theme of the whole 
book is the grief of the faithful, in view of the desola- 
tion of the Holy City by the Babylonians in 586 
B.c. In the first elegy the poet bewails the fall of 
Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple 
(1 1-11), tho he sees in the event a penalty for sin 
(vs.5 and 8). Yet he laments her doom as a bitter 
and comfortless one (1 12-22). In the second elegy 
the desolation of the city and the horrors of the siege 
are once more brought into view (2 1-10), and their 
distressing features intensified by allusion to the 
joy of the enemies of Israel (vs. 11-17). The city itself 
is then represented as making her appeal to God to 
consider her distress (vs. 18-22). The third elegy 
begins with a complaint of the poet in his own person 
(3 1-21), but proceeds to recall the love of God as the 
ground of Jerusalem’s hope for the future (vs. 22-35). 
This leads to an exhortation to penitence and confes- 
sion (vs. 36-55) and a prayer for vengeance upon the 
enemy (vs. 55-66). The fourth elegy bewails the fate 
successively of the people (41-6), the princes (vs. 7-11), 
the priests and prophets (vs. 12-16), and the king (vs. 
17-20), and closes with a prediction of doom on Edom 
(ver. 21 f.). The last of the five poems laments 
before J’’ the manifold sorrows of Zion (5 1-18), and 
pleads fervently for deliverance from them (vs. 
19-22). 

3. Authorship. A very ancient tradition ascribes 
the authorship of La to the praphet Jeremiah. As 
early as the days of the Chronicler (c. 250 B.c.) a 
document, called ‘the lamentations’ (qinéth), was 
supposed to contain a dirge composed by Jeremiah 
upon the death of Josiah (II Ch 35 25). However, 
the only passage in La which may be construed as 
referring to Josiah is 4 20, which speaks of ‘the 
anointed of Jehovah,’ and this, tho conceivably a 
mournful retrospect by Jeremiah of the fate of his 
friend Josiah (the last pious king of Judah), is 
almost certainly a reference to the fate of Zedekiah. 
Shortly after the age of the Chronicler (c. 200 B.c.) 
the LXX. translator of La incorporated the tradi- 
tion at the opening of the book in the following 
words: ‘And it came to pass, after that Israel was 
made captive and Jerusalem laid desolate, that 
Jeremiah sat down weeping and lamented over 
Jerusalem, saying... ‘Thus the belief found 
explicit written expression, and through the later 
Jewish history (Jos. Ant. X, 51; where La is viewed 
as a dirge to be used at Josiah’s funeral), as well as 
by Christian writers (Jerome, in Zec. 12 11), La was 
uniformly and implicitly taken to be a work of 
Jeremiah’s. This conclusion has the further sup- 
port: of internal considerations, 7.e., (1) the antece- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


504 


dent probability that the sensitive and emotionai 
prophet who had witnessed the inevitable approach 
and culmination of Jerusalem’s doom should give 
vent to meditative feeling after all was over; (2) the 
linguistic resemblances between his prophecies and 
the style of La, and (3) the fact that certain passages 
seem to have been written by an eye-witness. As 
against these considerations, generally admitted to 
be quite strong, it is argued (1) that it is unlikely 
that Jeremiah would deliberately express his grief 
in alphabetic dirges; (2) that the artificial form of 
the acrostic is inconsistent with the intensity of 
feeling which must have possessed the prophet at 
the time of the fall of Jerusalem; (3) that certain 
passages of La betray dependence on Ezk (cf. 2 14, 
4 20 with Ezk 22 28, 19 24, etc. For a full list of 
parallels and echoes of Ezk see Cornill, Introd. to the 
O T, p. 416, and Léhr, ZATW, 1894); and (4) that 
Jeremiah could hardly be imagined as saying, ‘the 
prophets find no vision’ (2 8), or as describing the 
weak Zedekiah as ‘the breath of our nostrils’ (4 20), 
or as exclaiming, ‘our fathers have sinned and we 
have borne their iniquities’ (5 7; cf. 31 29). On the 
ground of these considerations, the traditional 
assignment of the authorship of La to Jeremiah is 
much shaken. 

4. Unity. But the question of authorship is fur- 
ther involved in that of unity, and the starting-point 
for the denial of the unity of La is the consideration 
that one man would scarcely have made the same 
subject the topic of five different compositions. 
Further, there are internal characteristics evidenc- 
ing differences of date. Yet on attempting to assign 
the different parts to different authors analysis has 
not gone so far as to claim five authors for the book. 
Some (Thenius) hold that the 2d and 4th chs. were 
composed by Jeremiah, while the Ist, 3d, and 5th 
were by three other authors. Others (Stade and 
Budde [formerly]) believe chs. 1, 2, 4 and 5 to be 
the work of one author and ch. 3 of another. Most 
investigators, including Néldeke, Léhr, Cornill, 
Wildeboer, and Budde [later] divide the elegies into 
three groups (chs. 2 and 4, 1 and 5, and 3), assigning 
each group to a separate author. But these attempts 
at analysis attach too much significance to’slight and 
doubtful data, and are far from being established 
upon sound critical foundations. The authorship of 
chs. 1, 2, 4, and 5 by Jeremiah is quite probable. 
Ch. 3 was written at a later time, and perhaps by 
another author, but no part of the collection is later 
than 530 B.c. 

LireRATURE: Driver, LOT, pp. 456-465; Cornill, Introd. to the 

O T (1907), pp. 411-418; Streane in Camb. Bible (1889); 


Adeney in Expositor’s Bible (1895); Cheyne on Jeremiah in 
Men of ihe Bible (1889); Peake in New Cent. Bible (1911). 
A. C. Z. 


LAMP: Properly the rendering of the Heb. nér 
(LXX. Abyvoc). The correlated Heb. mendrah is 
translated ‘candlestick,’ and is used especially for 
the golden lampstand of the Tabernacle (Ex 25 31- 
35, ete.) and of the Temple (I K 7 49, etc.); while 
lappidh (LXX. Kaynks) (which in AV of Gn 15 17; 
Jg 7 16; Job 41 19; Ezk 113 is translated lamp’) is 
more properly rendered in RV by ‘torch.’ The 
Aram. nebhrashta@’ (Dn 5 5, ‘candlestick’) signifies a 
‘lamp’ or ‘light,’ but the exact kind is uncertain, 


505 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Lamentations 
Laodicea 





There is no description of a lamp in the Bible. All 
we know is that it had a wick of flax, pishtah (Is 
42 3, 43 17), which was saturated with the oil, shemen 
(Ex 25 6, 27 20). In general, the ancient lamps were 






Gs, 


Ancient Lamp (simplest 
form). 


Ancient Lamp (improved 
form). 


the same as those in common use in the Hast to-day 
(see illustration). From ancient times the lamp has 
been an indispensable household article, not alone 
of the dwelling-house of the fellahin, but even of the 
tent of the bedawin. It was burned both day and 
night, not only to light the room of the tent, which 
was somewhat dark even in the daytime, but mainly 
in order that fire, which it was difficult to obtain 





Specimens of Ancient Palestinian Lamps. 


easily, might always be at hand. Even at the pres- 
ent day among the Arabs it is only the very poor 
that sleep in the dark. If it be said of a man, ‘Poor 
fellow, he sleeps in the dark’ (‘ala l‘atme), it is the 


same as saying: ‘He hasn’t a penny left to buy oil; 
he has got to the end’ (cf. Jer 25 10; Pr 13 9, 20 20). 
In the figurative language of the O T the burning 
lamp signifies the continuance of healthy, vigorous 
life, the extinguished lamp the reverse (cf. Ps 18 29; 
Pr 139, 20 20, 24 20, 3118, etc.). In the N T we have 
gavég (in Jn 18 3 lantern EV), a ‘light,’ but it is not 
clear whether lamps or some kind of torches are 
meant, and Avyvia, lampstand (candlestick, in AV 
of Mt 515; Mk 4 21; Lk 8 16, 11 33, and also in RV of 
He 9 2; Rev 112, etc.), by which some sort of rest,on 
which the lamp was placed, is meant, like a small 
table, or a shelf. See K. Galling, ‘Die Beleuch- 
tungsgerdte im israelitisch-jiidischen Kulturgebiet’ 
ZDPYV, xlvi (1923), 1-50. W. N.—L. B. P. 


LANCE, LANCET. See Arms AND Armor. § 1. 
LAND: In most instances in the O T ‘land’ is 


the rendering (1) of the Heb. ’ddhdmdah, ‘ground,’ 


‘soil,’ properly used of arable land, but often used 
in a wider sense (cf. Dt 7 13 AV, for both usages); 
(2) of ’erets, which means ‘land’ as a portion of the 
earth’s surface, and is properly used in such expres- 
sions as ‘land of Canaan,’ ‘land of Israel,’ etc. The 
great majority of occurrences of ‘land’ are render- 

ings of this term. In addition, we have (3) sddheh, — 
‘field,’ ‘open country,’ sometimes rendered ‘land’ 
(Ru 4 3; 1S 14 14, etc.). In the N T we find (4) 
&yeés, corresponding to (3) above, and (4) y%, corre- 
sponding to (2) above. Furthermore, we have (6) 
Enedc, ‘dry land’ (Mt 23 15), (7) xdea, ‘region,’ 
‘place,’ ‘country’ (cf. RV in Mk 1 5; Lk 15 14; Ac 
10 39), and (8) the diminutive ywetoy, ‘small place,’ 
‘plot of ground’ (Ac 4 34, 53,8). The land of promise 
(He 119) is the land of Canaan promised to Israel’s 
ancestors (Ex 12 25; Dt 6 3, etc.). The expression 
‘born in the land’ (Lv 2416; Nu 15 30 AV) is but one 
word in Heb. and is better rendered ‘home-born’ as 
in RV. See also Counrry and Grounp. E. E.N. 


LAND CROCODILE. See Patzstinn, § 26. 


LANDMARK: The rendering of the Heb. g*bhal 
(nearly always rendered ‘border,’ q.v.) in Dt 19 14, 
27 17; Pr 22 28, 23 10; Hos 5 10 ‘bound’ AV; and of 
gbhiilah in Job 24 2. The boundaries of the ancestral 
estates in ancient Israel, as in other nations, were 
considered sacred and inviolable (cf. the festivals in 
honor of the god Terminus in ancient Rome). 

E. E. N. 


LANGUAGE OF THE N T. See Greex Lan- 
GUAGE. 


LANGUAGE OF THE OT. See Aramaic Lan- 
GUAGE, and Hmprew LANGUAGE. 

LANTERN. See Lamp. 

LAODICEA, 1é-ed’i-si’a (Aaodixera): A now de- 
serted site in the Lycus valley of ancient Phrygia. 
Its earlier names were Diospolis and Rhoas. Antio- 
chus II, Theos, rebuilt it and named it after Laodice, 
his wife. It owed its wealth and importance chiefly 
to its situation at the forks of the great trade-route 
from the East to Ephesus and Pergamum. . It be- 
longed to the Seleucids till 190 B.c., when it was 
given by the Romans to Eumenes, King of Perga- 
mum. ‘Two generations later (133) it passed finally 
to Rome. Successive captures aided by frequent 


Laodicea 
Law and Legal Practise 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


506 





earthquakes caused its final abandonment. It was 
never a really great city, tho it was populous, mag- 
nificent, a money center. When damaged by an 
earthquake (60 A.D.) it refused assistance from the 
imperial treasury (cf. Rev 3 17, ‘I am rich and have 
gotten riches and have need of nothing’). Its bank- 
ing operations embraced the whole empire (cf. 
ver. 18, ‘I counsel thee to buy [through martyrdom, 
not as a gift] of me [not the filthy gold of thy banks, 
but] gold refined by fire, that thou mayest become 
rich [with true riches].’ L. was also a great manu- 
facturing center, having its trade chiefly in clothing. 
Its territory produced a breed of sheep (now extinct) 
with soft, glossy, black wool, needing no dyeing. 
This was manufactured into cloth, rugs, but chiefly 
into seamless black garments; also cloaks, the fa- 
mous shirts, woven of thread of three thicknesses, 
called trimita, costly shirts with purple borders 
(paragadia), woolen rain-coats (phainoula), em- 
broidered outer garments (chlamydes, chlanides) 
(cf. Rev 3 18), ‘I counsel thee to buy of me [not 
the black garments of thy looms, but] white garments 
that thou mayest clothe thyself.’ L. produced 
many wealthy citizens (one of them, Hiero, gave the 
city over $1,000,000), and the remarkable family of 
the rhetor Zeno, whose son Polemon became king 
of Lycaonia (39 B.c.), king of Pontus (88 B.c.), 
and progenitor of a long line of kings and princes. 
It was the seat of the famous medical school at the 
shrine of Men Karou, whose physicians compounded 
the famous ‘Phrygian Powder’ in cylindrical tablets, 
for the cure of ophthalmia (cf. Rev 3 18, ‘buy of me 
{not the tablets used by the physicians in your 
medical school, but true] eye-salve.’ Many Jews 
(7,500 adult freemen) were settled there by Antio- 
chus the Great. It became Christian at an early 
period, but Rev 3 14 ff. shows that the first enthu- 
siasm had cooled as a result of wealth. The Epistle 
‘from the Laodiceans’ (Col 4 16) was perhaps evi- 
dently Paul’s encyclical letter which we have in the 
N T under the title ‘Epistle to the Ephesians’ (q.v.). 
The ‘Epistle to the Laodiceans,’ current in the 
Middle Ages, consists of excerpts from Paul’s 
canonical Epistles, mainly Phil., and was doubtless 
compiled to satisfy the interest aroused by the fore- 
going reference in Col. Paul did not personally 
labor among the Laodiceans (Col 21). Epaphras, 
chiefly (Col 17, 4 12 f.), and Timothy (Col 17) were 
probably the actual founders of the Christian 
Church there. It is possible that it also came within 
the personal work of Philip and of John. 
J. R.S. S.%—S. A. 


LAODICEANS. See LaopicEa. 


LAP. This word is used in RV three times, in 
each case for a different Heb. term. In II K 4 39, 
‘his beghedh full’) beghedh, ‘garment,’ here rendered 
‘lap,’ is used for the héq (rendered ‘lap’ in Pr 16 33 
on which see Dress AND ORNAMENT, § 3. In Neh 
513, the Heb. hdtsen, ‘bosom,’ probably also refers to 
the héq. 

LAPPIDOTH, lap/i-deth (NiTB?, lappidhath) 
‘torches’ (or ‘ligntning-flashes’?): The husband of 
Deborah (Jg 4 4). 


LAPWING. See PALESTINE, § 25. 


LASEA, lo-si’a (Aacéa): A very small island E. of 
Cape Lithinos, about the center of the S. coast of 
Crete, called T'raphos, on which the town of Las(s)@a 
is located. Luke’s mention of it in connection with 
Fair Havens:(Ac 27 8) is the only known reference 
to it in antiquity. J.R.S. 8.*—E. E. N. 

LASHA, 1é’sho (YY, lasha‘): A border town of 
Canaan (Gn 10 19), site unknown, but commonly 
located in SE. Palestine. Jerome (Quest. in Gen. 
10 19) identifies it with the hot springs of Callirrhoé, 
mentioned by Pliny and Josephus, situated in the 
Wady Zerka Ma‘%n, in Moab. Dillmann, Com. on 
Gen., ad loc., thinks this too far N. Wellhausen con- 
siders it the same as Laish on the NE. border, but 
this is improbable. Cae: 

LASSHARON, las-shé’ren ind lashsharén; La- 
sharon AV): A place mentioned only in Jos 12 18 
as a royal city of Canaan. From the readings of the 
LXX. we should perhaps take the first letter as the 
preposition b and read, ‘the king of Aphek that be- 
longs to Sharon,’ 2. é., a district rather than a town. 
See SHARON 1. ea. eed 


LAST DAYS, LATTER DAYS. See Escua- 
TOLOGY, § 3. 

LATCHET. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, § 7. 

LATIN (‘Powatott, ‘Pwuatxds, ‘Roman’): The 
official language of the Roman Government. Altho 
neither as widely known nor as far on the way toward 
recognition as an international language as Greek, 
it could not have been dispensed with in a legal 
declaration such as the inscription on the Cross was 
designed to be (Jn 19 20; Lk 28 38). As’ Ord; 


LATTER RAIN. See Pauesting, § 19. 


LATTICE: The rendering of four Heb. words: (1) 
’eshnabh (Jg 5 28); (2) hdrakkim (Song 2 9), (3) 
hallon (1 K 6 4; Pr 76), all meaning ‘lattice windows.’ 
See Houss, §6 (j). (4) s*bhakhaéh (II K 1 2), strictly 
the trellis battlement of the roof. See Houssr, § 6 
(d). 

LAVER. See Tempe, § 15; and TABERNACLE, 
§ 3 (1). 

LAW AND LEGAL PRACTISE. 1. Origin of 
Israelitic Law. The people of Israel, during the 
course of their national history came successively 
under the influence of different environments, each 
of which had a decisive effect on Israel’s life and con- 
tributed its share to the formation of Israelitic law. 
Of these we specify as most important the following 
four: (1) The first determining influence came from 
the primitive type of life, which was the nomadic. 
In this early period there was no such thing in 
Israel as ‘law,’ as we now use the term. The funda- 
mental basis of the tribe was the family (q.v.), in 
which the will of the father was supreme. In the 
exercise of his authority the father of a primitive 
Semitic family was doubtless guided by custom. 
Custom, as interpreted or sanctioned by the father’s 
authority, was law. And asa Semitic family was not 
only a social but a religious unit, all family customs 
carried with them the authority of religior,»and thus 
to the early Semite religion and law were almost one 
and inseparable. In the process of centuries many 
of these family customs became so strongly in- 


507 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Laodicea 
Law and Legal Practise 





trenched and of such binding authority that no 
father of a family would even think of abrogating 
them. In the case of Israel we find them regnant, or 
at least influential, down to the latest periods, and 
it is therefore in these ancient family customs that 
we are to seek for the origin of much of Israel’s law. 
The tribe was but the union of large clans, or families, 
and tribal custom was but the extension to a larger 
sphere of the principles already embodied in family 
custom. In the tribe, the heads of families, or clans, 
formed the authoritative body, but the authority of 
these over the tribe was not nearly so strong as that 
of the father over his family. Tribal custom, how- 
ever, being the wider application of family custom, 
was of the highest authority. (2) Through Moses 
who made J” the bond of union among the tribes of 
Israel, the influence of religion on the whole of 
Israel’s life took on a new significance. 
all the early Semites, family and tribal customs 
were under the protection of the family or tribal 
deity. When the customs were violated or disre- 
garded it was the same as disobeying the Divine 
will, and a punishment, or some other manifesta- 
tion of Divine displeasure, was liable to take place. 
Under Moses the same Divine sanction of Israel’s 
inherited customs was inculeated—and something 
more. For J’’, as Moses taught, was a God to whom 
righteousness, in the highest sense then possible to 
be conceived of, was a matter of supreme interest. 
Moses is said to have taught Israel, in cases of dis- 
pute between man and man, the ‘statutes of God and 
his laws’ (Ex 18 16), and in such sentences of justice 
and in all his work with Israel Moses had the oppor- 
tunity to inculcate higher conceptions of religion and 
right than were possessed by other Semitic peoples. 
In these higher conceptions we may find the reason 
for the spirit, if not the exact form, of many of the 
specific enactments of later Israelitic law. It is 
evident that in the foregoing citation the word 
statutes is used in the sense of formulated law, the 
sense in which it is commonly used by the later 
Deuteronomic and Priestly schools. Its use by the 
older E. writer simply shows how, as early as 8th 
cent., Moses was looked back to as the formulator 
of statutes and judgments (Ex 211). (3) A third 
determining influence came from Canaanite law and 
custom. When Israel conquered Canaan, the 
majority of the Canaanites were not exterminated, 
but only gradually subdued. Israel gained her 
foothold first in the highlands and in the least thickly 
settled parts of the country. The Canaanite cities in 
the more open lowland-places were the last to yield. 
The presence of this large Canaanite element, which 
had been so long in possession, and which by inter- 
marriage and other ways was gradually absorbed 
into Israel, was of highest significance for Israel’s 
customs and religion. The Canaanites were well 
advanced in civilization. Theirs were the cities 
and the farms that Israel appropriated. It was their 
tongue that Israel came to speak. They were 
Israel’s teachers in agriculture and other arts of 
civilized life. Their influence on Israel’s religion was 
very great. It would therefore be passing strange if, 
in the codified law of Israel, as we find it in the 
Pentateuch, there were not many enactments that, 


Among | 


in whole or in part, reflect ancient Canaanite prac- 
tise. (4) A fourth determining influence was that of 
the Babylonian civilization. A knowledge of Baby- 
lonian culture had been prevalent in Canaan a 
thousand years before the conquest by Israel. Where 
Babylonian civilization, commerce, and literature 
were known it is probable that Babylonian law was 
also known. This is perhaps the chief reason for the 
many remarkable similarities that exist between the 
Code of Hammurabi of c. 2000 B.c. and the Code in 
Exodus, ch. 21 ff. (committed to writing not earlier 
than the 9th cent. B.c.), altho it is not necessary to 
suppose that the Babylonian code is directly quoted 
in the Pentateuch. During the latter half of the 
kingdom period (735-536 B.c.) the contact between 
Israel and the civilization of the Euphrates Valley 
was very close, and during the Exile and after the 
Jews were face to face with this ancient and com- 
plex civilization. If Israel made use, in her own way, 
of the Creation and Flood stories of the East, there 
is no reason why she should not have done the same 
with its law, and that even in the Priestly law there 
may be much that is the result of such appropriation. 

2. Formal Sources of Israel’s Law. From these 
various fields of influence and environment those who 
built up Israel’s system of law drew in formulating 
their decisions, and it was such decisions that 
formed the sources which the codifiers used who have 
given us the codes of the Pentateuch. Those who 
thus formulated law in Israel were: (1) The Elders, 
a general term inclusive of fathers of leading families 
heads (sheiks) of tribes, and, after the settlement in 
Canaan, the chief men of a town (‘elders of the city,’ 
Ru 4 2 #.; cf. Dt 19 12, 21 3 #., 22 15 #.; I K 218, etc.). 
These elders, or ‘Judges’ (Dt 16 18), pronounced judg- 
ment in cases of dispute between man and man. It 
was for them to decide the guilt or innocence of the 
accused, and fix the penalty. In earliest times 
criminal cases (theft, oppression, etc.) were probably 
most numerous. But with the more complex life of 
the kingdom-period many other cases acquired their 
attention. (2) The Priests. Of equal importance 
with the elders were the priests, and, as time went 
on, the priest gradually encroached upon the sphere 
of the elders, until finally (but not until after the 
Exile) almost the entire judicial system was in the 
possession of the priests. This progress is clearly 
reflected in the codes. The oldest civil code (Ex 
chs. 21-23) makes no mention of priests as judges, 
except possibly in the reference to the judgment of 
God (Ex 228). In the code of Dt the secular judges 
(elders) are fully recognized, but the attempt is 
being made to give the priests a larger share (cf. 
Dt 178 #., 19 15 f.). In the Priestly Code (and in 
the echoes of its legislation in Chronicles) the Levites, 
or priests, alone are recognized as judges. In most 
ancient times the priest’s duty was primarily to care 
for the (a) sanctuary, and to give forth the Divine 
oracle. The old custom of ‘casting the lot’ was 
probably one of the earliest modes of determin- 
ing the Divine oracle, and from this perhaps arose 
the term tdrah (usually rendered ‘law’), from ydrah, 
‘to cast,’ tho many modern scholars derive the mean- 
ing ‘teaching ‘direction,’ etc., directly from the 
Hiph‘il (hérah) of the vb. yarah (III). The priest had 


Law and Legal Practise 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


508 


to do mainly with matters having a religious signifi- 
cance, and the sanctuary became a place of religious 
instruction. When the sanctuaries became great 
centers, as they did in the kingdom-period, the 
priesthood became more influential, and it was 
natural for them to claim (as is done in Dt) a large 
share in deciding civil as well as religious cases. (3) 
The King and the royal courts. The king in Israel, 
especially after David, was a supreme court of 
appeal. The king was supposed to decide ‘justly,’ 
7.€., in accordance with what was recognized as cus- 
tom and right in Israel, as well as in accordance with 
his natural sense of justice. The king was thus not 
supposed to be a mere autocrat bound by no will 
but his own, and could not lightly override ancient 
law. A decision of a king covering a new case, or 
modifying the application of traditional practise, 
became itself a legal precedent or law (cf. 1S 30 21-25; 
II 8 14 0; II K 14 5, where the editor of II K has 
reversed the facts). Able kings, like David, Solo- 
mon, Omri, and Jehoshaphat, doubtless did much to 
arrange a system of courts, religious and civil, all 
working harmoniously, but of their work only the 
faintest traces remain in the unreliable statements 
of the late Chronicler. (4) The Prophets. The 
prophets gave forth their utterances as of Divine 
authority; they spoke a Divine ‘word’ which they 
called téraéh, ‘law’, better, ‘direction’ or ‘teaching’ 
(Is 8 16). The prophets dealt with principles, how- 
ever, and only rarely interfered with special cases, 
and then only by way of rebuke. But the prophetic 
teachings, being an exposition of the fundamental 
principles of Israel’s religion and of conduct, exer- 
cised a great influence on Israel’s later lawmakers, 
as is evident especially in the Code of Dt. (5) The 
learned class of Scribes. From the Exile on, much 
was done by learned scribes, mostly in the way of 
expanding and extending the application of legal 
principles already recognized. The early stages of 
this activity are no longer known. Of only one such 
man do we have any definite knowledge, Ezra, the 
‘ready scribe,’ through whose efforts the Priestly 
law was first codified. But Ezra was only one of 
many. After the formal adoption of Ezra’s law-book 
(Neh chs. 8-10) and the subsequent canonization of 
the Law (in the Pentateuch), the application of this 
Law to all manner of circumstances was made the 
object of serious study, and comprised the greatest 
portion of the work carried on in the scribal schools. 
The opinions of the most learned and honored scribes 
~ or Rabbis (doctors of the Law; cf. Lk 5 17; Ac 5 34; 
lawyers; cf. Mt 22 35, etc.), were held to be of nearly 
as great authority as the written Law itself. In 
process of time there came about an organization of 
the legal bodies, at the head of which, as the final 
court of appeal, was the Sanhedrin (q.v.). In the 
rabbinical schools the decisions of the learned Rabbis 
were not at first committed to writing, but passed on 
orally through many generations, gradually becom- 
ing more numerous and complex as time went on. 
Finally, circa 200 a.p., the first codification of 
scribal law was made, the Mishna. This in its turn 
was commented on orally, until at last, circa 600 A.D., 
these comments on, and discussions of, the Mishna, 
which constitute the Gemara, were reduced to 


writing, resulting in the Talmud (=Mishna+ 
Gemara). Thus, in the course of centuries, through 
the decisions of its elders in the petty local courts, of 
its priests at the various sanctuaries, notably the 
larger ones, of the king and the royal courts, in the 
teaching of the prophets, and through the painstak- 
ing toil of its scribes, Israel came to have in her 
possession a large body of formulated law, a portion 
of which we have codified in the Pentateuch, which 
represents but the survival of a selected part of the 
ancient Law, another portion of which is contained 
in the voluminous material of the Talmud. 


3. The Codification of Israel’s Law. We shall now 
proceed to note briefly the stages through which 
Israel’s law passed, until it reached the form in which 
we now find it in the Pentateuch. (1) Preliminaries 
to Codification. Nothing can be said of codification 
in the period before Israel became acquainted with 
the art of writing. However the traditional laws and 
customs were remembered in most ancient times, a 
code, even the shortest, implies a knowledge of 
writing. It is a priori probable, then, that even the 
earliest of Israel’s codes dates from the time when 
Israel had become acquainted with the civilization 
of Canaan, and after it had relinquished its nomadic 
type of life. It is also only when people are living 
in settled communities with something like a fixed 
judicial system that the need of codes will arise, 
and an authority will be at hand to promulgate 
them. If Moses did anything in the way of giving 
Israel a code, it must have been a brief and simple 
one, and it must have been given at Kadesh, where 
for many years Moses acted as the supreme judge of 
Israel, rather than at Sinai, where Israel stayed but 
a few months. In any case, what Israel received 
from Moses were principles rather than detailed 
statements, and the earliest code we have in the 
O T was probably formulated in Canaan, at least a 
century or two later than Moses, by those who felt 
that they were but putting into definite form the 
principles of justice taught by Moses. (2) The 
oldest codes. The oldest codification of Israelitic 
law we find in Ex chs. 20-23 and 34 10-26. 

This consists of: (a) Two sets of the fundamental principles of 
Israel’s covenant with J”. One of these is the Decalog 
(originally two pentads of five short commands each). The 
other covers the more external and ceremonial features of the 
Covenant, and is found in two recensions, one of which was given 
in J (34 1° 8), the other in EK (20 22-26, 22 29, 23 10-33), Both of 
these recensions show many marks of elaboration, especially 
in the way of warning against the seductions of Canaanite 
practises, and were made to serve a historical rather than a 
legal purpose in the documents in which they stand. The 
original form back of both recensions was possibly a decalog 
(double pentad) prescribing: 1. J” alone to be worshiped. 2. 
No molten gods. 3. Feast of unleavened bread. 4. Gift of 
first-born and firstlings. 5. The Sabbath. 6. Feast of Weeks 
and In gathering. 7. No leavened bread with a sacrifice. 8. 
Passover. 9. First-fruits. 10. A kid not to be seethed in its 


mother’s milk. Both of these sets of fundamentals may well go 
back to Moses. 

(b) A civil code (Ex 21 1-23 9), called ‘the judgments.’ It 
has been analyzed as follows (Carpenter-Harford, Comp. of the 
Hez., p. 472 £,): 

. Concerning Hebrew slaves (21 2-1, two pentads).. 

. Violence punishable by death (21 12717). 
. Injuries (21 18-27), 

. Cattle (21 28-36), 

. Property, theft and damage (22 !~). 

. Property, breach of trust (22 77, two pentads). 
. Various ordinances (22 87), 


SIO OP CON 


509 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Law and Legal Practise 





8. Reverence (22 %). 

9. Administration of justice (23 }9). 
The fact that two of the sections can be subdivided into two 
pentads each makes it possible that the code was originally 
longer, and that each section once formed a complete decalog, 
but this is only hypothesis. 

So far as we know, this was the only attempt at 
codification between the conquest and the labors 
of the author(s) of the Deuteronomic code. To what 
extent this code (of Ex) was well-known throughout 
all Israel is uncertain. It is also uncertain whether 
all the sanctuaries or courts had the same body of 
law. This code probably represents what was 
taught at the most important centers (Jerusalem, 
Bethel, Samaria, etc.). As it was based on custom, 
it is likely that its general principles were pretty well 
known. It is just such a code as this that is pre- 
supposed by the early prophets (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, 


Micah) as known and violated by the leading men of . 


their day. (3) The Code of Deuteronomy. The 
Exodus code must have been formulated very early, 
for between it and the much more elaborate Code 
of Dt the difference is so great that it can be ac- 
counted for only by a long period of development. 
The Code of Dt was compiled about 650, and proba- 
bly contains the Law as it had been expanded and 
developed, more particularly in Judah, and especially 
in the capital. In this code, however, we have a new 
factor to reckon with. Its author, or authors, were 
reformers, and at many points altered existing law to 
make it conform more nearly to their ruling ideas. 
This is particularly true of the sections dealing with 
religious practise, where the aim was to purify 
the worship by centralizing it at Jerusalem while 


conserving the standing of the Levitical priesthood. | 
For an analysis of the Code of Dt and other par- | 
(4) The Holiness | 
Code. To a certain extent parallel to the Code of | 


ticulars see DEUTERONOMY, § 2. 


Dt is the so called Holiness Code found mainly in Lv 
chs. 17-26 (with fragments in earlier chapters of Lv; 
see Leviricus, § 3, and also Hexarrucn, § 23). This 
code covers, in part, the same ground as the Code 
of Dt, but differs from it in that it is mainly con- 
cerned with ‘holiness,’ a conception which is made 
to include both moral and ceremonial purity. The 
moral tone of this code is high, in spite of its strong 
leaning toward ceremonialism. As the code stands in 
Ly it is probably the result of a number of revisions. 
Its first draft was probably drawn up before the 
Exile, but its final revision took place after Ezekiel’s 
prophecies were published. (5) The Contribution of 
Ezekiel. ‘Toward the end of his prophetic minstry 
(572 B.c.) Ezekiel formulated his conception of the 
restored Israel (Ezk chs. 40-48). The central, 
dominating element here is that of holiness. Israel 
is (to be) a holy community, in whose midst J’ 
dwells in His sanctuary. The Temple as J’”’s 
dwelling-place, the Priesthood as His ministers, the 
sacrifices and offerings as the means of communion 
with Him—these things held the first place with 
Ezekiel, while ‘the prince,’ the laity, and secular affairs 
in general were relegated to an altogether secondary 
place. There can be no doubt that the views of 
Ezekiel proved a powerful influence with all the sub- 
sequent workers on Israel’s Law. The tendency was 
to emphasize and develop the ceremonial elements. 





The conception of Israel as a nation was displaced 
by the conception of Israel asa church. It was along 
these lines that the workers labored who revised the 
Holiness Code and who sought to develop and per- 
fect other elements of their traditional Priestly 
law, much of which had not been as yet codified. 
(6) The Priestly Code. The climax of these labors 
was reached when, in the middle of the next century 
(5th cent. B.c.), Ezra had in his hand a completed 
Priestly Law-book, which he wished to take to 
Jerusalem and there have it adopted as the law of 
the community. This law-book was both a history 
(of Israel as the Covenant People) and a code. For 
its analysis see Hexarrucn, § 27. It was a complex 
in which numerous earlier codes, as the manual for 
worshipers (Lv chs. 1-7), the Holiness Code, ete., 
were embodied. Later enactments, or formulations, 
were placed side by side with the earlier ones, in 
spite of the inconsistency and even contradictions 
thus introduced at many points. With the adoption 
of this law-book in 457 B.c. (if Neh chs. 8-10 is to be 
placed immediately after Ezr ch. 10). (Dt had been 
adopted in 621) the process of codification did not 
immediately cease. Many minor additions and 
adjustments were probably made after Ezra’s time. 
Finally the Law, as we have it in the Pentateuch, 
came to be considered holy and of final authority, 


altho the actual practise in Judaism has never been 


identical at every point with the letter of the Law. 


4. Procedure at Law. A case at law (cause, or 
controversy) might be criminal, civil, or religious, 
but the Law does not make these distinctions. The 
whole law was supposed to rest on a religious basis, 
and offenses against morality, or against religious 
ceremony, were equally against religion. The same 
courts had jurisdiction (in the O T period) over all 
cases. (1) Constitution of the Courts. In the O T 
the term ‘court’ does not appear. Judge, judges, 
elders etc., are the concrete terms that take its 
place. The earliest courts in Israel of which we 
have any record are those mentioned in the early 
historical narratives and in the old code of Ex chs. 
21-23. The ‘elders,’ or ‘judges,’ here spoken of 
were, doubtless, the heads of the prominent families 
in their respective localities, and other men dis- 
tinguished for wisdom or judgment. Except as we 
may infer from the immemorial custom of viewing 
the father of a family as a judge, we have no light on 
the question how these persons were appointed or 
recognized as judges. From Ex 18 21 (cf. Dt 16 18) 
it may be inferred that some mode of selection was 
in vogue. In the towns of Canaan there was also, 
doubtless, a judicial system of some sort. Here the 
basal social form was the city, not the family, or 
clan, as in Israel. So we read of ‘the elders of the 
city’ as the judges (Jg 8 16, 11 5; Ru 4 2, ete.; cf. 
Dt 19 21, 21 3, 22 15, etc.), an expression that may 
have been adopted in Israel from Canaanite usage. 
How these primitive courts were organized we do not 
know. Later, the king became a supreme court of 
appeal. Some correlation was perhaps established 
between the local courts and the royal courts in the 
capitals (Jerusalem, Samaria), but we have no record 
of anything of the kind, except in the late notices in 
Chronicles, where David is said to have appointed 


Law and Legal Practise 
Lebanon 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


510 





6,000 Levites as ‘officers and judges’ (I Ch 23 4), 
and Jehoshaphat (a century later) is said to have set 
judges in all the fortified cities of Judah, with a 
supreme court of Levites, priests, and elders in 
Jerusalem (II Ch 19 5-8). To the last reference some 
degree of historical truth may be allowed, but the 
first is plainly unhistorical. In Dt, while the old 
secular judgeship is recognized as legitimate, an 
effort is made to give the Levites (=priests) a larger 
and more important place in this work (ef. Dt 178 #., 
where the priests, as knowing J’’s law, give the 
decision in difficult cases; 19 17, 215). Dt probably 
reflects the historical development in this matter, 
for as time went on the position of the priesthood at 
the greater sanctuaries became even more important. 
During the Exile it was natural that the priestly 
students and expounders (e.g., Ezekiel) of Israel’s 
Law should favor the theory that the Levites and 
priests were alone capable of acting as judges, and 
it is to these classes alone that the judges belong, 
according to the Priestly Code and the literature 
that echoes the teaching of this code. But as the 
restored community (536 B.c.) was organized not on 
the basis of PC, but on that of the earlier codes of 
JE and Dt, this theory did not hold in actual practise 
(hence the references to elders in Ezr 5 5, 9, 6 7, 14, 
10 8, 14). During the Persian period, the Persian 
governor was, of course, the final court of appeal, 
tho probably in all religious questions he gave full 
authority to the high priest and his council of priests. 
The power of the priesthood with the high priest at 
its head increased greatly in the later Persian period, 
and at the beginning of the Greek period the priest- 
hood was supreme. In the council that assisted the 
high priest, which was composed of priests, we may 
have the origin of the Sanhedrin (q.v.). Toward the 
end of the Maccabean and in the Roman periods the 
Pharisees became influential, and a certain propor- 
tion of the members of the Sanhedrin was of this 
party, tho the priests (the Sadducees), with the high 
priest at their head, appear to have predominated. 
The Sanhedrin did not displace the local courts, and 
it was not a simple court of appeal. It decided 
questions that the lesser courts could not decide. 
It decided also many matters independent of the 
lower courts. Its decisions were binding throughout 
Jewish Palestine, but death-sentences needed the 
sanction of the Roman governor. It is doubtless 
with special reference to the procedure of Roman 
law that the terms examine, examination, are used 
in the N T (Lk 23 14; Ac 49, 12 19, 24 8, 28 18). (2) 
Modes of Procedure. The procedure was simple as 
compared with Occidental usage. The courts were 
held in the open, generally in the broad place near the 
city gate. Only at the royal court (Solomon’s hall 
of judgment) and in the later Greek and Roman 
period were houses of judgment used. The proceed- 
ings in early times were public. The civil or religious 
authority did not prosecute officially, but heard and 
decided accusations or cases brought before it. Each 
side, accused and accuser, stated or pleaded its case. 
The accuser stood at the right hand of the accused, 
who, at least in postexilic times, was clothed in 
mourning garb (cf. Zec 31 ff.; Jos. Ant. XIV, 9 4). 
Witnesses, at least two, preferably three, were sum- 


moned (Dt 1915; Nu 35 30). They testified on oath, 
and the heaviest penalties were laid upon false 
witnessing (Dt 19 15-21; Lv 911) if, on special investi- 
gation (inquisition, Dt 19 18), this was discovered— 
an indication that such corruption of justice was 
common (cf. I K 2110). Bribery of judges is also 
severely condemned in both the Law and the Proph- 
ets, and was, doubtless, a source of much abuse. 
In cases of death-penalty, the witnesses were the 
first to lay hands on the condemned to put him to 
death (Dt 17 7; cf. also Ac 7 58). In certain cases 
where witnesses were not available circumstantial 
evidence (Dt 22 15 ff.), or the discernment of the 
judges, had to be relied upon. In desperate cases 
recourse was had to the judgment of God (Ex 
22 8 £.; cf. Nu 5 11-31; Dt 21 1-9; cf. also I Co 5 3-5). 
Yor other details see CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS. 
LirkratuRE: Commentaries on the Pentateuch, e.g., Driver on 
Ex (Camb. B.) and Dt (ICC); G. A. Smith on Dt (Camb. B.); 
MecNeille on Ex (Westminster Series). In Carpenter-Harford 
Comp. of the Hexateuch, valuable discussion and conspectus 
of the codes will be found. Cf. also the works on Archdologie 
by Benzinger (2nd ed., 1907) and Nowack. The articles on 
Law and Justice and on Law and Law Literature in EB are 
illuminating. EH. EK. N. 


LAWYER. See Law anp Laaat Practisp, §2 (5). 


LAYING ON OF HANDS: The act of laying on 
of hands expressed different ideas, as follows: (1) 
Most commonly it indicated the self-identification 
of the person that performed the act with the one on 
whom hands were laid. In the offering up of sacri- 
fices, the offerer indicated his willingness to be 
considered one with the victim by placing his hand 
on its head (Ex 29 io f.; Lev 14f.,, 3 2, 8, 44 #.) 
(2) The impartation of an inner or spiritual gift. 
Thus the father’s blessing (Gn 48 14), the good-will 
of Jesus Christ for children (Mk 10 13, 16), health to 
the sick (Mk 5 23), and the bestowal of the Holy 
Spirit by the Apostles (Ac 19 6). (8) Consecration 
to the service of God. Joshua, when he succeeded 
Moses (Nu 27 18, 23; Dt 349), the deacons, when they 
were set apart to their service (Ac 6 6), likewise the 
Levites (Nu 8 10), the missionaries (Ac 13 3), and 
ministers in the Apostolic Church (I Ti 4 14, 5 22; 
II Ti 1 6) were ordained by the laying on of hands. 
(4) Another symbolical use of the act is more diffi- 
cult to explain, viz., that in which the witnesses 
against one accused of crime punishable by death 
laid their hands on him (Lev 2414). This may be a 
reflex of the sacrificial laying on of hands as in (1), 
with the idea involved of devotion to death. On 
(2) and (3) see also Cuurcu Lirn, § 8; cf. also 
ORDAIN. A. C. Z. 


LAZARUS, laz’a-rus (Adtaeos, from Heb. Eleazar, 
‘God has helped’): 1. L. of Bethany. A friend of 
Jesus, and brother of Mary and Martha (Jo 111f.). 
He is not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, but his 
resurrection from the dead forms the climax of the 
miracles of Jesus recorded by John (11 1-44). He is 
described as subsequently making a feast for Jesus in 
Bethany, at which Mary anointed the Lord’s feet 
(121-8). Heis supposed, on account of the silence of 
Luke and the order in which the three are named in 
John (115), to have been the youngest of the family, 
the circle of whose acquaintance it is inferred was 
large (11 19), and their circumstances comfortable 


511 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Law and Legal Practise 
Lebanon 





(123). His name seems to be preserved in the desig- 
nation of Hl-Azariyeh, a village on the SE. of the 
Mount of Olives, about 134 m. from Jerusalem, 
which is generally identified with the ancient 
Bethany. 


His resurrection constituted the occasion for many 
Jews believing in Jesus, and also was the determin- 
ing cause of the Sanhedrin’s plot to put Jesus (and 
incidentally Lazarus) to death (11 45-53, 12 10). 
Much critical interest centers about this miracle, 
its problem being inseparably connected with the 
larger one of the authorship and historicity of the 
Fourth Gospel. Those who believe this Gospel to be 
purely an allegorical fiction take the story of Lazarus 
to be a free composition out of elements drawn from 
the Synoptic Gospels. His name is obtained from 
the beggar of the parable (Lk 16 19-31), and the whole 
is an attempt to present a demonstration of the 
truth of Abraham’s words in Lk 16 31, or a personi- 
fication of Paul’sin Ro 7 24, 8 20f. The personalities 
of the sisters, the practical Martha and the contem- 
plative Mary, are borrowed from Lk 10 38-42, and 
the details of the miracle are an enhancement of those 
of the raising of the daughter of Jairus (Mk 5 22 ff. 
and ||s), and of the son of the widow of Nain (Lk 
7 11 ff.). The supper is explained as a combination 
of the Bethany meal (Mt 26 6 #.; Mk 14 3 ff.), and 
the story of the anointing by the sinful woman in 
the house of Simon the Leper (Lk 7 36 ff.). The 
consensus of critical opinion to-day, however, is 
that there are many trustworthy data underlying the 
accounts of the Fourth Gospel (cf. Joon, GosPEL oF, 
§ 2), and that it is not to be considered, therefore, 
simply a religious and dogmatic allegory. In that 
case, the story of Lazarus contains trustworthy 
elements, even tho it may be difficult to determiné 
just how much is fact and how much is due to modi- 
fication and interpretation of the fact in the mind of 
the Evangelist. Obviously it is very difficult to 
explain the absolute silence of the Synoptic Gospels 
regarding Lazarus, containing references as they do 
to the two sisters and an anointing at Bethany, even 
tho we freely admit the partial character of the 
sources of these Gospels. It would seem that such 
an event with such consequences as are described in 
the Fourth Gospel could hardly escape notice. Yet, 
on the other hand, it is perhaps more difficult, once 
the hypothesis of pure allegory is abandoned psy- 
chologically to explain the story’s composition as 
an ideal construction by the Evangelist to illustrate 
his view of Christ as ‘the resurrection and the life.’ 
It is too stupendous for any personal follower of 
Jesus, at least, simply to have invented. Some his- 
torical foundation is required, and the underlying 
facts, whatever they are, most probably therefore 
belong to that body of trustworthy information 
regarding a ministry of Jesus in Judea which appears 
to have been known to the author of the Fourth 
Gospel alone. 2. L. of the Parable (Lk 16 19-31). A 
beggar pictured by Christ in contrast to an unnamed 
rich man to illustrate the truth of the words recorded 
in Lk 16 13, 15. Tho designated by name, he is 
probably a hypothetical personage. 


LirerRatuRy; See that cited under art. on Joun, GosprL or. 


Se-D.— Maw alt 


LEACH, LEECH. See Horsr-Lescu. 

LEAD. See Merats, § 6. 

LEAH, li’a (7182, lz’ah), ‘gazel,’ or ‘wild cow’: 
The daughter of Laban, and Jacob’s first wife 
through the father’s ruse (Gn 29 23). L. was the 
mother of six sons and one daughter (Gn 29 32 f.). 
She was buried in Machpelah (Gn 49 31). In Ru 411 
she is styled one of the builders of Israel. Under the 
name of Leah, traditions of large Aramean accre- 
tions to the original Hebrew stock have probably 
localized themselves (see Tripzs, § 2). 

A. 8. C.+—O. R. 8. 

LEANNOTH, lh-an’neth: A musical term from 
‘anah, ‘to sing’ (Ps 88, title) in the phrase ‘Mahalath- 
Leannoth,’ which would appear to be equivalent 
to ‘Mahalath, to be sung.’ But the meaning of 
‘Mahalath’ is unknown. See Psaums, Book or, § 3. 

BaZa 


LEASING: An old English word meaning ‘false- 
hood’ (Ps 4 2,56 AV). 


LEAVEN: The term which renders two Heb. 
words (s°’ dr, ‘ferment,’ and hdméts, ‘to be sour’) and 
one Gr. word (Gd), all of which are used to signify 
a lump of sour dough. The daily bread of the 
Hebrews was kneaded in a trough, and the yeast 
was added in the form of a small piece of dough. 
Bread prepared in a great hurry or in an emergency 
was unleavened (Gn 18 6; Ex 12 34). Leaven was 
absolutely prohibited in connection with the Pass- 
over and the Feast of Unleavened Bread (see Fasts 
AND Frasts, § 7), as well as in meal-offerings (Ex 
12 15; Lv 2 11, 6 17). At the Exodus unleavened 
bread was used on account of a pressing emergency 
(Ex 12 34-39), and the prohibition of leaven ever 
afterward was due to the sacred associations cling- 
ing about the first Passover. The Feast of Unleav- 
ened Bread being an agricultural festival, the un- 
leavened cakes represented the first-fruits unmixed 
with last year’s harvest. The exclusion of leaven 
from all sacrifices (Ex 28 18, 34 25 [JE]) and from 
meal-offerings (Lv 211, 617 [P]) was due to the feeling 
that fermentation was closely allied to putrefaction 
and corruption, a view that the Hebrews shared 
with other peoples of antiquity. The peace-offering 
(Lv 7 13) and the wave-loaves (Lv 23 17) are only 
apparent exceptions, as they were not placed upon 
the altar. In the N T leaven is usually regarded as a 
symbol of corruption, which has a mighty pervasive 
power (cf. I Co 5 6-9; Gal 59). In this sense Christ 
used the phrase ‘the leaven of the Pharisees and the 
leaven of Herod’ (Mk 815). In one of the parables 
the Savior uses it in a good sense, as an emblem of the 
pervasive power of the Kingdom of God (Mt 13 33 
and ||). In Rabbinical literature leaven is a symbol 
of evil desires, and in Jewish theology it is used 
figuratively for the inherited corruption of human 
nature. J. A. K: 


LEBANA, li-bé’na, LEBANAH, l-bé’na (7322, 
lebhdnah): The ancestral head of one of the divisions 
of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 45; Neh 7 48). 

LEBANON, leb’s-nen (11332, lbhanon [in Heb. 
prose with the art.], from labhén, ‘to be white,’ 
because of its appearance when the snow covers its 


Lebanon 
Leprosy 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


512 





summits, as it does for the greater part of the year, 
tho according to some it was the whiteness of its 
cliffs that gave L. its name): In general the double 
range of mountains running from NNE. to SSW. 
for about 95 m. from the plain of Jun Akkar on the 
N. to the turn of the river Litant westward and 
Banias on the S. The two parallel ranges are 
separated by a broad valley (the ancient Coele-Syria), 
narrowing toward its S. end, alluded to in the Bible, 








The geological constitution of the range is mainly 
threefold. The strata are irregular and faulty. The 
lowest of them is cretaceous (Glandaria limestone), 
the, middle consists of T’rigonia sandstone and the 
uppermost of Hippurite limestone. This last forms 
the summits. The foothills in the vicinity of the 
sea abound in chalk. The vast masses of limestone 
collect the rain and melted snow and yield it up in 
the form of innumerable springs where the sandstone 























Hovss or THE Forest or LEBANON—FRONT Evrvation. (After Stade.) (See also JeRusALEM, § 30.) 


as the Valley of Lebanon, and now called Buga‘-el- 
Aziz. By classical writers the W. range was named 
the Libanus and the E. the Anti-Libanus (cf. also 
Jth 17). In Biblical usage the two are given the 
same name (Dt 17, 3 25, 11 24; Jos 1 4,91). The 
whole mass abuts on the Mediterranean to the W. 
and slopes down into the plateau of Syria to the E. 
The average height of the range is not far from 
6,000 ft., rising, however, at the highest point (Mt 






|g 
= 
yy 





Y 








Zi, 





J ©00000060000000/ 


©©© 000000006000!) 








OOO OQOOOOGOOOOHOOO| 





© $ ° © 2 ¥ = Meters 


Ground-Plan of the House of the Forest of Lebanon. 
(After Stade.) 





Hermon) to 9,166 ft. The general structure of the 
Lebanon is rugged and irregular, except for the 
main direction of the chain of summits, and abounds 
in precipitous cliffs and hollows, which make it 
difficult for the traveler, and at the same time an 
easy hiding-place for the fugitive. This feature has 
made the Lebanon territory the home of such perse- 
cuted peoples as the Maronites and the Matawilé, 
as well as of such untamed and warlike races as the 
Amorites, the Itureans, and the Druses. 


intervenes. The scenery of the Lebanon is excep- 
tionally fine and has served as the basis of the poetical 
allusions in the Bible, which are many and richly 
colored. 

Politically, the Lebanon appears as a part of the 
ideal land of Israel (Jos 138 5; Dt 11 24), but was 
never conquered (Jg 3 3). The actual boundary of 
the land is, however, given as ‘Baal-Gad in the Valley 
of Lebanon’ (Jos 11 17). In other particulars the 
Lebanon is noted for its height, which makes it a 
place of outlook (Song 4 8), for its streams (Song 
4 15), its snowy summits (Jer 18 14), its fragrance 
(Song 4 11; Hos 147), probably the odor of its cedar 
forests; these are also mentioned on their own ac- 
count (Jg 9 15; Is 2 13, etc.) and poetically called 
‘the flower of Lebanon’ (Nah 1 4), ‘the glory of’ 
Lebanon’ (Is 35 2, 60 13). The ‘violence done to 
Lebanon’ is evidently the cutting down of these 
stately forests (Hab 217). Besides the cedars, ‘how- 
ever, large pines, firs, oaks, and cypress groves are 
to be found on the range; while the almond, the 
mulberry, the fig, the olive, the walnut, the apricot, 
the pear, the pomegranate, the pistachio, and the 
grapevine also flourish. Of animal life the region 
sustains, besides the domestic fauna, the mountain, 
or wild goat, the gazel, the panther, the bear, the 
jackal, the hyena, the boar, etc.; but these are rarely 
alluded to (cf. II K 149=IT Ch 2518). Whether the 
Tower of Lebanon in Song 7 4 was connected with 
Solomon’s royal House of the Forest of Lebanon 
(I K 7 2); see JERUSALEM, § 30, and Tremp Le, § 4), 
or was an independent structure, either real or 
imaginary, does not appear. Inthe N T no mention 
is made of Lebanon. A. C. Z. 


LEBAOTH, see BeTH-LEBAOTH; and BETH-BIRI. 
LEBBEUS, leb-bi’us. See THappvs. 


513 


LEB-KAMI, leb’’-ké/mai (*9P-22, lébh-qamday). A 
cryptic way of writing the pr. n. Kasdim (Chaldea) 
by the use of Athbash on which see SHESHACH (a 
similar case). Probably the cryptic spelling was not 
in the original text of Jer 51 1, but was a later gloss 
as the LXX. read ‘Kasdim.’ EK. E. N. 

LEBONAH, hi-bo’/na (7912?, lebhonah): A city of 
Ephraim near Shiloh (Jg 2119). Map III, F 4. 

LECAH, li’ka (7132, lékhah): Probably the name 
of a place inhabited by the Judahite clan Er (I Ch 
4 21). 

LEDGE. See Aurar, § 2; and Temple, §§15 and 
20. 

LEEK. See Pauusrine, § 23; and Foop anp Foop 
UTENSILS, § 3. 

LEES. See VINES AND VINTAGE, 2. 


LEGION (Aeytav, or Aeyedyv, from Lat. legio): | 


The unit of organization in the Roman army, con- 
sisting of a body of troops including both infantry 
and cavalry and varying in size, composition, and 
‘tactical arrangement at different periods. In the 
N T period a legion contained 5,000 to 6,000 men, 
all Roman citizens, composed of ten cohorts of six 
centuries each. The total military force of the 
empire consisted of twenty-five legions, of which 
four were stationed in Syria. See AvuGUSTUS. 
To each legion was attached a body of ‘auxiliary’ 
troops, also about 6,000 in number, not composed of 
Roman citizens, but of provincials, recruited in 
the provinces, and usually on service in some other 
province than the one to which they belonged. 
Cf. Tucker, Life in the Roman World of Nero and St. 
Paul (1911), pp. 838-360. The name ‘legion’ came 
to be used in Greek, Rabbinical Hebrew, and prob- 
ably in Palestinian Aramaic for any great number, 
and occurs in this sense, with perhaps the additional 
thought of obedience to a superior wili, in Mt 26 53; 
Mk 59 and |ls. 8. D.—E. E. N. 


LEHABIM, li-hé’bim. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND 
Erunovoey, § 13. 

LEHI, li’hai cm, lehi), ‘jaw-bone’: A place, as yet 
unidentified, somewhere in the northern Shephelah 
of Judah, famed as the scene of Samson’s single- 
handed slaughter of the Philistines with the jaw-bone 
of an ass (Jg 15 9-19; II S 23 11, where for ‘into a 
troop’ we should read ‘in Lehi’). Jg 1517-19 should be 
interpreted as follows: In the place known as 
Ramath-lehi (‘height of Lehi’) there wasa ‘hollow 
place’ or basin, in which there was a spring known 
as EHn-hakkore, ‘the spring of the one who calls’ (or, 
since qgéré’, ‘caller,’ means ‘partridge,’ ‘the partridge 
spring’). The text does not mean that the ‘hollow’ 
was in the Jaw-bone. See also Heaps, Hraps. Cf. 

‘Moore in JCC or Burney, Judges, ad loc. 

LEMUEL, lem’yu-el (78909, Iema’al [Pr 31 1], 

Rin? lemo’él [81 4], ‘belonging to God’: The name 
of a king to whom was attributed the poem in Pr 
31 2-9, formerly commonly identified with Solo- 
mon. RVmg. makes him king of Massa (cf. Gn 
25 14; I Ch 1 30), perhaps an unknown Arabian city 
(see Massah in ErHNOGRAPHY AND Ernouoey, § 18). 
Toy (ICC, ad loc.) considers the L. of ver. 4 a scribal 
repetition of the preceding letters. ate KES) 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Lebanon 
Leprosy 


LENDING. See Trapr AND COMMERCE, § 3. 


LENTILS. See Pauestinge, § 23; and Foop anp 
Foop UTEnsi1s, § 3. 


LEOPARD. See Pauestine, § 24. 


LEPROSY (OY 1%, tséra‘ath, or NYIS"Y, negha‘- 
tsdra‘ath, érea): 

1. Medical Definition. From the medical point 
of view, what is called leprosy in the Bible is not a 
single disease, but a group of essentially dissimilar 
diseases. ‘True leprosy, as known in modern times, is 
an affection characterized by the appearance of 
nodules in the eyebrows, the cheeks, the nose, and the 
lobes of the ears, also in the hands and feet, where 
the disease eats into the joints, causing the falling 
off of fingers and toes. If nodules do not appear, 
their place is taken by spots of blanched or dis- 
colored skin (macular leprosy). Two types of the 
disease are recognized which sometimes blend into 
a mixed form. The first affects the skin and works 
inward (tuberculous leprosy); the second is seated in 
the nerves and causes local anesthesia (anesthetic 
leprosy). ‘The latter advances much more slowly 
than the former, and may be arrested giving the 
appearance of having been healed. The cause of 
leprosy was discovered by Hansen in 1871 to be a 
specific bacillus. Defective diet, however, seems to 
serve as a favorable condition for the culture of the 
bacillus. 

2. Ceremonial Uncleanness of Leprosy. Leprosy 
was one of the few abnormal conditions of the body 
which the Levitical law declared unclean. Elaborate 
provision was therefore made for testing its exis- 
tence, and for the purification of those who were cured 
of it. As to the description of the disease, it is 
rather external and conventional than scientific. 
Both in the diagnosis and the prescription for cere- 
monial treatment the term used is generic, and 
includes other ailments which fall outside the correct 
modern definition of leprosy. It would be wrong, 
however, to infer that the whole subject is treated 
without any effort at discrimination. On the con- 
trary, Lv ch. 13 deals with it in a somewhat sys- 
tematic manner. 

3. Distinctions. As a subject for ceremonial treat- 
ment, leprosy is given the general name of ‘plague 
[‘stroke’] of leprosy.’ It is then divided into three 
kinds, as it might affect (1) the human skin, (2) 
articles of clothing, or (3) houses. So far as it ap- 
pears in the human body, two stages in its develop- 
ment are marked, the incipient and the confirmed. 
In the incipient stage it was possible to mistake for it 
several other diseased conditions. Hence the pro- 
vision that, when a suspicious case appeared, it must 
be brought to the priest to be tested (Lv 13 2, 9, etc.). 


| From the moment, however, that the priest began 


his inspection and failed to declare his subject clean, 
the person under test was designated a leper, and 
considered unclean (Lv 13 3, 20, etc.). 

4. Test of Leprosy. In the incipient stage leprosy 
was only constructively such, and might be cured. 
According to its development, which was scrutinized 
and judged by the priest, it might be declared (1) 
a ‘scab’ (sappahath, psoriasis, Lv 13 2), (2) tsdra‘ath- 
nosheneth, false (‘old’) leprosy (Lv 18 11), (3) anin- 


Leprosy 
Liberty, Christian 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


514 





flamed cicatrix (‘scar of the boil,’ tsérebheth hash- 
shthin, Lv 18 23, ‘burning boil’ AV), (4) a scar of a 
former burn (s’éth hammikhwah, Lv 18 28), (5) a 
scalled-head (netheg, ‘ringworm,’ (Lv 13 37), (6) a 
tetter’ (bdhaq, Lv 138 39), or (7) a baldness (gibbéah, 
Lv 18 41). But any of these abnormal conditions 
might turn into a permanent leprosy, in which case 
the subject was required to be isolated, have dis- 
tinctive signs by which he might be recognized, and 
be regarded as unclean (Lv 18 45 f.). For the puri- 
fication of this uncleanness a special ceremonial was 
provided (Lv ch. 14. See also under Pouriry, 
PURIFICATION, § 12 (8) ). 

5. Leprosy of Clothing. The leprosy of clothing, as 
far as it can be identified, was the result of a fungus, 
or mildew, produced by unknown causes. It was to 
be tested for a week, and if persistent, the garment 
was to be burned (Lv 13 47-59). 

6. Leprosy of Houses. The leprosy of a house 
(Lv 14 33-57) is also hard to identify. It is described 
as consisting in hollow streaks, greenish, or reddish, 
in color, and lower than the wail, 7.e., as if issuing 
from its interior portions. It is probable that ‘dry 
rot’ is meant. Its treatment involved the scraping 
or removal of part of the wall, the carrying of the 
dust to a place for refuse, the replastering or rebuild- 
ing of the destroyed portion of the house, and the 
ceremonial cleansing of it as a whole (Lv 14 48-53). 

7. Instances of Leprosy in the O T. Altho so 
carefully provided for in the ritual law, leprosy does 
not appear to have been of frequent occurrence in 
actual experience in the Bible. And the untechnical 
use of language about it renders it difficult to judge 
as to the special type in each case recorded. Of these 
cases, that of Naaman (II K 51 ff.) was probably 
not one of true leprosy. It covered his whole body 
and was white in appearance. These are more ap- 
proximately the symptoms of psoriasis. Not enough 
is said of Miriam (Nu 12 10) and the four lepers of 
Samaria (II K 7 8) to convey a clear idea of their 
types. That of Uzziah (II K 15 5; II Ch 26 19) was 
plainly an instance of the genuine incurable disease. 

8. Leprosy inthe N T. Inthe N T the disease is 
included among those healed by Jesus in his daily 
ministry as the Messiah (Mt 108, 115; Lk 4 27, 7 22). 
Two instances of healings of leprosy are specifically 
recorded, viz., that of the man who by his too exu- 
berant gratitude for being cleansed prevented Jesus’ 
admission into a certain city and obliged him to 
withdraw into the wilderness (Mt 8 2; Mk 1 42; 
Lk 512), and that of the ten from among whom only 
one, a Samaritan, came back to express his gratitude. 
In healing leprosy Jesus was careful to lay stress 
not only on the healing act, but also on the cere- 
monial cleansing which restored the subject to social 
relationships. (Cf. in general Benzinger, Heb. 
Archdologie®, 1907, pp. 79, 92, 186, 377, 412; and see 
DisEASE AND Mepicinp, §4 (8), and III. A.C. Z. 

LESHEM, li’Shem. See Latsx. 


LETTER. See Booxs anp Writtnea, § 2; and 
EPISTLE. 

LETUSHIM, l-tii’Sshim. See ErHNoGRAPHY AND 
ErHNoLoey, § 18. 

LEUMMIM, h-vum’im. See EraNoGRAPHY AND 
ErHNnouoey, § 13. 





LEVI, li’vai. See Marraew; Prmsruoop, § § 8 
and 9; and Trrex, Tripgs, § § 3 and 4. 

LEVIATHAN, li-vai's-than (1972%, liwyathan): A 
mythological figure, popularly believed to cause 
eclipses of the sun and moon by swallowing these 
luminaries or by throwing its folds around them. 
The monster was supposed to be subject to en- 
chanters who could rouse it to perform its feat. 
They were therefore alluded to.as those that ‘cursed 
the day’ Job 38; ef. Davidson, Camb. Bible, ad loc.). 
In Ps 74 14 and Is 27 1 it is the symbol of Egypt as 
the great devourer. In Job ch. 41 the reference is 
to the crocodile. A. C. Z. 


LEVITICUS, h-vit’i-kus: 1. Name. The fourth 
book of the Pentateuch, called by the Jews, from its 
opening words, wayyigrd’, ‘and he (J’’) called.’ 
The Greek-speaking Alexandrian Jews called it, from 
the general character of its contents, Acuittxdéy, 1.e., 
‘the Levitical [book],’ which the Vulgate rendered by 
Leviticus. 

2. Lv a Part of the Priestly Element (P) of the 
Hexateuch. The real character of Ly is revealed 
when it is perceived that it is but a portion of that 
long section of the priestly law and history book 
([P] see Hexarrevucn, § 5) which deals with the or- 
ganization of the worship at Mt. Sinai. This section 
begins at Ex 24 15b-18a, is continued in Ex 25 1-31 18a 
(the command concerning the making of the Sanc- 
tuary), and in chs. 35-39 (the making of the Taber- 
nacle). Here begins the story of the institution of 
the worship of Israel, which can be outlined as fol- 
lows: 

1. The general command regarding the setting up of the 

Sanctuary and the initiation of the Priesthood (Ex 40 115), 
2. The erection of the Sanctuary and the first services (Moses 

in charge on the first day) (Ex 40 17-8), 

[Insertion—The sacrificial manual, Lv chs. 1-7.] 

3. The initiation of the Aaronic Priesthood and related mat- 

ters continuing the narrative of Ex 40 %3 (Lv chs. 8-10). 

(a) Aaron and his sons formally inducted into the priestly 

office (Lv ch. 8 f.), according to the directions in Ex ch. 
29 and 40 12-16, 

(b) The death of Nadab and Abihu (Lv 10 !1)), with addi- 
tional legal prescriptions in vs. 12720, 

[Insertion—A code concerning ceremonial purity, Lv 

chs. 11-15.]} 

Legislation following the death of Nadab and Abihu— 

the Day of Atonement (Lv ch. 16). 

{Insertion—The Holiness Code (Lv chs. 17-26), with a 

supplement concerning vows (ch. 27).] 

The large section of P, to which all this belongs, is continued 
in Nu, concluding at Nu 10 !° 

Disregarding the obvious connection with P and 
viewing it as a book by itself, Lv may be divided into 
four parts. I. The manual of offerings (chs. 1-7). 
II. The consecration of the Priesthood (chs. 8-10). 
III. The laws of ceremonial purity (chs. 11-16). IV. 
The law of holiness (chs. 17-27). 

3. Relative Age of the Various Strata in Lv. 
It is generally recognized to-day that the extensive 
literature known as the P element of the Hexateuch 
went through a complicated process of editing before 
it attained its present form. Evidence of such edit- 
ing is abundant in Ly. Space allows the mention here 
of only a few of the most important instances. (1) 
In the manual of offerings (chs. 1-7). This manual 
at present consists of two parts, the general directions 
for the five principal offerings (1 1-67), and a manual 
for priests (6 8-7 38). It will be noticed that in the 


(ce 


— 


515 A NEW STANDARD 


first part of the main introductory portion formulas 
differ remarkably. In 1 3, 10, 14 (for the burnt-offer- 
ing) and 31, 6, 12 (for the peace-offering) the regular 
formula is, ‘If his oblation be . . . he shall’; but 
in 2 4-16 the formula uses ‘thou’ and ‘ye,’ while in 
1 2, 21-3 and in 41-67 the formulas are of a less dis- 
tinctive character. Such facts as these may indicate 
that in 1 3-17 and 3 1-17, dealing with the two oldest 
and main classes of offerings, we have the oldest 
form or original content of this manual, which was 
then supplemented by ch. 2 and later by the addi- 
tion of 41-67, and still later by 6 8-7 38 (which itself 
seems to be composed of earlier and later elements). 
If the reader will compare this manual with other 
sections of the Pentateuch covering, in part at least, 
essentially the same ground, as, e.g., Nu 15 1-31, he 
will discover for himself the existence of other and 
quite different sacrificial codes besides the compre- 
hensive one found here. (2) In Part III, the laws of 
ceremonial purity, perhaps the clearest evidence of 
strata of different dates, is found in chs. 11 and 16. 
In ch. 11 we have the law regarding clean and un- 
clean animals. This same subject is covered in the 
Code of Dt (14 3-21). In Lv ch. 11 the order of 
treatment is: (a) Quadrupeds which are ‘unclean’ 
(vs. 2-8); (b) water-animals which are ‘abomination’ 
(shegets) (vs. 9-12); (c) birds which are ‘abomination’ 
(vs. 13-19); (d) winged insects which are ‘abomination’ 
(vs. 20-23); (e) defilement by contact with carcasses 
(vs. 24-28); (f) creeping things and reptiles which are 
‘unclean,’ and contamination from them (vs. 29-38); 
(g) defilement from contact with carcasses (vs. 
39-40); (h) creeping things which are ‘abomination’ 
(vs. 41-45). In Dt 14 3-21 the order is: (a) Not to eat 
anything ‘abominable’ (t6‘@bhah) (ver. 3); (b) quad- 
rupeds that may (clean) and may not (unclean) be 
eaten (vs. 4-8); (c) the water-animals that may and 
may not be eaten (vs. 9-10); (d) the birds that may 
and may not be eaten (vs. 11-20); (e) that which dies 
of itself may not be eaten (ver. 21). It is evident that 
the whole section in Dt is much simpler than the 
corresponding one in Lv, and also that in Lv there 
are really two sets of prescriptions, one using the 
term ‘unclean’ (as in Dt), the other using the term 
‘abomination’ (shegets) (not in Dt). These and other 
facts seem to indicate that in Dt we find the earlier 
and simpler law on this subject, and that the form 
in Ly is based on an old source, which has been 
supplemented by later additions. Ch. 16, in the 
main, forms a fitting conclusion to the preceding 
material in chs. 11-15. The command for an atoning 
ceremony, covering all phases of sin in the nation as 
a whole, might well conclude the group of laws on 
ceremonial purity. But in ch. 16, as it now stands, 
there is interwoven another set of prescriptions which 
have to do with Aaron and his sons alone and by 
ver. 1 are connected with ch. 10. These prescriptions 
(found in vs. 1, 3, 6, 11, etc.) are probably later addi- 
tions to the original law. (8) Part IV, The Holiness 
Code, also appears to be made up of different strata. 
A general analysis of this code will be found in the 
article Hexareucsu, § 23 and need not be repeated 
here. If this analysis be compared with the Code of 
Dt (see Drurnronomy, § § 2, 4), it will be found 
that the two present many striking similarities, 


Leprosy 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Liberty, Christian 


enough to suggest that both have been modeled on 
the earlier code in Ex 20 22-23 end, altho their many 
differences also show that they are independent of 
each other. Within this code, many passages may 
be found which are either contrary to or only loosely 
connected with the context, and have all the appear- 
ance of being added to the original code. Thus in 
ch. 23 a large amount (vs. 1-8, 21, 23-38, 39a, c, and 44) 
seems to belong more naturally with the later and 
more precise (as to fixed dates, etc.) priestly material 
(that forms the main thread of P) than with the 
earlier and more vague specifications that are 
characteristic of the original Holiness Code. The 
same differences can be noted in chs. 17, 21 f., and 
24 f. (for detailed examination and proof, see Driver 
LOT*®, pp. 47 ff.). Ch. 27 is not a part of this code, 
but a later piece of legislation (P), dealing with the 


estimation and commutation of vows, consecrated 


things, and tithes. In its original form, the Holi- 

ness Code probably antedated Ezekiel. This prophet 

seems to have been well acquainted with it (or its 
constituent elements, in case it was compiled after 
his date), and largely influenced by it. (See also 

HEXATEUCH, § 24.) 

4. General Character of Lv. Lv is thus a book in 
which materials originating in widely separated 
periods are found closely woven together. In 
general, the earlier portions are marked by greater 
simplicity, less preciseness in details and specifica- 
tions, a closer touch with the old agricultural type of 
life, less emphasis on ceremonialism per se, and more 
on morality and spirituality. The moral character 
of the Holiness Code is especially high. ‘Holiness to 
Jehovah’ is here more than mere formalism. In the 
later portions the rigid ceremonialism of the later 
Judaism is more manifest and the cultus is made all- 
important. 

Literature: Driver, LOT; Paton in JBL (1895); Baentsch, 
Das Heiligkeits-gesetz (1893); Harford-Battersby in HDB, 
vol. ili, art. Leviticus; Carpenter-Harford, The Composition 
of the Hexateuch (1902); A. T. Chapman, Introd. to ithe Pent. 


(in Camb. Bible) (1911); E. 8. Brightman, The Sources of the 
Hexateuch (1918). IN’ 


LEVY. See Sotomon, § 3; and Tax, Taxarion. 
LIBERTINES. See SYNAGOG OF THE LIBERTINES. 


LIBERTY, CHRISTIAN: This term is used to 
denote the breadth of action allowed the believer 
as distinguished from the non-believer. The nearest 
approach to the conception in the O T is that under- 
lying the release from obligation and penalty, which 
was provided for in the law of the Sabbatical year of 
Jubilee (q.v.) (derér, Lv 25 10; Is 611; Jer 34 8 £.). 
Furthermore, he who serves J” is conscious of an 
advantage in this particular (Ps 119 45). In the 
N T the new light on the inner relationship of the 
believer with God reveals liberty to be one of the 
essential results of faith (Jn 8 32 f.). In general, this 
larger range for the play of human activity is viewed 
as obliterating restraints created by other conditions. 
Bondage and slavery in the political sense cease to 
be sources of distress to the possessor of Christian 
liberty (I Co 7 21; Col 3 11). This liberty consists 
in the change of attitude toward the law, whereby 
conduct becomes loving conformity to the will of 
the Father, instead of constrained obedience to 
arbitrary prescriptions (cf. ‘against such there is no 


Libnah 
Lintel 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


516 





law’ Gal 5 23; also Ro 7 3; Gal 2 4, 51). Moreover, 
the principle of sin as a dominant force over conduct 
loses its compelling power. To this extent the 
believer is free from sin (Ro 6 18, 8 2). The added 
knowledge gained by the believer enables him to see 
many actions as indifferent, and therefore to be 
done or not, according to his pleasure (I Co 10 23-29). 
This is ‘the perfect law of hberty’ (Ja 1 25), which, 
however, places upon its subject the responsibility 
of guarding against its misuse and abuse (Gal 5 13; 
I P 216). AL OLS: 
LIBNAH, lib’na (732°, libhnah) ‘whiteness’: 1. 
The third station after Hazeroth (Nu 33 20 f.), per- 
haps identical with Laban (Dt 11). 2. A town in the 
Shephelah, probably a member of the coalition 
against Gibeon defeated by Joshua (Jos 10 29 f.). 
It was made a priestly city (Jos 2113). Apparently 
lying S. of Lachish, it joined in the revolt of Edom 
against Judah (II K 8 22). In the days of Hezekiah 
it was evidently a strongly fortified town, and re- 
quired the attention of Sennacherib in order to 
secure his base of operations against Jerusalem 
(II K 19 8; Is 37 8). L. was the birthplace of the 
wife of Josiah, the mother of Jehoahaz and Zedekiah 
(II K 23 31, 2418). MapI, C9. A.S.C.*—O.R.S. 
LIBNI, lib’nai (222, libhnt): 1. The ancestral 
head of one of the divisions of the Gershonite Levites, 
the Libnites (Ex 6 17; Nu 8 18-21, etc.). Also called 


Ladan (q.v.). 2. Another Levite, the grandson of 
Merari (I Ch 6 29). 


LIBYA, lib’i-a (A:@én): The name of the large 
territory which included in ancient times Cyrenaica 
in the W. and Marmarica in the E.; the whole of 
L., therefore, lay between Egypt (the Delta) and the 
Roman province of Africa. Accordingly, the ‘parts 
of Libya about Cyrene’ (Ac 2 10) meant the western 
portion of the country. In the O T, L. is the AV 
translation of the Heb. pit (Ezk 305, 385). Libyans 
is the rendering of put (Jer 469 AV, ‘Put’ RV) and 
of labhim (Dn 11 43); tho this word is rendered 
‘Lubim’ in II Ch 16 8 and Nah 39. See Erunoc- 
RAPHY AND Erunouoey, § §7 and 13. A.C. Z. 


LICE. See PAaLestine, § 26; and PLacuss. 
LIE. See CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 (b). 


LIEUTENANTS: The AV rendering of the Heb. 
transliteration (DIBVIWOS, ’dhashdarp*nim, LEzr 
8 36; Est 312, 89, 9 3), of the Persian khshatrapdan, the 
original of the Gr. catedays, ‘satrap,’ ‘governor.’ 
See SaTRAP. 


LIFE: This term is used in the English Bible to 
render a number of different Heb. and Gr. words, 
each of which has its own special significance. (1) 
In the O T the proper and most frequent term is hay, 
‘life,’ used (both as noun and adj.) almost exclusively 
of men and animals, and with reference to the 
principle of animate existence—in the case of man 
often of sentient existence—in contrast with that 
which is inanimate or dead. Consequently, even 
running water or spring water, in contrast with stag- 
nant or cistern water, is spoken of as ‘living’ (cf. 
Gn 26 19; Lv 14 6, etc.). The noun, when rendered 
‘life,’ is generally in the plural (the so called abstract 
plural). As examples of the more general use of the 


term, cf. Gn 27 (‘breath of life’), $, 3 22, 715. In 
some cases it is the period of conscious existence 
that is meant (Gn 3 14, 7 11), in others, life as affected 
by external conditions is the main idea (Ex 1 14), 
especially the ideal happy or blessed condition on 
earth, in which God’s favor is manifest (Dt 30 15, 
19 f., 82 47; Ps 30.5; Pr 219). Inone case at least it is 
one’s consciousness of his own condition, or state of 
his feelings, that is meant (Job 33 20). A special, 
but frequent, use of the term is in oaths, at times 
when God swears by Himself (Nu 14 21, 28; Dt 32 40; 
Jer 46 18), or when man swears by God (Ru 313;18S 
14 39, 45, etc.) or, with a slight change in the Heb. 
pronunciation (héy instead of hay), when man swears 
by some other man (Gn 42 15 f.; 1S 1 26; ILS 15 21, 
etc.). In all such cases the word is really used as a 
predicate adjective. (For the combination of hayyah 
[the fem. adj.] with nephesh, see the following.) (2) 
The word nephesh, frequently rendered ‘life,’ signi- 
fies the physical principle of life, which was some- 
times located in the breath (Gn 27; in Job 41 21 it is 
rendered ‘breath’), but more generally in the blood 
(Gn 9 4; Lv 17 14; Dt 12 23, etc.). The more usual 
rendering of this term is ‘soul’ (which can be under- 
stood in more than one sense), but where it is ren- 
dered ‘life,’ it is nearly always the physical existence 
that is intended (Gn 9 4f., 1917; Dt 19 21, etc.). Fre- 
quently a broader meaning is given to the term 
(e.g., Gn 44 30), and at times ‘soul’ would seem to be 
a better rendering than ‘life’ (e.g., Pr 6 26). The 
combination nephesh hayyah, rendered ‘living crea- 
ture’ (Gn 1 20), indicates, when used of man (e.g., 
Gn 27), the individual entity, the seat of personality, 
which, tho originating with the Divine breath being 
breathed into the material form, is not altogether 
destroyed when, at death, man returns ‘unto dust’ 
(Gn 3 19). See also Man, Docrrine oF, § § 1-8. 
(3) yamim, ‘days,’ is rendered ‘life’ in I K 3 u1; 
II Ch 1 11; Ps 616, 9116. (4) In Job 715 AV ‘life’ 
renders ‘etsem, ‘bone’; cf. RV. (5) In the N T, 
Cw is the equivalent of the O T hay. It is used to 
indicate conscious existence, especially in its higher 
moral and spiritual aspects. Of this God alone is 
the ultimate source; then, derivatively from God, its 
source is the Word (this only in Jn), and then in the 
Word Incarnate, Jesus Christ (Jn 1 4, 414, 5 26, 6 35, 
14 6; cf. Col 1 15-17). Consequently, it often means 
the true life of the soul as found in communion with 
God, and the enjoyment of this throughout eternity 
(Mt 714, 188 f., Lk 1215; Jn passim). (6) The N T 
ux is the equivalent of the O T nephesh, ‘physical 
life,’ altho in Mk 8 35 and ||s the term is used in a 
double sense, indicative of the higher and lower 
aspects of the soul’s life. The more usual rendering 
of ux} in the N T is ‘soul.’ (7) The term foc, 
meaning the external aspects of life, its material 
benefits or enjoyments, its affairs, also its period, 
occurs a few times in the N T (Lk 814; I Ti 2 2; II Ti 
24;IJn216). (8) In Rev 1315 AV xvedpa, ‘breath,’ 
is rendered ‘life,’ cf. RV. See also in general Man, 
DocrrinE or; and Escuarouoey. K. E. N. 


LIFE, BOOK OF: This phrase is used to denote 
the record of the privileges of God’s people. God’s 
‘book’ (Ex 32 32; Ps 56 8, 139 16) is the emblem of His 
remembrance and guardianship of His people (ef. 


517 A NEW STANDARD 


Mal 316). It is also called the ‘book of life’ (Ps 69 28, 
‘the living’ RVmg.; Ph 43). The phrase is based on 
the custom of enrolling citizens for various purposes, 
e.g., as ‘childless,’ Jer 22 30; for identification of 
pedigree, Neh 7 5, 64, 12 22; for safeguarding of 
rights, Is 4 3; Ezk 139 (spiritual analog, Lk 10 20). 
From the O T usage was developed the apocalyptic 
conception of a special ‘Book of Life’ to be used at 
the last Judgment (Dn 121; Rev 3 5, 13 8, 17 8, 20 12, 
15, 21 27; cf. Hth. En. 47 3, 108 3). A. C. Z. 


LIGHT: The rendering of a number of Heb. and 
Gr. terms: I. Terms relating to natural or physical 
light. (1) ’ér (both verb and noun), used primarily 
of the physical phenomenon, either generally as 
created by or emanating from God (Gn 1 3; Job 
38 19), or as opposed to darkness (Gn 1 4, 5; Ex 10 23, 
ete.), or specifically, of daylight, or the morning 
light (Jg 19 26; 1S 14 36; II K 79, etc.), of the light 
of the sun (Job 31 26, cf. RV, 37 21; Hab 3 4), of the 
heavenly bodies (Ps 136 7), of the lightning (Job 
36 32), or in the simple sense of ‘brightness,’ or 
‘shining’ (Job 41 18; Is 13 10, 30 26, etc.). This term 
is often used figuratively: (a) Of the guidance, 
strength, and comfort vouchsafed by God to those 
who trust Him (Job 22 28, 29 3; Ps 27 1, etc.); so in 
the expression ‘the light of thy countenance,’ where 
the idea of communion with God is also set forth 
(Ps 4 6, 44 3, 89 15); (b) as the equivalent of physical 
life (Job 3 16, 20; Ps 49 19, etc.), or of the true moral 
life (Job 2413; Pr 418, ete.). (2) ma@’6r, ‘alight giver,’ 
used of the planets, sun and moon (Gn 1 14-16), and 
of the lamps in the Tabernacle (Ex!25 6, 27 20, etc.), 
less specifically in Ps 74 16, 90 8; Pr 15 30). (3) nar, 
in various derivative forms nér, nir, etc., used in 
AV, ‘lamp’ RV) of David (II S 21 17), of the con- 
tinuance of his dynasty (I K 11 36; II K 819; IIT Ch 
217); and in a more literal sense in Dn 2 22, 5 11, 14; 
Job 34. (4) ndghah, ‘brightness’ (Is 50 10). On the 
AV of [K 74f. andIs8 20cf. RV. (5) Inthe N T 
the principal term is 96s, which corresponds to ’6r 
in the O T. Besides its use in a physical sense, 
metaphorically the term stands for the highest form 
of spiritual and moral life of which God is the source 
(I Jn 1 5, 7), and is mediated to man through the 
Word—Jesus Christ (Jn 1 4 #f., etc.). Consequently, 
the saving truth of God and the Christian character 
and life, which expresses it, is called light (Mt 5 14; 
Jn 319 £.; Ro 13 12; Eph 5 8, etc.). Related to 9c 
are the nouns gwortve, literally ‘light-giver,’ used 
of beacon-lights, metaphorically in Ph 2 15, but 
perhaps more literally in Rev 21 11, and guttowéc, 
‘illumination’ (II Co 4 4, 6), the verb guwtttety, ‘to 
give light to’ (Jn 19; I Co 4 5, etc.), and the adj. 
pwtetvdg (Mt 6 22; Lk 11 34 ff.). (6) Adyvoc, ‘lamp’ 
RV (Mt 6 22; Lk 11 34, 12 35; Jn 5 35; II P 1 19; 
Rev 21 23). (7) Aaunrée, ‘torch,’ then ‘lamp’ (Ac 
20 8); and the related verb A&éurety, ‘to give light as 
a torch’ (Mt 5 15). (8) ¢éryos, ‘the light (of some 
bright object)’ (Mt 24 29, etce.). (9) The verbs xatety, 
‘to burn’ (Mt 5 15), &rety, ‘to kindle’ (Lk 8 16, 11 33, 
15 8), éxtoatverv, ‘to shine upon’ RV (Lk 1 79), and 
émtgatoxety, ‘to shine upon’ RV (Eph 5 14). O. 
Terms relating to weight. (I) From qdlal, ‘to be 
light’? (I K 12 4, etc.), we have qdl, of agility and 
swift-footedness (II S 2 18), and the verb itself, in 


Libnah 
Lintel 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
the sense of ‘to consider insignificant’ (I S 18 23; I K 
16 31; II K 318, 2010; Is 49 6; Ezk 817), and q*ldgél, in 
the sense of ‘unsatisfactory,’ possibly ‘contempti- 
ble’ (Nu 21 5). (2) pdhaz, ‘unreliable’ (Jg 9 4; 
Zeph 3 4). (3) dwereiv, ‘to be careless’ (Mt 22 5). 
(4) éXapeds (Mt 11 30; II Co 417). II. Terms relat- 
ing to motion. (1) ydradh, ‘to come, or go dawn’ 
(Jg 4 15; IS 25 23 AV, etc.). (2) naphal, ‘to fall’ 
(Gn 24 64; IT K 5 21 AV; 1s 98). (3) pagha‘, ‘to chance 
upon’ (Gn 28 11). On Mt 3 i6 and Rev 7 16 cf. RV. 

K. E. N. 
LIGNALOES, lig-nal’6z or lain-al’6z. See ALozs. 
LIGURE, lig’yur. See Stonzs, Pructous, § 2. 
LIKHI, lik’hai (""P?, light): The head of a Manas- 
site family (I Ch 7 19). 
LILY. Sce PAuestine, § 22; also Tmempie, § 14. 
LIME (T°, stdh): In Is 33 12, Am 21 reference is 

“made to the process of securing lime from its com- 
pounds by intense heat. In these passages it is used 
figuratively to mean complete destruction. In Dt 
27 2, 4, the Heb. word is translated ‘plaster,’ to desig- 
nate the substance made from lime, and put on 
walls to secure a smooth surface for decorating. 

CLs at: 

LINE: (1) hebhel, strictly, a ‘cord’ or ‘rope,’ then 
a ‘measuring-line,’ as in II S 8 2; Am 7 17; Zec 21. 
This word is often rendered ‘portion’ or lot, and 
its metaphorical meaning in Ps 16 6 rests on the more 
literal use of the word for that portion of J’’’s land, 
measured by line, which was each Israelite’s patri- 
mony. (2) gaw, and geweh (from qdwéah, ‘to be 
stretched,’ ‘fixed,’ or ‘strong’), a line, especially one 
used for measuring (I K 7 23; II K 21 13; Is 28 17; 
Jer 31 39, etc.). In Is 28 10 and 13 it is doubtful 
whether the Heb. gaw ldq@w should be rendered 
‘line upon line,’ as these syllables are probably 
mere imitations of the thick, foolish utterance of 
the drunkard. A derivative of gawah, tiqwah, is found 
in Jos 2 18, 21. (8) hut, ‘cord,’ or ‘thread,’ is ren- 
dered line inI K 715. (4) pathil (from pdthal, ‘to 
twist’) is rendered ‘line’ but once (Ezk 40 3; cf. Gn 
38 18, 25; Ezk 40 3; Jg 169, etc.). (5) seredh, in Is 
44 13,is of doubtful meaning. The RV pencil is 
probably correct, but not certain. (6) xavav (II Co 
10 16) is strictly a ‘reed,’ then a rod for measuring, 
and then came to be used in the sense of ‘limit,’ 
or ‘bounds.’ The RV ‘province’ is a fair interpreta- 
tion. HK. E. N. 


LINEN: The various words translated ‘linen’ 
in the O T are for the most part of somewhat un- 
certain meaning, and possibly in some cases varieties 
of cotton as well as of linen are meant. Where the 
Heb. word is pishteh, ‘flax,’ the meaning ‘linen’ is 
practically certain (Lv 13 47-49; Jer 131; Ezk 44 171.). 
sddhin (Jg 1412 f.; Pr 31 24; Is 3 23) means a square 
linen garment, something like a robe, that could be 
used as a wrapper, made probably of fine material. 
In I K 10 28, If Ch 116 RV has the correct reading. 
The N T terms present no difficulty, all meaning 
linen of various degrees of fineness. See also. FINE 
LinEN; and Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 5. EH. E. N. 


LINTEL: In I K 6 31 the meaning of the Heb. 
term ’ayilis very uncertain. RVmg. suggests ‘posts,’ 
but ‘projection’ may be nearer the truth. The verse 


Linus 
Lord’s Prayer, The 





then would mean that the door-opening was pentag- 
onal in form, thus: ‘Kal See illustration of front 


elevation, Solomon’s Temple, under art. TEMPLE. 
On Am 91 and Zeph 2 14, cf. RV. See also Houss. 
EK. E. N. 


LINUS, lai’nus (Atvoc): One of four persons send- 
ing greetings to Timothy in II Ti 4 21. Since the 
name is a comparatively rare one (only in C/G, No. 
8518; I. Sic. et Ital. No. 2276) much is to be said for 
Ireneus’ identification of L. with the successor of 
Peter and Paul (Adv. Her. III, 3 3; ef. Eus. HE, 
III, 2; V, 6). According to the Ap. Const. (VII, 46) 
L. was the husband, or son, of Claudia (Alvog 6 
Kiavd{as), who is mentioned in the same salutation 
in II Ti 4 21. JOM. T. 


LION. See PALEstTine, § 24. 


LITTER: The translation of the Heb. word tsdbh 
in Is 66 20. The same word occurs in Nu 7 3 with 
‘aghalah (‘wagon’), where it indicates that the 
wagons were covered like palanquins. By itself the 
term meant ‘a covered conveyance,’ constructed so 
that it could be carried by two mules, one in front 
and one behind. Eee ae 


LIVER. The expression ‘till an arrow (dart, AV) 
strike through his liver’ (Pr 7 23) is probably figura- 
tive, not a specific reference to any disease. For 
special conceptions regarding and uses of the liver, 
see SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 10; Man, Doc- 
TRINE OF, § 8; and Maaic anp Divination, § 4. 


LIVING CREATURE (pl. hayydth; in N T, Céov; 
‘beast’ AV): 

1. In the Bible. The name given to a symbolical 
figure first presented in Ezekiel’s vision (Ezk 1 5 f.), 
and again in Rev 4 6-9, 5 6, 8, 11, 61, 3, 5-7). The 
dependence of the latter on the former is quite 
manifest, tho the figure is worked over with a con- 
siderable amount of originality. The LX X. transla- 
tion of the Heb. word in Ezk is the link of connection 
between the two. The figure is composite. It con- 
tains a human element and elements drawn from the 
world of lower animal life, either terrestrial or aerial. 
In Ezk 101 #., the living creatures are called ‘cheru- 
bim’; but as cherubim, they differ from those which 
symbolize the Divine presence in the construction 
of the Mercy Seat (I K 6 23 ff.; see also CHmRUBIM). 

2. Extra-Biblical Parallels. The affinity between 
these ‘living creatures’ and the winged bulls, the 
sphinx, and the griffin of extra-Biblical lore is most 
unmistakable. But only with the winged bull of the 
Assyrian cult is the relation such as to call for ex- 
planation. And here it is not difficult to see that, 
whereas the form of the Biblical living creature is 
derived from Mesopotamia, the use made of it is 
radically different. The Biblical figure represents 
the highest elements of creation, as ministering to 
and worshiping the Creator. They are never, as in 
Mesopotamia, themselves objects of homage or 
worship. A. C. Z. 


LIZARD. See PaA.zestine, § 26; and Foop anp 
Foop UTENSILS, § 9. 


LOAF, LOAVES See Foop ann Foop UTENSILS, 
§ 2. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


518 





LO-AMMI, 16’’-am’‘ai. The symbolic name of 
Hosea’s third child (Hos 1 9). See Ami, and 
Hosspa, § 2. 


LOCK. See Houss, § 6 (1); and Crry, § 3. 


LOCUST or GRASSHOPPER: A migratory insect 
of which forty different species are known to exist in 
Palestine (Tristram, The Natural History of the 
Bible,’ 1889, pp. 306 ff.), tho the Rabbis assert that 





Locust (Oedipoda migratoria). 


there are as many as 800 species. Those named in 
the O T, without strict regard to scientific classifica- 
tion, are the following: (1) ’arbeh, ‘multiplier’ (Ex 
10 4-6; Lv 11 22). (2) sol‘am, bald locust (Lv 1i 22). 
(3) hargél, ‘galloper’ (Lv 11 22; ‘beetle’ AV, ‘cricket’ 
RV, but ‘locust’ RVmg.). (4) haghdabh, ‘grasshopper’ 
(Lv 11 22). (5) ts¢ldtsal, ‘the tinkler,’ because of the 
whirring noise of its flight (Dt 28 42). (6) gébh, only 
in pl. gébhim (Is 33 4). (7) gdzam, ‘shearer’ (Jl 





Locust (with extended wings). 


1 4, palmer-worm AV). (8) yeleg, ‘lopper’ (Jl 1 4; 
Nah 3 15; Ps 105 34). (9) héasil, ‘finisher’ (Ps 78 46, 
but usually translated caterpillar). (10) gébh or 
gobhay (Am 71; Nah 317). Certain of these kinds 
were permissible as food, and were and are largely 
eaten by the natives, being regarded very palatable 
(cf. Lv 11 22; Mt 3 4). The destructiveness of the 
locust is particularly noted by Biblical writers 
hence threats of judgment are couched in terms of a 
visitation of a plague of locusts (Jl 1 4 f.; Nah 3 15; 
Jer 51 14, 27, canker-worm RV, ‘caterpillar’ AV). 
Upon the basis of this characteristic of the insect 
arose later the apocalyptic figure of the locust with 
certain features of the war-horse, of the warrior, of 
the king, of the woman, and of the lion attached to 
it (Rev 9 3-11). This is evidently a symbol of destruc- 
tion, and is represented as appearing in large num- 
bers—an army under the command of Abaddon 
(q.v.; the Gr. equivalent is ’AmoAAdwy, ‘destroyer’). 
A. C. Z. 

LOD, led (1%, lédh), or Lydda (Ai35a), during the 

Roman period called Diospolis, now Ludd: A village 


519 A NEW STANDARD 


lying in a fertile hollow of the Plain of Sharon, 11 m. 
SEH. of Jaffa. Map III, D5. It is mentioned in the 
later books of the O T (I Ch 8 12; Ear 2 33; Neh 7 37, 
11 35), and once in the N T (Ac 9 32 4.). Its exposed 
position, in the path of armies going from the coast 
to Jerusalem, subjected L. to devastation by Roman, 
Saracen, Crusader, and Mongol. In the time of 
Josephus, however, the city was large and pros- 
perous, and was a celebrated seat of Rabbinical 
learning. It later became the seat of a bishopric. 
The present population is about 7,000. According 
to ancient Christian tradition (adopted also by the 
Moslems), St. George was born at L. in the 3d cent. 
A.D., and, after his martyrdom, was buried there. 
The cathedral of St. George, whose crypt was said to 
contain the hero’s tomb, has been frequently de- 
molished, and its ruins now enclose both a mosque 
and a Greek church. (see HGHL, pp. 160-164). 
L. G. L.—E. C. L. 
LO-DEBAR, 10”-di’bar (73°11? or N?, 10’- or 6- 
dh*bhar): A place E. of the Jordan, near Mahanaim 
(II S 17 27), where Mephibosheth, son of Jonathan, 
dwelt 11S 94f.). Gratz translates the same Heb. 
words in Am 6 13 by ‘Lodebar’ (‘thing of nought’ 
EV), the reference being to victories won, probably 
by Jehoash or Jeroboam II over the Syrian, at 
Lo-Debar and Karnaim (EV ‘horns’). The same 
place is probably meant by Debir (Heb. Lidhbhir) 
(Jos 13 26, cf. RVmg.). ~ C.S. T.—E. E. N. 


LODGE: I. The verb. (1) In the O T the verb 
rendered ‘to lodge’ usually is the Heb. lin, ‘to pass 
the night’ (Gn 24 33, 32 13, etc.). (2) In Jos 21 the 
term is shdkhabh, ‘to lie down’; cf. RV. (38) In 
Mt 21 17, the Gr. adAtCecOa: means properly ‘to 
pass the night in an «dA7’ (‘court-yard,’ or ‘sheep- 
fold’), but here it is used in a general sense. (4) In 
Lk 9 12 xataAtety means ‘to loosen,’ hence ‘to ungird,’ 
preparatory to lying down for the night. (5) 
nxatacxnvedy, ‘to pitch the tent’ and hence ‘to dwell,’ 
is found in Mk 4 32 and |l/s. (6) &evitery (from 
Eévoc, ‘stranger’), ‘to receive as a guest,’ is found in 
Ac 10 6, 18, 23, 32, 21 16, 287 (cf. RV). 

II. The nouns rendered lodge, lodging, or lodging- 
place are (1) é@’ (Ezk 407, 10, 12, etc. RV), meaning 
an antechamber of some kind, rendered ‘little 
chamber’ in AV. Dr. Davidson (on Ezk in Camb. 
Bible) suggests ‘guard-room’ (cf. I K 14 28; II Ch 
12 11), see Tempe, § 18. (2) malon, ‘place to spend 
the night’ (Gn 42 27, 43 21; Ex 4 24 all 4nn’ AV; Jos 
4 3, 8; II K 19 23; Is 10 29; Jer 9 2). The closely 
related term m*liinadh, meaning the temporary struc- 
ture for the watchman in a garden, is rendered ‘lodge’ 
in Is 1 8; cf. 24 20in AV and RV. (8) &evfa (from 
Eévoc, ‘stranger’) means first ‘hospitality,’ and 
then ‘lodging’ (Ac 28 23; Phm ver. 22). E. EH. N. 

LOG. See Wricuts AND Mrasurgs, § 3. 

LOIS, 1d’is (Awis): The grandmother (probably 
maternal) of Timothy (II Ti15). She was a Jewess, 
but whether by descent or by conversion from 
paganism is unknown. Through Paul she was led 
to embrace Christianity. E. E. N. 


LONG-SUFFERING. See Gon, § 2. 
LOOKING-GLASS. See Mirror. 
LOOPS. See TABERNACLE, § 3 (2). 


Linus 
Lord’s Prayer, The 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
LORD: The rendering in EV of a number of Heb. 
and Gr. terms. As the ordinary term used in ad- 
dressing a superior: (1) ’ddhéni, ‘my lord.’ Itis used 
of (a) a prophet (I K 187, 13; IL K 2 19, 4 28), (b) 
princes or nobles (Gn 42 10, 48 20), (c) a king (IS 
22 12, 26 17), (d) a father (Gn 31 35), (e) an elder 
brother (Gn 33 8 f.), (f) Moses (Ex 32 22; Nu 11 28), 
(g) a priest (IS 115 £.), (h) the theophanic angels 
(Gn 19 2; Jos 5 14; Jg 613), (i) a captain (IIS 1111), 
(j) any superior (Gn 24 18; Ru 2 13). In the N T 
xbotoc, is the customary term for addressing Jesus, 
and also frequently occurs in the full title applied to 
Him, the Lord Jesus Christ. It is also used (Mt 
25 11, 24, and elsewhere) in addressing a superior, 
when it is frequently rendered ‘Sir.’ (2) In AV it is 
the usual rendering of the Divine name pm (and 
of its shorter form ‘T}, Yah), properly pronounced 
Yahweh, but usually transliterated ‘Jehovah’ in 
ARV. In AV it is usually rendered ‘LORD’ (in 
capitals). The plural form, ’ddhdndy, ‘my lords,’ is 
also very commonly used in the Heb. O T for God, 
and is always rendered ‘Lord,’ ‘my Lord,’ or ‘O 
Lord.’ Where the Heb. has both terms together, 
‘adhonay Yahweh (Gn 15 2; Dt 3 24, etc.), AV 
renders ‘Lord GOD’ (in capitals), but ARV renders 
‘Lord Jehovah.’ The term ’ddhdndy expressed 
in particular the authority and lordship possessed 
by God over His creatures. See also JEHOVAH. 
(3) s¢radnim, a plural term of uncertain etymology, 
is used to designate the princes or leaders of the 
Philistine confederacy (Jos 13 3; Jg 3 3, etc.). Some 
think that the word is allied to the Gr. tépavoe. 
The exact nature of the Philistine confederacy is 
unknown. Practically, these five ‘lords’ appear to 
have been petty kings, each a primus inter pares 
(cf. 1S 292 ¢.). (4) In the case of the other Heb. 
terms rendered ‘lord,’ this rendering is to be taken 
in a general rather than a specific sense. Such are 
(a) ba‘al, ‘master,’ ‘owner’ (Nu 21 28; Is 16 8); (b) 
g*bhir, ‘a [strong] man’ (Gn 27 29, 37); (c) mdré’ (Dn 
2 47, 419, 24, 5 23); (d) rabh, which is simply an adjec- 
tive, ‘great’ (Dn 2.10; cf. RVmg.); (e) sar, ‘prince’ 
(Ezr 8 25 AV); (£) shalish, which means probably, one 
who has distinguished himself and thereby has at- 
tained to high rank (II K 7 2-19; Ezk 23 23); (g) 
rabhrebhdnin, ‘magnates,’ ‘great ones’ (Dn 4 36, 51,9, 
etc.).. (5) In the N T we have (a) deoxérne, ‘ruler,’ 
‘master,’ as a designation of God (Lk 2 29; Ac 4 24; IT 
P 21; Jude ver. 4; Rev 610); (b) xdetoc, the ordinary 
Gr. term for master or lord, is also the equivalent 
through the LXX. of both ’ddhéndéy and Yahweh in 
the O T, as well as being the common designation of 
Jesus Christ. In I Ti6i5the verbal form xveteudyvtwy 
(ptepl. of xvetederv) occurs with xderog in the same 
sentence; (c) weytatévec (Mk 6 21) is properly “great 

ones,’ ‘magnates.’ On Mk 10 51, cf. RV. 

C. 8S. T.—E. E. N. 
LORD OF HOSTS. See Hosr. 


LORD’S DAY. See Saspparn, § 7. 

LORD’S PRAYER, THE: The title traditionally 
given to the prayer that Jesus taught His disciples 
(Mt 6 9-13; Lk 11 2-5), better known in the older 
Catholic churches by its opening words (Pater 
Noster, Iétep judy). It occurs in two different 
forms, and the differences suggest the question of the 


Lord’s Prayer, The 
Lo-Ruhamah 


A NEW STANDARD 
relations of these to one another. In Mt it is in- 
corporated in the Sermon on the Mount; in Lk it is 
given in answer to the request of the disciples, ‘Lord, 
teach us to pray, even as John taught his disciples,’ 
presumably on an occasion which fell after the 
Galilean ministry. If these accounts of its first 
delivery are absolutely independent of each other, 
the prayer must have been given on two separate 
occasions. Inherently this is neither impossible nor 
improbable. But from the literary point of view it 
appears more likely that the version in Mt is adapted 
to the plan of the Evangelist, and represents a 
transposition of it to a different setting from the 
original. In such a case the parallel account of 
Lk is to be regarded as giving the exact circum- 
stances of the delivery. The occurrence in both 
versions of the unusual word epiousios (rendered 
‘daily’) indicates that the two forms are not inde- 
pendent. Most probably both versions are based on 
one translation of an original Aramaic adopted by 
Mt into the Sermon on the Mount and modified 
by Lk in accordance with his design of making the 
life and teachings of Jesus clear to Gentile readers. 
Of the two Lk’s version is the older. 

The omissions and changes made by each may be 
presented in parallel form: 


Mt. Lk. 
Our father who art in | Father, 
heaven, ; 
Hallowed be thy name. | Hallowed be thy name. 
Thy kingdom come. Thy Kingdom come. 
Thy will be done, as in 


heaven, so on earth. 

Give us this day our daily 
bread. 

And forgive us our debts. 

As we also have forgiven our 


Give us day by day our 
daily bread. 

And forgive us our sins; 

For we ourselves also forgive 


debtors. every one that is indebted 
to us. 
And bring us not into temp- | And bring us not into 
tation, temptation. 


But deliver us from the evil 

one, 

The prayer is a unit, and altho extra-Biblical 
parallels of some of its phrases have been pointed 
out in Rabbinical sources, it does not appear that 
Jesus compiled the whole from such preexisting 
forms (against Wetstein, on Mt 69). The similari- 
ties alleged are for the most part verbal, and the 
sources from which they are drawn of much later 
date than the times of Jesus. The purpose for which 
the prayer was given is not defined with precision. 
Evidently, however, it was neither to furnish a 
stereotyped form which should do away with the 
free expression of the individual at the throne of 
God, nor, on the other hand, to show the true nature 
of prayer to those who were totally unaccustomed to 
it. The disciples both knew and used prayer; but 
they had misleading and confusing models before 
them in the practise of the Pharisees. It was as a 
corrective of these, and at the same time as a com- 
prehensive summary of all that might properly find 
a place in their devotional utterances, that the ideal 
was given. 

The contents of the Lord’s Prayer (as given in Mt) 
are usually outlined as consisting of seven petitions: 
(1) Hallowed be thy name. (2) Thy Kingdom come. 
(3) Thy will be done on earth, as it isin heaven. (4) 
Give us this day our daily bread. (5) Forgive us our 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


520 


debts. (6) Lead us not into temptation. (7) Deliver 
us from the evil one. Of these the fourth is beset by 
obscurity in both versions. This is occasioned by 
the use of the term émtodctog (deriv. uncertain; 
possibly through the ptcpl. of émévat, ‘to be at 
hand’) which occurs nowhere else, either in Biblical 
or in classical Greek. The explanations of the term 
proposed are: (1) That it means bread of subsistence, 
i.e., sufficient; (2) bread for the morrow; (8) but 
best of all, because of the customary time of prayer 
in the evening, as having reference to the bread that 
shall be immediately needed (cf. Cremer, Bib.-Theol. 
W drterbuch (1893); Chase, The Lord’s Prayer in the 
Early Church, Texts and Studies (1891). Theseventh 
petition is omitted in the Lucan version. The word 
‘evil’ in it is in the original (xovyeod) capable of 
being read either as a neuter (‘evil’ in general or as a 
masculine (‘the evil one’-—Satan). The latter sense 
is, on the whole, the most probable. 


LirErAtTuRE: Thirtle, J. W., The Lord’s Prayer (1915); Ottley 
R. L., The Lord’s Prayer: ‘Rule of Work and Worship (1915). 
A CRT. 


LORD’S SUPPER, THE (xveraxdby Setzvoyv, I Co 
11 20); also often called the Eucharist, from the Gr. 
edyaptotety ‘to give thanks’ (cf. Lk 22 19; Mt 26 27; 
Mk 14 23): The name of the ordinance (sacrament) 
observed from the earliest Apostolic days to signify 
the communion of the disciples of Jesus Christ in 
His sacrificial death, and to commemorate that death 
as well as to draw the disciples together into a closer 
fellowship with one another. There are four ac- 
counts of the institution of the ordinance (Mt 26 
26-29; Mk 14 22-25; Lk 22 15-20; I Co 11 23-26). Ac- 
cording to their differences these fall into two groups, 
Mt and Mk, and Lk and Paul respectively. Mt and 
Mk say nothing of a formal institution of a new rite 
by Jesus. Luke and Pauldo. In each of the groups 
one account is primary and the other secondary. Mt 
is dependent on Mk, and Lk on Paul. Reduced to 
their primitive forms the sources show that Mk 
represents Jesus as introducing the elements with 
the simple formula, ‘Take ye’; and Paul reports Him 
to have added, “This do in remembrance of me.’ The 
question must therefore be raised whether Jesus 
originally used the fuller form given by Paul, or the 
simpler one by Mk. If the former be true, then Jesus 
instituted the sacrament, and with such additions 
and developments in meaning as may be traced in 
the history of its observance, it has been perpetuated 
by the Church to the present day. If, on the other 
hand, it is Mk who gives the original and correct 
account, the occurrence in Paul’s version of the 
command, “This do in remembrance of me,’ must 
be explained. The phrase may be (1) an addition of 
Paul’s, on his own initiative. In this case, the 
ordinance as a permanent institution must be re- 
garded as a creation of Paul’s. But this is scarcely 
probable from the historical point of view. Paul, as 
a late comer into the community, would not have 
ventured to tell eye-witnesses what the exact facts 
had been upon any definite historical occasion. But 
(2) Paul may have embodied into his account a later 
addition to the words used by Jesus. Yet, how could 
such an addition have arisen? Spitta ( Urchristen- 
tum, 1893) answers that if Jesus died on the 14th 


521 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Lord’s Prayer, The 
Lo-Ruhamah 





of Nisan (the very day of the Passover), His death 
broke up the whole tenor of the lives of His disciples, 
and made it impossible for them to enter into the 
festivities engaged in by the rest of the people. But 
by the law of Nu 9 10, the disciples must have 
returned to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover on 
the 14th of Iyyar. This accounts for the fact that 
they were found at Jerusalem at that time. But in 
observing the Passover in the light of what had 
occurred, they saw the death of their Master very 
differently; the parallel between Jesus and the pas- 
chal lamb, slain at the same hour in which He died, 
forced itself upon them, and the idea that He was 
the Passover sacrifice dawned on their minds; but 
with the awakening of this idea came the peculiar 
meaning of the Lord’s Supper. The original circum- 
stances were lost sight of, and new words and acts 
imagined in their places. Paul simply reproduces 
this account of later origin. (3) Professor Briggs 
proposes the conjecture that Jesus met His disciples 
between His resurrection and His ascension, and 
having again sat at supper with them repeated the 
words He spoke on the night of His betrayal, explain- 
ing more fully their sacrificial and sacramental sig- 
nificance, especially with reference to the Sinaitic 
covenant (Ex 24 1-12), and then added the charge to 
commemorate His death, reported by Paul. Paul 
simply combined the record of the two occurrences 
into one in I Co 11 23 &. (The Messiah of the Gospels, 
p. 123). These theories seem too ingenious to 
represent the true history, and have found no favor 
with critical investigators. From the point of view 
of pure probability they have no advantages over 
the harmonistic theory which would make the ac- 
count of Paul the fuller, and that of Mk the more 
defective, report of the same event. There is only 
one ground on which it can be claimed that Mk’s 
account is more primitive than Paul’s, and that is 
the fact that it omits a feature contained in the 
other. Chronologically, Paul’s was given in a 
written form earlier than Mk’s, and in an oral form it 
had evidently been preached to the church at Cor- 
inth still earlier. In the absence of stronger grounds 
for doubting the authenticity of the whole account as 
given by him, the best explanation of the facts is 
that his report is full, and Mk’s omits one feature of 
the affair, less important from the point of view of his 
purpose. 

Upon the ground of the facts as above stated, it 
appears that for the body of the followers of Jesus 
the supper was to be an institution commemorative 
and symbolical, both of what Christ accomplished 
through His death, and of what He was to be to 
them continually; that it was to symbolize the union 
of His followers with Himself; and also to serve as a 
method of its progressive realizntion. In bringing 
His death to the memory, it should signify the 
sacrificial nature of that death as a basis of a new 
covenant. ‘The underlying assumptions are that 
the covenant is a relationship of the most cordial 
and intimate kind, that in order that it may exist 
all sources of offense must be removed, and that in 
the case of man’s relation to God the source of of- 
fense was sin, therefore it must be obliterated by a 
sacrifice. (See SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 8.) 


The Lord’s Supper, however, was to be not only a 
memorial festival, but also a symbol of Christ’s 
present relation to the believer. Through the bread 
and the cup the believer was to represent to himself 
the nourishing and strengthening of his inner life by 
communion with Christ. It has been alleged, upon 
the basis of comparative religion, that in the pagan 
faiths there are parallels to the eating of food which 
is believed either to be, or to represent, the Divine 
life and thus to bring the worshiper into vital rela- 
tions with the Deity. Thus in the cult of Dionysus, 
a bull which was regarded as the incarnation of the 
god of fertility, was torn and its flesh eaten raw, in 
order that his divine life might be transmitted to 
those who took part in the ceremony. (Cf. other 
illustrative details in Frazer, Golden Bough, II, 260- 
300; Percy Gardner, Expl. Evang., 240 ff.) But 
whether such antecedents underlay the Christian 
sacrament at its inception or not, it is evident that 
its meaning was primarily that of the mystic infu- 
sion of the spirit of Christ symbolized in the external 
act of the eating of acommon meal. The thought is 
dimly present in the sacrificial festival-meal of the 
earlier Israelitic ritual. (Cf. SacriFICE AND OFFER- 
INGS, §3.) The institution was doubtless developed 
out of the O T Passover, and conveys in an exalted 
and spiritualized form the idea that in partaking of a 
sacrifice one enters into communion with God. This 
is only a part of the significance of the Lord’s 
Supper, but it is a prominent part. On the othor 
hand, while it is possible to lay undue stress on the 
influence of ideas drawn from the mystery cults of 
pagan religions on the Lord’s Supper, it is not neces- 
sary to deny the kinship between the symbolism 
used in the institution and the sacraments of the 
mystery cults, in order to realize its spiritual import. 
Even in such passages as Jn ch. 6 the main stress is 
on the spiritual significance of the metaphorical 
language; and the Church in the Apostolic and sub- 
Apostolic ages clearly perceived this. 

The words, ‘Having given thanks’ in Lk 22 17-19 
(eiyapiothcag .. . edyaptoticas), denoting prob- 
ably an act in the old paschal ritual, have served as 
the ground for one of the names of the Lord’s Supper 
in the historical usage of the Church (the Eucharist). 

For the modern mind, the meaning of the Lord’s 
Supper, as presented in the N T, may be found (1) in 
the commemorative aspect of it, bringing to mind 
the redemptive death of Christ, (2) in the expression 
of communion with God under the new covenant, 
(3) in the communion of the disciples with one 
another, (4) in the promotion of the spirit of grati- 
tude (Eucharist) for redemption, and (5) in the 
realization of the anticipation of the completed 
redemption in the future (‘till he come’). 

Lirerature: Schultzen, Das Abendmahl im N T (1895); 
Adamson, The Christian Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper (1905); 
Lambert, The Sacraments in the N T (1903); Perey Gardner, 
Origin of the Lord’s Supper (1898); J. E. Simpson, Sacrament 
of the Gospel (1914); A. Gardner, History of the Sacrament 
(1921). A. C. Z. 
LO-RUHAMAH, 16”ru-hé/ma (712177 NY, 1a’ raha- 

mah), ‘not pitied’: The name of one of Hosea’s 

children. She was probably so named by the 
prophet in view of his wife’s infidelity to him. Later 
when his domestic tragedy enlightened him as to 


Lud 


Lot A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


522 





the religious condition of Israel, he used the name 
symbolically of Israel (Hos 1 6, 8, 2 23). See Hosa, 
§ 2. KE. E. N. 


LOT (wid, lot): According to J, the kinsman of 
Abram, who emigrated with him from Haran to 
Canaan (Gn 12 4a), where the relatives at length 
separated on account of strife between their herds- 
men. L. took his flocks and his herds to the fertile 
plain of the Jordan, and ultimately dwelt in the 
wicked city of Sodom (13 5-13). Angelic guests (cf. 
He 13 2) warned L. of the impending doom of the 
cities of the plain (19 1-13; cf. Lk 17 28 f.), and he 
escaped with his two daughters to the little city of 
Zoar (19 15-23). His daughters’ husbands, however, 
ridiculed his fears and refused to leave Sodom (19 14), 
and his wife (see Lor’s WIFE) also perished. From 
Zoar, L. and his daughters fled to the hill-country 
E. of the Jordan, where they lived in a cave (19 30). 
Here, of incestuous unions, were born Moab, ‘seed of 
father,’ and Ben-ammi, ‘son of kinsman,’ (19 31-38), 
the ancestors of the Moabites and the Ammonites 
(cf. Dt 29, 19; Ps 83.8). According to the document 
in Gn 14, whose age and origin are much disputed 
(see CHEDORLAOMER), he was captured in a raid by 
the eastern kings, but was rescued by his uncle 
Abram (14 12-16). According to P, L. was the son of 
Haran, Abram’s brother, and came with him from 
Ur of the Chaldees (Gn 11 27, 31; 12 5). 

Most modern scholars explain the story of L. as 
personifying the characteristics, migrations, and alli- 
ances of certain tribes of which he was the supposed 
ancestor (see ParrIARCHS). The name is apparently 
identical with Ldtan, ‘son’ of Seir (=Esau), and 
‘father’ of the Horites (Gn 36 20, 22, 29), and is per- 
haps to be equated with Lwin (Rwtn), an early Eg. 
name for Palestine. Lot would thus be the aborigi- 
nal population of the lands later occupied by Moab 
and Ammon. The ancestry of the hated nations 
Moab and Ammon was intended to be brought into 
disrepute through the punning story of their shame- 
ful origin. The rescue of Lot by Abram (Gn ch. 
14) belongs to a unique portion of the Pentateuch, 
which must be studied with the aid of the com- 
mentaries. 

In rabbinical literature L. is usually represented 
in an unfavorable light as self-indulgent and quarrel- 
some (cf. JH,s.v.). The Koran, however, frequently 
refers to him as a preacher of righteousness (e.g., 
Sura 29 27 #.; cf. II P 27), and calls the Sodomites 
‘the children of Lot.’ The modern Arabic name for 
the Dead Sea is Bahr Lit, ‘the Sea of Lot.’ 

L. G. L—L. B. P. 


LOT: (1) The Heb. word gérdal, always rendered 
‘lot,’ ‘lots,’ is probably derived from the root grl, 
which appears in Arabic words, meaning ‘stones,’ 
‘stony place,’ etc.; since in the primitive method of 
‘casting lots’ stones were probably used. In Pr 
16 33 the lot is said to be ‘cast into the lap,’ and it 
may be inferred that stones (marked in some way) 
were placed in the fold of a garment or, perhaps 
more often, in a vessel of some sort, and then the 
shaking of the garment, or vessel, would throw a 
stone out on the ground, according to which the 
decision was given. Hence the expressions ‘the lot 
came forth’ (Heb. ‘came up,’ or ‘out’), or ‘fell.’ 


Other methods, however, may have been employed, 
to which these same terms would apply. The lot 
was but one means of divination employed by the 
Hebrews. Others were the ephod (q.v.) and the 
Urim and Thummim (q.v.). The lot was used to de- 
termine such cases as the inheritances of the tribes 
(Nu 26 55; Jos 14 2, etc.), the courses of the priests, 
and Levites (I Ch 6 54 ff., 24 5, 26 14), the scapegoat 
on the Day of Atonement (Lv 168 ff.), the discovery 
of one guilty of some sin (Jon 1 7); 7.e., In cases in 
which Divine guidance was desired, or in which 
the decision was left to chance (cf. the two N T 
instances, Ac 1 26and Mk 15 24 and ||s, where the Gr. 
is xAjeos). Ina few cases the word is used to indicate 
one’s fate or condition in life (Pr 1 14; Is 17 14; 
Jer 13 25). In other cases the term is used for the 
landed inheritance resulting from the lot (Jos 15 1; 
Jg 13; Ps 16 5, etc.). (2) In a few instances ‘lot’ 
renders the Heb. hebhel, ‘line’ (Dt 32 9; I Ch 16 18; 
Ps 10511). See LIne. E. E. N. 


LOTAN, 10’tan (yr, lotén): The ancestral head 
of a Horite (cave-dwelling) clan of the same name 
(Gn 36 20-29; I Ch 1 38). Some connection between 
Lotan and Lot, Abram’s nephew, is likely (Skinner, 
ICC on Gn 11 27), Note that Lot dwelt in a cave 
(Gn 19 30). See Lor. E. E. N. 


LOT’S WIFE: The wife of Lot is said by the J 
document to have disobeyed the angelic command 
(Gn 19 17) while fleeing from Sodom, and to have 
looked backward, whereupon she became a pillar of 
salt (19 26). Christ refers to her fate as a warning 
against thinking of the safety of worldly goods at 
the advent of the Son of Man (Lk 17 32). 

Salt formations are common near the 8. end of the 
Dead Sea. Jebel Usdum, ‘Mount Sodom,’ is a 
ridge of rock salt 5 m. long and several hundred ft. 
high. Near its base are numerous detached pin- 
nacles of salt, and at different times particular 
‘pillars’ have been popularly identified with Lot’s 
wife (Wis 107; Jos. Ant. I, 11 4; or by the modern 
Arabs with ‘Lot’s daughter’; cf. the frontispiece in 
Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine). 

See Thompson, Land and Book, I, 295 ff., with 
illustration; Palmer, Desert of Exodus, I], 478 ff.; 
Baedeker, Palestine (1906), p. 173. 

L.G.L.—L. B. P. 

LOTUS-TREE. (0°?8¥, tse Slim, pl.). ‘The 
Zisyphus Lotus, a low thorny shrub, which loves 
warm and moist low-lying regions’ (Driver-Gray, 
ICC) mentioned in Job 40 21. (‘Shady trees’ AV © 


as a favorite haunt of the hippopotamus. 
HK. E. N. 


LOVE: 1. Early Form of Conception. The idea of 
love occupies a central place in the religion of the 
Bible as a whole. In the earlier writings the con- 
ception is that of a human affection as between 
individuals of the same sex or of opposite sexes. 
David’s tender feeling toward Jonathan and Jona- 
than’s toward David is love (ahdbhah, II S 1 26). 
But in the same passage the ideal of such love in its 
full strength and purity is recognized to be the love 
of a woman (cf. Gn 29 20; Ezk 16 8, 2317). Thisisa 
conception which naturally does not disappear in 
later Biblical usage (Song 2 4f., 35, 86f.; Ec 96). 


523 


2. Love of God to Man. (1) Inthe O T. The 
prophets seize upon this conception, and use it as 
the figure of the particular feeling of J” toward 
Israel. The first to present God as loving His 
chosen people is Hosea (Hos chs. 1-8, and 114). But 
the thought is taken up by Jeremiah (2 2, 31 3), and 
becomes very common—in fact, characteristic—of 
the relation in which J” is represented as sustaining 
to His people (Is 63 9). He is the Shepherd, the 
Father, the Guardian, in all of which capacities He 
is actuated by the tenderest. affection. (2) In the 
N T. At the very outset, the teaching of Jesus 
reveals love as the central and dominant affection of 
God. In fact, God’s love is all-comprehensive, not 
being limited to any race, but extending beyond the 
bounds which the O T seers had seen as limiting it. 
In the Synoptics, the revelation is contained im- 
plicitly in the various phases of the doctrine of God’s 
fatherhood. In the Johannine reports of the teach- 
ing of Jesus it is explicit (Jn 316). The conception is 
fully presented by Paul (Ro 5 5, 8 35, 39), and by John 
(I Jn 48f., etc.) as the basis of redemption from sin. 


3. Love of Manto God. (1) Loveto J” intheO T. 
The love of the faithful to God is even more clearly 
defined. It is a condition of the normal life, which 
results in blessing (Ex 20 6), and must reach the 
highest possible pitch of intensity and the largest 
fulness (Dt 65). This is the note that remains con- 
stant in the religion of Israel amidst its changing 
forms of thought and worship. From the Song of 
Deborah (Jg 5 31) to the Psalms of the latest period 
(Ps 145 20, 146 8) the love for J” is a characteristic of 
the Israelite, and the ground of the good pleasure of 
J’ inhim. (2) Love to God in the Teaching of Jesus. 
But tho this condition is at the root of obedience to 
the Law of God throughout the O T, it assumes a 
new significance in the teaching of Jesus, who fixed 
the eyes of His disciples upon it, as distinguished 
from its consequences. It was possible to entertain 
regard for these consequences and obey the Law out- 
wardly from motives other than love. On the law 
of love the commandments and the prophetic teach- 
ings had grown as ripe fruit upon a living plant (Mt 
22 40). Apart from this connection they would be 
futile. What it was necessary to strive for and at- 
tain was not obedience to commandments as such, 
but conformity to the will of God because of love to 
Him. The teaching of the N T throughout is 
simply the unfolding of this principle. Hence the 
idea of love is raised into the place of a new com- 
mandment (Jn 13 34). It is even called the ‘law’ 
(Ja 2 8). 

4.Love Among Men. (1) Love the Basis of Ethics. 
The law of love is through the N T the basis of 
Christian ethics. What Jesus says of the funda- 
mental and controlling place of love in the O T ethics 
He means to apply to all ethics, and both Paul and 
James make the application accordingly. Every 
commandment intended to govern the relations of 
men is fulfilled in the commandment of love (Gal 
514; Ro 138). (2) Brotherly Love. But the law of 
love reaches its intensest and fullest expression in 
the peculiar bond which faith in Jesus Christ creates 
among its individual possessors. These constitute a 
brotherhood; and the love that brings and keeps 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Lot 


Lud 


them together is brotherly love (g:AadeAgia). When 
the affection is commended to them, it is done by 
the use of the same term (He 13 1). What dis- 
tinguishes the believer’s feeling toward God and 
Christ. is, however, specifically éyéxn, ‘the love of 
delight.’ Christian love is thus the distinctive ele- 
ment of the fully developed religion of the Bible. 
As such it is made the subject of special treatment in 
two particularly significant passages (I Co ch. 13; 
I Jn ch. 4) AC ae 


LOVE-FEAST. See Cuurca Lirg, § 2. 

LOVING-KINDNESS: This is a predominantly 
Biblical word. It translates the Heb. hesedh, and 
this, in the main, when that word is used to express 
God’s love to man. In many places, however, the 
same Heb. word, when used of God’s love to man, 


-was in AV rendered ‘mercy’ (Gn 19 19, 24 27, etc.), 


‘goodness’ (Ex 34 6), ‘kindness’ (Ps 31 21), ‘merci- 
ful kindness’ (Ps 117 2). ERV, tho showing a 
preference for the distinctive term ‘loving-kindness,’ 
preserves in most of these passages the older term; 
but ARV introduces ‘loving-kindness’ throughout 
(cf. also Oxf. Heb. Lex. s.v. 19%, II). See also 
Gop, § 2. Av Coz: 


LOW COUNTRY, LOWLAND: The Heb. term 
shephélah (from shadphél, ‘to be low,’ ‘sink down’) 
was given to the region between the central range 
of Palestine and the seacoast plain, which is partly 
highland, partly lowland, and, from the point of 
view of the highlander, continually ‘falls’ toward 
the sea. It is uniformly rendered ‘lowland’ in RV. 
The AV often renders it ‘valley,’ or ‘vale’ (Dt 1 7; 
Jos 91, 11 2, etc.), or ‘plain’ (I Ch 27 28, etc.), only 
rarely ‘lowland.’ See Pauestinn, § 11, and ef. 
G. A. Smith, HG HAL, pp. 199-237. K. E. N. 


LOWEST HELL. See Escuatouoey, § 18. 


LUBIM, li’bim. 
NOLOGY, §§ 7 and 138. 


LUCAS, li’kas. See LuKE. 
LUCIFER, li’si-for. See Day-Srar. 


LUCIUS, lit’Sshus (Aodxtocg): 1. Lucius of Cyrene, 
mentioned among the prophets and teachers in the 
church at Antioch (Ac 181). 2. Lucius, whom Paul 
calls his fellow countryman (ovyyevns, Ro 16 21; 
cf. Ro 9 3). Possibly to be identified with 1. This 
is all the more likely if the Jason of Ro 16 21 and of 
Ac 17 5, 7, 9 are identical, and if the Sosipater of 
Ro 16 21 is the same as the Sopater of Ac 20 4. 
Origen (Hom. in Rom. 16 21) identifies L. with Luke 
(Aouxés) the physician, but the names are philologi- 
cally distinct. di, VEE 

LUD, lud (799, ladh), LUDIM, la’dim (09, la- 
dhim): The name of apparently two races mentioned 
in the O T, a Semitic and an Egyptian. (1) The 
Semitic. According to Gn 10 22, Lud was one of the 
five sons of Shem. Commentators have very gen- 
erally identified Lud with Lydus, the eponymous 
ancestor of the Lydians., The difficulty with this 
view is that the Lydians were not a Semitic race, 
and their civilization had no connection with that of 
Assyria. Possibly Lud was the name of a lost North 
Syrian tribe. (2) The Egyptian. The Ludim are 
said to be begotten by Mizraim, or Egypt (Gn 10 13— 


See ETHNOGRAPHY AND EVTH- 


Luhith 


Luke, Gospel of A NEW STANDARD 


the phrase ‘begot’ denoting a geographical relation 
rather than actual descent). They appear as mer- 
cenaries in the Tyrian and Egyptian armies, and are 
famous as archers (Is 66 19; Jer 46 9; Ezk 27 10). 
Various conjectures have been made as to the 
identity of the Ludim. Some have cut the Gordian 
knot by emending the text and reading ‘Libyans.’ 
Others have regarded them as identical with Lud 
(Gn 10 22), z.e., Lydians. This conjecture is sup- 
ported by the LX X. (Ezk 30 5), where ‘Lud’ is ren- 
dered ‘Lydians.’ According to this theory, Lydians 
were settled in NE. Egypt. Others have identified 
them with the Berber tribe Lewdta; still others with 
the Rebu=Lebu, who inhabited Cyrenaica (see 
ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 138). J. A. K. 


LUHITH, liw’/hith (M7, M°N?, Iwhith): The ‘as- 
cent of Luhith’ was in Moab, S. of the Arnon. 
According to Eusebius (Onom.), there was a place of 
that name between Areopolis (Rabbath-Moab) and 
Zoar. It was the way of escape for Moabites fleeing 
to Zoar (Is 15 5; Jer 48 5). COh: 


LUKE, LUKAS, (Aovxés, probably pet name for 
Aobxtog): One of Paul’s companions and fellow 
workers, identified by some, but improbably, with 
Lucius of Cyrene (Ac 13 1). 

He is mentioned by name in only three passages, 
and all these are in the Epistles of Paul (Col 4 14; 
Phm ver. 24; If Ti 4 11). At the same time, the 
critical certainty of his authorship of the Third 
Gospel and the Book of Acts places at our disposal 
the so called diary passages in the latter writing 
(16 10-17, 20 5-21 18, 27 1-28 16) as additional sources 
for our knowledge of his life and work in the early 
Church. From the first passage (16 10-17) we learn 
that L. accompanied the Apostle from Troas to Phi- 
lippi on his second mission journey. The second pas- 
sage (20 5-21 18) tells us that some six years later, on 
the third mission tour, L. was again with Paul at Phi- 
lippi, from which place he journeyed with the Apostle 
to Jerusalem. It may be that L. spent these inter- 
vening years in Philippi, carrying on, as the Aposile’s 
representative, the work begun on the occasion of 
his first visit to the place. This would be the more 
likely if Philippi were L.’s home—as has been in- 
ferred (Renan)—tho the early tradition recorded 
by Eusebius (2, iii, 4 6) and found in the ancient 
Argumentum Evangelit Secundum Lucan (ec. 225 
A.D.) makes him a native of Antioch or as belonging 
to an Antiochian family (see Ramsay, Luke the 
Physician, pp. 65-68). The third passage (27 1-28 16) 
shows him as Paul’s companion on his voyage to 
Rome. 

The references made to him by the Apostle are all 
in the Epistles written during his two imprisonments 
at Rome. In Col (4 14) he is mentioned simply as 
among those in Paul’s company sending salutations 
to the Colossian Christians; similarly in Phm 
(ver. 24) he is among those greeting the Colossian 
Christians to whom the Apostle is writing; while in 
II Ti (411) he is spoken of as the only one who had re- 
mained faithfully by the Apostle as the fatal ending 
to his captivity drew near. While these items seem 
relatively unimportant, they show us that L.’s fidel- 
ity to Paul kept him at the Apostle’s side through 
at least a portion of his first imprisonment—Col and 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 524 


Phm having been written previous to Ph which was 
composed near the close of that period. They also 
disclose him as with the Apostle at the end of his 
second imprisonment—II Ti being his last letter. It 
may well be, therefore, that he was with the Apos- 
tles during his brief return to his Eastern mission- 
field and his second journey as a captive to Rome. 

The evidence gathered from the Third Gospel and 
from Ac that their author was a Gentile Christian 
is confirmed by the fact that in the Col passage L. 
belongs to the Apostle’s fellow workers who are 
marked off from those ‘who are of the circumcision’ 
(ver. 11). That he was a Greek rather than a Roman 
is shown, not merely by his versatility, his apprecia- 
tion of humor and his knowledge of the sea, but by 
his reference to the inhabitants of Malta as ‘bar- 
barians’ (Ac 28 2-4), which was after the manner of a 
Greek. The reference to him in the Col passage as a 
‘physician’ is amply borne out by the language of the 
Gospel and Ac (for full discussion see Harnack’s 
Lukas d. Artat (Eng. transl., pp. 175-198] and Plum- 
mer, Com., pp. lxiii-lxvi), while the literary quality 
of such portions of his writings as are most likely the 
products of his own style (e.g., the prolog of the 
Gospel and the diary sections of Ac) show him to 
have been a man of culture as well as of scientific 
education. For the theory that he had personal 
knowledge of the events given in his Gospel, whether 
or not his knowledge was dependable, see Cadbury, 
Expositor, 1922, pp. 401-420. 

The legend which makes him a painter and assigns 
to him a picture of the Virgin found at Jerusalem is 
unreliable. 

For discussion of his authorship of the Third 
Gospel and Ac, as well as his tendencies of theolog- 
ical thought, see articles on these books. 

LiTERATURE: Consult in general the literature given for the 
following article, and article on Acts: especially Commen- 
taries on Luke and Acts: also Ramsay, St. Paul the Trav- 
eler (1904) and Luke the Physician (1908, ch. I); Harnack, 
Lukas der Artzt (1906), Eng. transl. (1908); McLachlan, Si. 
Luke, Evangelist and Historian (1912), and Lives of Paul. 

M. W. J. 

LUKE, GOSPEL OF: 1. Authorship. The third 
of the Synoptic Gospels (see GospEL, GOSPELS, § 3). 
In common with all the narrative writings of the 
N T, it attaches to itself no name of author, tho, 
together with Ac, it states distinctly for whom it was 
written (1 3). In fact, this dedication is admittedly 
so like that of Ac that the reference in the latter to 
‘the former treatise’ (1 1) is universally recognized 
as a reference to this Third Gospel; so that both 
books are acknowledged as being by the same author. 
This is confirmed by the significant continuity dis- 
closed by the closing passage of the Gospel (24 
44-53) and the opening passage of Ac (1 1-14) and 
by striking similarity in the general style and in the 
specific linguistic peculiarities of the two writings. 
(For a detailed display of these linguistic peculiar- 
ities cf. Plummer, in Int. Crit. Com., pp. xlviii-lxvi; 
Zahn, Introduction [Eng. transl.], § 61, notes 11-13.) 
This, however, is no help to a discovery of the 
author’s identity, for Ac tells us nothing more of its 
author than does the Gospel. Our only recourse, 
therefore, is to a critical induction of the Gospel, 
with help from Ac, as to such indications as bear 
upon its origin. 


525 





(a) Outline. An outline of its contents presents 
the following narrative scheme: 


Chs, 1 and 2 contain the introductory portion, consisting of 
the prolog (1 4-4) and the preliminary history, 7.e., the birth and 
early years of Jesus and the Baptist (1 5-2 %), 

The remaining chapters are taken up with the narrative 
proper, which is divided into two parts: (I) The active ministry 
of Jesus (3 1-21 88) and (II) His passion, resurrection, and ascen- 
sion (22 1-24 58), (1) The active ministry is presented in a way 
which conceives of it somewhat differently from the way in 
which it is viewed by the other two Evangelists. After a 
preliminary narrative (3 1-4 13), which gives the political situa- 
tion at the opening of the Gospel events (3 }. 28), an account of 
the ministry of the Baptist (3 2b-18)—to which is added an ac- 
count of his death, later in the history (3 19 f-)—and an ac- 
count of the induction of Jesus into His work, through His 
baptism (3 21 f-) and His temptation (4 !8)—between which is 
interpolated His genealogy (3 28-%8)—the Ministry in Galilee is 
taken up and presented as His popular work, i.e., His work 
among the people (4 4-9 17), 

In this, taking Mk’s sequence of events as the standard, there 
are some displacements (e.g., 5 1-11 should precede 4 %1b~87, and 
8 4-18 should follow 8 1921, while 11 144-36 has been placed in the 
later ministry, tho it should really precede 8 19-21), 

The reason for the first two misplacements may be due to 
document sources peculiar to the Evangelist; the reason for the 
latter will be apparent when we see that the period between the 
Galilean and the Jerusalem ministry is considered by the 
Evangelist as Jesus’ Hducational work, t.e., the work in which He 
gave Himself particularly to the instruction and training of His 
followers (9 18-19 28); for this passage (11 14-88) is looked at from 
this point of view, tho really it is part of the event recorded in 
Mk 3 29-80, which occurred as the climax of the second preaching 
tour (see Synopric PROBLEM, § 6). 

This educational work is represented as carried on (1) in 
regions near to Galilee (9 185°) and (2) in regions covered by 
journeys to Jerusalem (9 5!-19 28), The latter portion includes 
some significant discourses (e.g., those connected with the mis- 
sion of the Seventy, 10 1-*4, with the request of the disciples con- 
cerning prayer, 11 1, with the ceremonial criticism in the 
Pharisee’s house 11 37-12 12 [cf. 13 1°17, 14 14], with the request 
concerning inheritance 12 13-59, and that concerning the signs of 
the times 17 2-37) and a number of His more elaborate parables 
(e.g., the Good Samaritan 10 *-37, the Rich Fool 12 13-21, the 
Lost Sheep, the Lost Coin, and the Prodigal Son, ch. 15, the 
Unjust Steward and Dives and Lazarus, ch. 16, the Unjust 
Judge, 18 1-8, the Pharisee and the Publican, 18 94, the Ten 
Pounds 19 1-27), and in its general contents is peculiar to the 
narrative of this Gospel, not being paralleled by either of the 
other Synoptics. The Jerusalem Ministry, with the public 
entry into the city, extends from 19 % to 21 88, consisting largely 
in controversies with the authorities, aroused by their challeng- 
ing questions (20 1-8. 20-49), illustrated by parables (20 19), and 
closed by His eschatological discourse (21 5-88), all of which are 
paralleled by the other Gospels. (II) Then follows the narrative 
of the Passion (22 1-23 56*), the Resurrection (23 56b-24 12), with 
the subsequent appearances to the disciples (24 18~43)—-which, in 
distinction from the other Gospels, are located in the neighbor- 
hood of Jerusalem—closing with the only account given by the 
Gospels of the Ascension (24 4458), 


(b) Prolog. In the closer study of this outline it 
becomes at once apparent that the statements of 
the prolog are significant in their bearing upon the 
Gospel’s origin; for they tell us (1) that there were in 
existence at the time of the Gospel’s writing many 
written ordered narratives of the Gospel history 
(1 1); (2) that these narratives were based, chiefly 
at least, upon oral tradition, handed down by those 
who participated in these events (ver. 2); (3) that 
these narratives, apparently not seeming satisfac- 
tory to the author, he had made an accurate inves- 
tigation of all the facts from the beginning, on the 
basis of which he had written to Theophilus in 
chronological sequence (xa%e§qs), in order that he 
might know the certainty (écgéAetav) concerning 
the things (or ‘words,’ ‘stories’) in which he had been 
instructed (xept dy xatnxnOns Adywy). As to the 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Luhith 
Luke, Gospel of 





element of investigation in this process, however, see 
Cadbury in Expositor (1922), pp. 401-420. 

These statements would seem to indicate that the 
author was not an eye-witness of the Gospel events, 
tho not necessarily outside of the Gospel genera- 
tion; for his Gospel, while dependent upon an in- 
vestigation of the facts, evidently accomplished that 
investigation through a personal examination of oral 
sources of information, rather than through a critical 
study of written documents. In addition, he states 
distinctly that these events occurred in the genera- 
tion to which he himself belonged (cf. the fuiv of 
ver. 1). 

(c) Literary Character. The fact that the author 
gave himself to such examination would seem to 
suggest that he was possessed of literary capacity, 
which is borne out by the classical character of the 


_prolog itself and the essential superiority in style of 


the rest of the book over that of the other Gospels 
(cf. Plummer, as cited above). This is brought out 
conspicuously in Ac, where, in the portions which 
relate the author’s personal experience (16 10-17, 
20 5-21 18, 27 1-28 16), he exhibits a literary style, which 
shows his ability to write when not constrained by 
the style of his sources (cf. these sections with the 
distinctly Aramaic style of the first half of the book). 
In fact, if it be claimed that the Aramaic style of the 
first part of Ac and of the chapters in the Gospel 
which immediately follow the prolog is due to the 
author’s adaptation of his narrative to the distinctly 
Jewish events narrated, it simply shows in stronger 
light his literary versatility. From this it is natural 
to infer that the author was a Gentile Christian of 
Greek culture, which indeed has never been ques- 
tioned by scholars. 

(d) Pauline Character. A broader study of the 
Gospel’s contents gives indication of a spirit and line 
of thinking which are strikingly like Paul’s. Beyond 
a coincidence with Paul’s Epistles in vocabulary and 
phraseology (cf. Plummer, pp. liv-lix for list), there 
is in the material peculiar to the Gospels such a 
breath of national view (e.g., 2 32, 4 25 ff., 9 52-55, 
10 25-37, 13 28-30, 24 47 [cf. Mt 6 32, 10 5, 18]) and such 
an emergence of characteristic Pauline doctrine (e.g., 
the graciousness of forgiveness, 7 36-50, ch 15, 23 
39-43; the non-merit of mere works, 13 24-30, 17 7-10; 
the modifying influence of ignorance and unbelief, 
12 47 £., 23 34) that it seems reasonable to believe not 
only that the author was acquainted with Paul’s 
teaching but that he selected his material in sym- 
pathy with it. 

(e) Theophilus. As to the Theophilus addressed 
in these writings, he evidently was a Gentile, since 
the Gospel was written obviously for one who was 
not only unfamiliar with Palestine geography, but 
was not even acquainted with Jewish customs. He 
was also apparently a man of rank (xpd&ttote; ef. 
author’s use of this word in Ac 23 26, 24 3, 26 25). 
There is no hint as to his residence, tho tradition 
places it at Antioch. 

(f) Motive. The motive in sending him the Gospel 
is distinctly stated in the prolog to be in order that 
he might have certain knowledge of the matters re- 
garding which he had been instructed (1 4). From 
this it is evident that he was favorably inclined 


Luke, Gospel of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 526 





toward Christianity and had had some information, 
if not distinct instruction, regarding its claims. It 
was the author’s purpose to win him fully to the new 
religion by placing before him in their full historical 
setting the Gospel stories (Aéyor) which had been 
told him. 

(g) Time. As to the time when the Gospel was 
written, it must be clear from a comparison of 19 
41-44 and 21 20-24 with parallels in Mt (24 15-28) 
and Mk (13 14-23) that the author is writing from a 
point of view taken when these events of the pre- 
dicted catastrophe of Judaism had occurred. Both 
passages are peculiar to this Gospel and contain 
(especially 19 41-44) military terms, lacking in the 
other Synoptics, which would readily agree with the 
presence before the writer’s mind of the actual 
events, while the announcement of the Parousia is 
connected, not so much with the definite event of the 
downtreading of Jerusalem by the Gentiles, as with 
the indefinite event of the times of the Gentiles 
being fulfilled (21 24), which would seem to place it 
further in the future, in the mind of the author, than 
in that of either of the other Synoptists (cf. the 
eb0éws of Mt 24 29 and the év éxetvats tats huéeats of 
Mk 13 24 with the indefinite statement of Lk 21 25). 
If Luke was with Paul during his Cesarean impris- 
onment, he would have had abundant opportunity, 
both there and in Jerusalem, to secure information 
oral and written, tho if Mk was not written until near 
the close of Paul’s Roman imprisonment (63 A.D , see 
Mark, GosPEL oF), there would be no likelihood of 
his having known of that Gospel until his return 
with Paul to his final imprisonment, or of his having 
made use of it until after Paul’s death (66 a.p.) and 
it had become established among the churches 
generally as the record of the Gospel history. Tak- 
ing all things into consideration, therefore, it is 
not probable that it was written until after 70 a.p.; 
tho from its early currency in the post-Apostolic 
Church (see § 2 below) and much more from the 
early character of its thought (see § 4, below) it is not 
likely to have been much later than this date. Per- 
haps about 75 a.D. is most probable. 

(h) Place. No information is given of its place of 
composition, tho perhaps, in view of the Gentile 
writer and the Gentile cast of the writing, it was more 
likely outside of Palestine than within it. 

This induction leaves the Gospel a thoroughly pos- 
sible product of the Apostolic age—in fact, in view of 
the statements of the prolog, makes it impossibly 
later than the Gospel generation (see § 1 (b) above). 
It also discloses nothing which prevents its having 
been written by the man whose name it bears (see 
preceding article). 

2. External Evidence. Both of these conclusions 
are borne out by the testimony of post-Apostolic 
literature. Its recognized currency in the Church 
can be traced back through Tatian (170 a.p.), who 
makes frequent and abundant use of it and Marcion 
(140 a.v.), by whom it was the only Gospel ac- 
cepted and who held it in an abbreviated and cor- 
rupt form of text, showing that the original text 
was not a new production in history but had been 
long enough in use to undergo alteration, to Clem- 
ent of Rome (100 a.p.), who seems to have had 


both the Gospel and Acts before him in his Epistle 
to the Corinthians. From the time of the Mura- 
torian Canon (170 a.p.) onward the Gospel is dis- 
tinctly referred to as Luke’s, and this reference is 
made not as an individual opinion but as the accepted 
belief of the Church. For the selection of this name 
rather than that of an Apostolic eye-witness of the 
events, there must have been strong ground in the 
facts of the case. 

The critical conclusion from the above internal 
and external study of the Gospel is that it was 
written by Luke, the companion of Paul (see preced- 
ing article). 

3. Sources and Historic Value. That written nar- 
ratives of the Gospel events were in existence when 
the Gospel was produced is distinctly stated in the 
prolog (11). It is most improbable, therefore, that 
tho Luke by preference made his investigation of 
facts through the personal sources at his disposal, 
he made no use whatever of the written sources at 
his hand. In fact, it is obvious that some of his 
material must have come from documents (e.g., 
the Genealogy, 3 23-38, the Annunciation narrative, 
15-79, the Nativity story, 21-39, the Childhood record, 
2 41-51. Note the evident conclusions of these docu- 
ments, respectively at 1 80, 2 40, 2 52). Ramsay, 
however, as opposed to Plummer, considers that the 
character of the narrative points to an oral source 
(Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? p. 74 f.). 

Beyond these individual cases it is clear that there 
are identities between this Gospel and the First 
Gospel which are so striking in character as to com- 
pel the conviction that a common document lies 
behind them (e.g., 3 7-10, 17=Mt 3 7-10, 12; 4 3-13= 
Mt 4 3-11; 6 41 £.= Mt 7 3-5; 7 6b-9 = Mt 8 8-10; 7 22-28= 
Mt 11 4-11; 7 31-35=Mt 11 16-19; 9 58-co=Mt 8 19-22; 
11 19 £., 223=Mt 12 27 f., 30; 11 24-22=Mt 12 43-45; 
11 29-31=Mt 12 39-42). They can not be due to a 
mere use of the First Gospel by Luke, since they 
form only a portion of his parallels with this Gospel, 
the remainder showing such differences as to raise 
the question whether he had it before him at all 
when he wrote (but cf. Allen on Mt in JCC, pp. 
xlvii-lx). The fact that they are confined to the 
discourse parallels between these Gospels shows 
rather that behind them lay a collection of say- 
ings of Jesus with more or less of narrative set- 
ting, from which collection these two Evangelists 
drew much of their discourse material in common, 
tho in distinctively different ways—Matthew making 
larger use of the original source as a whole and sub- 
jecting its contents to his arbitrary grouping plan, 
Luke using only excerpts of it—and with greater 
freedom of literary handling (ef. Allen, pp. lix ff., 
and for the origin and character of this source in 
general see Synopric PRoBLEM, § 6.). 

The historical value of the Gospel is in general sup- 
ported by the historical accuracy of Acts, which is 
open at so many points to the tests of criticism and 
has so remarkably sustained its credibility. In fact, 
there have been but two specific objections lodged 
against the Gospel’s historicity. The first has to 
do with the reference to the enrolment mentioned in 
21. It is claimed that Augustus never ordered a 
general enrolment to be made of the whole Roman 


527 A NEW STANDARD 


world and that, even if he did, no enrolment was 
made in Judea until the governorship of Quirinius 
over Syria, 6-9 a.p. Egyptian papyri, however, dis- 
close that in that country there were enrolments by 
households in periods of 14 years. If an enrolment 
was made in Syria in 6-7 A.p., a period of 14 years 
would place this ‘first enrolment’ to which Luke 
refers in 8-7 B.c., and the lack of disturbance on that 
occasion, as distinguished from the riot which marked 
the second (Ac 5 37), might have been due to the 
fact that it was an enrolment by households for the 
purpose of census enumeration, as Luke implies 
(2 3 £.), and not an enrolment of property for the 
purpose of taxation. It was this latter that charac- 
terized the enrolment of 6-7 a.p., when Judea had 
become part of the Roman province of Syria, and 
which brought about the disturbance. In addition, 
Herod, through caution, may have postponed the 
process a year or more, or, being the first enrolment, 
it may have been slow in getting under way. At all 
events, what Augustus had ordered was merely that 
the principle of enrolment-taking be established in 
the Roman Empire, Luke’s reference being to its 
actual application in the province of Syria. Such 
delay, however, would give 7-6, more probably 6, 
B.c., as the year of Christ’s birth. (See Chronology 
of N T,§1). The second objection has to do with the 
governorship of Quirinius, mentioned in 2 2. It is 
claimed that his only governorship was from 6 to 
9 a.p., when he ordered the enrolment referred to in 
Ac 5 37, and that Luke has ignorantly confused the 
dates. Apart, however, from the fact that there is 
inscriptional evidence to the effect that his governor- 
ship from 6-9 a.p. was his second governorship over 
Syria, it is shown from inscriptions discovered in 
1912 and 1913 at Antioch in Pisidia, dating from 
10-7 s.c. that he was engaged during that period 
in war in Cilicia, which belonged to the province of 
Syria, and that he held military rule in that prov- 
ince. Consequently, it would be quite possible that, 
while Varus, as is known, held the administrative 
governorship of Syria at that time, Quirinius held a 
special military rulership over that province, for 
which Luke would have no other word than jyeney 
(or hyevovebwy [ptepl.]), ‘governor.’ The time of 
this rulership would give him a more exact date for 
Christ’s birth than if he had connected it with the 
general period of Varus’ administrative office. It 
would seem, therefore, that, far from opening him- 
self to the charge of inaccuracy, Luke has given us 
information of specially historical worth. The old 
contention that Luke was dependent for his politi- 
cal dates and facts on Josephus, whose writings he 
misread, has been generally abandoned. In fact, 
when their statements can be tested, it is Luke who 
is more generally found to be accurate and Josephus 
more often guilty of exaggeration and error. 

(For full discussion of these objections see Ram- 
say's Was Christ Born in Bethlehem? and Bearing 
of Recent Discovery on N T, pp. 238-275.) 

4. View Point. The presentation which Luke 
makes of the teachings of Jesus and his selection 
among the incidents of the Gospel history bring 
to notice certain traits in his thinking which are 
worthy of consideration. (1) As to God: Luke rep- 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Luke, Gospel of 


resents Jesus as declaring not only the sovereign 
power (18 27) and absolute goodness of God (18 18 f.), 
but also His Divine Fatherhood—primarily toward 
Jesus’ own disciples, involving a relation to them of 
care and protection in the outcome of their life of 
trust and obedience to Him (12 32). At the same 
time, as compared with Matthew, he makes but 
slight use of the term Father, tho he alone records 
the parable of the Prodigal Son (ch. 15), which, in 
agreement with his spirit of universalism, implies a 
Fatherly relation extending beyond the circle of 
actual discipleship; while, unlike Matthew, he makes 
no use at all of the title King in his representations 
of Jesus’ ascription of power to God, and records 
but one of the parables of Kingship and then elimi- 
nates this King-element from it (e.g., cf. 14 16 with 
Mt 22 2). (2) As to Jesus Himself: Luke presents 
Jesus as referring to Himself as the Son of Man and 
as the Son of God, tho the latter title He never ex- 
plicitly uses of Himself in any of the Synoptics. 
By the former title He designates His relation to the 
Kingdom of God not only as its Founder, in which 
relation it is His function to seek and to save the lost 
(19 10), to forgive sins (5 24), to determine the signifi- 
cance and use of the Sabbath (65) and the conduct 
of the natural life (7 34), but as its Servant, in which 
relation He has to surrender the comforts of life 
(9 58) and to submit to the sufferings of persecution 
and to the sacrifice of death (9 22, 44, 18 31, 22 22, 48), 
in return for which, however, is to come to Him at 
last the glory of His revelation and His exaltation in 
the consummation of the Kingdom (12 8, 40, 17 22- 
30, 21 27, 36, 22 69). In these passages the reference to 
the redemptive function (19 10) and to the betrayal 
at the hands of Judas (22 22, 48) are peculiar to Luke. 
Tho, as said above, the title Son of God is never 
explicitly used by Jesus of Himself and the relation- 
ship which the title involves is implicitly asserted 
only in a few passages (Lk 2 49, 10 22 [Mt 11 27]; 
Lk 22 29, 42, 23 34, 46, 24 49 and the parable of the 
Vineyard, Lk 20 9-18 and ||s), yet in this relation- 
ship there is claimed a unique intimacy with God, 
involving a mutual knowledge of uncomparable 
character (10 22), a mutual harmony of will in ab- 
solute devotion on the filial side (22 42) and in abso- 
lute acquiescence on the Father’s side (23 34) a 
distinct representativeship by way both of commis- 
sion from God to His people (20 9-18, 22 29, 24 49) and 
of being entrusted by God with a work to be accom- 
plished (2 49; cf. the consciousness of its accom- 
plishment in the cry 23 46 [Jn 19 30]). It isto be noted 
that the seemingly deprecatory passage (Mk 13 32) 
does not appear in Lk, nor does the apparently 
despairing cry on the Cross, ‘My God, why hast 
thou forsaken me?’ (Mt 27 46; Mk 15 34), while the 
final word of intimate trustfulness and the interces- 
sory plea (23 34, 46) on the Cross, and the childhood 
passage of whole-hearted devotion (2 49) as well as 
the less significant statements of 22 29, 49 are given 
by Lk alone. Altho Jesus is thus represented as but 
in a slight way referring to His personal relationship 
with God, He is at the same time shown as acquiesc- 
ing in the application of this Divine title to Himself 
by others. This is significant in the two instances of 
the heavenly reference to Him as Son, where it is 


Luke, Gospel of 
Lysias 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


528 





implied that He stands as the unique object of the 
Father’s pleasure (3 22, 9 35), and in the Tempter’s 
and in the Demoniac’s reference to Him as the Son 
of God, where His possession of supernatural power 
is implied (4 3, 9, 8 28). Mark and Matthew record 
other occasions on which the title is given to Jesus, 
both by His friends and by His enemies; Luke, how- 
ever, but twice records such references, and these 
are by the demons at Capernaum (4 41) and by the 
high priest at His trial (2270), in both of which cases 
the title is used apparently in nothing more than a 
Messianic sense. While Mark consistently presents 
Jesus throughout his narrative as the Wonder 
Worker, whose ministry impresses the people with 
its marvel, Luke begins his narrative with a nativity 
story in which the wonder element is developed 
throughout the story; alone of all the Synoptists, he 
applies to Jesus the title Lord (5 17, 713 101 39 41, 
11 39, 12 42, 13 15, 175 £., 186, 19 8, 22 61, 243 34); and 
alone closes his narrative with the wonder of the 
Ascension and the promise of the sending of the 
Holy Spirit (24 49-51). It is noticeable that this 
Evangelist frequently represents Jesus not only as 
Himself holding communion with God in prayer 
(3 21, 5 16, 6 12, 9 18, 23 f., 111 22 32, 41, 44f£), but as 
urging prayer upon His disciples as the need of their 
spiritual life (6 28, 11 5-13, 18 1 #., 21 36, 22 40, 46.) 
(3) As to the Kingdom of God: While Luke represents 
Jesus as making use of the current theocratic phrase 
‘the kingdom of God’ (kingdom of heaven’ in 
Mt), he is particular to bring out Jesus’ conception 
of its non-national and non-political character. It 
is Luke alone who records Jesus’ address at the 
Nazareth synagog, in which He discloses the nar- 
rowness of the people’s national idea of the Kingdom 
(4 16-30); it is Luke alone who has preseverd the 
parable of the Good Samaritan (10 25 37), the inci- 
dent of the Ten Lepers (17 11-19), and Jesus’ rebuke of 
His disciples’ national bigotry, when they desired to 
punish the Samaritans for not receiving them on their 
journey (9 51-56), in contrast with which is Mat- 
thew’s record of Jesus’ instruction to the Twelve 
(10 5 #f.; cf. also 15 24); and it is Luke alone who 
records Jesus’ reply to the Pharisee’s inquiry as to 
when the Kingdom of God should appear (17 20 #.), 
emphasizing the distinctive character of this teach- 
ing by showing the slowness with which Jesus’ own 
disciples apprehended it (24 21; Ac 16). It might 
seem that in his version of the Beatitudes Matthew 
brings out more distinctly the spiritual nature of the 
Kingdom in his description of the character of its 
subjects (cf Mt 51 #. with Lk 6 20 #.); but that 
Luke’s conception of the Kingdom is not a physical 
one is evident from his portrayal of its spiritual 
characteristics in the parables of Grace and Forgive- 
ness, which he alone records (e.g., Lost Sheep, ch. 
15 3-7; Lost Coin, 15 8-10; Prodigal Son, 15 11-32; 
Dives and Lazarus, 16 19-31; Pharisee and Publican, 
18 9-14; cf. 7 36-50). He has also emphsaized more 
than the other Synoptists the conditions of suffer- 
ing and self-sacrifice necessary for entrance into it 
(cf. 9 61 £., 14 28-35, 16 1-13). In agreement with this 
spiritual conception of the Kingdom, it is noticeable 
that Luke does not record those parables of the 
Kingdom which represent it as an objective good to 


be appropriated by men (Hid Treasure Mt 13 44; 
Costly Pearl, Mt 18 45 f.; cf. the parable of the Great 
Supper, 14 16-24 = Mt 22 2-14; emphasizing the gra- 
cionsness of the invitation rather than the material 
benefit of the feast). Itis also in agreement with this ~ 
spiritual idea that he brings out the universal pur- 
pose of the Kingdom (cf. the added citation in 3 6, 
the notes of universalism in the Nativity section, 
1 79, 2 32, the historical statements, 4 25- 27, the com- 
mission to the Seventy 101 1., the Gentile factor in 
the Kingdom’s future 21 24). At the same time, it is 
strange that he makes no record of Jesus’ ministry 
in the regions of Tyre and Sidon (cf. Mk 7 24-8 26 
and Mt ||). See Synopric ProsieM, §7. (4) As to 
the Messianic Salvation: Luke seems to represent 
Jesus as assigning eternal life to the world to come 
(18 30), and yet he makes clear that the salvation 
which Jesus bestows upon His disciples covers the 
present as well as the future life (zbid.). It does not 
consist in material things (12 33); in fact, he shows 
in the parable of the Rich Fool in what glaring con~ 
trast to them it stands (12 16-21). At the same time, 
it more than makes up for the loss of these things 
(18 29 f.), and even seems to secure them in the best 
sense of their possession (12 22-31). As to the general 
conditions on which this salvation is bestowed, 
Luke presents Jesus as laying emphasis upon the 
significance of personal relations to Himself (10 16, 
12 8; cf. 10 21-24). Inthe matter of the more definite 
conditions of repentance and faith, however, he 
makes but slight mention of the former of them, rep- 
resenting Jesus as speaking of repentance but twice 
—once in His earlier ministry (5 32) and again in 
His closing commission to His disciples (24 47). He 
gives more prominence to faith, mentioning it 
several times as referred to by Jesus (5 20, 7 9, 
7 50, 8 48, 8 50, 17 19, 18 8, 42, which is natural in one 
so Pauline in his way of thinking as this Evangelist. 
(See § 1d, above.) At the same time it is remarkable 
that as to the means by which the bestowal of this 
salvation is made possible, he alone does not 
refer to the death of Jesus (cf. Mk 10 45 and Mt 
26 28), beyond recording His general remark to the 
disciples on the way to Emmaus (24 25-29). On the 
other hand, it is noteworthy, as an early element in 
his thinking, to what an extent Luke—as James in 
his Epistle—connects poverty and humbleness of 
social rank with possession of the blessings of the 
Kingdom (cf. Parable of Dives and Lazarus, ch. 16; 
the Lukan version of the Beatitudes, ch. 6; the O T 
passage read by Jesus in the Nazareth Synagog, 4 18; 
and the following: 12 33 [cf. Mt 6 19], 3 11, 5 11, 28 [ef. 
Mt 4 22, 99], 6 27, 30, 38, 11 41, 14 12-14, 21, 33, 19 8). 
(5) As to Eschatology: Luke has blended many of 
the teachings of Jesus regarding the progress and 
development of His Kingdom with His announce- 
ment of its consummation at His Second Coming 
(e.g., cf. eschatological address, ch. 21, and the 
passage and parable, 17 20-18 8), tho, as said under 
(3) above, the spiritual character of this develop- 
ment and consummation is perhaps more conspicu- 
ous in Lk than in the other Synopties (cf. 17 20-18 8). 
So also in the presentation of the Judgment Luke 
blends Jesus’ teachings as to the process of judge 
ment with those as to its final pronouncement; tho 


529 





he is less inclined than the others to display the crisis 

element in it (ef. 18 25-27 with Mt 7 21-23, 6 43-45 with 

Mt 12 33-37), which also is in agreement with his 

conception of the definite spiritual character of the 

Kingdom. Along with these profounder ideas one 

should not lose sight of the fact that Luke seems to 

exhibit in his choice of material, particularly his 

Parables (6), a special appreciation of Prayer, (a) in 

its significance as observed by Jesus (8 21, 5 16, 6 12, 

9 18, 29,111, cf. 22 31 £.), (b) in the need of its obser- 

vance by others (cf. Parables which enjoin persistence 

in prayer, 11 5-13, 18 1-8, and the value of real prayer 

18 11-14, as also the admonitions to the Twelve, 

21 36, 22 32, 40 (7) a peculiar tenderness toward the 

Sinful (Cf. the three Parables of ch. 15; also 7 36-50, 

19 2-10, 23 39-43 (Note [1]); and (8) a marked sym- 

pathy with the poor (1 53, 2 24, 418, 6 20, 7 22, 1413f., 

16 20, 25). 

Lirpraturn: Among the Introductions, those of Jiilicker (Eng. 
trans., 1904) and Zahn (Eng. trans., second edition, 1917) 
best represent respectively the liberal and conservative ele- 
ments in German scholarship. Moffatt, The New Test. Intro- 
duction, in the International Theol. Library (1911), pp. 261- 
282, represents the more critical English view-point. In addi- 
tion to these the following shorter introductions should be 
consulted: Bacon, New Test. Introduction (1900); Robinson, 
Study of the Gospels (1902); Burton, Short Iniro. to the Gos- 
pels (1904); Peake, New Test. Introduction (1901). The best 
commentaries are: Plummer, in Inter. Crit. Com. (1896); 
Bruce, in Expos. Gk. Test. (1897); Adeney, in New Century 
Bible (1901). Special works are: Harnack, Luke, the Physi- 
cian, in Crown Theol. Library (1908); Ramsay, Luke the 
Physician (1908); McLachlan, St. Luke, the Man and His 
Work (1920). For the theology of the Gospel, consult Ste- 
vens, New Test. Theol. (Inter. Theol. Library, 1899) and 
Holtzmann, Lehrb. d. neut’lichen Theologie (1897), espec. pp. 
438-454; Moffatt, The Theology of the Gospels (1913). The 
following Lives of Christ may be consulted: Weiss (Eng. 
trans., 1894); Holtzmann (Eng. trans., 1904) representing 
respectively the evangelical and purely critical German 
view-point: Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah (one vol. ed., 1890), 
giving the Jewish background; Smith, In the Days of His 
Flesh (1905), a more popular presentation; Headlam (1924), 
scholarly, tho incomplete. M. W. J. 
LUNATIC: The AV rendering of Gr. ceAnve- 

Gouevoc (fr. ceAqyy ‘moon’) for which RV substi- 

tutes ‘epileptic.’ See Dismasp anp Mepicrne, ITI. 
LUST: The rendering in verbal and substantive 

forms of several Heb. and Gr. words: (1) In the 

O T the noun does not occur in RV; on Ex 15 9; Ps 

78 18, 81 12 (all AV), cf. the more correct rendering in 

RV. (a) ’Gwah, ‘to desire,’ or ‘to wish’; the special 

sense is to be determined by the context (Nu 11 34; 

Ps 10614, andin AV Dt 1215, 20f., 1426). InNul1l4 

we have ta’dwah, lusting AV, from the same root. 

(b) haémadh, ‘to desire,’ stronger than (1), usually 

rendered ‘covet’ (Pr 6 25). (2) Inthe N T. (a) The 

noun éxQuula, of frequent occurrence, is usually 
rendered ‘lust.’ In itself this term means simply 

‘desire,’ and can be used of the noblest and purest 

sentiments (cf. Lk 22 15; Ph 1 23); but where it is 

rendered ‘lust,’ it indicates desires after mere ma- 
terial things, or the lower physical appetites and 

passions (Mk 419; Jn 8 44; Ro 1 24; Gal 516; IT Ti 2 22, 

36, etc.). In Mt 5 28; I Co 106; Gal 517; Ja 42 the 

related verb éx:Ouyety, ‘to lust,’ and in I Co 106 the 

derivative noun émQupnths, ‘one who longs for,’ 
occur. (b) qdovm (Ja 41, 3 AV) is rendered more 
1'T'o these references could be added the Pericope Adulterze of 


John 7 *8-8 should it be proved that this originally belonged to 
Luke’s Gospel (see McLachlan, St. Luke, ch. XIII). 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Luke, Gospel of 
Lysias 





properly by RV ‘pleasure.’ (c) The phrase év xé&Oet 
éxtOuulag (‘in the lust of concupiscence,’ I Th 45 AV) 
is rendered literally by RV ‘in the passion of lust.’ 
(d) Sekt, in Ro 1 27 means properly ‘sensual desire.’ 
(e) In Ja 4 5 éxtxofeiy is rendered more correctly by 
‘doth long unto’ in RV. E. E. N. 

LUTE. See Music anp Musica INSTRUMENTS, 
$3 (3), (b). 

LUZ, luz (nb, liz): 1. A noted place in Canaan 
(Gn 35 6, 48 3), renamed Bethel (Gn 28 19; Jg 1 23) 
by Jacob, on the border between Ephraim and Ben- 
jamin (Jos 16 2, 1813). In Jos 16 2 it is distinguished 
from Bethel. Perhaps Bethel was the original name 
of the sanctuary E. of Luz. See Berner. 2. A town 
N. of Canaan, founded by a refugee from Luz 
(Bethel), which was taken by Ephraim on 1 23). 
Site unknown. Cosel. 


LYCAONTIA, lik’’a-’ni-o. See Asta Minor, III, 6 
LYCIA, lish’i-a. See Asta Minor, III, 7. 
LYDDA, lid’a. See Lop. 


LYDIA lid’i-a (Avdia): One of Paul’s early con- 
verts in Europe, a native of Thyatira (Ac 16 14), in 
the district known as Lydia. The omission of all 
mention of L. by Paul in his Epp. rendersit probable, 
that Avdfa is an adjectival form = ‘the Lydian,’ and 
not the convert’s personal name. Only Addy (Lyda) 
is found in inscriptions as a proper name (cf. CJG, 
Nos. 653, 6975). Perhaps, therefore, L. may be 
identified with one of those women who in Ph 4 2 
are said to have labored with Paul in the Gospel. 
See Evop1a; and Asta Minor, III,8. J. M. T. 


LYE: The rendering of the Heb. nether (Jer 2 22 
RY; ‘nitre’ AV), the equivalent of the Gr. vitpoy, 
Lat. nitrum, 7.e., natron, or carbonate of soda (cf. 
Pr 25 20), a mineral alkali, which, at least in later 
times if not as early asin the time of Jeremiah, when 
mixed with oil was used as soap. EH. E. N. 


LYSANIAS, lai-sé’ni-as (Aucavies): The tetrarch 
of Abilene, or ‘the territory of the city of Abila, now 
Sak on the Abana river, nearly midway between 
Damascus and Heliopolis. The L. mentioned by 
Lk 31 was Lysanias IT, and must not be confounded 
with Lysanias I, who in 40 B.c. inherited the throne 
from his father, Ptolemzus, son of Mennzus, and 
was executed by Antonius in 36 B.c. An inscrip- 
tion (Dittenberger, OGIS 606) of Abila dating from 
the reign of Tiberius speaks of a Lysanias (II) as 
tetrarch of Abilene at that time. It is thus clear 
that Abilene had been severed from the kingdom of 
Chalcis (that of Lysanias I) and that it formed a 
separate tetrarchy, at whose head stood Lysanias IT. 
The name ‘Lysanias’ was probably a common one 
in the princely family. Lk 31 is correct. 

J.R. 8S. S.*—S. A. 


LYSIAS, lis’i-as (Avotzs): 1. A general, appointed 
regent of Syria and guardian of his son and heir by 
Antiochus Epiphanes in 166 B.c. (I Mac 3 38 f.). 
He was defeated the following year at Bethsura by 
Judas Maccabeus (I Mac 5 34 f.; Jos. Ant. XII, 
75). Two years later (163 B.c.), however, L. again 
invaded Judea and succeeded in reaching Jerusalem, 
Judas being unable to check him, and laid siege to 
the Temple-area in which Judas had taken refuge. 
Only the news of the arrival in Antioch of Philip, a 


Lystra 
Maccabees 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


530 





rival, led L. to make terms with Judas and grant 
the Jews religious liberty (of which they had been 
deprived in 168 B.c.). L. returned to Antioch, de- 
feated Philip, and continued to govern as regent 
and guardian of Antiochus V (I Mac ch. 6). Along 
with his ward, L. was put to death by order of 
Demetrius I in 162 B.c. (I Mac 7 2-4; Jos. Ant. 
XII, 10 1). 2. Claudius Lysias, a freedman of the 
Claudian gens, who was commander of the Roman 
cohort in Jerusalem at the time of Paul’s arrest 
(Ac 21 31 ff., 22 28). He permitted the latter to 
address the populace (Ac 21 39), protected him 
against their violence (Ac 22 24), and finally sent 
him under guard to Cesarea (Ac 28 23 f.). 
J. M. T.—E. E. N. 


LYSTRA, lis’tra (Adote«): A city of Lycaonia, with 
which province it passed, in 36 B.c., into the kingdom 
of Galatia, and on the death of Amyntas (25 B.c.) 


M 


MAACAH, mé’a-ka, MAACHAH (1924), ma‘d- 
khah): I. A district of Syria, near Mt. Hermon, and 
N. of Geshur (II 8 106, 8; I Ch 19 6f.), the home of 
the Maachathites (Dt 3 14; Jos 12 5, 18 11,13; IIS 
23 34 [?]). See Aram, § 4 (6). II. 1. A ‘son’ of Nahor, 
Abraham’s brother (Gn 22 24). As Nahor was an 
Aramean, this Maacah is probably the genealogical 
equivalent of I. 2. One of David’s wives, the 
daughter of Talmai, King of Geshur, and the mother 
of Absalom (II § 3 3; I Ch 8 2). 3. The father of 
Achish, King of Gath (I K 2 39; but ef. I S 27 2); 
see Maocn. 4. One of the wives of Rehoboam, King 
of Judah, and the mother of Abijah (I K 15 2; 
II Ch 11 20 #.); perhaps identical with 2. 5. The 
mother of King Asa (I K 15 13; If Ch 15 16); but 
there seems to be some confusion here with 2; see 
Mica, III, 6. 6. Caleb’s concubine (I Ch 2 4g), 
and probably the name of a clan rather than an 
individual. The term Maacathite, as used in II S 
23 34; II K 25 23; I Ch 419 and Jer 40 8, may refer 
to members of this clan. 7. A Benjamite woman 
(I Ch 715 f.). 8. The wife of Jehiel, the ‘father’ of 
Gibeon (I Ch 8 29, 9 35). 9. The father of Hanun 
(I Ch 11 43). 10. The father of Shephatiah (I Ch 
27 16). 


MAADAI, mé’’a-dé’ai (12, ma‘ddhay): One of 
the ‘sons’ a Bani’ (Ezr 10 34). 
MAADIAH, mé’’a-dai’a (171%, ma‘adhyah): The 


ancestral head of a priestly family (Neh 12 5; also 
called Moadiah in ver. 17) 


MAAT, moa-é’ai ('Y9, 
(Neh 12 36). 

MAALEH-AKRABBIM, mo-al’1-a-krab’im. 
AKRABBIM. 

MAARATH, mé’a-rath (01Y), ma‘arath): A town 
of Judah (Jos 15 59). Site unknown. 

MAAREH-GEBA, mé’’-re-gi’ba (YATiTIY2, ma- 
‘aréh ghdbha‘, meadows of Gibeah AV): A te 
near Geba (Jg 20 33). Probably the original reading 


mé‘ay): A Levite musician 


See 


into the Roman Provincia Galatia (see Asta MINoR, 
III, 6). Of little importance historically, L. is 
known chiefly from Luke’s mention of it in connec- 
tion with the visits and preaching of Paul (and 
Barnabas). The site, now called Zoldera, 1 m. N 
W. of Khatyn Serai (six hours’ travel 8. of [conium) 
was first conjectually identified with Khatyn Serat 
by Leake in 1820, a conjecture confirmed by Sterrett 
in 1885, through a Latin inscription on a pedestal 
(still in situ), which in the time of Paul supported 
a statue of Augustus (Divum Auglustum] Colonia] 
Julia Felix Gemina Lustra consecravit dlecreto| 
dlecurionum]). Thus L. was a Roman colonia 
founded about 6 B.c.), and coined money (only 
four coins are known). There are almost no remains 
of the old city and only a few inscriptions (chiefly 
Latin). L. was the home of Timothy (Ac 161)), and 
Artemas, one of the seventy disciples, is said to have 
been first bishop of Lystra. J.R.S S.*—S. A. 


was ‘to the west of Geba’; cf. Burney, Judges, ad 
loc. For Geba see Map III, FP 5; K. E.N. 


MAASAI, mé’a-sai (YY, ma‘say, Maasiai AV): 


A priest (I Ch 9 12), called Amashsai (Amashai AV) 
in Neh 11 13. 

MAASEIAH, méo-si’ya (WNYLD, ma‘dseyahi, 
and WYP, ma‘dséyah), ‘work of J’’’: 1. A Levite 
appointed as singer when the Ark was brought from 
the house of Obed-edom (I Ch 15 18, 2s). 2. A 
captain who joined Jehoiada against Athaliah (II 
Ch 231). 3. An officer under Uzziah (II Ch 26 11). 
4. A son of Ahaz, slain by Zichri of Ephraim (II Ch 
28 7). 5. A governor of Jerusalem under Josiah 
(II Ch 34 8). 6. An officer of the Temple under 
Jehoiakim (Jer 35 4), probably the same as the 
following. 7. A priest in the reign of Zedekiah 
(Jer 21 1, 29 25, 37 3). 8. The father of the false 
prophet Zedekiah (Jer 29 21). 9, 10, 11. Three 
priests who -had foreign wives (Ezr 10 18, 21, 22). 
12. One of the ‘sons of Pahath-Moab’ who had a 
foreign wife (Ezr 10 30). 13. The father of Azariah, 
who repaired the wall (Neh 3 23). 14. One who 
stood at the right of Ezra when the Law was read 
(Neh 8 4). 15. One who explained the Law (Neh 
87). 16. One who sealed the covenant (Neh 10 25 
[26]). 17. A Judahite family name (Neh 11 5= 
AsataH, 4. 18. A Benjamite family name (Neh 
117). 19, 20. Two priests (Neh 12 41 f.). Jer 32 12 
and 51 59 AV have ‘Maaseiah’ for ‘Mahseiah’ RV. 

Oese fT, 

MAASIAI, ma-as’i-ai. See Maasai. 

MAATH, mé’ath (Mad6): 
(Lk 3 26). 

MAAZ, mé’az (7%, ma‘ats): The head of a 
Jerahmeelite family of Judah (I Ch 2 27). 

MAAZIAH, mé”e-zai’a (MIVD, ma‘azyah): The 
ancestral head of the 24th course of priests (I Ch 


24 18), which was represented at the signing of the 
covenant (Neh 10 8). 


An ancestor of Jesus 


531 A NEW STANDARD 


MACCABEES, mak’a-biz, THE: The Maccabees, 
or Hasmoneans (sometimes Asmoneans), as they 
were also called, from Hashmon, the great-grand- 
father of Mattathias, received their name from the 
title given to Judas, the second son of Mattathias. 
He was called Judas Maccabeus, 7.e., Judas ‘the 
Hammerer,’ because, doubtless, of his vigorous 
assaults upon the Syrians. The title gradually in- 
cluded all the members of the family of Mattathias 
and their descendants. The attempt by Antiochus 
IV, Epiphanes (175-164 B.c.) to force Greek worship 
upon the Jews brought on the crisis in which this 


Lystra 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Maccabees 


B.C. committed the leadership to (II) Judas. This 
vigorous young captain won victory after victory, 
and was able to restore the temple worship in three 
years after its defilement by Antiochus (Dec., 165 
B.c.). The question of religious liberty being soon 
thereafter settled, the Maccabees, the tyranny of 
the Hellenistic party being intolerable, now set be- 
fore themselves the larger ambition of political in- 
dependence. For this Judas fought on against great 
odds, and at last fell in the battle of Elasa (161 B.c.). 
For seven years, with superb skill and unflagging 
zeal, he had defended the faith. The leadership was 





Hashmon 


Simeon 


Johanan 


Mattathias (+167 B.c.) 


John Simon (7135 B.c.) 


Judas 


Aristobulus I (105-104 B.c.) 


Hyrcanus II (u.p. 78-69, and 63—40 B.c.) 


Judas (f161 B.c.) 


John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.c.) 


Antigonus 


Eleazar Jonathan (143 B.c.) 


Mattathias Daughter 


Alexander Jannzus (104-78 B.c.) 


Aristobulus II (69-63 3.c.) 


oar as 


Alexander 


Antigonus (40-37 B.c.) 


1 SI Ein cas 


Aristobulus 


Mariamne (m. Herod the Great) 


| | 


Alexander 


Aristobulus 





GENEALOGY OF THE HASMONEANS 


family came to leadership. The successors of Alex- 
ander the Great had taken up his policy of furthering 
Greek culture and customs among their subjects. 
Up to the time of Antiochus the Jews had been 
allowed religious freedom, but he, not content with 
the measure of Hellenization which had already 
been accomplished in Palestine, determined to make 
the Jews give up their religious rites and ceremonies, 
and adopt heathen practises. In the execution of 
his mad purpose he polluted the Temple, and sent 
his agents throughout the land to compel the people 
to worship idols. At the little town of Modin, where 
(I) Mattathias, an aged priest, and his five sons were 
living, the horror and anger of the Jews struck fire. 
The Syrian official who attempted to carry out the 
king’s wish was slain, the idolatrous altar was over- 
turned, and, with a call to all who wished to be 
faithful to the Law to come to them, Mattathias and 
his five sons fled to the mountains. The father lived 
but about a year after this, and at his death in 167 


then given to his brother (III) Jonathan, whose 
successes were rather those of the politican than 
the warrior, altho he did not escape the disagree- 
able duties of war. He profited largely by the 
quarrels and intrigues of the Syrian court, and lost 
his life by a trap into which Tryphon, an aspirant 
for the Syrian throne, led him at Bethshan (143 B.c.). 
As John and Eleazar had both perished, there was 
only one son of Mattathias left, and the people 
called him heartily to lead them. His reign was 
short but brilliant. By his glowing zeal, unremit- 
ting energy, and clever diplomacy (IV) Simon 
achieved the independence of the nation (142 B.c.), 
and the troubles in Syria left him free to attend to 
the needs of his own government. He it was who 
drove the Syrians from the citadel in Jerusalem, 
where for twenty-six years they had disturbed the 
peace of the city. So completely did he free the 
land from the fear and trouble of war that ‘every 
man sat under his vine and fig-tree, and there was 


Maccabees 
Maccabees, Books of 





none to make them afraid’ (I Mac 1412). In Sept., 
141 B.c., the people in great assembly resolved that 
he should be civil governor, military chief, and high 
priest ‘forever, until there should arise a faithful 
prophet’? (I Mac 14 41). Thus his exalted position 
was made hereditary. Simon’s reign was char- 
acterized by two important political acts—his em- 
bassy to Rome, and his coinage of money. It had 
been fitting that his prosperous career should end 
in a peaceful death; but, involved again in the tur- 
moils of the court at Antioch, he was, with his two 
sons, treacherously murdered by his son-in-law at a 
banquet at Docus near Jericho, 135 B.c. (V) John 
Hyrcanus, the third son of Simon, by a timely warn- 
ing, escaped the fate of his father, became his suc- 
cessor, and ruled the land for thirty-one years (135- 
105 B.c.). His reign is notable for its extension of 
the kingdom. Territory E. of the Jordan, also 
Samaria and Edom,were brought under his rule, and 
he was independent of the Syrian kings. His policy 
of conquest and employment of foreign troops 
awakened strong opposition. During his reign the 
Pharisaic party became a prominent factor in the life 
of the nation. The whole drift of his administration 
was away from their ideals, and their opposition 
caused him, near the end of his reign, to side with the 
Sadducees. On the whole, however, his rule was 
prosperous. Josephus pays him a high tribute of 
praise (Ant. XIII, 107). Hyrcanus left the govern- 
ment to his wife and the high priesthood to his eldest 
son (VI) Aristobulus. Trouble, however, came soon, 
for Aristobulus, ambitious to have full power, im- 
prisoned his mother. Once at the head of the gov- 
ernment, he showed his sympathy with the Sad- 
ducees, took the title of king, encouraged Hellenism, 
and carried on a war of conquest. He was called the 
‘Phil-Hellene.’ A fatal illness ended his career in 
104 s.c. Bad as this man was in the eyes of the 
Pharisees, he did not compare in shamelessness and 
infamy with his successor (VII) Alexander Jannzus, 
the third son of Hyreanus. For twenty-six years 
(104-78 B.c.) this man fought, intrigued, and mur- 
dered in pursuit of his selfish ambitions, and won for 
himself a place among the reprobates of Jewish his- 
tory. His reign was marked by fierce internal con- 
flicts growing out of the opposition of the Pharisees. 
The outcome of his whole career was widened terri- 
tory and external glory, but deep inner unrest and 
uncertainty. (VIII) Alexandra, his wife, succeeded 
him upon the throne, and her reign of nine years has 
been called the ‘golden age’ of Pharisaism. In every 
possible particular she reversed the policy of Jan- 
neeus. As Josephus says, ‘while she governed other 
people, the Pharisees governed her.’ The high 
priesthood was given to the indolent and incom- 
petent Hyrcanus, eldest son of Jannzeus, while the 
younger son, Aristobulus II, because of his shrewd, 
energetic and ambitious nature, was studiously kept 
out of power. He became the rallying center for the 
Sadducees, and used them for his own aims. The 
death of Alexandra in 69 B.c. brought (IX) Hyrcanus 
II to power, but his brother (X) Aristobulus II made 
him give up both his royal and high-priestly rank. 
At this time the Herodian house began to exert a 
dire influence on the affairs of Palestine. Antipater, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


532 


father of Herod the Great, sided with the deposed 
Hyrcanus II, and Aristobulus II was shut up within 
the Temple enclosure. At this juncture there arrived 
in Syria Scaurus, Pompey’s lieutenant, to whom both 
the rival parties appealed for aid. On this appeal 
(65 B.c.) Aristobulus II won the day. But Pompey 
himself came to Damascus in 638 B.c., and again the 
Roman authority was asked to decide. Aristobulus 
II, who foolishly determined to resist the demands of 
the Romans, was finally overcome and Judea be- 
came henceforth a Roman province. Her indepen- 
dence was taken away, and the Hasmonean rulership 
overthrown. Hyrcanus II was reappointed high 
priest, but he was simply a tool in the hands of the 
Idumean Antipater (q.v.) and the Romans. In the 
course of the succeeding years the Hasmoneans made 
desperate efforts to reinstate themselves in power. 
There was a charm about the very name which led 
the Jews to second these fruitless attempts. Thou- 
sands lost their lives in trying to put Alexander, the 
son of Aristobulus II, upon the throne in 57 B.c. 
Aristobulus II himself made another attempt in 56 
and Alexander again in 55 B.c. All these attempts 
were frustrated by the Romans and Antipater. One 
last attempt did succeed, and for a while (40-37 B.c.) 
(XI) Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus IJ, was king 
of Judea. He accomplished this by calling in the 
help of the Parthians. His coins were stamped with 
the title ‘King’ on one side, and ‘High Priest’ on 
the other. He was, however, neither a statesman 
nor a general. In trying persistently to get revenge 
upon Herod, the son of Antipater, he wasted his 
energy and at last the Idumean overthrew him and 
put him to death in 37 B.c. Thus ended the dynasty 
of the Hasmoneans. Herod married Mariamne, the 
daughter of Alexander, and by her had two children, 
Alexander and Aristobulus. All three were at last 
executed because of the cruel jealousy of Herod 
himself (see HERop). 


LireRATURE: The Books of Maccabees: Streane’s The Age 
of the Maccabees (1898); Histories of the Jews by Gratz, 
Cornill; Schirer’s The Jewish People in the Times of Jesus 
Christ (transl. 1891); Riggs, History of the Jewish People, 
Maccabean and Roman Periods (1900). 


J. SRi—W Gee: 


MACCABEES, BOOKS OF: Of the five books 
which bear this title only two (I, II) are usually in- 
cluded in the Apocrypha. The third is found in 
most MSS. and editions of the LXX.; the fourth in 
MSS. § and A, and in MSS. of Josephus. The fifth 
is extant in an Arabic text printed in the Paris and 
London Polyglots, where it is accompanied by a 
Latin translation. These books differ greatly from 
one another in character and worth. Indeed, their 
worth is in general in accord with their order, the 
first being very valuable as a history and the fifth 
having no independent value whatever. 

1.1 Maccabees. (1) The Contents of I Maccabees. 
The brief, vivid narrative of this work begins with 
an account of the events which led to the Macca- 
bean uprising (see MaccaBrss, Tur) and ends with 
the death of Simon. Its history covers thus the 
forty years between 175-135 B.c. In an introduction 
(1 1, 9) the author aims to show how the stream of 
Hellenism found its way into Judea, and then, 
taking up the story of the mad folly of Antiochus, he 


533 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Maccabees 
Maccabees, Books of 





carries us on through the brilliant campaigns of 
Judas Maccabeus from 166-161 B.c. (chs. 1-9). 
While Judas is the real hero of the book, the narra- 
tive covers the successful administration of Jonathan 
(161-143 B.c.) and the prosperous reign of Simon 
(143-135 B.c.), to show how the aims of Judas were 
realized in both the religious freedom and political 
independence of the nation. In a simple, straight- 
forward style it sets forth the heroic, triumphant 
patriotism of the brave souls who stood for the Law 
and God against fearful odds. It is the work of a 
true historian. Events are left to speak for them- 
selves. In all that pertains to the struggle itself the 
account is trustworthy. It is only when it treats of 
foreign nations that mistakes are found (see Mac 
1 2,9, 8 2, 4, 6, 8f., 15 f.). The work is in marked con- 
trast to II Maccabees in its soberness and in its 
freedom from the miraculous. (2) Author, Place, 
and Date. All that can be said of the author is that 
he was a Palestinian Jew whose point of view is that 
of orthodox Judaism. His heart was with those who 
fought and planned so nobly for the nation’s wel- 
fare. He wrote his work in Hebrew, and it has come 
down to us in a Greek translation. One singular fact, 
which all students of the book have marked, is the 
absence of the name of God. This is not due to an 
undevout spirit, but rather to a reticent faith. It is 
in the record of noble deeds that we must seek for the 
expression of faith. There are several hints which 
help us to the determination of the date, altho this 
can not be fixed within narrow limits (cf. 13 30, 
16 23 £.). The friendly spirit toward the Romans 
(8 12-16) prevents us from dating the work as late as 
63 B.c. The period of writing may be put at some 
time in the early part of the Ist cent. B.c. Some of 
the sources which the author has used are found in 
8 22 f., 10 18-20, 25-45, 11 30-37, 12 6-15, 14 22-45, 15 16-21. 
These consist of letters and decrees. For the facts 
of the history he may have relied, in part, upon 
personal recollection, and, in part, upon the word of 
witnesses then living. © 


2. II Maccabees. (1) The Contents of II Macca- 
bees. The narrative of II Mac begins with the attack 
upon the Temple by Heliodorus, the minister of the 
Syrian monarch Seleucus IV (175 B.c.), and ends 
with the victory of Judas Maccabeus over Nicanor 
(160 B.c.). For the few years which preceded the 
reign of Antiochus Epiphanes it is our sole authority. 
At the opening of the book are two letters (1 1-9 and 
1 10-2 18), supposed to be written by the Jews in 
Judea to their countrymen fin Egypt, inviting them 
to celebrate the feast of Dedication. These letters 
have no connection with the narrative, are from 
different hand, and are both forgeries. From 47 on, 
the account runs parallel with that of I Mae, and this 
parallelism affords opportunity for an easy com- 
parison of the characteristics of each narrative. In 
II Mac is found a copiousness of detail which some- 
times helpfully supplements the narrative of I Mac, 
but along with this is found an amount of exaggera- 
tion and inaccuracy which makes the whole work 
inferior. A notable feature, entirely absent from I 
Mag, is the miraculous element. The chief value of 
II Mac as a source of information to the historian 
is in those facts where it is not directly at variance 


with I Mac, and where additional and not improb- 
able material makes more complete the picture of 
times or events. (2) Author, Date, and Aim. With 
the exception of chs. 1 and 2, the author claims that 
his work is an epitomization of a work in five books, 
written by Jason of Cyrene. Of him we know 
nothing more. Criticism of this epitome makes 
evident that Jason did not know I Mac, and that he 
gained his material largely from oral sources. Jn a 
work thus produced it is not easy to say how much 
in the way of style and method is due to the original 
writer and how much to the epitomizer. In two 
places (2 19-32 and 15 38-39) we have the writing of 
the latter, and these passages would seem to show 
that the rhetorical effects sought, after all, through 
the book are due to the epitomizer rather than to 
Jason. The original work was in Greek, as was this 


epitome, and the Greek of the latter is that of one 


who knew well how to use it. No certain date can 
be given to the work. It was known to Philo, and 
so must have existed before 40 a.p. Conjecture has 
put the time of its preparation in the last part of the 
Ist cent. B.c. Jason’s work may have been written 
about 160 B.c. Like I Mac, this is also written from 
the point of view of orthodox Judaism. It is quite 
in accord with the spirit of the Pharisees. The 
writer is not content with simply setting forth the 
events of the stirring times between175 B.c. and 
160 B.c. He aims to give their religious value, and 
so to strengthen faith. God is behind and in the 
history, ‘watching above His own.’ Glorious is 
the Temple in Jerusalem, and to its sacred enclosure 
and service the writer would bind more closely the 
hearts of his brethren in Egypt and all lands. They 
could join with the home people in celebrating those 
Maccabean feasts which commemorated the death 
of Nicanor and the dedication of the Temple, and 
thus promote national unity. True to its religious 
tone, the book emphasizes the punishment of the 
wicked, the chastisement in suffering for those who 
are faithful, and the joyful hope of resurrection. The 
last doctrine is expressed with exceptional clearness. 


3. III Maccabees. The third book has nothing 
whatever to do with the Maccabees, and may have 
got its name, as Fritzsche thinks, from being ‘a sort 
of prolegomena to a complete history of the Macca- 
bees.’ The original language of the work was Greek, 
and it is found in most MSS. of the LXX., including 
A and B. (1) The Contents of III Maccabees. At 
Raphia (217 B.c.) Ptolemy IV defeated Antiochus 
the Great. Because of gifts and congratulations from 
the Jews, Ptolemy visited Jerusalem. While there, he 
insisted upon entering the sanctuary against the 
earnest and united opposition of both priests and 
people. Providence saved the Temple from desecra- 
tion, for Ptolemy was stricken with a fit, as he was 
about to carry out his design. Returning to Egypt, 
he was bent upon revenge, and so sent out an edict 
that all the Jews should be shut up in the hippodrome 
at Alexandria and then murdered. Before this was 
done the name of every victim was to be secured. 
So immense was the number that the means of 
registration failed, and for a time the Jews were safe. 
Ptolemy then planned to turn loose upon the people 
500 elephants made frantic with wine. Night and 


Maccabees, Books of 
Machpelah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


I IL 


day the Jews prayed unto God and their prayer was 
heard. For two days the execution of the fatal 
order was delayed by the oversleeping of the king, 
and by his opportune loss of memory. The de- 
liverance came through the sudden descent of two 
angels, who turned the elephants back upon the 
Egyptian army. Such a signal rescue changed 
completely the attitude of the king toward the 
Jews. They were set free, honored with a seven- 
days’ banquet, and given favor throughout the land. 
In memory of this deliverance they ordained a 
festival to be annually observed ‘for all the time 


= 
= 


= 


ele oa = 

7 Ta. 
to 
a pet 


INTERIOR OF THE Mosque sat HEBRON. 


of their sojourn among strangers, from generation to 
generation.’ At the same time they put to death 
more than three hundred of their nation, who had 
apostatized at the time of the trouble. (2) Author, 
Date, and General Character. The author was an 
Alexandrian Jew. The date of the work is uncertain. 
It may have been written near the close of the Ist 
cent. B.c., or in the Ist cent. a.p. The book as a 
whole is a fiction, altho some historical facts are 
undoubtedly embedded in its improbable story. 
Josephus (Contra Ap. II, 5) gives an account of im- 
prisoned Jews attacked by elephants, and of a signal 
deliverance similar to this, but he connects it with 
Ptolemy VII. His tale, however, is quite as un- 
likely as that of III Mac. The yearly festival is 
probably a fact, and the character of Ptolemy IV 
is faithfully drawn. Farther than this we can not 
go. The inconsistencies and impossible situations 
show a legend, which has for its purpose the com- 
forting of those in trouble by making clear God’s 
fidelity to His own people. 


‘ 


\ 
y 
NY 
if 


S— 


aaa 


Se 


SSS 





4. IV. Maccabees. (1) General Character of 
IV Maccabees. This work relates to the Maccabean 
times simply in that it uses the incidents of II Mac 
6 18-7 42 as illustrations of its theme, which is the 
‘supremacy of pious reason over the passions.’ Itisa 
philosophical presentation, and can be divided into 
two main parts. Part I (1 1-3 19) contains a brief 
introduction, the statement of the theme, and an 
argument to show that the passions, severally con- 
sidered, may be under the control of the reason. 
Part II gives illustrations of this theme and argu- 
ment fromII Mac. There is, however, no such sharp 


\ \\ ANY A} 
en | 


\\ 
\' 
\\ 


\ 
\ 
\ 
\\ 
‘ \ 





\\\ 


SS —— 
*y h | x S\\\r ®t wu? tt x NS 
hos ees S 
[SERENA 
NM se SENG ig SS 
A | = =_ = a7 Se 


—s 


Tuer MoNUMENTS TO THE PATRIARCHS. 


division of the philosophical and historical as this 
partition of the book would seem to indicate. All 
through there are reflections which reveal the 
author’s aim to edify and to inspire his readers with 
fidelity to the Law. (2) Author, Aim, and Date 

Since all thought of Josephus as the author has been 
given up, there is no name which we can give to the 
writer of this work. He was a Jew, whose Hellenistic 
culture had in no way diminished his fidelity to the 
faith of his fathers. Rather, he seeks on the basis of 
his own Scriptures, but with the forms which Greek 
culture gave him, to hold his countrymen true to 
Moses. In general, the form of the whole is that of 
an address. It resembles a sermon, the main purpose 
being religious edification and impulse. Two ot its 
teachings are noteworthy, viz.: the eternal existence 
of all souls after death—the good being in > 
blessedness (9 8, 1718), and the wicked in torment 
(99, 12 12)—and the vicarious atoning worth for the 
people of the death of the martyrs (6 29, 17 20). The 
style is exceptionally good, and the Greek of unusual 





535 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


‘Maccabees, Books of 
Machpelah 





excellence for a Jew. The work is, as a whole, a fine 
specimen of the best kind of Hellenistic literature. 
The date can not be determined with certainty. It 
is, of course, later than II Mac, and may be placed 
probably somewhere near the beginning of the 
Christian era. 

5. V Maccabees. The last book, which is a com- 
pilation from I and II Mac and the writings of 
Josephus, aims to give a history of the Jews, from 
the time of Heliodorus (186 B.c.) to the last years of 
the reign of Herod the Great. Up to ch. 19 it follows, 
T and II Mac as well as Josephus; from ch. 20 to the 


| 


PRPS 


= 
pa 
" Hi ow 





the four eastern river basins and along the Thermaic 
and Strymonic gulfs was predominantly Greek, 
differing from the mixed population of the interior. 
Jewish synagogs were formed at Philippi, Thessa- 
lonica, and Berea, but probably not at Amphipolis 
and Apollonia (Ac 171). R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


MACHBANNAI, mak’ba-nai (7229, makhban- 
nay): A Gadite, one of David’s soldiers (I Ch 12 13). 

MACHBENA, mak-bi’na (13239, makhbénah, 
Machbenah AV): Probably the name of a place (I 
Ch 2 49), perhaps the same as Cabbon (q.v.). 


{ Vie 


A al is 


vow, ce 


rc As 
m0) 
fii ih 


RE 


\ 


ra bi 
mt ANIL, 





We hs 





SSS 
— = 
= 





























INTERIOR OF THE Mosqur At HEBRON. 


end, it borrows from Josephus and consequently has 
no independent value as a history. Its date must be 
placed later than Josephus (70-100 a.p.). 


Lirerature: Bissell, Apocrypha, in Lange Commentary 
(1880); Fritsche’s and. Grimm’s Apocryphen des alten 
Testaments (1851-60); Kautzsche’s Die Apocryphen und 
Pseudepigraphen des alten Tesiaments (1908); Schirer 
HJP (1891), Div. I, vol. iii; Charles, Apocrypha and 
Pseudeprigrapha of the O T (1913). J.S. R.—W. G. J. 


MACEDONIA, mas’i-dd’ni-a (Maxedoviz): The 
name of a Roman province which in N T times was 
bounded by Thrace, Illyricum, the Adriatic, and 
Achaia, and traversed from Dyrrachium to Neapolis 
by the military Egnatian road. The kingdom of 
Macedon, created by Philip, fell under Roman con- 
trol after the battle of Pydna in 168 sp.c.—the four 
older districts into which it was then divided (Ac 
16 12) being united later (146 B.c.), with portions 
of Illyricum and Thessaly, into the one province 
of Macedonia under proconsuls or propretors (the 
former in the time of Paul), with Thessalonica as 
its capital. The population on the fertile plains of 





Tye MoNuUMENTS TO THE PATRIARCHS. 


MACHI, mé‘kai (°79, makhi): A Gadite, father of 
Geuel (Nu 13 15), whom Moses sent to spy out the 
land. LO te Pas ke 

MACHIR, mé’kir, MACHIRITE, mé‘kor-ait 
(V22, makhir): 1. The first-born son of Manasseh 
(Jos 171 £.); in Gn 50 23 and Nu 26 29 ff. represented 
as his only son. His family took possession of Gilead 
(Nu 32 39 £.; Dt 3 15; Jos 13 31; cf. Nu 27 1, 36 1). 
According to Jg 514 (where Machir = Manasseh), the 
Machirites dwelt originally W. of the Jordan, and at 
a later time migrated to Gilead. In I Ch 2 21 f., 
7 14. Machir is connected with Gilead. 2. A son 
of Ammiel in Lo-debar, E. of the Jordan, near 
Mahanaim, who gave protection to Mephibosheth, 
son of Jonathan (II 8 9 4f.), and ministered to David 
on his flight from Absalom (II $ 17 27f.). C.8. T. 

MACHNADEBAI, mak-nad/1-bai (377292, makh- 
nadd*bhay): A Jew who married a foreign wife (Ezr 
10 40). 

MACHPELAH, mac-pila (72222, makhpélah): 
1. Biblical and Historical References. Mentioned in 


Machpelah 
Magic and Divination 


A NEW STANDARD 
the Priestly document of Gn as a plot of land E. of 
(‘before’) Mamre, bought by Abraham from Ephron 
the Hittite, after a series of typically Oriental 
negotiations (see Thompson, Land and Book, i, 
246-249), in order that Sarah might be buried in the 
cave which was in the end of the partly timbered 
field (Gn ch. 23). According to P, this cave was 
afterwards the sepulcher of Abraham, Rebekah, 
Isaac, Leah, and Jacob (Gn 259 f., 49 30 £., 50 13). 
The signification of ‘the Machpelah’ (always with 
the article) is doubtful. It may mean ‘double place,’ 
and is thus translated in the ancient versions. 
Possibly the designation referred originally to the 
two chambers of the cave. Rabbinical literature 
contains curious conjectures as to the application 
of the term (see J#). But in Gn ‘the Machpelah’ 
seems to be used indifferently of the cave (23 9, 
25 9), the field (23 19, 49 30, 50 13), or the entire 
property (23 17). 

Outside of the P document in Gn the Machpelah 
is never mentioned in the Scriptures or in the 
Apocrypha. Ac 7 16 curiously places the tomb bought 
by Abraham at Shechem, where Joseph was buried 
according to E (Jos 24 32). A late tradition places the 
sepulcher of Joseph in Hebron, by that of his 
ancestors, where it is shown to-day. Josephus (BJ, 
IV, 9 7) speaks of the marble monuments of the 
patriarchs. Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. II, 4) shows that 
the cult of the patriarchs at Hebron lasted down into 
Christian times. From the allusions of early pil- 
grims and historians it appears that the modern 
Harém or sacred enclosure at Hebron has been 
identified with the Machpelah at least since the 
beginning of the Christian era. 

2. Traditional Site. The Hebron Hardm (‘sacred,’ 
or ‘forbidden,’ place) is a fortress-like quadrangle, 
197X111 ft., with walls of hard limestone, 40 ft. 
high, which date from at least as early as the time 
of Herod, but are considered by many to be much 
older than the Herodian period; e.g., Robinson, Stan- 
ley, Warren. These ancient walls are surmounted by 
modern ones, plastered and whitewashed. Lofty 
minarets rise at diagonally opposite corners, and 
flights of steps along the short sides of the quad- 
rangle give access to the interior platform, which 
is about 18 ft. above the lowest ground adjoining. 
One end of the enclosure is entirely taken up by 
the mosque, whose clearstory can be seen above the 
exterior walls of the Harém. This mosque was 
originally a Crusaders’ church, built probably 
shortly after 1167 (see HeBron). Most of the other 
structures within the enclosure are Moslem, of the 
14th cent. and later. In front of the mosque a four- 
arched portico opens into a small court, beyond 
which a number of chambers fill the farther end of 
the platform. (See illustrations pp. 5384-535.) 

The six monuments to the patriarchs and their 
wives are supposed by the Moslems to be placed 
directly over the corresponding graves in the cave 
beneath. Each coffin-like cenotaph is covered with 
richly embroidered silk, and enclosed in a little 
chapel or shrine. The shrines of Isaac and Rebekah 
alone are within the mosque, those of Abraham and 
Sarah are in the portico, while the cenotaphs of 
Jacob and Leah are in the chambers adjoining the 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


536 


NW. exterior wall. Non-Moslems are rigidly ex- 
cluded from the entire enclosure, and the cave itself 
is held in such reverence and fear that perhaps no 
Moslem has entered it during the past seven cen- 
turies. Kaiser Wilhelm II was permitted to enter 
the mosque during his visit to Palestine in 1898; 
and when Hebron was hastily evacuated by the 
Turks and Germans before the allied advance in 
1917, a German officer succeeded in penetrating to 
the cave beneath the mosque. Two supposed 
entrances in the floor of the mosque are covered 
with flagging and carpets. A third opening allows 
one to see down through a well-like shaft into a 
little whitewashed room, about 12 ft. square, whose 
floor is apparently on a level with the ground out- 
side the Hardm. This room is an antechamber 
which, through a doorway in its 8. wall, gives access 
to the sepulchers. 

Back of the Christian era it is impossible to trace 
the tradition which identifies the Hardm with the 
Machpelah, and back of the Priestly Code (ca. 500 
B.c.) there is no evidence of the tradition which 
places the tomb of the patriarchs near Hebron. 
It is certain, however, from early Hebrew sources 
that Hebron was a holy place in ancient times (II 8 
5 3, 157, 10), and its sanctity may have been due to 
the fact that it was the reputed burial place of the 
forefathers. The cult of ancestors was one of the 
most ancient and firmly established features of the 
pre-prophetic religion of Israel. (See BurrtaL and 
MourNING.) 

In view of the many centuries before our era dur- 
ing which there was no allusion to the cave of 
Hebron, not to mention the unsolved critical prob- 
lems relating to patriarchal history, the claim that 
the traditional sepulcher of the patriarchs is genuine 
(e.g., Warren in HDB, Stanley, Thompson, Robin- 
son [?]) is unjustified. 

LifBRATURE: Stanley, Lectures on: the Jewish Church, i, 
appendix ii, describes the epochal visit of the Prince of 
Wales’s party in 1862. Later and more accurate observa- 
tions are recorded in PEFSt, 1882, 197-213; 1897, 53-61. 
For statement of early travelers and historians, see Ritter, 
Geog. of Pal., ili, 305-323; Warren in HDB; Robinson, 
BRP, ii, 77 f.; Le Strange, Pal. Under the Moslems, 309-327. 
An exhaustive account of all that is known up to date is 
given by L. H. Vincent and E. V. H. Mackay, Hebron, le 


Hardm el-Khalil, Sepulture des Patriarches (1923). 
L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


MAD, MADNESS. See DisrAsz anp MEDICINE, 
§ 5 

MADAI, mé’dai. See Eranograpav AND E\rH- 
NOLOGY, §§ 6 and 13; and MzpgEs 


MADIAN, mé’di-an. In Acts 7 29 (AV) for 
Midian (q.v.). 


MADMANNAH, mad-man’a (3272, madhman- 
nah):1. A Calebite (I Ch 2 49), perhaps a genealogical 
statement of the origin of the town of the same name. 
II. A town in the 8S. of Judah (Jos 15 31), also called 
Beth-marcaboth (Jos 195;I Ch3 31). MapII, D3. 

Ore 

MADMEN, mad’men (j7, madhmén): A town 
in Moab, connected with Heshbon and Horonaim 
(Jer 48 2). Possibly it is to be identified with Dibon 
(Nu 21 30), the modern Dibén, for which Dimon 


537 A NEW STANDARD 


occurs in Is 159. Cheyne emends to Nimrim, which 
(Is 15 6) occurs after Heshbon and Horonaim. 
GO} OyARs 
MADMENAH, mad-mi’na (732279, madhméndah): 
A place in Benjamin, N. of Jerusalem, between 
Anathoth and Gebim (Is 10 31). Site unknown. 
OF Bans 
MADON, mé’don (1179, mddhén): A royal city of 
the Canaanites (Jos 11 1, 12 19), usually identified 
with Madin near Hattin, a few m. W. of Tiberias. 
The LXX.(B) of Jos111has Mapeay, which suggests 
Meron, two hours WSW. of Kedesh-naphtali (Map 
IV, E 5). Caterie 


MAGADAN, mag’a-dan (Mayadéyv): A town vis- 
ited by Jesus (Mt 15 39, Magdala [May8aAé] AV); 
in the || Mk 8 10 Dalmanutha, AaAyavouvbé). It 
can not, however, be identified with certainty under 
either name. Ewald’s suggestion that Magadan is 
Megiddo is impossible, unless Megiddo be located, 
with Conder, near Beisan, instead of Lejjzun (but 
see Mrarippo). ‘Dalmanutha’ is probably a corrup- 
tion of Delimnitha (Atuyn, ‘harbor’; see Herz in 
Expos. T., Sept., 1897, altho Conder derives it 
from Aram. De Almanutha, ‘place of high buildings’), 
which points to Magdala as the modern Meydel, a 
few miles N. of Tiberias on the shore of Lake 
Galilee. This town is said in the Jerusalem Talmud 
(Ta‘anith, 4 8) to have been a prosperous one, but 
is nowhere else mentioned outside of the Gospels. 

ACE: 

MAGBISH, mag-bish (¥’222, maghbish): A place 
occupied by the returned exiles (Ezr 2 30). Site 
unknown. Perhaps the same as Magpiash, q.v. 
(Neh 10 20). 

MAGDALA, mag’da-le. See Macapan. 


MAGDALENE, mag’da-lin. See Mary, 2. 
MAGDIEL, mag’di-el (?8"122, maghdi’él): One 
of the ‘dukes’ of Edom (Gn 36 43). 


MAGIC AND DIVINATION. 1. General Sig- 
nificance of the Terms. Altho variously defined, 
thesé words are so often used indiscriminately, or 
with the meaning of one shading off into that of 
the other, that accuracy of definition is difficult. 
Magic, however, properly has to do with the use of 
objects or actions to produce, through influence 
over the spirits or jinn, the physical results con- 
trary to the natural order. It, therefore, in one 
respect resembles a crude form of science, while in 
another it approaches the sphere of religion; for 
magic rites are often but imperfect prayers or 
external forms through which deity is to be moved. 
Divination, on the other hand, is an effort, without 
disturbing the natural order of events, to learn what 
that order will be. It, therefore, is closely akin to 
prophecy, and in many of its forms, as it becomes 
more highly developed, we find it closely approxi- 
mating to the work of the seer or true prophet. 
Yet the diviner may use magic arts to accomplish 
his purpose. The most fully developed systems of 
magic and divination were found in Egypt and 
Babylonia (cf. Gn 41 8 #.; Ex 7 11 #.; Dn 1 20, 2 2, 
etc.). It has been a question whether the Hebrews 
borrowed theirs from the one or the other. Tho 
there undoubtedly was influence from the Baby- 


Machpelah 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Magic and Divination 


lonians during the exile, the main source of Hebrew 
magic was probably Egypt. The only reference to 
Babylonian magic is in Dn, while the Pentateuchal 
references are exclusively to Egypt. Some Hebrew 
magic, of course, must have been indigenous. In 
divination there was Babylonian influence (ef. Ezk 
21 21 f.). Correlative terms for magic and divina- 
tion are sorcery and soothsaying. These two words 
usually imply a lower depth than the former and are 
generally used when the practises are prohibited. 
The word magic, which seems to come to us from 
Babylonia and perhaps from Persia, carries with it 
an element of superiority, just as divination might 
be regarded as legitimated by the results which it 
sought. Sorcery in every instance is resorted to 
when people desire the accomplishment of some 
purpose which is counter to morality or religion, and 
soothsaying pertains to an unholy desire to peer into 
the unseen world of the future. The soothsayer may 
be a sorcerer. Note how the term is used of Balaam 
(Jos 13 22; cf. Nu 227, 23, etc.), in connection with 
whose efforts victims were slain and sacrifices of- 
fered. 


2. The Attitude of the Law Toward Such Prac- 
tises. The Hebrew legislation was emphatic in its 
condemnation of all that pertained to these arts, and 
it prescribed the most condign punishment for them. 
Ly 20 27 condemns the witch or the wizard to death, 
and Dt 18 10 f., which is the classical passage on this 
subject, specifies, in an exhaustive summary, the 
different kinds of sorcery. In this attitude Hebrew 
law is in complete conformity with that of other 
nations. The Code of Hammurabi (c. 2100 B.c.), 
in its first paragraph, legislates against witchcraft. 
The reason for this lies in the fact that such practises 
were contrary to the common social welfare. The 
man who sought the sorcerer was endeavoring to gain 
an advantage over his fellow men, and consequently 
became a public enemy. The danger was that he 
would break up the clan or the tribal, or even the 
national, life by arraying unseen powers against it. 
Such an effort meant the forsaking of the national 
god, and, therefore, was to be classed with idolatry. 


3. The Practise of Magic and Divination in Israel. 
Terms Used. When the people of Jerusalem once 
found themselves in the most serious straits, they 
turned to the powers of the unseen world for help» 
(Is 8 19) and ignored their God. This, like all other 
efforts of the kind, testifies to the deep-seated desire 
of humanity to find some kind of a sympathetic 
response from a power greater than human, and as 
God often seems too far away to be a present help, 
lesser powers are turned to, who are felt to be more 
accessible and perchance more closely allied to hu- 
manity. In this respect Israel was at one with the 
larger world of its day. 

The Heb. word which is most frequently used of 
magical methods is the verb gasam (together with 
the deriv. noun gesem, usually rendered divination, 
but witchcraft in I S 15 23), generally rendered to 
divine or to use divination, or as a ptcpl. diviner, 
the root of which is found also in the Arabic kismet, 
‘destiny.’ This, therefore, throws light upon the 
Hebrew conception. Magic or sorcery was an effort 
to determine fate, not so much by foretelling as by 


Magic and Divination A NEW STANDARD 


working out the destiny by means of charms, or 
spells, or potions, or the use of objects which in 
themselves are supposed to possess power, or into 
which the sorcerer himself has infused efficacy. 
Sometimes the arts may be practised by any individ- 
ual and by simple methods, an instance of which 
occurs in Gn 30 14, where didhda’im, ‘love-apples,’ 
rendered ‘mandrakes,’ are mentioned as possessing 
powers similar to those of a love-philter. The tera- 
phim, which seem to have been often found in house- 
holds, were probably used in connection with such 
arts (cf. Gn 31 30, 34; 18 1913). The lot, Urim and 
Thummim (q.v.), and the ephod were also familiar, 
a staff as well (Hos 412). More often, however, the 
seeker must have gone to a person supposedly en- 
dowed with peculiar powers. The most striking 
illustration of this is found in Saul’s experience (IS 
28 3 ff.), who, altho he had expelled all who practised 
the black art, in his own extremity searched out a 
witch to help him, of whom he might inquire, or 
consult, z.e., learn the issue of the comming battle. 
The name by which she is called is'a fairly common 
one in the O T, ba‘alath ’dbh, ‘the possessor of ’6bh,’ 
rendered ‘that hath a familiar spirit.’ This Heb. 
term ’6bh may signify a ghost (a ‘control’) or a sub- 
terranean spirit which speaks from a hollow in the 
heart (cf. Is 29 4). Gaster thinks the ’6bh, the tera- 
phim, and the yidd*‘ont are mummies used for 
necromancy (HRE, IV, p. 811 b). The word yid- 
d*‘oni, translated wizard, however, probably refers 
to the spirit which was the sorcerer’s familiar or 
‘control.’ It is naturally derived from the root 
yadha‘, ‘to know,’ and would apply very well to 
the spirit that the medium most often called upon, 
or which dwelt within her. In Assyrian the spirit 
of soothsaying is called muda. In the use of this 
term we see how sorcery and soothsaying are com- 
bined, for the arts necessary to call the spirit would 
be sorcery, while the response of the spirit itself 
would be soothsaying and in the realm of divination. 


Dt 18 10 f., already referred to, contains two 
groups of terms which must indicate the popular 
conception of the relationship of different kinds of 
divination. At the head of the first group (ver. 10) 
we find denounced the one who makes his son or his 
daughter ‘to pass through the fire.’ This may have 
been a form of heathen sacrifice, or it may have been 
a drastic method of consulting omens, in which 
ordeal the child was in many cases killed. Fire 
ordeals of various kinds are characteristic of the 
superstition of many primitive peoples. Another 
term, the ptcpl. ‘dnén or m*‘énén, practiseth augury 
(observer of times AV, also rendered ‘soothsayer’ 
Is 26; Jer 279, enchanter AV; Mic 512, and ‘sorceress’ 
Is 57 3), is of doubtful origin. W. Robertson Smith 
suggests that it is from a root, ‘adnan, signifying ‘to 
murmur,’ and that the diviner received his message 
through the murmuring of leaves as at Dodona (cf. 
also the ‘sound of going in the top of the mulberry- 
trees,’ II S 5 24), or the hum of insects (cf. the name 
of the prophetess Deborah, ‘a swarm of bees’ [?], 
and Baalzebub, ‘the lord of flies’). More likely it is 
connected with ‘dndn, ‘cloud,’ and means ‘weather 
prophet,’ not only in the sense of foretelling weather 
but also in the sense of controlling the elements. 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


538 


The vb. néhash (ptepl. enchanter, Dt 18 10), 
seems to have the general sense of ‘practising 
divination’ or ‘observing omens.’ (Lv 19 26; II K 1717 
etc.). It is used of hydromancy (Gn 44 5), and, in 
spite of its form, probably has no connection with 
serpent-charming. The word m*khashshéph, sorcerer 
(witch AV; cf. also Ex 22 18; II Ch 33 6; Mal 3 5), is 
akin to the Assyrian ka3sapu, and is often associated 
with the astrologers (Ex 7 11) and wise men (Dn 2 2). 
It is probably of foreign origin, and perhaps to be 
regarded as a general term summarizing the pre- 
ceding. The last word of the first group in the above- 
mentioned passage, Dt 18 10 f., is hébhér, charmer, 
which seems to contain the idea of ‘binding,’ and has 
been interpreted as meaning ‘the one who ties magic 
knots.’ But W. Robertson Smith’s suggestion, that 
it means ‘the weaver of a spell,’ is far more accept- 
able. Gaster holds that it means ‘one who is able 
to gather animals for good or evil purposes’ (HRE, - 
IV, p. 810 b). The second group of words (ver. 11) 
represents different ways of consulting the unseen 
world, ending with the term necromancer, literally, 
‘one who inquires of the dead.’ The whole passage 
is, therefore, a comprehensive denunciation of those 
who use magical arts (‘sympathetic magic’) as well 
as those who assume to hold communication with 
the departed. 


4. The Attitude of the Prophets Isaiah and 
Ezekiel. Besides several passages in the legal 
literature that forbid sorcery, the prophets Isaiah 
and Ezekiel are very specific in their attacks upon 
such unholy practises. Isaiah singles out special 
classes, and in his condemnation of the daughters 
of Zion (3 16 ff.) he enumerates their ornaments, 
several of which from their names, must have had a 
magical use. In fact, it is probable that pendants 
and bangles were originally worn to keep off evil 
influences, as indeed is the case in many parts of the 
world at the present day. The most spiritual con- 
ception of the radical difference between the true 
and the false is found in Is 8 19 f., where the hopeless 
people who are seeking ‘familiar spirits’ that chirp 
(peep AV) and mutter (ironical, probably suggestive 
of sounds made by the sorcerers) are exhorted to 
seek instead the living God. 


Ezekiel, more than a century later, found the 
people saturated with the strange customs of the. 
Orient. Lying divinations and false visions were the 
evils with which he had to contend. Wizards and 
witches preyed upon the superstitions of the popu- 
lace. In 13 17-23 some peculiar kind of charm is 
referred to. The obscurity of the expressions, how- 
ever, is great. The ‘pillows’ and the ‘kerchiefs’ 
(ver. 18) are probably amulets, possibly the pred- 
ecessors of the phylacteries and frontlets which in 
later Judaism had a magical use, altho then they 
had been conventionalized and become a part of 
decent and orderly dress. The ‘handfuls of barley’ 
and ‘pieces of bread’ (ver. 19) have sometimes been 
supposed to be the fees paid the witch, but it is more 
likely that they were employed in some magical rite 
(cf. the use of a portion of the meal-offering in the 
test for adultery, Nu 5 26). One of the most interest- 
ing passages is Ezk 21 21, where the king of Babylon 
is represented as consulting the omens before decid- 


539 A NEW STANDARD 


ing whether he should advance against Jerusalem 
or Rabbah of Ammon. ‘The arrows may have been 
used as lots to be drawn from the quiver; or in 
shaking them the king may haye been polishing 
them for use in self-hypnosis similar to crystal- 
gazing. Teraphim were included in the augury 
used, and this gives us a clue to the employment 
of teraphim in general, and to the reason for their 
exclusion from legitimate rites. The last clause of 
ver. 21is the only definite Biblical allusion to the 
consultation of the entrails, but the examination of 
the liver was one of the commonest Babylonian 
practises. In a cabinet in the British Museum there 
is a clay model of a sheep’s liver, the surface of which 
is divided into small squares like the ‘regions’ of 
an astrologer’s map of the heavens, and in each 
square are cuneiform characters evidently intended 
to explain how certain appearances in each region 
are to be interpreted 


5. Divination and Prophecy. The so called false 
prophets may in many cases have been soothsayers, 
and prophetism, starting with the more naive and 
innocent forms of divination, gradually rose to 
greater heights and more spiritual conceptions with 
the greater insight into moral needs. Samuel might 
give a response for a small fee (IS 97 f.), but his 
larger mission was to find a king and to hold both 
king and people to an undeviating path of rectitude. 
The trivial and the transient were divorced from the 
true prophet’s occupation, and the man with the far- 
reaching vision of Israel’s destiny scorned the fren- 
zied demonstrations of the false prophets, and in the 
form of vision and parable declared the fate of king 
and people, like Micaiah (I K ch. 22). Yet how near 
the methods of the two classes were we see from II 
K 3 13 #., where Elisha required the playing of a 
minstrel before he could attain the proper state of 
ecstasy. We need not wonder at this when we find 
how close we are to the most primitive notions of 
cause and effect among even fairly educated people 
at the present day. The Midianite who adorned his 
camel with chains and crescents for good luck in the 
time of Gideon (Jg 8 21-26) would find his successor 
to-day in Syria or Italy. 

6. Divination by Dreams. Another point of con- 
tact between the true and the false appears in 
dreams. The will of God might be thus revealed. 
Jacob claimed to receive Divine messages by this 
means (Gn 31 11). Joseph dreamed of future great- 
ness (Gn 37 5 ff.), and to him as well as to Daniel 
came the power to interpret (Gn 40 8, 12, 41 25 ff.; 
Dn 1 17, etc.). Incubation-places were esteemed; 
perhaps Jacob’s at Bethel (Gn 28 11-17), cer- 
tainly the shrine at Gibeon, where a_ king 
might meet God in the visions of the night 
(I K 35 #.). Yet the leading prophets did not 
greatly esteem dreams. The vision was a higher 
medium of communication, and even this often gave 
place to forms in which the fancy had less play. 

7. Practise of Magic in Postexilic Israel. A recru- 
descence of sorcery must have taken place during or 
toward the close of the Exile. This was due to Baby- 
lonian influence and the large and elaborate system 
there displayed. The second part of Isaiah is a wit- 
ness to this, and the magicians of different orders are 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Magic and Divination 


there presented in antithesis to true seekers after 
God, while Babylon herself, in the day of her down- 
fall, was to have no profit from those practises 
upon which she depended (Is 44 25, 47 12 #.). Astrol- 
ogers, star-gazers, and monthly prognosticators are 
the names given those who sought, not in the chance 
omens of trees or birds or entrails, but from the 
aspects of the heavens, a more sure word of prophecy 
and even they are discredited. The Book of Daniel 
is another witness of the power of sorcery over the 
mind, altho the tone of the narrative shows it not 
to be a contemporary description of the Babylonian 
system. The wise men, the Chaldeans, the sooth- 
sayers, and the magicians (hartummin, the Aram. 
equivalent of the Heb. hartummim, spoken of as the 
‘magicians’ attached to the court of Egypt in Gn 
41 8; Ex 7 11, etc.) seem in Dn to be great bands or 
gilds, who appear before Nebuchadrezzar and Bel- 
shazzar somewhat as the false prophets of Micaiah’s 
time (cf. I K 2210 f.), tho in more ceremonious 
guise. Daniel by superior endowment triumphs 
over them and becomes himself their chief (Dn 5 11). 
But from the beginning to the end of the O T the 
sin of witchcraft is classed with idolatry and tera- 
phim as the enemy of true religion (cf. 1S 15 23). 

8. Survivals of Magical Customs in the Legitimate 
Cultus. It is an interesting, altho difficult, task to 
discover what traces of old magical customs were 
preserved in the religion and carried over into the 
rites. Yet what was once an incantation may often 
have been purified and retained in a ritual. In this 
question is involved the whole problem of the origin 
of religious forms. Certain peculiar laws in Ly and 
Nu show the influence of early superstitions. The 
jealousy ordeal (Nu ch. 5) is a good example of this. 
In the first place, the fact that it is an ordeal connects 
it with the entire series of practises into which magic 
enters as a large factor; and, secondly, the details of 
the test are decisive. Holy (t.e., pure) water was to 
be mingled with the dust from the floor of the Taber- 
nacle, and when a portion of the meal-offering had 
been burned, the woman was to drink the water, 
meanwhile assenting to the consequences of the curse 
pronounced by the priest if she were really unfaithful. 
This is in all essential respects identical with ordeals 
among other early people. The dress of the high 
priest was doubtless symbolical in character, altho 
much of the early significance must have been ob- 
scured and forgotten. Yet the bells suggest the idea 
of a counter-charm by which evil influences were to 
be driven away. Naturally such notions disap- 
peared in course of time, and the ornamental purpose 
was the only one thought of. The phylacteries and 
frontlets, the sacred words fastened on the door-post 
(the m¢zizoth of to-day), and the cabalistic use of 
the Divine name testify to the persistence of old 
superstition. The Book of Tobit gives us some 
insight into the views of early Judaism concerning 
the unseen world. The strange custom preserved 
in the ritual of the Day of Atonement, viz., the send- 
ing away of the goat Azazel (Lev 16 8 ff.). seems to be 
a survival of early beliefs in the necessity of propi- 
tiating demoniac powers. Among all ancient peoples 
the processes of life were considered mysterigus and 
awful, and it is possible that circumcision, per- 


Magic and Divination 
Malachi 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


540 





formed generally at the period of puberty, had its 
origin in the desire to propitiate the unseen powers, 
which presided over life and death. Ex 4 24 fi., ob- 
scure as it is, must refer to such a conception. The 
circumcision of the child, made to apply in a vica- 
rious manner to Moses, was a propitiatory act. Ina 
similar way the period of a woman’s uncleanness was 
regarded as tabu, and her separation was due to the 
feeling that in some way the powers of the unseen 
world were involved. Sacrifices at the time of child- 
birth had a similar origin. The peculiar law in Lv 
19 23-25, about the period before a fruit-bearing tree 
might be used, is only a further extension of the same 
idea that unseen powers must be considered and 
placated before human beings could come in for their 
share of the fruits of the earth, or into the full par- 
ticipation of the rights of life. It would seem prob- 
able that the art of; physicians suffered often from 
the imputation of sorcery. Asa’s recourse to them for 
his malady (II Ch 16 12) is reprobated. Undoubt- 
edly the medical means used were of a kind which 
resembled a witch’s brew, and the list of unclean 
beasts (Lv ch. 11) probably included some which 
were neither totems nor sacred, but whose use was 
forbidden because associated with magical practises. 


9. Magicinthe N T. In the N T there aresundry 
allusions to magic and sorcery. The form then most 
prevelant was that of exorcism (Ac 1913 and cf. Mt 
12 27), in which the main feature was the pronuncia- 
tion of magic formulas, or incantations, or the use of 
certain names to expel demons from human beings. 
Josephus (Ant. VIII, 2 5) says that the incantations 
discovered by Solomon were still in use in his time 
and appears to have had great faith in their efficacy. 
There seems to have been a question whether 
exorcism was a strictly legitimate practise. Christ’s 
miracles in connection with demons were met 
with the sneer that He was in league with the powers 
of darkness (Mt 12 24). It is significant that the 
word Beelzebub (‘Beelzebul’ EV Vmg.) which we find 
here, according to some MSS., is the name of the 
oracle from which responses were sought in Elijah’s 
time (II K 1 2), the one that gave answers through 
the droning of flies. In Ac1913 we have a record of 
the proceedings of certain exorcists who endeavored 
to imitate Apostolic methods, and found themselves 
routed by the unfortunate demoniac in a burst of 
grim satanic humor. This happened at Ephesus, 
the home of curious arts (neptepya, Ac 1919, magical 
arts RV), and resulted in the wholesale destruction 
of the apparatus of sorcery (Ac 19 18 f.). 


Two masters of this art are prominently named 
in the Apostolic narrative, Simon Magnus (q.v.) 
(Ac 89 f.), and Bar-Jesus, surnamed Elymas (q.v.) 
(Ac 13 6 ff.), the latter title being of Semitic origin 
and testifying to his reputation for occult wisdom. 
Lastly, the girl possessed of ‘a spirit of divination’ 
(Ac 16 16; Gr. ‘a spirit, a Python’; so RVmg.) should 
be mentioned. She is the N T equivalent of the one 
that hath a ‘familiar spirit? of the O T. Serpent 
superstition and clairvoyance seem combined in the 
description of this girl, and, if we knew more of the 
details of her case, such an example might cast some 
light on certain words which occur in Dt 18 10 ¢. 
Sorcery comes in for final denunciation in Rev, where 


its identification with spiritual wickedness is com- 
plete. Sorcerers are among those who are to be 
forever shut out from the heavenly city (22 15). As 
a sorcerer was the representative of that which 
militates against the unity of the body politic, the 
aider and abetter of treason and treachery; so he 
could have no consideration when the city was 
cleansed of everything that loveth and maketh a lie. 
LirERATURE: The articles on Magic, Divination, and Charms 
and Amulets in HRE, and Int. Stand. Bib. Enc.; W. R. 
Smith in the Journal of Philology, XIII, XIV. Much 
illustrative material may be found in Frazer’s Golden Bough; 
see also Jevons, Introduction to the Hist. of Religion (81904), 
chs, iii, iv, vi-vili; and Introd. to Comp. Religions (1908), 
chs, iii, iv. C.*—O. R. S. 
MAGICIAN. See Maaic anp Divination, § 7. 


MAGISTRATE: A term for a civil official. In 
Ezr 7 25 it is equivalent to the 6rdinary Heb. term 
for ‘judge.’ In Lk 12 58, the language of which is 
apparently molded by Gr. usage, it translates the 
term &pxwv, an officer higher than the ‘judge’ (cf. 
Mt 5 25); in Ac 16 20 ff. it renders the word otpatnyol, 
which is the ordinary Gr. equivalent for the duovirt, 
the two chief municipal officers of a Roman colony; 
called by courtesy pretors (cf. RVmg.), before 
whom political charges were brought. On Jg 18 7, 
Lk 1211, Tit 31, cf. RV. R. A. F.—E. C. L. 

MAGOG, mé’geg. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND 
Eranoioey, § 13, and also Goa. 

MAGOR-MISSABIB, mé’gér-mis’a-bib (12 
a’392, maghor-missabhibh), ‘terror on every side’: A 
phrase coined by Jeremiah (Jer 6 25, 20 10), and (in 
20 3) given by him as a name to Pashhur in prophecy 
of the fate which awaited him (cf. 46 5, 49 29). 

C.8. T. 

MAGPIASH, mag’pi-ash (¥9°512, maghpi‘ash): 


The name of a family whose representative signed 


the covenant (Neh 10 20). Perhaps the same as 
Magbish (q.v.). ; 

MAHALAH, ma-hé’la. See Mauuan. 

MAHALALEL, mo-hal’a-lel (282270, mahdlal él, 
Mahalaleel AV), ‘praise of God’: 1. One of the ante- 
diluvian patriarchs in the Sethite genealogy (Gn 5 
12 #., etc.). 2. A descendant of Judah (Neh 11 4). 
3. The N T form is Maleleel (in Lk 3 37 AV). 

MAHALATH, mé/ha-lath (N20) mahdlath): 1. 
The wife of Esau (Gn 289). 2. The wife of Reho- 
boam (II Ch 11 18). See also Psaums, § 3 (5). 

MAHALATH-LEANNOTH, mého-lath - l-an’- 
neth. See LmanNnorts. 

MAHALI, mé‘ha-lai. See Mant. 

MAHANAIM, mé”ha-né’im (92209, mahdnayim): 
A place of some importance. The earliest reference 
to it isin Gn 32 2 (E). Here Jacob, as he was return- 
ing from Mesopotamia, met the angels of God, and 
gave to the locality the name Mahanaim, 2.e., ‘two 
camps,’ or ‘companies.’ Mahanaim became the capi- 
tal of N. Israel under Ish-bosheth (II S 28, 12, 29). It 
was David’s headquarters during the revolt of Absa- 
lom (II S 17 24), and became the seat of one of Solo- 
mon’s prefectures (I K 414). The exact location has 
never been determined; it was certainly trans-Jor- 
danic, and lay to the N. of Jabbok and the S. of 
Penuel. Driver advocates an identification with Deir 


541 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Magic and Divination 
Malachi 





‘Alld, situated on the route which passes N. and 8. 
along the Jordan Valley. Following Jos 13 26, G. A. 
Smith is satisfied with locating it on the borders of 
Gad (See Map III, J 2.) J. A. K. 

MAHANEH-DAN, mé‘hoe-ni-dan” (] 77209, ma- 
hdnéh-dhén), ‘camp of Dan’: A name given to the 
place where the Danites encamped (Jg 18 25, 18 12). 
Perhaps two places are thus named, one between 
Zorah and Eshtaol (13 25), the other on the border 
of Benjamin, behind (west) of Kiriath-jearim. 

C. 8. T. 
_ MAHARAT, me-har’a-ai ("109, mahdray): One 
of David’s Bioes (II S 23 28; I Ch 11 30, 27 13). 

MAHATH, mé’hath (NN2, mahath): A Kohath- 
ite Levite of Hezekiah’s time (I Ch 6 35; II Ch 29 
12, 3113). See AHiMoTH. 

MAHAVITE, mé’ba-vait, THE (8°02, mahd- 
wim): Eliel, one of David’s heroes, is called ‘the 
Mahavite’ (I Ch 11 46). The term is obscure and 
probably a scribal error for some other word. 

MAHAZIOTH, mea-hé’zi-ofh (NiIN'INS, mahd- 
zv oth), ‘visions’: One of the names in the peculiar 
verse (I Ch 25 4; see JosupeKasHaAn), later taken 
as the name of an individual (I Ch 25 30). 

MAHER-SHALAL-HASH-BAZ, mé”har-shé’lal- 
hagh-baz” (13 ON 52Y 7, maher shalal hash baz), 
‘the booty hastens, the spoil speeds’: The sym- 
bolic name given to one of the sons of Isaiah, the 
prophet (Is 8 1), indicative of the impending doom 
of Damascus and Samaria. EK. BE. N. 

MAHLAH, ma‘la (12%, mahlah); 1. The eldest 
(?) of the five daughters of the Manassite Zelophe- 
had (Nu 26 33), who obtained the right to inherit 
their father’s property (as he had no son, 27 1), on 
the condition that they marry sons of their father’s 
brother (36 11). Their story gives the origin of the 
later law, which modified the earlier law of inheri- 
tance by males only (see Faminty anp Faminy Law, 
§§ 3, 8). 2. A Gileadite name (I Ch 7 18 Mahalah 
AV). ‘ Grade and bi 

MAHLI, ma’lai (°°, mala): 1. A son of Merari 
(Ex 619, Mahali AV; Nu 3 20; I Ch 6 19 [4]), and the 
founder of the Levitical family of Mahlites (Nu 3 
33, 26 58; EXzr 8 18), descended from his two sons by 
the marriage of the daughters of one to the sons of 
the other (I Ch 23 22). 2. The son of Mushi, and 
grandson of Mahli (I Ch 6 47 [32], 23 23, 2430). C.S. T. 

MAHLON, ma@’len. See Cuimion. 


MAHOL, mé‘hol (711), mahal): The father of the 
three wise men, Heman, Calcol, and Darda, with 
whom Solomon is compared (I K 4 31 [5 11]). His 
origin is unknown. OARS ras be 

MAHSEIAH, mi-si’ya (NOM, mahséyah, Maa- 
seiah AV), ‘J’ is a refuge’: The grandfather of 
Baruch (Jer 32 12, 51 59). 

MAID, MAIDEN, MAID-SERVANT. See Fam- 
ILY AND Famiuy Law, § 7; also SLAVE AND SLAV- 
ERY, §§ 2, 3; and Marriage anp Divorce, §3. 

MAIL, COAT OF. See Arms anD Armor, § 9. 


MAIMED. See Sacririce AND OFFERINGS, § 
5; and Disease AND Mepicing, § 6. 


MAINSAIL. See Snips anp Naviaarion, § 2. 


MAJESTY: The translation of (1) g@én (root 
idea ‘to raise oneself’), indicative of elevation, 
superiority; often translated ‘pride.’ Used of God 
in Is 2 10, 19, 21, 24 14; Mic 5 4; (2) of the related 
term gé’tih, cf. Ps 931; Is 2610; (8) of hddhar (root 
idea, ‘adornment,’ ‘distinction’), often rendered 
‘beauty,’ ‘honor,’ ‘excellency.’ Used of God in 
I Ch 16 27; Ps 29 4, 96 6, 1041, 111 3, 145 5,12; (4) 
of hddh (root idea uncertain), eg., I Ch 29 11, 25; 
Job 37 22; (5) of several other terms, in both the 
O T and N T—all meaning ‘greatness,’ e.g., Est 1 4; 
Dn 4 36, 518; He 1 3, 81; II P1186. KH. E. N. 


MAKAZ, mé’kaz (¥R?, mdgats): A town near 
Shaalbim and Beth-shemesh (I K 4 9). Site un- 
known. 


MAKHELOTH, mak-hi’leth (Ni¥TP2, maghe- 
loth): A station on the wilderness journey (Nu 
33 25 f.). Site unknown. 


MAKKEDAH, mak-ki’da (TIP, maggédhah): 
A Canaanite stronghold in the Shephelah, mentioned 
by the J document in connection with Joshua’s 
victorious campaign (Jos 10 10-27), and by D and 
P in the list of places captured with the subsequent 
allotment of the conquered city to Judah (Jos 10, 
28 f., 12 16, 15 41). According to P, it was near 
Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and Naameh, and apparently 
on the natural route from the valley of Aijalon 
southward. Not far from the city was a cave, in 
which the five ‘kings’ hid from their pursuers (Jos 
10 16 f., J). According to Warren (PEF, Surv. Mem, 
II, 411 ff., 427) these conditions are satisfied by the 
modern el-Mughér, a large, mud-built village, sit- 
uated upon a kind of promontory, which extends 
into the valley of Sorek (Wddy Surdr) from the 
north (Map III, C 5). It is undoubtedly an ancient 
site, as is shown by the rock-quarrying and the exis- 
tence of rock-cut tombs with locult running in from 
the sides of the chambers. So far as a careful ex- 
amination by the PEF surveyors could show, this 
is the only site in the plain where caves occur, and 
here they are numerous. The houses are built over 
and in front of caverns of various sizes, and small 
caves exist in the face of cliffs N. of the village. The 
Syriac of Jos 10 10 renders ‘Makkedah’ as Mokor, 
which approaches closely the Arabic mughr (pl. 
mughar), ‘a cave.” See PEFQ (1875), 165-167. 
This identification, however, is very doubtful. 

L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


MAKTESH. See JERUSALEM, § 36. 


MALACHI, mal’a-kai (2822, mal’akht), 
messenger’; possibly originally Malachiah, 
messenger of J’’.’ 

1. Contents. The name of the last book in the 
prophetic collection. It consists of two parts. The 
first part (1 1-2 17) opens with a declaration of J’”’s 
love for Israel, and hatred of Edom (1 2-5); this is 
followed by a rebuke of the priests, who violate the 
prescriptions of the ritual law (1 6-14), and a threat 
of a heavy curse (21-3). This leads to the rehearsal 
of J’’s ideal covenant with Levi (2 4-9), and the de- 
nunciation of the special sin of faithlessness to the 
law of marriage (2 10-17). The second part begins 


‘my 
‘the 


Malachi 
Man, Doctrine of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


542 





with the prediction of the coming of J’”’s messenger 
(3 1-6), and: once more condemns the violation of 
J’’s commandments (8 7-15). The prophecy then 
closes with a vivid forecast of the judgment which 
shall separate between those who work wickedness 
and those who fear J” (3 16-4 3), and with the promise 
of the sending of Elijah (4 4-6). 


2. Date. The date of the book is not definitely 
fixed by anything within it, but the general con- 
ditions reflected point to a time subsequent to the 
restoration of the Temple worship under Zerubbabel 
(17,10, 31). The evils denounced are similar to those 
met and rebuked by Ezra and Nehemiah (violations 
of the marriage law, 2 10-16; cf. Ezr 9 2, 10 3, 16-44; 
withholding the tithes 3 7-12; cf. Neh 13 10 f.). A 
governor is alluded to (1 8), but, as he is one who 
may receive presents, it can not be Nehemiah, for 
Nehemiah repelled the possible charge of doing so 
(Neh 5 14-18). From all these facts, it may safely 
be inferred that the prophecy belongs to the Persian 
period, and more especially to the time immediately 
preceding the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, 2.e., 
about 460-50 B.c. 


3. Authorship. Whether the name of the book is 
the name of the prophet who wrote it is an open 
question. The title “The burden of the word of 
Jehovah’ (cf. Zee 91 and 121) indicates the appear- 
ance of a new type of superscription for prophecies. 
If the two sections in Zec are to be regarded as 
prophetic discourses anonymously published and 
later appended to the Visions of Zechariah, it is not 
unlikely that another anonymous prophet of the 
same general period should have published his 
message under the generic appelative of ‘messen- 
ger’ or ‘messenger of J’’,’. This view of the use of 
mal’ akhi seems to be supported by 3 1 and the 
tradition that Malachi was none other than Ezra 
himself (Targ. Jon. b. Uzziel, which adds to the name 
‘Malachi’: ‘whose name is Ezra the scribe,’ an 
opinion adopted by Calvin). Against these con- 
siderations the reason for taking ‘Malachi’ as a 
proper noun is that it seems to be so translated in 
the LXX. In addition to this it is alleged ‘that 
every other book of the Minor Prophets opens with 
the name of its author.’ But this is a mere assump- 
tion (cf. Jonan; see also Driver, LOT'S, p. 321 f.). 

4. Literary Features. In literary form the book 
is characterized by a quasi-dialectic type of discus- 
sion. This consists in the laying down of a general 
proposition which provokes contradiction leading to 
counterstatements, and ending with a vindication 
of the main position, perhaps more fully elaborated 
(cf. 1 2f., 217 f., 3 8f., 13 f.). By some this has been 
taken to be a sign that the prophecy was from the 
first circulated in writing. A better explanation of 
the fact is that the author adopted a method of 
teaching which was just coming into use and which 
later became a favorite in the schools and synagogs 
of Judaism. As to the book itself, it is more than 
probable that it represents a collection of sayings 
from a number of addresses delivered at different 
times. 

5. Type of Thought. The type of thought repre- 
sented in M. points to a new development. While 
the prophet’s great ideal is, like that of earlier 


prophecy, the law of righteousness laid down by J” 

for His people, he lays great stress on the ritual. 

He also sees the great and terrible day of J’’ as about 

to break upon the familiar order of things, and bring 

unsparing judgment. But while the coming of this 
oonsummation is to be abrupt, preparation is to be 
made for it by the return of Elijah. 

6. Summary. Thus by its style of composition, 
and by its system of thought, the book puts itself at 
the end of one order of things, and points to the 
beginning of another. It was an accurate instinct, 
therefore, and not a mere arbitrary impulse, that 
led to its being placed at the very end of the O T 
Canon (Prophetic Section), altho not the latest in 
the date of the O T books., 

LiTBRATURE: Driver, LOT® (1897), p. 355; Cornhill, Introd. 
to the O T (Eng. transl. 1907); Commentaries: V. Orelli, 
Minor Prophets (1893); Perowne, Malachi in Cambridge 
Bible (1890); G. A. Smith in Hzpositor’s Bible; S. R. 
Driver in The New Century Bible (1906); J. E. McFadyen, 
The Messenger of God (1910); J. M. P. Smith in ICC (1912). 

AG. ae 

MALCAM, mal’kam (RV), MALCHAM (AY) 
(0379, malkim): I. The eponym of a Benjamite 
family (I Ch 89). II. A deity of the Ammonites 
(Jer 49 1, 3; Zeph 1 5), the same as Milcom. See 
Semitic REiIGIon, § 26. G.S. T. 


MALCHIAH, mal-kai’a, MALCHI JAH, mal-cai’ja 
(920, 17920, malkiyyah, malkiyyahai), ‘my king 
is Jah’: 1. A descendant of Gershom (I Ch 6 40 
[25]). 2. A priest, the father of Pashhur (I Ch 912; 
Neh 11 12; Jer 211, 381). 3. The head of the fifth 
course of priests (I Ch 24 9, perhaps =preceding). 
4, 5, 6. Two of the ‘sons of Parosh’ (Ezr 10 25) and 
one of the ‘sons of Harim’ (Ezr 10 31) who had 
married foreign wives; the last also repaired the wall 
(Neh 3 11). 7. A son of Rechab who repaired the 
dung-gate (Neh 3 14). 8. A goldsmith who repaired 
the wall (Neh 3 31). 9. One who stood at Ezra’s left 
while he read the Law (Neh 8 4). 10. One who 
sealed the covenant (Neh 10 3 [4]); perhaps the same 
as 2. 11. A priest who assisted in dedicating the 
wall (Neh 12 42). Jerre HM f- 

MALCHIEL, mal’ki-el (78292, malki’él), MAL- 
CHIELITE, -ait, ‘God is king’: The ancestral head 
of the Malchielites, one of the clans of Asher (Gn 46 
17; Nu 26 45; I Ch 7 31). 

MALCHIJAH. , See MAtcurian. 

MALCHIRAM, mal-kai’ram (OP220, malkiram), 
‘my king is exalted’: A descendant of David (I Ch 
3 18). 

MALCHISHUA, mal’/kai-shi’a (Y10°222, malki- 
shia‘), ‘the king is noble’ (?): A son of Saul, slain 
at the battle of Mt. Gilboa (I S 14 49, 31 2, Mel- 
chishua AV, etc.). 

MALCHUS, mal’kus (MéAxoc): One of the mixed 
company of Roman soldiers and officers of the 
Sanhedrin who arrested Jesus (Jn 18 3). He seems 
to have been a slave belonging to the household of 
the high priest. In the mélée that preceded the 
arrest his right ear was partially severed by Peter, 
and healed by Jesus (Jn 18 3, 10). Luke also records 
the incident, but not the name (Lk 22 49 f.). 

J! Mack: 


543 A NEW STANDARD 


MALEFACTOR: The English translation of two 
Gr. words having practically the same meaning. 
(1) xaxonotds (xaxdv notdy, in some MSS.) (Jn 18 30 
AV, ‘evil-doer’ RV). But in I P 2 14 (AV) it is 
rendered ‘evil-doer.’ It is possible that xaxoxoté¢ 
in I P 4 15 may mean ‘astrologer’ (cf. Artemid. 
Onetr. IV, 59). (2) xaxodpyoso (Lk 23 32 £.; IL Ti 
29, ‘evil-doer’ AY). Js MRT; 


MALELEEL, meo-li’l-el (MaAeAena): An ancestor 
of Jesus (Lk 3 37 AV). See MAHALALEL, 


MALLOTHI, mal’o-thai (179, mallatht), ‘I have 
fulfilled’: Taken as a proper name (I Ch 25 4, 26), 
but more probably part of an ancient hymn. See 
JOSHBEKASHAH. . 

MALLOWS. See PALEsTINE, § 22. 

MALLUCH, mal’ok (7172, mallikh), also 
MALLUCHI, mal’lu-kai: 1. The name of a postexilic 
family and of several of its representatives (Neh 10 
4, 12 2), called Malluchi in 12 14 (Melicu AV). 2. 
A Merarite Levite (I Ch 6 44). 3. One of the ‘sons 
of Bani’ (Ezr 10 29). 4. One of the ‘sons of Harim’ 
(Ezr 10 32; Neh 10 27). 


MAMMON (uaywvec, the Gr. form of an Aram. 
word for ‘riches’ [Mt 6 24; Lk 169, 11, 13]): The origin 
of the word is quite obscure. The following explana- 
tions are proposed: (1) Mammon was a deity of 
wealth; but there is no trace of belief in such a deity. 
(2) The word comes from the root ’aman, ‘to trust’ 
(ma@’mon, ‘that which is made secure’ or ‘deposited’). 
(3) It comes from matmon, ‘that which is treasured.’ 
The 2d is probably the correct derivation (cf. Dal- 
man, Aram. Gram.*, p. 170, and PRE?, Vol. XII, 
p-153 £:): A. C. Z. 

MAMRE, mam/’ri (81>!9, mamré’): I. In J, in the 
combination, ‘the oaks (‘plains,’ AV, ‘terebinths,’ 
RVmg.) of Mamre, which are in Hebron’ (Gn 13 
is, cf. 181): The site of Abraham’s camp, which 
is placed by early Christian and modern Jewish 
tradition at er-Radmeh, 2 m. N. of Hebron. Near 
this is a ruin called ‘The House of the Friend 
(t.e., Abraham),’ and a second ruin, which is prob- 
ably the basilica erected by Constantine in the 
neighborhood. Since the 12th cent., however, the 
Christians have located Mamre 14 m. NW. of the 
city, where at the present time a very ancient tree is 
revered as ‘Abraham’s Oak.’ Both of these sites, 
however, seem too far from Hebron. (See Hesron.) 
The meaning of the name is unknown. 

II. In P, in the combination, ‘the cave of Mach- 
pelah, which is before Mamre, that is, Hebron’ 
(Gn 23 17-19, 259, 35 27, 49 30, 5013). The elimination 
of the holy trees, and the substitution of the 
patriarchal tomb, are significant for the age of P. 
(See MACHPELAH.) 

III. An Amorite chief, owner of the ‘oaks’ men- 
tioned above, and confederate with Abraham (Gn 
1413, 24). (See AMRAPHEL. ) L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


MAN: The original Heb. and Gr. terms rendered 
‘man’ are numerous, and each has its distinctive 
meaning. Only the briefest discussion can be given 
here. (1) The most generic term is ’édham, properly 
collective for ‘man’ in general, the genus Homo, 
mankind (Gn 1 26 f., 2 7, etc.), in distinction from 


Malachi 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Man, Doctrine of 


God (Nu 2319), or from other creatures (Gn 67, etc.). 
An individual is a ‘son of man’ (Ezk 21, etc.). 
This word has no plural; ‘men’ is literally ‘sons 
of man.’ (2) ’tsh indicates man as an individual, 
the male, the husband, the man of affairs, the 
citizen, etc. (Gn 2 23 f., 41, 13 16, 41 33; Hos 2 16, 
etc.). (3) ’éndsh, a collective, like ’@dham, and used 
much in the same way (Dt 32 26; Job 28 4, 32 8; Is 
517, etc.). The Aramaic equivalent ’éndsh is used 
in Ezr 4 11; Dn 2 10, ete. (4) ba‘al, ‘owner,’ ‘master,’ 
is often rendered ‘man’ (pl. ‘men’) (Gn 20 3; Jos 
24 11; Jg 92ff., etc.; see also BAaL; and Famity 
AND I'amity Law, § 3). (5) gebher, properly man as 
‘strong,’ ‘vigorous,’ ‘brave’ (Ex 10 11; Jos 7 14; Jg 
5 30. Often used in poetry in a more general sense; 
cf. Job 3 3, 1410; Ps 348, etc.). The Aram. equivalent 
is g*bhar (zr 4 21; Dn 2 25, ete.). (6) gibbdr, properly 
an adj., ‘strong,’ ‘powerful,’ but also, especially when 


_referring to warriors or heroes, used asa substantive. 


In either case it is generally rendered mighty man 
(Gn 109; Jos 10 2; Ru 21; II K 51, ete.). (7) 2akhar, 
‘male’ (Lv 15 33; Nu 31 17f., ete.). (8) In a number 
of passages ‘man’ stands for the Heb. ben, ‘son of,’ 
thus, in I K 1 52 ‘worthy man’ is lit. ‘son of worth’; 
in IT K 216 ‘strong men’ is lit. ‘sons of strength,’ etc. 
(9) &ewroc in the N T corresponds to the O T 
’ddhdm, as the most generic term, which is used 
in a great variety of senses. (10) &vne corresponds 
to the O T “ish, ‘man’ as an individual, etc., but 
its use is very general (Mt 7 24; Mk 6 20; Jn 1 13, 
etc.). (11) &eony or &peny, ‘male,’ is used in Ro 
1 27; Rev 12 5. (12) The adjectives dveantvos 
(‘human,’ ‘of man’) and tédetocs (‘perfect,’ ° ‘full- 
grown,’ ‘adult’) are found in I Co 2 13, 4 3, 10 13; 
Ro 619; I P 213; Ja.37, and I Co 26, 1420. E.E.N. 


MAN, DOCTRINE OF: 1. General Features. 
The term ‘man’ (the rendering of the following Heb. 
and Gr. terms: ’ddhdam, ’ish,’énosh, gebher, &vVewxos, 
éyvo) is used of the human race, or human nature gen- 
erally, or else of the individual. It isin the former 
sense that it becomes a doctrinal term. Whether the 
Bible has a distinctive science of man (anthropology) 
isa question that must be answered upon the whole 
in the negative. This means that each large period 
of Biblical thought (that of the O T, or that of the 
N T) incorporates within itself the scientific ideas 
of its time, and that these are used as the vehicles 
for the communication of the essentials of religion. 
Inasmuch, however, as the latest stages of this 
development are controlled by the earlier, and do 
not at the end present radically contradictory tenets, 
the subject may be said to possess at least a relative 
unity. 

2. The Origin of Man. As to the origin of man 
the Bible contains two accounts (Gn J 27 [P], and Gn 
27[J]). In both, man is the creature of God. P puts 
this in a generic, J in a specific, form, 7.e., according 
to P, God created man as a part of the world; 
according to J, He fashioned him out of the dust of 
the ground, and then breathed into him the breath 
of life. The essential truth to be taught in both was 
that man owes his being te God, and has a spiritual 
affinity with Him. The mode of his coming into 
existence is a subordinate question to be answered 
by natural science. 


Man, Doctrine of 
Mandrake 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


544 


a ete a Td eR NR RR A enn re AAR resent atathesathAta e=nneme een , 


3. The Image of God in Man. The Biblical 
account of man’s creation includes also statements 
implying that man is endowed with the image (form) 
of God. This may mean that God has a bodily form, 
which serves as the pattern for that of man; or 
the image of God may be man’s moral nature; or 
it may consist in simple lordship over the other 
creatures. None of these views is satisfactory. 
Yet the frequent repetition of the statement (Gn 
51, 9 6; Ja 39; Col 3 10) forbids the dismissal of it 
as a mere rhetorical embellishment. The image of 
God is better understood to be that which brings 
man into relation with God; in other words, to be his 
personality (Ps 8 5). 

4, The Distinction of Sex. The same account 
includes a statement that God created man, male 
and female, which, however, is not to be associated 
with the mythological notion of an androgynous first 
man, but with the idea dominant throughout the 
Bible that the two sexes are on an equal footing, as 
far as relationship to God is concerned (Gal 3 28). 
This is in contrast with some forms of heathenism, 
in which woman is of inferior origin and occupies 
a lower place than man. 


5. Unity and Complexity of Man. According to 
the prevalent representation of the Bible regarding 
man’s constitution, he is a unitary being. In every 
relationship he acts as one, both in the present life 
and in that after death. A separation of body from 
spirit is not held in view. And yet the complexity 
in unity of the human being is not ignored. On the 
one side, man is in contact with the material world, 
and possesses a nature which can be expressed only 
in terms of matter; on the other, he has powers that 
go beyond the world of matter. From this point 
of view, man is a twofold being. This doctrine is 
found in its simplest form in the idea of the inner 
man (Ro 7 22; II Co 4 16; Eph 3 16). It is implicit 
in Gn 27, and constantly comes to the surface in the 
designation of the superphysical in man, by the 
phrase the inward parts (Ps 59, 51 6). 

6. Trichotomy. A still more exhaustive way of 
speaking of the whole man is resorted to by Paul. 
It consists in specifying body, soul, and spirit as 
parts of a complete human nature (I Th 5 23). This 
appears also in expressions in which a distinction be- 
tween soul and spirit is alluded to (I Co 15 44, 46; 
He 412). Some apparent support for this distinction 
is further found in the OT use of twoseparate words 
to designate soul and spirit respectively (nephesh 
and ruah). But on closer examination, this usage 
of the O T does not appear to be based upon a con- 
sistent psychological theory, but is rather a con- 
ventional one. So far as the distinction is observed, 
the word ‘soul’ stands for the principle of life as 
embodied in individuals, while spirit is the same 
principle as cause underlying the constituted life. 
In the N T, with its tendency toward keener 
analysis, spirit and soul are more clearly discrimi- 
nated from each other. The former is used of that 
specific side of human nature which allies man to 
God; the latter is restricted to the secular exercises 
of the inner man. 

7. The Physical Man. The non-ethical side of man 
is concretely associated with the physical. The 


body is in the O T the seat of weakness, while in 
the N T it receives a more and more detached con- 
ception, until at times it is thought of as the mere 
residence of the spirit (II Co 51). At other times it 
is the ‘vessel,’ or instrument (II Co 4 7), or the 
‘temple’ (I Co 619). The word flesh itself, ordinarily 
applied to the body, is found in several very broadly 
distinct meanings: (1) The material body (bdsdr, 
Gn 2 23), (2) human ‘nature in general (Jn 1 14), 
(3) relationship by marriage (Gn 2 23; Jg 9 2; Ro 
9 5, 8), (4) the seat of all weakness (‘AI flesh is as 
grass,’ Is 40 6; ‘The spirit is willing, but the flesh 
is weak,’ Mt 26 41), (5) moral turpitude (Ro 8 
3 f.; Gal 5 13). 


8. Localization of Faculties in the Body. In- 
dividual members or organs of the body are iden- 
tified with special functions of the mind. (1) The 
heart is the organ of thought (Pr 23 7; Mk 2 6; Lk 
24 32), but not exclusively of the reasoning powers; 
for it is also the seat of the affections and appetites 
(Ps 104 25), eg., of joy (Is 80 29), anger (Dt 19 6), 
hatred (Lv 1917), and, in fact, of the whole personal 
life, including all the moral impulses, both the dis- 
criminative and the directive. ‘Heart’ is thus 
synonymous with ‘conscience’ (Job 27 6). (2) The 
bowels are more consistently the seat of the emo- 
tions, especially of those which, on account of their 
intensity or suddenness, produce a more perceptible 
reflex condition in the body (Is 16 11 AV, 63 15. La 
1 20 ARV, however, renders more according to the 
sense). (3) The liver less frequently (La 2 11), and 
(4) the kidneys (Ps 79, 26 2, etc., reins AV and ERV; 
ARV here also renders, according to the sense, 
mind’) appear as seats of feeling. 


9. Psychological Notions. The more purely 
psychological date of the Bible are scanty and more 
or less elastic. The conception of mind, except 
where it has been introduced by ARV in renderings 
according to the sense, is almost altogether a 
characteristic of the N T. And here it appears pre- 
dominantly in the synonymous terms voic, BovAn, 
the first of which denotes the deliberative reason, as 
applied to the moral life, with a bias either toward 
good or toward evil (Ro 7 23; Col 2 18; Rev 18 18); 
while the second denotes the act or state of intelli- 
gence, rather than a separate power or faculty. 

10. Will. The Biblical conception of will must be 
gathered from what is said incidentally of willing as 
a phase of human activity. A name for the so 
called faculty of will is nowhere given. Neither 
is there a question of the freedom of the will, or 
of its determination. Practically, will arises in 
appetency, or strong inclination, and culminates in 
a wish (@éAnua [Ac 18 22; Eph 2 3] and éxrOuyte 
[Ro 6 12]). An inclination of a weaker nature, 
however, may show itself first in the form of a 
deliberation (Gob nua [I P 4 3]). The power of choice 
involves the power to accomplish what is chosen 
(Jos 24 15, 22; cf. also the appeal of Elijah, I K 18 21; 
cf. also Ph 1 22; He 11 25). Hence arises the idea of 
responsibility underlying the choice. Will worship 
(Col 2 23) is not the rendering of Divine honors to 
one’s own will, but the introduction into religion of 
arbitrary elements, according to one’s own choice. 
These may be well-intended, though unnecessary 


545 A NEW STANDARD 


(or supererogatory), or hypocritical and harmful 

(ef. Lightfoot on Col 2 23). 

Lirerature: Laidlaw, Biblical Doctrine of Man (21895); 
Delitzsch, Bibl. Psych. (Eng. transl. 1867); Beck, Bibl. 
Psych. (Eng. transl. 1877); Wheeler Robinson, The Christian 
Doctrine of Man (1911). A. C. Z. 


MAW OF SIN. See Anticurist, § 6. 
MAN, SON OF. See Jesus Curist, § 15 (c). 


MANAEN, man’a-en (Mavatv=Heb. Menahém): 
A prophet in the church at Antioch, when Paul and 
Barnabas undertook their first missionary journey 
(Ac 181). He is also called a cbytpog0¢ of Herod 
the Tetrarch. While this may mean that he was 
the ‘foster-brother’ of Herod (cf. CIG, 3109), more 
probably it is simply a court title meaning ‘friend’ 
or ‘associate’ (see especially two Delos inscriptions 
reported in Bulletin de Correspondance hellénique 
[1877], I, 285, and cf. Deissmann, Bible Studies,? 
810 f.). There is no established connection between 
this M. and Manaen the Essene referred to in Jos. 
Ant. XV, 10 5. & Aga bod ig 

MANAHATH, man’a-hath (M02), manahath): I. 
A son of Shobal, and the eponym of a Horite clan 
of Edom (Gn 36 23; I Ch 1 40). II. A place on the 
border of Judah, to which certain Benjamite clans 
were carried captive (I Ch 8 6). Site unknown. 

(ORIEN ht 

MANAHATHITE, man’a-hafh-ait (M22, ma- 
nahtt, Manahethite AV): A Calebite clan descended 
from Salma (I Ch 2 54). We should read the same 
word for Menuhoth (I Ch 2 52), which was also 
a Calebite clan and likewise inhabited Manahath, 
which ultimately became a city of Judah. C.S. T. 

MANAHETHITE, man’s-heth-ait. See Mana- 
HATHITE. 

MANASSEH, meo-nas’é (7¥22, menashsheh =Gr. 
Mavacofic, Manasses): I. The ancestral head of one 
of the tribes of Israel; see Tripn, Tripss, § 3 f. 
II. 1. The son of Hezekiah, King of Judah (695-641 
B.c., IZ K 211). He succeeded his father at the 
age of twelve. As Hezekiah had hearkened to the 
teachings of the prophets and had carried on a 
drastic system of reforms in religious worship, based 
on their principles (II K 18 4), one of the first steps 
of the anti-prophetic party when he died was to 
start a violent reactionary movement. In this they 
succeeded so far as to enlist the young king in their 
cause. His policy was accordingly molded quite 
early in his reign by the leaders of this faction. 
Hezekiah’s reformation was arrested, and the cruder 
forms of worship practised in the reign of Ahaz were 
restored. Things went even further; for the king 
thought to strengthen himself against the prophetic 
party by winning over to his side the adherents of 
other religious systems, through the establishment 
of a syncretistic national religion in Judah. For 
this purpose he introduced from Assyria the astral 
system (the adoration of the ‘host of heaven,’ IT 
K 21 3), and caused ‘his son to pass through the 
fire’ (ver. 6), 7.e., he practised human sacrifice. In 
fact, he completely reversed his father’s policy, and 
even persecuted the prophetic party, especially the 
prophets. Many who resisted him were actually 
put to death (II K 21 16, 24 4; Jer 2 30). The syn- 


Man, Doctrine of 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Mandrake 


cretism thus introduced seems to have survived 
as late as the days of Ezekiel (Ezk 8 16). At all 
events, Jeremiah, after Manasseh’s death, was full 
of prophetic indignation and horror at Manasseh’s 
sins, and looked for their expiation as still in the 
future (Jer 15 4). Politically, Manasseh’s reign was 
prosperous and free from petty warfare with the 
surrounding nations. Judah’s relation to Assyria 
had been defined under Sennacherib as that of 
tribute-paying vassalage. This condition continued 
under Esarhaddon (687-662 B.c.), who names 
Manasseh as one of twenty-two tributary vassal 
princes (Menasé, Minsé, Schrader, COT, II, 58-60); 
but Manasseh rebelled against Asshurbanipal and 
was probably reconquered and taken for a time to 
Assyria as @ prisoner. No extra-Biblical account of 
such an occurrence, however, has been preserved. 
The Chronicler who relates this incident attributes 
the misfortune to Manasseh’s disobedience to the 
prophetic voice (II Ch 33 11). It is further added 
that this experience brought Manasseh to his senses, 
that he humbled himself before God, was restored 
to Jerusalem, reenacted his father’s reforms, and 
strengthened the fortifications of the city. Later 
tradition attributes to him the composition of a 
prayer in his distress (see Manasses, PRAYER OF). 
2. One of the ‘sons of Pahath-moab’ who married a 
foreign wife (Ezr 10 30). 3. One of the ‘sons of 
Hashum’ who also married a foreign wife (Ezr 
10 33). A.C. Z. 


MANASSES, mea-nas’siz. See MANASSEH. 


MANASSES, PRAYER OF: An apocryphal 
document, based upon the reference in II Ch 33 
12 f. In the foregoing passage no prayer is given, 
but we are told (ver. 18) ‘that the rest of the acts 
of Manasseh and his prayer unto his God... 
are written among the acts of the kings of Israel’; 
also (ver. 19) that ‘his prayer... is written in the 
history of Hozai (the ‘seers’ AV).’ The so called 
Prayer of Manasses purports to be this prayer. It is 
found among the Canticles appended to the Psalter 
in some MSS. of the LXX.; also in Apost. Const. I, 
22, but it never had a regular position in the LXX. 
Some scholars have favored the view that our 
Greek version of the prayer is connected, through the 
Hebrew, with the lost original referred to in II Ch. 
This, however, is not the generally accepted opinion. 
The prayer is rather a composition (date uncertain) 
emanating from later Judaism, and stands much in 
the same relation to II Ch 33 12 £. as does the Prayer 
of Azariah to Dn 3 24¢. It has been divided into three 
parts: (1) an invocation of the Deity; (2) a confes- 
sion of sin; (8) an entreaty for forgiveness; it sets 
forth God’s infinite compassion and the efficacy of 
repentance. In such a short piece (15 vs.) it is 
difficult to decide, but probably the original lan- 
guage was Greek. It has never been recognised as 
canonical, but is included in our EV among the 
Apocrypha. J. S. R.—W. G. J. 


MANASSITE, mea-nas’ait: The gentilic of Manas- 
seh, meaning a member of the tribe of Manasseh. 
See Tripss, §§ 2, 4. 

MANDRAKE. See PALESTINE, § 22; also Dis- 
EASE AND MEDICINE, § 3. 


WManeh 


Mark, John A NEW STANDARD 





MANEH, mé’ne. See WriauTs AND MEASURES, 


§ 4. 

MANGER: The Gr. 9&tvy properly means ‘feed- 
ing-place’ (from xatetcOat, ‘to eat’), and should be 
thus rendered in Lk 13 15 (stall’ AV and RV), as 
it is correctly rendered in 2 7, 12, 16. 


MANIFEST, MANIFESTATION (gavepoiv, pavé- 
ewatc): In their general meaning these terms do not 
materially differ from ‘reveal’ and ‘revelation’; but 
they are found in a more specific usage in the N T, 
underlying which usage there is the idea of a sharp 
separation between spiritual and material realities. 
The breaking of the spiritual into the sphere of the 
material is designated a ‘manifestation,’ 7.e., the 
bringing into visibility of what is real but invisible. 
The terms are favorites in the Johannine writings 
(Jn 211, 17 6; I Jn 3 2, etc.), altho also used in the 
Pauline Epistles (I Ti 3 16). They are still more 
specificially applied to the second coming of Christ, 
as a spectacular revelation of Himself, emerging from 
His present invisibility (Col 1 26, 3 4; I Jn 2 28). 

AOU: 

MANNA (1, mdn): The food miraculously pro- 
vided for the Israelites during their desert wander- 
ings. According to the J document of the Hexateuch 
(Nu 11 6-9), the manna fell with the dew in the 
night, it looked like coriander seed (about a sixth 
of an inch in diameter, whitish, globular, and 
aromatic), or like bdellium (see BpELLIUM); it was 
gathered daily, ground, boiled, and made into cakes, 
which tasted like cakes baked with oil; the Israelites 
wearied of it during the sojourn in the desert. 
According to E (Ex 16 4), J’’ rained bread from 
heaven, and the people gathered it daily, that he 
might test them, whether they would keep his 
téradh. According to P (Ex 16 5-36), it appeared on 
the ground every morning, when the dew had 
evaporated, except on the Sabbath; it looked like 
hoar-frost; when the people saw it, they exclaimed 
man hi’, ‘what is it?’, hence its name mdan, ‘manna’; 
no one could gather more or less than a full omer- 
daily, and it would not keep over night, except on 
the day before the Sabbath, when one could gather 
two omers; it ceased on entering Canaan (Jos 512). 
The embellishment of the tradition in the later P 
document is obvious. Ps 78 25 calls manna ‘food of 
the mighty,’ 7.e., of ‘celestial beings.’ The sweet, 
sticky gum exuding from a species of tamarisk is 
called manna by the modern Arabs (Ritter, Geog. 
Pal. I, 271-292), and attempts have been made to 
identify this with the Biblical food. Exudations from 
other shrubs have also been suggested, and the scales 
of various lichens; but none of these has any practical 
food-value (all being medicinal rather than nu- 
tritive), or occurs in sufficient quantities, or pos- 
sesses the other requisite qualities to satisfy the 
Scriptural descriptions. The ‘manna’ of the 
American Pharmacopeeia is an exudation from a 
species of ash, and comes chiefly from southern 
Italy and Sicily. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


MANNER: In the majority of instances this is 
an adequate, altho not literal, rendering of original 
terms meaning ‘word,’ ‘way,’ ‘judgment,’ etc. A 
few cases need comment. In Is 5 17 ‘manner’ AV 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 546 


should be ‘pasture’ as in RV. In Is 10 24, 26 the 
references are historical, in the first instance (ver. 
24), to the rod of the Egyptian taskmaster, in the 
second (ver. 26), to the rod of J’’, with which Moses 
smote the Red Sea. In Am 4 10 Egypt as the home 
of pestilence is meant; while in 8 14 (‘way’)RV it 
may refer to the (sacred) road to Beersheba. On 
Lv 20 23 cf. RV. In IIS 7 19 the text is doubtful, 
and in any case ‘way’ or ‘manner’ is an incorrect 
rendering. HK. E. N. 
MANOAH, mo-nd’a (32, manéah), ‘rest’: The 
father of Samson (Jg 13 2 ff.), described plainly as a 
man of Zorah, of the family of the Danites. From 
this it has been conjectured that his name was the 
eponym of the Manahathites (q.v.), of which it 
might be a corruption. The only thing certain seems 
to be that one-half of the clan of the Manahathites 


were Zorahites, viz., residents of Zorah, Manoah’s 
town. A. C. Z. 


MAN SERVANT. See Siavery, § 2 f. 


MANSION(S). Etymologically, this is a correct 
rendering of Gr. p.ovat, ‘abiding-place(s)’ (both from 
the same root). But in common use ‘mansion’ 
suggests the size or elegance of the ‘dwelling,’ which 
is not the emphatic idea in Jn 14 2 (cf. ver. 23). 


MANSLAYER. See Crimes AnD PUNISHMENTS, 
§ 2 (b). 

MAN-STEALING. 
MENTS, § 2. 


MANTELET. See BESIEGE. 


MANTLE. See Dress anD ORNAMENTS, § 4; 
also Rua. 


MAOCH, mé’ok (T1992, ma‘dkh): The father of 
Achish, King of the Philistine city of Gath x S 273), 
called Maacah i in I K 2 39. CoSiaLe 


MAON, mé’en (]i¥?, ma‘on, ‘dwelling’), MAON- 
ITES, mé’anaits: A city in the hill-country of 
Judah near Ziph and Carmel (Jos 15 55, P; IS 
25 2), represented (genealogically) as a descen- 
dant of Hebron and father of Beth-zur (I Ch 
2 45). It is now Khurbet Ma‘in, a conical hill with 
caves and extensive ruins, which rises 200 ft. above 
the site of Carmel. Map II, E 3. (See Buhl, Geog., 
p. 163, with literature.) E. of Ma‘tn a waste pasture- 
land slopes down toward the Dead Sea. This is 
apparently the Wilderness of Maon, in which David 
took refuge (I S 23 24 f.). The Maonites (Heb. 
ma‘on; Jg 10 12) are possibly the same as the 
Meunim (q.v.), and the home of the tribe seems 
to have been in Arabia (I Ch 4 41; IT Ch 201 ARV 
mg.; 26 7), possibly at Ma‘dn, 13 m. SE. of Petra. 
Others identify them with the Mineans of 8. Arabia, 
and still others emend the text and read ‘Midian- 
ites.’ (See G. F. Moore, in ICC on Jg 10 12.) 

L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


MARA, mé’ra (81), mara’), ‘bitter’: A name 
given by Naomi to herself, because of her bitter ex- 
perience (Ru 1 20). Grate et be 

MARAH, mé’ra (179, marah), ‘bitterness’: The 
name of a bitter spring made sweet by Moses (Ex 
15 23 ff.), the site of which constituted the first 


See CRIMES AND PUNISH- 


547 





station of the Israelites after crossing the Red Sea 
(Nu 33 8f.). Not yet located. CoSie: 

MARALAH, mar’a-la (12972, mar‘dlah): A city 
of Zebulun (Jos 19 11). Site uncertain, but see 
Map IV, C 7. 

MARANATHA, mar’a-nath’a: An Aramaic ex- 
pression found in I Co 16 22. According to Dalman 
(Aram. Gram.2 pp. 152, 357), the Gr. uaodv d04= 
the Aram. 8) 8312, ‘our Lord, come.’ It was prob- 
ably a widely current expression, a watchword of 
the early Christians, indicative of their fervent hope 


in the speedy reappearance of the Lord Jesus. 
BK. E. N. 


MARBLE: A stone capable of polish, and there- 
fore, for its brightness, called in Gr. wdapyapos 
(‘glistening’). The Heb. shayish is of uncertain 
derivation. Marble was often used in costlier build- 
ings (Est 1 6; Song 5 15), and especially in the 
Temple (I Ch 29 2; Jos. Ant. VIII, 3 2). The pillars 
of Herod’s Temple were of marble (BJ, V, 5 2). 

rw GE DLE 

MARCUS, mar’kus. See Mark (Joun). 

MARESHAH, meo-ri/sha (7¥871?, madré’shah), 
called Marisa in Jos. and II Mac:I. A city of Judah 
(Jos 15 44), fortified by Rehoboam (II Ch 11 8). 
It became the battle-field in a war between Asa and 
Zerah of Ethiopia (II Ch 149f.). It waslater sacked 
by Judas Maccabeus (Jos. Ant. XII, 8 6), and 
figured in the wars of the Maccabeans generally 
(II Mac 12 35; Jos. Ant. XIII, 91; XIV, 4 4, 139). 
Map II, D 2. 

II. The father of Hebron (I Ch 2 42) and the son 
of Laadah (I Ch 4 21). A.C. Z. 


MARINER. See Suips anp NaviaaTIon, § 2. 


MARISH: An old English form of ‘marsh’ (Ezk 
47 11 AV). 

MARK: The rendering of (1) ’dth, ‘sign’ (Gn 4 15 
AV). The sign was placed on Cain to protect him, 
not to mark him as a murderer. (2) mattdérah, from 
matar, ‘to watch,’ and hence the object on which 
the eye is fixed when shooting (I S 20 20; Job 16 12; 
La 3 12). (3) miphgé@‘, ‘that against which one 
strikes,’ the obstacle in the way (Job 7 20). Job com- 
plains that God (purposely) strikes against him 
continually. (4) tdéw, the last letter of the Heb. 
alphabet, the old form of which was T (Ezk 9 4, 6). 
Here the word seems to mean simply a mark or 
brand, not necessarily the letter itself. (5) ga‘dqa‘ 
in Lv 19 28 probably refers to barbarous customs 
of tattooing. (6) cxord¢ (Ph 3 14 AV), is ‘goal,’ 
as in RV. (7) ottyya (Gal 6 17), ‘imprints,’ or 
‘brands,’ mean the scars of the wounds Paul had 
received for his loyalty to Christ. As slaves were 
branded to show to whom they belonged, so Paul 
calls these marks the ‘brands’ showing to what 
Master he belonged. (8) xéeayya, a ‘stamp’ im- 
printed on a surface, is used in Rev 13 16 f., 14 9, 
etc., of the mark branded or stamped on the fore- 
heads of the followers of Antichrist. EK. E.N. 


MARK, mark, JOHN (Méoexo¢): Of the life of M., 
the supposed author of the Second Gospel, but few 
notices are contained in the N T. His Jewish name 
was John, but like many Jews of the day he had 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Maneh 
Mark, John 


a Gentile surname, Mark (Marcus, Gr. Maexos). 
Presumably, he was a native of Jerusalem, where his 
mother had a large house (Ac 12 12) and was ap- 
parently a woman of some means. How M. and his 
mother became identified with the primitive Chris- 





{ tian Church of Jerusalem we do not know. Some 


have thought that the peculiar episode related in the 
Gospel (14 51 f.) refers to him and is, as it were, his 
signature to his Gospel. In any case, we may be 
sure that by 44 a.p.—.e., less than fifteen years after 
Pentecost—both M. and his mother were prominent 
members of the Christian community in Jerusalem. 
The mother of M. was sister to either the mother 
or father of Barnabas, since M. is called the latter’s 
dvetrd¢ (Col 4 10 ‘cousin’ RV, not ‘nephew’ as AV). 
When Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch, after 
their visit to Jerusalem with alms from the Church 
Antioch, they took with them ‘John whose sur- 
name was Mark’ (Ac 12 25). A year or two later M. 
was selected to accompany them on their first mis- 
sionary journey as a helper, dxyeétys (not a menial 
servant, nor, on the other hand, a colleague; Ac 13 5). 
M. remained with them while they evangelized 
Cyprus. But when they crossed over to the main- 
land, to Perga of Pamphylia, and planned to go 
thence into the interior of Asia Minor, M. withdrew 
and returned to his home in Jerusalem (Ac 13 13). 
Paul was much displeased at this, altho he 
appears to have had no objection at M.’s presence 
in Antioch after he and Barnabas had returned from 
their journey. Possibly M. returned to Antioch in 
their company after the Apostolic Council of 49 or 
50 a.p. But when Paul and Barnabas planned a sec- 
ond journey and the latter wished to take M. along 
again, Paul refused (Ac 15 37 #.). The disagree- 
ment was so positive that Paul and Barnabas parted, 
and Barnabas with M. visited Cyprus once more 
(Ac 15 39), c. 50 a.p. After this time the history of 
M. is involved in obscurity. In Col 410 (ce. 60 or 
61 a.p.) Paul writes to the Church of Colossze that 
in case M. comes to them, they should receive him, 
stating also that they had had some communications 
regarding him. It is evident that during the pre- 
ceding ten years M. had been restored to the 
Apostle’s favor, but when and how is not known. 
Col was probably written from Rome and would 
imply that M. was then with Paul at Rome, and 
was about to start thence on a journey to the East, 
expecting to visit Colosse. The letter to Philemon, 
ver. 24, shows that this was the case. M. did leave 
Rome, but whether he visited Colosse we do not 
know. He was in the East when Paul, at the time 
of his second imprisonment, wrote to Timothy and 
asked him to come to him and bring M. with him, 
since ‘he is useful to me for ministering.’ Pre- 
sumably M. was in Rome with Paul when the latter 
was executed. 

In I P 513 there is a reference to M. which only 
adds to the perplexity of the problem concerning the 
latter part of his life. If I P was written at Babylon 
(as Weiss holds) and some years before the execution 
of Paul, M. must have been associated with Peter 
after his visit to Cyprus with Barnabas, and then 
later transferred himself from Peter to Paul. But if 
I Pis late and was written from Rome, M. may have 


Mark, John 
Mark, Gospel of 





joined Peter after the death of Paul. Other solu- 
tions are, of course, possible, but no one of them can 
be considered more than a conjecture. 

The earliest Christian tradition, outside of the NT, 
associates M. with Peter as his épunveutys, a term 
capable of several renderings. ‘The more common 
rendering, ‘interpreter,’ would signify that M. may 
have been used by Peter to interpret his Aramaic 
discourses into Greek, such as people in Rome, for 
example, might more readily appreciate. Papias, 
to whom we owe this notice, thinks of M. as the con- 
stant companion of Peter and consequently well 
fitted to compose a Gospel in which Peter’s teaching 
was accurately reproduced even if not correctly ar- 
ranged (see Marx, Gosputu oF, § 1 [h]). Later tradi- 
tions connect M. with Alexandria, of which city he 
is reputed to have become the first Chritian bishop. 
His supposed remains were taken thence by the 
Venetians in the 9th cent. and thus St. Mark became 
the patron saint of Venice. But nothing certain is 
known of his later career, altho many legends exist 
in the apocryphal literature of the early Christian 
centuries. KE. E. N. 

MARK, GOSPEL OF: The second of the so 
called Synoptic Gospels (see GosprEL, GosPELs, § 3). 

1. Authorship. Asis the case with all the narrative 
writings of the N T there is no one named as the 
author of this Gospel; tho the incident given in 14 
51 f. is held by some scholars to be the author’s 
reference to himself, largely on the basis of what is 
generally assumed to be the Fourth Evangelist’s 
indefinite expression of self-reference (cf. Jn 18 15 f., 
20 1-10). But even so, there is no way of identifying 
the person there referred to. 

As a matter of fact, it is only by a careful study of 
the contents of the Gospel that we can come to any 
conclusions as to the directions in which its author- 
ship lies, and these conclusions must at the best be 
tentative, until subjected to the testimony of the 
external evidence. 

(a) Contents. The material of the narrative is 
arranged in an order which not only follows the 
recognized general development of Jesus’ ministry, 
but is practically chronological in its sequence of 
individual events. 


After an Introductory Statement, containing the title of 
the Gospel (11), the record enters at once upon the Public 
Ministry of Jesus (1 2-13 37), 

This is opened with a preliminary narrative (1 2-1), con- 
sisting of a brief account of the ministry of the Baptist 
(1 2-8), leading up to Jesus’ induction into His work through 
His baptism (1 9-1) and His temptation (1 12 f-), The Min- 
istry proper is then taken up from the aspect of Jesus’ work 
among the people, viz.: 

A. His Popular Ministry (1 4-8 2), 

This popular work is described: 

(A) As it covered the region of Galilee proper (1 14-7 23), 
prefaced by a statement of His coming into Galilee and the 
theme of His message (1 “4 f-), and then taking up the action 
of the ministry, beginning with the call of the four fishermen 
(1 15-20) and the opening day of the Capernaum work (1 2174) 
and recording the tours out from Capernaum which, while 
spoken of as for the purpose of preaching (xnedacety, 1 %), are 
reported practically in their characteristic activity of events. 

I. The first tour is through the smaller villages near by 
Capernaum (1 %-5), This is followed by an account of the 
return to Capernaum and the work in that neighborhood 
(2 13 18a), 

II, With 3 1%-80 is given an incident in Capernaum which 
evidently marks the return from a second more extended 
preaching-tour (cf. Mt 11 2-80; Lk 7 1-8 8 as giving the inci- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


548 





dents probably occurring on this tour), This is followed 
by a further incident (3 4!-35)—presented as a sequence of 
the former—and by what Mark records of the parables by the 
sea (4 1-4), and then by what may be considered as a 

III, Third tour—across the sea into the country of the 
Gerasenes (4 55-5 20), This is followed by a return to Caper- 
naum, with subsequent miracles and a visit to Nazareth 
(5 21-6 6), after which is recorded a 

IV. Fourth tour—this time, however, apparently repre- 
sentative as well as personal through the sending out of the 
Twelve over a much larger region of the country, while Jesus 
Himself continued the more local work (6 6-33), This is closed 
with the events which ended His work in Galilee proper 
(6 34-58), to which is added a ceremonial criticism by the 
Pharisees and Jesus’ answering discourse (7 !-2), 

(B) This popular ministry is then interrupted with what is 
practically a period of retirement from public activity, located 
in the region of Northern Galilee and the Decapolis (7 %- 
8 %6), tho some miracles are incidentally accorded, also 
a controversy with the Pharisees and a few remarks to His 
disciples (7 24-30, 82-37, 8 1-10, 22-26, 8 11-13, 14 21), 

B. At the close of this period He calls forth from his disciples 
a confession as to the spiritual character of His Messiahship 
(8 27-80) and then begins what the Evang. makes the second 
main feature of His narrative—His instructional Ministry 
(8 51-10 52), This includes His remarks connected with the 
announcement to His disciples of His approaching Passion 
(8 %-9 1), His Transfiguration (9 9-18), and His last journey to 
Jerusalem (9 30-10 582), 

C. There is then given the final feature of the narrative 
in His Ministry in Jerusalem (chs. 11-13), including the 
Eschatological Address of ch. 13. 

D. This leads up to His Passion and Resurrection (14 1-16 8 


{vs. 9-20 being by a later hand)}). 
(b) Nationality of Author. A careful study of 


these contents makes clear that the author was a 
Jewish Christian, not because of any Jewish cast in 
the narrative, for this seems to be altogether lacking, 
but (1) because of the author’s familiarity with 
Jewish customs (cf. 1 44, 2 18, 11 15, 141) and beliefs 
(cf. 12 18) and his ready ability to explain them (cf. 
7 2ff., 1412, 15 6, 42), and (2) because of his acquain- 
tance with the Aramaic language, which he translates 
for his readers’ sake (cf. 3 17, 5 41, 7 11, 34, 9 43, 10 46, 
14 36, 15 22, 34). 

(c) Readers. On the other hand, it is equally 
clear that the readers were Gentile Christians, not 
simply because they were unacquainted with the 
language and customs of Palestine, for so were the 
Jewish Christian readers of Mt [q.v., § 1 (d)], 
but because, in addition to the explanation of 
Aramaic terms, there are some Latin terms 
(e.g., 2 4, 6 55 xekBattos, 6 27 onexvrAdtwp, 7 
4, 8, Eéotyns, 15 30, 44 £. xevtupfwy 15 15, td 
txavdy motetv), which are used only by him, and 
some which seem to be used not so much from the 
writer’s habit of speech as from his desire to be un- 
derstood by the readers (cf. 12 42, 15 16). At the 
same time, there is, apart from the remarks of 
others, an almost total absence of O T quotations. 

(d) Place. There is no indication as to where the 
Gospel was written, tho perhaps from what has 
just been said a Latin country both for the readers 
and the writing might be more likely than a Greek 
or Hebrew one would be—in other words, the 
Western rather than the Eastern region of the 
early Church.! 

1 Were we sure as to the identity of the Rufus mentioned 
in Ro 16 ® with the Rufus referred to in the Gospel (15 2), 
we might infer that the author’s inclusion of the children 
of Simon of Cyrene in his recital of the incident was due to 
the fact that his readers lived in Rome and would naturally 


be interested in this detail. Possibly the emphasis which 
he places on things clean and unclean (7 !-%#) might be due 


549 





(e) Time. As to when it was written, the general 
tendency of modern scholarship is to place it before 
the destruction of Jerusalem (70 a.p.). This would 
seem to be justified, for there is here the same naive 
unconsciousness that we find in Mt (q.v., §1 f.) 
regarding the unfulfilment of Jesus’ announcement 
of His return to earthimmediately upon the soon im- 
pending catastrophe predicted in ch. 18, cf. vs. 28-37), 
while there is an absence even of the things which 
in Mt might seem to betray a more developed church 
organization or doctrinal thought. If the apoca- 
lyptic elaboration of ch. 13 [see note on (i) p. 550] 
is justified, it would bring the time of composition 
necessarily to a date not long before the catastrophe 
of 70 a.p. And yet, if Mt also was written before 
70 a.p., time enough would have to be allowed 
for Mark’s Gospel to become widely enough 
current as giving the recognized record of Jesus’ 
ministry to be reproduced so largely in Mt’s Gospel 
(see Synoptic PropuiEeM, § 5). Perhaps the earlier 
years of the sixth decade would best suit all the 
conditions in the case—making its composition 
shortly before Peter’s martyrdom in 64 a.p. All this 
would be confirmed by any evidence which might be 
forthcoming from a study of its literary relation to 
the other Synoptics, showing that Mk was used by 
Matthew as well as by Luke in the writing of their 
Gospels. (See SyNopric ProBLEM, § 5). 

(f) Motive. As far as this Gospel has a distinctive 
motive, it is to present Jesus to its readers in the 
actual reality of His wonderful life (see GosPEL, 
GospEts, § 3). It isa thoroughly objective narrative 
which is given. The discourses of Jesus are largely 
omitted, while there are brought out into strong 
prominence not simply His wonderful deeds, but 
the wonderful effects which they produced (cf. 1 22, 
a7 f., 37, 45, 212 f., 3 6-12, 41, 5 14-21, 42 [contrastive 
unbelief 6 2 f., 62 and Herod’s opinion 6 14], 6 31-33, 
54-56, 7 36f., 1217, 34—naturally more evident during 
His popular than His instructional work). 

(g) Results of Internal Evidence. While the 
results obtained from this internal study of the 
Gospel are not indicative of anything beyond its 
being a possible product of the Apostolic Age and 
of the person whose name it bears, more definite 
conclusions are reached by a full and impartial com- 
parison of these results with the external evidence 
regarding the Gospel furnished by the post-Apostolic 
Age. 

(h) External Evidence. This evidence uniformly 
ascribes the origin of the Gospel to Mark and to M. 
as in some way connected in the writing with Peter. 
That M. could have been associated with the 
Apostle is of course evident from the glance at the 
N T notices of him (see previous article). The 
difficulty is simply to determine just what was this 
association from a literary point of view. 

Gathering from Jerome back to Papias such state- 
ments as have a bearing upon the problem, and 
to the discussion as to the distinction between them prevalent 
in the Roman Church (Ro ch. 14). While, if the identifying 
of the Last Supper with the Passover (14 12) was due to the 
fact that the later Roman custom of regarding the Eucharist 
‘as a reproduction of the Paschal Meal had already begun, it 
might confirm the tradition that Mark wrote his Gospel at 


Rome (Bacon, Gospel Story, pp. xxix ff., 195-198; Burkitt, 
Sources, pp. 92-94). 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Mark, John 
Mark, Gospel of 


(Ee en ee a ee 


dence, it becomes quite clear that, as in the case of 
Mt, Papias furnishes the point of departure for all 
the succeeding tradition, not merely because he was 
the earliest witness, but because we can understnad 
how the other statements by those who came after 
him have been developed from his. 

The statement of Papias is as follows: ‘Mark, who 
had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately, 
tho not in order, whatever he remembered of the 
things said or done by Christ. For he did not hear 
the Lord, neither did he follow Him, but at a later 
time, as I said, followed Peter, who delivered his 
discourses according to the needs [of each occasion], 
but not with the idea of making a complete arrange- 
ment of the Lord’s sayings. So that Mark erred in 
no respect, thus writing down such things as he re- 
membered; for of one thing he made great care, not 
to omit anything of what he had heard, or falsely to 
state anything in them [as he gave them].’ 2 

From this it would seem that the literary relation 
between M. and Peter was connected with Peter’s 
fragmentary Gospel preaching. This, however, 
raises the question as to how M. could get from 
desultory discourses such a connected narrative as 
our Second Canonical Gospel gives us. 

In turning to Papias’ statement for more detailed 
investigation we find that it tells us that M., who 
had been with Peter as his interpreter (py. nveutyhes, 
‘translator’—a relation not altogether easy to define, 
tho possibly referring to such services as might be 
rendered the Apostle when he was confronted with 
audiences whose language he could not use well 
enough for public discourse), committed to writing 
what he could remember of Peter’s Gospel discourses 
(St3acxcAtat), which were delivered, not with the 
purpose of making a completely arranged presenta- 
tion (cbyta—ts) of the Lord’s sayings, but in a way 
to suit the needs of each occasion (neds tas yeelas), 
and that the writing of them itself was not in order 
(od wévtor te Ect). 

The query is, of course, how such a description 
suits the contents of our Gospel. It might be pos- 
sible that the statement of Peter’s purpose in his dis- 
courses not completely to present the sayings of the 
Lord was intended to explain the fragmentary ap- 
pearances of such sayings in our Gospel; but it is not 
so easy to explain the criticism of M.’s own writing 
as being not in order; for whatever may be said of 
the Gospel’s bringing together into immediate con- 
nection events more probably separated in time or 
its piecing together into one discourse sayings 
uttered on different occasions (cf. Menzies, The 
Earliest Gospel, pp. 30-33), it not only presents a 
consistently developed plan of Jesus’ ministry, but 
it is in the main current of its narrative chrono- 


Le aae Mer eALE MODEL gee Ci Et noe a 

2 Méoxoc wiv sounveutis [léteou yevéuevos boa éuvy- 
udveucey, dxetBas Zyeatev, of pévtor taEer te Oxd Tod 
yototod % AcyOévea 4 roayOévra. Otte yee iyxouce TOO 
xvelou, obte xapyxorolOncev ait@, Uotepoy 5é WS Egny 
Tlétem 8¢ xedco tas yoelas éxotetto tag Srdacxartas 
EAN’ ody Boxee chyraky cay xuptaxdy wotodwevos Ao- 
vlov, ote ob8kv huaote M&oxoc, otwc kx yekas WS 
anxepynudveucey. ‘Evd¢ yade éxotnoato rodvoray, Tod 
uUydéy dy Fnouce mapadcxety 4 Pebcacbat te év xdrotg. 
(Kus. HE, iti, 39.) 


Mark, Gospel of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


550 





logical in its sequence of sayings and events. When 
we consider the expression used in Papias’ state- 
ment, however, it becomes evident that this lack of 
order in M.’s writing was a lack of orderly arrange- 
ment (té&&c), rather than of orderly sequence 
(xabe&qH>)—a condition we could easily understand as 
applying to our Gospel providing Papias had in 
mind some other Gospel writing up to whose stan- 
dard arrangement of material M. had not, in his 
opinion, come. 

As such a standard each one of the Gospel narra- 
tives has been suggested (Mt—Holtzmann, Taylor; 
Lk—Salmon; Jn—Jiilicher, Harnack, Zahn), includ- 
ing the Logian document (B. Weiss). Whether, 
however, it is possible to decide among them or not, 
it is clear that, with the above understanding of 
his statements, there is no reason to doubt that 
Papias was talking about our Second Canonical 
Gospel, substantially as we have it before us to-day, 
and not about some hypothetical fragmentary 
writing by M., which possibly may have formed the 
basis for our Gospel but which has been hopelessly 
lost.4 

(i) Sources. That the sources M. may have had 
for his narrative were confined to these Gospel dis- 
courses of Peter is not likely, whether he wrote 
during the Apostle’s lifetime, when he could freely 
consult with him and gain from his personal reminis- 
cence such purely individual incidents as 1 30 f., 
35-38, 3 16, 8 32 ff., 14 30, 66-70, 16 7, which may not 
have entered into his public discourses, or whether 
he wrote after Peter’s death and gathered from the 
current tradition of the early Christian community 
such incidents as the above (note that Mt 14 28-31, 
15 15, 16 17-19, 17 24-27, 18 21; Lk 5 3 ff., 12 41, 22 31 £. 
are omitted in Mk, which alone gives 11 21; cf. also 
14 30, 37 with |ls) and such collections of Jesus’ 
sayings as may be evident in chs. 4, 9, and 13.5 
In any event it is most probable |that what M. has 
given us in his Gospel is a reproduction of the com- 
mon Apostolic preaching in the Early Church, based 
perhaps in general on Peter’s presentation of it, but 





3 For theories as to the existence of different recensions of 
Mk, see Synoptic PROBLEM, § 7. 


4 When one realizes the primary position of Mt. as the 
first Gospel in the N T collection, and the characteristic 
grouping of its material—both discourses and events—the 
comparison of M.’s sequential order of events with such 
topical arrangement of contents might have been what was 
in Papias’ mind. 

5 Upon a careful study of the Eschatological Address of 
ch. 13 it is clear that its unusual length—so different from 
Mark’s general brief record of Jesus’ remarks—is due to the 
fact that Mark incorporated it into his narrative as a written 
document, an individual apocalypse (see evidence for such 
a written document in the phrase of ver. 1 ‘let him that readeth 
understand’), which had become current in the Church, and 
that it had come to this written form in which it was current 
through accretions from apocalyptic folk lore to Jesus’ original 
remarks, the purpose of which remarks was ethical rather 
than predictive—to warn and encourage His followers in the 
time of their perplexity and distress rather than to give them 
beforehand a program of events. This elaboration of Jesus’ 
remarks (which is clearly observable in such passages as vs. 
§-10, 12-14, 17-20, 22-27, 88, 87) was due doubtless to the prominence 
in the Early Church of the hope of the Kingdom’s con- 
summation which these remarks had aroused, and was most 
likely the reason why Mk. departed from his habit of a purely 
narrative record and incorporated it as a whole, (See Jacobus, 
Mark, p. 188 f.) 


at the same time modified by his own wider experi- 
ences in company with Paul (cf. such Pauline traits 
as 13 35-37 [=Ro 13 12], 14 36 [=Ro 8 15; Gal 4 6], 
115 [=Gal 4 4]) and Barnabas. 


This might account for the absence from Mk of the 
Nativity stories and the Genealogies given by Mt 
and Lk, which would not be part of such preaching, 
and even for the absence of the preaching of the 
Baptist, the Sermon on the Mount (excepting small 
fragments, 4 21, 24, 9 43, 47, 50, 10 11, 11 25), the dis- 
course to the Twelve (excepting the brief saying 
6 10 f.), with the whole incident of the Seventy and 
the parabolic and discourse material peculiar to Lk 
(chs. 9-19 [excepting scattered sayings in Mk ch. 10)). 
The fact that generally speaking the sayings of 
Jesus find their way into Mk only in scattered 
fashion shows perhaps that he gave them only as 
they found their way fragmentarily into the com- 
mon preaching (note examples of this in Paul’s 
speech at Miletus, Ac 20 35). In truth, the fact that 
Mk has practically but one so called collected dis- 
course, and this the one on the coming catastrophe 
and the Parousia (ch. 13), shows how the thought of 
the primitive disciples was forward rather than 
backward (cf. Burkitt, The Gospel History and its 
Transmission, p. 264 f.),. and how when they 
preached ‘Jesus and the resurrection’ they were 
likely to give, not so much His teachings as the 
facts of His ministry culminating in His death and 
resurrection as the basis of their personal experience 
of Him as the Savior of the world. It is the later 
Gospels, whose plan and purpose were less objective 
—as Mt with its Messiahship of Jesus and Lk with 
its universalism of Jesus’ religion—which incor- 
porated the teachings of Jesus as a preponderating 
element in their record of His life and work. 


2. Historical Value. Clearly the Gospel lies before 
us, not as a collection of unrelated anecdotes of the 
Gospel story, but, on the whole, as an intelligible 
outline of a consistently developed life and work. 
Here and there we find in it inaccuracies of state- 
ment, born of the thirty or more years by which it 
was removed from the events which it records (e.g., 
1 39, where ‘throughout all Galilee’ is manifestly 
inconsistent with the restricted region of the tour; 
2 26, where ‘Abiathar’ is given instead of Abimelech 
[cf. 1 S 211]; 7 3 #., where the ablutions are stated 
to have been practised by ‘all the Jews’; 14 12, 
which identifies the Last Supper with the Passover 
Feast [see note (1) under § 1(d), above]. There are 
also colorings of the narrative, evidently due to 
later doctrinal and apocalyptic points of view (e.g., 
1 4, where the content of the Baptist’s preaching is 
phrased in terms of the Gospel preaching of the 
Early Church [cf. Ac 2 38, 10 43, 18 38 £.]; 4 10-12, 
where the reason given by Jesus for His use of 
parables is made to accord with the later Apostolic 
explanation of the puzzling reaction to Jesus’ 
mission by the Covenant People [cf. Ac 2 23, 4 28; 
Ro 117 f., 25; I P 2 8]; 7 19b-22, where Jesus’ words are 
interpreted and the list of evils is determined in the 
light of such controversies as arose in the Apostolic 
Age [cf. I Co 6 12-20, ch. 8, 10 23-33; Ro ch. 14; 
Gal 5 19-21; Ro 1 29-31]; particularly ch. 13, where in 
such passages as 5-10, 12-14, 17-20, 22-27, 33, 37 we have 


551 A NEW STANDARD 


amplification and modification of Jesus’ eschato- 
logical discourse, influenced by the apocalyptic ideas 
present in the Church under the stress and strain of 
the impending catastrophe with which the Jewish 
war came to its close [see note 5 under § 1 (i) 
above]. There is also a tendency to group the mate- 
rial topically (e.g., 3 1-6, where the healing of the 
withered hand on the Sabbath, which in view of its 
resulting combination of Pharisees and Herodians 
against Jesus must have occurred much later, has 
been brought forward and placed with the only 
other incident of Sabbath controversy this Gospel 
contains; 3 22-30, where the presence of Jerusalem 
Scribes may indicate that this attack has been inter- 
polated into the incident of the anxiety of Jesus’ 
family for His welfare [3 i9b-21, 31-35], because of the 
association of the Beelzebub charge with the 
family’s illusion as to Jesus’ sanity; 9 38-41, which 
may have been interpolated because of the common 
reference to ministry in Jesus’ name, the thought 
of ver. 37 being clearly resumed at ver. 42. But 
none of these blemishes affects the historical con- 
sistency of the narrative as a whole. Grouping may 
have been a feature of Peter’s preaching; in- 
accuracies may have been due to misunderstanding 
and carelessness on the part of an early copyist; 
while the dogmatic and apocalyptic coloring was 
present in the thought of the Church of Mark’s 
own day. In truth, when we recognize this Gospel 
as a sober record of the facts of Jesus’ message 
and ministry as they occurred, we begin to under- 
stand whey it occupied so relatively small a place in 
the estimation of post-Apostolic literature. It 
lacked, not merely those elements of literary style 
which characterized its Synoptic companions, but 
those features of doctrinal interpretation which 
claimed the interest of the post-Apostolic Age. It 
was nothing but the simple story which long ago 
had been known and told abroad—the natural 
product of those early years when the Church lived 
in the vivid memory of the facts it had experienced. 
But it is this that gives it its supreme historical 
worth, especially when we realize that these facts 
came from the personal participation in them of 
one of Jesus’ intimate disciples: for if the story of 
this Gospel was not the product of the ideas of the 
Church, much less was it the product of one of the 
Church’s members, however prominent he may 
have been, for then his ideas must have created, not 
only their own historical illusions, but the historical 
illusions on which rested the belief of the Church 
at large: for this Gospel became the accepted his- 
tory for the Christian discipleship of the Apostolic 
Age. 

3. The Text. The only important question as to 
the text of the Gospel is raised by the fact that in 
the ancient MSS. and Versions the concluding ch. 
appears in three different forms. In the larger 
number of these documents we have the longer form 
presented to us in the so called Received (Greek) 
Text; in the smaller number we have the shorter 
form given in the Revised (Greek) Text, which 
omits everything after ver. 8; in a few we have an 
intermediate form which substitutes for vs. 9-20 of 
the longer form a short paragraph of two sen- 








BIBLE DICTIONARY Mark, Gospel of 


tences.© Among these forms it is however not 
difficult to decide. The intermediate form has no 
MS. evidence of value and is discredited by its 
character; while the longer form, tho it has in its 
favor an overwhelming majority of MSS. and some 
of the Fathers, has against it the testimony of the 
two oldest Uncial MSS. (Sinaitic and Vatican) and 
one of the two earliest forms of the Syriac Version 
(Sinaitic Sryiac), all of which close the chapter at 
ver. 8. In addition to this, is the very significant 
silence of Patristic literature as to anything follow- 
ing verse 8. This is confirmed by a study of vs. 
9-20 of the longer form, which, in language and style 
have very little in common with the rest of the 
Gospel. Whether the short form was the ending 
given the Gospel by Mark, or whether when it left 
his hand it had a longer ending which was early 
lost is not easy to decide. 


4. View-Point. When we come to study in detail 
the thought of Mk, it becomes at once clear that we 
have relatively little material at our disposal. The 
objective character of the Gospel has resulted in a 
characteristic failure to preserve for its readers the 
teachings of Jesus. It contains few of His dis- 
courses. Its presentation of Jesus lies more in 
what it represents Him as having done than in what 
it records Him as having said. A statement of its 
thought, therefore, must necessarily be meager. 


(1) As to God: While M. represents Jesus as 
ascribing to God absolute goodness (10 17 £.) and un- 
limited power (10 27, 12 24, 14 36), he has not pre- 
served in these ascriptions either the title King or, 
with four exceptions (8 38, 11 25, 13 32, 14 36), the 
title Father. In but one of these excepted passages 
is His Fatherhood presented as related to Jesus’ dis- 
ciples, and in no case is it even inferentially con- 
sidered as in a general way related to all men; while 
but one lordship parable is preserved by this Gospel, 
viz., that of the Vineyard (12 1-11). (2) As to Jesus 
Himself: M. represents Jesus as using of Himself the 
title Son of Man, which tho not a current Messianic 
title, was employed by Him to designate His authori- 
tative right, as Head of the Messianic Kingdom, to 
forgive sin (2 10) and to determine the meaning and 
use of the Sabbath (2 28). Its almost exclusive 
presentation, however, is in connection with Jesus’ 
announcements of His coming Passion and the 
exaltation and glory which were to follow it. In this 
connection it designates Jesus’ consciousness of His 
necessary relation to the Salvation which His Mes- 
sianic rule was to offer to the world. As Son of 
Man he was to be delivered into the hands of His 
enemies (9 31, 10 33, 14 21 [bis] 41), through whom 
He was to suffer many things and be killed (8 31, 
9 12, 31, 10 33), and in this death was to give His life 
a ransom for many (10 45). From this death, how- 
ever, He was to be raised again (8 31, 99) and to be 
exalted to the right hand of God (14 62), whence He 
was to come in glory to judge the world (13 26; cf. 
8 38). Associated with this title is the more sig- 
nificant one of the Son of God which, however, 
M. does not represent Jesus as explicitly using of 
Himself. At the same time he presents Him as 


6 The Freer MS. has an extended variant of the longer 
form (cf. Biblical World, 1908). 


' Mark, Gospel of 
Marriage and Divorce 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


9% 
552 





accepting its explicit ascription to Himself by others 
and as implicitly ascribing it to Himself. M. re- 
stricts this ascription of it to Jesus by others to four 
occasions: on the occasions of Jesus’ baptism (1 11) 
and His transfiguration (97), when its use designates 
Him as the unique object of the Divine love and as 
gathering up in Himself and the mission He was 
accomplishing the Divine satisfaction; on one 
occasion of demoniac healing (57), whenit shows Him 
as regarded by the demons as possessed of super- 
natural powers (to which is prefaced by M. a general 
statement to the same effect in connection with His 
Capernaum work following His first preaching tour, 
3 11), and at His trial, where the challenge of the 
High Priest (‘Art thou the Christ, the Son of the 
Blessed?’ 14 61), as far as it can be considered as 
employing this title, is made in nothing more than 
a technical Messianic sense, though Jesus’ reply 
transforms it into the title Son of Man, in which 
He assumes the possession of a Divine glory and 
power (the confession of the centurion at the 
Cross [15 39], tho employing this specific title, in all 
likelihood represents nothing more than a pagan 
idea of a superhuman hero). The implicit ascription 
to Himself by Jesus of this title is recorded by M. in 
but three passages—once when He is speaking of 
the final acknowledgment by the Son of Man before 
His Father of those who have been His true followers 
on earth (8 38); again in His agony in Gethsemane, 
where He surrendered Himself in loyal obedience to 
the Father’s will (14 36); and finally, in His eschato- 
logical discourse, where He confesses that the time 
of His Parousia is known not even to the Son, but 
only to the Father (13 32). The one parable in which 
this relationship is implied is that of the Householder 
and the Vineyard (12 1-11). Few as these passages 
are, they disclose a consciousness on Jesus’ part of a 
relationship to God involving a mutual harmony of 
will (14 36) and an acknowledgment by God of 
Jesus’ exalted right and authority to pronounce 
judgment upon men at the consummation of His 
Kingdom (8 38, 9 1), and yet, at the same time, a 
subordination on Jesus’ part, at least so far as the 
determination of the time and season of this con- 
summation were concerned (13 32). (8) As to the 
Kingdom of God: M. does not represent Jesus as 
using the peculiar phrase ‘kingdom of heaven,’ but 
as employing the general Messianic term ‘kingdom 
of God.’ The passages recorded are few in number, 
and in the picture of the Kingdom which they pre- 
sent emphasize the fact that its membership is 
determined by character and conduct (9 47, 10 23-25, 
12 29-34), involving humility as its test of greatness 
(10 14 £.) and perhaps for this reason it is destined to 
go through a process of development before its con- 
summation is reached (4 26-30, 30-32)—a develop- 
ment, however, which will be marked by great 
crises (cf. 9 1 with the general statements of the 
eschatological discourse, ch. 18). To this consum- 
mation Jesus is represented as looking forward as 
the realization of His mission (14 25). There does 
not seem to be any emphasis laid upon the univer- 
salism of its scope (tho ef. the phrase peculiar to 
Mk in 11 17; cf. also 149), or upon the non-nation- 
alism of its plan and purpose (tho M. denounces 


the ceremonialism of the Pharisees, 7 1-23, 12 38-40); 
apart from the character-condition of its member- 
ship, its spirituality does not appear to be specially 
brought out (but ef. the passage peculiar to Mk 
12 32-34). (4) As to the Messianic Salvation: M. 
represents Jesus as apparently confining eternal life 
to the future world, yet at the same time portraying 
the rewards of His discipleship as realized in the 
present life (10 29 f.). As to the character of this 
salvation, this passage is the only one in which it 
seems to be described, and here the impression is 
that it makes good the loss of material things which 
may come through following Him. As to the general 
conditions on which this Salvation is possible, Jesus 
is represented by M. as emphasizing the need of 
personal relations to Himself (8 34 f., 38, 10 29, 14 
5-9); while of the specific conditions, both faith 
(1 15, 2 5, 5 34, 10 52; cf. 65 f., 9 42) and repentance 
(115; cf. 6 12) are mentioned, tho special atten- — 
tion seems to be called by M. to the enduring of 
persecutions (13 9-13). The death of Jesus is pre- 
sented as the means by which this Salvation is 
secured (10 45, 14 24 [cf. the more specific statement 
in Mt 26 28]). (5) As to Eschatology: M. merges the 
ideas of development and consummation in the 
Kingdom (ef. the eschatological discourse, ch. 18). 
At the same time, besides the parables of the Sower 
and the Lamp (4 21-25), the only parables by the sea 
which he has given are those which emphasize the 
development through which the Kingdom is to go 
(4 6-32). On the other hand, he does not seem to 
have entered into any presentation of the idea of 
judgment beyond the simple statements attached 
to the parable of the Lamp (4 21-25), to the announce- 
ment of His Passion (8 38), to the remarks on hu- 
mility and forgiveness (9 43-49), and the pronounce- 
ment of national doom contained in the parable of 
the Householder and the Vineyard (12 1-11) 
Literature: The larger Introduction of Jiilicher (Eng. transl. 
1904) and Zahn (Eng. transl. 21917) represent respectively 
the best phases of German liberal and conservative scholar- 
ship. Moffattinthe Inter. Theo. Library (1911) gives the 
more critical English view-point. The following shorter 
Introductions also should be consulted: Bacon, New Test. 
Introduction (1900); Robinson, Study of the Gospels (1902); 
Burton, Short Intro. to the Gospels (1904); Peake, New Test. 
Introduction (1910). The best (larger) Commentaries are 
Gould in Inter. Crit. Com. (1896); Bruce, in Expos. Greek 
Test. (1897); Swete (1898); Menzies, The Earliest Gospel 
(1901). The following (smaller) may be consulted: Maclear, 
in Camb. Greek Tesi. (1899); Salmon, in New Century Bible 
(n.d.); Green, in Westminster New Test. (n.d.); Jacobus, in 
Bible for Home and School (1915). Special works: Burkitt, 
The Gospel History and Its Transmission (1906), The Earliest 
Sources for the Life of Jesus (1910); Salmon, The Human 
Element in the Gospels (1907); Bacon, Beginnings of the 
Gospel Story (1909); Jones, The New Test. in the Twentieth 
Century, pp. 194-207 (1914). The following lives of Christ 
are valuable in connection with the study of the Gospel: 
Weiss (Eng. transl. 1894); Holtzmann (Eng. transl. 1904), 
giving respectively the evangelical and purely critical view- 
point; Edersheim, Jesus the Messiah (one vol., ed. 1890), 
giving the Jewish background; Smith, In the Days of His 
Flesh (1905), a more popular presentation; Headlam (1924), 
scholarly, tho incomplete in the ground covered. 


Wie 
MARKET, MARKET-PLACE. See Crry, § 3. 
MARKET OF APPIUS. See Appius, MARKET oF. 
MAROTH, mé’roth (4119, maréth): A town men- 
tioned in Mic 112. Site unknown. 


553 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Mark, Gospel of 
Marriage and Divorce 





MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. 1. The Legal 
Character of Marriage in the O T Betrothal. In 
the O T marriage belongs within the sphere of in- 
dividual law; that is, it took place through a com- 
mercial contract which was concluded between the 
man who wished to marry and the man who had 
control over the woman who was sought in mar- 
riage. It concerned to a certain degree also the 
family or the local community, but the larger public, 
the people or the state, had no interest in the mar- 
riages of individual Israelites. The legal character of 
marriage is nowhere specifically described in the O T, 
but presupposed as understood. For example, the 
Book of the Covenant (Ex 21 9) speaks of the 
(known) rights of daughters, the prophet Ezekiel 
(16 38-41) of the (known) law concerning the 
adulteress. The carefully guarded position of the 
first-born son (Dt 21 15-17) necessarily presupposes 
fixed regulations concerning marriage, and the mar- 
ried woman is spoken of as b*‘tilath ba‘al (Dt 22 22; 
Gn 20 3; cf. Dt 241; Is 541; Pr 30 23), 7.e., as ‘acquired 
by a husband,’ ‘taken into possession.’ The prescrip- 
tions concerning marriage were not by any means 
all of Israelitic origin. Many regulations may have 
been retained by Israel from ancient usage, but 
others were probably taken over from the Canaanite 
civilization. If a comparison is made between the 
Israelitic law concerning marriage and that of the 
Code of Hammurabi, many distinctions as well as 
remarkable points of agreement will be found. The 
latter can not be explained otherwise than as due 
to the fact that Babylonian law (c. 2000 B.c.) had 
exercised an influence upon Israel through the 
medium of the Canaanite civilization. In addition, 
there are also found such regulations as correspond 
to the higher spirit of the Israelitic religion. 


So far as the steps preparatory to a marriage are 
concerned, the matter of first importance was the 
choice of a bride. In antiquity the youths and 
maidens mingled more freely than has come to be 
the case to-day in Oriental countries, under the in- 
fluence of Islam. The drawing of water at the 
springs or wells, the work in the field, or the care of 
the flocks furnished opportunities where they could 
see and speak to one another (Ex 2 16 f.; Gn 29 9-11; 
IS 9 11-13; ef. Dt 22 25-27). The young man who 
wished to marry was consequently easily in the 
position to seek out for himself, among the maidens 
of his age and station, the one whom he would prefer 
for his life companion; but custom demanded that it 
should be the father, or one who represented him as 
head of the family, who picked out the wife for the 
son who was in position to marry. Thus Abraham 
selected the wife for Isaac (Gn 24 2f.), Isaac for Ja- 
cob (281 f.), Judah for Er (38 6), Hagar, the mother, 
for Ishmael (21 21). Of course, there was nothing 
to prevent the wish of the son being the occasion 
of the father’s suit (Gn 34 4, 6; Jg 141 ff.), or that 
the inclination of the daughter should be respected 
(IS 1820). Indeed, cases are narrated of sons who 
took strange wives against the will of the parents 
(Gn 26 34 f., 27 46; Jg 141-10). But the rule was 
that the will of the father or of the parents was de- 
cisive. This decision was determined mainly by the 
fact that in every marriage two important condi- 


tions, relating intimately to the life of the times, had 
to be considered: (1) the size and limits of the families 
or clans involved, and (2) the assurance or certainty 
that the family estate would be kept in the posses- 
sion of the proper family line. One did not willingly 
permit his daughter to pass over into a strange 
family, because there she would be deprived of 
the protection of her own family or clan (Gn 29 19), 
and one was not inclined to allow the share of 
the family in the promised land which was inherited 
from his fathers to be broken up and pass into 
strange hands (Nu 361 4.). These interests could 
be better conserved when the knowledge of the 
parents regarding the prospective wife of the son 
was determinative rather than the irresponsible 
inclination of the son himself. The ultimate ground 
for this law was, without doubt, the complete, un- 
limited authority which a father possessed over the 


“members of his own family. 


2. Marriage Negotiations. The Wedding. The 
second transaction preparatory to the completion 
of the marriage contract related to the determina- 
tion of the price through which the bridegroom 
acquired his prospective bride from her father. 
This was arranged between the parents (or their 
representatives) of the young people and was called 
the mohar (dowry, Gn 34 12; Ex 2216; 1 S 18 25, still 
called mahr by the natives of Palestine). Its 
amount, also its kind, differed according to the 
position and desirability of the bride: when David 
declared that he was without the means to procure 
the mdhar for a king’s daughter, Saul fixed upon 
two hundred foreskins of slain Philistines as the 
price (I S 18 20-27); and in order to show the ardent 
character of Shechem’s love, the narrator of Gn 
3411 f. represents him as declaring himself ready to 
meet any conditions (cf. also the case of Jacob, Gn 
29 15 ff., and of Othniel, Jos 15 16 f.). 

From a comparison of Ex 22 15 and Dt 22 28 f. it 
may be inferred that the average price paid for a 
bride to her father was 50 shekels (so also Cod. Ham. 
138 f.). It was always understood in such cases 
that the father gave over to the bridegroom the bride 
as an inviolate virgin; for the Law (Dt 22 20 f.) pre- 
scribed that if this was found not to be the case the 
bride was to be publicly stoned. It is true that in 
Israel young women were sold in marriage who were 
no longer virgins; but in such cases the price was re- 
duced. Thus, it appears, Hos 3 2 may be taken as 
indicating that 30 shekels was the usual price of a 
slave (cf. Ex 21 32). The same passage shows also 
that there were various ways of making the payment, 
these being probably so arranged for beforehand. 
The bridegroom paid over the contract price to the 
father of the bride or his representative, as is evident 
from such passages as Gn 29 18, 28; I S 18 27; Gn 
34 u £.; Dt 22 29 (so also Cod. Ham.). The same 
custom holds to-day among the inhabitants of 
Palestine. Custom did not allow the father to do 
with the mdhar as he pleased. The bride still had 
the right to expect of the father that he would devote 
a part of it to her, or at least to her benefit. Only 
in this way can the dissatisfaction of the daughters 
of Laban be explained over the fact that he, as a 
genuine miser, had used the gain he secured through 


Marriage and Divorce 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


554 





Jacob’s service exclusively for himself (Gn 31 15). 
It is not contradictory to this that at their marriage 
he had given to Leah and Rachel each a slave as a 
handmaid (29 24, 29), for there are other references 
to a gift (berakhah) which a father might give his 
daughter at the time of her marriage (Jos 15 18 f.). 
All such gifts are not to be understood as the dowry 
which the woman brought to her marriage, but they 
ever remained as the individual property of the wife. 
It is in the postexilic times that we first hear of an 
inheritance brought by daughters from their parental 
estates to their husbands (To 8 12; Sir 25 22) as also of 
inheritances of daughters in general (Nu chs. 27, 36). 
As distinct from the méhar we are also to consider 
those presents of all kinds which the bridegroom 
gave the bride before the marriage (Gn 24 53, 34 12) 
which are expressly distinguished from the méhar by 
being termed mattdn (cf. Cod. Ham. 159 f.). These 
were the private property of the bride and could be 
viewed as an assurance that the marriage price would 
be paid. It was only through the actual payment 
of the mdhar that the young man came to acquire 
any authority or claim upon the prospective wife. 
Consequently, the Hebrew expression ’érés (espoused 
II S 3 14; Hos 2 21; Dt 207) is to be understood as 
something different from ‘to be betrothed to one.’ 
The bride was thereby designated as one upon whom 
no longer the father but another had the claim 
(m? 6rasaGh, Ex 22 15; Dt 22 23). Whoever violated 
such a (prospective) bride was liable to the same 
punishment as the adulterer (Dt 22 23-27; so also 
Cod. Ham. 130); from these regulations it is evident 
that with the payment by the bridegroom the mar- 
riage was legally established. On the other hand, 
whoever violated a virgin who was still free had to 
pay her father the méhar and marry the woman 
(Ex 22 15; Dt 22 28 f.). Recently Dr. J. Neubauer 
has denied that Israelitic marriage should be viewed 
as ‘purchase.’ By the help of the regulations in 
the Talmud concerning marriage he comes to the 
conclusions: In Israel originally (Gn 29 18 ff.) the 
marriage consisted in the giving of the bride to 
the bridegroom and the consummation that im- 
mediately followed. Later this came to consist of 
two separate transactions, viz., (a) the promise of 
marriage (betrothal) made legally binding through 
some kind of a gift by the bridegroom, and (b) the 
consummation or wedding itself. Finally a ‘writing’ 
(kethaibhah) took the place of the payment demanded 
from the bridegroom. If the maiden were of age 
she made the arrangement on her own responsibility. 
It she were under age her father represented her in 
the affair. According to Israelitic law regarding 
purchase and sale, the mdhar can not be considered 
as the purchase-price of the maiden. It corresponds 
rather to a pretium pudicitiae (like the ‘Morgengabe’ 
of Germanic Law). 


The marriage was completed by the bride being 
led from the house of her parents into the house of 
the bridegroom or that of his parents. This transac- 
tion, the espousal proper (Song 3 11), signified not 
only that now the father had released the bride from 
his authority and handed her over to the control of 
her future husband (cf. To 7 12), but also that the 
bride had now entered into the family or clan of her 


husband (Ps 45 10). Nowhere do we find any men- 
tion of any covenant or formalities of a religio- 
juridical sort, as an appeal to God or the like. This 
is easily understood if one but keeps in mind that 
marriage was not considered as going beyond the 
domain of individual law. What we find in Mal 
2 14 has to do only with the mode of expression 
chosen by the prophet, and the case of Ru 4 11 f. 
is particular, not general. The Cod. Ham. (128) 
holds that a marriage contract was necessary for the 
genuineness of a marriage, but the oldest Israelitic 
notices say nothing of this. In To 7 15 we find the 
first mention of such a custom, in order to set forth 
the pious care and wise forethought of Raguel. 
Unfortunately, we do not possess a complete de- 
scription of the procedure at a wedding. Only a few 
details are occasionally mentioned: the elaborately 
clothed bridegroom (Is 61 10), surrounded by his 
friends, uiot tod vuugdvoc, sons (children AV) of the © 
bridechamber (Mt 9 15; cf. Jg 1411), betook himself 
toward evening (Mt 251 ff.) to the house of the 
bride. She was then led thence, veiled (Gn 29 23, 25, 
24 65), and decked with rich ornaments (Jer 2 32; 
Is 49 18), surrounded by her friends (Ps 45 14), 
accompanied by music and song, with lights (Mt 
251 ff.), to the house of the parents of the bridegroom, 
into the bridechamber (To 7 15 ff.). Now began the 
wedding ‘week’ (Gn 29 27 £.; Jg 14 12; doubled in 
To 8 18), participated in by those who were bid, 
which was filled with eating and drinking, joking, 
singing, and dancing, the guests being clothed in 
wedding-garments. J. G. Wetzstein in his essay, 
Die syrische Dreschtafel (Zeitschr. ftir Ethnologie, 
1873, pp. 270-302), has made a collection of the mar- 
riage usages and marriage songs of the modern 
peasants east of the Jordan and of Lebanon, and in 
comparison therewith has recognized the Song of 
Solomon as a collection of wedding-songs. K. Budde 
has carefully worked out this conception in The 
New World, March, 1894. According to this theory, 
we have in the Song of Solomon a small collection 
of such songs as were sung by the youth in the 
neighborhood of Jerusalem at wedding-feasts. In 
these the friends of the bridegroom (thirty in Jg 
14 11; sixty in Song 3 7) played the chief part, their 
leader being termed in Jn 3 29 6 gfAosg tod ywuygton, 
the friend of the bridegroom. 


In the O T there are also found cases in which the 
husband enters the family or clan of the wife. So 
Jacob,who indeed later, with the consent of his wives, 
severed his connection with Laban, had good ground 
to fear that Laban might take away his wives from 
him (Gn 31 14-16, 31). Further, we find in Nu 27 1-11 
the regulation that any one who married an heiress 
did so in order that the name of the father might 
not disappear from his family (ver. 4). And in To 
10 7-10 the question comes up for special discussion 
whether the young Tobias should remain with 
Raguel or should return with his wife to his father. 
Here also belongs, in a certain sense, the case of 
Samson’s marriage (Jg ch. 14 f.), which was so ar- 
ranged that Samson’s wife remained in the house 
of her parents and was visited by Samson only from 
time to time (cf. §8, below). In all such cases the 
bride was not brought to the parental house of the 


555 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Marriage and Divorce 





bridegroom, and the joyous wedding-week was held 
in the house of her parents. 

3. Polygamy. Israelitic marriages were regularly 
polygamous, in remarkable distinction from the 
regulations of the Cod. Ham., which holds fast to 
monogamy as fundamental. According to the terms 
noted in § 2, an Israelite could marry as many wives 
as his means would allow, consequently the rich, and 
especially princes, are mentioned as having a large 
number (cf. the case of Gideon, Jg 8 30; of David, 
II S 8 2-5, 5 13; and of Solomon, I K 11 1-4). Poor 
people contented themselves with one wife, altho 
that cases were not rare in which a man had two 
wives is evident from the fact that the law in Dt 21 
15-17 deals particularly with such cases. Theoretically, 
all these wives stood on an equal footing among 
themselves and with reference to their husband. 
Actually, however, the relationship was generally 
different. Barrenness, loss of youthful charms, or a 
blemish of some sort not only easily robbed a wife of 
the love of her husband, but also drew upon her 
ridicule and abuse on the part of the other wife who 
was still able to bind the husband to herself. Conse- 
quently, the Law calls the one s¢ni’ Gh (i.e.,‘set aside,’ 
‘neglected’), the other ’dhibhdah (i.e., ‘the loved,’ 
‘cared for’) (Dt 21 15-17), both expressions being from 
the view-point of the husband. How such wives 
were accustomed to treat each other is expressed 
in the term tsdrah, that is, ‘enemy,’ ‘adversary,’ with 
which Peninnah, the rival wife of Hannah, is desig- 
nated from the view-point of the latter, in IS 16. 
Alongside of these legitimate wives the O T also 
recognizes concubines (Heb. pilaghshim) (cf. Gr. 
maArraxts, and the Arab. belkis), that is, female 
slaves (handmaids, maid-servants) who belonged to 
the husband and were subject to his authority (IIS 
15 16, 16 21 f.), or were the property of his wives, and 
had been given over by these to the husband (e. g., 
on account of their own childlessness) and yet con- 
tinued to be under the authority of the respective 
wives so that these remained their mistresses 
(g¢bhiradh, Gn 16 4) and could at any time reduce 
them again to the position of slaves (Gn 16 6). So, 
e.g., Bilhah, the female slave of Rachel (Gn 29 29), 
was made the concubine of Jacob (35 22). Such 
concubines could either belong to another people 
or be Israelites. With the former the law of Dt 21 
10-14 is concerned, with the latter that of Ex 21 7-11 
(cf. Dt 15 12-18; Jer 34 8 ff.). 


4. Adultery and Fornication. Between the pre- 
scriptions regarding adultery in the case of men and 
those in the case of women there were marked dif- 
ferences. For men they were lax, for women, strict. 
The prohibition of the Seventh Commandment 
(Ex 20 14; Dt 5 17) is indeed general; but it leaves 
open the question of what constitutes adultery for 
a man and what for a woman. The rigidity of the 
prescriptions relating to the virginity of the woman 
who was sought in marriage (Dt 22 13-21, 23 ff.; cf. 
§ 2, above) shows that a chaste life on the part of a 
woman before marriage was to be the rule. And 
since the woman was obtained by the man as his wife 
under fixed regulations, it is easily understood that 
absolute fidelity was to be expected of her. If she 
were convicted of guilty conduct, in earlier times she 


was burned (Gn 88 24), in later times she was brought 
out naked (Hos 2 5) before the assembled people of 
the locality and by them stoned to death (Ezk 16 
38-40, 23 45-47; cf. Dt 22 20f.; Jn 85). Presumably, the 
same punishment was meted out to the man who had 
seduced the wife of his neighbor (Dt 22 22; Lv 2010). 
That in other cases, not made public, the private 
vengeance of the injured husband was to be feared 
is evident from Pr 6 34. On the other hand, inter- 
course with the concubine of another was not 
viewed as adultery, but probably only as injury to 
his property (Lv 19 20). That wives were jealously 
watched by their husbands is evident, not only 
from the provisions of Dt 22 13-19, but also from the 
law regarding the drinking of the bitter curse-water 
(‘water of jealousy,’ Nu 5 11-31), whereby the guilt 
or innocence of the suspected wife was supposed to 


be established. Even if this law belongs to the 


latest strata of the Pentateuch, it certainly deals 
with an ancient custom, traces of which are also to 
be found among other peoples. To the husband 
was granted much more liberty. Altho he also 
was forbidden to commit adultery with another 
man’s wife, he was allowed to increase the number of 
his own wives and concubines, according to his de- 
sires and means, and also to have intercourse with 
women outside of his own house, provided only that 
these were not already bound by a betrothal or by a 
completed marriage. In case he violated a still free 
virgin, he was dealt with according to the law in 
Ex 22 15, Dt 22 28 f What a wife was entitled 
to demand from a husband is told in Ex 21 10. 
We nowhere read anything to the effect that he 
was forbidden extramarital intercourse with other 
women, There was abundant opportunity for this 
not only in pre-Israelitic Canaan, but also after the 
Conquest. Harlots (q.v.), zdndh, z6ndth (xbovn, I 
Co 6 15) were to be found not only in the cities (Is 
23 15 f.; Pr 7 6-23), but also in the country districts 
(Gn 38 15). The expression nokhriyyah (‘foreigner’) 
for ‘harlot’ (Pr 2 16, 5 20, 6 24, 7 5, 23 27) implies 
that this practise was carried on in Israel originally 
by foreign women. Married women sometimes made 
a long absence of their husbands from home the 
occasion of having dealings with other men (Pr 7 18- 
20). The house of a harlot was a sort of inn where 
any one, even an enemy of the land, might stop 
(Jos 2 1 ff.). 


In particular, that characteristic of the Canaanite 
cultus whereby men and women yielded themselves 
at sanctuaries, in honor of the deity, was a great 
incentive to unchastity. Such persons (masc. 
q¢dhéshim, fem. g¢dhéshdth, i.e., ‘dedicated to deity,’ 
hence not permitted to marry) were to be found at 
the sanctuaries of J’’, as is evident not only from 
Am 27, Hos 4 13 £., but also from the measures of 
kings Asa and Jehoshaphat of Judah (I K 15 12, 
22 46), and the prohibition in Dt 23 18. Between 
such ‘holy’ women and harlots there was often ver 
little difference (cf. Gn 38 12-18). Such uncleanness 
at the sanctuaries was always denounced as con- 
trary to the religion of J’. To have intercourse with 
harlots was, even in ancient Israel, an offensive 
matter. The narrative in Gn ch. 38 attempts to 
excuse the conduct of Judah (vs, 12-15, 20-23). The 


Marriage and Divorce 





Book of Proverbs is fully cognizant of the dangers 
of such conduct and emphatically warns against it 
(53 f., 6 20ff., 7 4 ff., 2214, 23 27f., 293 f., 30 20). The 
demands of Jesus and the Apostles are remarkable 
not only for their incisiveness, but above all for their 
new religious basis (Mt 5 27-32; I Co 69-20; Eph 5 3-5; 
Col 3 5-8; Tit 2 2-6; Ja 4 4-8). 

5. Divorce. In accordance with the fundamental 
principles involved in the contraction of a marriage 
(cf. § 2, above), the husband alone had the right 
to dissolve the marriage, and since in such a case he 
did not receive back the méhar paid for the wife, so 
he also voluntarily renounced his right to his 
property when he sent away (Heb. shillah, Gr. 
é&roAbety, Mt 5 32, 19 3) his wife. Probably the 
husband’s right to drive (Heb. gdrash, Lv 21 7) 
his wife out of the house was in ancient Israel un- 
limited, as it is to-day in Islam. The wife went back 
to her family, with whose wrath the husband, at 
least usually, had to reckon, and had the privilege 
of marrying again. But in case the husband was 
compelled by the wife’s family to divorce her, and 
she was given to another man, the first hus- 
band had the right, as the case of David (IIS 3 
14-16) shows, to demand back his wife. Dt attempts 
to regulate such matters in the direction of making 
divorce more difficult. For example, it stipulates 
that the husband must give the wife a ‘bill of di- 
vorcement’ (Heb. sépher kerithith, Dt 241; Jer 3 8; 
Is 501), and further that something immoral or un- 
seemly must be the ground of the divorce (Heb. 
‘erwath dabhdr, Dt 24 1), and, finally, that the 
divorced wife, in case she in the meantime has 
married another man, can not again become the 
wife of her first husband (Dt 24 1-4; cf. Jer 3 1). 
The expression ‘erwath dabhér was indeed variously 
understood by the learned Jews. In the time of 
Christ the stricter school of Shammai took it to mean 
unchaste, shameless conduct on the part of the wife. 
The milder school of Hillel, on the other hand, 
understood it to signify some contrariness of dis- 
position or fault on the part of the wife. The latter 
view, which was also approved by later rabbis, 
harmonizes well with the meaning of the lawgiver, 
who uses the expression in 23 15in the broader sense 
(cf. also Cod. Ham. 141, 148). 

There could be two cases, according to Dt, whena 
man lost the right to dismiss his wife: (1) When he 
had done her the injustice of wrongly charging that 
she entered the married state not as a virgin (Dt 
22 13-19), and (2) when he was compelled to marry 
a virgin who, while yet unbetrothed, had been 


violated by him. Mal 2 10-16 goes beyond Dt when: 


it denounces him as dealing ‘treacherously’ who 
divorces ‘the wife of his youth.’ Nevertheless, the 
later times held to the regulation of Dt (ef. Mt 5 31f., 
19 3-12). The provisions of Cod. Ham. 134 ff. are 
more favorable to the wife. 


6. Widowhood and the Levirate Marriage. 
Throughout the O T widows appear as needing 
assistance. Their condition must, therefore, have 
been sad. Legally, they belonged to the private 
property of the husband (§ 2, above), and could, 
like this, be inherited. So Absalom played the réle 
of the heir of his father David when he took pos- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


556 


session of the concubines left behind in Jerusalem by 
David (II 8 16 20-22; cf. 20 3). A similar meaning is 
implied in the conduct of Abner (II 8 37 #f.), and in 
the demand of Adonijah (I K 2 13-22; cf. Gn 35 22). 
Furthermore, this was the ground of the custom that 
a son should marry his stepmother, which indeed is 
forbidden in Dt 22 30, 27 20; Lv 18 8, 20 11; but 
nevertheless was usual even down to the time of 
Ezekiel (Ezk 22 10). On the other hand, we find in- 
stances of widows living by themselves with their 
sons or other dependents (II K 414.; cf. 11S 145 f.; 
Ru 16f.; also in the case of the widow of Zarephath, 
I K 178 #.). Such instances may be in part cases 
in which the widow sought to conserve the property 
of her husband for her minor sons. A widow herself 
had no right of inheritance to the property of her 
husband. There seems to have been no fixed regula- 
tion in ancient Israel concerning the care of widows, 
but, on the other hand, their defenseless position was 
used by many men as the occasion for advancing 
their own interests (II K 81 #.; Is 10 2; Mic 2 9). 
The prophets came forward, therefore, as their 
champions (Is 117; Jer ch. 6). Dt provides that the 
gleanings of the field and the vineyards should be 
left for them (24 19, 21; cf. Ru 2 2), and includes them 
among those who should have a share in the tithes 
of the third year and be invited to take part in the 
sacrificial meals (14 28 f., 26 12, 16 11, 14). In later 
times (as earlier in the Cod. Ham. 171 f.) widows 
were better cared for. Tobias, e.g., received his full 
inheritance from Raguel only after the death of his 
mother-in-law (To 8 20). 


The position of the childless widow was particu- 
larly sad, since even during the lifetime of her hus- 
band she usually enjoyed no consideration (1S 16. f; 
Gn 16 4). In case a husband died without leaving 
behind a son even by one of his concubines, the 
ancient custom demanded that his surviving brother 
should marry the widow in order to preserve the 
name and inheritance of the dead. Then the first 
son born of this marriage was counted as the de- 
scendant and heir of the dead brother. This attempt to 
give to one already dead a son by means of the ‘levi- 
rate marriage’ (from levir‘[Lat.], ‘husband’s brother’) 
is evidently to be traced back to the prehistoric wor- 
ship of ancestors which demanded that the worship 
due a father should be assured through his son after 
the father’s death. For a widow this preserved a 
valuable right for which Tamar contended with the 
greatest cleverness against Judah (Gn ch. 38), who 
had promised her his third son. In Dt 265 5-10 this 
custom is sanctioned, and yet it is allowed to the 
brother-in-law to refuse to enter upon such a mar- 
riage. The custom therein prescribed of drawing off 
(hdlats) the shoe (cf. also Ru 4 7) signified prob- 
ably the renunciation of the inheritance of the 
brother (cf. the opposite in Ps 60 8). The attempt 
in Ly 18 16, 20 21 to forbid such marriages was not 
successful. In Mt 22 24 the usage of Dt. ch. 25 is 
presupposed as in vogue and made the basis of the 
discussion. Since daughters, incase there were no 
sons, had the right of inheritance (Nu 27 1 ff.), the 
levirate marriage was probably limited to such cases 
in which the father had left behind no children at all. 
The later law (Nu 27 4) provided that the name of 


557 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Marriage and Divorce 


LLL CL A 


the father could be preserved in the family through 
the daughters (cf. § 2, above). 


7. Prohibited Marriages. Under this heading be- 
long, in the first place, the mixed marriages, i.e., 
unions with Canaanite or other heathen peoples, 
which are forbidden in Dt 7 1-4, 23 4-7; Ex 3415 f., 
because thereby the worship of other gods would be 
introduced into Israel. This prohibition marked a 
sharp distinction against the earlier customs which 
saw nothing irregular in marriage with the native 
population of Canaan. When, after the occupation of 
Canaan, the unity of the local community found 
place alongside of the tribal unity and in part sup- 
planted it, it was impossible to avoid marriages be- 
tween Israelites and Canaanites. Numerous passages 
show that this actually took place (Jg3 5f.; 11S 113, 
23 34; I K 7 14, etc.; Dt 2110 #.). The prohibition 
of Dt evidently found its reason in the religious or, 
more correctly, cultus view-point of the party of 
reform of those days (7th cent.). After the Exile 
it cost Nehemiah and Ezra anxious care to carry 
through the prescriptions of this law among the 
Jewish families in and about Jerusalem (Neh 13 23 ff. 
Ezr ch. 9 f.; Mal 2 14, where ’ésheth berithékh means 
‘your wife of the Jewish faith’). Furthermore, in 
Dt andin PC marriages with persons of the following 
degrees of relationship are forbidden: with the wife 
of a father (Dt 22 30, 27 20; Lv 18 8, 2011); with one’s 
own sister or step-sister (Dt 27 22; Lv 189, it, 20 17); 
with the mother-in-law (Dt 27 23); with a niece (Lv 
18 10); with an aunt on the father’s or mother’s side 
(Lv 18 12 f., 20 19); with the wife of the father’s 
brother (Lv 18 14, 20 20); with a daughter-in-law 
(Lv 1815, 2012); with the wife of a brother (Lv 18 16, 
20 21); with mother and daughter (or niece) at the 
same time (Lv 18 17, 20 14; cf. Dt 27 23); with two 
sisters at the same time (Lv 18 18). Such marriages 
were, however, in the earlier times not rare (cf. the 
cases of Abraham, Jacob, etc.; also Ezk 22 10 f., 
and § 6, above). The prohibition in regard to these 
marriages was probably worked out in connection 
with the opposition against Canaanite cults (cf. 
Lv 18 3, 24 ff.). 

8. Historical Development in Reference to Mar- 
riage Customs. The regulations concerning mar- 
riages were of the greatest’ importance to the 
Israelites, since the social organization of the people 
rested altogether upon the family. For clan and 
tribe were nothing else than expanded families. The 
head of a family was the master of all its branches; 
through the means of the family, custom and laws 
were regulated. The family also was the primary 
cultus organization (I § 11 #f.; 20 6, 28 £.; Ex 13 8, 
14; Dt 127, 12, 18, 16 11, 14). An Israelitic family was 
founded by the father, who wished to continue the 
existence of his clan. The father was the master of 
the wives and children. Of matriarchy only a few 
traces survived in Israelitic customs. One may com- 
pare the marriage of Sampson (Jg ch. 14 f.; cf. 
§ 2, above). Marriages between brother and sister 
(not of the same mother; cf. Gn 20 12; II S 18 13), 
as also marriages with a step-mother or a daughter- 
in-law (Ezk 22 10 f.), presuppose that the relation- 
ship was not reckoned according to the father. 

Polygamy, which it is evident from Jos. (Ant. 


XVII, 1 2) was a prevalent custom, involved a lower 

status of woman, altho her position in general 

was not so unfortunate as we might suppose. She 
was indeed purchased by the husband, and yet 
could not be sold by him as a slave, presupposing, 

of course, that she was herself not a slave (Ex 21 

7-11; Dt 21 10-14). At the same time, a father could, 

in case of necessity, sell his still unmarried daughter 

as a slave. It was only on the basis of her union 

with a husband that she could become free after a 

six-year period of servitude (Ex 21 2 £.). Conse- 

quently, a woman materially bettered her condition 
through marriage. On the other hand, the women 
of antiquity, as is the case to-day in the Orient, 
sighed by reason of the hard labor which fell to them 
day by day in the villages, in caring for household 
affairs and the farms. Nevertheless, there was no 
lack in ancient Israel of clever and energetic women 
whose influence extended far beyond their own 
household (cf. Ex 15 20 f.; Jg44#.,17#.;1S 2514¢.; 

IIS 1414.; II K 11 2f., 22 14 f.), a conclusive proof 

that in those days women had more liberty, and 

stood on a much higher level than is the case to-day 
in Islam. The fact that the position of woman in Cod. 

Ham. is a high and responsible one speaks well, 

without doubt, for the advanced state of the ancient 

Babylonian civilization, and if we look for the same 

thing in vain in the O T, this is partly to be explained 

from the fact that Israel came in the first place out of 
the uncivilized desert, and in part also from the fact 
that the civilization of Canaan was on a lower level 
than that of Babylonia. At the same time, a finer 
appreciation of the significance of marriage and the 
worth of woman is evidenced in the later portions of 

the O T. It is sufficient here to refer to Gn 2 18, 

to the prophets who compared the union between 

Jehovah and Israel with marriage (Hos, Is, Jer, Ezk, 

etc.), to Pr 12 4, 19 14; Ps 128 3, and especially to 

the eulogistic ‘description of a worthy woman’ 

(Pr 31 10-31). With this agrees also the purpose of 

the legislation, especially of Dt, which was to im- 

prove the condition of women. At the same time, 

the growing estimation of the worth of women, the 
increasing individualizing of spiritual life, together 
with the deep horror of unbridled sexual license, led 
to the judgment that only lifelong monogamy with 
absolute prohibition of divorce corresponded to the 

Divine ideal of marriage (Mk 10 2-12; I Co 7 10 f.). 

On a lower level than the formulation of Jesus 

(Mk 10 5-9) is to be placed the judgment of Paul, 

who saw the ideal in absolute celibacy and considered 

marriage only as a lesser, altho often wholesome, 

evil (I Co 7 1-7, 38; ef. I Ti 3 2, 12, 4 3-5, 59, Tit 16; 

Rev 14 4) than license. 

LirerRATURE: W. Robertson Smith, Kinship and Marriage in 
Early Arabia (1885); Ch. Stubbe, Die Ehe im A T (1886); 
J. Wellhausen, Die Ehe bei den Arabern, in Nachrichten, 
von d. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Géttingen (1893); 
pp. 431 ff.; F. A. Klein, in ZDPV, Bd. IV, VI; Baldens- 
perger, in PHFQ (1899-1901); Heb. Archdologie of Nowack 
(1894), Benzinger (21907); S. Rauh, Hebr. Familienrecht in 
vorprophetischer Zeit (1907); Fr. Wilke, Das Frauenideal 
und die Schdizung der Weibes im A T (1907); Eberharter, 
Was bedeutet Mohar? (Theol. Quartalschrift, 1913, 489 ff.); 
derselbe, Das Ehe und Familienrecht der Hebr. (1914); Hol- 
zinger, Khe und Frau im vordeuteronomischen Israel (1914) 


(Festschr. fiir Wellhausen); J. Neubauer, Beitrage zur 
Geschichte des biblisch-talmudischen Eheschliessungsrechts 


Marriage Feast 
Mary the Virgin 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


558 





in Mitteilungen der Vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft (1919 und 
1920); G. Beer, Die sociale und religidse Stellung der Frau 
im israelitischen Altentum (1919). H. G 


MARRIAGE FEAST, MARRIAGE SUPPER. 
See MarriAGE AND Divorce, § 2. 


MARROW. The rendering of (1) the Heb. noun 
moah (Job 21 24) and ptepl. m*muhayim (Is 25 6), 
both derived from a root meaning ‘to be fat,’ con- 
tain marrow’; (2) hélebh, the ordinary word for fat 
(Ps 63 5); (3) shiqqiy, ‘drink,’ i.e., refreshment (Pr 
38); and (4) of the Gr. wuedéc, ‘marrow’ or ‘pith’ 
(He 4 12). 

MARSENA, miar-si’na. See Princes, THE SEVEN 


MARSHAL: The rendering of séphér (Jg 5 14, 
‘scribe’ RVmg., ‘writer’ AV) and tiphsadr (Jer 51 27, 
‘sovernor AV), an Assyr. loan-word (cf. Assyr. 
tupsharru). The two passages into which RV intro- 
duces the word are both obscure; and the text, as 
reflected in ancient versions, is quite doubtful. But 
the functions of scribe and a military office (marshal) 
are often united in the same person (cf. sdphér 
= ‘enumerator,’ ‘muster-officer,’ probably the mean- 
ing in Jg 5 14, asin IT K 25 19, etc.). A. C. Z. 

MARS HILL. See AREOPAGUS. 

MARTHA, mGr’tha (Mée§ze=Aram. 8012, mar- 
tha’), ‘lady’: The name occurs twice: (1) As that 
of a woman identified only as a resident of an 
unnamed village, as having a sister named Mary, 
and as ‘cumbered about much serving’ and slow to 
understand and sympathize with her sister’s more 
contemplative temperament (Lk 10 38-42); (2) as 
that of a sister of Mary of Bethany and of Lazarus 
whom Jesus raised from the dead (Jn 11 1 f.). 
According to some the similarities between these 
two in character (cf. Jn 12 2, ‘M. served’), in re- 
lationship (each had a sister Mary), and in setting 
(both lived in villages), should lead to their identi- 
fication. On the contrary, others are impressed by 
the differences which would place the two accounts 
in different parts of the ministry of Jesus and in 
different geographical locations, and assume that 
there were two women of the name. A. C. Z. 


MARTYR: The original meaning and use of the 
word pdetus were legal, 7.e., ‘witness’ (cf. Mt 18 16). 
It is also used in the sense of ‘spectator’ (cf. Herod. 
121). In the NT it is used chiefly of those who 
testify what they have seen and heard concerning 
Jesus (cf. Ac 1 8). Since loyalty in this testimony 
often incurred violent treatment (cf. Rev. 17 6), 
the word came ultimately to mean one who was put 
to death for the sake of the gospel. J. M. T. 


MARVEL, MARVELS, etc. See in general 
MIRACLES. 


MARY (Mapet«, Maoprdu, the Gr. form of the Heb. 
miryam, Aram. maryam, Miriam EV): The name of 
at least six women inthe N T. IntheO T ‘Miriam’ 
occurs only as the name of the sister of Moses (Ex 
15 20; Nu 121; Mic 6 4) and of the daughter (or son?) 
of Jether (I Ch 417). The frequency of its Greek 
equivalent in the N T can be easily accounted for as 
a result of the popularity of ‘Mariamme’ (Meeréuun 
and less correctly ‘Mariamne’ Mapgréuvn), the grand- 
daughter of Hyrcanus II, the last Hasmonean ruler 
of the Jews and the favorite wife of Herod the Great 


(Jos. Ant. XIV, 121; BJ, XII, 1 3). 1. Mary the 
mother of Jesus. See Mary, THE VIRGIN. 


2. Mary Magdalene. Among the women who 
accompanied Jesus and the Twelve on the tour 
through Galilee one named Mary bore the surname 
Magdalene, MaySaAnvy, ‘of Magadan,’ q.v. (but cf. 
Schmiedel in LB, art. Mary, § 26. For variant ex- 
planations of the surname cf. also Lightfoot, Hor. 
Heb. on Mt 27 56). This Mary is singled out as one 
from whom Jesus had cast out ‘seven demons’ (Lk 
8 2; Mk 169). As demoniac possession was at the 
time assumed to be the general cause of ailments and 
disorders, this means that she was cured of a serious 
disability; but exactly what this was is disputed. 
According to some, the ailment was mainly moral 
aberration, possibly complicated with physical and 
mental disease. Those who thus explain the case 
allege that Jewish usage confused certain forms of 
immorality with demoniac possession (cf. Lightfoot, 
Hor. Heb. on Lk 8 2; Jer. Vit. Hil. Erem.; the latter 
specifically names possession by an amoris demon). 
If this be the true description of the evil from which 
Jesus delivered Mary, it becomes at once extremely 
probable that she is the same as the ‘sinner’ who 
anointed His feet at the house of Simon the Pharisee 
(Lk 7 36 f.). Some have gone further and identified 
her with Mary, the sister of Martha and Lazarus 
of Bethany (cf. David Smith, In the Days of His 
Flesh, 1905, pp. 206-211). Of this Mary, too, it is 
said that she ‘anointed the Lord with ointment and 
wiped His feet with her hair.’ The identification of 
Mary Magdalene, however, with Mary of Bethany 
upon this ground is quite precarious. Anointing, 
altho not frequently mentioned, when spoken of at 
all, is assumed to be a not unusual act of courtesy, 
and could easily have occurred twice during the 
career of a personage such as Jesus Christ. All that 
is known otherwise of Mary of Bethany is incon- 
sistent with her being the sinful woman of Simon’s 
banquet. Whether Mary Magdalene was the same 
as the sinful woman of Lk 7 36 must depend on the 
nature of her aberration and cure. If this was moral, 
the two designations may refer to the same person; 
if only mental, they must belong to different in- 
dividuals. The reasons for identifying the two which 
are derived from the alleged linguistic usage (as given 
by Lightfoot, cited above) lose their force when 
closely scrutinized; and apart from these reasons 
there is no ground for the view that Mary Magdalene 
was the ‘sinner.’ The nature of the ailment described 
as possession by ‘seven demons,’ must be largely a 
matter of speculation and conjecture. The number 
itself may be taken in a twofold sense. It may refer 
to the unusual violence of the attacks of the malady, 
making the cure a permanent source of the greatest 
relief and gratitude. But the ‘seven demons’ may 
also be conceived as possessing the sufferer not 
simultaneously but successively. It is not unusual 
after a mental ailment has been cured by suggestion 
for it to return. This recurrence may have been 
counted as a second demon, and each subsequent 
lapse following a temporary cure an additional one. 
This ingenious suggestion, made by Schmiedel (#B, 
art. Gospels, § 144), would imply that the cure of 
Mary by Jesus consisted not in one permanent act, 


559 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Marriage Feast 
Mary the Virgin 





but in many successive treatments, a view which 
to say the least, is not the prima facie meaning of 
the Gospel narrative. Mary’s discipleship seems to 
belong to the latter part of Jesus’ ministry. Apart 
from Lk 8 2, she appears by name only in the story 
of the Passion and Resurrection (Mt 27 56, 28 1, 
and ||). But even if late, her attachment to Jesus 
was none the less strong, as is evidenced by the 
fact that she was found visiting His tomb, appar- 
ently alone, at the earliest opportunity offered after 
His burial (Jn 201). The Magdalene of tradition 
and art is almost altogether a creature of the 
imagination. She derives her name from Mary of 
Magdala, her interest as a penitent from the 
assumed identity of this Mary with the sinful 
woman of Lk 7 36, and what remains is pure fancy. 


3. Mary the Mother of James and Joses, Wife 
of Clopas. Another Mary, ‘the mother of James 
and Joses,’ is named in the Synoptics (Mt 27 56, 61; 
cf. Mk 15 40) as one of those who witnessed the 
Crucifixion. In Mt 281 this same Mary is called ‘the 
other Mary.’ When the parallels Mk 161 and Lk 
24 10 are brought into comparison, no doubt is left 
that ‘the other Mary’ is ‘the mother of James and 
Joses.’? In the Johannine report of the Crucifixion, 
however, the place of the mother of James and Joses 
in the list of the women who witnessed the Cruci- 
fixion is occupied by ‘Mary the wife of Clopas’ (Jn 
19 25). At first sight this identification also appears 
to be beyond doubt, but considerable difficulty is ex- 
perienced on account of the confused data regarding 
Clopas. This name is certainly not to be identified 
with Cleopas in Lk 2418. It may be regarded as the 
same as Alphzus, since both represent the same 
Aramaic Halphay (cf. Lightfoot, Gal. p. 256; but, 
per contra, cf. Schmiedel in HB, art. Clopas). In 
such a case James ‘the less’ (Mk 15 40) must have 
been like Matthew (Levi) a son of Alphzeus, and, as 
patristic tradition has it, a ‘tax-collector’ (cf. 
Chrysost. Hom. in. Matt. 23, ‘two tax-collectors, 
Matthew and James’). If true, this identification 
would place Mary’s interest in Jesus in a clearer 
light. But Clopas may be altogether independent of 
any one of the persons mentioned in the Synoptic 
narrative. If so, he was either the father or the 
grandfather of James and Joses, the former if Mary 
was the wife, the latter if she was the daughter of, 
Clopas. But neither of these methods of identifying 
the mother of James and Joses with the Mary of 
Clopas is convincing, and it is possible to suppose, 
since the name is common enough otherwise, that 
the author of the Fourth Gospel may have had some 
other Mary in mind regarding whom nothing else 
is known. (See BRETHREN oF THE LORD.) 


4. Mary of Bethany. Mary, the sister of Martha, 
appears in Lk 10 38-42 as an eager listener at the feet 
of Jesus. The residence of the two sisters is in this 
passage given as ‘a certain village.’ In Jn 111. 
Martha and Mary again appear as the friends and 
hosts of Jesus, but this time more definitely located 
at Bethany. The characterization of the two sisters, 
as well as their names, is the same as in the Lucan 
story, and whatever difficulty may exist about 
identifying the household of the ‘certain village’ 
with that of Bethany is altogether overbalanced by 


these obviously common characteristics. Mary of 
Bethany takes a place among the disciples of Jesus 
as a distinct type of the mystic and contemplative 
believer. The view that she was the same person as 
Mary Magdalene, or the ‘sinner’ of Lk 7 37, is not 
supported by sufficient evidence. 

5. Mary the Mother of Mark. ‘Mary the mother 
of John whose surname is Mark’ (Ac 12 12) was the 
owner of the house in which the disciples assembled 
for prayer when Herod put James to death and cast 
Peter into prison. The latter upon his deliverance 
from prison immediately hastened to this meeting- 
place. Besides these details no further information 
is given of her in the N T. That she was a widow is 
clear from the fact that her name instead of that of 
her husband is given as that of the owner of the 
house. She also must have occupied a prominent 


_ place in the Christian community. The fact that 


Barnabas was a ‘cousin’ (Col 4 10, ‘sister’s son’ 
AV) of Mark shows her to have been related to 
Barnabas. In later Christian literature her house is 
located on Mt. Zion (the SW. hill, according to later 
theory). The house also is said to have served as 
the meeting-place of Christ and the disciples at the 
time of the Last Supper, of the Ascension, and of 
Pentecost. See JERUSALEM, §42. 

6. Mary the Friend of Paul. The ‘Mary’ who 
bestowed much labor on the Roman Christians 
(‘you,’ Ro 16 6, ‘us’ AV) was apparently an active 
Christian in Rome. About her life and services, 
however, nothing more is known than is given in 
this brief salutation by Paul. The condition of the 
text leaves it somewhat uncertain whether the ser- 
vices for which she is singled out were rendered to 
Paul (eis ques), among the Romans (év byiv) or to 
the Romans (ets 5ua&>). A. C. Z. 


MARY THE VIRGIN. 1. Mary as Represented 
in the N T. In the N T the Virgin Mary is repre- 
sented as a descendant of the house of David (Lk 
1 27; cf. Ro 13; but these may be references to the 
genealogy of Joseph). Her kinswoman Elisabeth, 
however (Lk 1 36), was ‘of the daughters of Aaron’ 
(Lk 15). But this relationship, too, may have been 
established some generations earlier by marriage. In 
the evangelic narratives, Mary appears quite rarely. 
Of her personal history before her betrothal to 
Joseph the N T gives no hint. In the accounts of the 
birth of Jesus, she naturally stands in the foreground 
(Mt 1 18, 20; Lk 1 27 #., 25 #.), and in general these 
accounts are so framed as to harmonize with the 
extraordinary character of the circumstances re- 
corded. They throw a poetic halo about the person 
of Mary as well as about the mystery of the Nativity. 
In the story of the life and work of Jesus, however, 
the personality of His mother is not put into a promi- 
nent place. His words as a child of twelve in the 
Temple (Lk 2 49) are just as full of mystery for her 
as they are for Joseph. When she is again men- 
tioned (altho this time the report is found in the 
characteristically different account of the Fourth 
Gospel, Jn 2 1-12) she seems to have some intimation 
of His possessing more than natural powers. Yet 
there is something about her notion, at least as to 
the use of these powers that stands in need of correc- 
tion. But in the matter of the failure of His brothers 


Mary the Virgin 
Mattanah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


560 





to believe in Jesus (Jn 7 5; cf. Mk 3 21), the evidence, 
altho negative, indicates that Mary was more sympa- 
thetic and expectant in her attitude than they. Jesus, 
on His part, is represented as placing more stress on 
the spiritual relationship to Him involvedin obedience 
to His Father’s will than on relationships of a merely 
earthly and physical character (Mt 12 46-50 and ||\s). 
Yet atHis crucifixion, which Mary witnessed in a wo- 
manly and motherly spirit, Jesus also showed His ap- 
preciation of the earthly filial relation through the 
committal of His mother to the care of the beloved 
disciple (Jn 19 25-27). After the resurrection and 
ascension of Jesus, Mary appears as a devout mem- 
ber of the first company of believers (Ac 1 14), but 
without any discernible preeminence among them. 
In these few and simple allusions to her the N T 
gives in a restrained and chastely rational picture all 
the authentic materials we possess regarding Mary. 


2. Mary in the N T Apocrypha. Soon after the 
close of the Apostolic Age, the process began of 
embellishing and expanding these authentic data. 
The result is shown best in the Protevangelium 
Jacobi (cf. Tischendorff, Hv. Apoc.? 1876), and in- 
dividual traces of this mythologizing tendency are to 
be found as early as Justin Martyr and Tertullian. 
According to the document named, the parents of 
Mary were Joachim and Anna, a childless pair, who 
like Hannah (I S ch. 1) vowed that in case their 
prayer for offspring should be answered, they would 
consecrate the child to a life of service in the Temple. 
Mary was born and Anna at once placed her under 
the care of pure virgins. One year later, her father 
secured her special consecration by priests with the 
accompaniment of a sacrificial banquet. At the end 
of her third year, she was led in a procession of torch- 
bearers to the Sanctuary, and there ‘grew like a dove 
which builds her nest in the Temple,’ Her nourish- 
ment came through the hands of angels. When she 
reached the age of twelve, it became necessary that 
she should be removed from the Temple. The ques- 
tion how to accomplish this was answered by an 
angel directing that all the widowers should be 
assembled together into the presence of the high 
priest Zachariah and that each should bring a staff 
in his hand. The high priest took the staves into 
the Holy Place, where he offered his prayer. Coming 
out thence, as he returned them to their owners a 
dove fiew out of the staff of Joseph, the carpenter of 
Nazareth, and alighted on his head. This was recog- 
nized as the sign of Joseph’s being chosen to take 
charge of Mary (not as his wedded wife but as a 
ward entrusted by the Temple officials to his care). 
Presently it became necessary to weave a new curtain 
(veil) for the Temple. Seven virgins were appointed 
to do this work, and Mary was added to the number. 
It was during the making of the curtain that the 
angel of the annunciation appeared to her (as in Lk 
ch. 1). Mary, being found pregnant, was called with 
Joseph before the Sanhedrin, and at the instigation 
of the learned Rabbi Hannas, both she and Joseph 
were made to undergo the ordeal of ‘bitter water’ 
as prescribed in Nu 518 ff. This they stood, proving 
their innocence. On the way to Bethlehem (as in 
Lk 2 4), the time for the birth of her child having 
arrived, she took refuge in a cave. The universe, 


visible and invisible, lapsed into a profound silence 
of expectation. Joseph hastened to bring a midwife, 
but found the cave overshadowed by a cloud which 
presently lifted, revealing a great light and the infant 
Jesus was seen resting on the bosom of His mother. 
When Salome was informed by the midwife of the 
wonder of a virgin giving birth to a child, she dis- 
believed and was punished by haying her hand 
burned; but upon taking the child into her arms as 
directed by an angel, she was at once healed. From 
this point onward the apocryphal narrative coalesces 
with the canonical, recounting the visit of the magi, 
the murder of the children at Bethlehem, and other 
details, with the exception that instead of represent- 
ing Jesus as saved from Herod’s murderous inten- 
tions by flight into Egypt, it states that He was 
taken into a cleft in the mountain and there con- 
cealed until the danger was past. 

Another class of additions to and embellishments 
of the biography of Mary are those which relate the 
manner of her leaving the earthly life. These are of 
a somewhat later origin. Two apocryphal Greek 
writings now extant in Latin translations (De Tran- 
situ Marie) of the end of the fourth or the beginning 
of the fifth century contain the legend of the trans- 
portation of the soul of the Virgin to heaven by 
Christ and His angels, followed subsequently by the 
transportation also of her body in a cloud. In the 
earlier centuries it was more commonly believed, 
upon the basis of Lk 2 35, that she had suffered 
martyrdom. Epiphanus is uncertain as to whether 
or not Mary died and was buried. The current 
tradition finally settled down to the negative of this 
question. 


3. Mary the Virgin. The title ‘Virgin’ has been 
attached to the name of Mary in all Christian litera- 
ture because of the firm belief that the birth narra- 
tives (Mt 1 18-25; Lk 1 26-2 21) record exact historical 
facts. The position of traditional Christianity on this 
point was in ancient times met by Jews and oppo- 
nents of Christianity among the heathen (Celsus) 
with the allegation that Jesus was the unlawful son of 
Mary and Panderas (Ilav0yp, TavOqeac, corrupted 
from rap8évoc, ‘virgin,’ the distinctive title of Mary 
among Christians). The Talmud (cf. Laible’s essay, 
Jesus Christus im Talmud, in Schriften des Institutum 
Judaicum in Berlin, 1891, pp. 9-89), in addition, rep- 
resents Mary as a professional braider of women’s 
hair, a calling which was not considered very rep- 
utable. The animus of all this, however, is too 
transparent to admit of its being allowed weight as 
historical evidence. In modern times, doubts re- 
garding the virgin birth have been based on histor- 
ical-critical and scientific-philosophical grounds. (1) 
The birth narratives in Mt and Lk, the only portions 
in which explicit mention of the virgin birth is made, 
are said not to belong to the earliest tradition of the 
life and work of Jesus. (2) The idea of the virgin 
birth was, it is alleged, first deduced from a misin- 
terpretation of Is 714, and then constructed into a 
historical statement and inserted in the evangelic 
narrative. (3) The notion of virgin hirth for ex- 
traordinary men is quite common among the peoples 
of the earth, even those most developed intellec- 
tually (Hindus, Greeks, etc.), and was imported inte 


561 


the story of Jesus. (4) the notion is an outcome in 
the historical sphere of the dogma of the essential 
divinity of Jesus. Per contra, the defense of the 
traditional conception is conducted partly upon the 
presumptive truth of the evangelic narrative, whose 
early date and genuineness are strenuously con- 
tended for, partly upon the a priori fitness of such 
an earthly origin for the Savior of mankind, and 
partly upon the harmony between it and the church 
doctrine of Christ’s person and work. (For a full 
discussion, see Saltau, Birth of Jesus Christ, 1903; 
Lobstein, Virgin Birth of Christ, 1903; Sweet, The 
Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, 1906; Orr, The 
Virgin Birth of Christ, 1907). Historically, the 
question whether Mary is the sole human parent of 
Jesus must stand or fall with the acceptance or re- 
jection of the evangelic infancy-narratives as abso- 
lutely credible testimony, issuing from Mary herself. 
In the absence of strong grounds for their rejection, 
their general apparent sanity, their freedom from 
objectionable features on a subject of such delicacy, 
and the early and implicit credit given them in the 
Christian community entitle these narratives to be 
believed as true accounts of fact. 

4. Mary in Ecclesiastical Literature and Dogma. 
The thought of the virginity of Mary at the time 
of the birth of Jesus has led to further developments. 
These, however, for the most part possess a historical 
rather than a Biblical interest. They are traceable 
to diverse motives. The predominance of ascetic 
ideals and the belief in the superior merit inherent in 
the celibate and virgin state led to the notion that 
the mother of Jesus must be not only a virgin before 
and in the process of giving virth to her Divine Son, 
but must have remained a virgin ever afterward 
(perpetual virginity). Accordingly, Jesus could have 
had no brothers or sisters in the strict and true sense 
of the terms. Hence to explain the occurrence of 
the phrase ‘brethren of the Lord’ it was proposed 
to construe it as meaning either cousins, or children 
of Joseph by a previous marriage (the Hieronym- 
ian and Epiphanian views; see BRETHREN OF THE 
Lorp). Another interest centering about the person- 
ality of Mary was the dogmatic one of the sinlessness 
of Jesus. If she was the mother of the sinless nature 
of Jesus she must herself have somehow been purged 
of original sin. The idea legitimately worked out 
led, altho only as late as the middle of the 19th 
cent., to the dogma of the immaculate conception of 
Mary. Still another interest finds its starting-point 
in the respect that Mary had earned as the mother 
of the Savior of mankind. In the Biblical narrative, 
this natural deference to her as a privileged char- 
acter appears in the addresses of the angel and of 
Elisabeth (Lk 1 28, 42). From natural felicitation to 
veneration and from veneration to adoration, first 
akin to that due to God and afterward identical with 
it, were inevitable steps, altho many generations 
passed before the last one was taken. The con- 
troversy whether Mary should be called the ‘mother 
of God,’ involving the story of Nestorianism with all 
its sequels, leads to subjects which are altogether 
outside the field of Biblical interest even in its 
broadest and most indirect associations. 


Lireraturge: The Ante-Nicene Christian Library, vol. XVI 
. (Clark), contains translations of the apocryphal Protevan- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Mary the Virgin 
Mattanah 


gelium Jacobi, Evang. Thomzx, Evang. de Nativiiate Mariz, 
Historia de Nativ. Mariz et de Infantie Salvatoris, His- 
toria Josephi, Evang. Infantiz, de Dormitione, and de Tran- 
situ Mariz. See also Lehner, Die Marienverehrung in den 
ersten Jahrhunderien (1886), and Neubert, Marie dans 
VEglise Anténicéenne (1908); and article by J. B. Mayor 
in HDB. ALCL. 


MASCHIL, mas’kil. See Psaus, § 3. 


MASH, mash. See EranocrapHy AND Ern- 
NOLOGY, § 13. 


MASHAL, mé’shal. See MIsHAL. 

MASON. See Artizan Lire, § 4. 

MASREKAH, mas’rn-ka ("21¥2, masréqah): The 
home of Samlah, who once reigned over Edom (Gn 
36 36; I Ch 1 47). Site unknown. 


MASSA, mas’a (SY, massa’): An Ishmaelite clan 
(Gn 25 14). See ErHnocrapHY AND ETHNOLOGY, 


-§ 18; and LemvuEt. 


MASSAH, mas’a (199, massah), ‘testing’; cf. 
‘temptation’ AVmg., ‘tempting,’ or ‘proving’ RV 
mg.: The name given the place where the chil- 
dren of Israel tempted J’’ by doubting His presence 
with them (Ex 177). Massah is also named in Dt 
6 16, 9 22; Ps 95 8; but it is uncertain whether this 
is independent of the Massah where Levi was tested 
(Dt 33 8 f.). A. C. Z. 


MAST. In Pr 23 34 the Heb. hibbél is of uncertain 
meaning. It can mean ‘mast’ only through some 
connection with the ropes or tackling (habhal, the 
root, meaning ‘to bind’ or ‘tie’). Possibly it refers 
here to ‘the lookout basket at the masthead’ (BDB, 
sub. voc.). 


MASTER: This term is used to render: (1) ’Gdh6n, 
especially when this refers to persons other than God 
(Gn 249 ff., ete.). (2) sar, ‘prince,’ ‘chief? (I Ch 15 
27); (8) ba‘al, ‘owner’ (Ex 22 8; Jg 19 22 £.; Ee 12 11; 
Is 1 3); (4) ‘ér (Mal 2 12, ‘him that waketh’ RV), 
and (5) rabh (Jon 16; Dn 13, 49,511); (6) 8t3dcxaro0¢ 
(mostly in the Gospels in AV, ‘teacher’ RV); (7) 
Seondtys, ‘sovereign master’ (I Ti 61 f.; II Ti 2 21; 
Tit 29; I P 218); (8) éxtatétys, ‘overseer’ (Lk 5 5, 
8 24, 45, 9 33, 49, 1713); (9) xxOnynrh>, ‘guide,’ ‘leader’ 
(Mt 28 10); (10) xéetoc, ‘lord’ (Mt 6 24; Eph 6 5; 
Col 3 22, etc.); (11) xuSepyqtns, ‘steersman,’ ‘ship- 
master’ (Ac 27 11; Rev 18 17); (12) 6aBBet, ‘rabbi’ 
(q.v.). See also Snips anD NaviaarTION, § 2. 

0 es Rad be 

MATHUSALA, moa-fhii’sa-la. See MErTHUSELAH. 

MATRED, mé’tred (19, matrédh): The mother 
of Mehetabel (Gn 36 39; I Ch 1 50). 

MATRI, mé'trai (192, matr?), MATRITES: The 
ancestral head of a Benjamite family, or clan, to 
which Saul belonged (I § 10 21). 

MATTAN, mat’en (12, maitdn), ‘gift’: 1. The 
priest of the temple of Baal in Jerusalem, who was 
slain under Jehoiada (II K 11 18=II Ch 2317). As 
Queen Athaliah was a daughter of Jezebel, he may 
have been a Phenician. 2. The father of Shephatiah 
(Jer 38 1). Gla Sanke 

MATTANAH, mat’a-na (92, mattanah), ‘gift’: 
A station in the wilderness wandering, between the 
Arnon and the plains of Moab (Nu 21 18 f.). It is 
likely that the words ‘from the wilderness to M.’ 


Mattaniah 
Matthew, Gospel of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


562 





constitute the last line ot the preceding poem, in 
which case M. is not to be taken as a proper noun, 
but should be rendered ‘gift.’ BK. E.N. 

MATTANIAH, mat’’a-nai’a (52, mattanyah), 
‘gift of J’’: 1. The original name of King Zedekiah 
(II K 2417). 2. A descendant of Asaph (I Ch 9 15; 
Neh 11 22) and leader of the singers (Neh 1117, 12 8). 
3. A Levite of the sons of Asaph, and a contempo- 
rary of Jehoshaphat (II Ch 20 14) (=preceding?). 
4, 5, 6, 7. Four who married foreign wives (Ezr 10 
26 f., 30, 37). 8. A doorkeeper in the Temple (Neh 
12 25). 9. An Asaphite (Neh 12 35) =2 (?). 10. A 
treasurer in the Temple (Neh 13 13), also translation 
of W230, mattanyaha. 11. A Hemanite (I Ch 25 
4, 16). 12. An Asaphite in the reign of Hezekiah, 
who helped cleanse the Temple (II Ch 29 13). 

PAs fast hi 

MATTATHA, mat’a-tha (Martaf&): An ancestor 
of Jesus (Lk 3 31). 

MATTATHIAS, mat’’a-thai’as (Mattabtac, Heb. 
mattithyah, ‘gift of J’’): This name, common in the 
later O T times (cf. Neh 8 4), occurs also in the 
Maccabean period. 1. A priest in Modein, the father 
of the five Maccabean brothers (I Mac 2 1). See Mac- 
CABEES, THe. 2. One of the captains in the army 
of Jonathan Maccabeus (I Mac 11 70). 3. A son 
of Simon the high priest (I Mac 16 14-16). 4. An 
envoy sent by Nicanor to Judas Maccabeus (II 
Mac 1419). 5, 6. The name is twice found in Luke’s 
genealogical table. In 3 25 M. the son of Amos, the 
seventh removed from Joseph, and in 3 26 the son of 
Semein, the thirteenth from Joseph. J via. 


MATTATTAH, mat’at-ta (TDD, mattatiah, 
Mattathah AV): One of the ‘sons of Hashum’ 
(Ezr 10 33). 

MATTENAI, mat’1-né’ai (20, mattenay): 1. 
One of the ‘sons of Hashum’ (Ezr 10 33). 2. One 
of the ‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 37). 3. A priest (Neh 
12 19). 

MATTHAN, mat’then (Ma60év): An ancestor of 
Joseph (Mt 1 15). 

MATTHAT, mat’ thot (Mar8éc and Maf6ar): The 
name of two ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3 24, 29) 


MATTHEW, math’iu (Ma6@atoc, abbr. of Matta- 
thias): One of the Apostles. His name is given in 
all the lists (Mk 318; Mt 10 3; Lk 615; Ac 113) in 
two of them (Mk and Ac) he is paired with Barthol- 
omew and in the other two (Mt and Lk) with 
Thomas. Outside of this record of Apostolic ap- 
pointment he is mentioned but once in the Gospel 
history, viz., in connection with his call by Jesus to 
His discipleship (Mk 2 13 f.; Mt 99; Lk 5 27), where 
his name is given by Mk and Lk as Levi (Acuet), 
Mk adding his father’s name Alphzeus, and imply- 
ing Capernaum as his home (cf. Mk 21 with ver. 
13 f.). There is a possibility that he was a brother of 
the James of the apostolic circle, whose father was 
Alpheus. 

From the record of his call we learn that he was 
one of those Jews whose nationalism was weak 
enough to allow him to enter the execrated service 
of tax-gathering, altho this service was carried on 
apparently with less friction in the tetrarchy of 
Antipas than it was in the rest of Palestine. M. 


was a customs-officer, and it was while he was seated 
at his ‘place of toll’ on the customs-route between 
Damascus and the Mediterranean, which passed out- 
side of Capernaum along the Sea of Galilee, that 
Jesus called him to His following. 

This call was evidently intended by Jesus as a 
further object-lesson to the scribes and Pharisees, 
before whom He had just healed the paralytic in 
proof of His right to forgive sins without resort to 
ceremonialism; for along with all his class M. was 
unchurched by the religious leaders of the people, 
so that no more practical evidence of Jesus’ inde- 
pendence of ceremonialism could be given than to 
call M. to His discipleship. It is evident that before 
his call M. must have been familiar with Jesus and 
His gospel message and mission, since the prompt- 
ness of his response implied an intelligent under- 
standing of what was involved in the call. The 
‘great feast’ which, following his call, M. made to his 
new Master (Lk 5 29 ff.) was, therefore, of special sig- 
nificance; for it was given not only with an under- 
standing of what his call involved for himself, but 
apparently with some idea of what his acceptance of 
it involved for Jesus. Its guests, apart from Jesus 
and His disciples, were made up mainly of M.’s 
fellow publicans and the general class of the ‘sin- 
ners’ (i.e., the ceremonially outlawed, not the 
morally corrupt), to which the publicans belonged, 
and the Pharisaic criticisms and Jesus’ answering 
remarks were quite to be expected (Mt 9 10-13 and 
Ils). 

As to his authorship of the First Canonical Gospel 
and his general position in the theological thought of 
the Early Church, see the following article. 

M. W. J. 

MATTHEW, GOSPEL OF: The first of the group 
of the socalled Synoptic Gospels (see Gospxt, 
GOSPELS, § 38). 

1. Authorship and Historical Character. This 
Gospel, in common with the others, fails to name 
any one as its author, or even to hint, as some of 
the others do, at a more or less possible identifica- 
tion. Consequently, whatever knowledge is to be 
obtained of its authorship and its historical relation 
to the events which it records must come from a 
critical study of its contents, and a comparison of 
the results thus secured with the early traditions of 
the post-Apostolic Age. 

(a) Contents. Its contents are peculiary arranged. After 
the preliminary history, comprising the genealogy (1 1-17) 
and the Nativity story (1 121%) anda brief statement of 
the preaching of the Baptist (3 1-2), the record of 
Jesus’ public ministry is introduced with an account of 
His induction into it through His baptism (3 13-17) and His 
temptation (4 1-11), and a statement of the beginning of His 
work in Galilee (4 12-%), This public ministry, while it dis- 
closes a certain geographical arrengement (5 +15 29, covering 
His own country of Galilee; 15 21-17 21, the outside regions of 
Tyre and Sidon; 17 2-20 *%, Galilee and the regions beyond 
the Jordan; and chs. 21-28 His final ministry in Jerusalem, 
with His Passion and Resurrection), nevertheless is presented 
in such topical groupings of its teachings and its events as 
really to control the whole disposition of its material. There 
comes first: 

A. The Galilean Ministry (5 1-15 2°), consisting of 
I. A group of representative discourses treating of the 
Messianic Kingdom (5 1-7 2%); then 
II. A group of representative miracles, typical of 


Messianic times—showing Jesus’ popularity (8 1! 
9 *)—an alternation which is then repeated with 


568 | 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Mattaniah 
Matthew, Gospel of 





III. A group of representative discourses treating of 
the Messianic Kingdom—showing a growing op- 
position against Jesus (9 %5-13 58), and 

IV. A group of representative miracles, ilustrating 
Messianic times (14 1-%)—followed by an ap- 
parently isolated discourse treating of the Mes- 
sianic Kingdom (15 1-20), Then follows 

B. The Retirement into the regions of Northern and Eastern 
Galilee (15 2-17 2°), presented in 
VY. A group of miracles illustrating in outlook the 
future missions to the Gentiles (15 21-39), then 

VI. A group of discourses treating of the rejection of 
Israel and announcing the coming Passion (ch. 
16), and 

VII. A group of miracles illustrating the glory of the 
Messiah and the weakness of the disciples’ faith 
(17 1-20), 

Then, after a statement of the return to Galilee, with a dis- 
course in Capernaum (17 22-18 %), and of the final departure 
from Galilee into the regions beyond the Jordan (19 1 f-), with 
discourses on the way (19 3-20 *), is given 
C. The Closing Ministry in Jerusalem—showing His final 
presentation of Himself as Messiah (chs. 21-25), 
which is arranged as follows: First, 
VIII. The triumphal entry into the city, with its con- 
nected incidents and remarks (21 117), and then 

IX. A group of representative discourses treating of 

the rejection of Israel (21 18-25 46), 
Then there is given the concluding narrative of 
D. The Passion and the Resurrection, closing with the Final 
World Commission to the Disciples (chs. 26-28). 


(b) Nationality of Author. It is obvious from 
even a cursory study of these contents that the 
author was a Jewish Christian. (1) The whole 
narrative is cast so in the Messianic mold that 
any other conclusion is quite impossible. (2) Fur- 
ther than this, a detailed study will show that Jesus 
is not only presented definitely as the Jewish 
Messiah (e.g., 11 [cf. 9 27, 12 23, 15 22, 21 9, 15], 
1 16-18, 2 4, 27 17, 22 [ef. 2 2]), but His birth, the events 
of His life and His death are connected with O T 
specific predictions, and are displayed in a perfectly 
Jewish spirit as the necessary outcome of the 
Divinely prearranged plan (e.g., 1 22 f., 2 15, 17 f., 
23, 414-16, 817, 12 17-21, 13 35, 21 4f., 279). (3) Finally, 
there is a distinct tendency in the narrative to 
revert to theocratic terms and points of view (e.g., 
Palestine =‘the land of Israel,’ 2 20 £.; Jerusalem 
= ‘the Holy City,’ 4 5, 27 53, ‘the city of the Great 
King,’ 5 35; God =‘the God of Israel,’ 15 31 [which is 
different from Lk’s LXX. citation 1 68]; the Apostles 
are sent to ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel,’ 
10 6, 15 24; Gentiles are held to be outside the 
immediate field of Christ’s mission, 15 23, 26 f., and 
as people of outside life and religion, 5 47, 6 7, 32, 
18 17); the permanency of the Law is emphasized, 
5 17-19; while the Sermon on the Mount is brought 
into comparison with the teachings of the Pharisees 
and also with the O T, as it is not in Lk (cf. chs. 5-7 
with Lk 6 20-49). 

(c) His Gentile Point of View. At the same time, 
it is evident that the author is not a narrow-minded 
Jew: (1) He not only recognizes, but is in perfect 
accord with the Gentile element in the Church—in 
spite of his recording (a) such an episode as that of 
the Syro-Phenician woman in ch. 15, in which, 
however, Jesus’ purpose was really to disclose to the 
disciples where their own narrow nationalism would 
lead them, and (b) such commands as those to the 
disciples in 10 5 f. (cf. 10 18, 12 18, 21, but cf. also 
Jesus’ announcements of the nation’s impending 
doom, 8 11 f., 21 43, 22 7, alone reported by Mt); 


(2) He records the Baptist’s rebuke of the Jerusalem 
Jews, ch. 3. (3) He alone records Jesus’ denunciation 
of the Pharisees and scribes, ch. 23; cf. also 15 13 £.; 
21 28-32. (4) He is the only one to give Jesus’ com- 
mission to go into all the world and make disciples 
of all the nations (28 19 f). 

(d) Readers. As to the readers, it is clear from 
the foregoing §§, (1b) and (1c), that the Gospel was 
intended for Jewish Christians; while from the 
Gospel itself it is evident that they were, (1) not 
only outside of Palestine, (2) but without familiar 
knowledge of many Jewish things; otherwise it 
would not have been necessary to interpret (a) 
such Heb. words as ‘Immanuel’ (1 23), or (b) such 
Aram. words as ‘Golgotha’ (27 33), or (c) the 
sentence from the Ps (27 46), or to explain (d) such 
a custom as the Passover amnesty (27 15), or (e) 
such a belief as that of the Sadducees (22 23). 

(e) Motive. Obviously, the distinctive motive of 
the Gospel is to present Jesus as the consummation 
of theocratic history and the fulfilment of theocratic 
principles, and yet not as answering to the national 
Messianic hopes, but as standing out against them 
and disclosing the falseness of Judaism, in conse- 
quence of which the Kingdom of God was to be 
world-wide in its scope. 

(f) Time. As to the time when the Gospel was 
written, little of a positive nature can be said. There 
are some things that would seem to indicate a late 
date (e.g., the use of the baptismal formula, 28 19 
[tho cf. the use of a similar formula in the 
benedictory conclusion of II Co]; the use of éxxA nol 
in an organized sense, 1618 f., 1817 [altho cf. the same 
use of this term in the speeches of Stephen, Ac 7 38 
and of Paul, Ac 20 28; also in the early Pauline 
Epistles to the Corinthians (I Co 7 17, 11 16, 14 33; 
II Co 11 28) and the still earlier Ep. of James (5 14]; 
the employment of such an expression as ‘to this 
day,’ 27 8, 28 15). On the other hand, the naive 
unconsciousness of the non-fulfilment of the proph- 
etic discourse of ch. 24 in its apparent reference to 
an immediate advent (cf. the distinctly different 
presentation in Lk chs. 19 and 21) would seem to 
betray a time of writing at least before the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem (70 a.p.). Such an earlier date 
would be in agreement with any evidence to the 
effect that this Gospel was known to Luke in the 
writing of his narrative about 80 a.p. (See LUKE, 
Gosre. oF, § 3, and cf. in general on this point, 
Allen in Int. Crit. Com. p. Ixxxiv f.) 

(g) Place. As to place of composition, it is im- 
possible to make any statement of fact, and con- 
jecture is fruitless. 

(h) Results of Internal Evidence. Such an in- 
duction of the internal evidence produces, of course, 
no proof of authorship, altho the breadth of national 
view disclosed by the Gospel is in significant agree- 
ment with what we might naturally expect would be 
the liberal standpoint of such a man as the publican 
Matthew, whose name has been from the beginning 
assigned to this Gospel. A Jew who could become a 
tax-gatherer among his people is not likely to have 
been a narrow nationalist; while, as far as we know 
anything of his life and work, a Jewish Christian 
readership outside of Palestine and a time of writ- 


Matthew, Gospel of 


ing before 70 a.p, would have been perfectly pos- 
sible in his case. 

(i) External Evidence. The question is whether 
such a possible authorship is confirmed by the 
testimony of external evidence. This evidence is, 
in brief, that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Heb. 
(Aram.). Our Canonical Gospel, however, not being 
a translation (see § 1 (k), below), this would seem 
to make it one of two things—either another Gospel 
by a later (non-apostolic) hand, or a second Gospel 
by the same (apostolic) hand. Against this second 
alternative there is no antecedent objection, altho 
it is not a usual literary procedure. The first, how- 
ever, is difficult to reconcile with the fact that 
external evidence itself holds our Canonical Gospel 
to be of apostolic origin. 

This dilemma would seem to call for a more de- 
tailed study of what external evidence really means 
by its statement that Matthew wrote his Gospel in 
Heb. From such study emerge the following results: 
(1) An evident tradition from Papias to Jerome that 
Matthew wrote in Heb. a Gospel writing of some sort 
—called X6yta by Papias and etayyéAtov from Irenzeus 
onward—which tradition must have been based on 
some sort of a Gospel writing under Matthew’s name 
existing at the earliest time. (2) An evident existence 
in the time of Origen and Jerome of an apocryphal 
Gospel in Heb. claiming to be Matthew’s. (3) An 
evident tendency on the part of Jerome to identify 
the tradition and the apocryphal Gospel existing in 
his day. 

Manifestly, these results necessitate the further 
question: Was this apocryphal Gospel the basis of 
the tradition from the beginning, or did a genuine 
Heb. Matthew writing exist at the first and then in 
some way disappear, leaving only this apocryphal 
Gospel to account for the tradition? 

In answer to this question further investigation 
discloses the fact that the Apocryphal Gospel of 
Jerome’s day was the Heb. Gospel under Matthew’s 
name possessed by the sect of the Nazarenes and 
known as the Gospel According to the Hebrews. The 
existence of this Nazarene Gospel can be traced back 
to the 2d cent.—apparently to Papias’ own time. 
Inasmuch, however, as its apocryphal character and 
consequently false claim to Matthean authorship 
was evidently not discovered till the day of Origen 
and Jerome, it may have constituted the basis for 
Papias’ statement that Matthew composed t& Abyta 
in the Heb. dialect and that each one interpreted it 
as he was able (MacOatoc wiv obv ta Adyta “EBoatd: 
Staréxtw ouveyek&bato, hewhvevce 8’ alt& Oo Hy dv- 
vato< &xaotos), upon which statement all subsequent 
tradition concerning this Heb. Matthew Gospel is 
based. This would, in fact, seem to be the necessary 
conclusion, in spite of the use by Papias of the term 
tx Adyta, instead of td edayyéAtov, were it not for 
facts which disclose themselves upon a more de- 
tailed investigation of the contents of the Canonical 
Mt, in comparison with the contents of Mk and Lk. 

(j) Sources. This investigation shows that the 
Canonical Mt had two main sources for its material. 
The first and more comprehensive was the Canonical 
Mk, whose contents have been practically repro- 
duced in Mt’s narrative, the phraseology often being 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


564 


altered to suit the author’s linguistic taste (for dis- 
play of alterations cf. Allen in Int. Crit. Com., pp. 
xix-xxxl, and Hawkins, Hore Synoptice, 2d ed., 
Part [II A and B) or his theological ideas (cf. Allen, 
pp. XXXi-xxxiv and Ixxi-lxxix), the sequential order 
being largely broken to suit the author’s topical 
plan of arrangement. The other source was a docu- 
ment apparently used in common with Lk, which 
lay behind the discourse material of their narratives 
(see Synoptic PRoBLEM, § 6, and Luks, GospPxEu or, 
§ 3), and which must have contained, with more or 
less narrative setting, something approaching a 
collection of the sayings, or teachings, or discourses 
of Jesus. Such a document, whatever its specific 
character and make-up, lends significance to Papias’ 
statement, since at once the reason for his usage 
of the term t& Aéyta becomes apparent and his 
reference to a genuine Matthew Gospel-writing most 
probable. 

Assuming some such document as referred to in 
Papias’ statement, we can account for the confusion 
in the subsequent tradition; since having been more 
or less incorporated into the Canonical Gospel, this 
original writing would most likely have disappeared 
from use and knowledge, leaving as the only Heb. 
document under Matthew’s name this apocryphal 
Gospel of the Nazarenes, which, known as it was 
only at second hand till later times, might be thought 
to be the writing to which Papias referred. This 
in its turn might account for the substitution by 
Irenzeus of the term 1d edayyéAtov for Papias’ ta 
Aéyta and its retention from his day onward. 

This external evidence, therefore, that Matthew 
wrote his Gospel in Heb. reduces itself to this state- 
ment of Papias which seems to indicate that the 
writing in question was not a Gospel, but some col- 
lection of words or sayings uttered by Jesus in con- 
nection with incidents in His ministry as made it 
different from the ordered narrative of a Gospel and 
so justified the usage of the title tz Aéyta, in dis- 
tinction from the title td edayyéAtov. 

(kx) Historical Value. The only remaining question 
is as to who compiled this primary Matthean docu- 
ment with the Canonical Mk into our Canonical 
Mt. Manifestly, it is a matter of secondary im- 
portance how this question shall be answered; 
since the discourses of Jesus in the Canonical Gospel 
are so vitally connected with a first-hand report of 
Jesus’ utterances through this early Matthean 
writing and the substance of the narrative is so 
reproductive of the primary record of Mk. Matthew 
may have written nothing more than his primary 
document, yet our Canonical Gospel is too closely 
and intimately connected with eye- and ear-wit- 
ness reports of Jesus’ life and teachings to give 
us anything less than an essential history of His 
ministry. In other words, nothing is gained in the 
way of historical reliability by insisting upon the 
rather unusual literary procedure which would make 
the Apostle both the writer of the primary docu- 
ment and the compiler of the canonical narrative. 

The apparent uncertainty of modern scholars as 
to the origin and contents of this Matthean docu- 
ment (see Synoptic PROBLEM, § 6) does not essen- 
tially affect its value as a source for the ministry of 


565 A NEW STANDARD 


Jesus; since whatever the facts as to these points 
may ultimately prove to be, it shows itself where it 
appears in the Gospels so primary in its character- 
istics that its reliability as a source must remain 
beyond question. 

The claim that the statement of Papias refers to 
an original narrative Gospel written by the Apostle 
in Heb. and afterward translated by him into Gr.— 
making our Canonical Mt a Gr. translation of the 
original Heb. and not an original Gr. writing (Zahn, 
Introd. § 54) overlooks the fact that it is obviously 
inconceivable that the Gr. of Mark’s Gospel should 
have been originally translated into the Heb. of this 
original Mt Gospel and then retranslated into the 
Gr. of our Canonical Mt, with such fidelity to the 
Markan original. The identities of word and phrase 
which the Canonical Mt shows to the Canonical Mk 
betray a contact at first hand and not through such 
a double process as this theory involves. 


2. View-Point. When we study the character of 
the thought in the First Gospel we see at once that it 
moves in a distinctively O T atmosphere. Jesus is 
presented to the readers as in Himself, His King- 
dom, and its accompanying salvation the direct 
_ fulfilment of Messianic predictions and as thus 
specially accredited to the Jewish Christian circle to 
which the Gospel was sent. In any detailed con- 
sideration of the main themes the following facts 
will emerge: (1) As to God: M. represents Jesus as 
ascribing to God absolute goodness (19 16 f.) and 
unlimited power (10 28). At the same time, His 
application to God of the title ‘King’ is in the 
theocratic sense of the O T term rather than with the 
idea of creative rule (5 35 {cf. 15 31] and the king and 
lordship parables of the Unmerciful Servant, 18 23 #. 
[peculiar to Mt], the Householder and his Vineyard, 
21 33-45 [cf. espec. ver. 43], and the Marriage Feast, 
222f). Similarly, His ascription to God of the title 
‘Father,’ while it shows this rule exercised benefi- 
cently over all His creation (5 45, 6 26, 10 29), dis- 
plays His peculiar relation to Jesus’ own disciples, 
and in this sense is used conspicuously by M. (5 16, 
45, 48, 61, 4, 6, 8 f., 14 f., 18, 26, 32, 7 11, 21, 10 20, 13 43, 
18 14, 23 9). 

(2) As to Jesus Himself: While M. does not repre- 
sent Jesus as explicitly using the title ‘Son of God’ 
of Himself, he does make clear that He accepts 
its explicit application to Himself by others (e.g., 
in the Divine declaration at His baptism, 3 17, 
and His transfiguration, 17 5, in the Tempter’s ap- 
proach to Him, 4 3, 6, in the demon’s appeal, 8 29, 
and in the high priest’s challenge, 26 63), and that He 
implies it of Himself (e.g., in His remarks connected 
with the upbraiding of the Galilean cities, 11 25-27, in 
His eschatological discourse, 24 36, in the parable of 
the Householder and his Vineyard, 21 33-45). At the 
same time, it is noticeable to what extent M. alone 
represents Jesus as implying the title of. Himself 
(e.g., 7 21, 10 32 £., 12 50, 15 13, 16 17, 18 10, 19, 35, 
20 23, 25 34, 26 53, 28 19 f.), altho His acceptance of 
its explicit application to Himself by others is 
really confined to the confession of the disciples, 
14 33, 1616f. (The use of the title by the railing mob, 
27 40, 43, and the impressed centurion, 27 54, can 
hardly be considered in this connection.) In the 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Matthew, Gospel of 


implicit use of the title by Jesus there is the asser- 
tion of a relation of unique intimacy with God, 
involving the consciousness of a mutual knowledge 
(11 25-27; and yet see the apparently contradictory 
statement, 24 36); a mutual harmony of will (26 39, 
42, 58) and a commission of peculiar revelatory and 
representative character (7 21, 10 32, 12 50, 15 13, 
16 17, 18 10, 19, 35, 20 23, 25 34, 28 19). In the explicit 
application of the title to Jesus there is implied, in 
the Divine declarations, 3 17 and 17 5, the fact that 
He is the peculiar object of the Father’s pleasure; in 
the use of it by the Tempter, 4 3, 6, and the 
Demoniac, 8 29, the possession of supernatural 
power; and in the confession of the disciples, 14 33, 
16 16, and the challenge of the high priest, 26 63, a 
Messianic claim. 

M. represents Jesus as making frequent applica- 
tion to Himself of the title ‘Son of Man’ (e.g., 8 20, 
9 6, 11 19, 12 8, 32, 16 27 £., 17 9, 12, 22, 20 18, 28, 24 30b, 
26 24 [bis], 45, 64), altho the instances in which he 
alone places it on Jesus’ lips are noteworthy (e.., 
10 23, 12 40, 13 37, 41, 16 13, 19 28, 24 27, 30a, 37, 39, 
44, 25 31, 26 2). In no case is this title applied to 
Jesus by others, while Jesus’ own use of it involves 
the conception of a relationship to the Kingdom not 
only as its Founder (e.g., in the revealing of truth, 
13 37, the forgiving of sin, 9 6, the determining of 
the conduct of life, 11 19; and of the use of the Sab- 
bath, 128), but as its Ministering Servant (e.g., in the 
resigning of the comforts of life, 8 20, in submission 
to the persecutions of foes, 17 12, in yielding to the 
sacrifice of death, 12 40, 17 22, 20 28, 26 2, 24, 45, in 
return for which is to be the final exaltation to a 
throne of judgment and eternal glory, 13 41, 16 27 f., 
19 28, 20 18 f., 24 27-44, 25 31, 26 64). 

Throughout his references to Jesus’ life and teach- 
ings, it is evident that M. takes a Messianic point of 
view, for he omits few opportunities of connecting 
both the words and the acts of Jesus with the 
Messianic forecasts of the Scriptures, e.g., His birth 
(1 22), His childhood (2 15, 17, 23), His Galilean 
work (4 14-16), His healing ministry (8 17), His 
avoidance of publicity (12 17-21), His method of 
teaching (13 35), the manner of His triumphal entry 
(21 4 £.), the disposal of the betrayal money (27 9), 
and at times represents Jesus Himself as so con- 
necting the experiences of His ministry and the 
events of His life, e.g., the misconceptions of His 
teachings (18 14), His betrayal (26 24), His desertion 
(26 31), His arrest (26 54, 56). 


(3) As to the Kingdom of God: For this phrase 
M. represents Jesus as using almost exclusively 
the phrase ‘Kingdom of Heaven’—seven times 
where the other phrase is reproduced by Mk (3 2, 
417, 8 11, 13 11, 31, 19 14), eight times where it is 
reproduced by Lk (5 3, 7 21, 107, 11 11, 12, 13 33, 
18 3, 23 13), and eighteen times in passages peculiar 
to himself (5 10, 19 [bis], 20, 13 24, 44, 45, 47, 52, 16 19, 
18 1, 4, 23, 19 12, 201, 22 2, 251). In four passages 
the other phrase is represented as used (12 28, 
19 24, 21 31, 43). At the same time, we find repro- 
duced other phrases peculiar to M.—e.g., ‘my 
Father’s kingdom’ (26 29), ‘the kingdom of their 
Father’ (13 43), ‘thy kingdom’ (6 10 [=God’s], 
20 21 [=Jesus’]), ‘his kingdom’ (6 33, 18 41, 16 28), 


Matthew, Gospel of 


Meat A NEW STANDARD 





and the simple term ‘kingdom’ (4 23, 8 12, 9 35, 13 19, 
38, 2414, 25 34). While it may not be possible to de- 
termine the reason for the peculiar phrasings of this 
common term which M. presents, it is clear that the 
frequency of his reproduction of the Kingdom idea 
is due to his O T conception of the Messiah’s mission 
as embodying God’s sovereignty and rule. (For 
detailed discussion of the term see Allen, in Jnt. 
Crit. Com., pp. Ixvii-lxxi.). M. represents Jesus as 
making strong its distinction from the national and 
political kingdom conceived of as the Messianic 
promise to the Covenant People; altho he brings out 
particularly that its membership is based on charac- 
ter and conduct (5 3-10, 19, 20, 7 21, 13 41, 181-3, 19 14, 
23 £.), the test of greatness in it is humility (18 4), 
and its realization is to be in the perfect doing of 
God’s will (6 10); while he portrays its special value 
as an objective good (13 44-46)—because of which per- 
haps there will be by some a counterfeiting of real 
connection with it (13 47-50), and its progress will 
meet with hinderance and embarrassment (13 24 f.). 
While the Jews are represented as by right its ‘sons’ 
(8 12), their rejection of their privileges will cause 
them to be cast out (8 11 f.) and the Kingdom to be 
given to others who will satisfy its conditions (21 43). 
In this sense, M. understands that the Kingdom is to 
be universal (8 11 f., 21 31), and portrays it as con- 
ceived of by Jesus as a present fact (11 12, 12 28, 
21 31 £., 23 13), as well as a future consummation 
(8 11 f., 13 40 ff., 47 ff., 24 30 ff., 25 31 ff.) and as thus 
characterized by a constant element of growth (13 
31 £,3).33). 

(4) As to the Messianic Salvation: M. represents 
Jesus as conceiving of the Messianic Salvation as a 
thing not merely of the future, but of the present 
life (19 29), altho the details gathering around its 
future consummation are given special prominence 
by M. (138 30, 39-43, 47-50, 19 28, 25 31-46). This Salva- 
tion does not consist in material good (6 19 f.), altho 
it replaces the loss of such good a hundredfold (19 
29), and secures it in the true sense of its possession 
(6 33). M. represents Jesus as emphasizing in general 
the need of personal relations to Himself in order to 
the bestowal of this Salvation (10 34-39, 11 29), and 
as presenting as its specific conditions both repen- 
tance (4 17, cf. 11 20 f., 12 41, 21 32) and faith (8 18, 
9 2, 22, 29, 15 28). M. represents Jesus as referring 
to His death as the means by which the bestowal 
of this Salvation is secured (20 28; cf. the additional 
passage 26 28, peculiar to Mt). 

(5) As to Eschatology: M. merges the announce- 
ments of Jesus regarding the crises in the Kingdom’s 
development with those regarding its final consum- 
mation (cf. the eschatological address, ch. 24), altho 
he gives prominence to the distinctive element of 
progress in the development (cf. Parables of the 
Leaven, 13 33, and the Tares, 13 24-30, 36-43; cf. also 
Parable of the Drag-net, 13 47-50—all peculiar to 
Mt). So also in the announcements of the judgment, 
M. follows the general tendency to merge the ideas 
of its processes with those of its final declaration 
—tho, unlike his custom in the matter of the King- 
dom’s development, he makes prominent the ele- 
ment of the final pronouncement of the judgment 
(cf. 7 21-23 with Lk 6 46; 12 33-37 with Lk 6 43-45; 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


566 


ef. also, as peculiar to Mt, 25 1-13, 31-46). This is 
doubtless due to the peculiar influence upon his 
thought of the O T idea of the Messianic rule, which, 
whatever its hidden and confused development, is 
fully to reveal itself in its final judgment. See the 
similar element characterizing the Baptist’s an- 

nouncement of this rule (3 11 f.). 

LirgErRATURE: Of the various N T Introductions avuilable to 
the English reader those of Jilicher (Eng. transl. 1904) 
and Zahn (Eng. trans. 21917) represent respectively the 
liberal and the conservative schools of modern German 
scholarship. To their exhaustive presentations of the 
Synoptic criticism may be added the critical introductions 
to the following leading Commentaries on Matthew: Allen 
in ICC series (1908); Bruce in Expos. Gr. Test. (1897); 
Weiss in Meyer’s Krit.-exeget. Kom. tib. d. N T (1898); 
Holtzmann in Hand Com. z. N T (1901), and Zahn in 
his own N T series (1903). For the Theology of the Gospel 
see Stevens, VN T Theology (1899), and Holtzmann, Lehrb. 
d. n’tlichen Theologie (1897), espec. I, pp. 425-438. Special 
works: Burton, Short Introd. to the Gospels (1904); Robinson 
Study of the Gospels (1902). The following Lives of Christ 
may be consulted: Weiss (Eng. transl. 1894); Holtzmann 
(Eng. transl. 1904) representing respectively the evangelical 
and purely critical German view-point; Edersheim, Jesus 
the Messiah (one vol. ed. 1890), giving the Jewish back- 
ground; Smith, In the Days of His Flesh (1905), a more 
popular presentation; Headlam (1924), scholarly, tho 
incomplete in the ground covered. M. W. J. 
MATTHIAS, mat-fhai’as (Ma06lac, ‘gift of J’,’ 

[ef. the Gr. Theodore], abbr. from Mattaflac, which 

was common in the Maccabean age; cf. I Mac 21 f., 

11 70, 16 14; II Mac 14 19; also Lk 3 25): One of the 

little company of Jesus’ followers, who was chosen 

by lot to take the place of Judas among the Twelve 

(Ac 1 23-26), on the ground that he had ‘companied 

with’ them and was, therefore, competent to witness 

to the teaching and work of Jesus. The historicity 
of the transaction is denied (Zeller, Acts), but on 
insufficient grounds. The method of the choice by 

lot has been challenged (Stier, Words of App., i, 1; 

also David Smith in HDB, one vol. ed.). But he 

was recognized as such (Ac 6 2), altho nothing 
authentic of his life and ministry is known. Eusebius 

considered him one of the Seventy (H#, I, 12); 

Clement (Strom., IV, 6 35) identifies him with 

Zaccheus; the Clem. Recog. (I, 60) with Barnabas; 

Hilgenfeld (N T Extra Can., 105) with Nathaniel. 

His name soon became the center around which 

apocryphal writings clustered. These include a 

Gospel, a group of Traditions, and some Discourses. 

(Cf. Harnack, Chronol., 597 ff.). There are also 

apocryphal Acts of Andrew and Maithias (cf. 

Bonnet, Acta Apost. Apocr., 2, 1,1898). A.C. Z. 
MATTITHIAH, mat'ti-fhai’a (WN, mattithyah), 

‘oift of J’’: 1. A Levite (I Ch 9 21). 2. A musician 

(I Ch 15 18, 21, 16 5). 3. Another musician (I Ch 

25 3, 21). 4. One of the ‘sons of Nebo’ (Ezr 10 43). 

5. One of Ezra’s assistants (Neh 8 4). 


MATTOCK: The term renders the following Heb. 
words: (1) mahdréshaéh (I S 13 20), which, however, 
is somewhat uncertain. It means the ‘plowshare’; 
but as this is already named in the first part of the 
verse, probably another term (one of those in ver. 
21) originally stood at the end of ver. 20. See Fine. 
(2) ma‘dér (Is 7 25), ‘a chopping instrument,’ proba- 
bly similar to a pickax. (8) herebh (II Ch 346 AV), 
but the text is uncertain; cf. RVmg. KE. E.N. 


MAUL. See Arms AND ARMOR, § 5. 


567 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Matthew, Gospel of 
Meat 





MAZZAROTH, maz’a-reth. 
§ 4 (4). 

MEAH, mi’a. See JERUSALEM, § 38. 

MEAL. See Foop anp Foop Urensits, § 1. 


MEAL-OFFERING. See Sacririck AND OF- 
FERINGS, § 12. 


MEALS: 1. The Regular Daily Meals. Two 
regular daily meals are mentioned in the Bible, 
besides which there was doubtless in the early 
morning a slight and informal repast of bread, with 
some relish. (1) The simple ‘breakfast’ (Lk 11 37mg., 
dinner AV), or lunch, was eaten during the heat of 
the day, probably shortly before noon (Ru 214). (2) 
The principal meal, or supper, took place at about 
sunset, after the labor of the day was over (Gn 191 f.; 
Jg 19 16-21; Lk 1416-24; Jn 122). This was the meal 


See ASTRONOMY, 


at which meat would usually be served (cf. Ex 16 12).. 


Guests were sometimes entertained, however, at the 
midday repast (Gn 43 16, 25; Lk 11 37 f.; ef. I K 137). 

The word ‘meal’ occurs only in Ru 2 % (literally ‘at food 
time’). The O T gives no special names to the different 
meals. In Gn 43 16 to ‘dine’ is really ‘to eat bread,’ as in 
ver. 3%. ‘Dinner’ (Pr 15 1%) is better ‘a portion’? (ARVmzg.). 
The N T &etota&y and &etotov are always rendered dine and 
dinner by AV; but ARV sometimes calls this meal a ‘breakfast’ 
(Lk 11 37 f. mg.; cf. Jn 21 12, 15; ‘dinner’ is retained, however 
in Mt 22 4; Lk 14 2), The terms ‘breakfast, ‘dinner,’ etc., 
are inevitably somewhat misleading, as the meals thus named 
vary in hour and in formality, even in different sections of the 
same country. 

2. Customs at meals. The early Hebrews sat at 
meals (Gn 27 19; 1 K 13 20; IS 20 25, etc.), either on 
chairs, or squatting in Arab fashion. But in spite of 
the invectives of the prophets (Am 3 12, 6 4; cf. Ezk 
23 41), by N T times it had become the usual custom 
among the better classes, as among the Greeks and 
the Romans, to eat reclining! luxuriously upon low 
couches. ‘These were ordinarily arranged around 
three sides of the table, the fourth being left open 
for convenience in serving. Each person rested 
upon his left elbow, with the body at such an angle 
to the table that the head was near the ‘bosom’ (Jn 
13 23) of the person next behind. Certain places on 
these couches were considered more honorable than 
others (Mt 23 6; cf. Lk 22 24). For the position at the 
Last Supper, see Edersheim, 11, 492 ff. 

The meals were naturally prepared and served by 
the women (Mt 8 15; Lk 10 40), who ordinarily ate 
with the men of the family (Dt 1614;1S 14; Job 1 4), 
but in early times, as among the Arabs, the prepara- 
tion (and the eating) of meat was the function of the 
men (Gn 187 f.). There was little cutlery, except 
for carving, and but few dishes, perhaps only one 
(cf. Lk 10 42a), into which each dipped his hand (Mt 
26 23). The modern Syrians sop a piece of bread in 
the gravy, oil, or sauce; or fold it around a piece of 
meat, which can thus be taken out of the stew with- 
out soiling the fingers (cf. Ru 2 14; Mt 26 23; Mk 
14 20; Jn 13 26; cf. also Pr 19 24). 

3. Special Meals, Banquets, etc. Meals to which 
friends were previously invited (Lk 14 16), or feasts 
held upon special occasions—such as birthdays (Gn 


1Thus AV ‘sit at meat’? &vaxetcbat, dvaxnAlvety, etc.) is 
usually explained as ‘recline’ by ARVmg. (e.g., Mt 9 19; Lk 
13 29; Jn 12 2). These verbs are sometimes used, however, 
where it seems hardly likely that the actual position was a 
reclining one (¢.g., Mt 14 1%), 


40 20; Job 1 4; Mt 14 6), marriages (Gn 29 22; Est 

218; Mt 22 2), funerals (II S 3 35; Jer 167), laying of 

foundations (Pr 91-5), vintage (Jg 9 27), sheep-shear- 

ing (18 25 2, 36), and the numerous religious festivals 

—were, of course, more formal and elaborate. A 

second invitation was often sent when all was pre- 

pared, or a servant conducted the guests to the feast 

(Est 6 14; Lk 1417; Mt 22 2 #.). These customs still 

prevail in the Lebanon region. The host welcomed 

the guests with a kiss (Lk 7 45), after which the feet 
were washed, because of the dust of the journey 

(Gn 18 4; Jg 19 21; Lk 7 44). The head was anointed 

(Ps 235; Am 66; Lk7 46) and sometimes crowned with 

garlands (cf. Is 281). The guests were then seated 

according to their respective rank (I S 9 22; Lk 14 8; 

ef. Jn 13 23), the hands were washed (II K 3 11), and 

grace was said (I S 913; Mt 15 36; Lk 22 17, etc.). 

These last two ceremonies were elaborated into a 

confusing and burdensome ritual by the Pharisees 

(Mk 7 1-23), and were repeated after the meal (cf. 

Dt 8 10, which was cited in support of the blessing 

after eating). An honored guest received the largest, 

or choicest, portion of food (Gn 43 34; 1S 9 23 £.), 
and portions were sometimes sent to friends not at- 

tending the feast (II S 11 8; Neh 8 10; Est 9 19, 22). 

During the meal entertainment might be provided 

in the form of instrumental music (Is 5 12; Am 6 5), 

singing (II S 19 35; cf. Ec 2 8), dancing (Mt 14 6; 

Lk 15 25), or riddles (Jg 1412). One of the guests 

was sometimes appointed ‘ruler of the feast,’ to 

regulate the drinking and the entertainment (Jn 29). 

A great banquet occasionally continued for several 

days (Jg 1412; cf. Est 13 f.), but excess in eating and 

drinking is unsparingly condemned by the sacred 

writers (Ec 1016 f.; Is 511 £.; Am 61-6; ef. I Co 613; 

Ph 3 19). See also in general Foop anp Foop 

UTENSILS. 

Lirerature: Edersheim, Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah, 
ii, 205-210; Thompson, The Land and the Book, iii, 74-79, 
and index, s.v. ‘Food,’ § vi f.; W. Nowack, Archdologie, I, 
pp. 180-187; I. Benzinger, Archdologie, pp. 168-172. 

L. G.L.—L. B.P. 
MEARAH, mi-é’ra (119, m*‘arah), ‘cave’: The 
name of a cave region, not taken by Joshua (Jos 

13 4), belonging to Sidon, somewhere in the Lebanon 

country, E. of Sidon. Cspaly 


MEASURES. See Weiauts AND MEASURES. 


MEAT: The use of this term is much more re- 
stricted in RV than in AV where, according to Eng. 
usage of the 16th cent., the word ‘meat’ means food 
in general. ‘Meat’ is (1) The AV rendering of several 
related terms (derived from ’akhal, ‘to eat’), ’akhilah, 
’okhlah, ’dkhel, and ma’akhdal, all meaning ‘food’ or 
‘eating’ (I K 19 8; Gn 1 29; Lv 11 34; I S 205, etc.) 
and usually rendered ‘food’ in RV. (2) lehem, 
‘bread,’ but frequently used broadly for food in 
general (Ly 22 11, 13; Nu 28 24; IS 20 24, etc.; ef. 
RVR. (8) baérath and biryéh (from barah, ‘to eat,’ 
especially to strengthen oneself when sick or weak, 
as in La 4 10), food suitable for a sick one (Ps 69 21; 
IIS 13 5, 7, 10, all AV). (4) tereph (Ps 111 5; Pr 31 
15; Mal 3 10, all AV). (5) mdazén (Gn 45 23; Dn 
412, 2 AV). (6) path (from pdathath, ‘to break in 
pieces’), a ‘bit,’ or ‘morsel’ (for food) (IIS 123 AV). 
(7) tsédhah, ‘provisions for a journey’ (Ps 78 25 AV). 


Meat-Offering 
Megiddo 
' 


t 





(8) Beda, food,’ Bewcwoc, ‘eatable,’ and Gedcte, 
‘eating,’ frequently rendered ‘food’ in RV (Mk 7 
19; Lk 24 41; Jn 4 32; Ro 1415, etc.). (9) neocpd&ytoy, 
‘anything eaten with’ [bread or other food] (Jn 21 5 
AV). (10) te&meta, ‘table’ (Ac 16 34). (11) teo9%, 
‘nourishment’? (Mt 3 4, 6 25, 10 10, etc. AV, ‘food’ 
RV). (12) o&yety, ‘to eat? (Mt 25 35, 42; Lk 8 55 
AY). (13) ‘Meat’ is used also in rendering the 
the ptcpl. dvaxetwevoc, ‘to recline’ (i.e., at a meal) 
in the phrase ‘sit at meat’ (Mt 9 10, etc.). See also 
Foop, §§ 8-10. 1. oN, 


MEAT-OFFERING. See SacriFicE AND OF- 
FERINGS, § 12. 

MEBUNNAI, m-bon’nai (232, mebhunnay): One 
of David’s heroes (II S 23 27), called Sibbecai in I 
Ch 11 29, 27 11. 


MECHERATHITE, m1-ki’rath-ait (N22, m°- 
khératht): Probably a scribal error in I Ch 11 36 
for Maacathite (cf. II S 23 34). 

MECONAH, m-ké’na (7399, mekhonah), Me- 
konah AV): A town in Judah, near Ziklag, occupied 


in postexilic times (Neh 11 28). Perhaps the same as 
Madmannah (Jos 15 31) (q.v.). 


MEDAD, mi’dad (TV, médhddh): An elder who 
had the gift of prophecy (Nu 11 26 £.). See also 
ApocaLypTic LITERATURE, § 3. 


MEDAN, mi’dan. 
KrHnouoey, § 13. 

MEDEBA, med’1-ba (83°1), médh*bha@’): A town 
in the ‘plain’ (‘tableland’ RVmg.) E. of Jordan, 
originally a possession of Moab. It was conquered 
by Israel (Nu 21 24 ff.), and assigned to Reuben 
(Jos 139, 16). After the disruption under Rehoboam 
it once more passed into the hands of the Moabites 
and is mentioned in the Mesha Stone (see Mesa) 
as captured by Omri (line 7 f.) and recaptured by 
Mesha and fortified (line 29f.). It figured largely in 
the struggles of the Maccabean period (I Mac 
9 36 #.; Jos. Ant, XIII, 1 2, 4, 91, etc.). According 
to I Ch 19 7, the Syrians who came to assist the 
Ammonites against Joab encamped at the spot. 
The modern site is Mdadabaé, 6 m. from Heshbon 
(Map II, J 1). It has been colonized by Catholic 
Christians and contains important ruins. A mosaic 
map of Palestine discovered here in 1896, formed 
part of the floor of a church, built in the 5th cent. 
A full description with plates is given by Libbey 
and Hoskins, The Jordan Valley and Petra (1905), 
vol. i, chap. xii, and Appendix. BO. Z. 

MEDES, midz, MEDIA, mi’di-a, MEDIAN: 
Media (1), maddhay) was a mountainous country, 
bounded on the N. by the Caspian Sea, on the E. by 
a great desert, and on the S. by Susiana and Persia, 
and on the W. by Assyria and Armenia. This terri- 
tory, about 600 m. in length and 250 m. in breadth, 
is approximately covered by the provinces Ardelan 
and Irak Ajemi of modern Persia. In ancient times 
M. had two capitals: namely Rhague and Ecbatana 
(q.v.). It began to attract the attention of the war- 
like Assyrian kings as early as the middle of the 
9th or the beginning of the 8th cent. B.c. At that 
time, to judge from the names of its leading in- 
habitants in the Assyrian lists, its population was of 


See ETHNOGRAPHY AND 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


568 





Indo-European or Aryan stock, an inference which 
is confirmed by the nature of the names reported in 
the classical writers. This affinity of the Medes with 
the Aryan race is also reflected in Gn 10 2, which 
represents Madai as the son of Japheth. According 
to Herodotus (I, 95 ff.), M. was made into a kingdom 
by Deioces, who was succeeded by his son Phraortes; 
but of these two monarchs nothing is known except 
what the Greek historian reports. The real power 
of M. began with Kyaxares (584 B.c.), the conqueror 
of Nineveh; but the glory of the monarchy was short- 
lived. The successor of Kyaxares, Astyages (the 
Ishtuvegu of the cuneiform inscriptions), being de- 
feated by Cyrus (550 s.c.), Median independence 
came to an end, and Persia took the leadership in the 
Mesopotamian valley. The Medes never came into 
direct contact with the Hebrews. Sargon did indeed 
deport some of the conquered Israelites of the North- 
ern Kingdom into their cities (II K 17 6, 18 11), and — 
the prophets of Israel (Is 13 17, 21 2; Jer 51 11) name 
Media among the scourge in the hands of J” for the 
punishment of Babylon; but these are indirect rela- 
tionships. In the later books of the O T (e.g., Est 
1 3, etc.) M. appears second to Persia, tho still 
recognized as a large and almost coordinate portion 
of the great monarchy. Dn 5 31 contains the state- 
ment that ‘Darius the Mede’ (‘Median’ AV) re- 
ceived the kingdom,’ but this is not as yet historically 
confirmed. : AS CUZe 


MEDIATOR (westtys), ‘middleman’: One who by 
his friendly offices establishes cordial relations be- 
tween two natural hostile or estranged persons, 
or parties. The term ‘mediator’ occurs only in Gal 
3 19 £.; I Ti 25; He 8 6, 9 15, 12 24. The synonym 
‘umpire’ (‘daysman’ AV) is found in Job 9 33. The 
idea of mediation, however, is not only common, 
but regulative in the religious thought both of the 
O T and the N T (cf. in the O T the verb pagha‘, ‘to 
make intercession,’ Is 53 12). 


1. Intercession. The basis for the idea of media- 
tion is that of intercession before a monarch by one 
who enjoys his favor in behalf of one who, either be- 
cause he has lost it or because he never had it, seeks 
it. In this sense mediatorship is common in human 
relations. Jonathan makes intercession for David 
before Saul (IS 19 4); Abigail for Nabal before David 
(I S 25 18-31); the king of Syria for Naaman before the 
king of Israel (II K 5 6). But it is preeminently 
in the approach to God that mediation is necessary. 
Abraham interecedes for Abimelech (Gn 20 7, 17); 
also for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gn 18 23); Moses 
for Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Ex 8 8, 30, 9 28-33, 
10 17 £.) and also for Israel (Ex 17 11, 33 13; Dt 9 18). 
Other cases of intercession are those of Samuel 
(IS 8 21, 12 19, 23; Jer 151) and Job (42 8). 

2. Priestly Mediation. This mediation in behalf 
of the inferior before the superior (for man before 
God) is in principle identical with the priestly func- 
tion, and is carried through the priestly ritual. In 
the Apocrypha and in the apocalyptic literature 
instances of mediation include the intercession of 
angels, who take the prayers of men,before the 
throne of God (To 3 26). Enoch is besought by the 
fallen angels to plead for them (Hth. En. 13 4-7). 
In the Assumption of Moses, Moses makes inter- 


569 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Meat-Offering 
Megiddo 





cession for the people of Israel (11 17, 12 6); while 
Enoch attempts to correct the common belief that 
there is any efficacy in such intercession (Slav. En. 
53 1). The idea survives, and is carried into the 
N T (évtuyxaveiy, évtevEts). Here it is, however, con- 
nected with the work of Christ for His people (He 
7 25), or the work of the Holy Spirit in behalf of the 
praying believer (Ro 8 27), or the sympathetic plea 
in prayer by believers for their fellow men (I Ti 21). 

3. Angelic Mediation. Mediation by creatures, 
especially angels before the throne of God, became 
obnoxious to later Jewish thought, on account of the 
great risk involved of raising the mediating creatures 
into objects of worship. Accordingly in the Rabbin- 
ical schools the idea was discountenanced, and Moses 
alone was given the title mediator (Pesig. Rab. 6). 
Among Christians the belief in the intercession of 


saints, of angels, and of the Virgin Mary was largely . 


developed between the 3d and 6th centuries a.p. 

4. Prophetic Mediation. The counterpart of me- 
diation in behalf of man before God is the presenta- 
tion of God’s word and will to men by an inter- 
mediary. The twofold ground for such mediation is 
(1) the necessity of communicating God’s will to 
men, and (2) the incapacity, or unwillingness, of 
men to receive it directly from Him. Moses becomes 
God’s mediator to Pharaoh and the Israelites (Ex 
410f.). Later, in the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai, 
at the express request of the people all communica- 
tions from God are made to them through Moses 
(Ex 20 19). Hence the later uniform representation 
that Moses was the mediator of the old covenant 
(He 86; Philo, Vita Moys, 319; Ass. Mos. 1 14, 312). 
But even Moses being supposed incapable of receiv- 
ing the Law directly, the idea arose that it was 
delivered to him through angels (Jos. Ant. XV, 5 3; 
cf. also Hermas, Simil., VIII, 3 3, who names Michael 
as the individual angel; cf. Ac 753; Gal 319). A.C. Z. 


MEDICINE. See Disnase anD Mepicine, § 3. 


MEDITERRANEAN SEA (also called Great Sea 
[Nu 34 6; Jos 1 4, 15 12; Ezk 47 10], Hinder, or West- 
ern Sea [Dt 11 24; Jl 2 20; Zec 14 8]): The inland 
ocean lying between Europe, Western Asia, and 
Africa, 2,320 m. long by 100 to 600 m, broad, and, 
between Sicily and Africa, divided into two basins 
by a submarine ridge. Its main divisions were the 
Phenician (Levant), the Aigean, the Adriatic (in- 
cluding the Ionian; see Apr1A), and the Tyrrhene 
Seas. During the summer months the prevailing 
winds (‘Ktesian’) in the E. portions are from the 
NW. In the winter, fierce gales (‘Levanters’) sweep 
down from ENE., and in the western portions vio- 
lent storms from the NW. and the NE. The Syrtes 
(quicksands Ac 27 17) on the shores of Africa, the 
straits of Messina, between Sicily and Italy, and 
Cape Malia on the 8. of Greece were regarded by 
ancient mariners with dread. The commerce of the 
Hebrews was chiefly by land, and they regarded the 
sea with some fear. Their coast-line, almost harbor- 
less, except N. of Carmel, was unfavorable to the 
growth of maritime trade; but they had intercourse 
with ‘the Isles,’ and had the Western world opened 
up to them by the Phenicians. In N T times the 
Mediterranean was surrounded by the civilization 
of the world, and its great islands were very produc- 


tive; so that there was a constant traffic in every 
direction, tho most of the trade converged on 
Rome from Spain, Sicily, Africa, the Augean, the 
Black Sea, and even India through Egypt—the 
grain-ships of Alexandria also supplying the capital 
with most of her food (cf. Ac 27 6, 2811). Through 
Joppa, Cesarea, and Ptolemais (q.v.), Palestine 
was in constant communication with the coasts of 
Asia Minor, Cyprus, Rhodes, Greece, and the West. 
R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


MEEK, MEEKNESS: Inthe OT there isa small 
group of words, ‘dndh, ‘dni, ‘dndw, ‘anwah, and 
‘dnawah, all derived from the root my, the primary 
significance of which seems to be ‘to be bowed 
down, brought low.’ The verb ‘andh may mean (in 
the active) ‘to bend,’ ‘to oppress,’ or ‘to afflict,’ or 
(intransitively) ‘to be humble,’ especially before God 
or His law, or (in the passive) ‘to be bent,’ ‘op- 
pressed,’ ‘afflicted.’ The derivative ‘andw is con- 
sidered intransitive, and generally rendered ‘meek,’ 
‘humble,’ or ‘lowly,’ and the nominal forms, ‘anwah, 
‘dndwah, are rendered ‘meekness’ or ‘humility,’ 
while ‘ani is taken as passive and rendered ‘poor’ or 
‘afflicted.’ Since those who ‘humbled themselves’ 
before God and were loyal to Him were also fre- 
quently the oppressed ones whose cause was cham- 
pioned by prophets and psalmists (Ps 22 26, 25 9; 
Is 611; Am 27, etc.), the terms ‘dni and ‘andw came 
to have somewhat of a technical religious sense, 
indicative of loyalty to J” as well as of lowly station 
in life. The significance that thus came to be read 
into these terms in the course of Jewish history ex- 
plains the important use in the N T of the corre- 
sponding Gr. adjectives xeéoc and teats (Mt 5 5, 
11 29, 215;1 P34) andthe nouns reabtys and roaitys 
(I Co 4 21, ‘gentleness’ RV; II Cor 101; Eph 4 2, etc., 
frequently in Paul; Ja 1 21, 3 13; I P 315). When 
Jesus says, ‘Iam meek and lowly in heart’ (Mt 11 29), 
He must be understood as using the word in its 
acquired sense, in which whole-hearted submission 
to the will of God was the dominant note. E. E. N. 


MEGIDDO, mi-gid’6 (173), meghiddd), MEGID- 
DON (in Zec 1211): A very ancient Canaanite strong- 
hold (Jos 12 21, D; 1711, J), captured by Thotmes ITI 
(ca. 1500 B.c.), and mentioned in the Tell el- 
Amarna tablets (ca. 1400 B.c.), as well as in As- 
syrian inscriptions of the 8th century. The ruins of 
el-Lejjan (Latin, Legio), 44% m. N.W. of Taanach 
(q.v.), mark the site of the city in Roman times, but 
the ancient citadel was on the neighboring Tell el- 
Mutesellim (Map IV, C 8). This fortified city (I K 
9 15) commanded the mouth of the chief pass from 
Sharon, as well as the road from En-gannim to the 
sea, and was so important a strategic point that the 
whole plain of Esdraelon was called ‘the valley of 
Megiddo’ (II Ch 35 22; Zec 12 11). “The waters of 
Megiddo’ (Jg 519) are apparently those of the Kishon, 
one of whose tributaries rises near el-Lejjan. See 
also Har-MaGEpon. } 

The excavation of Megiddo was undertaken by 
the German Palestine Society in 1903, and was con- 
tinued until 1905; and important archeological 
remains were found of every period from 2500 B.c. 
onward. See G. Schumacher and K. Steuernagel, 


Mehetabel 
Meraioth 





Tell el-Mutesellim (1908); G. A. Barton,. Archeology 
and the Bible (1916), p. 96. L.G. L.—L. B. P. 


MEHETABEL, mrhet’a-bl (98202,  mehé- 
tabh’él) and MEHETABEEL, bil, AV, ‘God benefits’: 
1. The wife of Hadar, King of Edom (Gn 36 39; I Ch 
150). 2. The father of Delaiah (Neh 6 10). 


MEHIDA, mi-hai’da (81, mehidha’): The 
ancestral head of one of the subdivisions of the 
Nethinim (Ezr 2 52=Neh 7 54). 

MEHIR, mi’hor (VM), mehir): A small Judahite 
clan inhabiting the neighborhood of Eshton (J Ch 
411). 

MEHOLATHITE, mi-ho'le-thait (N22, m:ho- 
latht): A native of Abel-meholah, the birthplace of 
Elisha (I K 19 16), situated on the border of one of 
Solomon’s prefectures (I K 4 12). Adriel, the hus- 
band of Merab, Saul’s daughter, is thus designated 
(IS 1819). In IIS 218 his father Barzillai. C.S. T. 

MEHUJAEL, mi-hi’jo-el (28979, 28, me- 
hiy@él, mehiyy@ él), perhaps ‘smitten of God,’ or 
‘God gives life’: A great-grandson of Cain, the fourth 
in the Cainite genealogy (Gn 418). Same as Mana- 
LALEL (5 12) of the Sethite line. Ons ph fe 

MEHUMAN, mi-ht’/mon. See CHAMBERLAINS, 
THE SEVEN. 

MEHUNIM, mi-hi’nim. See Mreunim. 

MEJARKON, mi’jar’ken (JiP77'2, mehayyar- 
gon), ‘green water’: A place in Dan (Jos 19 46). But 
one should read (w. LXX.) ‘and on the west (2mé, 


‘the sea’) Jarkon, with the border,’ etc. Rakkon 
is only a textual duplicate of Jarkon. Site un- 
known. EH. E. N. 


MEKONAH, mi-ko’na. See Meconan. 
MELATIAH, mel’’a-tai’a (202%, mélatyah), ‘J” 
delivers’: A Gibeonite (Neh 3 7). 


MELCHI, mel’kai (Medyet): The name of two 
ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3 24, 28). 


MELCHISEDEC, mel-kiz’1-dek. See MeEtcuiz- 
EDEK. 


MELCHISHUA, mel’’kai-shu’a. 
SHUA. 

MELCHIZEDEK (P7¥7272, malkt-tsedheg, Mel- 
chisedec, He 5 6, etc. AV), ‘king of righteous- 
ness’: M. appears abruptly in the narrative of Gn 14 
18, as ‘priest of God Most High,’ and ‘king of Salem,’ 
and, in his priestly capacity, by the symbolical use 
of bread and wine bestows a blessing on Abraham. 
Such a person combining in himself the priestly and 
royal offices was afterward seen in the ideal king 
of Israel, to whom, therefore, a priesthood ‘after 
the order of Melchizedek’ was ascribed (Ps 110 4). 
In He 5 6, 7, this is elaborated in its application to 
Christ. Of the historicity of Melchizedek doubts 
have been expressed. But as it is admitted that 
Gn ch. 14 contains a historical kernel, such doubts 
are not justified. A. C. Z. 


MELEA, mi’li-a (MeAck): An ancestor of Jesus 
(Lk 3 31). 


MELECH, mi'lek (722, melekh), ‘king’: A grand- 
son of Jonathan, son of Saul (I Ch 8 35, 9 41). 


See Matcnui 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


570 


MELICU, mel’i-kit. See Matuucut. 


MELITA, mel’i-ta: An island in the Mediter- 
ranean, the scene of Paul’s shipwreck (Ac 28 1), the 
modern Malta (the identification with Meleda, on 
the Dalmatian coast, is baseless). It lies 58 m. S. of 
Sicily and 180 m. N. of Cape Bon in Africa, and has 
an area of 95 sq. m. Occupied in turn by the 
Phenicians and Carthaginians, it came under the 
Romans in 218 B.c. and formed part of the province 
of Sicily. Paul’s ship, after drifting from Cauda 
near Crete for a fortnight, close-hauled on the star- 
board tack under an ENE. gale, reached what is 
now called St. Paul’s Bay, 8 m. NW. of Valletta, 
and struck a shoal formed, it would appear, between 
the island of Salmonetta and the shore on the W. 
side of the bay. The vessel went to pieces, but the 
ship’s company all escaped to the beach (Ac 27 14- 
44). The inhabitants of the island (‘barbarians’ | 
means simply that they were not Greeks) probably 
spoke Punic, tho Publius, ‘the chief man of the 
island,’ and his family apparently knew Greek as 
well as Latin. This title for the governor is confirmed 
by early inscriptions from the neighboring island of 
Gozo. The ‘viper’ episode has been questioned, 
but the fact that to-day in a very thickly populated 
island there are no poisonous serpents is no evi- 
dence as to its condition in the Ist cent. After three 
months of great hospitality on the part of the in- 
habitants, and doubtless of more or less missionary 
work on the part of Paul, he and his companions 
sailed to Syracuse on an Alexandrian ship which had 
wintered at Melita. Nothing certain is known of 
Christianity in the island until the middle of the 5th 
cent., but some persons hold that Christian inscrip- 
tions of the 2d cent. have been discovered. 

R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


MELON. See Pauustinn, § 23; and Foop anp 
Foop UTENSILS, § 3. 


MELZAR, mel’zar. See SrewarD. 


MEMORIAL: In most cases the occurrence of 
this term in the Bible needs no explanation. That 
through which a person or an event, or even God 
Himself, is to be remembered is a ‘memorial’ (Ex 
3 15, 12 14; Jos 4 7; Mk 14 9, etc.). The term 
’azkarah, used asa technical term in the manual of 
offerings (Lv 2 2, 9, 16, 5 12, 6 15) and in other places 
in the Priest’s Code (Lv 247; Nu 5 26), is rendered 
‘memorial’ as if derived from zaékhar in the sense of 
‘to remember.’ The term is used of the portion of 
the vegetable offering that was burned on the altar 
as incense and of the frankincense that was sprinkled 
on the showbread (Lv 24 7), and the idea seems to 
have been that it was the fragrance of the incense 
that caused it to serve asa ‘memorial.’ E. E. N. 


MEMPHIS, mem’fis (Méyugrc), only in Hos 9 6, 
where Heb. is méph; and Noph in the AV of Is 19113, 
Jer 2 16, 441, 46 14, 19, and Ezk 30 13, 16, where the 
Heb. is néph: The capital of Egypt. In the sacred 
texts it is called Hat-ka-ptah (‘house of the Image of 
Ptah’), the name applied to {the whole land (At-yu- 
mtoc, ‘E-gy-pt’). The secular name of the’ city was, 
however, Men-nefert (‘the fine residence’), and was 
abbreviated into Mennefe and Menfe (Men is sup- 
posed to be the first part of the name Mena, 2.e., 


571 


Menes, the founder); hence the Greek form, which 
has prevailed in later historical times. The city 
was situated on the W. bank of the Nile, 12m. S. 
of modern Cairo, and covered a large area of terri- 
tory, probably shifting and changing its boundaries 
as the kings of the several dynasties chose new sites 
for their palaces. According to tradition, it was built 
by Menes of the first dynasty, and held a place of 
prime importance to the days of the Ptolemies, 
altho other cities, especially Thebes, rivaled and at 
times surpassed and supplanted it as a political 
center. It was the seat of a temple of the god Ptah 
(‘the world creator’), who was thought to be em- 
bodied in the Apis bull; but there were also many 
foreign deities worshiped in the city, especially 
Astarte. With the exception of the necropolis with 
its pyramids, the ruins of Memphis, which even to 
the 12th cent. A.D. were said to extend half a day’s 
journey, have totally disappeared. FOV A, 


MEMUCAN, mi-mii’ken. See Princes, THE 
SEVEN. 

MENAHEM, men’a-hem (812, menahém), ‘com- 
forter’: The son of Gadi (II K 15 14) and military 
governor of the earlier capital of Israel, Tirzah. 
When Shallum usurped the throne, Menahem re- 
fused to submit, made an attack on Samaria, where 
the king was holding court, captured the city, put 
the usurper to death, and was himself proclaimed 
king (circa 744 B.c.). His rule, however, was at 
first opposed, and it was necessary to suppress a 
rather formidable rebellion. This Menahem did, 
evidently with a strong hand, inflicting cruel revenge 
upon the disaffected. In order to maintain himself 
in power, he placed himself under vassalage to Pul, 
King of Assyria (II K 15 19 £.), better known as 
Tiglath-pileser III. But to secure this alliance, 
he was compelled to pay a large sum of money 
(1,000 talents) to the Assyrian king, which hein turn 
exacted from the wealthy men of his realm. The 
alliance turned out to be a serious disaster for 
Israel; since it offered the Assyrians the occasion for 
a hold upon the nation, destined to end in its 
annexation. Menahem’s policy was resisted in 
Israel by an anti-Assyrian party. But altho in 
constant peril, the king ended his reign in peace 
(ca. 736 B.c.), and was succeeded by his son 
Pekahiah. ALC. Z. 

MENAN, mi’nen. See MEnNNa. 

MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN, mi’ni, mini, 
ti‘kel, i-fGr’sin (7975) 7PM 82D NID, mene’, mene’) 
t¢qél, ipharsin): The words that appeared on the wall 
at Belshazzar’s feast (Dn 5 25). As Belshazzar and 
his lords were desecrating the sacred vessels that Ne- 
buchadrezzar had brought from Jerusalem, the form 
of a hand appeared writing upon the plaster of the 
wall these mysterious words. The king’s wise men 
failing to interpret them, Daniel was called, and 
after a lengthy exordium, presented his interpreta- 
tion (vs. 26-28), altho it took no account of the repe- 
tition of the first word of ver. 25. The words as now 
given are Aramaic, and by Daniel’s interpretation 
were to be paraphrased as in ARV, while the margi- 
nal rendering of the four words is ‘numbered, 

numbered, weighed and divisions,’ There is almost 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Mehetabel 
Meraioth 


endless discussion as to their rendering, many of the 
proposals being very fanciful. Daniel’s own inter- 
pretation takes enough liberty with the four words, 
as he interprets the first and third, and changes the 
fourth from wpharsin to peres, to warrant us in 
questioning the meaning of the entire inscription, 
as well as its proper pronunciation. There seems to 
be nothing better than Daniel’s rendering of the 
first and third words, while the last may be either 
‘divisions,’ ‘divided,’ or ‘assessed’ (Margoliouth), or 
‘Persians.’ According to Driver (Camb. Bible, ad 
loc.) the words are the names of weights, and should 
be read: ‘A m’na, a m’na, a shekel and half-shekels.’ 
Jo MiP: 

MENNA, men’a (Mewé, Menan AV): An ancestor 

of Jesus (Lk 3 31). 


MENUHOTH, mi-ni’heth. See MANAHATHITE. 


MEONENIM, mi-en’i-nim (ONY), me‘dnenim); 
with ’élén (‘oak’), ‘soothsayer’s oak’: The seat of an 
oracle near Shechem, perhaps the same as ‘oak of 
Moreh’ (Jg 9 37; cf. Gn 12 6; Jg 71). Ce Silke 


MEONOTHAI, mi-on’o-thai (ONY, m*e‘dnd- 
thay): A Kenizzite clan (I Ch 4 14). 


MEPHAATH, mef’a-ath (OY2°D, mépha‘ath): A 
place in Reuben, assigned to the Levites (Jos 13 18, 
21 37; I Ch 6 79), later reoccupied by the Moabites 
(Jer 48 21). Site unknown; but it was somewhere 
between Medeba and Dibon. 


MEPHIBOSHETH, mi-fib’o-sheth ("W2'DP, me- 
phibhosheth), ‘he who scatters shame’ (?) (II S 4 4, 
96 .); originally Meribbaal, ‘Baal is advocate,’ or 
‘hero of Baal’ (so Gray, Proper Names, p. 201) 
(I Ch 8 34): 1. A cripple, son of Jonathan. A realistic 
account of the accident that crippled him is given in 
II S 4 4. When David was recognized king, M. 
promptly made his submission to him and received 
as a reward the private estate of Saul and an honor- 
able place at court (II S 9 6 ff.), together with the 
services of Saul’s steward Zibah. Later, during the 
rebellion of Absalom, Zibah slanderously accused his 
master of secretly joining the rebels and obtained 
his estate, which was adjudged forfeited (II S 161-4). 
But when M. protested his innocence David restored 
half the estate to him and gave him back his place 
at court (II S$ 19 24 #.). In the affair of Rizpah M. 
was spared for the sake of Jonathan (IIS 217). 2.A 
son of Rizpah (II § 21 8). AO ae 


MERAB, mi’rab (21, mérabh): The eldest daugh- 
ter of Saul (I S 14 49), promised to David (18 17), but 
given to Adriel (18 19). Their five sons were de- 
livered by David to the Gibeonites to be put to 
death (II S 21 8, where ‘Merab’ should be read for 
‘Michal’). Cop be 

MERAIAH, mi-ré’ya (771), m*rdyah): The head 
of the priestly house of Seraiah in the days of 
Nehemiah (Neh 12 12). 

MERAIOTH, mi-ré’yoth (AVVP, merayoth): 1. A 
priest in the ancestry of Ahitub (I Ch 6 6 f., 52; 
Ezr 73). 2. Ason of Ahitub (I Ch 911; Neh 11 11). 
3. By mistake in Neh 12 15 for Meremoth, q.v. (cf. 
ver. 3). 


Merari 
Mesha 





MERARI, mi-ré’rai ("17/?, m*rdrt), MERARITES: 
The third and youngest son of Levi (Gn 46 11; Ex 6 
16). His importance lies chiefly in the fact that he 
was the ancestor and eponym of one, altho the 
smallest, of the Levite clans (Nu 3 17, 4 29; I Ch 61, 
914). Asa gentilic the name is preceded always by 
the article (Nu 26 57). There were two subdivisions 
of the Merarite Levites, called respectively Musshi 
and Mahli. In the allocation of cities of residence, 
they were placed in Zebulun, Gad, and Reuben (Jos 
217, 34-40). The family of M. was prominent in the 
train of Ezra at the restoration (Ezr 8 19), altho it 1s 
barely possible that this may be another clan of the 
same name ARCHEZ, 

MERATHAIM, mer’’e-fthé’im (8°02, m*ratha- 
yim), ‘double rebellion’ (?): An enigmatic name, ap- 
parently for Babylonia (Jer 50 21). Possibly it repre- 
sents the Babylonian name for the ‘sea country,’ 7.e., 
S. Babylonia. 


MERCHANT, MERCHANDISE. 
AND COMMERCE, § 3. 


MERCHANT SHIP. See Suips anp NAviGa- 
TION, § 2. 


MERCURY, mor’kit-ri, MERCURIUS (AV), 
mer-kit’ri-us. After healing the cripple at Lystra, 
Paul and Barnabas were viewed by the populace 
as celestial visitants and acclaimed, B. as Jupiter 
and P. as Mercury (Gr. Hermes). (Ac 14 11 f.). 
According to the popular mythology, Mercury was 
the attendant of Jupiter ‘Father of Gods and Men’ 
and the spokesman and messenger of the gods, the 


same place as was assigned in Semitic religion to 
Nebo. 


MERCY: This term is the translation in AV of 
derivatives of several Heb. roots: (1) hesedh, ‘good- 
ness,’ ‘kindness,’ in most passages, of God; for which 
RV has usually ‘loving-kindness,’ sometimes ‘kind- 
ness,’ also ‘goodness.’ The only verbal form is 
translated ‘show thyself merciful’ (I S 22 2s=Ps 
18 25 [26]). The adj. hdstdh, denoting the active 
practise of hesedh, is used twice of God (Jer 3 12, 
‘merciful’; Ps 145 17 ‘holy’ AV, ‘gracious’ RV), twice 
of men and then rendered with ‘merciful’ (II § 22 
26=Ps 18 25 [26]); elsewhere it is used of men as 
exhibiting ‘duteous love’ toward God, hence ren- 
dered ‘pious,’ ‘godly.’ (2) rahamim, ‘bowels,’ as the 
seat of tender compassion, is rendered ‘mercies,’ but 
according to many this word is a denominative from 
rehem (‘womb’), and means ‘brotherhood,’ ‘brotherly 
feeling,’ z.e., of those born of the same womb. It is 
usually used of God, whose mercies are ‘great’ or 
‘manifold.’ The verb réham, in the pi‘él (active) is 
used mainly of God and rendered ‘be merciful’ AV, 
in RV often ‘have compassion,’ and in the pu‘al 
(passive) of men. The adj. rahim, used only of God, 
is rendered ‘merciful’ (AV and ERY), also ‘full of 
compassion’ (Ps 78 38, etc.), but ARV has uniformly 
‘merciful.’ (3) hdénan, ‘show favor,’ ‘be gracious,’ 
usually of God in bestowing favors on men or re- 
deeming them from various ills. It is rendered ‘be 
gracious,’ ‘merciful’ or ‘favorable,’ ‘have mercy’ or 
‘pity.’ (4) hemlah, an inf. from a vb. meaning ‘to 
spare,’ have compassion,’ is rendered ‘being merci- 
ful’ (Gn 19 16), also ‘pity’ (Is 63 9). (5) kipper, 


See TRADE 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


572 





‘cover over,’ ‘propitiate’ (in Dt 21 8, 32 43, ‘be merci- 
ful’ AV; ‘forgive,’ ‘make expiation’ RV), elsewhere 
‘make atonement,’ or ‘reconciliation.’ It is charac- 
teristic of the O T revelation that so much emphasis is 
found to be laid upon the great truth of God’s mercy 
to sinful man and the correlated truth of the duty of 
man to be merciful and compassionate toward his 
fellow men (cf. Mic 68). In the N T both of these 
truths have a flood of light thrown upon them by the 
revelation in Christ. God’s mercy revealed in Christ 
only makes more evident the primary place mercy 
must hold in the Christian’s attitude toward his 
fellow men. CoSnE: 


MERCY-SEAT. See Ark. 


MERED, mi’red (17/2, meredh): A clan of Judah 
(I Ch 4 17, 18). 

MEREMOTH, mer’i-moeth (i291), m*rémoth): 
1. A priestly family (Neh 10 5, 12 3, 15; here Merai- 
oth should be Meremoth). 2. A priest in Ezra’s day 
(Ezr 8 33; Neh 3 4, 21). 3. One of the ‘sons of Bani’ 
(Ezr 10 36). 

MERES, mi’riz. See Princes, THE SEVEN. 

MERIBAH, mer’i-ba (72°72, meribhah, ‘strife’: 
The name of two places where similar occurrences are 
reported to have taken place during the course of 
the Exodous. (1) The first is in the region of Mt. 
Horeb, N. of Mt. Sinai, and in connection with the 
murmuring (‘striving’ RV, ‘chiding’ AV) of the 
children of Israel (Ex 17 1-7; see also Massan). 
(2) Meribath-kadesh, in the wilderness of Zin in the 
neighborhood of Kadesh (Ezk 48 28; ef. also Nu 
27 14; Dt 32 51, where the rendering is ‘Meribah of 
Kadesh’). Here also the people found no water 
and ‘strove’ with (‘chode’ AV) Moses. By smiting 
the rock Moses caused water to gush forth. The 
similarity of these accounts has led many to assume 
that they are different versions of the same story. 
There is valid reason, however, for believing that 
the same circumstances, repeated in two different 
places, gave the same name to the places. This is 
especially likely because the Meribah of Rephidim 
is only incidentally spoken of under that name. Its 
more distinctive designation is Massah, ‘tempta- 
tion.’ The waters of Meriboth-kadesh in Ezk 47 19 
(‘strife in Kadesh’ AV) are given as the S. limit of 
the ideal land of Israel. For a radical critical re- 
construction of the narrative in Ex and Nu, see 
Bacon, Triple Tradition of the Exodous, pp. 80 ff. 

Ad CoH, 

MERIBATH-KADESH, mer’i-bath-ké’desh. See 
MERIBAH. 

MERIB-BAAL, mer’ ib-bé’al. 
SHETH. 


MERIBOTH-KADESH. See MERIBAH. 


MERODACH, meo-rd’dak. See Semitic ReE- 
LIGION, §§ 15, 24, 32. 

MERODACH-BALADAN (II) (17823 718, 
mérd’dhakh bal’adhan; Assyr. Marduk-apal-iddin(a), 
‘Marduk has given a son’); the most ancient form 
of Marduk was Maruduk, from which the Hebrew 
seems to have been taken; He was king of Babylon 
(II K 20 12 f. [Berodach]=Is 391 #.) from 722 to 
710 B.c. and for about nine months in 703-702. M. 


See MErPHIBO- 


573 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Merari | 
Mesha 


a 


was a Chaldean and head of the people of that 
name, whose capital was at Bit-Iakin, near the head 
of the Persian Gulf. He was a sworn enemy of 
Assyria, and gradually pushed northward until, with 
the aid of the Elamites, he seized Babylon in 721 
B.c. After the embassy sent to Hezekiah (Is ch. 
39), M. was defeated by Sargon II (710), and 
driven back to his native city, whence, to avoid 
capture, he fled to Elam. In 703-702, under Sen- 
nacherib’s reign in Nineveh, he secured the throne 
of Babylon for about nine months, but was forced 
to retire to his homeland, whence, after a period of 
defense, he fled, and is thought to have died in the 
city of Nagitu, on the western border of Elam. 

Teaver. 

MEROM, WATERS OF, mi’rom (378, mérom) : 
A place noted for the great victory of Joshua over 
King Jabin of Hazor and his allies (Jos 11 5). It is 
usually identified with the modern Bahrat el-Huleh, 
the northernmost of the three bodies of water 
through which the Jordan flows (see JoRDAN). But 
the identification is strongly contested on the 
grounds (1) that the word yam, ‘sea,’ would have 
been used if such a large body of water had been 
meant, and (2) that the situation does not harmonize 
with the geographical data of Jos 11 8. If these 
objections be valid the Waters of Merom must be 
found in a locality in upper Galilee abounding in 
springs, near the modern village Meron, or Marun 
er-Ras, a little W. of Safed, Map I, E 4 (so Buhl, 
Geog. Pal., p. 234). It is possible, however, that the 
phrase designates not any particular spot, but a 
district (as suggested in the Vulgate regione Merome 
of Jg 518). Such a district is in general that which, 
including the lake Huleh, stretches northward and 
is traversed by a stream, to which the phrase 
Waters of Merom is more strictly applicable. (Cf. 
Schenkel, Bib. Lex., 1869-75). Ae Kon Zi 

MERONOTHITE, mi-ren’o-fhait (072, mé- 
ronotht) ‘man of Meronoth’: The designation of 
two men, Jehdeiah (I Ch 27 30) and Jadon (Neh 37). 
No other reference to Meronoth occurs. Site un- 
known, but it was probably near Gibeon. E. E.N. 

MEROZ, mi'rez ('i2, mérdz): A place men- 
tioned only in the song of Deborah (Jg 5 23). The 
extreme bitterness of the curse against this other- 
wise unknown village has been accounted for on two 
hypotheses: either Meroz was so near the battle- 
field that its inaction was tantamount to a declara- 
tion of hostility to the Israelite cause, or else the 
fleeing Sisera was suffered to pass through the village 
unmolested. The position of this curse, just pre- 
ceding the blessing upon Jael, seems to lend weight 
to the second hypothesis. The name Meroz may 
survive in el-Murussus, a small, mud-built village 
5 m. NW. of Beth-shean. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 

MESECH, mi’sek. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND 
Eruno.oey, § 13, under Meshech. 

MESHA, mi’sha:1. (Y¥'2, mésha‘). ‘A king of 
Moab conquered and made a vassal of Israel by 
Omri (885-874 B.c., II K 3 4). He is spoken of as a 
‘sheepmaster,’ who paid an annual tribute consisting 
of the wool of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams. Some 
time near the end of Ahab’s reign he renounced his 


| 3. after my father. 


allegiance to Israel and secured his independence. 

After Ahab’s death Jehoram, his successor, at- 

tempted to recover the territory lost, and with the 

aid of Judah and Edom obtained a considerable 
victory over Mesha’s army (II K 3 22-24). But he 
was led to abandon the campaign on account of 

Mesha’s desperate deed of sacrificing his son and heir 

as a propitiation to Chemosh in plain view of the 

allies (II K 3 27). Mesha’s capital city was Daibon 

(Dibon) which was strongly fortified, as recent in- 

vestigations show (see Dison). Mesha, Stone of. 

Besides the Biblical data in IIT K 3 4 #., a memorial 

pillar of black basalt 33 ft. high by 2 ft. wide, erected 

by Mesha, gives information about the events of 
his reign. This stele was discovered in 1868 among 

the ruins of Dibon (Dibdn), by Rev. F. A. Kiein, a 

Prussian missionary. A rough squeeze was made 

for Clermont-Ganneau in 1869, with a copy of lines 

13-20. When the Arabs of the neighborhood realized 

that the stone was valuable they broke it into frag- 

ments in the hope of selling the pieces separately to 
greater advantage. Two large fragments together 
with a large number of smaller ones were ultimately 
recovered and by the aid of the squeeze the stone 
was completely restored and taken to the Louvre in 

Paris. The inscription consists of thirty-four lines, 

and recounts how Mesha wrested back the cities 

Medeba, Nebo, and Jahaz, which Omri and his son 

Ahab succeeded in taking from Moab, together with 

Ataroth, formerly inhabited by Gadites. The 

inhabitants of these cities he ‘devoted’ (made herem, 

‘devoted to deity’) to Chemosh, and carried on a 

campaign southward to Horonaim. The victorious 

campaign here commemorated was probably the 
same as that alluded to in IT K34f. The stone is of 
special interest and value, since it is the oldest extant 
inscription in Hebrew (in the broad sense). It 
throws much light upon the history of the Hebrew 
alphabet and also on the grammatical and lexical 
characteristics of the ancient Hebrew speech. The 
stone reveals the fact that the Israelites and Moab- 
ites (as well as the other neighboring Semitic peoples) 
spoke practically the same language. There are also 
remarkable affinities of thought between the Moab- 

ite Stone and many passages of the O T. For a 

facsimile reproduction of two lines of this inscription 

see ALPHABET. 
The following is the translation of Dr. Driver in 

EB, vol. iii, col. 3041 f.: 

1. Iam Mesha, son of Chemosh [kan?], King of Moab, the 1 
Daibonite. 

2. My father reigned over Moab for thirty years, and I 2 
reigned 

And I made this high place for 3 
Chemosh in KR[H]H, a [high place of sal]lvation, 

4. because he had saved me from all the assailants (?), 4 
and because he had let me see (my desire) upon all 
them that hated me. Omri, 

5. King of Israel, afflicted Moab for many days, because 5 
Chemosh was angry with his land. 

6. And his son succeeded him; and he also said I will 6 
afflict Moab. In my days said he [thus;] 

7. but I saw (my desire) upon him and upon his house, 7 
and Israel perished with an everlasting destruction. 
Omri took possession of the [{laJnd 

8. of Méhédeba, and it (2.e., Israel) dwelt therein, during 8 
his days, and half his son’s days, forty years; but 
Chemosh [resto]red . 

9. it in my days. And I built Ba’al-Me’on, and I made 9 
it the reservoir (?); and I buill[t] 


Mesha 
Messiah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


574 


nn cnn rn EEE 


10. Kiryathén. And the men of Gad had dwelt in the 10 
land of ’Ataroth from of old; and the king of Israel 

11. had built for himself ’Ataroth. And I fought against 11 
the city, and took it. And I slew all the people [from] 

12. the city, a gazingstock unto Chemosh, and unto Moab. 12 
And I brought back (or, took captive) thence the 
altar-hearth of Dawdoh (?), and I dragged 

13. it before Chemosh in Keriyyoth. And I settled therein 13 
the men of SRN, and the men of 

14. MHRT. And Chemosh said unto me, Go, take Nebo 14 
against Israel. And IL 

15. went by night, and fought against it from the break 15 
of dawn until noon. And I took 

16 it, and slew the whole of it, 7,000 men and male 16 
strangers and women and [female stranger]s 

17. and female slaves: for I had devoted it to ’Ashtor- 17 
Chemosh. And I took thence the [ves]sels 

18. of Yahwé, and I dragged them before Chemosh. And 18 
the king of Israel had built 

19. Yahas, and abode in it, while he fought against me. 19 
But Chemosh drave him out from before me; and 

20. I took of Moab 200 men, even all its chiefs; and I led 20 
them up against Yahas, and took it 

21. to add it unto Daibon. I built KRHH, the wall of 21 
Ye’arin (or, of the Woods), and the wall of 

22. the Mound. And I built its gates, and I built its 22 
towers. And 

23. I built the king’s palace, and I made the two reser- 23 
[voirs (?) for walter in the midst of 

24. the city. And there was no cistern in the midst of 24 
the city, in KRHH. And I said to all the people, 
Make 

25. you every man a cistern in his house. And I cut out 25 
the cutting for KRHH, with (the help of) prisoner[s 

26. of] Israel. I built ’Aro’er, and I made the highway” 26 
by the Arnon 

27. I built Beth-Bamoth, for it was pulled down. I built 27 
Beser, for ruins 

28. [had it become. And the chie]fs of Daibon were fifty, 28 
for all Daibon was obedient (to me). And I reigned 

29. over an hundred [chiefs] in the cities which I added to 29 
the land. And I built 

30. [Méhé]dé[b]a, and Beth-Diblathén, and the Beth- 30 

Ba’al-Me’on; and I took thither the nakadh-keepers, 

31. . .. sheep of the land. And as for Horonén, there 31 
dwelt therein... 

32. .. . And Chemosh said unto me, Go down, fight 32 
against Horonén. And I went down. . 

33. . . . [and] Chemosh [resto]red it in my days. And... 33 
ye eo ‘And Le... od 
2. (YY, mésha‘). A son of Caleb (I Ch 2 42). 

ANCL Z. 
MESHA, mi’she (8¥2, mésha’): I. A son of 

Sharaim, a Benjamite (I Ch 89). I. A place on the 

boundary of the region occupied by the sons of 


Joktan (Gn 10 30). ANG: 


MESHACH, mi’shak (78, méshakh): A name 
given by Nebuchadrezzar to Mishael, one of Daniel’s 
companions in Babylon (Dn 17). He was appointed 
over the province of Babylon (2 49). For refusing 
to worship the golden image he was cast into the 
fiery furnace, from which he came out uninjured 
(3 14 ff.). RAGS Bed Be 


MESHECH, mi’shek. See ErHNOGRAPHY AND 
Eruno.oey, § 18. 


MESHELEMIAH, mui-shel-mai’a (2989, me- 
shelemyah), ‘J’’ has recompensed’: The ancestral 
head of a division of Korahite Levites, entrusted 
with caring for the gates of the Temple (I Ch 9 21, 
26 1, 2,9). Also called Shallum (I Ch 9 17, 19, 31), 


Shelemiah (26 14), and Meshullam (Neh 12 25). 


MESHEZABEL, mi-shez’a-bel (PRAPYP, mesha- 
cabh’él, Meshezabeel AV), ‘God is Savior’: The name 
af a family of postexilic Jews (Neh 3 4, 10 21, 11 24). 


MESHILLEMITH, mi-shil-mifh. See MkE- 


SHILLEMOTH. 

MESHILLEMOTH, mi-shil’-moth (NiD?, me- 
shilléméth): 1. An Ephraimite (II Ch 2812). 2. The 
head of a priestly family (I Ch 9 12, here called 
Meshillemith; Neh 1113). 

MESHOBAB, mi-sho/bab (331%), meshobhabh), 
‘returned’: The head of a Simeonite family (I Ch 
4 34). ; 

MESHULLAM, mi-shol’am (D2¥D, méshullam), 
‘reconciled’?: 1. The grandfather of Shaphan, the 
scribe, in the reign of Josiah (II K 223). 2. A son of 
Zerubbabel (I Ch 319). 3, 4, 5. Three Benjamites 
(I Ch 817,97=Neh117;1Ch98). 6. A Gadite (I 
Ch 513). 7. The father of Hilkiah, the priest (I Ch 
9 u=Neh 11 11). 8._A‘priest (I Ch 9 12), 9, A 
Kohathite, overseer of the repairs on the Temple, 
under Josiah (II Ch 34 12).: 10. A ‘chief man’ in 
Babylon, who helped Ezra to procure Levites to 
accompany him to Jerusalem (Ezr 8 16). 11. One 
who opposed Ezra in the matter of foreign wives 
(Ezr 10 15). 12. One who had married a foreign 
wife (Ezr 10 29). 13. A son of Berechiah, who as- 
sisted in repairing the wall (Neh 3 4, 30) and whose 
daughter was the wife of the son of Tobiah, the 
enemy of Nehemiah (618). 14. A son of Besodeiah 
who helped to repair the old gate (Neh 36). 15. One 
who stood at the left of Ezra when the Law was read 
(Neh 8 4). 16, 17. A priest and a chief who sealed 
the covenant (Neh 107, 20). 18. A prince in the 
procession at the dedication of the wall (Neh 12 33). 
19, 20. Two heads of priestly houses in the time of 
Joiakim, the high priest (Neh 12 13, 16). 21. A 
porter under Joiakim (Neh 12 35). See also Mrsun- 
LEMIAH; SHALLUM; and SHELEMIAH. C.S. T. 


MESHULLEMETH, mi-shol'1-meth (02909, m:- 


shullemeth): The wife of King Manasseh and the 
mother of King Amon (II K 21 19). CoS 

MESOBAITE, mi-sod’ba-ait. See MEzoBaire. 

MESOPOTAMIA, mes’’0-po-té’mi-a. See ARAM, 
§ 4 (4). 

MESSIAH (V2, mdshiah), ‘anointed,’ from 
mashah, ‘to anoint.’ 

1. Name. In the N T generally translated into 
Xetotéc, ‘Christ,’ 7.e., anointed (Jn 4 25, etc., 
Messias AV). In the OT, M. is used in conjunction 
with J’ (‘Jehovah’s anointed’) as a title of honor 
for the king (IS 24 6, etc.). It is applied, however, 
poetically to the patriarchs (Ps 105 15) and to Cyrus 
(Is 451). Priests, as well as kings, and occasionally 
prophets, were anointed as a sign of their elevation 
to high functions. 

2. Earliest Conception. The Messianic idea in 
its breadth is not to be limited by the meaning of 
the word Messiah. It includes all the aspirations of 
Israel to the world-wide influence from the very 
first. Long before the hope was fixed in a single 
person who should carry out God’s plan of righteous 
rule on earth, there had existed as an expectation 
that J’’ would impart such a blessing to Abraham’s 
posterity that all nations would ‘bless themselves’ 
in Abraham and his seed (i.e., ask such a blessing 
for themselves) (Gn 12 3), and that a succession of 


575 A NEW STANDARD 


prophets would communicate God’s will to Israel 
(Dt 18 1s). The hope vaguely expressed in Gn 3 15 
that the ‘seed of the woman’ should [eventually] 
‘bruise’ the ‘head of the serpent’ contains a forward 
look to a great blessing for humanity. It is an ex- 
pression of hope that the ills infecting the race will 
be overcome by a power within the race. That this 
shall be accomplished through the agency of Israel 
is not, however, indicated in any way. 

The empire established by David and brought to 
its highest glory in Solomon enabled the idea of a 
‘Kingdom’ in which the rule of J” on earth was 
visibly represented by the Davidic dynasty (cf. 
II S 7, especially vs. 12, 16, and 18 ff.) to gradually 
become a fixture, especially in prophetic thought. 

3. The Messianic King. But it is with Isaiah that 
the prospect of the birth ef an ideal king first be- 
comes clear (9 2-7). His reign is to be one of universal 
and endless peace and prosperity (11 1-9), tho he 
was to appear in circumstances least promising. 
This thought is dwelt on specifically by Micah in the 
announcement that, when the house of David had 
been reduced by the national misfortunes to the 
lowest condition and driven to its ancestral residence 
at Bethlehem, then the Deliverer [‘Prince’] should 
appear (5 2, 5). Similarly, Jeremiah (23 5) foretold 
the springing up of a ‘Branch’ from the fallen trunk 
of David, a king with the significant name ‘Jehovah 
our righteousness’ (ver 6). During the period of 
the Exile, Ezekiel developed and enforced the hope 
(34 11-15, 23-31, particularly ver. 24; cf. also 37 24), 
giving the name David to the expected King (cf. 
also Hos 3 5 and Am 9 11, both of exilic or postexilic 
date). 


4. The Servant of God. Quite a different aspect 
of the Messiah’s person and work is presented by 
Deutero-Isaiah. In a series of passages he gives 
the picture of a deliverer for Israel who accom- 
plishes his work by sacrifice, suffering, and death 
(42 1-4, 49 1-6, 50 4-9, 52 13-53 12) and is known as the 
‘Servant of Jehovah,’ because his whole-hearted 
loyalty is in significant contrast to the stiff-necked 
disobedience of the people as a whole; and it is 
precisely because of this perfect devotion and 
cbedience unto death that he is raised to a high 
reward. It has been said that the Servant of Jehovah 
is a personification of the faithful remnant of Israel, 
by whose vicarious sufferings the people are re- 
deemed; but inasmuch as a nation could only be 
organized under a Head as the specially anointed 
of God, this Head (King), under whom the people 
is integrated, certainly has a real place in the con- 
ception of the servant. Here belong, too, Ps 22 1-11, 
28 31. In Ps 2 the personal Messiah is represented 
as enthroned in Zion, and in Ps 110 (which may, 
however, be of Maccabean date) as combining in 
Himself the office of Priest with that of King. 


5. Postexilic Development. This agrees so com- 
pletely with the conception of Zec 3 8 #., where the 
Messiah is given the name of ‘Branch’ (as in Jer), 
as to make it clear that in the postexilic period the 
appearance of an ideal king had become an in- 
- eradicable element in Israelitic thought. From Zee 
46f. it might be inferred that Zerubbabel was by 
gome regarded as the Branch; but altho the prophet 


Mesha 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Messiah 


encourages confidence in him, he seems to designate 
Jeshua, not Zerubbabel, as the ‘anointed one’ (6 9-15; 
cf. 414). In the Maccabean age the name ‘Son of 
Man’ was given to the Messiah (Dn 7 13). And in 
the apocalyptic literature the ideal figure, altho 
naturally clothed in the symbolic garb characteristic 
of that type of writing, is constantly kept in view. 
In the Szb Or. (III 97-807), issuing from the middle 
of the 2d cent. B.c., there is an unmistakable 
description of him. In Eth. En. (chs. 36-72, the 
Book of Similitudes) he is portrayed under the 
figure of a white bull. In addition, in the judgment 
of many scholars, Enoch adopted from Dn the title 
‘Son of Man.’ In two of the Psalms of Solomon 
(17 36, 18 6-8) even the title ‘Messiah’ is clearly 
fixed. Finally, the titles ‘elect’? and ‘Son of God’ 
are applied to him. 


6. Diverse Outgrowths. Throughout its long his- 
tory the conception of the Messiah became the sub- 
ject of a variety of side developments, some of which 
are mere variants of the same fundamental type, and 
some are mutually exclusive. Of the latter class are 
the contradictory ideas, on the one hand, that the 
Messiah was Himself to be the deliverer of the 
people, and, on the other, that He was to be only 
the king who should rule it after it was delivered; 
alse the view, on the one hand, that He was to 
deliver through His sufferings (carrying out the 
thought of Is 52 13-53 12), and, on the other, that He 
was to reign in glory. That a preparation should be 
made for Him was commonly accepted. Malachi’s 
‘messenger of Jehovah’ and the second appearance 
of Elijah furnished the ground for this. The signs 
immediately preceding and ushering in His reign 
were to include the dolores (ddiva:) Messiw, a phrase 
that refers, not to the experiences of the Messiah 
Himself, but to the experiences of the world in 
preparation for His coming; namely, the convulsions 
in nature and society foreshadowed in prophetic 
passages, such as Joel 2 28-32. 


7. N T Messianism. In the N T Jesus of Nazareth 
is identified as the Messiah (Mt 1616, 20; Lk 4 18; Ac 
2 36, 10 38), and is uniformly called ‘the Christ.’ 
What Jesus Himself thought the Messiahship was 
must be learned partly from His use of the title 
‘Son of Man’ as His own self-designation. By the 
choice of this title He excluded from the Messiah’s 
character the main elements of the popular ideal, 7.e., 
that of a conquering hero, who would exalt Israel 
above the heathen, and through such exclusion He 
seemed to fail to realize the older Scriptural concep- 
tion. The failure, however, was only apparent and 
temporary. For in the second coming in glory He 
was to achieve this work. Accordingly, His disciples 
recognized a twofoldness in His Messiahship: (1) 
They saw realized in His past life the ideal Servant 
of Jehovah, and spiritual Messiah, the Christ who 
teaches and suffers for the people, and (2) they 
looked forward to the realization of the Davidic and 
conquering Messiah in His second coming.in power 
and glory to conquer the nations and reign over 
them. But Jewish and Christian ideals part from 
each other at this point. 

8. Later Jewish Messianism. The later Jewish 
Messianic ideal was differentiated upon the ground 


Metals 
Micah, Book of 


of this distinction. Under the influence of the N T 
departure, Jewish thought took up the idea of a 
dying Messiah, but put it into a preparatory 
character (Mashiah ben-Joseph), who was to give 
his life in the defense of the nation as a warrior, 
but with no reference to sin or atonement. His death 
would simply pave the way for the second Messiah, 
the Everlasting King (Mashiah ben-David). Cf. 

Dalman, Der leidende u. sterbende Messias, 1888. 
9. Christian Messianism. The Christian idea, on 

the other hand, took into itself all the spiritual ele- 

ments of the Hebrew thought as revealed in the O T, 

blended them into a unity, grouped them under the 

one head of anointing from above, and traced them 
to Jesus, who was thenceforth considered preemi- 
nently the Anointed. With the Greek name ‘Christ’ 
the conception passed from its Jewish to its uni- 
versally human stage. See also EscHarotoay, §§ 

28, 33 f. 

LirprRaturReE: Drummond, The Jewish Messiah (1877); von 
Orelli, O T Prophecy (Eng. transl. 1885); Stanton, The 
Jewish and Christian Messiah (1886); Briggs, Messianic 
Prophecy (1886); Riehm, Messianic Prophecy (Eng. 
transl. 1891); Delitzsch, Messianic Prophecies in Historic 
Succession (Eng. transl. 1891); Volz, Die vorexilische 
Jahweprophetie u. d. Messias (1897). Mathews, The 
Messianic Hope in the N T (1907); Dougall and Emmet, 
The Lord of Thought (1922). AV CAT 
METALS: 1. Gold. The geological strata of Syria 

and Palestine being of recent sedimentary formation 
are wanting in metals. A limited amount of brown 
and granular iron ore is found, but the nature of the 
formation forbids the presence of other metals, 
which consequently were known to the Israelites 
only through importation from outside. Gold 
(zahabh, poetical harits, kethem, paz) finds mention 
in the earliest times. It came into Palestine chiefly 
through the agency of the Phenicians (Ezk 27 22). 
Arabian merchants brought it to the market of Tyre 
from Sheba and Ra‘ma. Solomon is said to have ob- 
tained it through the expeditions of his navy to 
Ophir. It was used for gilding the roofs, walls, and 
doors of palaces and temples, for plating idols, for 
all kinds of vessels, bowls, and cups, for ornamenta- 
tion, etc. Minted gold coins were unknown in pre- 
exilic days, but bars, round, flat disks, rings, and 
wedges (cf. Jos 7 21) of gold were in use, as media of 
exchange. 

It is evident that the Israelites learned how to 
work gold at an early date, since the oldest prophetic 
writings contain many figures of speech derived 
from the goldsmith’s art. Gold and silver were 
‘refined’ (tsdraph) by melting, 7.e., the dross was 
separated from the pure metal. To hasten the 
purifying process use was made of an alkali (b6r, 
Is 1 25). We find mention made of a number of the 
instruments and utensils of the goldsmith, viz., the 
hammer, the anvil, tongs, chisel, graving tool, bel- 
lows, crucible, and melting-oven. That they under- 
stood soldering is clear from Is 41 7, while other 
passages show that they knew how to smooth and 
polish the metal. They were also acquainted with 
the art of plating metals, an industry always of great 
importance in Western Asia. In Ex 28 6 ff. we read 
of small threads, which evidently were cut from thin 
gold-plate, being woven into expensive cloth. 

2. Silver. Far more common was the use of silver 








A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


576 


(keseph), which also probably was brought into the 
country by the Phenicians, who obtained it from 
the mines of Tarshish, 7.e., Spain. From the earliest 
times it served as a medium of exchange, altho not in 
the form of coins, but of bars, which were weighed. 
Silver was put to much the same use as gold, e.g., 
for decorating palaces and sanctuaries, for idols, for 
musical instruments, etc. 


3. Bronze. Of almost greater importance was the 
Cyprian bronze (es Cyprium), t.e., copper (n*hd- 
sheth). Since pure native copper was found but 
rarely in the countries known to the ancients, the ore 
had first to be smelted (cf. Job 28 2). Through this 
process it was discovered that, if the copper was 
alloyed, especially with tin, it became nearly as 
hard as steel. Such alloyed copper was called brass 
(nthésheth). From this were made pots, cups, pans, 
ladles, knives, etc. (Ex 38 3; Lv 6 21; Nu 16 39 [17 4]; 
Jer 52 18). Of the same metal weapons were also 
made: helmets, coats of mail, greaves, coverings for 
the legs, and shields (I 8 17 5 £., 38); spear tips and 
bows (II S 21 16, 22 35); also chains (Jg 16 21) and 
mirrors (Ex 38 8; Job 87 18). Great quantities of 
brass were used in the construction of the Temple: 
the altar and its network, the basins, the sea that 
rested on twelve brazen oxen, the two pillars that 
stood before the Temple, etc.—all were of brass 
(II Ch 41). That Solomon had to employ the Tyrian 
Huram-abi (Hiram) to cast these things shows that 
as late as the period of the early Kingdom the Israel- 
ites were still ignorant of the art of casting the metal. 
They learned it from the Phenicians. 


4. Iron. Iron (barzel) was not equal in importance 
to brass. Israel became acquainted with it somewhat 
late. Their knowledge was gained probably through 
the Philistines, who had long known how to work 
the metal, and even in the early times had possessed 
chariots protected with iron (cf: IS 13 19-22). As 
peasants the Hebrews had been accustomed to make 
their own clothing, utensils, weapons, etc., as is 
partly the case in Palestine to-day. In the cities 
division of labor first took place, and only in these 
could craftsmen exist at a time when trade was so 
little developed. The raw material was brought in 
by Tyrians, mainly from Spain, tho it was also found 
in the Lebanon range (Jer 11 4; Dt 4 20,89; I K 8 51). 
Out of iron the blacksmiths (hardshé habbarzel) 
made axes and hatchets (Dt 19 5; II K 6 5), sickles, 
knives, swords, and spears (I S 177), bars (Is 45 2), 
chains and fetters (Ps 105 18, 107 10), nails, hoes, and 
pens (Jer 171; Job 19 24). Iron was also used for 
plows, threshing-wagons, and sledges (Am 1 3; 
I8 13 20; 11S 12 31). 

5. Tin. Tin (bedhil) was brought by the Pheni- 
cians from Tarshish (Ezk 27 12). It seems to have 
been used almost entirely as the alloy with which to 
harden copper. 

6. Lead. Lead (‘dphereth) was also brought in by 
Phenicians in connection with their naval expedi- 
tions to Tarshish (Ezk 27 12; cf. Pliny, III, 7). The 
metal came mainly, however, from the so called Tin 
Islands (the Cassiterides), usually identified with 
the coast of Cornwall, which still constitutes the 
main source of tin and lead for Europe (cf. Pliny, 
IV, 36; VII, 57). According to Job 19 24, lead was 


577 A NEW STANDARD 


used for monumental tablets. In Am 77 we read 
of the plummet of lead. From Ezk 22 20 it may be 
inferred that the use of lead as an alloy was known to 
the ancients. W. N.—L. B. P. 
METE-YARD. See WEIGHTS AND Mrasurgs, § 2. 
METHEG-AMMAH, mi’’fheg-am’a (TST Wp), 
methegh ha’ammah), ‘the bridle of the mother-city’ 
(so RV): The text where this term occurs (II § 8 1) 
is difficult, if not corrupt, and the.Greek versions 
give no help. The meaning seems to be that David 
captured the Philistine metropolis. Most expositors 


have felt it necessary to find here an equivalent for 
Gath and its towns. Oat. Fed > 

METHUSAEL, mi-thu’sa-el. See MrmruusHAEgL. 

METHUSELAH, me-thu’si-la (M2WIN), m°thi- 
shelah), ‘man of the dart’; perhaps a variation of a 
Babylonian name, ‘man of Shelah’ (the name of a 
deity): A Sethite, the father of Lamech (Gn 5 25) = 
Methushael in the Cainite genealogy (Gn 4 18); in 
Lk 3 27 AV Mathusala. LBhate pial fie 

METHUSHAEL, mu-thi’sho-el (NYIND, m- 
thisha@’él, Methusael AV): One of the antediluvian 
patriarchs in the Cainite list (Gn 4 18), corresponding 
to Methuselah of the Sethite list (5 21). The name 
is Babylonian, meaning ‘man of God.’ See ME- 
THUSELAH. HK. K.N. 

MEUNIM, m-i’/nim (O'7YP, me‘iinim, Me- 
hunim AV): A tribe residing to the S. of Judah, near 
Edom, probably to be identified with the Arabians 
of Ma‘dn. It is first mentioned in Jg 10 12 (under 
the name Maonites), as an ancient enemy of Israel. 
In the days of Jehoshaphat the M. joined with 
Moabites and others in an unsuccessful attack on 
Judah (II Ch 201; cf. RVmg.). Later, Uzziah had 
trouble with them (II Ch 267). In Hezekiah’s day 
they suffered severely at the hands of the Simeonites 
(I Ch 4 41 RV). It may be that descendants of 
captive Meunim are referred to in Ezr 2 50 = Neh 7 52. 
Recently, it has been thought by some that the pre- 
ceding passages (except the last) refer to the N. 
Arabian Minzans, but the reasons given are in- 
conclusive. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, 
§ 11. EK. E.N. 

MEZAHAB, mez’a-hab (AP, mézahabh), ‘wa- 
ters of gold’ (?): The grandfather of Mehetabel 
(Gn 36 39; I Ch 1 50). 

MEZOBAITE, mi-zd’ba-ait (M22, m*tsdbha- 
yah, Mesobaite AV): An obscure term designa- 
ting, apparently, the home of Jaasiel (I Ch 11 47). 
The text is probably corrupt. 

MIAMIN, mai’a-min. See M1JAmiM. 

MIBHAR, mib-hadr (1925, mibhhar): One of 
David’s heroes (I Ch 11 38), but in the |] (IS 
23 36) we read ‘of Zobah’ (very similar in Heb. 
letters to Mibhar), which is probably the true text. 

MIBSAM, mib’som (9029, mibhsém): 1. An 
Ishmaelite clan (Gn 2513; I Ch 1 29). See Ern- 
NOGRAPHY AND ErHNnouoay, § 13. 2. A clan of 
Simeon (I Ch 4 25). Curiously, in both cases after 
Mibsam a Mishma is mentioned, indicating a 
possible connection between Simeonite and Ish- 
maelite clans. H. BE. N. 


Metals 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Micah, Book of 


MIBZAR, mib’zGr (1¥22, mibhisdr): A clan- 
chieftain, probably a clan also, of Edom (Gn 36 42; 
I Ch 153). It may be also a place-name. 


MICA, mai’ka, MICAH, mai’ka, MICAIAH, 
mai-ké’ya (HIND, mikhdyah[a], also 4722’, mi- 
khay*ht, "2°?, mikhah, and in some MSS. 89’), 
mikha’; cf. Oxf. Heb. Lex.): A name very common 
in the O T, from mi, ‘who,’ kh, ‘like,’ and Yah, 
‘Jehovah,’ ‘who is like J’’,’ abbreviated often to 
Mica, but more usually to Micah and Micaiah. 

I. Mica (Micha AV). 1. A Levite, the son of 
Zichri (I Ch 915). 2. The son of Mephibosheth, see 
below II, 3. 3. One of the signatories of the cov- 
enant with Nehemiah (Neh 10 11). 4. The son of 
Zabdi, a Levite (Neb 11 17, the same as 3 ?). 

II. Micah. 1. An Ephraimite (Jg 171 ff.), who re- 
stored some money he had stolen from his mother. 
This money was then dedicated to the service of J’’, 
and spent in the making of a graven image and the 
employment of a Levite priest, both ultimately 
taken from Micah by the Danites. 2. A son of 
Joel, the head of a family of Reubenites (I Ch 5 5). 
3. A great-grandson of Saul through Mephibosheth 
(Meribbaal) (II S 9 12; I Ch 8 34; ef, I, 2, above). 
4. The son of Uzziel, a Kohathite priest (I Ch 23 
20). 5. The father of Achbor (or Abdon) (II K 22 
12; II Ch 34 20; see III, 2, below). 6. The Morash- 
tite prophet Micah (Mic 1 1; see Micau, Book oF). 

III. Micaiah (Michaiah AV). 1. The son of 
Imlah (I K 22 8 f.; II Ch 18 2 f.), a prophet of the 
time of Ahab, who was summoned at the request 
of Jehoshaphat to Samaria, and there foretold the 
impending defeat of Ahab at Ramoth Gilead. For 
this he was put into prison. 2. The father of Ach- 
bor (II K 22 12, the same as II, 5, above). 3. One 
of the princes sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the 
people (II Ch 177). 4. A priest, father of Mattaniah 
(Neh 12 35). 5. Son of Gemariah, a leading man 
of Judah in the days of Jehoiakim (Jer 36 11, 13). 
6. The mother of Abijah, King of Judah (II Ch 18 2), 
and daughter of Uriel, but in II Ch 11 20, ‘the daugh- 
ter of Absalom’ (I K 15 2, ‘Abishalom’), called 
Maacah. AaGea: 


MICAH, BOOK OF: One of the minor prophetic 
writings of the O T. 

1. The Prophet. The personality of the author of 
this book, like those of most of the minor prophets, 
is hidden in obscurity. He was a resident of Mor- 
esheth-Gath, an obscure town in Judah, and bore 
the very common name of Micaiah (see Mica, I, 
6). The time in which his prophetic ministry 
falls is given as ‘the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and 
Hezekiah,’ or between 745 and 700 B.c. In the 
early part of this period, the Northern Kingdom 
was still standing, but the signs of its downfall were 
in clear view, and Micah joined with Hosea and 
Amos in denouncing its sins. His mission, however, 
was not to the Northern Kingdom alone, but also 
to the Southern, and he views the sins of both 
kingdoms as summed up and brought to their cli- 
max in the capital cities of Samaria and Jerusalem 
respectively (1 5). 

2. Divisions and Contents. The Book of Micah 
is usually divided into three sections, each introduced 


Micah, Book of 


Miletus A NEW STANDARD 





with the formula ‘Hear ye.’ I. The first section 
comprises the first two chapters of the book, and 
begins by describing the coming of J’’ for judgment 
upon Samaria and Jerusalem (1 1-9). This visitation 
is figured under the image of the march of a devastat- 
ing army through the country (110-16). It is a judg- 
ment based on violence and greed of the wealthy, 
who do not scruple to crush the poor and defenseless 

(2 1-13). II. The second section (chs. 3-5) opens 

with a repetition of the charges against the lead- 

ers of the people, enumerating judges, priests, and 
prophets as guilty of avarice and injustice. For 

these sins Zion should be ‘plowed asa field’ (3 1-12). 

But the prophet looks forward to the effect of the 

chastisement of the nation as it shall come in a grand 

Messianic age of restoration and comfort (4 1-5 1), 

and goes on to picture the Deliverer, who is to issue 

from the house of David, even tho this house had 
been compelled by adversity to withdraw into its 
rural domain of Bethlehem (5 2-15). III. The third 
section is a simple series of exhortations to repen- 

tance and warnings against sin (chs. 6, 7). 

3. Critical Questions. The foregoing outline, 
however, follows the thought of the book only in a 
very general way, overleaping certain abrupt transi- 
tions and serious obscurities. Upon the basis of 
these it has been argued that the book is not a unit. 
Moreover, the allusion in 4 10 to Babylon seems 
meaningless as addressed to the generation of 745 
to 700 B.c. If the name Babylon has been substi- 
tuted for another in the process of copying, this only 
illustrates the corruption of the text throughout the 
book. Chs. 6 and 7 also fit better into the age of 
Manasseh than into the last quarter of the 8th cent. 
B.c. In fact, in 7 7-20 signs of a postexilic date have 
been discerned, such as the scattering of the exiles 
far and wide through the world (7 12), the expectation 
that the walls of Jerusalem will be rebuilt (7 11), ete. 
All that can be said safely is that chs. 1-3 are cer- 
tainly the work of Micah, and that the rest of the 
book has been more or less subjected to editorial 
revision, and to the incorporation of fragments of a 
later date. 

LirgRATURE: Driver, LOT ®, pp. 325 ff.; Cornill, Introd. 
(Eng. transl. 1907); Ryssel, Untersuch. tiber die Tezxigestalt 
u. die Echtheit d. Buches micha (1887); Cheyne, Micah (in 
Camb. Bible) (21895); G. A. Smith, in The Expositor’s Bible, 
The Book of the Twelve Prophets, I (1896); A. J. Tait, The 
Prophecy of Micah (1917); R. F. Horton, in New Century 
Bible. A. C. Z. 


MICE. See Movuss. 
MICHA, mai’kd. See Mica. 


MICHAEL, mai’ka-el (739°2, mikha’al), ‘who is 
like God’: 1. The father of Sethur, one of the Spies 
(Nu 13 13). 2. Two Gadites (I Ch 513 f.). 3. A 
Levite (I Ch 6 40); 4. A man of Issachar (I Ch 7 3). 
5. A Benjamite (I Ch 816). 6. A Manassite (I Ch 12 
20). 7. The father of Omri one of David’s officials 
(I Ch 27 18). 8. A son of Jehoshaphat (II Ch 21 2). 
9. The father of Zebadiah (Ezr 8 8). 10. M. the 
Archangel. See ANGEL, § 4. 


MICHAIAH, mai-ké’yd. See Mica, III. 


MICHAL, mai’kel (72"2, mikhal, an abbreviated 
form of ‘Michael’): The name of the younger daugh- 
ter of Saul, the only instance where the name is given 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


578 


to a woman. Her first appearance presents her as 
anxious to become the wife of David. This is an 
unparalleled instance in the Bible of a woman 
openly avowing her love for a man and her desire 
to marry him (I § 18 19-21). Saul’s remark upon 
deciding to abet her desire indicates that he judged 
her to be a person of peculiar disposition. When she 
next appears it is in a ruse by which she saves the 
life of her husband (IS 1912f.). The third time she 
is mentioned itis as restored to David (II 8 3 13), 
and the last, as a mocker of his uncontrolled en- 
thusiasm in a religious dance (II S 616). ‘Michal’ 
in II S 21 8 is evidently a mistaken reading for 
‘Merab’ (q.v.). A. C. Z. 
MICHMAS, mik’mes (222, mikhmas): The 
form in Ezr 2 27= Neh 7 31 of a name which is spelled 
elsewhere as in the next article. C. S22. 


MICHMASH, mik’mash (¥239, mikhmas [not 
WiI2, mikhmash, as generally read]): A place in Ben- 
jamin, 7 m. N. of Jerusalem, the modern Mukhmdas, 
2,000 ft. above sea-level on the hill, N. of the narrow 
and deep Wddy es-Suwénit, a part of the pass which 
leads from Bethel on the table-land of Ephraim down 
to Jericho. Jonathan had driven the Philistines 
from Geba (IS 13 3) on the height 8. of this pass, and 
with Saul and their followers had encamped there, 
over against the Philistines in Michmash (I § 13 16). 
The valley between is called the ‘pass of Michmash’. 
([S 18 23). This height is represented by Isaiah as 
being taken by the Assyrians in his prophetic descrip- 
tion of the coming attack on Jerusalem (Is 10 28). 
By descending from Geba and ascending the south- 
ern side of Michmash, Jonathan and his armor- 
bearer surprized the Philistines and put them to 
flight (I S 141#., cf. Driver, HTS [21913], p. 106, 
with map of the region). After the Captivity mem- 
bers of the Jewish community lived in M. (Ezr 2 
27; Neh 7 31, 11 31). It was the residence of Jona- 
than Maccabeus, 156-152 B.c. (I Mac 973). Map 
III, F 5. Co Sisk 

MICHMETHAH, mik’mi-tha (19921), hammikh- 
m*thah): The article shows it is not a proper name, 
but an appellative. A place on the border between 
Ephraim and Manasseh, E. of Shechem (Jos 17 7, 
16 6), not yet identified. LOA oi Be 

MICHRI, mik’rai (12, mikhri): A Benjamite 
(I Ch 98). 

MICHTAM, mik’tam. See Psaus, § 3. 

MIDDIN, mid’din (]"1), middin): A city in the 
wilderness of Judah (Jos 15 61). Site unknown. 

MIDIAN, mid’i-an, MIDIANITES, mid’i-an-aits: 
According to Gn 25 2, 177, midhydn, was one of the 
sons of Abraham by Keturah, 7.e., Midian was one of 
a number of tribes in NW. Arabia who were sup- 
posed to be closely related and descended from a more 
remote ancestral tribe, Keturah. A variant tradi- 
tion (Jg 8 24) classes them as Ishmaelites. And in 
the story of Joseph he is sold, according to J, to 
Ishmaelites (Gn 37 25-27, 28b), but in E the Midianites 
carry Joseph to Egypt (Gn 37 28a, 36). The refer- 
ences to the Midianites in the O T all imply the same 
general locality, NW. Arabia, as their home, altho 
they seem to be viewed as made up of a number of 


579 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Micah, Book of 
Miletus 





clans (Gn 25 4) who ranged over a wide extent of 
country, from the region E. of the Sinaitic Peninsula 
(Ex 2 15 f.) northward as far as the territory E. of 
Gilead (Nu ch. 22; Jg ch. 6f.). The references reflect 
popular views of different periods. In Moses’ day the 
relations between Israel and Midian were most 
friendly. It was among a small tribe or clan of these 
people that Moses found refuge when he fled from 
Pharaoh, and one of the daughters or Reuel or 
Jethro, the ‘priest’ and chief of the clan became his 
wife (Ex 2 16 ff.). This same person Jethro (or his 
son?), called also Hobab (Nu 10 29 #.; Jg 116, 411), is 
also called a Kenite, so that the Kenites were pos- 
sibly a Midianite clan. When the Israelites were 
dwelling in Moabite territory the attitude of the Mid- 
ianites, according to one line of tradition, was hos- 
tile (Nu 22 4,7, 25 15, 18), tho the story in Nu ch. 31 is 


certainly of no historical value (cf. Gray in ICC, ad 


loc). This hostility manifested itself again in later 
years after Israel had gained possession of Canaan 
(Jg chs. 6-8). The Midianites are variously repre- 
sented as a peaceful pastoral people (Ex 2 16 ff.), as 
traveling merchants (Gn 37 28, 36), and as marauding 
Bedouin (Jg chs. 6-8). In all this there is nothing in- 
consistent with the well-known habits of large 
Arabian tribes. They seem to have lost their iden- 
tity at an early period. Cf. Skinner on Genesis in 
ICC (p. 349 f.) and see ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETH- 
NoLoey, § 11. E. E. N. 


MIDWIFE: In the Orient the help of a medical 


expert is not always required at childbirth, the place | 


of the physician being taken either by experienced 
women relatives or friends, or by a special class of 
semiprofessionals called ‘midwives.’ In ancient 
times this class must have been even more exten- 
sively resorted to (Gn 365 17, 38 28; Ex 1 15 ff.) than 
is the case at present. A. C. Z. 


MIGDAL-EL, mig’dol-al’”’ (89°29, mighdal’él)) 
‘tower of God’: A city of Naphtali (Jos 19 38). Site 
unknown. 

MIGDAL-GAD, mig’dol-gad” (F229, mighdal- 
gadh), ‘tower of Gad’: A city of Judah, in the Sheph- 
elah (Jos 15 37), which has not been identified. 
There is a Mejdel about 214m. NE. of Ashkelon, with 
foundations, cisterns, and rock tombs. Caer: 

MIGDOL, mig’dol (71722, 2529, mighddl), 
‘tower’: The name of one or more ih tee in Egypt 
where there was a fortress. We should use the mar- 
ginal reading of Ezk 29 10, 30 6, where Migdol is on 
the northern boundary of Egypt. Jewish refugees 
were found in M. and in two other frontier cities. 
The best-known M. (Gr. Mé&y3wdoc) was 12 m. S. of 
Pelusium. Probably another M. is mentioned in Ex 
14 2; Nu 337, near the border of Egypt, where the 
Tsraclites left ‘the country. Cia be 

MIGHTY MEN. See Man. 

MIGHTY ONE: This term is a rendering of (1) 
gibbér, a human being of exceptional physical 
stature and strength (Gn 10 8; Jer 46 5; J1 3 11); (2) 
’addir, ‘honorable,’ of a superhuman being (Is 10 34); 
(3) "El, ‘God’ (Ezk 31 11); (4) ’abbir Jg 5 22, AV 
‘strong ones,’ RV); (5) tsdr, ‘rock’ (Is 30 29 AY). 

MIGHTY WORK, See Wonp:ER. 


MIGRON, mig’ren (J1112, mighrdn): 1. The name 
of the place where Saul encamped in or near Geba 
(IS 142). It should probably be translated ‘thresh- 
ing-floor.’ 2. A place between Aiath and Michmash, 
on the line of march the prophet lays out for the 
approach of the Assyrian army (Is 10 28). It is per- 
haps the modern ruin Makrin, N. of Michmash. 
Map III, F 5. CoS. 

MIJAMIN, mij’a-min (1%), mayyamin): 1. The 
ancestral head of one of the great priestly families, 
constituting the sixth course of priests. The term 
is also used for representatives of this family (I Ch 
24 9; Neh 107, 12 5. Miniamin in vs. 17 and 41). 
2. One of the ‘sons of Parosh’ (Ezr 10 25, Miamin 
AV). EK. E.N. 

MIKLOTH, mik’loth (Mi2P2, migléth): 1. The 
ancestor of a Benjamite family living near Gibeon 
(I Ch 8 32, 9 37 f.). 2. An officer under David (I 
Ch 27 4). : 

MIKNEIAH, mik-ni’ya (222), migqnéyaha): 
Levite musician (I Ch 15 18, 21). 

MILALAI, mil’a-lai (22, mildlay): A Levite 
musician (Neh 12 36). 

MILCAH, mil’ka (7320, milkah), ‘queen’: 1. 
Counted as a daughter of Haran and wife of Haran’s 
brother Nahor; but according to the genealogical 
mode of writing history, hernameinreality represents 
a tribe. Such amalgamations are probably repre- 
sented by these references: Gn 11 29, 22 20, 23, 
24 15, 24, 47. 2. One of the ‘daughters of Zelophehad’ 
(Nu 26 33, 27 1, 36 11; Jos 17 3). In fact, these 
‘daughters’ were towns. Milcah has not been 
identified (see ZELOPHEHAD) K. EK. N. 


MILCOM, mil’kem. See Semitic Retiaion, 
§ 25. 


MILDEW. The rendering of yéradqdn, ‘paleness’ 
(fr. y@raq, ‘to be green’), always in conjunction with 
shiddaphon, ‘blasting’ (from the heat) (Dt 28 22; 
I K 8 37; IL Ch 6 28; Am 49; Hag 2 17). 


MILE. See Wercurs anD Mrasurss, § 2. 


MILETUS, mai-li-tos (Mi\ntoc, Miletum in IT Ti 
4 20 AV): A town on the Carian coast of Asia Minor 
It was colonized by Ionian Greeks under Neleus. 
At an early period it became a flourishing seaport 
and commercial center, its ships visiting every part 
of the Mediterranean and particularly the Euxine 
Sea, on the coasts of which it founded seventy-five 
cities. After the Persian victory off the island of 
Lade (494), Miletus was sacked, its male citizens 
slain, the rest transported to Susa and Ampe (at 
the mouth of the Tigris). Later, it regained some 
of its prosperity. In 479 it joined the Athenian 
league, from which it afterward revolted, and 
defeated the Athenian fleet off Miletus in 412. It 
was captured by Aléxander in 334, from which time 
its importance waned, tho in the time of Paul it had 
recovered some propserity. It did not cease to 
exist until several centuries after Christ. It was here 
that the Apostle bade farewell to the elders of the 
Ephesian Church (Ac 20 15-17), and at a later visit 
left behind his companion Trophimus (II Ti 4 20). 
The alluvial silt deposited by the Meander has 


Milk 


Miracles A NEW STANDARD 





changed the whole coast line of the Latmic Gulf 
(now an inland lake), so that the fever-stricken site 
of Miletus (now Palatia) is several miles inland. 
Extensive excavations have been made on the site 
by the Germans, and several inscriptions of great 
interest have come to light. The most striking ruin 
is the open theater (largest in Asia Minor). Ruins 
also of the Town-Hall and the Delphinium have 
been unearthed. J.R.S.8.#—S. A. 


MILK. See Foon, § 6. 


MILL, MILLSTONE: In olden times the mill 
(réhayim, late Heb. t*hén, tahdndh) was an indis- 
pensable household utensil. Since the meal needed 
for baking was prepared daily, the sound of the mill 
was heard regularly wherever there was a dwelling 
(Jer 25 10; Ee 12 4). The mill consisted of two 
stones of heavy porous basalt, 17-19 ins. in diameter, 
and when new about 4 ins. thick. The lower stone 
(pelah tahtith, Job 41 24 [16]), which was generally 
extra hard and somewhat convex on top, had in the 
middle a small round peg of very hard wood. The 
upper stone 
(pelah re- 
khebh, Jg 9 63, 
or simply 
rekhebh, 1.e., 
‘rider,’ Dt 24 
6) was con- 
cave on the 
under side. 
It had in the 
middle a fun- 
nel-shaped 
hole in which 
the peg of 
the lower 
stone fitted 
loosely. Into 
this hole the 
grain. for 
grinding was 
poured. The 
upper stone 
was revolved 
by means of an upright pin near the rim. The 
grinding was done usually by female slaves (Ex 
11 5; Is 47 2), probably also by prisoners (Jg 16 
21; La 513). The meal, which poured out at the 
rim of the lower stone, was gathered in a cloth 
spread out under the mill. Whether anything like 
the durra mill of the Arabs was used by the Isra- 
elites in Palestine is doubtful, tho probably this 
may have been the case when they lived in the 
desert. This mill consisted of two stones, the lower 
concave, the upper one round. The grain was shaken 
into the lower stone and crushed by the rolling of 
the upper one. In later times, large mills worked 
by an ass came into use (cf. the wbroc bvixbc¢ of 
Mt 18 6). W. N..—L. B. P. 

MILLET. See Pauestine, § 23. 

MILLO, mil’s (817%, milla’): 1. The Millo (always 
with the Rr Hiitay in Jerusalem, seems originally to 
have been a part of the Jebusite fortifications of 
Zion, the H. hill of Jerusalem (II S 59=I Ch 11 8). 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 





Women Grinding Meal with a Mill. 


580 


If the word is Hebrew, it apparently means a ‘fill [of 
earth],’ and referred to some important earthwork 
guarding the N. approach to the citadel. This ‘fill’ 
was extended by David and Solomon (II 8 59; IK 
915). See also JERUSALEM, § 20, and cf. the report of 
Excavations on Ophel in PEFQ, April, 1924. 2. 
The house of Millo (‘Beth-millo’ ARVmg.). An 
unknown place (or family?) near Shechem (Jg 9 6, 
20). Itis possibly the same as ‘the tower of Shechem’ 
(Jg 947f.). 3. The house of Millo, where Joash was 
slain (II K 12 20), was presumably in Jerusalem and 
connected with 1, above. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


MINA. See Money, I, 1. 
MIND. See Man, Docrrine or, § 9. 


MINE, MINING: The term ’mine’ (referring to 
metals) is used in EV but once (Job 28 1 vein AV). 
Here it renders méts@’, ‘outgoing.’ For the knowl- 
edge and use of metals among the Hebrews, see ~ 


METALS. 


MINGLED PEOPLE: The rendering of the Heb. 
‘érebh (from ‘dGrabh, ‘to mix’) in I K 1015; Jer 25 20, 
24, 50 37; Ezk 
30 5. The 
same word 
is rendered 
mixed multi- 
tude in Ex 12 
38 and Neh 
13 3. In Ex 
12 38 the ref- 

: i Y\\ =a erence is to 
2 “ie 4 Wg G i (ea the non-Isra- 
we N ee h elite people 
of uncertain 
or mixed de- 
scent who ac- 
companied 
the Israelites 
in the Exo- 
dus from 
Egypt. In 
Jer 25 20 and 
Ezk 305, the 
mixed popu- 
lations of, or dependent upon, Egypt are meant. In 
Jer 50 37 the various nationalities represented in 
Babylon are intended. The reading in Jer 25 24 
is probably a late gloss, while in I K 10 15 ‘kings 
of Arabia’ should probably be read (according to 
the || in II Ch 9 14). K.E.N. 


MINIAMIN, min‘i-a-min (2219, minydamin): 
1. A Levite Radar Hezekiah (II Ch 31 15). 2. See 
Miyamin, 1. 


MINISTER, MINISTRY: In the O T the nouns 
‘minister’ and ‘ministry’ are usually used in the re- 
ligious sphere. The Heb. verb sharath, rendered 
‘minister,’ means ‘to serve,’ but is rarely used of the 
service of slaves. A ‘minister’ was thus one who 
‘served’ in attendance on the sanctuary, whether a 
priest or one of the lower orders. See Cudrcu, §§ 6 
and 7; and Synaacoa, § 2. K. E. N. 


MINNI, min’ai (2, minni): A kingdom men- 
tioned in connection with those of Ararat and Ash- 


581 


kenaz by Jeremiah in his denunciation of Babylon 
(Jer 51 27). The Minni of this passage corresponds to 
the Manné of the Assyrian inscriptions. The king- 
dom lay between the lakes of Urumiah and Van. 
The people were probably Indo-Europeans, and 
closely related to the Medes. Their capital was 
Zirtu, or Izirtu. The later Assyrian kings frequently 
invaded this territory, but held it with difficulty. 
Je fin Ke 
MINNITH, min‘ith (29, minnith): The north- 
ernmost city taken during Jephtha’s Ammonite 
campaign (Jg 1133). Its exact situation is unknown, 
but could scarcely be so far 8. or W. as the PHF map 
indicates. If the text of Ezk 27 17 is correct (but see 
Davidson, in Camb. Bible), M. was famous for its 
wheat. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


MINSTREL: This term is applied to professional 


musicians (aJAnths, Mt 9 23 AV, but ‘flute-players’ 
RV) employed at funerals (cf. MourRNING AND 
Mournine Customs, § 5). In more ancient usage, 
minstrelsy (cf. m’naggén, ‘player’ [‘minstrel’ EV], 
from nagan, ‘to play,’ e.g., a harp [as inI § 16 16], 
II K 3 15) was associated with the art of divination, 
furnishing an accompaniment of plaintive melody 
to the process of self-excitation. See Music anp 
Musicau INSTRUMENTS, § 2 (b). Ae 2: 


MINT. See PaLestine, § 23; and Trrue. 


MIPHKAD, mif’kad, GATE OF. See Jmrusa- 
LEM, § 38. 


MIRACLES. 1. Meaning of the Term. The 
development of thought in the twentieth century 
has notably influenced the general attitude toward 
miracles. New and less dogmatic interpretations of 
nature and of natural law; wider knowledge of the 
history of religions, with a new understanding of its 
psychological development; fuller appreciation of 
the distinction between fact and value and the rela- 
tive significance of each for religion have done much 
to justify the statement of Prof. Samuel Harris, in 
1887, with respect to the objection to miracles as 
interrupting the uniformity of nature. ‘To this ob- 
jection,’ he said, ‘there are four answers. It is 
founded on erroneous ideas as to what a miracle is; of 
what God is; of what nature is; and, lastly, of what 
the universe is.’ (The Self-Revelation of God, p. 
477.) 

Understanding of this newer attitude will be 
aided by an examination of the content of the general 
term miracle. Its etymology has done not a little 
both to obscure and restrict its real meaning. 

Miracle, then is a general term used to designate 
a certain group of phenomena of human experience 
all of which contain three elements which may 
roughly be characterized respectively as the scien- 
tific, the psychological, and the logical. Unless an 
event includes all three of these elements it can not, 
except in a loose sense, be called a miracle. 

(a) Scientific Element. The first element is es- 
sentially negative in character. The event is un- 
usual, extra-ordinary. It appears as something 
different from the usual and expected phenomena of 
human experience, a divergence from the ‘uni- 
formity of nature’ as observed. Its positive inter- 
pretation as intrinsically super-natural does not rest 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Milk 
Miracles 


on the character of the event itself; but on the logical 
element in its interpretation, The overstress on the 
intrinsic non-naturalness, unpredictability, of the 
event has brought confusion into much of past dis- 
cussion of miracles. Both the proponents and the 
opponents of this idea have found themselves as- 
suming omniscience as to the range of human ex- 
perience in respect to the ‘natural’ world. One has 
confidently asserted the known limits of this range, 
and concluded to the intrinsic non-naturalness of 
certain events. The other with equal confidence has 
asserted the known limitlessness of this range and 
concluded to the intrinsic naturalness of all events. 
One is psychologically the child of a prescientific 
age, and the other the child of a scientific age. Psy- 
chologically both can be understood; but logically 
both are guilty of the same fallacy of a presupposed 
omniscience as to the range of human experience. A 
miracle as ‘absolute,’ and a miracle as ‘impossible’ 
are both absolutely impossible judgments, logically. 


(b) Psychological Element. But a miracle is not 
simply an eztra-ordinary event. It isan event which 
produces in the beholder, or in the one who hears of 
it second hand, a characteristic psychological reac- 
tion. It awakens wonder, surprize, perhaps also 
gratitude, fear, self-examination. It is this charac- 
teristic response that has determined the word for 
the event itself. This response is something charac- 
teristically different from curiosity. It does not 
quicken to investigation, but to an attitude akin to 
awe, rising to reverence, which tends to suppress 
rather than invite inquiry. The scientific sophisti- 
cation of our day accustomed to ‘the fairy-tales of 
science’ has tended to diminish the characteristic 
psychic reactions to extraordinary events, and to 
make them more closely approximate intellectual 
curiosity. Whether the tendency, in the presence of 
extraordinary events, to eliminate the reactions of 
awe, reverence, gratitude, self-examination, is or 
is not a mark of spiritual progress it is not necessary 
to discuss. It is only necessary to note the fact. 


(c) Logical Element. The third element included in 
the idea miracle has been called the logical, or pos- 
sibly better the causal or metaphysical. This is 
the explanation, or interpretation, of both the event 
and the psychic reaction to it as indicating some- 
thing, at least, as to the nature of the efficiency by 
which the event is produced. The logic of the super- 
natural explanation seems very simple. All phe- 
nomena of experience are the expression, manifesta- 
tion, explication, of some sort of power. The event 
called a miracle is of such an extraordinary nature, 
and the psychic reaction to it of such a special sort, 
that the power at work, in order adequately to ex- 
plain these effects, must be extraordinary. And 
since the results in both the outer and inner realm 
seem to be superior to those that express themselves 
ordinarily in nature they must be due to a super- 
natural power, a power other than that which works 
uniformly in nature. Such a conclusion suggests 
the dualistic notion of two powers at work in the 
field of human experience, one controlling the usual, 
ordinary, natural sequence of events, and another, 
so far superior to it, that into the natural sequence 
of events are interjected other events which are out 


Miracles 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


582 





of the ordinary, supernatural, unpredictable. 
Whether such a conclusion is logically justifiable it is 
not now purposed to discuss. Attention is called 
simply to the fact that some such explanatory logic 
as this constitutes a characteristic element in the 
group of historic phenomena generalized by the 
word Miracle. In other words the miracle is an 


event interpreted as meaning something with refer- | 


ence to the power by which it is wrought. 


2. Miracles as Facts. That miracles in the sense 
of events in human experience containing these 
scientific, psychological, and logical elements have 
occurred is beyond possible doubt. Human history 
can not be made intelligible without the recognition 
of the influence in it of religion, and the history of 
religion can not be intelligently written without the 
recognition of the occurrence of such events. Just 
how far the occurrence of such events provided the 
original stimulus to the conviction of the existence 
of deity, somehow conceived (Pratt in his ‘Religious 
Consciousness’ calls it ‘ruler of destiny’), which is 
an essential element in the religious consciousness, 
it is impossible to say. That such events have been 
a powerful influence in determining what men have 
thought as to the qualities of deity, and as to what 
correct human attitudes should be toward a deity 
possessing such qualities, can not be denied. 


3. Miracle a Religious Term. It is just this in- 
ference as to the character of deity, and of the 
appropriate personal response, that constitutes 
miracle a positive religious term, as distinguished 
from a negative scientific term. The failure to 
recognize this distinction has brought confusion into 
much, if not most, of the earlier discussion of 
Christian miracles. 

Undoubtedly one of the inferred characteristics of 
the agency effectuating the miracle has been power, 
and a power conceived as great in direct proportion 
to the extraordinariness, non-naturalness, of the 
event. This accounts for the manifest tendency in 
the description of past miracles to magnify the power 
by increasing the extraordinariness of the described 
event, sometimes to the point of grotesqueness, and 
to quicken the play of the mythological imagination, 
as in the case of the apocryphal miracles of Christ’s 
youth. With a somewhat expanded knowledge of 
nature the emphasis on the power of the agent led 
to defining miracle as ‘a violation of the laws of 
nature,’ with the logically infelicitous presupposi- 
tion of human omniscience referred to above. And 
a still more widely expanded knowledge of nature 
has, with a similarly infelicitous logic, led to the 
denial of the occurrence of such events. It can not 
be too strongly emphasized that the significance of 
miracles as a religious, and especially as a Christian 
concept, does not lie solely, or even chiefly, in the 
sheer ‘supernaturalness’ of the event and the more 
or less correct conclusion to the stark power of the 
effectuating agency as divine. Its value asa religious 
concept does not lie in proving the existence of God, 
or the divinity of the agent exhibiting supernatural 
power; but in manifesting the attitude of God, 
already conceived to exist, toward man, and in- 
dicating the consequent response that should be 
made by man toward God. Religion and revelation 


are reciprocal terms. As religious phenomena, 
miracles are not to be viewed as proofs of God; but 
as revelations about God. 

4. Interpretation of Miracles. The modern dis- 
tinction between facts and values, with the meta- 
physical implications of this distinction, with which 
Philosophy and Theology have been so largely con- 
cerned during the past generation, puts the inter- 
pretation of miracles in a new light, and one much 
more in accord with the view of them which appears 
in both the Old and New Testaments. The essential 
question is not as to the precise accuracy of the 
description of the event, or as to the existence of a 
power other than that operating in nature; but as to 
the meaning and value of the event in its bearings 
on the mutual relations of God and man. 

That the appearance of a non-natural event., 7.¢., 
an event outside previous experience, proves the 
operation of a divine, supernatural agency is 
psychologically true—men have widely interpreted 
it that way—but logically false. That the appear- 
ance of a non-natural event, in the above sense, 
proves either the operation of an unknown ‘natural 
law,’ or the unobserved operation of a known ‘law’ 
is, similarly, psychologically true and _ logically 
false. Both rest back on metaphysical presupposi- 
tions as to the nature of ultimate reality, more or 
less religious. From the theistic point of view we 
find a Christian theologian as early as Augustine 
quoted in the first edition of this work! asserting 
the ultimate ‘naturalness’ of miracles. The decision 
turns as Prof. Harris, quoted above, said, on the 
meaning of nature and the meaning of God. That 
uniformity in method of action, as observed by 
men, necessarily follows from the conception of the 
unity of God simply shows paucity of metaphysical 
imagination. Undoubtedly the effort of the older 
theologians to draw accurate distinctions between 
‘providence,’ ‘special providences’ and ‘miracles’ 
and to interpret each in dynamic terms as essen- 
tially different modes of the divine activity, brought 
into the older discussion of miracles elements that 
are unnecessarily confusing to the modern mind. 

5. O T Miracles. The record of miracles in the 
Bible and their progressive interpretation as clarified 
by modern historical scholarship not only illustrates 
what has been said concerning the general attitude 
toward miracles, but also indicates that modern 
thought with respect to them is moving more nearly 
into accord with the Bible view. Take for example 
the O T miracles associated with the deliverance of 
the Hebrews from Egypt. They were brought out 
‘with strong power and with a mighty hand.’ It is 
evident that the narratives themselves show, as they 
recede in time from the event, a marked increase in 
marvelous, extra-ordinary accessories to the occa- 
sion, as in respect to the crossing of the Red Sea 
(cf. Ex 14 21a [J] and 14 22 [P], or the poetic state- 
ment in 15 8). But it is not simply as marvelous 
events associated with the departure from Egypt 
and the wanderings in the wilderness that they are 

1$t. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, xxi, 8: ‘‘Omnia quippe porienta 
contra naturam dicimus esse; sed non sunt. Quo modo est enim 
contra naturam, quod Dei fit voluntate, cum volunias tanti wlique 


conditoris condite rei cuiwsque natura sit?  Portentum ergo 
fit non contra naturam, sed contra quam est nota natura,” 


583 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Miracles 





through all Hebrew history lauded and sung. They 
are the lore of the folk; but they are not simply 
folk-lore. Their significance is profoundly religious. 
They are rehearsed as a revelation of the gracious 
attitude of J’’ toward his chosen people which it is 
both the privilege and the duty of the people to 
discern, and which ought to awaken in them the 
response of loyal hearts and obedient conduct. As 
the idea of God widens and becomes clearer in 
ethical content, the due response is carried beyond 
the obligation to perform certain rites and obey 
specific commands, on to the purification of charac- 
ter. The real significance of the specific event, it 
becomes increasingly clear from the history of the 
religious development of the people does not lie in 
its eccentricity as an event in the realm of nature; 
but in its meaning and religious value as respects 


the mutual relations of God and man. That which 


for them chiefly constitutes these events miracles, 
is not primarily their extra-ordinariness, or their 
marvelousness, or the logical conclusion to a super- 
natural power. Something of all these is there, but 
the distinctive thing is that in them and through 
them is the realized manifestation of the meaning 
of God for his people. The reality and the vital 
significance of these personal relations as testified 
to by the religious consciousness and illuminated by 
experience is primal. This for them is the very heart 
of religion, and religion is the fundamental deter- 
miner of life. 


6. The Miracles of Jesus. It is with this religious 
attitude of O T thought at its best that Jesus starts. 
It is this that He ‘fulfils.’ As a revealer of religious 
truth He is concerned with conveying to those with 
whom He comes in contact true value-judgments in 
respect to God and man and their relations, and the 
implications involved in the personal relations of 
men to one another (the divine Fatherhood, the 
Kingdom of God, the twofold law of love). The 
reality of God, the necessity and validity of the 
judgments of the religious consciousness, or the 
religious intuition, of those who are not ‘blind’ He 
not only takes for granted but demands shall be 
accepted by those to whom He ministers. One 
misreads the story if he does not feel the immense 
effort Jesus makes to lead men to ‘see’ the truth— 
to believe Him and believe in Him. This not by 
syllogistic reasoning and logical demonstration, but 
by direct vision of truth. He reasons, to be sure, with 
critical acumen, but His logic is used to clear the 
way for vision. He evidently does not conceive of 
His miracles as scientific proof of His extraordinary 
supernatural power; but rather as dramatic parables 
‘—not in the sense of mythologized discourses— 
revealing, as did the parables to those that had ‘ears 
to hear,’ the spiritual realities of the universal 
kingdom of personal relations. He undoubtedly 
represented that God’s power worked through Him. 
He recognizes and approves the cogency of the 
logic of the Scribes in accusing Him of blasphemy 
because He assumed, in the case of the paralytic let 
down through the roof (Mk 2 4 f.), the divine 
prerogative of forgiving sins, and He justifies Him- 
self by manifesting the Divine power of healing. 
And when in connection with the ‘casting out a 


demon that was dumb’ (Lk 11 11) His deed is 
accounted for by spectators on the principle of the 
naturalistic diabolism of the day, He astutely argues 
from their premises to the unsatisfactoriness of such 
an explanation, and then faces them with the 
counter-implication ‘if I by the finger of God cast 
out demons then is the Kingdom of God come among 
you.’ But in both cases He is not so much directing 
toward them a demonstration as challenging their 
spiritual vision. 

From this initial point of view it is possible to 
appreciate (1) Why Jesus performed miracles at 
all; (2) Why He made faith the precondition of 
miracles and could say in the parable of Dives 
and Lazarus (Lk 16 20 #.), ‘if they hear not Moses 
and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded 
if one rise from the dead’; (3) His obvious contempt 
for mere wonders (tépatx) as stimulating curiosity 
or producing astonishment—like Huxley’s typical 
miracle of a centaur trotting down Picadilly; (4) 
His refusal to give the signs (cnet) desired, because, 
to the discerning spirit, signs enough had already 
been given, and the signs desired would be wrongly 
interpreted; (5) His abandonment of miracle-work- 
ing when it became apparent that further miracles 
would lead to false evaluation of the content and 
purpose of His message. 


7. Modern Interpretation. The current effort to 
appraise miracles, and especially the miracles of 
Christ, in terms of their meaning as manifestations 
of the character of the worker and of the power by 
means of which they were wrought, seems much 
closer to the attitude of Jesus, and less like that of 
the religiously ‘blind’ of His day than does the 
attitude of a generation ago. The crux of the 
question of miracles is not whether or not an 
‘absolute miracle’ is conceivable, or whether or not 
the records of miraculous events are scientifically 
precise in their historic details, or whether or nov 
they involve a dualistic view of the universe. It 
really les in the validity of the value-judgments of 
the religious consciousness as interpretative of a 
certain class of events in the natural world as revela- 
tions of the character of God. 

It is worthy of note how the religious conscious- 
ness of the primitive church, so far as our records 
go, laid so little stress on the sheer marvelousness 
of the supreme miracle of the Christian faith—the 
resurrection of Christ—and emphasized so pro- 
foundly its religious significance as bearing on the 
mutual relations of God and man, and of men to 
one another, and found therein the cosmic signifi- 
cance of the risen Christ. 

LirErRATuRE: Most of the recent discussion of miracles is 
scattered through various volumes and reviews dealing 
with Theology and Philosophy of Religion. Mention should 
be made of the excellent work by Johannes Wendland, 
translated by H. R. Macintosh, on Miracles and Christianity 
(1911). As to the fact of Miracles recorded in the Gospels, 
Geo. P. Fisher’s Grounds of Theistic and Christian Belief, 
chs. 8 and 9, contain a suggestive summary (rev. ed., 1902). 
Abp. Trench, On Miracles (1846) still retains its value as a 
scholarly retrospect of opinion on the miracles of the N T. 
Cf. also Bruce, The Miraculous Element in the Gospels (1886); 


and Galloway, Religion and Modern Thought (1922), ch. 10; 
Hastings, Enc. of Religion and Ethics (1919), vol. viii, 


pp. 766-690. 
A. LAG. 


Miriam 
Moab 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


584 


rece 


MIRIAM, mir’i-am (9)7, miryadm): 1. The sis- 
ter of Moses and Aaron (Ex 15 20). Like her two 
brothers, her sense of Divine things was keen, and 
her zeal for Jehovah, His cause and people, intense. 
The passage Ex 2 4 f. shows that she took part in 
the saving of Moses’ life. A pzan of victory over 
the safe crossing of the Red Sea is ascribed to her 
(Ex 1520 f.). Later, she claimed equal honor with 
Moses, and was smitten with leprosy, from which, 
however, she was restored by his intercession (Nu 
12 1-16). Her death occurred at Kadesh (Nu 20 1). 
2. Another of the name, from the tribe of Judah 
(I Ch 417). A. C. Z. 


MIRMAH, mir’ma (19°), mirmah, Mirma AV): 
A Benjamite (I Ch 8 10). 


MIRROR: This is the rendering of the following 
Heb. and Gr. terms: (1) mar’aGh (Ex 38 8); (2) r?’% 
(Job 37 18); (8) gilladyén (Is 3 23); (4) &coxtpov 
(I Co 13 12; Ja 1 23). In these passages the RV has 
‘mirror,’ the AV ‘glass,’ looking-glass. The ancient 
mirror was made of polished molten metal, usually 
from an alloy of copper and tin. Later, silver 
mirrors came into use. ‘They were round, oval, 
also square, and often provided with decorated 
handles and backs. The mirrors used by the He- 
brew women (Ex 38 8) were of brass. In Job 37 18 
the firmness and glitter of the molten mirror are in- 
cluded in the comparison with the sky. The reflec- 
tion in a metallic mirror was indistinct (I Co 13 12). 
The verb xatoxtoftety is used in the middle voice 
(II Co 3 18) and means ‘reflect as in a mirror’ (so 
ERV, ARVmg.) or ‘behold as in a mirror (the Gos- 
pel) the glory of Christ’ ARV. The meaning of gil- 
layon (Is 3 23) is uncertain; the LX -X. renders ‘trans- 
parent garments.’ See also Guass. CLSHts 


MISCARRY. The Heb. shdkhal is so rendered 
in II K 2 19, 21; cf. Hos 9 14. Elsewhere it is often 
rendered ‘cast the young.’ In both renderings the 
reference is to untimely birth. In II K 2 19, 21 the 
idea is that the water was the cause of the ‘land’ 
(t.e., the people and animals living on the land) 
suffering from untimely births (cf. Burney, HTK, 
ad loc.). See also Disnasz AND MEDICINE, § 7. 

MISGAB, mis’gab (3372, misgdbh): Apparently 
a town in Moab (Jer 48 1); but the text seems to 
be corrupt, and probably the original reading was 
quite different. EK. E.N. 

MISHAEL, migh’a-el (782, misha’él), ‘who is 
what God is’: 1. The head of a Kohathite family 
(Ex 6 22; Lv 10 4). 2. One of Ezra’s assistants 
(Neh 8 4). 3. The Heb. name of one of Daniel’s 
companions to whom the Babylonian name Meshach 
was given (Dn 1 6 f.). 

MISHAL, mai’shal (78, mish’al, Misheal AV): 
A town of Asher (Jos 19 26) assigned to the Levites 
(21 30). Probably the same as the Mashal of I Ch 
674. Map lV, B6. 

MISHAM, mai’sham (99%), mish‘@m): A Ben- 
jamite (I Ch 8 12). 

MISHEAL, mish’1-al. See MIsHAt. 

MISHMA, mish’ma (Y2¥2, mishma&'): i. The 
ancestral head of an Ishmaelite clan (Gn 25 14; I Ch 


1 30). 2. The ancestral head of a clan of Simeon 
(I Ch 4 25f.). See also Mipsam. 


MISHMANNAH, mish-man’na (732%), mish- 
mannah): A Gadite, one of David’s soldiers (I Ch 
12 10). 

MISHRAITES, mish’ro-aits (91, mishra‘z): 
A postexilic family of Kiriath-jearim, which traced 
its ancestry to Caleb, son of Hur (I Ch 2 53). 

MISPAR, mis’par (12992, mispadr, Mizpar AV, 
called Mispereth in Neh 7 7): One of the leaders of 
the Return under Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 2). 

MISREPHOTH-MAIM,  miz’’ri-feth - mé/im 
(O29 MDW, misrephdth mayim): A place appar- 
ently near Sidon (Jos 11 8), and viewed as marking 
the boundary of the land of Israel (13 6). Site 
unknown. 


MITE. See Money. 


MITER. See PriesrHoop, § 9 (b), and Dress 
AND ORNAMENTs, § 8. ) 


MITHKAH, mith’ka (P09, mithqah, Mithcah 
AV): One of the stations on the wilderness journey 
(Nu 383 28 f.). Site unknown. 


MITHNITE, mith’nait (20), mithnt): The desig- 
nation of Joshaphat, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 
11 43), pointing to Methen or Mathan as the name 
of his home, altho no such town is mentioned in the 
OGE; 

MITHREDATH, mith’n-dath (7192, mithr- 
dhath), ‘given by Mithra’: 1. The treasurer of the 
Persian realm who, at the command of Cyrus, 
delivered to Sheshbazzar the vessels taken by 
Nebuchadrezzar from the Temple of Jerusalem 
(Ezr 18). 2. An officer of Artaxerxes (Longimanus) 
who joined with others in a protest against the re- 
building of the Temple (Ezr 4 7). 


MITYLENE, mit’i-li’ni (Mitudrqvn): Mentioned 
incidentally in Ac 20 14. The most important city 
of the island of Lesbos, situated on a promontory 
once itself an island. In the earliest times its 
people were highly cultured. It was the seat of 
science, art, and letters, having produced such 
persons as Pittacus, Alczus, and Sappho. Its climate 
was soft and salubrious. It possessed two harbors, 
and strong fortifications. It submitted to Persia in 
546 B.c. and joined the [Ionian revolt. It later 
belonged to the Athenian confederacy, from which 
it revolted in 428 and was punished by Athens in a 
way that permanently crippled the island. 

J.R.S. S.*—J. M. T. 


MIXED MULTITUDE. See MINGLED PEOPLE. 


MIZAR, mai’zdr (1Y¥, mits‘ar), ‘littleness’: In 
Ps 42 6 M. seems to be the name of a hill situated 
somewhere between Hermon and the upper Jordan, 
and G. A. Smith (HG HL, p. 477, note) finds reminis- 
cences of the name in several localities near Banids. 
It is possible, however, that the word is an appella- 
tive (EVmg.), in which case, if we drop from the 
Heb. text one letter (which may have been acciden- 
tally repeated in copying), we may translate ‘I re- 
member thee, thou little mountain (t.e., Zion), from 
. . . the Hermons.’ L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


585 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Miriam 
Moab 





MIZPAH, miz’pa (1839, mitspah; also, inter- 
changeably, MIZPEH AV), ‘watch tower’: A term 
originally applied to places where a watch (garrison) 
was set up. Hence the name of several towns and 
regions. The original meaning is clearly preserved 
in II Ch 20 24 and Is 21 8, which are rendered 
‘watch tower’ both in the LXX. and in EVV. Be- 
_ tween the two forms of the name (in -dh and -eh) it 
is impossible to distinguish, except that ‘Mizpah’ is 
everywhere accompanied by the article (except in 
Hos 51). The places named Mizpah and Mizpeh 
are: 1. In the Shephelah (Jos 15 38), probably the 
locality named in Onom. 279, 139, N. of Eleutherop- 
olis (Map II, D 2), the modern Tell es-Safiyeh, a 
small village in the midst of cliffs of white limestone. 
2. In Benjamin (Jos 18 26), called preeminently 
‘the Mizpah.’ This place became the boundary- 
line between the Northern and Southern Kingdoms, 
and was fortified by Asa with stones carried from 
Ramah (I K 15 22; II Ch 166). It served also as the 
assembly-ground of the Israelites before the separa- 
tion of the two kingdoms (Jg 201, 3, 211; 1S 7 5, 
10 17), was one of Samuel’s stations as judge (I § 
7 16), and later the residence of Gedaliah (Jer 40 6 ff.; 
II K 25 25). After the Exile it was the capital of a 
district (Neh 3 15), and in the Maccabean age the 
headquarters of the uprising against the Seleucids 
(I Mac 3 46). It was situated on the way from 
Jerusalem to Shechem, and is to be identified with 
the modern WNebi-Samwil, where a Crusaders’ 
church is supposed to stand over the tomb of Samuel. 
Map III, F 5. 3. A land occupied by Hivites in the 
vicinity of Mt. Hermon, probably westward from 
the base of the mountain, mentioned in Jos 11 3 in 
connection with the confederation of the kings de- 
feated by Joshua near the waters of Merom, placed 
by Buhl (Geog. Pal. p. 240) at Kala‘at es-Subebeh, on 
the slopes of Mt. Hermon, 2m. E. of Banias. Map 
IV, ¥ 4. 4. The Valley of Mizpeh, W. of Hermon, 
also mentioned in connection with the defeat of the 
allies, but as a place whither they fled (Jos 118). It 
was in the same general locality as 3. 5. In Gilead, 
the residence of Jephthah (Jg 11 29, 34), an ancient 
sanctuary whose origin is traced back to patriarchal 
times. According to Gn 31 49, Jacob gave it the 
name it bears in commemoration of the compact 
with Laban [JE]; but the sense in which the word 
is used in this connection is slightly different from 
that in other places. Instead of an outlook-point, 
it indicates a place where God is invoked as a 
watcher (witness). Accordingly, it was a place 
invested with sacredness, and, on this ground, 
perhaps, was resorted to in making covenants 
between clans, such as that of Jephthah with the 
eastern tribes when they combined against the 
Ammonites. The location of the spot is fixed by 
the fact that Jacob on his way to Canaan crossed 
the Jabbok after the covenant with Laban. This 
would place Mizpah N. of the river Jabbok. Szf, 
NW. of Jerash, is supposed by many to be the exact 
spot, but the identification is not quite certain. 
Map III, K 3. 6. In Moab, probably the town 
where David placed his parents under the protection 
of the king of Moab (IS 22 3). Site unknown. 

As OnZ, 


MIZPAR, miz’par. See Mispar. 

MIZPEH, miz’pe. See Mizpau. 

MIZRAIM, miz’ra-im (821¥2, mitsrayim): 1. The 
Heb. name of Egypt, or sometimes, more strictly, 
of Lower Egypt; see Eaypt, § 1. 2. The second 
son of Ham (Gn 10 6, 13), the eponym ancestor of the 
Egyptians. See EraNoGRAPHY AND ErHNoLoey, 
§ 12. J. F. McC.—L. B. P. 

MIZZAH, miz’a (WY, mizzah): A clan chieftain 
of Edom (Gn 36 13, 17; I Ch 1 37). 

MNASON, né’san (Mvécwv): A native of Cyprus 
and an early Christian disciple (Ac 21 16). Accord- 
ing to the commonly accepted reading and inter- 
pretation of the verse, the house of M., in which 
Paul and his companions lodged, was in Jerusalem. 
But according to Codex Beze, he lived in a village 
between Cesarea and Jerusalem, perhaps in Samaria, 
and here Paul lodged with him on the journey from 
Cesarea to Jerusalem. J. Mat. 


MOAB, md’ab: 1. Name. The name ‘Moab’ 
(O T ARID, mé’abh; Mesha Stone, 282; Assyr. 
ma’ab, ma’aba, mu’aba) is derived, by one of the 
popular etymologies so common in the O T, in 
Gn 19 37 (cf. LXX.) from mé (=min), ‘from,’ and 
’abh, ‘father.’ But this can not be the real origin of 
the word, the etymology of which is no longer known. 
In the O T the name is pretty generally used of the 
people rather than of their land, and since the name 
passed out of use in the Greek period it is likely that 
it was always understood to be the name of a people, 
not a geographical term. 

2. The Land of Moab. The territory that was 
occupied by the Moabites was the region imme- 
diately E. of the Dead Sea. On these fertile, but 
well-drained uplands, extending N. from the wédis 
that empty into the low country at the S. end of 
the Dead Sea to the southern borders of Gilead, 
and E. to the desert, the Moabites maintained 
themselves as a distinct people for over one thousand 
years. Their territory at no time much exceeded 
60 m. in length and 30 m. in breadth, or about 
1,500 sq. m. in area. Within this small compass 
was a population of probably at least 500,000 souls 
in its most flourishing days. Cities were numerous 
immense flocks of sheep and goats grazed on the 
rich pastures, grain was raised in abundance, and 
the people were easily able to live off their land, 
asking little from the outside world. For a descrip- 
tion of the topographical features, etc., see PALES- 
TINE, § 13 (c). 

3. The Earliest History. The early history of M. 
is very obscure. In Israel’s tradition the Moabites 
were viewed as a kindred people, descended from 
Lot, the nephew of Abraham (Gn 19 37; Dt 29, 18). 
M. therefore was one of the group of closely related 
‘Hebrew’ peoples (Israel, Edom, Moab, Ammon), 
all of whom had a common ancestry, and had this 
also in common, that they pressed in from the desert 
upon the cultivated land occupied by the Canaanites 
and altho becoming dominant, each in its own 
locality, adopted the language and absorbed much 
of the civilization of the people they conquered. 
The more ancient predecessors of the Moabites in 
some portions of their territory were called the 


Moab 
Moladah 





‘Emim’ and ‘Zuzim’ (Gn 14 5; Dt 2 10), but the 
racial connections of these peoples are unknown. 
The representations in Nu (chs. 21 ff.), Dt (2 8 #., 
etc.), Jg (11 12-28), etc., imply that the Moabites had 
been well-established in their territory E. of the 
Dead Sea some time before Israel conquered Canaan, 
perhaps as long as a century. A short time before 
the Israelites appeared on the SH. border of M., on 
their way from Horeb to Canaan, the Moabites had 
suffered severely at the hands of Sihon, an Amorite 
king, perhaps from W. of the Jordan, who had con- 
quered the N. half of Moab’s territory (the portion 
N. of the Arnon), driving the Moabites out of their 
chief cities (Heshbon, Medeba, etc.), and founding 
an Amorite kingdom with his capital at Heshbon 
(Nu 21 21-30). 

4, Moab and Israel in Moses’ Time. The Israelites 
thus found M. restricted to the S. half of the terri- 
tory they called their own, the Arnon now forming 
their N. boundary (Nu 2113). Israel traversed the 
eastern border of M., unmolested and probably even 
welcome by the Moabites, who may have hoped to 
find in the Israelites allies who would assist them in 
regaining their territory from the Amorites. In this 
they were doomed to disappointment; for after the 
Israelites had conquered Sihon they proceeded to 
take possession of this territory for themselves. This 
brought about an estrangement on the part of Moab. 
Tradition preserved notices of various phases of this 
hostility, such as the attempt of Balak, King of 
Moab, to secure the aid of the soothsayer Balaam 
(q.v.) to place Israel under a curse (Nu chs. 22-24), or 
the attempt to entice Israel away from loyalty to J” 
by means of the degrading worship of Baal-peor (Nu 
25 1-5). There is no record of actual war between 
the two peoples at this time. -M. as the weaker 
was compelled to submit to the stronger confedera- 
tion of Israelitic tribes and to see its choicest pasture- 
lands and many of its cities taken possession of by 
the tribes of Reuben and Gad (Nu 32 1-5, 34 #.; Jos 
13 15-28). The accounts of this occupation are not 
entirely clear and harmonious, but the general fact 
is well substantiated, both by Jg 5 15 ff. and by the 
Mesha inscription, line 10 (see Musua). It is prob- 
able that it was mainly the Reubenites who settled 
in Moab’s old territory, the Gadites locating origi- 
nally farther to the N. Later, but perhaps not 
for a century or more, the Gadites seem to have 
supplanted the Reubenites, the latter having in 
some way lost their tribal identity. 


5. Moab in the Period Between Moses and 
David. After the main body of Israel had crossed 
the Jordan and was again broken up into separate 
tribes, each busy securing possesion of its portion 
of the W. Jordan land, the Moabites seem to have 
succeeded in regaining control of their old territory 
N. of the Arnon and at last, under their king, Eglon, 
ventured to cross the Jordan and attack the Isra- 
elites in the region W. of the lower Jordan. For a 
while this portion of Israel was held in subjection, 
but at length Eglon was assassinated by the Ben- 
jamite Ehud, under whose leadership the Moabites 
were defeated and compelled to retire to their own 
land. This put an end forever to attempts on the 
part of M. to occupy any territory W. of the Jordan. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


586 





Somewhat later, in the period of the ‘Judges,’ 
Jephthah the Gileadite appears to have conquered 
the Moabites, probably because of their attempt to 
control the region occupied by the Gadites (Jg 11 
12-28, which seems to contain a separate account, 
from a different source, from that of the rest of the 
chapter; so recently also Burney, Judges (1918), 
pp. 298 ff.). In the summary account of Saul’s wars 
IS 14 47) he is said to have fought successfully 
against M., but no particulars are given. To this 
same general period may be assigned the war be- 
tween M. and Edom which is so obscurely referred 
to in Gn 36 35. According to the Book of Ruth, a 
Bethlehemite named Elimelech migrated to Moab 
in the Judges period. His sons married Moabite 
women, one of whom, Ruth, is the heroine of the 
beautiful story of the book and is represented as the 
ancestress of David. The reasons alleged against 
the historicity of this tradition do not appear to be - 
well-founded. 


6. Moab Subject to Israel. Altho David was thus 
remotely akin to the Moabites, and had placed his 
parents under the protection of the king of M. 
during his troubles with Saul (I S 22 3), for some 
unknown reason, after he had become king of all 
Israel war broke out between him and Moab. In 
this war David was completely victorious and treated 
the conquered people with uncommon severity (IIS 
8 2). It may be that at this time many Gadite 
families moved into M., occupying its most desirable 
cities and pasture-lands (cf. § 4, above). If this is so, 
it will explain the statement of the Mesha Stone (150 
years after David’s time), line 10, ‘And the men of 
Gad had dwelt in Ataroth from of old,’ and perhaps 
also lines 17b, 18a, ‘And I took thence the vessels of 

Yahweh and J dragged them before Chemosh,’ the 
reference being to vessels at sanctuaries of J’’ estab- 
lished by David or by the Gadite worshipers of J’’. 
On this view, also, the confused character of the 
references Nu 321 ff., 33 #., and Jos 13 8 #., may be 
explained, the references to the Reubenites preserv- 
ing the memory of the earlier Reubenite occupation, 
those to the Gadites relating to the later immigra- 
tion of Gadites in the time of David. 

The spirit of the Moabites was humbled, but not 
broken, and at the accession of Rehoboam (ce. 933 
B.c.), they once more became masters of their old 
territory N. of the Arnon, and freed themselves from 
the yoke of Israel. They seem to have maintained 
their independence until the reign of Omri (c. 888- 
875 B.c.). This energetic and able monarch re- 
duced M. once more to subjection to Israel (Mesha 
Stone, lines 4-8), a condition of vassalage which 
lasted during the remainder of the reign of his son 
Ahab. The O T contains no account of this con- 
quest of M. by Omri, but does state that the annual 
tribute Mesha was accustomed to pay was the wool 
of 100,000 lambs and 100,000 rams (II K 3 4), in- 
cidental evidence of the great wealth of the country 
in this respect. 

Mesha was an able, patriotic monarch, and at the 
death of Ahab, according to the O T (II K 11, 35), 
revolted from subjection to Israel. The Mesha Stone 
seems to imply that the revolt took place in the 
days of Ahab, but as it says merely ‘his [Omri’s] 


587 A NEW STANDARD 


son,’ it is uncertain whether Ahab or his son Je- 
horam is really intended. At any rate, the O T 
account of Jehoram’s attempt, aided by Judah and 
Edom, to bring Mesha once more under the yoke of 
Israel (II K 3 4-27) shows that the crisis of the con- 
flict did not come until Jehoram’s reign. Mesha’s 
story deals with the earlier stages of his revolt and 
can be read in his own words on the Mesha Stone, 
lines 1-20 (see Mrsua). His constructive work in 
developing and organizing his kingdom is partially 
told in the remainder of the inscription. The war 
with Jehoram may have occurred after the inscrip- 
tion was made. Jehoram’s attempt was unsuccess- 
ful, altho Mesha felt himself reduced to the ex- 
tremity of sacrificing his eldest son to Chemosh, 
and it was probably the superstitious awe aroused 
by this terrible deed that led the Israelites to give 
up the attempt. Nothing further is known of the 
history of M. in this period, the notice in II Ch 20 
1-30 being of questionable historical value, while that 
in If K 13 20 simply reflects the general hostility 
between the two peoplesin that period. A hint of 
subjection to Syria (Hazael) is contained in II K 
10 32 f. 


7. Moab in the 8th-6th Centuries B.C. We next 
hear of M., incidentally, in Am 2 1-3, where, with 
other nations, it is condemned by the prophet of J” 
for its unrighteous conduct, in this case for its 
inhuman treatment of the king of Edom. We know 
nothing of the event referred to. The nature of this 
reference in Am seems to imply that M. was at that 
time (760-750 B.c.) an independent kingdom with 
its capital at Kerioth. In II K 14 25 the contempo- 
rary king of Israel, Jeroboam II, is said to have 
‘restored the border of Israel from the entrance of 
Hamath unto the sea of the Arabah’ (7.e., the Dead 
Sea). This may imply a renewal of Israelitic control 
of Moab. In Is 15 1-16 12 there is a most interesting 
oracle regarding M. Very forcibly it depicts the 
anxiety and terror of M. because of an impending 
invasion from the N. or E. What this threatened or 
actual invasion was is uncertain, and the difficulties 
in the way of a satisfactory exegesis of these two 
chapters are so great as to forbid any historical 
inference from them (cf. Gray, ICC, ad loc.). It is 
quite possible that the conquests of Jeroboam II 
(c. 785-745 B.c.) E. of the Jordan seriously threat- 
ened M., but he apparently did not actually over- 
run the country. 

M., like the other small states in Syria, was com- 
pelled to yield to the irresistible encroachment, of 
Assyria. Salamanu, King of Moab, like Ahaz of 
Judah, paid tribute to Tiglath-pileser IV in 734 
B.c. when that monarch humbled N. Israel and 
Damascus. Sargon (722-705 B.c.) found M. hostile, 
but his successor, Sennacherib (705-681 B.c.), speaks 
of the Moabite king Chemoshnadab as a willing vas- 
sal (unlike Hezekiah). Sennacherib’s successor, 
Esarhaddon (681-668 B.c.), received contributions 
for his building operations from Mutsuri of Moab, 
and the instinct of self-preservation against the Arabs 
led the Moabites to the same loyalty to Asshur- 
banipal (668-626). 

Thus, M., by recognizing the general supremacy 
of Assyria, maintained itself in prosperous semi- 


Moab 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Moladah 


independence for upward of a century. It does not 
seem to have been seriously implicated in the events 
connected with the downfall of the Assyrian Empire 
(606 B.c.). While at times it appears to have been 
inclined to join ina confederacy to resist Nebuchad- 
rezzar’s authority in Syria (Jer 27 3), its general 
attitude toward Judah was hostile and therefore 
probably friendly to Babylon (II K 24 2; Jer 9 26, 
48 1-47; Ezk 25 8 ff.; Zeph 2 8 f.). The Moabites re- 
joiced, as did Edom, in the fall of their long-time 
rival Judah, altho some of the Jews found refuge 
in M. during the war with Babylon (Jer 4011). This 
hostility was never forgotten, and the counter- 
feeling in Judah manifested itself in legal prescrip- 
tions, prophecy, and psalms (Dt 23 3; Ps 60 8, 83 6, 
108 9; Neh 131, 23; Jer ch. 48, etc.; cf. last reff.). 

Little is known of M. subsequent to the time of 
the downfall of Judah. It probably gradually suc- 
cumbed to the advance of the Arabian tribes, and 
eventually the territory was occupied by the Na- 
batzan Arabs. Whatever remained of the ancient 
Moabites became absorbed in the general population 
of their conquerors. 


8. Religion and Culture of Moabites. The 
national deity of M. was Chemosh (see Semitic 
Reticion, § 17). The popular religious conceptions 
of the Moabites were quite similar to those of the 
Israelites. Some parts of the Mesha inscription 
read like parts of the O T (cf. lines 38-5, 8, 12-14, 
17-19, 32). But the higher ranges of religious 
thought which so distinguished Israel were alto- 
gether foreign to the Moabites. Chemosh remained 
to the last a mere local, national, nature-deity, 
whose worship did not exclude that of other deities 
such as Nebo, Ashtar-chemosh, Baal-Peor (= 
Chemosh?). 

The civilization of the Moabites was comparative- 
ly high. Their cities were numerous and prosperous 
(see Dison). Twenty-five or more Moabite cities are 
mentioned in the O T. The people were experts in 
vine culture (cf. Is 16 8) and sheep-raising. The 
Mesha inscription is evidence that at least some of 
the people were able to read and write, using the 
ancient Canaanite or ‘Phenician’ alphabet, and also 
for a considerable knowledge of industrial arts (lines 
21-27). It is altogether probable that the Moabites 
were in no important respect (except religion) be- 
hind Israel in their attainments in civilization. 
LiveERATURE: Conder, Heth and Moab; Tristram, The Land 

of Moab (21874); G. A. Smith, in HGHL, pp. 555-573; 

Buhl, GAP (passim) (1896); all these deal mainly with the 

geography and archeology. See also G, A. Smith in ZB, 


Buhl in PRE? (very complete), Bennett in HDB. 
; E. E. N. 


MOABITE STONE, m0’ab-ait. See Mrsua. 
MOADIAH, md’’e-dai’a. See MAapian. 
MOAT. See Crry, § 3. 


MOCK. In Gn 219 our EV gives a wrong inter- 
pretation. Ishmael was ‘playing with’ but not 
‘mocking’ Isaac (cf. RVmg.). 7 

MOLADAH, mol’s-da (77712, 712, maladhah), 
A city near the southern boundary of Judah (Jos 
15 26); it was reinhabited after the Exile (Neh 
11 26). It is called a city of Simeon (Jos 19 2= 


Mole 





Money 
I Ch 4 28), and is mentioned with Beersheba. Site 
unknown. Gis ery 
MOLE. See PAuustine, § 24. 
MOLECH, md’lek, MOLOCH, md’‘lek. See 


SEMITIC RELIGION, § 26. 

MOLID, md’lid (vin molidh): A descendant of 
Jerahmeel (I Ch 2 29). 

MOLTEN SEA. See Tremp yp, § 13. 


MONEY 


OUTLINE. 


I. Historica, SKETCH. 
I. Preexilic Times. 
1. Money by Weight. 
2. BabylonianStandard. 
3. Phenician Standard. 
4. Trading Conditions 
and Money. 
II. Postexilic Times. 


7. Coinage of Alexander. 
8. Seleucid and Ptole- 
maic Coinage. 
9. Jewish Coinage. 
JIT. New Testament Times. 
10. Imperial Roman and 
Local Coinage. 
II. Corns CrrcuLaTING IN 
5. Persian Coinage. New TrestraMEntT TIMES. 
6. Phenician Coinage. III. ComparaTIvE VALUES. 


I. HisroricaAL SKETCH. 


I. Preexilic Times. Many and diverse objects, 
such as skins, cattle, corn, tobacco, etc., have served 
the purposes of money as a medium of exchange and 
a standard or measure of value. Simple barter with- 
out reference to media of exchange generally existed 
in early times, and is still practised in remote parts 
of the world. However, even before the conquest of 
Canaan by the Hebrews, the Canaanites were al- 
ready advanced in this respect, for they were using 
money in the form of precious metals, altho no 
doubt outside of the larger towns and ports barter 
was to be met. In buying the field of Machpelah, 
Abraham weighed out to Ephron 400 shekels of 
silver, ‘current with the merchant’ (Gn 23 16). The 
word shekel (shdqal, ‘to weigh’), it should be noted, 
was a weight, and not until much later a coin, as 
was also true of the English pound. 


1. Money by Weight. Gold being rarely used, 
silver became the common form of money so that 
the word used for money was keseph (silver), as in 
Gn 17 13, where silver is the price of a slave. The 
only references in the O T to shekels of gold, with 
one exception (I Ch 21 25), are to the weights of 
certain objects, spoons, rings, etc., altho one of 
these mentioned below may have been used as a 
form of money. That silver was a measure of value 
is seen in the case of fines for offenses (Ex chs. 21 
and 22), contributions to the Tabernacle (Ex 30 
i3), and payments to the seer (IS 9 8), all of which 
were regulated by weight. It would seem from the 
references to the use of gold and silver in commercial 
transactions that the precious metals were actually 
weighed only when large sums changed hands. For 
ordinary payments the metals were in ingot form, 
cut into familiar sizes or rather weights, and easily 
recognized. Indeed only in large transactions did 
abrasion or loss of weight from other causes demand 
that the balance be used (Is 466). A direct reference 
to portions of ingots may probably be seen in I § 
9 8, where Saul’s servant reports that he happens 
to have a fourth part of a shekel of silver, and in the 
use of the word gesitah, translated ‘piece’ in the 
O T, when Job’s friends gave him each a piece of 
money (Job 42 11), and Jacob bought a parcel of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


588 





land for 100 pieces (Gn 33 19). Probably the tongue 
or wedge of gold mentioned in Jos 7 21 and in Is 
13 12 was also an ingot.! The O T is indefinite in its 
frequent mention of pieces of silver, but it is prob- 
ably right in many of these to recognize ingots of a 
shekel-weight of silver (or Silverlings, Is 7 23), as 
without doubt it is in the case of the 30 pieces of 
silver in Zech 11 12, 13 and Mt 26 15. 

2. Babylonian Standard. Rings of gold were the 
common form of money in Egypt, and reference to 
rings of certain weights in Gn 24 22 may reflect, the 
influence of that country as it was in close com- 
munication with Canaan. Nevertheless it was Baby- 
lonia which gave the cultural background to Western 
Asia. From this age-old country and civilization, 
Abraham had journeyed about 2,0008B.c., and in his 
time the Babylonian weight system prevailed in 
Canaan. This weighing out of silver by Abraham 
was no isolated case, for in the cuneiform letters 
found at Tel el-Amarna (Egypt) and written about 
1380 B.c. by Syrian governors to Amenhotep IV 
and his father, more than 100 years before the con- 
quest of Canaan by Israel, mention is made of the 
weighing of gold and silver on the Babylonian 
standard. This system continued to prevail in 
Syria and Asia Minor, but at some later period, 
certainly by the time of the issue of the first 
Phenician coins, and probably very much earlier, 
the weight standard of Tyre and Sidon, cities which 
dominated the trade of Palestine, was in use there 
for silver. The Babylonian standard, however, was 
retained for gold. 

Both systems contained two standards, a light 
and a heavy, the latter double the weight of the 
former.? 

The light Babylonian mant (Heb. maneh, Gr. wva, 
Lat.mina, and so Eng. mina) weighed 7,580 grains, 
the heavy 15,160 grains. The light Babylonian shekel, 
being 1/9 of a mani, weighed 126 grains, the heavy 
252 grains. These weights applied to both gold and 
silver. The light gold shekel which was in general 
use was thus in weight between an English sovereign 
(123 gr.) and a U.S.A. five-dollar gold piece (129 gr.). 
The value of gold to silver over a very long period 
stood at 1314 to 1, an awkward ratio for commercial 
transactions. The silver shekel was therefore altered 
in weight to make a whole number of them the 
equivalent in value of the gold shekel. This was 
done by raising the weight of the silver shekel from 
126 to 168 gr., so that 10 silver shekels then equaled 
1 gold shekel (168X10=126X1314). The influence 
of the decimal system met by the Babylonian trader 
as he traveled westward was also seen in the altera- 
tion of the mina? from 60 shekels (on the Baby- 
lonian sexagesimal system) to 50, making 3,000 to 
the talent instead of 3,600 (Ek 38 24-26). This was 
for the weighing of the precious metals only, the 
~ 1In the mound of Gezer and ‘in a stratum approximately 


contemporary with Joshua were found two gold ingots,’ one 
of which ‘might well be described as a tongue.’ 


2 A royal norm existed with a slightly higher scale employed 
in payments to the Royal Treasury. It is doubtful if this occurs 
in the Bible unless in II § 14 26, 

8 Sixty minas equaled 1 talent. The references in the O T 
to talents and to mdneh or mina (Ezk 45 12) are to weights. 
The same is true of the pound (I K 10 17, etc. AV), which 
in the Hebrew is mdneh, 


589 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Mole 
Money 


sss - : ae ‘ z 


older system being retained for ordinary merchan- 
dise. In all this it must be remembered that these 
shekels were not coins but pieces of metal of approxi- 
mately the weights mentioned. At what time the 
change from the silver shekel (weight) of Babylonia 
weighing 168 gr. to the heavy Phenician one of 
224 gr. took place is uncertain, but it may well have 
been early in the history of the Hebrews in Canaan. 
The heavy Babylonian shekel of 252 gr.4 continued 
to be used by the Hebrews for weighing gold until 
N T times, altho large sums were expressed in talents. 
The mina is seldom mentioned in the Bible, the sum 
usualy being given in shekels. In fact this usage was 
so common that the word shekel itself was fre- 
quently omitted (Gn 37 28; Jg 17 2, 3, 4, etc.). 

3. Phenician Standard. The Phenician standard 
referred to above was a modification of the Baby- 
_lonian, for the Phenician silver shekel weighed only 
two-thirds of the Babylonian (168 gr. and 336 gr.), 
or 112 gr. for the light and 224 gr. for the heavy. 
Hence 15 Phenician silver shekels equaled 10 Baby- 
lonian shekels of silver or 1 of gold. It was on this 
Phenician heavy standard (224 gr.) that the so 
called Shekel of the Sanctuary, or Sacred Shekel, 
was calculated. At first 1t was paid by weight, later 
the shekel® and half-shekel coins were struck on this 
basis, and right down through the Ist cent. a.p. 
Phenician money was used for the Temple tribute. 

4. Trading Conditions and Money. Many of the 
complex functions of money familiar now were ab- 
sent during preexilic times, altho behind Palestine 
lay the ancient commercial experience of Babylonia 
with its great eastern and western trade, its systems 
of banking and mortgage, and its safe deposits. We 
read of Tyrian traders having their quarters at 
Jerusalem (Neh 13 16), and of Ahab desiring trading 
quarters in Damascus (I K 20 34), but Palestine was 
in the main an agricultural country. Loans at 
‘usury’ (=interest) are mentioned. Nevetheless, 
these are not to be interpreted until N T times 
(Mt 25 27, etc.) as capital lent for trading purposes, 
but merely loans to the distressed. Exceptionally, 
and notably in the reign of Solomon, there is evi- 
dence of a lively foreign trade and an abundance of 
the precious metals, This coincided with the success 
of the Phenicians who had controlled the Cilician 
silver mines and similarly gained control of those in 
Spain, thus rendering silver abundant. Perhaps it 
would be true to say that until a considerable time 
after the return from the Captivity, the payments of 
large sums recorded in the O T are rather the high 
lights of the picture. 

The next step in the development of money was 
the use of the precious metals stamped officially by 
the issuing authority to guarantee their weight and 
purity. This is the stage of the coin, of which, how- 
ever, there is no evidence in Palestine until after 
the return from the Exile. 

IT. Postexilic Times. 5. Persian Coinage. After 
their return from Babylon (536 B.c.), the Jews found 

4 This heavy gold shekel equalled $10 or £2 1s., the mina, 


$500 or £102 1s., and the talent $30,000 or £6,150. The 
light gold weights were worth half of these amounts. 

5 Value 67c. U.S. or 23 9d Engl. The Phenician or Jewish 
silver mina (heavy) =$33.25 or £6 16s 8d, and the talent 
$1,995 or £410. " 


many strangers in occupation of their land, and the 
returning exiles must have formed a lean colony, 
with but a poor trade and a small foreign commerce. 
In the busy ports Greek coins probably circulated, 
for the Lydians and Aiginetans are credited with 
having coined money early in the 7th cent. B.c. 
The Phenicians in their wide trading enterprises 
must have been familiar with this currency, but 
there is no evidence that the Hebrews used it before 
the exile. The first coins to circulate generally in 
Palestine were almost certainly Persian. Palestine 





Darics (Gold Coins of Darius Hystaspes). 


formed part of a satrapy of the Persian Empire, 
and we know that Darius Hystaspes (521-485 B.c.) 
issued great numbers of gold and silver coins. The 
former, called darics (of 130 gr.), were slightly 
heavier than a five-dollar gold piece, and bore the 
type of the Persian king as an archer; but this 
appearance of a ‘graven image’ did not apparently 
deter its being used by the Jews. In the RV the 
word ‘daric’ is substituted for the AV dram in I Ch 
29 7; Ezr 2 69, 8 27, and Neh 7 70-72. The Hebrew is 
‘dark*monim,’ but the events referred to in these 
passages were prior to the issue of the actual daric, 
and the original word may have referred to a weight. 
The sole right of issue, as an attribute of govern- 
ment, was retained by the kings of Persia only in the 
case of gold coins, hence thefreedomof Tyreand Sidon 
to coin silver. Silver coins called sigloi, or shekels 
(of 8614 gr.),® 20 of which equaled the gold daric, 
were also issued by Darius Hystaspes, and were 
about the size of the U.S. silver quarter dollar or an 
English shilling. The 40 shekels mentioned in 
Neh 5 i3 may therefore have been either Persian 
sigloi (8614 gr.) or Phenician shekels (224 gr.), 

6. Phenician Coinage. Tyre issued early in the 
5th cent. B.c., and more especially after the fall of 
Athens, shekels or staters as they were sometimes 
called, on the Phenician basis of 224 gr. or 15 to 
the Babylonian gold shekel of 252 gr. (15X224= 
13144252). These early Tyrian silver shekels,? 
influenced by Athens and Egypt, bore the design 
of an owl with an Egyptian crook and flail, and on 
the obverse a dolphin or the god Melgqarth riding a 
sea-horse, etc. The double and half-shekels of Sidon 
bore the device of a galley and on the reverse a king 
of Persia driving a chariot or on foot slaying a lion. 

These Tyrian silver shekels. are the Phenician 
coins which were used for payment of the Shekel 
of the Sanctuary (Lv 27 25, etc.).8 The Talmud 
repeatedly states that all payments based on the 
Shekel of the Sanctuary are to be made in the 
$ Many of these weighed but 84 gr., and therefore equaled 
in weight half a Babylonian shekel (168 gr.). 

7 The earliest Phenician shekels were thick and heavy. 
Later they were of normal thickness and about the size of a 
U. S. silver half dollar or an English florin. 

8 The offering was finally fixed at a half-shekel (Ex 30 % P 


[later strand]), increased from the earlier rate of one third of 
a shekel fixed in Nehemiah’s time (Neh 10 #%), 


Money 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


590 





Phenician currency (cf. A. R. S. Kennedy in E7, 
Vol, XXIV, p. 538 ff. and HE, J. Pilcher in PEHFQ 
(1915), pp. 186 ff. 





vi (. { . J) 
Rat AYN Ye) 
Deh \ oy 
aN att My 
aay Nees Ih Vy ene | 
> ZOD A 
yl 1S 


Tyrian Shekel or Tetradrachm (the offering for two males). 
(To illustrate the Shekel of the Sanctuary.) 


It has been claimed that Artaxerxes (458 B.c.) 
commissioned Ezra (Ezr 7 16-18) to coin silver and 
gold, but there are no surviving coins to substantiate 
this claim. 

7. Coinage of Alexander. Palestine remained a 
subprovince of Persia until the conquest of that 
empire by Alexander the Great (332-323 B.c.). This 
great military genius brought not only peace and a 
united empire, but in their wake, trade and a single 
currency, the last a great lubricator of commerce. 
He issued gold staters on the Attic standard (of 
133 gr.), which are found to-day as far N. as 
Lithuania and as far E. as India. It will thus be 
seen that the Babylonian light gold shekel, the Per- 





Gold Stater of Alexander the Great. 


sian daric and the stater of Alexander were approxi- 
mately the same weight. Silver tetradrachms (266 
gr.)® were also struck under his authority at the 
local mints of Joppa, Acre, etc. The staters bore 
the head of Athena helmeted and on the reverse 
Winged Victory holding a mast and spar, with the 
inscription Alexandrou Basileos. The tetradrachms 
bore various designs, but the most common were 
the head of young Heracles in a lion’s skin and on 
the reverse Olympian Zeus seated on his throne 
holding an eagle, with the legend Alexandrou. 

8. Seleucid and Ptolemaic Coinage. After his 
death and the rise of the Seleucid dynasty with its 
seat at Antioch, Palestine became a bone of con- 
tention between the Seleucids on the one hand and 
the Ptolemies of Egypt on the other. The Seleucids 
coined the tetradrachm (266 gr.) and drachma (66% 
gr.) on the Alexandrian standard, and at first their 
coins bore the same devices, the inscription being 
amended to Seleukou Basileos. The Ptolemaic cur- 
rency struck at Alexandria altho at first repeating 
Alexander’s designs was based on the Phenician 
weight standard (224 gr.), which naturally led to 


9 Practically the same as the Attic tetradrachm (four 
drachmas), . 





its use by the Jews. Both the Seleucid and Ptolemaic 
issues are said to have borne the earliest portraits 
of deified kings, and if the stricter Jews were reluc- 
tant to handle them, more than a century and a half 
was to elapse before they could dictate what designs 
should and should not appear on their currency. 
Under the Seleucids of Syria, Tyre and Sidon con- 
tinued to issue silver shekels and thus to add to the 
variety of the currency in Palestine.}° 

9. Jewish Coinage. The Seleucid king Antiochus 
Epiphanes (176-164 B.c.), fearing the defection of 
Jerusalem to the Ptolemaic king, attacked and 
despoiled it. When he went further and tried to 





Bronze Coin of Alexander Jannzus, showing Princely Inscrip- 
tion in Greek and Hebrew Script. 
Heb. 9071 JNU, Jehonathan Hammelekh,‘Jonathan the King.’ 
Gr. AAc§Eavdeou BactAewc, ‘Of Alexander the King.’ 


suppress Judaism and to foist Hellenism upon the 
Jews, which had already gained ground since the 
time of Alexander, he roused national opposition 
which culminated in the Maccabean rebellion. Be- 
gun for religious freedom, it was continued for 
political autonomy. Led by members of the Macca- 
bean family, a successful resistance was maintained 
against the successive Syrian kings until Antiochus 
VII (139 B.c.) granted Simon, the High Priest, the 
right ‘to coin money for thy country with thine own 
stamp’ (I Mac 15 6). It is therefore under the 
Maccabees that the first Jewish national coin with 
Hebrew legends and Hebrew religious symbols 
appeared. Bronze half and quarter shekels dated 
(possibly) between 141 and 135 B.c.)were struck by 
Simon Maccabeus,! and smaller pieces under his 
son John Hyreanus (135-104 s.c.). See illustrations 
in art. ALPHABET, §§ 1 and 2. The former bore 
various devices, including a citron, two bundles of 
twigs (carried at the Feast of Tabernacles), a palm 
tree with two baskets of fruit, a chalice (of manna 
in the Sanctuary? Ex 16 33), etc. They also bore 
the legend “The Redemption of Zion’ and the year 
of the High Priest’s rule. By some authorities cer- 
tain silver shekels and half-shekels bearing the de- 
vice of a chalice and on the reverse a triple lily (?) 
with the inscription ‘Shekel of Israel,’ ‘Jerusalem 
the Holy,’ are attributed to Simon Maccabeus, but 
by others to the First Revolt (66-70 a.p.). It will 
thus be seen that the Jews had guarded against the 
suspicion of idolatry by avoiding the representation 
of animals and human beings common on Greek coins 
of the period, and had substituted designs connected 
with their national worship. However, the wave of 
Hellenism would not be denied. The High Priestly 
family of the Maccabees aspired to princely rights 


10 From 126 s.c. Tyre, freed from Seleucid rule, issued tetra- 
drachms (or shekels) with the device of the Tyrian Heracles 
(Melgarth) and lion-skin and on the reverse an eagle with 
foot on ship’s prow and palm branch over shoulder. These 
and the didrachmas (half-shekels) were popular with the Jews 
for payment of the Temple offering. 

11 By some authorities these are attributed to the First Revolt. 


591 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Money 





and position against the sentiment of the Jewish 
people, and eventually Alexander Janneus (103- 
76 B.c.) claimed to be king and brazened it in Greek 
on his earlier coins. The sacred Hebrew language 
gave way, at least on the obverse of the coins, to 
pagan script, and the symbols of the Jewish Temple 
worship and fatherland to devices of a wholly pagan 
character. 

III. New Testament Times. The coinage of the 
N T period consisted mainly of the Imperial Roman 
currency of gold and silver and the bronze issues of 
local rulers. 

10. Imperial Roman and Local Coinage. The 
Maccabean, or Asmonean, dynasty which had given 
the Jews a national currency, and from which the 
‘Herods were descended, closed with Antigonus (37 
B.C.), in whose time Judea became a Roman prov- 
ince. In fact the Roman denarius (penny AV, 





Denarius of Tiberius Cesar (probably type Pharisees 
tempted Christ with). 


shilling RV) was legal tender at Jerusalem as early 
as 53 B.c. Herod I (87-4 8.c.), the Idumean, married 
the niece of Antigonus, and ruled over Judea as 
feudatory. vassal of Rome. He was followed by his 
sons Herod Archelaus, the ethnarch of Judea, 
Samaria and Idumea (4 B.c.-6 a.D.), whom Joseph 
feared, and Herod Antipas, the tetrarch of Galilee 
and Perea (4 B.c.-39 a.D.), before whom Christ was 
arraigned. ‘The currency of all these rulers was 
exclusively of copper, and the legends on the 
Herodian coins were wholly in Greek, and the de- 
signs pagan. Herod Philip II (4 8.c.-34 a.p.), men- 
tioned in Lk 3 1, went further and issued bronze 
coins bearing the head of. Tiberius Cesar, a grave 
breach of the Mosaic Law. A coin exists which was 
struck by Herod Agrippa (37-44 a.p.) bearing the 
inscription ‘King Agrippa the great lover of Caesar,’ 
which recalls the term used by the Jews to Pilate, 
‘Thou art not Cesar’s friend.’ Herod Agrippa II, 
before whom Paul was brought at Cesarea, issued 
coins with effigies of many Roman Emperors during 
his long reign from 48-100 a.p. 





Bronze Coin of Pontius Pilate. 


From 6-58 a.p. Judea was treated differently from 
the other provinces, being ruled directly by Roman 
officials—Procurators—of whom there were no less 
than 14 during this period. These procurators, in 
contrast with the Herodian princes, showed respect 
for the feelings of the conquered, as is illustrated by 
a coin of Pontius Pilate (26-36 Aa.p.), on which the 


device in no way offended Jewish religious senti- 
ments. None of the foregoing rulers had authority 
to issue gold or silver coins. These were directly 
under the Imperial authority, and it was the Im- 
perial currency which generally prevailed, except 
for the Temple purposes. It consisted of (1) the 
denarius, a silver coin a trifle larger than a U.S. 
dime, or about the size of an English sixpence, and 
passing in trade as a Greek drachma, but slightly 
heavier; and (2) the aureus (120-126 gr.), closely 
approximating the other gold coins hitherto circu- 
lating in Palestine, and worth 25 denarii. A few 
Imperial bronze coins issued by the Antioch mint 
may have found their way south. 

During Apostolic times the Jews once more issued 
their own currency. This occurred during their 
revolt against the Romans from 66-70 a.p., when the 
High Priest and Sanhedrin struck silver and copper 
coins. The copper coins bore the device on one side 
of an amphora with the year, and on the other a vine 
leaf with tendril and the words ‘Deliverance of 
Zion.’ The silver shekels and half-shekels, which as 
we have seen are attributed by some to Simon 
Maccabeus, bore a chalice with the words ‘Shekel 
of Israel’ and the year, and on the reverse a triple 
lily (?) with the legend ‘Jerusalem the Holy.’ This 
shekel was approximately the weight of the Phe- 
nician shekel, or actually 220 gr., and the half-shekel 
110 gr., and in size equaled respectively a US. 
nickel, 5-cent piece, and a dime 

In the year 70 a.p. Jerusalem was besieged and 
taken, the Temple destroyed and ‘not one stone left 
upon another.’ Vespasian the conqueror issued 
coins to commemorate the destruction of Jewish 
hopes, with scenes of their pathetic fate and the 
legend ‘Judea capta.’ 


II. List or Corns CrrcuLatTiInG In N T Trmss. 


Penny. Perhaps the commonest coin during this 
time was the denarius (Shilling RV), an Imperial 
silver coin mistranslated in AV as ‘penny,’ or penny- 
worth (Mt 20 2, etc., 22 19; Mk 6 37; Lk 10 35, etc.). 
It was really the equivalent of the modern French 
franc (at par), or about 1914 cents and wasthetribute 
payable by the Jews to their conquerors. Most 
probably it was a denarius struck under Tiberius 
Cesar and bearing the Emperor’s head, with which 
the Pharisees sought to trap Christ. It is this coin 
which is probably intended in Ac 19 19. In Mt 18 24, 
28, the contrast between the 100 pence and the 
10,000 talents is greater than seems. The Roman- 
Attic talent}® was no longer a weight, but consisted 
of 6,000 denarii or drachmas, therefore the value of 
10,000 talents of silver was 60 million denarit against 
100 (pence) or denarii. 

Farthing. This is the translation of the Gr. word 
assarion (Mt 10 29; Lk 12 6), originally a Roman 
bronze coin weighing nearly a pound, but gradually 
reduced to the size of an Eng. halfpenny and adopted 
by the Greeks. In these instances it was probably 
a Greco-Roman coin issued in Syria. The value of 

122 One of these denarii bears the inscription TI(berius) 
CAESAR DIVI AUG(usti) F(ilius) AUGUSTUS, or ‘Tiberius 


Caesar Augustus, son of the god Augustus.’ On the reverse it 
reads PONTIF(ex) MAXIM(us), ‘Chief Priest.’ (See illus.) 


18 This talent=$1,158 or £240. 


Money 
Moses 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


592 





the assarion was 11/; cents, or three-fifths of a penny, 
and sixteen equaled 1 denarius. 

A one as piece (assarion) and a 4 as piece (ses- 
fertius) equal to one quarter denarius were issued 
by the Imperial mint at Antioch. 

The word farthing is used also in the AV and RV 
to translate the Gr. word kodrantes, which was 
really the smallest Roman coin called a quadrans 
and equal to one quarter of an assarion, or about 
three-tenths of a cent or three-twentieths of a penny. 

Mite. This, of which two went to the kodrantes 
(Mk 12 42, etc.), is a translation of the Gr. word 
lepton, the smallest Gr. coin, of which 7 went to the 





Bronze Coin (of Alexander Jannzus), probably the > 
Mite of the New Testament. 


chalcus, a word used by Mk (see below). Asa foreign 
coin could not be used for a Temple offering it is 
probable that the smallest copper coins of the 
Maccabees with their Hebrew symbols and inscrip- 
tions were dropped into the box by the widow. 
The mite equaled about three-twentieths of a cent, 
or three fortieths of a penny. 

Pound. This word in the N T is a weight, but in 
Lk 19 13, etc., the original reads mina (Gr. wva). 
This is the Roman-Attic mina consisting of 100 
denarii, and equal to $19.25 or £4. 

Shekel. The tetradrachm (4 drachmas) or shekel 
(RV Mt 17 27) was equal to about 4 denarii, and at 
this time was accurately named by the Evangelist 
a stater. Imperial coins of this value were issued 
from the mint at Antioch, and were of about the 
same weight as the old Phenician shekel (220- 
224 gr.). For the Temple offerings the former would 
have had to be changed for the latter or current 
Tyrian shekels. These Tyrian shekels are believed 
to be intended by the 30 pieces of silver in Mt 26 
15, etc, 27 3, and in Zech 11 12, 13 

Half-Shekel. The didrachma (2 drachmas), or 
half-shekel, was the sacred tribute money volun- 
tarily offered by the Jews for the support of the 
Temple. It approximated the half-shekel of the old 
Temple tribute (Ex 30 13; Mt 17 24, RV). As the 
didrachma was a very rare coin, if not obsolete by 
this time, it had become the custom, as is illustrated 
by our Lord and by Peter, for two to pay the 
offering together, using a shekel. Since foreign coins 
with their referencestotheconqueror and their pagan 
symbols were not allowed to defile the Temple, it 
was necessary to resort to the money-changers in 
making offerings to the Temple. 

Drachma. This is only once mentioned in the 
N T, in the case of the loss of 10 pieces of silver by 
the woman of the Parable (Lk 15 8). Greek coins 
found their way into Palestine, but more frequently 
the drachmas were Imperial coins struck at Antioch. 
They passed for denarii in trade, but were at a 
discount in paying the Imperial tribute. 

The Roman gold coin Aureus (120-126 gr.= 
25 denarii) must have been familiar to the Jews, 


and perhaps is referred to in such passages as Mt 
10 9. 

There are various indeterminate references to 
silver (money) in the N T, which may be to denariz, 
drachmas, Phenician or Syrian shekels, or tetra- 
drachms, of early or current issues (Mt 10 9, 28 


12-15), etc. In Mk 6 8 and 12 41 the AV uses the 
word money in translating the Greek word referred 
to above chalcus, which was the name of a copper 
coin equal to 7 lepta, or about three-fourths of a 
cent. The same word is translated brass in Mt 109. 

Summing up, the chief silver coins in circulation 
during N T times were the Roman denarius, Im- 
perial drachmas, and tetradrachms of Antioch, to- 
gether with shekels both early and contemporary of 
Tyre and Sidon. Probably a few Ptolemaic and 
Seleucid shekels survived. 

The copper currency consisted mainly of the issues 
of the Roman procurators and the Herods. Small 
copper coins of the Maccabees were in demand for 
the Temple offerings, and a few Greek and Roman 
coppers from the outside may have found their way 
into circulation. 

Gold receives little mention, but there may still 
have circulated with the Roman aureus some few 
of Alexander’s staters and even Persian darics. 


III. CoMpARATIVE VALUES. 


The value of moneys in the Bible is not easy to 
translate into their equivalents to-day, not merely 
because of the change in the relative value of the 
precious metals, but because of the differences in 
real purchasing power. Perhaps an illustration will 
give an instructive comparison. The agricultural 
day-laborer’s wage in the N T is one penny (Mt 
20 2-i1), 7.e., a denarius the equivalent of a French 
franc (at par), and this is the very same rate of pay 
demanded of and paid by excavators in Greece and 
Crete before the Great War. 

LireraTuRE: F. W. Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881); Brit. 
Mus. Cat. Gr. Coins of Palestine (G. F. Hill, 1910) Brit. Mus. 
Cat. Gr. Coins of Phenicia (G. F. Hill, 1916); B. V. Head, 
Historia Numorum (1911); T. Reinach, Jewish Coins (1903), 
trans. by Mrs. Hill; HDB ITI, art.‘on ‘‘Money”’ by A. R. 8. 
Kennedy. Ciuc soe 
MONEY CHANGER. 


MERCE, § 3. 


MONSTER: The rendering of the Heb. tannin, a 
word meaning literally ‘the “Taree fish of the sea’ 
(sea-monsters,’ Gn 1 21, etc., ‘whales’ AV), and also 
used of serpents (Ex 79 f., etc.). The same term 
served to designate the mythological monster, or 
‘dragon’ AV), that played such a part in the Babylo- 
nian creation myths (Ps 74 13; Is 51 9; ef. Jer 51 34, 
see Cosmoagony, § 4). As such, it was frequently 
used by the prophets, perhaps contemptuously, for 
Egypt (Is 271; Ezk 29 3, 32 2). See also Spa-Mon- 
sTER; and DRaGon. E. EL N. 


MONTHS. See Timp, § 3. 


MONUMENT: The rendering of (1) yddh, ‘hand’ 
(LS 15 12, ‘place’ AV), probably a sign for purposes 
of recognition of the place later on. In II S,18 18 the 
same word signifies something more imposing, but 
the object is still that of recognition as it is in (2) 
tsiyytn, ‘sign’ (II K 23 17, ‘title’ AV). (8) n*tstirim 


See TRADE AND Com- 


593 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Money 
Moses 





(apparently from ndtsar, ‘to guard’ or ‘keep’) 
‘secret places’ RV, ‘vaults’ RVmg. (Is 65 4, ‘monu- 
ment’ AV). Here the word is a synonym of sepulcher 
or tomb. The passage, however, is obscure. Some 
form of the worship of the dead, or necromancy, 
may be referred to. In the general sense of a simple 
memorial the word does not appear in Biblical 
usage. A. C. Z. 


MOON: The rendering of the Heb. ydréah (from 
a root meaning ‘to wander’ [?]), and Itbhandh 
(‘white,’ or ‘pale’). The new moon was hddhesh 
(‘new’), and the full moon kese’ (‘covered,’ [?]). 
To the early Semites, the ancestors of Israel, dwell- 
ing in the desert, the moon must have seemed of 
almost equal importance with the sun. Traveling 
was done largely by night. The moon’s phases 
were great natural phenomena, by which time could 


be measured. The moon and the tides were seen to 


have some connection, a fact observed very early by 
the Arabs living near the coast and engaged in 
commerce. The moon thus came to hold a promi- 
nent place in all thought and speculation concerning 
the heavenly bodies, their influence upon the earth 
and in the affairs of men, and especially in the astral 
religion of the Semites, which was so highly de- 
veloped in Babylonia. For illustration of the estima- 
tion of the moon see Gn 1 16 f.; Dt 4 19, 33 14; Job 
31 26; Ps 81 3 RV, 104 19, 121 6, 186 9. See also 
Astronomy, § 2; and Semiric Re.iaion, § 32. (Cf. 
Nielsen, Aliarabische Mondreligion (1904). E.E.N. 


MOON, NEW. See Fasts anp Frasts, § 2. 


MOON, SMITING BY THE. Perhaps the refer- 
ence in Ps 121 6 is to the fear of injury from the 
moon which often leads Orientals to carry umbrellas 
as a protection against such injury, altho they do 
not seem to know what evil they thus seek to avert 
(so G. E. Post, in Ist ed. of this work.). E.E.N. 

MORASHTITE, mo-ras’thait (MY, morashii, 
Morashthite AV): The designation of the prophet 
Micah (Mic 1 1), indicating that he belonged to 
Moresheth-gath (1 14). 

MORDECAI, mGr’di-kai. See Estrumr, § 5 f. 

MOREH, mé’n (772, modreh), ‘soothsayer,’ or 
‘director’ (ef. tdrah, ‘direction’): 1. The ‘Holy Tree’ 
Oak, RV (‘terebinth’ ARVmg., ‘plain’ AV) or 
‘Holy Trees,’ Oaks, RV, of Moreh (Gn 12 6; Dt 
11 30). The place indicated seems to have been 
a sacred tree, or grove, in the plain E. of Shechem, 
whose priests gave oracular information and advice. 
It is probably the same as ‘the augurs’ oak’ (Jg 9 37 
ARVmg.), and possibly is also the ‘oak’ of Gn 35 4 
and Jos 24 26. 2. The Hill of Moreh (Jg 7 1) is 
apparently Jebel ed-Dahi (‘Little Hermon’), on the 
opposite side of the Valley of Jezreel from Gilboa 
and the spring of Harod (cf. Jg 6 33 with 7 1). 

L. G. L.—L. B. P. 

MORESHETH - GATH, mér’ esh -eth-gath” 
(na NWD, modresheth gath): The birthplace of the 
prophet Micah (Mic 1 14). It lay (according to 
Eusebius and Jerome) a little E. of Eleutheropolis 
(Map II, D 2). Not the same as Mareshah (ver.15). 

MORIAH, mo-rai’a (72379, mdriyyah): The knoll 
or hillock on which, according to tradition, Abraham 


offered up Isaac in sacrifice. But the name is used 
simply as a general designation of the region (Gn 
22 2). See also JERUSALEM, § 18. 

MORNING. See Time, § 1. 


MORTAR, MORTER. (1) The rendering of two 
Heb. terms, hémer and ‘aphdr, the former a common 
word for cement or clay, the latter usually meaning 
‘soil,’ dust,’ etc., but in Ly 14 42, 45 it means mud 
plaster. See Arrizan Lirs, § 4. 

(2) ‘Mortar’ also renders medhdkhah (fr. dakh ‘to 
pound’) (Nu 118) and makhtésh (fr. kathash, also 
‘to pound fine’) (Pr 27 22), both terms meaning a 
house-utensil, a heavy bowl in which spices ete. are 
pulverized by a pestle (q. v.). 


MORTGAGE. See TrapE anp ComMERcE, § 3. 


MOSERAH, md’si-ra (77910, mdsérah): One of 
the stations of the wilderness journey, mentioned in 
the fragment of an itinerary found in Dt 10 6f. as 
the place where Aaron died, probably the same as 
Moseroth in the itinerary of Nu (33 30 f.), and near 
Mt. Hor. The exact location is unknown. Cf. 
Driver, [CC on Dt in loc. HK. E.N. 


MOSEROTH, m0’si-reth. See Mospran. 


MOSES. 1. Name. The Heb. form of ‘Moses’ 
(1Y2, mdsheh) is derived in Ex 210 apparently from 
the Heb. root mdshah, ‘to draw out.’ But from the 
earliest times, assuming its Egyptian origin, another 
etymology has been sought for it. Josephus (Ant. II, 
96) makes it from md, ‘water’ (Egyptian), and 
ushe, ‘saved’ (cf. also Philo, Vit. Moys. 1 4). This 
was commonly accepted, until Lepsius and Ebers 
suggested another, which, in spite of the objections 
raised by Cheyne (ZB s.v.), is to be preferred. 
It identifies the name with the Egyptian mes, or 
messu, ‘child,’ or ‘son’ (Brugsch. Wérterb., p. 698, 
extractus [ex utero]), often found in Egyptian proper 
names in combination with some Divine appellation 
(Ahmes, Thotmes, Ra-messu, etc., 2.e., divinely born; 
cf. Gr. Diogenes). 

2. Historicity. The personality of Moses is 
thoroughly identified with the Exodus and the 
making of Israel as a nation. The understanding of 
the people’s life is very much embarrassed by the 
denial of the historicity, either of his person or of the 
event of the Exodus. Both, however, are known to 
later ages through the documentary sources J E D P, 
which have been interwoven into one story, and this, 
for the practical purpose of securing an adequate idea 
of Moses, it is unnecessary to unravel (cf., in general, 
Hexarreucn). Neither is it necessary, nor even 
possible, to separate the idealizing element infused 
into the account by a grateful and admiring people. 
On the one hand, it is quite possible to exaggerate 
this element by comparison with misleading ana- 
logs (Solon and Lycurgus). On the other hand, one 
may fall into error by denying it altogether. For a 
just estimate of the character and work of the hero, 
it is necessary to take into account not only what he 
appears to be in the outward events of history, but 
also what he became in the beliefs of his people. 
This latter element in the picture offers a fairer test 
of his power than might a dry, annalistic enumera- 
tion of his traits and deeds. 


Moses 


Moses, Assumption of A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


594 





3. Birth and Preservation. Moses was born near 
the capital city of Egypt (Memphis?) of Hebrew 
parents, Amram and Jochebed, just at the time 
when the oppression of the Hebrews by the Egyp- 
tians had reached its severest form. His father was a 
Levite and had two other children, Aaron and 
Miriam. According to the Law, which prescribed the 
death of every male Israelitic child, he was to be 
put to death as soon as born (Ex 1 22). But he was 
saved from this fate by a clever plan of his mother! 
in the carrying out of which he passed under the care 
of Pharaoh’s daughter. According to some ancient 
writers (Artapanus, quoted by Eus. Prep. Ev. IX, 
27, and Philo, Vit. Moys. 1 4), this princess, named 
Merris (but Jos. Ant. II, 9 5 says Thermuthis, 
@eou.o08ts, and some rabbis, Bithiah [I Ch 4 18)]), 
was married, but childless, and saw in the helpless 
Hebrew infant the fulfilment of her yearnings and 
prayers. Adoption was common in Egypt (cf. 
Brugsch, Gesch. Aeg., 884 f.). 

4, Early Life and Education. The childhood? and 
youth of Moses were spent. in the palace of the 
princess. He was instructed ‘in all the wisdom of the 
Egyptians.’ Manetho says (ap. Jos. Cont. Ap. I, 
26 9, 28 12) Moses served as a priest of Osiris at 
Heliopolis under the name of Osarsif. Tradition 
represents him as a young man of exceptionally 
attractive appearance and manly strength. Accord- 
ing to Philo (Vit. Moys. 1 5), the princess did not 
reveal to him his true relationship to her. But from 
Ex 2 11 it is clear that he was not ignorant of his 
Hebrew descent. In fact, his sympathy for the suf- 
ferings of his brethren, breaking out in an impetuous 
deed of bloodshed, compelled his flight from the 
land. According to later Alexandrian Jewish writers, 
known to and used by Josephus, he early showed 
signs of military genius. Taking command of the 
Egyptian army, he repulsed the Ethiopians from the 
very gates of Memphis, drove them back to their 
own capital Suba (later Merde), and captured that 
city by the aid of the princess Sharbin, who fell in 
love with him, and accompanied him back to Egypt 
(Ant. II, 10). 

5. Moses in Midian. Revelation of Yahweh. The 
next period of his life was passed in Midian. This 
period, like the preceding, is said to have covered 
forty years [P]. In the land of Midian Moses found 
refuge with Jethro (also called ‘Reuel, the priest,’ 
Ex 2 18). Entering into the house of this leader 
through a marriage with his daughter Zipporah, he 
was given the superintendence of his flocks. In the 
course of his duties in connection with Jethro’s 
flocks, Moses received the Divine commission to be- 
come the ruler and deliverer of his oppressed breth- 
ren. The message came to him through the experi- 
ence of the burning bush (q.v.) at Mount Sinai. At 
the same time, he received a revelation of God as 
Jehovah (Yahweh), the God of the Covenant 
1 Jos. Ant. I, 9 3 gives the story that Jochebed was moved 


to this by a supernatural revelation of the future mission of 
the child. 


2 The analogous tales of wonderful preservation of persons 
destined to become great (Semiramis [Diod., 2: 4], Perseus 
[Apollod., II, 4:1], Cryus [Herod., 1:113], Romulus [Livy, 1:4]) 
do not affect the credibility of this account. The only case 
that could have served as a model is that of Sargon I (cf. 
Maspero, Gesch. d. Morgenl. Vélker, p. 194). 


(Pledge), which was to transcend the former knowl- 
edge of God as the God of power (Hl Shaddai). The 
name is certainly more ancient than the date of 


‘Moses, as it constituted a component part of his 


mother’s name. And underlying its specific sense, 
which associates it with the Covenant, it includes 
the fundamental notion of self-existence and self- 
consistency, thus leading up to the higher idea of a 
God who keeps faith with His people. There are 
traces of the recognition of J’’ by the Kenites and 
other tribes in the Sinaitic peninsula (cf. Budde, Rel. 
of. Isr. to the Exile, 1898, pp. 1-38). But at the 
burning bush the expansion and transformation of 
this knowledge constituted a new era in the history 
of the name (see ISRAEL, RELIGION oF, §$§ 3-8). 

6. The Commission of Moses. The commission 
of Moses was one calculated to stagger the bravest 
man. Neither did he fail to realize its difficulty. He 
shrank from it, feeling his weakness, especially in 
the art of persuasive speech. ‘To overcome this 
difficulty he was directed to take his brother Aaron 
into his confidence and use him as his spokesman 
(prophet). His task at once resolved itself into the 
two stages, first of leading the people to accept him 
as leader, and then inducing Pharaoh to let them go 
out of Egypt (Ex ch. 4). As far as the people were 
concerned, their hardships led them to give ear, tho 
cautiously and slowly, to his declaration that the 
hour for deliverance was come. It was otherwise 
with the king who ruled over them. Naturally he 
would not permit a race of hard workers to slip out 
of the land, where monuments of astounding magni- 
tude and difficulty had been erected in the past by 
the use of the accumulated muscular force of many 
human beings. 


7. The Plagues. The efforts of the deliverer were 
now directed to the work of producing on the Egyp- 
tian king the impression that the will of the God of 
the Hebrews could not be withstood. This task was 
not easily accomplished. It required ten manifesta- 
tions of the Divine power called ‘plagues’ (Ex 7 20- 
12 36; see PLacuss), in all of which there appeared a 
common attack upon the gods of the Egyptians and 
a common design to show the great power of J’’ as 
against the impotence of the native deities. These 
plagues also proved effective in inspiring courage and 
fortitude among the Hebrews themselves, stemming 
the often rising tide of disaffection among them and 
preventing them from falling back into a condition of 
hopelessness when their request for freedom was 
denied by Pharaoh (Ex 5 20f.). The repeated shocks 
thus inflicted on the king had their effect. By the 
tenth plague he found himself overawed and de- 
feated, and gave the Hebrews over into the hands of 
Moses, who forthwith led them through a way least 
to be expected, toward the wilderness of Midian. 


8. Organization in the Wilderness. But if the 
task of getting Israel from under the yoke was a 
difficult one, that which confronted Moses on the 
Asiatic side of the Red Sea was much harder. To 
marshal the clans into some sort of community of 
action required the gifts of a general and legislator. 
How Moses proved himself equal to the occasion is 
told in the fourfold story of the Pentateuch. His 
first experience was in a conflict with Amalek (Ex 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Moses ey 
Moses, Assumption of 





17 8-16). Next came the covenant at Sinai (Ex 19 2- 
24 16), with the Decalog as its special ethical center. 
How necessary Moses’ personal presence among the 
people had become is made clear by the incident of 
the golden calf (see Car, GoLpEN), showing that 
even Aaron was not fully dominated by the new light 
on the religion of J’’ (Ex chs. 32-34). Just before 
the Israelite tribes left Sinai, Jethro joined them, 
and, acting upon his suggestion, Moses established a 
form of government for the people. It was simple 
enough, and there is no reason to think that it was 
unsuited to the circumstances. But with all its 
simplicity it must have been more or less of an ideal 
not easy to enforce (Ex ch. 18; Nu chs. 11, 16, 17). 


9. Training of Israel. From Sinai Moses led Israel 
to the borders of the promised land. The only 


incident recorded of this portion of his life is the. 


affair of Miriam and Aaron, who claimed the same 
prophetic gifts and, therefore, equal authority with 
him. Their claim was the germ of anarchy. Division 
of authority at this time would inevitably have led to 
disorganization. Hence the severe penalty inflicted 
on Miriam, which, however, Moses removed by his 
Magnanimous intercession (Nu 1213). On the eve of 
the attack on Canaan, Moses sent a deputation to 
inspect the land and the people. The report brought 
back by the majority was discouraging (see Sprus). 
Discontent arose, so that the people were not ready 
for the task of entering and possessing the land. It 
became evident that a new generation must be 
raised and trained in the wilderness, and thus 
hardened and prepared for the work. The story of 
the years following is simple. It is summed up in 
the picture of a great leader confronted by a people 
unaccustomed to the freedom of self-government, 
and fretting at the hardships they were called on to 
endure. The incident of Dathan and Abiram (see 
DarHan), the Reubenites, who together with Korah 
the Levite rebelled against Moses, is perhaps one 
of several such uprisings. As against these, it is 
clear that Moses must have in every case vindicated 
and strengthened his authority. 


10. Death of Moses. As the discipline of the 
wilderness was coming to its close, the end of the 
mission of Moses came with it. Moses made an 
effort to reach the promised land through Edom, 
but as this proved futile, because of the refusal of 
the king to let them pass through his land, Moses led 
Israel to the east side, reaching the frontiers of 
Moab. Here the men of the tribes of Gad and 
Reuben and a large number of Manasseh asked leave 
to stay (Nu ch. 32), and were given this permission, 
on condition, however, that they should first assist 
their brethren of the other tribes in conquering the 
country beyond the Jordan. The final scene in the 
great leader’s life came when he received the sum- 
mons to go up into Mount Nebo (in Abarim, q.v.; 
see also Nego), and there, after viewing the land of 
promise in its entire length and breadth, he died 
satisfied upon the heights of Pisgah. He was buried 
‘in the valley, in the land of Moab over against Beth- 
peor, but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this 
day’ (Dt 34 5f.). 

11. Character and Greatness. Naturally tradition 
seized upon this element of mystery and wove super- 


natural legends out of it (cf. Assumption of Mos.; 
Jude ver. 9). It was natural, too, that, standing as 
he does at the very beginning of the united life of 
Israel, and furnishing for that life fundamental 
principles, he should be made the center and, later, 
the author of a great number of literary productions. 
How much or how little he wrote is not known. 
Ps 90 (a ‘Prayer of Moses’) and the contents of the 
Pentateuch have been ascribed to his pen. It is a 
tribute to his greatness that this should have been 
done. But, his distinctive characteristic, shining 
above all intellectual qualities, was his realization 
that only through obedience to spiritual and moral 
laws, the laws of the only true God, Yahweh, could 
the new people accomplish a national task and 
achieve a world-destiny. He was the first of the 
great prophets. ‘He brought J’ to Israel and Israel 
to J.’ See also Isrart, RELIGION oF, §§ 3-8. 
LITERATURE: Kittel, Hist. of the Hebrews (Eng. transl. 1895), 
I, pp. 192-262; Cornill, Hist. of Israel (Eng. transl. 1898); 
W. Robertson Smith, The O T in the Jewish Church (21892), 


pp. 202-323; G. Rawlinson, Moses (in Men of the Bible 
Serzes); Baker-Greene, Migration of the Hebrews. 


CirZ. 

MOSES, ASSUMPTION OF: 1. Apocalyptic 
Writing in Moses’ Name. An apocryphal book, 
based upon the account of the death of Moses (Dt 
34 5 f.). Here it is said that Jehovah ‘buried him, 
. - . but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this 
day.’ Evidently upon the ground of this statement, 
legendary representations arose of the great leader’s 
passing into heaven in an exceptional manner. 
Early Christian writers allude to at least four books 
that might have contained elaborations of this 
legend. These are The Apocalypse of Moses, The 
Assumption of Moses, The Ascension of Moses 
(Orig. de Prine. 3, 2, 1), and the Testament of Moses 
(Stichom. Niceph.). But these may be only dif- 
ferent names of one or two books. 

2. Rediscovery of the Assumption. In any case, 
it is probable that there were at least two works 
bearing on the subject, which have been fused 
into the one now extant, under the single title, 
Assumption of Moses. This pseudepigraph was 
brought to light in modern times, first in Latin, in 
1861 by Ceriani (Monum. Sacr. et Profan., fase. I, 
pp. 55-64), and has since been edited, with an 
introduction and notes and with an English transla- 
tion, by Professor Charles (1897). 

3. Contents. The work begins with an exhorta- 
tion by Moses, addressed to Joshua to preserve his 
writings (ch. 1). This is followed by the prediction 
that Israel would forsake J’’ and be divided into 
two nations (ch. 2), but should awake to the enor- 
mity of her crime and repent (ch. 3); the two tribes 
should be restored, and the ten preserved among the 
Gentiles (ch. 4); they should repeatedly fall away 
(ch. 5), should be oppressed by Herod (ch. 6), and 
fall under the dominion of wicked leaders (ch. 7); 


‘the Romans should subjugate them (ch. 8), but a 


great, Levite, Taxo!, should appear to restore a 
better condition of things among them (ch. 9). For 


1This is a cryptogram made by gematria from Eleazar 
cuybsx=pioom, by taking in each case the letter preceding 
in the Heb. alphabet. But the final Pp is evidently lost by 
textual corruption. 


Most High 
Muppim 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


596 


this deliverance a song of hope is inserted at this 
point (ch. 10). Joshua, to whom this revelation is 
made by Moses, laments and refuses to be com- 
forted (ch. 11), but is exhorted by Moses to take up 
his work of conquering and destroying the Gentiles 
(ch, 12). At this point the book comes to an abrupt 
end. 

4. Identification. In the ancient patristic allusions 
to the Assumption of Moses, the words of Jude ver. 9 
are said to be quoted from this book; but, as they 
do not appear in the extant text, it must be inferred 
either that there was a confusion of names or that 
the part of the book from which the quotation was 
made has been lost (Schtirer), or that our work is a 
Testament of Moses, with portions of the original 
Assumption incorporated into it (Charles). 

5. Original Language. The Latin text is a transla- 
tion from a Greek original, and this again is believed 
by many to have been rendered from a Hebrew or 
Aramaic original (cf. Hilgenfeld’s attempted restora- 
tion into Greek in Messias Judeorum, 1869, pp. 
435-468). Cf. Charles, Apoc. and Pseudepig. of 
the O T (1913). A. C. Z. 

MOST HIGH. The rendering of the Heb. ‘elydn 
which was frequently used of God, sometimes with 
él, ‘God,’ prefixed (as in Gn 14 18, etc.), but more 
often without. It may well be that it was taken 
over by Israel from Canaanite usage (cf. Skinner 
on Gn 1418 in ICC). See Gop, § 1. 


MOTE (xée90¢): As used in Mt 7 3f., Lk 6 41f., 
the Gr. means a ‘dried twig,’ or ‘splinter,’ in con- 
trast with ‘beam.’ The original meaning of the 
English word ‘mote’ is similar (cf. G. B. King in 
Harv. Th. Rev., Oct. 1924). 7 Rd 

MOTH. Sce PAtestine, § 26. 

MOTHER. See Famity anp Famixty Law, § 5. 

MOUND (sél‘lah, what is ‘raised up’): A heap 
of earth, timber, etc. (Jer 6 6, 32 24, 33 4; Ezk 4 2, 
etc., ‘mount’ AV), designed to facilitate a siege. 
See also BESIEGE. 

MOUNT, MOUNTAIN (11, har, de0s), ‘mount’ or 
‘mountain range,’ ‘mountainous region,’ as distin- 
guished from the lowland: The RV has, more 
uniformly than AV, ‘hill-country,’ for‘ mountainous 
region,’ and uses ‘mountain’ more correctly than 
AV, which often has ‘hill’ for an isolated high ele- 
vation. ‘The more correct use of ‘mount’ is for 
specific mountains, as Sinai (Ex 19 11, 18; Nu 31, 
etc.), Hor (Nu 20 22, etc.), Hermon (Dt 3 8; Jos 11 17, 
etc.), Carmel (I K 1819, etc.), Zion (Is 45, 1012, etc.), 
and others. ‘Mountain,’ in sing. and pl., is used 
for high elevations in general. In Ps 68 15 f. [16 f£.], 
‘mountain of Bashan’ is the mountain range of the 
Jebel Hauran; with this meaning it is more often 
translated ‘hill-country.’ ‘Mountain’ is often used 
in parallelisms with ‘hill,’ and in contrast with ‘val- 
ley.’ See Hitt, Hitu-Country. Various references 
to mountain are of interest. ‘Mountain (AV hill) of 
God’ (Ps 68 15 [16]) means a majestic mountain; cf. 
the simile in Ps 366 [7]. ‘M. of God’ in Ex 4 27, 18 5, 
etc., refers to Horeb (Sinai). ‘Mount of congrega- 
tion’ (Is 1413) is the dwelling-place of the gods in the 
far North. The mountains first appeared at crea- 
tion (Ps 104 6 f.), are one of God’s chief works (Ps 
65 6 [7], 90 2), Am 413, they feel God’s displeasure (Is 


42 15; Ps 104 32; Jg 5 5; Mic 1 4; Is 5 25, etc.); are 
called to witness God’s dealings with His people (Mic 
6 2; Ezk 361, etc.). They leap in praise of J’ (Ps 114 
4,6). Mountains are hiding-places (Jg 6 2; Ps 111), 
abodes of animals (I Ch 12 8; Song 4 8); in them 
sheep go astray (Nah 3 18; I K 22 17; Jer 50 6); good 
places for grazing (Ps 50 10; Job 39 8). Among the 
many figurative uses are Israel’s overcoming its 
foes (Is 41 15); overwhelming calamities (Jer 13 16); 
stability, though not as unchanging as God’s love 
(Is 54 10). In Dn 2 35, 45 the Aramaic “39, tur, 
‘mountain,’ is used. In Is 29 3 mutstsdbh is ‘siege- 
works’ as in RV, and in Jer 6 6, 32 24, 33 4; Ezk 4 2, 
17 17, 21 22, 26 8; Dn 11 15 sélelah is a ‘mount’ or 
‘mound’ (as in ARV) thrown up in besieging a city. 
C.S. T. 


MOURNING AND MOURNING CUSTOMS: 
1. The Mourning Garment. Upon news of the death 
of a relative or an important personage, people rent 
their garments (II S 111) and put on the mourning 
garment of sackcloth, sag (II S 3 31, 2110). As to 
what this garment was opinions differ. Some (Kamp- 
hausen and others) think it was very much like a 
corn-sack, open at both ends; others think that it 
was originally nothing more than a loin-cloth, which 
in prehistoric times was the customary and, in fact, 
the only article of clothing worn by Israel’s ancestors. 
Consequently, in later times it was worn only as a 
religious duty, 7.e., on extraordinary occasions, in 
mourning festivals, processions, etc. Even the late 
book The Ascension of Isaiah (2 10) speaks of the 
loin-cloth as a mourning-garment. Since old modes 
of dress, as they pass out of use, easily take upon 
themselves, from their very antiquity, a holy 
character, it is not surprizing that the prophets 
chose the sag as a piece of clothing. It is also 
probable that as time passed and civilization de- 
veloped, the dimensions of the sag were enlarged 
(cf. Schwally, ZATW, XI, 174 f.). 

2. Dust or Ashes on the Head. As a sign of grief 
it was the custom to sprinkle ashes on the head, as 
the Arabs do to-day (II S 1 2; cf. Mic 110). It is 
probable that originally the ashes were those of the 
articles burned with the body (II Ch 16 14, 21 19), 
or dust from the grave (see W. R. Smith, Relig. of 
the Semites, p. 418 f.). 

3. Cuttings in the Flesh. In Jer 166, Dt 141f., 
Lv 19 27 £. the practise of making cuttings in the 
flesh is presupposed as common. The prohibition of 
this custom was not due to the feeling that it in- 
volved a disfigurement of the body created by God, 
but to the conviction that it was a cultus-usage 
irreconcilable with the religion of J’’ (cf. I K 18 28). 
Evidently, the purposes was by means of blood to 
propitiate the spirits of the dead, and to persuade 
them to enter into fellowship, to a certain degree, 
with the living. 

4. Shaving the Head or Beard. In like manner, 
the prohibition of the kindred custom of shaving 
the head or beard (Lv 19 27; Dt 141 #.) dealt with 
an old cultus-usage dating from a time when the 
worship of the dead was common in Israel. It was, 
in reality, an offering of hair brought to the dead— 
a practise in vogue also among the Egyptians, 
Arabs, Greeks, and other peoples. Wellhausen sug- 


597 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Most High 
Muppim 


LL eh 


gests that probably the original meaning of the 
custom was that thereby the offerer confessed him- 
self to be dedicated to the deity. The covering of 
the head in times of grief (cf. II S 15 30; Jer 14 3; 
Est 6 12) Schwally compares with Elijah’s reverent 
covering of his head when God appeared to him 
(I K 19 13). The custom would thus be due to a 
feeling of awe and reverence in the presence of the 
dead, as was probably the custom of removing 
the sandals (cf. Ex 3 5 with Is 20 2£.; IIS 15 30). 
Whether the covering of the beard (Ezk 24 17; Jer 
14 3; II S 15 30) is to be understood as due to a 
weakening of the earlier custom of cutting off the 
beard (so Benzinger) seems doubtful. In view of 
the fact that spirits of the dead were also feared 
as powers that could work injury to man, it is not 
improbable that a number of the above-mentioned 


customs, including that of covering the beard, were - 


due to an effort to render oneself inoffensive and 
thus protect oneself against harm. 


5. Lamentations. Such mourning customs were 
usually accompanied by loud cries of sorrow. The 
relatives cried ‘Ho! Ho!’ and with loud lamentations 
preceded the body to the grave, often accompanied 
by professional female (at times male) mourners (Jer 
9 16 f.; Am 5 16), musicians or minstrels (Mt 9 23, 
‘flute-players’ RV), who chanted the mourning-song 
(gingh), or played mourning-tunes which had a 
peculiar rhythm and were always sung in a monot- 
onous strain. The same custom is observed to-day 
in the neighborhood of Damascus, in the Hauran, 
and elsewhere. There is direct reference to the 
lament over the dead in Zec 12 10 f., which can not 
be understood as meaning simple natural outbreak 
of sorrow, but must refer to the established cultus- 
usages of which each family had its peculiar forms. 


6. The Meal for the Dead and Offerings to the 
Dead. The period of fasting was closed (or, in case 
it extended over several days, interrupted) by a 
feast for the dead (Hos 9 4; II S 3 35; Jer 167 £.; 
Eizk 24 17, 22). Besides such a feast, there were also 
offerings to the dead. In fact, the feast probably 
was an outgrowth of the custom of presenting offer- 
ings to the dead. The requirement in Dt 26 14, that 
when one brings his tithes he shall affirm that he has 
not ‘given thereof for the dead,’ can have reference 
only to offerings to, or meals in honor of, the dead. 
The latter had also a cultus significance, inasmuch 
as such food was considered unclean (Hos 9 4). 
Survivals of such a practise are met with in much 
later times. Tobias (To 4 17) is enjoined to lay 
food only on the tombs of the just, and not to give 
any such honor to sinners, while the son of Sirach 
ridicules this custom when he asks: ‘What profit is 
an offering to a shade? Good things poured out upon 
a mouth that is closed are the offerings of meat laid 
upon a grave’ (Sir 30 18 f.). The burning of spices, 
of which we find mention in late references (Jer 
34 5; II Ch 16 14, 21 19) should also be viewed as a 
form of offering to the dead. It is, of course, to be 
understood that no claim is made that in later 
times there was any clear knowledge of the original 
nature of these mourning customs. As with many 
other customs, even more so with these, the practise 
survived long after the root from which it sprang 


had withered away. See Burtan anp BuriAu 
Customs; L. B. Paton, Spiritism and the Cult of 
the Dead in Antiquity (1921), ch. x. 
W. N.—L. B. P. 
MOUSE, MICE. See Patesrine, § 24. 


MOUTH: This term translates the following Heb. 
and Gr. words: (1) gdrdn, ‘throat’ (Ps 149 6, ‘throat’ 
RV). (2) hékh, ‘palate’ (Job 12 1, 20 13, ‘palate’ 
RV; Pr 5 3). (8) ‘ddhi, ‘ornament’ (Ps 32 9, ‘trap- 
pings’ RV; 103 5, ‘desire’ RV). (4) peh, ‘mouth’ 
(Gn 411; Ex 4 11; Job 31). (5) pum, Aram. ‘mouth’ 
(Dn 4 31, etc.). (6) pdnim, ‘face’ (Pr 15 14) (7) 
tera‘, ‘gate’ (Dn 3 26, ‘door’ RVmg.). (8) Adyos, 
‘word’ (Ac 15 27, ‘word of mouth’ RV). (9) otéya, 
‘mouth’ (Mt 4 4; Lk 1 64). Most of these terms 
have besides their literal usage, also a figurative 
one in which ‘mouth’ is often equivalent to ‘words,’ 
‘speech,’ ‘judgment,’ ‘wisdom,’ and, in general, the 
character of a person as put into articulate expres- 
sion. Ayes 

MOVING THINGS: The rendering of sherets 
(Gn 1 20) and remes (Gn 9 3 AV). In Gn 1 20, 
however, this phrase is changed in RY to ‘living 
creatures.’ The difference between the two Heb. 
synonyms is that the first (sherets) conveys the idea 
of swarming and the second (remes) that of gliding 
or creeping. A. C. Z. 

MOW, MOWER, MOWING. See, in general, 
under Reaping, AcricutrurE, § 6. In Am 7 1 
‘king’s mowings’ has reference to a special cut- 
ting and gathering of grass for the king’s cattle. 

K. E. N. 

MOZA, m6’za (S¥15, médisa’): 1. A son of Caleb 
by his concubine Ephah (I Ch 2 46). 2. A descen- 
dant of Saul (I Ch 8 36f., 9 42 f.). CaS. bee 

MOZAH, md’/za ($2, mdtsdh): A city of Ben- 
jamin (Jos 18 26). Map II, E 1. (Site uncertain.) 

MUFFLERS. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 8. 

MULBERRY-TREE. See Patusring, §§ 21 
and 23. 

MULE (7178, peredh; fem. 1118, pirdah, properly, 
the term mule means the offspring of a he-ass and a 
mare, but the Heb. term probably includes that of 
the stallion and she-ass): An animal much used in 
the East, both in ancient and modern times. Mules, 
known in Egypt and Assyria long before, were intro- 
duced into Israel by David, whose riding animal was 
a mule (I K 1 33; cf. 11S 13 29, 189). From David’s 
time on they seem to have been quite common, and 
their importation was an important item in the 
commerce of the day (I K 10 25; cf. Ezk 27 14). 
They were used for riding and also as pack-beasts 
of burden (cf. II K 517). On Gn 36 24 and Est 8 10, 
14, cf. RV. HK. E. N. 

MUNITION: The term renders the Heb. m*tsadh, 
métsodhah (Is 33 16), elsewhere (Is 29 7) rendered 
in RV ‘stronghold,’ and m*stiradh in AV, but RV 
‘bulwark’ (Nah 2 1). Ay Gt Zi. 

MUPPIM, mop’pim (882, muppim): The an- 
cestral head of one of the clans of Benjamin, and 
the clan itself (Gn 46 21; called Shephupham[n], 
in Nu 26 39, Shupham AV and I Ch 85, and Shup- 
pim in I Ch 7 12, etc.). 


Murder 
Music 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


598 





MURDER. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2. 


MURMUR, MURMURING: With one or two ex- 
ceptions all the instances in which these terms occur 
in the Bible have reference either to the frequent 
complainings of the Israelites against Moses in the 
Wilderness (Ex 15 24, 16 8, 17 3; Nu 14 2, etc.) or to 
the fault-finding of the Jewish religious leaders with 
Jesus (Lk 5 30; Jn 6 41, etc.). 
anything technical or peculiar in the expressions 
used. EH. E. N. 


MURRAIN. The Heb. debher, only once (Ex 9 3) 
rendered ‘murrain’ is the usual term for ‘pestilence.’ 
Also only here and Ps 78 50 is it used of the cattle 
plague. See DisnHaAsre AND Mepicinp, § 4 (2); and 
PLAGUES. 


MUSHI, mii’shai (U2, miasht: The ancestral 
head of one of the subdivisions of the Merarite Le- 
vites, the Mushites (Ex 6 19; Nu 3 20, 26 58; I Ch 
6 19, etc.). 


MUSIC AND MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS: 1. 
Hebrew Music in General. Music in some form is 
almost universal among all peoples, from the savage 
or primitive grade upward, its primary application 
being as a social diversion, but usually with exten- 
sions in connection with magic and religious cere- 
mony, often with the aid of instruments of much 
ingenuity. It is, therefore, natural that musical 
customs and implements should have been well 
known to the ancient Hebrews. Yet, altho the O T 
refers often to singing and dancing, and names nearly 
twenty instruments, the whole subject remains ob- 
scure, since pictorial delineations are lacking, as well 
as helpful allusions to practical methods. Conjecture 
as to the facts must constantly take refuge in the use 
of analogies from adjacent countries (Egypt, Baby- 
lonia, and Assyria), or from usages now found among 
the Arabs. 

2. Summary of Principal References. Without 
attempting an exhaustive summary of the references, 
four classes of the applications of music may at once 
be distinguished. (a) Singing, dancing and playing on 
instruments are frequent features of social jubila- 
tion, as in connection with the stories of Jacob (Gn 
31 27), Miriam (Ex 15), Israel at Sinai (Ex 32 6, 18), 
Jephthah (Jg 11 34), David (IS 18 6-7), among the 
profane and riotous (Job 21 12; Ee 2 8, 7 5; Is 5 12; 
Am 5 23, 6 5), in general (Jer 31 4; Ezk 38 32), in 
contrast with times of despair (Is 24 8; Job 30 31; 
Pr 25 20; La 5 14-15), and at Babylon (Is 14 11) and 
Tyre (Is 23 16; Ezk 26 13, 28 13). The instruments 
mentioned are the drum, two kinds of pipe and 
two with strings. In one case drums and stringed 
instruments are named, apparently for war use (Is 
30 32). In the list of the Cainites, Jubal is set down 
as the progenitor of instrumentalists (Gn 4 21). 
Social music, then, was evidently common and 
customary. (b) Music as a help to prophetic ecstasy 
is but lightly touched, but in a way that implies 
familiarity (II K 315; Ps 49 4). Akin to this was the 
use of music to relieve Saul’s depression (I S 16 
16-23). (c) Music in a distinetly religious use appears 
with the story of David’s transfer of the Ark to 
Jerusalem (II S 6 5, 15). In the early histories 
Temple usages are implied in I K 1012, as in pas- 


In no case is there 





sages in the prophets (Am 8 3, 10; Is 80 29; Ezk 40 44). 
The later histories magnify the matter, tracing the 
founding of the system to David, mentioning in- 
stances of use under Solomon, Asa, Jehoshaphat, 
Jehoiada, Hezekiah, Josiah and after the Return, 
giving lists of singers, etc. (I Ch 6 31-47, 9 33, 13 8, 
15 16-29, 16 4-6, 41-42, 25 1-31; IL Ch 5 12-14, 7 6, 9 11, 
15 14, 20 21-22, 28, 23 13, 29 25-28, 30 21, 34 12, 35 15; 
Ezr 2 41, 65, 70, 3 10-11, 77, 24, 10 24; Neh 71, 44, 67, 73, 
10 28, 39, 11 22-23, 12 27-43, 46-47, 18 5, 10; with a note 
ona Temple procession in Ps 68 24-25). The distribu- 
tion of the references leaves some question as to the 
amount of music in the First Temple, but they 
clearly imply its prominence in the Second, after the 
Exile had given knowledge of Babylonian customs. 
To these are to be added the many passages where 
instruments are mentioned in the Pss (33 2-3, 43 4, 
47 5, 57 8, 71 22, 81 2-3, 92 3, 98 5-6, 108 2, 137 2-4, 
1449, 1477, 149 3, 150 3-5), besides frequent allusions 
to the custom of song. The instruments oftenest 
named are drums, cymbals, two kinds of trumpets 
and at least two varieties of stringed instruments. 
(d) The use of trumpets for signaling, usually in war, 
but also in civil and religious observances, is fre- 
quently indicated, both as a fact (in the stories of 
Saul, Absalom, Solomon, etc.), as a ceremonial rule 
(as in Lv 25), and as a figure for prophetic utterance 
(as in Am, Hos, Jer, Ezk, etc.). A very peculiar 
reference is incorporated into the story of Nebuchad- 
regzar’s image (Dn 3 5, 7, 10, 15), on which see under 
(5) in the following section. 


3. Instruments. The instruments designated be- 
long to certain groups that are everywhere found— 
those struck or shaken (percussive or pulsatile), 
those blown with the breath (flatile) and those with 
strings that are twanged by the fingers or by means 
ofa plectrum. The Hebrews are not known to have 
had any stringed instrument sounded by means of 
the friction of a bow (altho the AV and the RV 
employ the term ‘viol’ four and three times re- 
spectively). The subject has been greatly confused 
by the terms used by successive versions, the editors 
and translators either misinterpreting the Hebrew 
or else using musical terms without care. 


(1) The percussives or pulsatiles number four or 
five. The tabret or timbrel, t0ph, was probably a 
small, bowl-shaped drum or possibly some sort of 
tambourine. Most of the 17 references are con- 
nected with merry-making (as Gn 31 27; Jg 11 34; 
Is,5 12; Jer 31 4) and the ‘rest religious, in the hands 
of prophets (I 8 10 5) or of worshipers (as Ps 68 
25, 150 4). It rarely occurs with the cymbals or 
trumpets, but is common with other instruments, 
doubtless as marking the rhythm. The cymbals, 
tseltstlim, m*tsiltayim, were either hollowed metal 
cups held in the hands or little plates fastened to 
the fingers (castanets). The 10 or more references are 
all in religious use and all but one (II § 6 5) in late 
books (as I Ch 16 5; Neh 12 27; Ps 150—in the last 
with intimation of noisy effect). In I Ch 15 19 they 
are said to be of brass. These, too, were time-and 
rhythm-markers. A pulsatile instrument, m*na‘an‘tm 
(AV, cornet, RV, castanets), appearing only in the 
story of the upbringing of the Ark (II S 6 5), was 
probably the Egyptian sistrum (a loop-shaped metal 


599 A NEW STANDARD 


frame with loose, jingling rods run through it). 
Bells, or jingles, m*tsilldth, in the trappings of horses, 
are once named (Zec 14 20). 

(2) The flatiles include representatives of both 
the flute (or oboe) and the trumpet classes. The 
pipe, Aalil (and perhaps the instrument [?] desig- 
nated by the pl. term n*hiloth, Ps 5, superscription), 
was either a direct flute (flageolet) or possibly an 
oboe, doubtless made of cane or wood. Of 5 refer- 
ences, one shows use by the prophet-gild (I 8 10 5) 
and the rest are social (as Is 5 12). Another pipe, 
‘“igabh (organ AV), is supposed to be some form of 
Pan’s-pipe or syrinx (a graduated set of tubes of 
cane). It appears always with the kinndr (see be- 
low). Except for one case that may be generic for 
wind-instruments (under Jubal, Gn 4 21), the refer- 
ences are poetic (Job 21 12, 30 31; Ps 150 4). A third 


pipe, negebh (Ezk 28 13), is doubtful, the term per- 


haps meaning some form of jewelry. The ram’s- 
horn, geren, is but rarely mentioned (Jos 6 5; I Ch 
25 5; Dn 3), but was probably common as a rude 
implement for signals and noisy demonstrations. 
The curved trumpet, shéphdr, was probably de- 
rived from the geren, tho often made of wood. 
The nearly 40 references all concern the giving of 
signals, except a few in religious connections (II S 
6 15; I Ch 15 28; II Ch 15 14; Ps 47 5, 81 3, 98 6, 
150 3). The straight trumpet, hdtsdts¢rah, is more 
likely to have been of metal. This is clearly named 
over 15 times, mostly of signaling, but in later times 
almost wholly in the Temple ritual (as I Ch 16 6, 
42; II Ch 29 26-28; Ezr 3 10, etc.). Apparently it 
became the characteristic instrument of the priests. 


(3) The stringed instruments are decidedly promi- 
nent, but their exact form is uncertain. The com- 
monest is the kinnér (harp, AV and RV), which is 
usually supposed to have been a lyre rather than a 
harp and therefore analogous to the Arab kissar. 
The over 35 references imply its constant employ- 
ment for both secular and sacred purposes. It is 
usually associated with the nebhel, but also with 
one of the trumpets, with the cymbals and the 
drum. The nebhel (psaltery, AV and RV), was 
probably not a psaltery (a variety of zither), but 
either a triangular harp, perhaps resembling the 
Greek ftrigon (as Jerome believed) or, still better, 
some form of lute and analogous to the common 
Egyptian nefer. In about 25 references it is usually 
associated with the kinnér, which perhaps implies 
that they were complementary rather than related 
(like lyre and lute). Monumental evidence (in 
Egypt) indicates that the Hebrews used the lyre, 
but whether this was called kinnér or nebhel is not 
clear. 

(4) Collective terms for instruments also occur, 
especially ‘implements of song’ or some similar 
phrase (Am 6 5; Neh 12 36; I Ch 15 16, 16 42, 23 5; 
II Ch 513, 7 6, 23 13, 29 26, 27, 30 21, 3412). Stringed 
instruments are supposed to be meant by n‘ghinah 
(Is 38 20; Job 309; La 3 14, 5 14; Ps 69 12, 77 6, and 
in the plural form n%ghinoth, in the captions of Pss 
4, 6, 54, 55, 61, 67 and 76, with the colophon to 
Hab 3), and by minnim (Ps 45 8, 150 4); and similarly 
pipes by nehiloth (caption of Ps 5). In three cases 
(Ps 33 2, 144 9, 92 3) the word ‘ds6r, ‘ten,’ occurs, 


Murder 


BIBLE Music 


DICTIONARY 


in the first two with nebhel. This has been rendered 
‘of ten strings,’ which, if correct, militates against 
making the nebhel a lute. In three cases (I Ch 
15 21 and the captions to Pss 6 and 12) the word 
sheminith, ‘eighth,’ occurs, in the first with kinnér. 
This has often been said to mean singing or playing 
in ‘octaves’ or ‘eighths,’ which is far-fetched in the 
extreme (since it involves the notion of an 8-tone 
scale); it is much more likely to refer to the number 
of strings. In I Ch 15 20 and the captions of Pss 46 
and 49 (in the last by a shift of text from the end of 
48) the word ‘dlaméth, ‘maidens,’ appears, in the 
first with nebhel. This perhaps refers to some 
soprano effect. The word gittith (captions of Pss 8, 
81, and 84) may signify some sort of instrument. 
The elucidation of all these terms, as of others be- 
low, is at best very uncertain, as the text may be 
corrupt or the reference be to facts or usages now 
unknown. 


(5) The terms used in the story of Nebuchadrez- 
zar’s image (Dn 3 5, 7, 10, 15) are so peculiar as to 
require special comment. The first, garnd’, is the 
emphatic form of geren, horn; the second, mashro- 
githd’, is probably some kind of pipe or flute; the 
third, githrés or githGrds, is plainly the Greek x(@aetc, 
lyre; the fourth, sabbekha’, is the Greek capGuxn, a 
triangular harp (probably of Oriental origin); the 
fifth, p*santérin, is perhaps the Greek aArietoy, 
another harp, or, better, the Persian santir, a dul- 
cimer; and the sixth, simpdn*yah, is evidently the 
Greek ouyzgwvla, probably a form of bagpipes. The 
rendering in both of the EVV, ‘cornet, flute, harp, 
sackbut, psaltery, dulcimer,’ needs rectification, 
especially in the last three terms, since ‘sackbut’ 
(an old English form of trombone) is strikingly 
inapt, and ‘dulcimer’ is either misplaced or wholly 
wrong. The occurrence of loan-words from the 
Greek in this passage is naturally regarded as in- 
dicating the late date of the whole book. The term 
mahdlath, in the superscription of Pss 53 and 88, is 
of unknown derivation and meaning. 


4. Musicians as a Class. It is likely that among 
the Hebrews, as among other peoples of antiquity, 
musicians as a class were somewhat definitely recog- 
nized. ‘Singing men and singing women’ are named 
as helpers at festivities (II S 19 35; cf. Ec 2 8) and 
perhaps as professional mourners (Ec 12 5; Mt 9 23). 
In later periods, if not earlier, the Temple had a 
notable body of singers and players, both men and 
women, set apart from among the Levitical class. 
The Chronicler makes frequent reference to these, 
but they are also mentioned by other writers (as 
II K 1213; Am 8 3, 10; Ezk 40 44), especially at the 
close of the Exile (as Ezr 2; Neh 7, 12, ete.). Their 
institution is attributed to David, under the advice 
of Gad and Nathan (II Ch 29 25, etc.), and they are 
said to have been divided into Kohathites, Asa- 
phites and Merarites (I Ch 6 31-48). In another place 
the supervisor is stated to have been Chenaniah and 
the leaders Asaph, Heman, and Ethan, or Jeduthun 
(I Ch 15 16-24). In the Temple their station was east 
of the brazen altar (II Ch 5 12); they also served on 
occasion with the army (II Ch 20 21-22, 28). At the 
Return the number of the Asaphites is given as 128 
or 148 (Ezr 2 41; Neh 7 44) and the total as 200 or 


Music 
Myth 


245 (Ezr 2 65; Neh 7 67), with Jezrahiah as super- 
visor in Nehemiah’s time (Neh 12 42). Provision was 
then made for their free maintenance, as for the 
priests and other Levites (Ezr 7 24; Neh 11 23, 12 
47, 13 5, 10-13). All this detail certainly has value as 
indicating their importance in the postexilic time. 

5. Actual Effects. As to the actual styles and forms 
of music used, we have little but inference and con- 
jecture to guide us. We suppose that vocal effects 
were emphasized, instruments being used only for 
accompaniment and contrast. Analogy suggests that 
song was almost wholly in unison, tending to be loud 
and harsh, sometimes strongly rhythmic, but often 
cast in the form of free recitative or cantillation, the 
melodic outline being based on modes or scales un- 
like those of our modern European music and em- 
bellished with manifold tonal decorations, as in 
Oriental singing generally. The structural parallel- 
ism of Hebrew poetry seems to imply more or less 
use of antiphony or responsion in musical declama- 
tion. It is a mooted question whether or not the 
traditional cantillation of modern synagogs sheds 
any light upon ancient usages. It is unlikely that it 
does, since this synagog music seems to have been 
progressively influenced by its local surroundings; 
in any case, there is insuperable difficulty in identi- 
fying what little may remain in it of ancient material. 
The vociferous praise that was apparently charac- 
teristic of Hebrew worship after the Exile is to be 
emphasized not so much for what it may have been 
artistically as for the general example that it estab- 
lished for the application of musical art in Christian 
public worship. 

6. Musical Titles and Directions. In the Psalter 
occur several expressions (besides those already 
cited) whose meaning is obscure, but which are 
supposed to be musical or at least liturgical. In the 
captions of about fifteen poems are apparently the 
titles or first words of well-known melodies to which 
the poems were to be sung. These include ’al- 
tashhéth, ‘Destroy not,’ in Pss 57, 58, 59, 75; 
shishan-‘édhiith, ‘Lily of the Testimony,’ in Ps 60; 
shdshannim-‘édhith, ‘Lilies of the Testimony,’ in 
Ps 80, simply shdshannim, ‘Lilies,’ in Pss 45, 69; 
’ayyeleth hashshahar, ‘Hind of the dawn,’ in Ps 22; 
yonath ’élem r:hogim, ‘Dove of the distant tere- 
binths,’ or ‘Silent dove of those afar off,’ in Ps 56, 
and mtth labbén, perhaps ‘Death of —?’ in Ps 9 
(which may be a corruption in the text). The 
attempt to connect these expressions with any 
particular melodies is quite futile. Indeed, they 
may not refer to such melodies at all, especially as 
it is hard to see what precise similarity of form con- 
nects the poems to which the same title is assigned.! 

7. Early Christian Music. The N T references to 
music are few and mostly unimportant. Jesus and 
the Disciples sang part or all of the Hallel (Pss 113- 

1 It is not impossible that these titles refer to some passage, 
ritual occasion or object by which the poem was suggested or 
with which it was used. For example, ‘Destroy not’ is the 
opening of a notable prayer in Dt 9, with which it is not hard 
to associate the four poems in question. The ‘Lily’ titles 
recall the ornamentation of the two brazen pillars and the 
brazen sea in the Temple (I K 7 15-2), possibly hinting at a 
customary place of rendering. It is curious that the ‘Dove’ 
title has verbal similarities with Ps 55 6-7, so that it may be a 


subscription to 55 instead of a superscription to 56. Thirtle 
believes that all these expressions are subscriptions. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





600 


118) at the Last Supper (Mt 26 30; Mk 14 26). Among 
the early Christian fraternities singing had place as 
a method of social worship (Ac 16 25; I Co 14 15, 26; 
Eph 5 19; Col 3 16; Ja 513). In the Apocalypse and 
elsewhere musical symbols are used in describing 
the coming of the Last Day as well as the praises of 
heaven. ‘The instruments named are the cymbal, 
x0u.Barov (1 Co 13 1); the pipe or flute, adA6¢ (Mt 9 
23, 1117; Lk 7 32; I Co 147; Rev 18 22); the trumpet, 
oéAntyé (Mt 6 2; I Co 14 8; He 12 19; Rev 1 10, 41, 
18 22, and, as the signal for the Last Day, Mt 24 31; 
I Th 4 16; I Co 15 52; Rev 8 2-13, 9 1, 13-14, 10 7, 
11 15); and the lyre, x:0ée~% (I Co 147; Rev 5 8, 
14 2, 15 2, 18 22). Of these, the flute and the lyre 
were the most characteristic types in general Greek 
use. We infer that the first Jewish converts brought 
over with them the habit of psalmody from the 
synagogs, to which additions were soon demanded 
by the new conceptions and spirit of the new faith. 
The precise musical form used doubtless varied in 
different regions, the Jews using such styles and 
melodies as they already had and the Greeks adapt- 
ing the more elegant and artistic methods of Hellenic 
society. At Corinth we perhaps catch a hint of the 
Greek custom of ‘rhapsodizing’ or extempore can- 
tillation (I Co 14). Some distinction seems to have 
been made between ‘psalms, hymns and spiritual 
songs’ (Eph 5 19; Col 3 16), the first being properly 
songs from the O T, the second probably similar 
formal poems of a Christian origin and import, and 
the third perhaps freer and more popular songs. In 
the NT are preserved some late Jewish psalms (Lk 
1 46-55, 68-79, 2 14, 29-32), and it is also thought that 
there are some fragments of the new hymns of the 
Early Church (as Eph 5 14; I Ti 3 16; IL Ti 2 11-13; 
Rev 48, 11, 5 9-10, 12-13, 7 10,12, 11 15-18, 15 3-4, 19 1-2, 
5-8). 

act al Among monographs on the subject are Ernest 
David, Musique chez les Juifs (1873); J. Stainer, The Music 
of the Bible (1879, new ed. 1914); J. Weiss, Die musikalischen 
Instrumente des ATs (1895); H. Gressmann, Musik und 
Musikinstrumente im AT (1903); FF. Leitner, Der goittes- 
diensiliche Volksgesang im jiidischen und christlichen Aliertum 
(1906), and C. Sachs, Die Musikinstrumente des alien 
Aegyptens (1921), besides many articles. In JRAS (1921), 
S. Langdon connects terms in the Psalms with those in Baby- 
lonian liturgies, rendering it likely that several obscure 
words will thus be explained. For technical details about 


instruments various histories and dictionaries of music 
should be consulted. See also referencesin HDB. W.S. P. 


MUSTARD. See Patestine, § 23; Foop anp 
Foop UTENSILS, § 4. 

MUTH-LABBEN, mith’-lab’ben (12272, math 
labbén, ‘death of—?’): See Music anp Muosicau 
INSTRUMENTS, § 6. 


MUTTER. See Maaic anp Divination, § 4. 


MYRA, mai’rd (Mée«): A city on the southern sea- 
board of Lycia, one of the twenty-three republics, 
which, after 189 B.c., formed an independent Lycian 
league. Over this the Lyciarch presided. Myra, be- 
ing one of the six chief cities of Lycia, had two 
votes in the general assembly of the league. Theo- 
dosius II severed Lycia from Pamphylia, making 
Lycia a separate province, with Myra 4s capital. 
Its site, now Dembre, contains the ruins of a mag- 
nificent theater and rock-cut tombs, bearing in- 
scriptions in the Lycian language, written in an 


s 






























































MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS 


Kitara, lyre. . Arghtn, bagpipe. Nakkara, kettle-drum, 

"Od, mandolin. 8. Shubab, flute. 4. Nay, flute. 

Kantn, zither. 9. Nakkara, kettle-drum. . Shofar, Jewish ram’s horn, 
4. Tambira, lute. 10. Daff derwis, Dervish’s tambourine. Buk, horn. 


5. Rabéaib, fiddle. 11, Daf, tambourine. 17. Nay (Flute) 
» 12. Derbekke, hand-drum. 


(From the Suvia Davison Paton Collection in Hartford Theological Seminary. ) 





601 


alphabet peculiar to Lycia. None of the inscrip- 
tions are very old, but they prove that the Lycians 
were Aryans, tho they do not settle the entire 
question of nationality. Myra was the seat of the 
worship of the sailors’ god (of unknown name), 
whose functions have been assumed by St. Nicholas 
(Bishop of Myra, at the beginning of the 4th cent.), 
the modern patron saint of sailors. Myra was a port 
on the direct route between Syria-Egypt and Rome. 
Strong westerly winds prevail throughout the sum- 
mer and carry ships easily to Syria or to Egypt. On 
the return voyage ships from Egypt-Syria worked 
N. and E. of Cyprus and hugged the coast—because 
of the land breezes—past Myra to Cnidus. This 
explains the course of Paul’s ship (Ac 27 5) 
J. R. S. S.*—S. A. 


MYRRH. See Lapanum; OINTMENTS AND PER- | 


FUMES, § 1; and PaLusting, §§ 21 and 22. 
MYRTLE. See Patzstine, § 21. 
MYSIA, mish’i-a. See Asta Minor, III, 9. 


MYSTERY (uvottherov): In the simplest and 
most natural sense a mystery is something beyond 
the comprehension of the human understanding. 
As such, it is an inevitable factor in religion, which, 
from the nature of the case, associates the soul with 
God and the word of transcendental realities. Con- 
sequently, even in the most strictly scientific age, 
mystery in religion must abide. To eliminate it is 
to destroy the very essence of religion. All the 
more forcibly was its necessity felt in the ancient 
world when toward exploring this unknown element 
no means were available, and when every effort to 
peer into its obscurity was followed by a greater 
sense of awe. This condition gave rise to a twofold 
development, 7.e., first, the observation of problems 
in religion, and, second, the invention of a series of 
conventional forms, rites, or symbols, supposed to 
embody and convey knowledge of divine realities. 
The mysteries of the first class include such matters 
as the suffering of the just man and the prosperity 
of the wicked, the destiny of human beings after 
death, etc. Such mysteries constitute the subject 
of the Wisdom writings generally (Job, Pss 73, 139, 
etc.). 

But in the Bible the word is used predominantly 
in the second sense. A mystery is knowledge im- 
parted to, and possessed by, a limited circle of 
initiates in an organization. Among the non- 
Israelitic religions of ancient times there was hardly 
one in which worship was not in some portion of 
it turned into mystery. Toward this end the first 
step was to establish a line, on one side of which 
should stand the few initiated privileged characters, 
and on the other the great outside multitude. The 
subject-matter of knowledge by which the few were 
distinguished was next reduced to a system of sym- 
bolical representations. To pass from the ranks 
of the unintiated into the circle of the initiated, 
one must receive the necessary instruction from the 
consecrated priest (hierophant=‘revealer of sacred 
secrets’), and must be conducted through a course 
of significant actions, including sacramental guar- 
antees which secured him his privileges both in this 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Music 
Myth 


lifeandin the future. The Eleusinian mysteries in 
ancient Greece were the maturest and fullest ex- 
pression of the type, but others, both more ancient 
and elaborate, are known to have existed (e.g., the 
Orphic mysteries). 

The O T knows no mysteries of this type. The 
symbolical meaning of its ritual, including such fea- 
tures as the Holy of Holies with its cherubim and 
mercy-seat, the rites of the Day of Atonement, etc., 
are not peculiar secrets for the few, but the ex- 
pressions of a living religion common to the whole 
people. The spirit of democracy ran too high 
among the Hebrews to admit of the growth of such 
a system. But when Israel came in touch with 
Greek life, the idea was adopted and gained ground 
(cf. Wis. 14 15, 23, 12 5). 

In the N T the idea of mystery appears first as that 
of a secret known to God, and known by men only 
as revealed to them from above. Thus in the Syn- 
optic Gospels the kingdom of God has its mysteries 
(Mt 13 11; Mk 411; Lk 810). There is nothing in this 
of a ritual element or of exclusiveness. It is not the 
designed withholding of knowledge, but the obtuse- 
ness of men that keeps them from fully appreciating 
some of the teachings of Jesus, and renders these 
mysteries (cf. also I Ti 3 9, 16). Paul, more than 
any other N T writer, makes use of the figure of 
mystery in its Greek sense for the purpose of bring- 
ing into view the exact nature of the Gospels. And 
yet he uses the term not uniformly and with a 
mechanically fixed meaning, but with a considerable 
freedom. When he employs it, for instance, in the 
apocalyptic passage in II Th 2 7, it is in the sense 
of something that was still kept from the idle 
multitude, but soon to be made manifest. This is 
comparatively simple. On the other hand, in I Co 
27,15 51 he speaks as an initiate who instructs the 
uninitiated (cf. also I Co 41; Col 1 26,43; Eph33 f.) 
So also in the ‘interpretation of tongues’ (I Co 142) 
he who speaks with tongues occupies the place of a 
hierophant, communicating knowledge to the small 
and select circle. Inasmuch as the Gospel is a 
message communicated by God in accordance with 
His sovereign grace to the circle that will accept it, 
the term ‘mystery’ seems eminently expressive of 
this aspect of it. Hence it is ‘the mystery’ (with 
or without the attached phrase ‘of Christ,’ Eph 
3 4; Col 4 3, or ‘of God,’ I Co 41; Col 2 2). No 
amount of investigation or search could have 
brought this to the knowledge of man. But the 
effort by Kirsopp Lake, The Earlier Epistles of 
St. Paul (1911) to include the Sacraments among 
Christian mysteries has been successfully met by 
Schweitzer, St. Paul and his Interpreters (1912), 
and H. A. A. Kennedy, St. Paul and the Mystery 
Religions (1913). In the Apocalypse the general 
sense is analogous to that of the Pauline usage, but 
from the nature of the case it involves the employ- 
ment of elaborate symbolism (Rev 1 20, 107, 17 5, 
Oe 
BIER Gardner and Jevons, Manual of Gr. Antig. 

(1898), pp. 151-153, 274-286; L. Campbell, Religion in Gr. 


Lit. (1898); Anrich, Das Antike Mysterienwesen (1894); 
S. Angus, The Mystery-Religions and Christianity (1925). 


A. C. Z. 
MYTH. See FAB.ieE. 


Naam 
Nahum 


NAAM, né’em (28%) na‘am), ‘pleasant’: The 


ancestral head of a Calebite clan (I Ch 4 15). 
NAAMAH, né’a-ma (292, na‘dmah), ‘pleasant’: 
I. 1. A daughter of Lamech and Zillah, and sister 
of Tubal-cain (Gn 4 22). 2. An Ammonitess, wite 
of Solomon and mother of Rehoboam (I K 14 21, 31; 
II Ch 1213). II. A town in the Shephelah of Judah, 
between Beth-dagon and Makkedah (Jos 15 41). 
Site unknown. Cpae 
NAAMAN, né’o-man (1243, na‘dman), ‘pleasant’: 
1. A Syrian general under Ben-hadad, perhaps also 
his political adviser or prime minister (II K ch. 5). 
Jewish legend identifies him with the young man 
who drew a bow at a venture and mortally wounded 
King Ahab (I K 22 34; Jos. Ant. VIII, 15 5). He 
was afflicted with leprosy. Through an Israelitic 
slave girl in his household he heard of the wonderful 
powers of the prophet Elisha in Israel, and, pro- 
curing an introduction from Ben-hadad to the king 
of Israel, he went in search of the healer. The 
king of Israel at first suspected a snare and an 
occasion of hostilities on Ben-hadad’s part, but was 
induced to send Naaman to the prophet, by whom 
the Syrian general was healed. He was also con- 
verted by this experience into a worshiper of J’’; 
whereupon the problem arose as to his conduct in 
Syria. In the performance of his official duties, 
he must go into the temple of Rimmon and bow be- 
fore the idol-god. He made it clear that this was 
not a violation of his devotion to J’. Further, in 
accordance with the notion that each god had 
exclusive jurisdiction of the land where. he was 
worshiped (cf. IS 26 19), he asked permission to take 
with him two mules’ burden of earth of the land of 
Israel upon which, as on a shrine of J’’, he might 
offer his worship. 2. A grandson of Benjamin (Gn 
46 21) and eponym of a family, the Naamites (Nu 26 
40). 3. A son of Ehud (I Ch 87). Perhaps same as 
m2; A. C. Z. 
NAAMATHITE, né’a-ma-fhait’”” (D2Y37, hanna- 
‘amathi): A gentilic noun with the article, applied 
to Zophar, one of Job’s friends (Job 2 11, 1J 1, 201, 
429), signifying that he was an inhabitans of Naa- 
mah (but not the town in Judah of that name). 
Cire ra By 
WAAMITE, né’a-mait. See Naaman, 2. 
NAARAH, né’a-ra (11), na‘drah): I. The an- 
cestress of several Calebite clans (I Ch 4 5f.), and 
originally probably a clan-name. II. A place on the 
border of Ephraim (Jos 16 7, Naarath AV; I Ch 
7 28, Naaran). Map III, G5. 
NAARAT, né’a-rai ("W2, na‘dray): One of Da- 
vid’s heroes (I Ch 11 37; called Paarai in II S 28 35). 
NAARAN, né’a-ran. See Naarag, II. 
NAARATH, né’a-rath. See Naarag, II. 
NAASHON, né’a-shen. See NAHSHON. 


NAASON, noa-as’an (Naaccdyv, the O T Nashon, 
q.v.): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 32). 

NABAL, né’bal (7233, nabhdl), ‘foolish,’ ‘reckless’: 
A wealthy sheep-owner of the clan of Caleb (I S 25 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


602 


IN 


2 f.), which owned the country about Hebron. He 
lived in Maon and pastured his flocks in Carmel. 
When N. was shearing sheep, David, in hiding from 
Saul, sent to him for a contribution. Churlish in 
disposition, and at the time intoxicated, he insult- 
ingly refused. His wise and comely wife, Abigail, 
however, went with bountiful gifts to meet David, 
who was on his way to attack N. Later N. heard 
from Abigail of his danger, and of her action, and 
soon after died from a shock. His widow, Abigail, 
then became the wife of David (I S 25 39 Ff., 30 5; 
IIS 2 2, 3:3). C.8. T. 
NABOTH, né’beth (M33, nabhoth): A Jezreelite, 
probably one of the leading men of the city (I K 
219; cf. Jos. Ant. VIII, 13 8), whose judicial murder | 
furnished the occasion for Elijah’s prophetic de- 
nunciation of Ahab (I K ch. 21). The coveted 
vineyard (‘field’ in II K 9 25) was near the palace 
(LXX. ‘threshing-floor’) in Jezreel; but the sacred- 
ness of paternal inheritance was so firmly estab- 
lished (I K 21 3; ef. Nu ch. 36) that even Jezebel 
did not dare annex the land until Naboth (and his 
sons, II K 9 26) had first been executed upon a per- 
jured charge of blasphemy (cf. Ex 22 28). 
L. G. L.—E. C. L. 
NACHON, né’ken (]19}, nakhon, ‘Nacon’ RV): 
The name of the threshing-floor, or of its owner, 
where Uzzah was smitten for touching the Ark (II 
S 6 6), called ‘Chidon’ (I Ch 13 9). The place was 
named by David Perez-uzzah (IIS 68). See Nacon. 
Cees 


NACHOR, né’kér (Naye, the O T Nahor, q.v.): 
An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 3 34). 


NACON, né’ken (]19), nakhén, Nachon AV), 
‘fixed’: This word is read as a proper name in EV of 
II S 6 6, and the structure of the sentence in Heb. 
seems to demand a proper noun here. But the word 
nakhon is a very improbable form for a proper noun. 
The LXX. reads ‘Nodab.’ The |] text in I Ch 13 9 
reads ‘Chidon,’ which is a more probable reading, 
and possibly gives the correct form of thename. The 
site is unknown. EK. E. N. 


NADAB, né’dab (3°13, nddhabh), ‘generous,’ ‘no- 
ble’: 1. The eldest son of Aaron (Ex 6 23); see ABIHU. 
z. A son of Jeroboam (I K 14 20) and king of Israel 
for two years (15 25). While besieging Gibbethon, a 
Philistine town, he was assassinated by Baasha, 
who exterminated the house of Jeroboam after he 
became king (15 27 f.). 3. A Jerahmeelite family 
(I Ch 2 28f.). 4. A Gibeonite name (I Ch 8 30, 9 36). 

PONT. sad Me 

NAGGATI, nag’gai (Neyyat, Nagge AV): An an- 
cestor of Jesus (Lk 3 25). 

NAHALAL, né‘ha-lal (7202, nahdlal), NAHAL- 
LAL, no-hal’lal, and NAHALOL, né‘ha-lel (7773 
nahdlol): A city of Zebulun (Jos 19 15), Jong held by 
the Canaanites (Jg 1 30), and later counted a Le- 
vitical city (Jos 21 35). Map IV, D7 (another iden- 
tification is with Malul, 3144 m. W. of Nazareth, 
Map IV, C 7). BE. EN. 


603 A NEW STANDARD 


NAHALIEL, no-hé'li-cl (78202, nahdli’al), 
‘brook of God’: A brook on Israel’s march from the 
upper waters of the Arnon to the plains of Moab 
(Nu 21 19). Its identification with any particular 
brook in that region is uncertain, tho the Wddy 
Zerka Md‘in has many advocates (see Map II, H 2). 

E. E. N. 

NAHAM, né’hom (903, naham), ‘He comforts’: 
A descendant of Judah (I Ch 4 19). 

NAHAMANI, né”ha-mé’nai (72202, nahdmani), 


‘comforted’: One of the leaders of the Return (Neh 
77; omitted in Ezr 2 2). 


- NAHARAT, né’ha-rai (193, nahdray and °3, 
nahrt): One of David’s heroes, the armor-bearer 
of Joab. His home was at Beeroth (II S 23 37, 
Nahari, AV; I Ch 11 39). . 
NAHASH, né‘hagh (VM), nahash), ‘serpent’: 1. A 

king of the Ammonites, whose intolerable conditions 
for the peaceful surrender of Jabesh-gilead brought 
Saul to the rescue, and inaugurated the successful 
struggle for the independence of Israel (I S 111 #.). 
His kindness to David elicited, on the news of the 
death of N., a return of kindness on David’s part 
to his son Hanun, who rudely insulted David’s 
messengers (11S 10 2; ICh 191). Another son of 
the same Nahash was Shobi, who brought needed 
supplies to David during his retirement to Gilead at 
the time of Absalom’s rebellion (II K 17 27). 2. The 
father of Abigail and Zeruiah, sisters of David (II 
S 17 25; I Ch 2 16). ‘Nahash’ here, however, may 
be a textual error for ‘Jesse,’ or Jesse may have 
married the widow of N., or N. a widow of Jesse. 
If this N. were the same as the king of Ammon, it 
would be easy to account for the kindnesses inter- 
changed between David and him, and at the same 
time unnecessary to assume more than one of the 
names in all the accounts. A. C. Z. 


NAHATH, né’hath (903, nahath): 1. One of the 
‘dukes’ or clan-chieftains of Edom (Gn 36 13, 17; 
I Ch 1 37). 2. One of the ancestors of Samuel (I 
Ch 6 26, called Toah in ver. 34 and Tohu inI§ 11). 
3. A Levite overseer under Hezekiah (II Ch 31 13). 


NAHBI, na@/bai (213, nahbi): One of the spies 
(Nu 13 14). 


NAHOR, né/her (117), nahor, Nachor AV; Jos 
24 2; Lk 3 34): 1. The grandfather of Abraham and 
son of Serug (Gn 11 24f.). 2. The brother of Abra- 
ham and son of Terah (Gn 11 26-29). His marriage 
to Milcah and the genealogy of his children are given 
for the double purpose: first, of showing the rela- 
tionships of the patriarchal families, as his son 
Bethuel was the father of Rebekah and Laban (Gn 
24 15); and secondly, as an ethnographical datum 
indicating the kinship of the Semitic peoples. Abra- 


ham was counted the ancestor of the south and N. | 


of the north Semites. AL Oe: 


NAHSHON, na’shen (]¥M], nahshin): The 
‘prince’ (Nu 17, 2 3, etc.) of Judah. He was also an 
ancestor of David (Ru 4 20; I Ch 2 10; Lk 3 32 
Naason AV). The same person is probably meant in 
Ex 6 23, Naashon AV. 


Naam 
Nahum 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 

NAHUM, né’hom (5372), nahiim), ‘comfort’: I. 
One of the minor prophets. 

1. The Prophet. The only description of N. we 
have is found in the single word the Elkoshite (Nah 
11). This appears to be derived from the name of a 
place, Elkosh; but a place bearing this name is no- 
where else mentioned. A late tradition identifies it 
with Alkush, a locality near Nineveh, where the 
prophet Nahum is also said to have been buried. 
But every consideration within and without the 
book militates against this identification. Another 
tradition, supported by Jerome, makes Elkosh a 
town in Galilee (Hicesi, or Helkesai). But this, too, 
fails to harmonize with the internal marks of the 
book, which show the prophet to have been a 
Judean (cf. 115). The town Elkosh was probably 
on a lost site in southern Judah, near Eleutheropolis. 


2. Date. The date of Nahum’s ministry can be 
fixed within certain limits. On the one hand, he 
looks upon Nineveh as still standing. As its fall 
did not take place before 606 B.c., this date fur- 
nishes the latest limit of Nahum. On the other 
hand, in 3 8-10 the city of Thebes is spoken of as 
already captured by her enemies. As Thebes was 
taken by the Assyrians in 663 B.c., this is clearly the 
earliest limit. Whether Nahum prophesied in the 
earlier or later half of this period of fifty-seven years 
depends upon whether he viewed the fall of Thebes 
as a very recent event or a somewhat remote one; 
partly also upon the significance of the condition of 
weakness and decay which he pictures in the As- 
syrian Empire. Such a condition, growing rapidly 
worse, was already in full view in the middle of the 
7th cent. B.c. The probabilities are, therefore, in 
favor of the earlier dating of Nahum’s ministry, and 
the year 650 may be taken generally as its central 
point. The relation of Manasseh to Assyria fur- 
nishes a suitable occasion for the warmth of feeling 
displayed in it on the part of a faithful Israelite. 

3. Book: Contents. The contents of the book 
present J’’ coming in wrath and power to take 
vengeance on the enemies of Judah (1 1-15). From 
this general procalmation, which, however, vor- 
trayed the destruction of the enemy as total and 
irreparable, the prophet passes to the more par- 
ticular denunciation of Nineveh and the announce- 
ment of her day of doom (2 1-13). The picture is 
drawn vividly. The destroyer of Nineveh is at her 
very gates, her defenders are in flight, and can not 
be rallied (ver. 8), and her devastation and ruin are 
evidently complete. The reason for this fate is the 
sin of the city (3 1-7). It will rouse itself to a des- 
perate resistance and struggle, but in vain (3 8-19). 

4.Integrity. There is a difference in form and tone 
between the passage 1 2-2 2 and the remainder of the 
book. The section 1 2-10 has an alphabetic arrange- 
ment of verses, which, tho not carried through, has 
given ground for the conjecture that it originally 
extended to 2 2. But if so, an alphabetical psalm, 
whose general thought harmonizes with Nahum’s 
prophecy, has been prefixed to that prophecy. The 
prophecy then strictly began with 2 3. In such a 
case, in order to bring it into still greater harmony 
with Nahum’s words, the psalm itself, or else its last 
portion, must have dropped out, and another ending 


\ 


Nail 
Names 


A NEW STANDARD |BIBLE DICTIONARY 


604 





(1 11, 2 2) must have been attached to it. These 
conclusions are, of course, based upon meager data, 
and can not be regarded except as tentative (cf. 
Bickell, Beitrége z. sem. Metrik. 1894; per contra, 
Davidson, in Camb. Bible). No doubt the text of 
Nahum has been greatly tampered with, and yet 
the general vigor and vividness of the prophet’s style 
largely overcome the obscurities created by textual 
corruption. 

5. Characteristic Point of View. The striking 
peculiarity of Nahum’s thought is its fixed gaze 
on the enemies of God’s Chosen People. The 
prophet evidently has no fear for the people them- 
selves. At all events, he alludes neither to their sin 
nor to any impending wrath to be visited upon them. 
Presumably, the destruction of Assyria meant to 
him the deliverance of Israel from a source of dis- 
tress and a menacing danger. 

LITERATURE: Commentaries by Orelli (on the Minor Proph- 
ets); A. B. Davidson (in Camb. Bible, 1896); G. A. Smith, 
The Book of the Twelve Prophets (in the Expositor’s Bible, 
1898); Farrar, Minor Prophets (in Men of the Bible Series); 


J. M. P. Smith in JCC (1911); W. Cannon, ‘Notes on Na- 
hum,’ in Expositor (1925), p. 250 ff. 


II. One of the ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3 25, Naum 
AV). A. C. Z. 


NAIL: This word renders (1) the Heb. yathédh, the 
‘peg’ or ‘pin’ used to hold the tent-ropes (Jg 4 21 f., 
5 26; ‘tent-pin’ RV), or to bind together the beams of 
a house (Zec 10 4); also a peg driven into the wall 
on which things may be hung (Ezr 9 8; Is 22 23, 25, 
and (2) masméréth (pl.), ordinary metal nails (I Ch 
22 3, etc.); ; except in Dt 2112 and Dn 4 33, 719, where 
the meaning is obvious. E. E. N. 


NAIN, né’in (Naty; mentioned only in Lk 7 11): 
The modern village, which is still called Nein 
(Map IV, D 8), is beautifully situated on a small, 
elevated plateau at the foot of Little Hermon, but 
the mud-built hamlet is squalid and filthy. Numer- 
ous ruined houses show that it was formerly much 
larger, and in the hillside there are rock-cut tombs; 
but no traces of walls or of very ancient buildings 
have been found. The little mosque in Nain is 
called ‘The Place of Our Lord Jesus,’ a survival, 
apparently, of the name of an earlier Christian 
chapel commemorating the miracle. 

L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


NAIOTH, né’yeth (K*thibh, m3; z.e., nawith, or 
nanneycth, Qrre NY), nayoth, or 1}, néawwnyoth) A 
place ‘in Ramah,’ where Samuel and the ‘sons of 
the prophets’ dwelt, and where David dwelt while in 
hiding from Saul (I § 19 18-201). The absence of the 
article (see esp. I S 201) seems to indicate that the 
word isa proper name. It perhaps means ‘dwelling,’ 
and refers to a cenobium, or cloister, in which the 
prophets dwelt (cf. IS 10 5; II K 61-7). For criti- 
cisms of the Heb. text and conjectures as to the 
etymology, see Driver (Notes on Heb. Text of the 
Books of Samuel) or H. P. Smith (in ICC). 

L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


NAKED: In the following instances the word 
‘naked’ needs some explanation. In Ex 32 25 the 
RV renderings ‘broken loose,’ ‘let them loose’ ex- 
press the sense of the Heb. para‘ much better than 
the AV ‘naked.’ The same may be said of II Ch 


\28 15. 


In Hab 39 ‘bare’ RV the reference is to the 
protective covering of the battle-bow, which was 
removed before going into action. In Is 20 2f. and 
Mic 1 8, the reference is to the mourning custom of 
stripping off the outer clothing and arraying oneself 
in sackcloth. In these two instances the sackcloth 
was to be dispensed with, not necessarily as an evi- 
dence of greater mourning, but simply of deeper and 
more intense feeling. See also MourRNING AND 
Movurnine Customs, § 1, under Sackcloth. For 
the use of ‘naked’ in Mk 14 51 f., Jn 217, and Ac 
1916, see DRESS AND ORNAMENTS, §2. E. E. N. 


NAMES: 1. Importance Attached to Names. 
Among the Israelites, as among other peoples of 
antiquity, great importance was attached to names, 
whether of places, persons, or deity. This is evi- 
denced by the many instances in the O T of explana- 
tion of the origin of names, and altho these explana- 
tions with their accompanying philological inter- 
pretations are in many cases only superficial and 
popular, they show clearly how important names 
were considered to be. The derivation and primary 
significance of the Heb. word shém, ‘name,’ are 
uncertain. It is used nearly always of some definite 
proper name. Occasionally, it signifies ‘renown’ or 
‘fame’ (IS 18 30; IIS 813). In this brief discussion 
we shall consider, first, person-names, then place- 
names, and, finally, Divine names. 

2. How Names Were Given. So far as the O T 
gives us light on the subject, it appears that a child 
was named usually at birth by the mother (Gn 41, 
25, 19 37f., 29 32 #f., etc.), altho this was by no means 
always the case. The father often (Gn 4 26, 16 15, 
21 3, 35 18; II S 12 24 f., etc.) and, in one case at 
least, friends (Ru 4 17) are mentioned as giving the 
name. While in later times a child was named when 
circumcised (Lk 1 59, 2 21), this seems not to have been 
the case in early (O T) days. The primitive reason 
for naming the child at birth was, possibly, to there- 
by protect it from demoniac hostility (Bertholet, 
Kulturgesch. Israels [1919], p. 116). In later life it 
was also possible for a person to receive a name, 
sometimes called his surname, which was used 
alongside of, or supplanted, his original name. In 
all, or nearly all, such cases the new name was im- 
posed by a superior, or due to a change of status 
which seemed to demand a new name. Examples of 
such changes are: Abram to Abraham, Sarai to 
Sarah, Jacob to Israel, Joseph to Zaphenath-paneah, 
Eliakim to Jehoiakim, Mattaniah to Zedekiah, 
Daniel to Belteshazzar, Simon to Cephas, ete. In 
the earliest times names seem to have consisted of 
but one significant word (simple or compound), an 
appelative term of some sort (see next section). But 
in a closely settled region it would become necessary 
to distinguish individuals bearing the same name, 
and thus arose the habit of adding ‘son of’ so and so 
to the person’s name. Another way was to add a 
gentilic indicative of the place to which the person 
belonged (cf. e.g., II S 23 24 #.). Both patronymics 
and gentilics are very common in the O'T. When 
Palestine became bilingual, as was the case in N T 
times, many Jews bore two names, their native 
Hebrew or Aramaic name, and a Greek or Roman 
one, which was sometimes the equivalent in meaning 


605 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Nail 
Names 





of the Aramaic (e.g., Cephas= Peter), in other cases 
not so (eg., John [Heb. ydhdnan] Mark [Lat. 
Marcus]). Many Heb. or Aramaic proper names 
also became Hellenized, e.g., Joshua (Heb.) =Jesus, 
Eliakim = Alcimus, etc. Since the reasons governing 
the choice of names are given in so many cases, it 
may be inferred that names were generally chosen, 
especially in the earlier times, because of some special 
circumstance or condition at birth which the name 
selected seemed capable of commemorating or sym- 
bolizing. Esau was so called (apparently) because 
he was either ‘red’ or ‘hairy,’ Jacob, because he had 
his brother by the ‘heel’ (Gn 25 25 f.), Isaac, because 
Sarah ‘laughed’ (Gn 18 13; cf. 17 17) at the promise of 
his birth (cf. also the reasons for the names given to 
Jacob’s sons, Gn 29 32-30 24, to the children of Hosea, 
Hos ch. 1, or of Isaiah, Is 71, 81 #.). In later times 


there was a tendency to make use of the same set of | 


names in the same family. This had become a well- 
established custom in N T times (cf. Lk 1 59-61), but 
it can not be traced certainly further back than the 
postexilic age (cf. Gray, Heb. Proper Names, pp.1-9). 

3. Kinds of Names. Since Heb. names were in 
early times appelative designations, it follows that 
there could be easily many different kinds of names. 
In the present brief discussion perhaps the most 
convenient subdivision to make in the first place is, 
according to their structure, into simple and com- 
posite. 


(1) Simple Names. No exhaustive classification 
of names consisting of but one element will be at- 
tempted here. Animal names were especially com- 
mon in the oldest parts of the O T: e.g., Leah, ‘wild 
cow’; Rachel, ‘ewe’; Deborah, ‘bee’; Nahash, ‘ser- 
pent’; etc. Trees and plants also furnished names: 
Elon, ‘oak’; Tamar, ‘palm’; Rimmon, ‘pomegranate’; 
etc. Personal characteristics were determinative in 
some cases: ¢.g., Esau, ‘red’ (?); Laban, ‘white’; 
etc. The feelings of the parents showed themselves 
in other names: e.g., Rehum, ‘pitied’; Baruch, 
‘blessed’; etc. From these and other fields the 
Hebrews drew the material for a very large propor- 
tion of their proper names. By means of endings 
added to the simple words they greatly increased the 
number of possible names. A final ‘i’ changed a 
place-name into a _ gentilic person-name: e.g., 
Jehudi, ‘man of Judah.’ In some cases the final ‘4’ 
stood for the personal pronoun ‘my’: e.g., Naomi, 
‘my delight.’ Much more frequent was the use of 
the endings ‘an,’ ‘am,’ ‘on,’ ‘om;’ e.g., Nahshon, 
from néhash, ‘serpent.’ 

(2) Composite Names. Taking all the O T names 
together, early and late, the great majority consists 
of composite names, 7.e., names composed of two 
elements. By far the greatest number of these have, 
as one element of the compound, a Divine name or 
its equivalent. With composite names should also 
be classed those that, tho apparently simple, 
consist really of a sentence: e.g., Joseph, ‘he [God] 
shall add’; Japhlet, ‘he [God] causes to escape’; 
Jashub, ‘he shall return,’ etc. In most names of this 
kind the understood subject is God, tho other sub- 
jects are very common. In theophorous names—.e., 
names in which a Divine name forms one part of the 
componnd—quite freauently we meet with indirect 


rather than direct references to Deity. The sylla- 
bles ‘ab’ or ‘abi,’ ‘ah’ or ‘ahi,’ ‘am’ (‘am in Heb.) or 
‘ammi,’ ‘dad’ or ‘dod,’ meaning respectively, ‘father,’ 
‘brother,’ ‘uncle,’ and ‘kinsman,’ as used in proper 
names, probably refer to Deity: e.g., Abijah=‘J” is 
father’; Abiel=‘El [God] is father’; Abitub = ‘the 
father [God] is good’; Ahihud=‘the brother [God] 
is glorious’; Ammishaddai=‘Shaddai is uncle’; 
Eliam=‘God is uncle’; Eldad=‘El [God] is kins- 
man’; etc. In names of this class when both ele- 
ments refer to the Deity, sometimes the subject is 
placed first, as in Eliam, sometimes last, as in Am- 
miel, which is identical in meaning with Eliam. 
Another class of theophorous names consists of the 
names compounded with‘melek’ (EV‘melech,’ ‘king’), 
‘baal’ (‘owner,’ ‘lord,’ and frequently used as a proper 
name for Deity), ‘adon(i)’ (‘lord’): e.g., Ahimelech = 
‘the brother [God] is king’; Malchijah=‘J’’ is king’; 
Baaliada, ‘Baal knows’; Adonijah, ‘J’’ is lord.’ 

The names of Deity proper, ‘Ja,’ ‘Jah,’ ‘Jeho,’ all 
shortened forms of Yahweh (Jehovah), ‘El’ and ‘Eli’ 
(Ele) and Shaddai (quite rare), as used in compound 
names, are to be taken as subjects of the sentence 
which the name makes. The predicate may be any 
of the semi-divine names noted above, or an adjec- 
tive, or a noun, or some part of averb. The possible 
combinations are very many and the Hebrew vocabu- 
lary is exceedingly rich.in proper names thus formed. 
If the reader will select the proper names begin- 
ning with ‘E’ and ‘J,’ he will discover this for him- 
self. He should also bear in mind that there are as 
many, or perhaps more, cases in which the name of 
the Deity forms the second instead of the first 
part of the compound. 


These facts throw an interesting side-light on the 
conceptions of Deity entertained by the ancient Is- 
raelites. They not only thought much about God, 
but also thought of Him as near and, on the whole, 
well disposed toward them. They spoke of Him as 
‘father,’ ‘brother,’ ‘uncle,’ ‘kinsman,’ and expressed 
this faith in the names they gave their children. 


4. History of Names. Since it is now possible to 
arrange our O T literature in chronological order, 
it is also possible thereby to gain some light on the 
history of personal names in Israel. This subject 
has been investigated, especially by Prof. G. B. 
Gray, whose conclusions appear to rest on careful 
and accurate tabulations. In general, it may be said 
that the use of animal-names as person-names was 
most common in the earliest periods; that the 
tendency to use names with a religious significance 
was not so marked in the earlier period as it after- 
ward became; that while names compounded with 
‘E]’—the general name for God—were in use from the 
earliest to the latest times, names compounded with 
‘Ja,’ etc. (short for Yahweh, Israel’s national Deity), 
were rare before David’s time, but became common 
after that; that theophorous names compounded 
with ‘ab,’ ‘ah,’ ‘am,’ ‘dad,’ ‘did,’ ‘melech,’ ‘adon,’ and 
‘baal’—i.e., practically all the semi-divine names used 
in compounds—had ceased to be formed by the time 
of the Exile; that those compounded with ‘Ja,’ ete., 
and ‘El’ gradually became the favorite class of names, 
being used almost exclusively in the later periods; 
and that the custom of giving religious names con- 


tis A NEW STANDARD 
tinually grew in favor, being the common rule in 
the late preexilic period, and in the exilic and post- 
exilic periods (for further details see Gray, op. cit., 
pp. 243 ff.). 


5. Place-Names. The Hebrew names of places 
are in many instances of uncertain meaning. This 
is mainly due to the fact that such names are of 
great antiquity, going back to the pre-Israelite period 
in Palestine and thus are really of Canaanite or even 
pre-Canaanite origin. Names of trees or plants, 
e.g., Tappuah, ‘apple’; Tamar, ‘palm’; Elah, ‘oak’ 
or ‘terebinth,’ ete., and of animals, €.9., Aijalon, 
‘stag’; Ir-nahash, ‘serpent city,’ etc., were frequently 
used. The natural features of a place—e.g., its 
fertility, its beauty, the color of the soil, or landscape 
—all these are found set forth in such place-names 
as Carmel, Shaphir, Adummim, Lebanon, Kedron, 
etc. The proximity of water was expressed by pre- 
fixes such as ‘En~- (‘spring’ or ‘fountain’), ‘Beer’ 
8 well’) ,‘Me-~-’ (‘water’). Elevation is found indicated 
in the many Gebas, Gibeahs, Ramahs, and (prob- 
ably) Mizpahs. Compound place-names are also, 
very common. ‘Beth-,’ ‘house,’ ‘Hazor,’ 7.e., a 
fixed instead of a movable (as customary with 
nomads) place of abode—‘Kir’ or ‘Kiriath’ and 
‘Ir’ (both =‘city’) are frequently found united 
with some other term to make the full name of 
a place. More significant, especially of the close 
association of religion with the life of the Israelites 
and of the Canaanites before them, are the frequent 
compound names in which the name of Deity forms 
one element. Such Semitic deities as Shamash, ‘the 
sun,’ Nebo, Anath, etc., appear in names like Beth- 
shemesh, chouse i. é., ‘temple’ or ‘shrine’] of the 
sun,’ Mt Nebo, Anathoth, etc. The two old deity 
names ‘baal’ and ‘el’ occur also i in a number of com- 
pounds, as Baal-shalisha, Baal-gad, Baal-Meon, 
Beth-el, Jezre-el, Iphtah-el, etc. 


6. The Divine Names. To the ancient Israelite, 
great as was the significance he attached to his own 
and others’ names, the names of God were of the 
highest importance. Even ordinary person-names 
were looked upon as being more than mere words; 
they almost possessed an entity of their own. Con- 
sequently, the Divine names were invested with a 
special and peculiar sacredness. In a vague way the 
Deity and His name were considered as inseparable. 
Of the ‘Angel of the presence’ it is said ‘my name is 
in him’ (Ex 23 21). Such passages as Ex 307, 345 #.; 
Dt 28 58, and many others, reveal the importance at- 
tached to the name Jehovah ( Yahweh). A place 
became sacred when He there ‘recorded’ His name 
(Ex 20 24; Dt 12 5; I K 8 29, etc.). Of the Divine 
names, Jehovah ( Yahweh) was the name par ez- 
cellence, most holy and most rich in its significance 
for the Israelite. Of the origin and primary mean- 
ing of this name nothing positive can as yet be said, 
except that, in accordance with the statement of the 
OA ki (Gn 4 26 and in many subsequent passages), the 
name is probably very old, far antedating Moses. 
With this agrees the probable discovery of the name 
on ancient Babylonian inscriptions. It is not the 
origin, but the significance attached to the name 
that is the important thing in the thought and teach- 
ing of the O T. The famous passage in Ex 3 14 f. 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


606 


gives us what we may well believe to have been (avon beinesthe hommanteplol fis| gives Ge ROR MTR eee iene 
Mosaic interpretation of the name—as indicative of 
self-assertiveness and the existence, not in an abstract 
metaphysical sense, but in a practical historical 
sense, of J’. He is the God who 7s, who is in his- 
tory, who i is and will be with His people; a pregnant 
idea, the full significance of which could be unfolded 
only gradually and during the course of many cen- 
turies (cf. Driver in Camb. Bible, Exodus, Introd. 
p. li, and pp. 23 f. and 40 f.). The parallel passage, 
7.€., aS indicating the significance of the name, in 
the J document in Ex 34 6f.1is essentially of the 
same character as the E passage in Ex 3 14 f. The 
name Yahweh thus became the covenant name of 
God in Israel; the name above every other name 
in its meaning, and in the sentiments of loyalty 
and devotion awakened by it, to the Israelite. 
These sentiments came to expression especially i in 
the religious poetry of the Psalms and in the fervid 
utterances of prophecy. As time went on, the 
sacredness of the name Jehovah (Yohweh) was 
increasingly emphasized until at last it was con- 
sidered profanation to pronounce it even in religious 
exercises. This avoidance of the name had probably 
become common usage in N T times. In reading 
the Scriptures, for Yahweh was substituted either 
A dhonay (‘Lord’) or Elohim (God), and at last 
even in writing the text the vowels of ’Adhondy were 
attached to Yahweh, making it appear as if it were 
pronounced Yhowah, whence the Eng. ‘Jehovah.’ 

Other Divine names used by Israel were ‘Elyén, 
‘the highest’ (Gn 14 18 #.; Nu 24 16, etc.); Shadday, 
rendered ‘almighty,’ altho its exact meaning is 
unknown (Gn 171; Ex 6 3, etc.); both of these names 
are often found combined with ’El; other rarer and 
probably only descriptive names were ’4abhir, 
‘mighty one’ (Gn 49 24), tsar, ‘rock’ (II S 23 3, ete. ), 
and the like. The term A dhont y ‘Lord,’ is not 
strictly a proper name but rather a title. Still, the 
combination ’ddhénady Yahweh, ‘Lord Jehovah,’ like 
Yahweh ts*bh@ oth, ‘Jehovah of hosts,’ was so com- 
mon as to be looked upon practically as a proper 
name (see Lorp). 


7. Divine Names inthe NT. By N T times so ex- 
cessive was the formal reference rendered to Divine 
names that even the words for God (i.e., Hl, @e6c, 
etc.) were rarely spoken by the devout Jew. Sub- 
stitutions such as ‘heaven’ were frequently used, 
where ‘God’ was meant. This tendency is seen even 
as early as the books of Esther and I Mac. (See 
Kingdom of God, § 1.) 

Perhaps as much by way of protest against such 
transcendentalism as for other reasons, Jesus used 
the suggestive and most significant term ‘Father’ 
for ‘God,’ emphasizing thereby both His supremacy 
and His ‘love for men, His children. On the other 
hand, in early Christian circles something of the 
reverence and awe attaching to Yahweh among the 
Jews was transferred to the name ‘Christ’ or the 
compound ‘Jesus Christ,’ which even in the Apos- 
tolic Age had come to be regarded as a proper name 
instead of a definitive expression (Jesus the Christ). 
Cf. the pregnant expressions ‘in the name of Christ,’ 
‘in the name of Jesus Christ,’ ‘in the name of Jesus,’ 
which occur so frequently in the N T writings and 


607 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Names 
Navy 





the emphasis on the name in baptism (Mt 28 19; 
Ac 2 38; Ro 6 3, etc.). This name had now become 
the name that is above every other name (Ph 29f.). 


LirerAtuRE: The works on Hebrdische Archdologie by Ben- 
zinger (2d ed. 1907) and Nowack (1894); the exhaustive 
article in EB, by Néldeke and Gray; Gray Studies in Heb. 
Prop. Names (1896). E. E. N. 


NAOMI, na-d’mi (21, naomi or no‘dmi), ‘my 
Ripe trices’ The wife of Elimelech (Ru 1 2, etc.). 
Widowed and bereft of her children in the land of 
Moab, whither they had all removed during a 
severe famine, she returned with her devoted 
daughter-in-law Ruth, whose history gives Naomi 
her importance in the Biblical narrative. A.C.Z. 

NAPHISH, né’fish (#5), naphish): The ances- 
tral head of an Ishmaelite clan (Gn 25 15; I Ch 1 31, 
519, Nephish AV). It is likely that there was some 


connection between this Ishmaelite clan and the 


Nephisim (Ezr 2 50 Nephusim AV), or Nephushesim 
(Neh 7 52 Nephisheshim AV), of postexilic days, 
who were counted.as Nethinim (q.v.). Note also the 
collocation with Meunim (q.v.). See also ISHMAEL. 
E. E. N. 
NAPHTALIT, naf’ta-lai. See Trips, §§ 2-4. 


NAPHTUHIM, naf’tu-him (0°53, naphtuhim): 
Probably a designation for Lower Egypt or the 
Delta (Gn 10 13). 


NAPKIN. See BurtaL AND Buriat Customs, § 1. 


NARCISSUS, nar-sis’us (Né&extcces): A person 
mentioned incidentally in Ro 16 11 (‘the [household] 
of N’). Perhaps the reference is to a notorious 
favorite of Claudius, who had been put to death 
upon the accession of Nero, about three years before 
Ro was written (Tacitus, Annals, xi-xili, passim). 
After the death of N. his confiscated slaves doubt- 
less became part of ‘Cesar’s household’ (cf. Ph 4 22), 
but might still have been designated by the name of 
their former master. L. G. L.—E. C. L. 


NARD, SPIKENARD: A variety of bearded grass 
(Nardostachys Jatamansi, of the order Valerian- 
acee) native to India, from which was extracted a 
fragrant oil much used in the East (Song 1 12, 413 f.; 
Mk 14 3; Jn 12 3). The meaning of the adjective 
atottxy (in the N T reff.) is much disputed. On the 
whole, the balance of evidence seems to be in favor 
of ‘genuine,’ or ‘pure,’ tho ‘liquid’ has strong advo- 


cates. See also OINTMENT AND PERFUMES, § 3. 
KE. E. N. 
NATHAN, né’then (j93, nathin), ‘He [God] 


gives’: 1. A prophet to whom David looked for 
guidance in the administration of the spiritual side 
of his government (I1S72;I1Ch171;I K18#.). N 

however, was more than a public servant, as he took 
occasion to rebuke the king for his sin against 
Uriah (II S 121). He was very influential in pro- 
moting and securing Solomon’s accession to the 
throne (I K 18 f.), and his sons Azariah and Zabud 
were promoted by Solomon to important positions 
(IK 45). 2. Ason of David and ancestor of Jesus 
(II S 514; Lk 3 21). 3. The father of Igal, one of 
David’s valiant men! (II S 23 36) (=No. 8?) 4.A 
son of Attai,a Jerahmeelite (I Ch 2 36). 5. A con- 
temporary of Ezra (Ezr 816). 6. One who married 
a foreign wife (Ezr 10 39). 7. The head of a family, 


possibly the same as 2 (Zec 1212). 8. Brother of 
Joel, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 38). A.C. Z. 


NATHANAEL, no-fhan’s-el (Nabavanr = Heb. ne- 
than’él, ‘God has given’): N. is not mentioned by 
this name in the lists of Apostles in the Synopties, but 
figures among the early disciples in the Johannine 
tradition. In 1 46 he is associated with Philip of 
Bethsaida. According to the slightly different 
tradition in 21 2, he is ‘of Cana of Galilee.’ Beyond 
the statement of Jn 1 47 £. that he was without guile 
and the account of his acceptance of Jesus as the 
Messiah, nothing further is said of him in the N T. 
He is frequently identified with Bartholomew (q.v.), 
e.g., by Ewald, Meyer, Westcott, and others; but 
the only apparent reason for such identification is 
the association of Bartholomew with Philip in the 
lists of Apostles. Even this is not true in Ac 1 13, 
where the name of Thomas is inserted between that 
of Philip and Bartholomew. N. has also been 
identified with ‘the disciple whom Jesus loved (by 
Spareth, ZWT, 1868). See Zahn. N T Introd., § 1, 
N. 16 A oad BA 

NATHAN-MELECH, né’thon-mi’lek (7227102, 
n*than-melekh), ‘Melech gave’ (‘Melech’ may be the 
name of a god, or simply ‘a king’): An official in 
the time of King Josiah, who had a chamber in an 
annex of the Temple, near which stood the ‘horses 


. . . given to the sun,’ which were removed by 
Josiah (II K 23 11). Ova ag he 


NATIONS. See GENTILEs. 


NATURE, NATURAL: (1) In Dt 34 7 ‘natural 
force’ is the rendering of the Heb. léah, ‘moist,’ ‘full 
of sap,’ thus indicative of physical vigor. (2) The 
Gr. g6ctc, well rendered by ‘nature’ or, in the 
phrase xat& gictv, by ‘natural’ (Ro 11 21, 24), is 
used in the N T to express several shades of meaning: 
(a) The inherent character of a person or thing, the 
principles according to which normally it is governed 
(Ro 1 26, 2 14, 11 21-24; I Co 11 14; Gal 4 8); (b) as 
equivalent to ‘by birth’ (Ro 2 27; Gal 2 15); (c) ac- 
quired characteristics which have become fixed 
(Eph 2 3); (d) that which is peculiar or distinctive 
as marking one class of beings from another (II 
P 212 (AV, cf. RV), 14; cf. Ja 37, where it is rendered 
‘kind’). (3) The term yéveorc, ‘birth’ or ‘origin,’ is 
once rendered ‘natural’ (Ja 1 23, lit. ‘of his birth’), 
and once ‘nature’ (in the peculiar passage Ja 3 6, on 
which see CoursE). (4) puxtxés (from Yux%, ‘soul,’ 
2.e., the animate, sentient entity) is rendered 
‘natural’ in I Co 214, 15 44, 46, in each case in con- 
trast with ‘spiritual.’ Since the guy was often 
viewed as the principle of the animal or physical life 
alone, uxtxés refers to} the lower, merely animal 
nature, not as yet controlled or reanimated by the 
Spirit (cf. its use in Jude ver. 19). K. KE. N. 


NAUM, né’um. See Nanovw, 2. 


NAVES: The AV rendering of the Heb. gabbim 
(I K 7 33), which means the ‘bends’ of the wheel, 
z.e., the ‘felloes’ (so RV). On the other hand, hish- 
shiirim (‘spokes’ AV) in the same verse is plausibly, 
but not certainly, rendered ‘naves’ in RV. E.E.N. 


NAVY. See Snips anp Naviaation, § 2; also 
TRADE AND COMMERCE, § 1. 


Wazarene 
Necromancer 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


608 


i  — ———— 


NAZARENE, naz’’a-rin’: The common rendering 
of the Gr. Natwoeaios is ‘of Nazareth’ (Mt 26 71 
Lk 18 37; Jn 19 19), but in Mt 2 23 and Ac 24 5 the 
word evidently has a different sense. In Mt 2 23 N. 
seems to be regarded as interchangeable with 
‘Nazirite’ (q.v.), possibly because both were viewed 
ordinarily as persons of inferior class. In Ac 24 5 
‘N.’ is the equivalent of ‘Christian,’ or ‘follower of 
the Man of Nazareth.’ A. C. Z. 


NAZARETH, naz’a-reth (Nat«pét, also N&taoa): 
A city in Galilee where Joseph and Mary, the parents 
of Jesus, lived, and, therefore, His own home in 
childhood and early manhood. Accordingly, He is 
called ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ (Mk 1 9; Jn 1 45); also 
‘Nazarene’ (Nataenvéc, Lk 4 34; Natweatoc, Jn 19 19; 
Ac 2 22). The town is located on the side of a hill 
(Lk 4 29), which commands a splendid view of the 
Plain of Esdraelon and Mt. Carmel, and is very pic- 
turesque in general. Map IV, D7. In the days of 
Jesus it was held in contempt, but no reason is given 
for this (Jn 1 46). It is not mentioned in the O T, 
in the Talmud (tho Jesus is named as ‘the Nazarene,’ 
Sanh. 48a, 107b; Sot 47a), or by Josephus. It 
possessed a synagog, in which Jesus taught (Lk 4 29) 
Its modern name is En-Nasira. The Virgin’s 
fountain, being the only one in the town, can safely 
be associated with the life of Jesus. Other ‘sacred’ 
spots (Mt. of Precipitation, etc.) are fictitious. 

A. C. Z. 

NAZIRITE, naz‘i-rait (Vl, né@zir, fr. W= 
‘separate’ Nazarite AV ‘consecrate’ RV mg., Nu 
6 2'f.): 

1. Idea of Naziritism. A separated or conse- 
crated person, a ‘devotee.’ Forms of consecration to 
God that go beyond ordinary requirements are of 
common occurrence in religious life. Among the 
Hebrews such forms were subjected to minute 
regulations (Nu ch. 6). The primary idea being 
devotion to the service of J’, the object of the regu- 
lations was to secure an impressive and complete 
separation from the rest of the world. The cere- 
mony by which this was done was inaugurated with 
a vow, nedher naézir (Nu 6 2). The person making 
the vow might be either a man or a woman; but 
there is no record of any woman taking the vow for 
her own sake. The mothers of Samson and Samuel 
were both under Nazirite regulations during the 
period of their bearing their Nazirite sons. But 
there is no evidence that they so continued after 
the end of that period, or resumed the Nazirite life 
for any other purpose later. 

2. Life of the Nazirite. From the moment of the 
taking of the vow the Nazirite was put into a class 
separate from common men. The chief signs of the 
consecration were: (1) The cultivation of long hair. 
No razor must pass on the head of the Nazirite. The 
object of this provision was either to avoid profana- 
tion by the touch of a tool of human make, or the 
desire to offer the long locks as a sacrifice to God. 
In favor of the latter explanation may be cited the 
regulation in Nu 618, and the fact that similar prac- 
tises existed in other religions (Moore on Jg 135, in 
ICC). In favor of the former is the quite prevalent 
conception that anything touched by common tools 


was thereby profaned (cf. the profanation of stones by 
the chisel, Ex 20 25; cf. 1 K 67). A sacrificial victim 
must never have been shorn or have borne the yoke 
or have been used in ordinary labor (Nu 19 2; Dt 1519; 
in this case the shears are analogous to the razor 
on the Nazirite’s head). (2) Total abstinence from 
wine and all other strong drink (Nu 6 3 f.). In 
order to secure perfect conformity to this require- 
ment, the prohibition was made to include all that 
grew upon the vine in any form or shape. This was 
either in order to be on the safe side against the ill 
effects of intoxicants, or because of some belief that 
the evil which appears in full force in wine was in 
the grape even tho latent. (3) Ceremonial purity, 
especially by the avoidance of all contact with the 
dead. This requirement is self-explanatory. Any 
pollution of the kind would at once annul the vow 
and necessitate purification and the renewal of the 
whole ceremony (Nu 6 12). 

3. Classes of Nazirites. Nazirites were of two 
classes: (1) Those who became such of their own free 
will and decision, and (2) those who were devoted by 
their parents. The law of Nu ch. 6 evidently refers 
to the former; for it contains a provision for the 
termination of the Nazirite life at the end of a 
period voluntarily fixed by the Nazarite Himself. 
There is no reason to suppose that the prescriptions 
were different in the case of Nazirites devoted ex 
utero, except on this single point, that their Nazirite- 
ship was for life. 

4, Naziritism in History. The first instance on 
record of a Nazirite is that of Samson (Jg 18 5, 7, 14). 
The next is that of Samuel (I S 1 11), who was not 
only a Nazirite but also a prophet. During the 
period of the monarchy there must have been 
Nazirites, especially of the self-devoted class, in 
comparatively large numbers. Amos rebukes the 
people for enticing the Nazirites to drink wine (Am 
212). As late as the days of Jesus, the Nazirite vow 
was observed by many. John the Baptist was in all 
probability a Nazirite of the second class (ex utero, 
Lk 115; cf. also I Mac 3 49). The case of Paul’s vow 
is another illustration (Ac 21 23). That the Nazirite 
vow antedates the law of Nu ch. 6 in history, there 
can be no doubt. The practise is assumed as 
already common and simply needing regulation. 
The Nazirite life was almost purely a religious and 
ceremonial one. For, while it secured abstinence 
from intoxicants, it did not affect the moral life in 
other matters. Nazirites do not seem to have been 
restrained from giving way to their passions (cf. 
Samson’s relations to Philistine women). A. C. Z. 

NEAH, ni’a (793, né‘Gh): A city of Zebulun (Jos 
19 13). Site unknown. 

NEAPOLIS, ni-ap’o-lis (Ne&moAtc): The seaport of 
Philippi in N. Macedonia, lying opposite the island of 
Thasos. It shared in the prosperity of the larger city, 
10 m. inland, and was the point where the great 
Egnatian Road across Macedonia reached the sea. 
An aqueduct and other remains identify it with the 
modern Kavalla. On his second missionary journey, 
in obedience to the vision he had received, Paul 
crossed from Troas, landing at Neapolis, and pro- 
ceeded thence to Philippi, where he began his 
European work (Ac 1611). R.A. F.—E.C. L. 


609 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Nazarene 
Necromancer 





NEARIAH, ni’’a-rai’a (13, ne‘aryah): 1. The 
head of a family descended from David (I Ch3 22 ff.). 
2. A Simeonite leader (I Ch 4 42). 

NEBAI, ni’bai. See Nosat. 

NEBAIOTH, ni-be’yoth (Ni), nebhadydth): One 
of the ‘sons’ of Ishmael (Gn 25 13, 28 9, 36 3; I Ch 
1 29), the genealogical way of stating that N. was a 
N. Arabian clan or tribe. The wealth of this tribe 
in cattle is referred to in Is 607, where, as in the Gn 
passages, it is closely associated with Kedar. The 
same association of N. with Kedar is found in the 
Assyrian inscriptions of Asshurbanipal (668-626 
B.c.), where the two are spoken of as Arabian tribes 
(cf. KAT, p. 151). It is usual to identify N. with 
the Nabatzan Arabs, so well-known to later history. 
But it is difficult to see how nia) and ya) can be 
closely connected. It is more probable that the Na- 


batzeans appeared later on the scene, displacing the. 


earlier Nebaioth, Kedar, etc. (cf. KAT®, p. 151 f.). 
See ErHNOGRAPHY AND HrHnowoeay, § 11. E.E.N. 

NEBALLAT, ni-bal’at (5233, nebhallat): A city 
occupied by Benjamites after the Exile (Neh 11 34). 
Map III, D 5. 

NEBAT, ni’bat (923, nebhat): Used only in the 
phrase Ydrobh‘dm ben Nebhat. The father of King 
Jeroboam, the first king of the Northern Kingdom 
(I K 11 26, and often). Oo SCE: 

NEBO, ni’bo (153, n*bhd): 1. A town E. of the 
Jordan, fortified and occupied by Reubenites (Nu 
32 37; Is 15 2; Jer 48 22). It was besieged and cap- 
tured by King Mesha of Moab, who destroyed the 
altar of J’’ in it, and put its inhabitants to death (see 
Mesha Stone, lines 14 ff., under MmsHa). According 
to Onom. 283, 142, it was situated 8 m. from Hesh- 
bon, which would point to the modern Et-teim, S. 
of Heshbon, as the site. 2. Supposed to be a town 
in Judah (same as Nob in Is 10 32), whose inhabitants 
(Eizr 2 29, 10 43; Neh 7 33) returned with Zerubbabel. 
In Ezr 2 29, however, they are called ‘the children 
of Nebo,’ which makes it questionable whether a 
city is meant, as ‘children of’ is a phrase universally 
used of clans, and never in prose of the inhabitants 
of a town. On the supposition that Nebo is here a 
town, its site has been fixed at Bett Na&bd, just N. 


of Ajalon, Map III, E 5, and 12 m. NW. of Jerusa-. 


lem (Buhl, Geog. Pal., p. 193). The conjecture that 
families from the Nebo E. of the Jordan had main- 
tained their identity and name through the Exile 
and had become a postexilic clan (Bennett in H DB) 
is plausible, but has no support in the text. 3. Mt. 
Nebo (32), har-n*bho): A peak in the Abarim 
range (Nu 33 47; Dt 32 49, 341 [P]; in JE ‘Pisgah’), 
from which Moses viewed the promised land just 
before his death. Until recently Jebel Attarus, about 
10 m. NW. of Heshbon, was supposed to be Mt. 
Nebo. But a better knowledge of the ground leads 
to Nébd, half-way between Heshbon and the N. end 
of the Dead Sea, Map II, J 1. While this site also 
scarcely harmonizes with the literal interpretation of 
Dt 341 #., the description here must be taken as that 
of the land as it afterward proved to be (cf. Driver, 
Deut in loco in ICC). 4. A widely worshiped 
Semitic deity. See Semrric Rexiaion, § 27 


NEBUCHADREZZAR (II), neb’yu-kad-rez’ar 
(A¥877313),  nebhiikhadhre’tstsar), NEBUCHAD- 
NEZZAR (Babyl-Assyr. Nabé-kudurri-utsur), ‘Nebo, 
defend the boundary’): The king of Neo-Babylonia, 
or, better, Chaldea, 605-562 B.c. He was the son 
and successor of Nabopolassar, the real founder of 
the Chaldean Empire, the dynasty being of Chaldean 
origin. He was the second king of that name, the 
first having ruled in Babylon, about 1140 B.c. The 
first notable act of N. was, as head of the army, the 
defeat of Necho II of Egypt (and the last remnant of 
the Assyrian army!) at Carchemish in 605 B.c. (Jer 
46 2). While on this campaign at Pelusium, near the 
borders of Egypt, N. was notified of the death of his 
father, and, after a hasty return, he made secure his 
claim to the throne. His campaign, however, won 
for him the control of Syria and Palestine—the 
beginning of empire-extension toward the southwest. 
Of his numerous inscriptions, the larger propor- 
tion deals with his religious achievements, recon- 
struction of temples, dedications to his gods, and his 
devotion to the whole religious system. His con- 
quests and final destruction of Jerusalem, and his 
Babylonian exile of the Jews, are narrated in the 
O T only. During the final siege of the Jewish 
capital, N. met and defeated the army of Apries 
(Hophra O T) the Egyptian king, the ally of the Jews 
(Jer 37 5-8). During and after the fall of Jerusalem 
(586 B.c.), N. besieged Tyre for thirteen years 
(585-573 B.c.), before it acknowledged the sover- 
eignty of Babylon. A fragment of N.’s own in- 
scriptions indicates that he was still at war with 
Egypt in this thirty-seventh year (568 B.c.). In 
the forty-third year of his reign, he died and was 
succeeded by his son, Evil-Merodach. Under N. 
Babylon became the chief commercial, political, 
religious, and literary center of the Mesopotamian 
valley and of SW. Asia. Babylon was really N.’s 
creation, and the Chaldean kingdom was centered 


in this city. ToM~,P: 
NEBUSHAZBAN, neb’yu-shaz/’ben = (1378933 
n*bhishazban; Babyl. Nabt-she-zib-a-ni, ‘Nebu, 


deliver me’): The name of the Rab-saris (‘chief cap- 
tain’) in the Chaldean army at the fall of Jerusalem 
(Jer 39 13). The name is actually found in Baby- 
lonian inscriptions as that given to a son of Necho II, 
(609-593 B.c.) King of Egypt, as a mark of his alle- 
giance to the king of Assyria. Te Me Be 


NEBUZARADAN, neb’’yu-zar-é’den, (J787P32) 
nbhiizar’ddhan; Babyl. Naba-zér-iddin(a), ‘Nebu 
has given aseed’). The chief of the body-guard of 
Nebuchadrezzar at the time of the fall of Jerusalem 
586 B.c. (II K 25 8, 11, 20). He had charge of the 
captives after Jerusalem fell, and, in accord with the 
orders of Nebuchadrezzar, showed special favor to 
Jeremiah (Jer 39 11). Five years after the fall of 
Jerusalem he carried off 745 Jewish captives from 
Palestine (Jer 52 30). TisMiaP% 


NECOH, NECHO, NECO, ni’ko. See PHaraon, 
(7). 

NECROMANCER, NECROMANCY. See Maaic 
AND DIVvINATION, § 3. 


Nedabiah 
New Testament, Canon of 


NEDABIAH, ned’a-bai’a (73°, nedhabhyah): 
A son of Jaconiah, the captive king of Judah (I Ch 
3 18). 

NEEDLE’S EYE: In the phrase ‘it is easier for a 
camel to go through a needle’s eye,’ etc., found in all 
the Synoptics (Mk 10 25 and ||s), the term is used in 
an entirely figurative sense to denote the extreme 
difficulty of entrance into the kingdom of God on 
the part of the rich (cf. Bruce in Exp. Gr. Test. and 
Swete’s Com. on Mark, in loc.). A parallel figure is 
found in Mt 28 24. J. MM: T. 


NEEDLEWORK. See Artizan Lirn, § 14. 


NEESING (from ‘neese,’ an old Eng. word, now 
obsolete, allied to ‘sneeze’): The word occurs once 
(Job 41 18 AV, ‘sneezings’ RV), and denotes the 
heavy breathing of the crocodile (‘leviathan’) bask- 
ing in the sun (cf. RV). 

NEGINAH, ni-gai’na; NEGINOTH, neg’i-neth. 
See Music anp Musica INstruMEntS, § 3 (4). 

NEHELAMITE, ni-hel’a-mait (P20) "2m? 
nehélami, nehlémz): A gentilic or a designation of 
the town or district of the false prophet Shemaiah, an 
exile with the Jews in Babylon, who sent a letter to 
Jerusalem complaining of Jeremiah’s letter to the 
Exiles. Jeremiah prophesied that Shemaiah would 
die in exile (Jer 29 24, 31 f.). CRS RM Be 


NEHEMIAH, ni’hi-mai’a, and NEHEMIAH, 
BOOK OF. See Ezra anp NEHEMIAH. 


NEHILOTH, ni’hi-leth. See Music anp Musicau 
INSTRUMENTS, § 3 (4). 

NEHUM, ni’hom (3M), nehiim), ‘comfort’: The 
name of one of the leaders of the Exile, who returned 
with Zerubbabel from Babylon (Neh 7 7). In Ear 
2 2, the name is given as R*him, which is probably 
correct. C.S8. T. 

NEHUSHTA, ni-hosh’ta (SAYN), nehushta’): The 
mother of King Jehoiachin (II K 24 8-12; cf Jer 
13 18 f., 22 26). 

NEHUSHTAN, ni-hosh’tan (JAY), nehushtan) 
The name of the brazen serpent destroyed by Heze- 
kiah (II K 18 4). Altho the statement in EV is 
quite simple and clear, the Heb. text is not free from 
difficulties. The derivation and meaning of the Heb. 
are uncertain. The derivation from n*hdsheth, 
‘brass,’ with the diminutive ending dn (expressive of 
contempt), is not so satisfactory as that from nahash, 
‘serpent,’ altho this leaves the significance of the 
ending tan undetermined. If we render the verb 
of the sentence ‘it was called’ instead of ‘he called 
it,’ then n*hushtan was the name by which the object 
was known to its worshipers. It was probably some 
form of serpent-worship that was carried on in con- 
nection with this object, which tradition, rightly or 
wrongly, identified with the brazen serpent said 
to have been made by Moses (see Semitic RELIGION, 
§ 31). That this object was worshiped in the 
Temple is not said, nor is it said that it was used as 
an image of J’, as is often assumed. For various 
speculations concerning n*hushtan see Cheyne in 
EB, s.v. EK. E. N. 

NEIEL, ni-ai’el Owen, n'Vél): A town on the 
border of Asher (Jos 19 27). Site not certainly 
known. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


610 


NEIGHBOR: The rendering of ‘Gmzth, ‘equal’ (Lv 
6 2, 19 15, 24 14, 25 15), ga@rdbh, ‘near one’ (Ex 32 27), 
réa‘, ‘friend,’ ‘friendly companion,’ more used in the 
O T than all the others put together (Ex 11 2; Lv 
19 18, etc.), shakhén ‘[fellow] inhabitant’ (Ex 3 22), 
or ‘fellow countryman’ (cf. yeftwy, Lk 14 12, etc.), 
6 cAnotoy (Mk 12 31, etc.), and xeptotxog (Lk 1 58). 
The necessity of living in villages, rather than in 
scattered farmhouses, for purposes of defense and 
the habitual residence at the same place, as dis- 
tinguished from frequent removals, combine in the 
Biblical Orient to give the neighborhood idea a 
peculiar importance. The neighborhood takes a 
distinct place as a social unit between the family 
and the town as a whole, and neighbor comes to be 
next to kin. From this point of view, the relation 
was at the same time promotive of good and full of 
risks. Hence the provisions in the O T legislation 
bearing on social duties are often couched in the 
terms of neighborhood (Ex 20 16 f.), including even 
the law of love for the neighbor (Lv 19 is; cf. Lk 10 
29), where the idea is used as a stepping-stone for the 
inculcation of the law of universallove. A. C. Z. 


NEKEB, ni’keb. See ADAMI-NEKEB. 


NEKODA, ni-k6’da (STIP3, neqddha’): 1. The an- 
cestral head of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2 48; 
Neh 7 50). 2. The ancestral head of a family who 
could not prove their genealogy (Ezr 2 60; Neh 7 62). 


NEMUEL, ni-miii’el DAI} nemwél): 1. The 
ancestral head of the Nemuelites, one of the clans 
of Simeon (Nu 26 12; I Ch 4 24), also called Jemuel 
(Gn 46 10; Ex 6 15). 2. The head of a Reubenite 
family (Nu 269). 


NEPHEG, ni’feg (193, nephegh): 1. The head of a 
Kohathite family (Ex 6 21). 2. A son of David 
(1S 515; I Ch 37, 146). 


NEPHEW. See Faminy anp Faminy Law, § 1. 


NEPHILIM, nef‘i-lim (0°?°D}, nephilim): A word 
of unknown etymology, rendered in the LXX. and 
AV by ylyavtes, ‘giants,’ (Gn 6 4; Nu 13 33). In Nu 
13 33 the rendering ‘giants’—7.e., a race of men of 
extraordinary size, otherwise known as ‘sons of 
Anak’—is satisfactory (see Granrs). But in Gn 64, 


if the statement about the nphilim was an integral 


part of the original text, superhuman or semi-divine 
beings are meant (see Skinner in JCC, ad loc.). 
E. E. N. 
WEPHISH, ni’fish,h NEPHISHESIM, -1-sim, 
NEPHISIM, nef’i-sim, NEPHUSHESIM, n1-fii’shi- 
sim, NEPHUSIM, ni-fi’sim. See Napuisu. 


NEPHTHALIM, nef’fho-lim (Neg6aAciu): The 
AV form in the N T for ‘Naphtali’ (Mt 4 13, 15; Rev 
76); 

NEPHTOAH, nef’to-a (MIND), nephtdah): A place, 
more exactly ‘the fountain of the waters of N.’ (Jos 
159, 18 15), which was on the border between Judah 
and Benjamin. It is identified with the spring 
Infta in a bottom of a valley three-quarters of an 
hour NW. of Jerusalem, and also with Etam, now 
‘Ain ‘Atén, SW. of Bethlehem. UE is Ps ip 


NEPHUSIM, ni-fii’sim. See NApuisux. 


611 A NEW STANDARD 


NER, nor (73, nér), ‘light’: Saul’s uncle (I S 14 50; 
IIS 28;1K25). According to I Ch 8 33, however, 
N. was the father of Kish, and therefore Saul’s 
grandfather. There may have been two different 
persons of the same name. But from Jos. Ant. VI, 6 
it appears that I Ch 8 33 is based on confusion of 
readings. A. C. Z. 


NEREUS, ni’ri-us (Nypeds): A Christian greeted 
in Ro 16 15, apparently belonging to a family of 
which other members are mentioned (see JULIA). 
The name occurs in Roman inscriptions (C7 L, VI, 
4344). For the later Roman legend of the Acts of 
Nereus and Achilleus, which may have been sug- 
gested by inscriptions, see Lipsius-Bonnet, Apek. 
A postelgeschichte, II, 106 f. J. M. T. 


NERGAL, ner’gal. See Semiric REiIGIon, § 28. 


NERGAL-SHAREZER, nor’ gal-shar-i’zir (973 
ASNW, nérghal sar’etser); Babyl. Nergal-shar-utsur, 
‘Nergal, protect the king’: The Rab-mag (q.v.) of 
Nebuchadrezzar at the capture of Jerusalem in 586 
B.c. (Jer 39 3, 13). He was one of the officers who 
rescued Jeremiah from prison (Jer 3913). Ina cunei- 
form letter from Erech recently read we find that 
N. occupied high military rank in Nebuchadrezzar’s 
reign, and that the army was not up to standard at 
the close of that reign. He married a daughter of 
Nebuchadrezzar, and thus was brother-in-law, and 
became successor of Evil-Merodach on the throne, 
under the popular name of Neriglissar, and ruled 
almost four years (559-556 B.c.). He was succeeded 
by his son, Labashi-Marduk, a mere child who was 
deposed after a reign of nine months. Pa vaP. 


NERI, ni’rai (Nyoet): An ancestor of Jesus (Lk 
3 27). 

NERIAH, ni-rai’a (33, nériyyah), ‘J’ is light’: 
The father of Baruch, Jeremiah’s disciple (Jer 
32 12 ff., etc.). 


NEST: Besides the literal and metaphorical ap- 
plications of the original word (gén, Nu 24 21; Jer 
49 16; Ob 4; Hab 2 9; Job 29 18), the EVV also so 
translate a Greek term meaning ‘lodging-place,’ 
nxnatacxqvwats (Mt 8 20; Lk 9 58). 

NET. See FisHine and Huntina. 

NETAIM, né’ta-im (9°99) nta%im): The name 
of a place, the seat of an ancient pottery, probably 
near Gederah (I Ch 4 23 RV, cf. AV and RVmg). 

NETHANEL, ni-than’el (Y820}, nthan’él, Ne- 
thaneel AV), ‘God has given’: The name of ten 
individuals in the O T—all occurring in late (post- 
exilic) documents as follows: .1 The ‘prince’ of Is- 
sachar (Nu 1 8, 2 5, etc.). 2. David’s brother (I Ch 
214). 3. A priest (I Ch 15 24). 4. A Levite (I Ch 
24 6). 5. A son of Obed-edom (I Ch 26 4). 6. A 
prince of Judah (II Ch 177). 7. A Levite (II Ch 
359). 8. One of the ‘sons of Pashhur’ (Ezr 10 22). 
9. A priest (Neh 12 21). 10. A musician (Neh 12 36). 

NETHANIAH, neth’a-nai’a (730), nethanyah), 
‘J’ gives’: 1. A chief musician (I Ch 25 2,12). 2.A 
prince of Judah and father of Ishmael, the opponent 
of Gedaliah (II K 25 23, 25; Jer 40 8, etc.). 3. A 
Levite (II Ch 17 8). 4. The father of Jehudi (Jer 
36 14). 


Nedabiah 


BIBLE DICTIONARY New Testament, Canon of 


NETHINIM, nefh’i-nim (97D), n*thinim): The 
Hebrew word etymologically signifies ‘those given,’ 
and is applied to those who were given or dedicated 
to the sanctuary. It occurs frequently in postexilic 
literature as a designation of the slaves of the priests 
and Levites, who performed the menial services con- 
nected with the Temple and its ceremonies. Jose- 
phus terms them teeéd3ouAot, and the O T indicates 
that they were temple-slaves. They were the de- 
scendants either of Canaanites who had been reduced 
to forced labor or of captives of war. It was a cus- 
tom in Israel to give prisoners of war to priests as 
their portion. This was done by Moses in the case 
of the Midianites (Nu 31 30, 47), and, according to 
Jos 9 23, the Gibeonites also were made temple- 
slaves. Among the names of the Nethinim (Ezr 
2 43-54; Neh 7 46-56) there are several pointing to an 
alien origin, e.g., Meunim and Nephisim. The em- 
ployment of aliens as temple-slaves is severely cen- 
sured by Ezekiel (44 6 f.), and was prohibited in 
Herod’s Temple. According to Ezr 8 20 the Neth- 
inim were organized by David; with the other 
ecclesiastics they were exempt from taxation and 
resided in special cities (Ezr 7 24, 2 70); after the 
Return, Ophel, opposite the water-gate, was assigned 
to them (Neh 3 26). Under Zerubbabel 392 Neth- 
inim returned, while 220 accompanied Ezra (Ezr 2 
58, 8 20). Seealso PrrestHoop, § 9, d. eeu ie 


NETOPHAH, ni-td’fa (720), netdphah), ‘drop- 
ping’: A town in Judah mentioned with Bethlehem 
and Anathoth (Ezr 2 22; Neh 7 26), reinhabited by 
Jews who returned with Zerubbabel. From the 
name is derived the gentilic Netophathite (Neh 12 28 
AV Netophathi), applied to two of David’s heroes 
(II S 23 28, 29; I Ch 11 30). Before the Exile it was 
inhabited by Calebites (I Ch 2 54). It is identified 
by some with Khurbet umm-Toba, S. of Jerusalem; 
by others with Beit- Nettif, W. of Jerusalem at the 
entrance to the Wddy es-Sunt, or Vale of Elah. 

OAS Ss ba 

NETTLE. Sce Pauzsringe, § 22. 


NETWORK: In Is 19 9 AV the Heb. héray is 
rendered ‘networks,’ but RV reads ‘white cloth.’ It 
is possible that ‘the weavers shall turn pale’ should 
be read. See also Tempe, § 14; Atrar, § 2; and 
PICTURE. K. BE. N. 


NEW EARTH, NEW HEAVENS. See Es- 
CHATOLOGY, § 48. 


NEW JERUSALEM. See REVELATION, Book or, 
§ 6; and Escuarotoey, § 48. 


NEW MAN. See REGENERATION, § 2. 
NEW MOON. See Fasrs anp Frasts, § 6. 


NEW TESTAMENT, CANON OF. The idea con- 
veyed by the word ‘canon’ is that of a collection of 
sacred writings regarded as authoritative. 

The word ‘canon’ (xaviv, from xévwa, ‘reed’) 
means a ‘straight thing’ like a reed, and was applied 
to a ‘rod,’ a ‘ruler,’ or a ‘list,’ (cf. the papyrus lists of 
names of things arranged in a narrow vertical 
column). From such meanings as ‘ruler,’ or mason’s 
‘rule,’ it came to have the more general meaning 
‘rule,’ ‘standard.’ As applied to the New Testa- 
ment, it probably was originally used in the sense of 


New Testament, 


Canon of A NEW STANDARD 





‘list? to denote the list of New Testament books (cf. 
the ‘canon of the mass,’ which is a catalog of 
martyrs and saints; also the Eusebian ‘canons,’ 
which were lists of passages in the Gospels). But a 
list is in most cases intended to be correct, that is, 
authoritative; and in view of the other meaning of 
the word canon (‘rule’), and of the growth of the 
idea of Scriptural authority, it was almost inevitable 
that the ‘canon’ of the New Testament should come 
to be used in the sense of an authoritative collection 
of Christian writings in distinction from other writ- 
ings not so regarded. 

1. Introductory. TheIdea of Canon. Its adoption 
by Christians was probably influenced by the Alex- 
andrian custom of using collections of Greek authors 
as models and calling them xavévec. It is not pos- 
sible to say whether the more prominent idea is that 
of the Scriptures as normative, or that of a defining 
list of Scriptural books; probably both ideas were 
present from the beginning. It should be noted that 
the phrase 6 xavay ths d&AnOelag was also used for 
‘the faith.’ | 

The idea of a canon of Scripture, apart from the 
word ‘canon,’ was inherited from the Jews, and was 
at first expressed by other words. The earliest of 
these expressions is probably in II Clement, which 
speaks of t& @rBAle xat of dxdctoAot; but more im- 
portant is the usage of Clement of Alexandria and 
Melito of Sardis, who adopted the word 8ta0qxy and 
who distinguish the N T as a % vé« 8taOqxy. From 
this is derived the adjective év3:d6ynxoc, used by 
Origen and others in the sense of ‘canonical.’ In 
Latin this became testamentum, but Tertullian pre- 
ferred instrumentum. Another phrase used by Origen 
was dedyuoctevuévat yeagat, meaning especially, tho 
perhaps not exclusively, Scriptures which could be 
read publicly in church; with these were, of course, 
contrasted the &xéxeugo yeapat. The earliest use 
of xavey (in the form tx xavoviGdueva) is in the Festal 
letter of Athanasius for 367, and from that time the 
word became popular. 

In discussing the history of the N T it is essential 
to observe the distinction between the use of its 
writings and their reception into the Canon. Docu- 
ments may have existed for many years before they 
became canonical, and quotation by an early writer 
does not prove that he regarded the book as Scrip- 
ture. The failure to recognize this point has some- 
times led to the assignment either of impossibly late 
dates for the origin of various books in the N T, or 
of impossibly early dates for their reception into the 
Canon. The present article is concerned with the 
question of canonicity, and only incidentally with 
that of origin. 


2. The Teaching of Jesus the Earliest N T Canon. 
The Canon of our Lord and of the Apostles was the 
Jewish Scriptures. In the N T ‘scripture,’ ‘scrip- 
tures,’ means the whole or portions of the Jewish 
Bible, perhaps including some apocryphal books. 
The only exception to this rule is II P 3 16, where 
there is at least a tendency to rank the Pauline 
writings as Scripture. II P is, however, almost cer- 
tainly a pseudepigraph, and is not evidence for the 
first generation. At the same time, even in the 
earliest days of the Church, the O T did not stand 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


612 


as the sole authority; coordinate with it was the 
teaching of the Lord, as may be seen from the Pauline 
Epistles (e.g., I Co 710; I Th 415). Between this and 
the authority of the O T there was only a difference 
of form. The latter was an authoritative book, the 
former was the teaching of an authoritative person. 
It is uncertain precisely when the teaching of the 
Lord was collected into book-form, but for the pres- 
ent purpose the important point is that no step had 
been taken before the end of the Ist cent. to transfer 
the authority of the Lord and His teaching to docu- 
ments describing Him or it, thus forming a canon. 


3. Canonization of Writings Begun. In the sub- 
Apostolic period this transference of authority began 
to be made, but quite slowly. The earliest instance 
is probably in the Hp. Barn. 4 14, which introduces 
the sentence ‘Many are called, but few are chosen’ 
by ‘as it is written.’ This passage seems to be a 
direct quotation from Mt 22 14; but many scholars 
find difficulty in accepting this view, and think that a 
common apocryphal source lies behind both Mt 
and Kp. Barn. Much depends on the date assigned 
to Ep. Barn. If it was written c. 80 a.p. the former 
view seems less probable, but if Harnack’s dating 
of c. 180 a.p. be accepted, there is much less to be 
said against it, and it ought perhaps te be adopted. 
A more certain instance is in the book known as 
II Ep. of Clement, where a document containing the 
sayings of the Lord is unquestionably placed on the 
level of Scripture. But the date of this book is very 
uncertain; it is not earlier than 135 a.p. and is 
probably later (cf. Harnack, Chron. I, 488). A little 
earlier in some localities there began to be marked 
the tendency to exalt the Apostles and their teaching. 
This can be seen especially in Ignatius, Bishop of 
Antioch, c. 115 a.p. (cf. Hp. ad Magn. 71). Such a 
tendency of thought, however, could end only in the 
establishment of Apostolic writings as canonical by 
the side of the written sayings of the Lord, tho as a 
matter of fact this process was not completed till the 
next generation. 


4. Gospel Canon of 140-200. Putting aside Fp. 
Barn. and II Clement, the first writer who places 
Christian writings definitely on a level with the O T 
is Justin Martyr, who (c. 140-150 a.p.) refers to 
‘Memoirs’ of the Apostles, called ‘Gospels’ 
(Apol. I, 66), and in his description of an early 
Christian service (A pol. I, 67) ranks them with the 
writings of the prophets. This was the first step in 
the actual formation of the N T Canon. It is not 
easy, however, to define exactly what were the books 
referred to as the ‘Memoirs’ of the Apostles. It 
seems almost certain that he knew and used all the 
Four Gospels and possible that he was acquainted 
with at least one other; but an important point, 
which has not yet been cleared up, is whether he 
used them as separate documents or in the form of a 
harmony. It is also likely that he was acquainted 
with at least some of the Pauline and other Epistles; 
but as he probably did not regard them as ‘scrip- 
ture,’ further definition is for the present purpose 
unnecessary. Almost contemporary with Justin 
were Papias of Hierapolis and Marcion of Rome. 
Papias seems to represent a more conservative atti- 
tude in that he preferred oral to written tradition, 


613 


and this perhaps suggests that the Church in Rome 
was more progressive than that in Hierapolis. He 
was acquainted with documents bearing the names 
of Matthew and Mark and probably also with the 
Apocalypse and perhaps other books of the N T; but 
the evidence is doubtful, and in any case does not 
prove that he regarded them as ‘scripture.’ 

5. Canon of Marcion. Marcion, on the other 
hand, went further than Justin. He established a 
canon consisting of ‘Gospel’ and ‘Apostle,’ which 
seem to have been identical, the former with our 


Luke and the latter with the Pauline Epistles (omit- 


ting the Pastorals); tho the text differed from ours 
and perhaps had been altered by him. This is really 
the earliest evidence for the use of the Epistles as 
canonical. There is plenty of earlier evidence for 


their existence; but until Marcion they do not seem. 


to have been reckoned on the same level as the O T 
and the Gospels, so that in this respect the heretic 
anticipated the verdict of the Catholic Church. 


6. Status of Gospels at Close of 2d Cent. Thus 
the evidence of the first half of the 2d cent. suggests 
that before its close the Church in some localities, 
notably in Rome, had taken the step of canonizing 
Apostolic writings which contained accounts of the 
Lord’s life and teaching. A tendency can also be 
observed which emphasized the importance of the 
Apostles, but it can not be shown that this had as 
yet led to the actual canonization of any of their 
writings. A considerable advance was made in the 
second half of this century. The authorities which 
we possess for this period show that the N T Canon 
was becoming settled, and that it consisted of Gos- 
pels and Apostolic writings. Points which were not 
settled were the restriction of the Gospels to the four 
which are now recognized, and the limits of the 
Apostolic writings. Before the end of the 2d cent., 
however, the Four Gospels, neither more nor less, 
were firmly established in the West and in Africa, 
and the writings of Irenzus show that an extensive 
system of symbolism was growing up around the 
number four. But in Alexandria Clement (c. 190) 
used other gospels besides the Four (e.g., that of the 
Egyptians), apparently without drawing any dis- 
tinction between them, tho the point is open to 
dispute, and in the East there is the negative evi- 
dence of Theophilus (c. 180) and the positive evi- 
dence of Tatian (c. 170), who introduced into the 
Syrian Church, not the fourfold Gospel, but the 
harmony based on it, which remained in general use 
until the beginning of the 5th cent. Tatian’s evi- 
dence is especially valuable, as he came from Rome. 
It shows that, altho the Four Gospels had there-a 
preeminent position, the emphasis laid on the four- 
fold canon, as against either the recognition of more 
gospels or the redaction of them into a harmony, 
belongs to the period between Justin and Irenzus 
(c. 180-190), the latter of whom, altho bishop of 
Lyons, may be taken to represent the Roman stan- 
dard. The existence of the Alogi, who rejected the 
Fourth Gospel, is also a sign that the fourfold Gos- 
pel had for a time to face some opposition. 

7. Status of Apostolic Writings at Close of 2d 
Cent. Turning to the Apostolic writings, the kernel 
of the collection was everywhere the Acts and thir- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


New Testament, 
Canon of 


teen Pauline Epistles. The only possible exception 
to this was in the Syrian Church. It is not at all 
certain that Tatian introduced these writings as 
canonical along with his Diatessaron; but this is not 
for the present purpose of great importance, as it is 
probable that a little later the influence of the Greek 
Church of Antioch brought in the ‘Separated Gos- 
pels’ and with them the Acts and Pauline Epistles. 
Certainly, until the beginning of the 5th cent. the 
evidence is that the Syriac Canon contained no 
other Apostolic writings, such as the Catholic 
Epistles. It is, however, remarkable that among 
the Pauline Epistles the Syriac Canon seems to have 
at first included some spurious letters connected with 
Corinth, still preserved in the Armenian N T, which 
were probably extracts from the Acta Pauli. A 
problem of importance, but at present insoluble, is 
the origin of the collection of the Pauline Epistles. 
It is certain that the exchange of valued books by 
neighboring communities was an important factor, 
but how the unanimity was reached which fixed on 
thirteen epistles is unknown. Outside the Pauline 
Epistles the Canon was still far from fixed. Except 
in the East, I Peter, I John, and the Apocalypse 
were generally received; but there was a consider- 
able literature on the fringe of the Canon, some of 
which has been since accepted and some rejected. 
For the West a valuable piece of evidence is the 
Canon discovered by Muratori, in 1740, the earliest 
known list of canonical books, which is attributed by 
some scholars to Hippolytus, tho there is room 
for much doubt on this point. The evidence of this 
document, which originated in the Roman Church, 
together with that of Irenzeus, Tertullian of North 
Africa, and Clement of Alexandria, may be exhib- 
ited in the following table, which fairly represents 
the Church opinion in the last quarter of the 2d 
cent. It should, however, be noted that the tabular 
form exaggerates the clearness of the evidence, which 
is not all equally satisfactory. 


n ~ aS 
ZllelS/215 | 81 E/ 8/8] 4 

RPP P al aye | Ss Z| a 2 
Irenzus........|No|No|No!No |Yes|No |Yes}/Yes}|No| ? |No 
Tertullian........| ? |No|No|Yes|No|No |Yes/Yes|No|Noj|No 


Clem. Alex... .| Yes/No} No} Yes| Yes} No?| Yes! Yes] Yes} Yes} Yes 
Mur. Canon....}No |No| No} Yes|Yes|No |Yes}No |No |No | Yes 


8. Completion of Canon, from 3d to 6th Cent. It 
will thus be seen that at the beginning of the 3d cent. 
the N T Canon was fairly established with a four- 
fold Gospel, a collection of Pauline Epistles, and a 
less closely defined body of other Apostolic writings, 
as to which local opinion varied. 

The work of the next period in the West was the 
definition and gradual enlargement of the list of 
Apostolic books. In the end Hebrews, II Peter, IT 
and III John, and James won acceptance, owing 
chiefly to the belief that they had been written by 
Apostles, and that all Apostolic writings were 
authoritative. But the other books, tho lingering 
on in some quarters, were dropped. A somewhat 
eccentric list, which seems to represent some such 
survival, is the so called Claromontane Canon, found 
in Cod. D?#', which still retains Hermas and the 


New Testament, Canon of 


New Testament Chronology 4 NEW STANDARD 


Apocalypse of Peter, adds the Acts of Paul, and calls 
Hebrews the Epistle of Barnabas, as did Tertullian 
and Novatian. In Alexandria the greater vagueness 
of the Canon in Clement’s time demanded more 
thoroughgoing measures, and Origen (189-254) in- 
troduced a new classification of books. He divided 
the extant literature which had claims to be Apos- 
tolic into three classes: genuine, rejected, and doubt- 
ful. His division seems to have been that the Four 
Gospels, Acts, thirteen Pauline Epistles, Hebrews 
(with some hesitation), the Apocalypse, I Peter, and 
I John were recognized as genuine; certain heretical 
books, such as the Gospel of the Egyptians, were 
classed as rejected; while II and III John, James, 
Jude, and II Peter were doubtful. He used Hermas 
as Scripture, but recognized that some Christians 
differed from him. Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340) 
followed closely in Origen’s footsteps, and this divi- 
sion of the books had much influence on the succeed- 
ing generation. One point is especially noteworthy: 
Origen included the Apocalypse among the genuine 
books, but he was not in sympathy with that kind 
of literature. His opponent Methodius, however, 
accepted also the Apocalypse of Peter. We may 
probably trace here the influence of the antipathy 
to apocalyptic literature, which grew more pro- 
nounced in the East in the succeeding generations. 
The Canon of the Eastern Church was ultimately 
the same as that of the Western, but the Palestinian 
and Syrian churches long rejected the Apocalypse 
(cf. the Decree of the Council of Laodicea in 368, 
the Stichometry of Nicephorus, and the List of Sixty 
Canonical Books). The Alexandrians hesitated; but, 
following the lead of Athanasius, in the end they 
accepted it, tho not without controversy (cf. Eus. 
HE, VII, 25), and gradually the Alexandrian tradi- 
tion gained ground, and the Apocalypse was gen- 
erally accepted. Only the Syrian Church kept a 
more conservative position. Even at the beginning 
of the 5th cent. it did not accept the minor Epistles 
or the Apocalypse, and these were not added to the 
Syriac Bible until the 6th cent., while in some 
Nestorian circles they probably were never adopted 
at all. With this exception the Canon of the N T 
was generally fixed in its present form before the 
6th cent. It is true that in outlying districts eccen- 
tricities were still to be found, such as an occasional 
use of the ‘Epistle to the Laodiceans’ among the 
Pauline Epistles. In the Reformation an attack was 
made on some of the Catholic Epistles, and Luther 
relegated to an appendix to his New Testament the 
Epistle to the Hebrews, the Epistles of James and 
Jude, and the Book of Revelation, but these points 
are not of the first importance, and are outside the 
scope of this article. 


LirERATURE: The subject may be studied especially in Zahn 
Gesch. d. neut. Kanon (1888-92); but one should also read 
Harnack’s Das N T um das Jahr. 200 (1889), or the section 
on the Canon in his History of Dogma (Eng. transl. 1897); 
also Leipoldt, Neutestamentlichen Kanon (1907-8). Satis- 
factory statements of the main points are given in H. J. 
Holtzmann’s Hinleitung in d. N T (1893), pp. 75-204, and in 
Jiilicher’s Introduction (Eng. transl. 1904), pp. 459-566. An 
indispensable collection of texts is given in Preuschen’s 
Analecta (1893), pp. 129-185. Westcott’s History of the 
Canon of the N T (1875) is still valuable, tho rather old and 
somewhat too apologetic. See also A. Souter, TJezt and 
Canon of ihe N T (1913). 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


614 


NEW TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY. In the 
absence of sufficient data no precise and detailed 
chronology of the events recorded in the New 
Testament is possible. The margin of uncertainty 
is indeed seldom very serious, but exact dating is not 
attainable. For the Gospel narrative our informa- 
tion is singularly scanty and not easily reduced to 
consistency. The earliest history of the Church 
lies in the same obscurity. Only as we advance into 
the second part of the Acts of the Apostles do we ap- 
proach a definite chronology. Perhaps the first 
important event in Christian history which can be 
quite precisely dated is the outbreak of the Neronian 
persecution in 64 a.p., which already lies outside the 
scope of the historical writings of the New Testa- 
ment. 


I. Tat FRAMEWORK oF CONTEMPORARY 
History. 


An outline of the relevant political events of the 
Roman Empire and its dependencies within which 
Christianity arose will serve as a setting for the 
chronology of the Apostolic Age. 


Augustus, 30 B.c.-14 a.p. Herod the Great, king of 
Palestine, 37-4 B.c. 

Temple begun at Jerusa- 
lem, probably in 
Jan. or Dec., 20- 
19 B.c; 

Sons of Herod. 

(1) Archelaus, ethnarch 
of Judea and Sa- 
maria 4 B.c., ban- 
ished 6 A.D. 

(2) Antipas, tetrarch of 
Galilee and Perea 
4 B.C.-39 A.D. 

(3) Philip, tetrarch of 
Trachonitis, ete., 4 
B.C.-34 A.D. 

Judea under procura- 
tors, 6-41 A.D. 

Pontius Pilate, 26-36. 
Herod Agrippa I (Ac 12) 
after a life of ad- 
venture, King of 
the territory of his 
grandfather, Herod 
I, 37-44 (including 
Judea 41-44). 
Judea under procurators 
from 44. 
; Revolt of Theudas be- 
Nero, 54-68. tween 44 and 48. 
Rome burned 19 July, Herod Agrippa II (Ac 
64, followed by perse- 25 26), King of Chal- 
cution of Christians cis and parts of Gali- 
chiefly in Rome. lee and Perea 50- 


Tiberius, 14-37. 


Caligula, 37-41. 
Claudius, 41-54 


100. 
Outbreak of Jewish 
Galba, Otho, Vitellius, 68- War 66. 
69. 
Vespasian, 69-79. Fall of Jerusalem, Sept., 
Titus, 79-81. 70. 


Domitian, 81-96. 


615 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


New Testament, Canon of 
New Testament Chronology 





Persecution of Chris- 
tians. 
Nerva, 96-98. 
Trajan, 98-117. 


II. Tae Lire or Jesus Curist. 
I. Internal Chronology of the Gospel Narratives. 


(I) Date of the Crucifixion. That the death of 
Jesus fell on a Friday at Passover-tide is a fixed 
point in all our records. According to the Fourth 
Gospel it took place on Nisan 14, immediately before 
the beginning of the Paschal Feast (Jn 13 1, 18 28, 
19 14, 17-37). According to Mark, followed by the 
other Synoptics, Jesus had already eaten the Paschal 
meal with His disciples before His arrest (Mk 
14 12-17), and consequently must have suffered on 
Nisan 15. 
tencies in the Synoptic account which tell in favor of 
the Johannine date, which is now generally accepted. 

(II) Duration of the Ministry according to the 
Synoptic Gospels. Prima facie the course of events 
related would not seem to extend beyond the limits 
of a single year, terminating about Easter. That 
the Ministry of Jesus did in fact last no more than 
a year is a view held by many both in ancient times 
and to-day. But there are data in the Synoptic 
Gospels themselves which make this view difficult. 

(a) There are in any case several unfilled gaps of 
unknown length in the Marcan narrative (e.g. 1 
13-15, 39, 6 12-30). Altho only one visit to Jerusalem is 
recorded there are elements in the narrative which 
are better intelligible if Jesus had been in the capital 
before the last week. 

(b) Very shortly before the end of the Galilean 
ministry Jesus had fed a multitude in open country 
(Mk 6 34-44, related with varying detail again in 
8 1-9), at a time when the grass was green, 1.e., in 
early spring and probably not long before Easter 
(Mk 6 39). It seems difficult to find room for the 
events recorded between the abandonment of 
Galilee and the Crucifixion on the assumption that 
these events happened in the same spring. We con- 
clude that the Galilean ministry ended roughly 
about a year before the Crucifixion. 

(c) During the Galilean ministry the disciples 
plucked ripe ears of corn (Mk 2 23). This would only 
be possible between Easter and Whitsuntide. It is 
very unlikely that this incident is so seriously mis- 
placed by Mark that it could be brought into the 
time between the Feeding of the Multitude and the 
Crucifixion. Hence it probably happened some 
months before the Feeding. At that time Jesus 
already had disciples and was already a marked man. 
‘Hence it was not quite at the beginning of the 
ministry. It would appear to be difficult to bring 
the Synoptic narrative as a whole within less than 
about 2 years. 


(III) Duration of the Ministry according to the 
Fourth Gospel. This Gospel gives a fairly complete 
chronological scheme in which the course of events 
is punctuated by visits to Jerusalem for various 
Feasts. ‘Three Passovers are mentioned (2 13; 6 4— 
where the reading +d xé&cya is almost certainly 
genuine—11 55 saqa.). As the Ministry has already 
commenced, tho only in a very tentative way, 


There are, however, apparent inconsis- - 


before the Passover of 2 13, the period implied is 
somewhat over 2 years. While the correlation of the 
Johannine scheme with the Marcan in detail presents 
difficulties, the period allotted to the Ministry as a 
whole will fit the Marcan narrative sufficiently well. 


(IV) Length of the Life of Jesus. Luke makes 
Jesus ‘about 30 years old’ at the opening of His 
Ministry (3 23). This is doubtless only a rough ap- 
proximation. According to John 8 57 the Jews said to 
Jesus ‘Thou art not yet 50 years old.’ This may im- 
ply a theory (which is actually found outside the 
N T) that Jesus reached middle-age. This theory is 
in itself improbable, and it is perhaps not a neces- 
sary inference from the words of the Fourth Gospel. 


IT. Correlation of the Gospel Narratives with General 
Chronology. 

(1) Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate 
(26-36 a.p.), in the High-Priesthood of Caiaphas 
(18-36 a.p.). Attempts to obtain a more precise 
dating by calendar computations are somewhat 
precarious, but they are thought to favor 29, 30, or 
31 a.p. A tradition of the early Church, going back 
at least to Tertullian, names the consulate of the two 
Gemini, 7.e., 29 a.p., as the date of the Crucifixion. 


(II) The date of the opening of the ministry is to 
be inferred from the elaborate synchronism given for 
the appearance of John the Baptist in Lk 31-3. The 
data here given are consistent with known facts. 
The most precise date which the passage affords is 
the 15th year of Tiberius. It is natural to suppose 
that this is reckoned from the beginning of Tiberius’ 
sole reign upon the death of Augustus in 14 a.p., as 
was usual in Syria and elsewhere. But there are 
several ways of reckoning the years. As Augustus 
died in August, strictly the 15th year of Tiberius is 
August 28-August 29 a.p. Counted according to the 
Roman calendar year, it would be January to 
December, 28 a.p. Counted according to the 
Seleucid civil year it would be October 1, 27 to 
September 30, 28 a.p. This last has recently been 
shown to be a normal way of reckoning regnal years 
in the province of Syria throughout the first century. 
If this was Luke’s meaning, his date for the opening 
of the Ministry would be consistent with the date 
29 a.p. for the Crucifixion, if the shorter reckoning 
of the duration of the ministry be accepted (as Luke 
probably intended), or with 30 a.p. if the Ministry 
be held to have lasted over two years. 

From John 2 20 it appears that the Passover of 
the 46th year of the building of Herod’s Temple (i.e., 
probably the year 27 a.p.) was believed to have fallen 
within the Ministry. This can not be reconciled 
with Luke’s dating unless he be supposed to reckon 
Tiberius’ regnal years from some point other than 
the customary. That he did so is the view taken 
by many authorities, but it leaves us in complete 
uncertainty about the year intended. 

(III) The birth of Jesus is placed by Luke (2 2) at 
the time of a census held by Quirinius as Governor of 
Syria. The only known census held by Quirinius is 
that of 6-7 a.p. Clearly this is not the one intended. 
It has been supposed, on very slight evidence, that 
Quirinius may have had a previous term as Governor 
of Syria, about 3-1 B.c. If Jesus were born about 


New Testament Chronology 


New Testament Text A NEW STANDARD 





that time he would be ‘about 30 years old’ in 
27-28 A.D. But in any case’no census is likely to 
have been held in those years. Tertullian states 
that a census of the province of Syria was held by 
Sentius Saturninus (9-7 B.c.). Ramsay dates this 
census, by inference, to 8-7 B.c., and supposes that 
a@ corresponding census for Palestine was carried 
out by Herod the Great in 6 B.c. About that time 
Quirinius was holding high command in the East 
for the Homonadensian War (8-5 B.c.), and it is just 
possible that this might account for the association 
of his name with the census. If such a date be ac- 
cepted for the birth of Jesus it would be necessary 
either to allow a somewhat wide latitude to the 
phrase ‘about 30 years old,’ or to suppose that the 
15th year of Tiberius is reckoned in some unusual 
fashion. On the other hand the date 6 B.c. would 
harmonize with the statement of Mt 21 sqq. that 
Jesus was born under Herod the Great (and, it seems 
to be implied, not at the very end of his reign), 
which is probably to be understood also from Lk 1 5. 
The attempt to use the ‘star’ of Mt as a basis for 
astronomical calculations is quite illusory. 


Ill. THe Aposrouic AGE. 


1. With the latter part of the Acts of the Apostles 
something like a definite chronology begins to 
emerge. In Ac 1812 we learn that Gallio became 
Proconsul of Achaia while Paul was at Corinth dur- 
ing his ‘Second Missionary Journey.’ An inscription 
found at Delphi enables us to date the beginning of 
Gallio’s term of office with a high degree of proba- 
bility to the summer of 51 a.p. (see Deissmann, St. 
Paul, Appendix I). Again, it is regarded by com- 
petent authorities as almost certain that Felix was 
succeeded by Festus as Procurator of Judea (Ac 
24 27) in 60 or 61, most probably the latter. This 
makes it possible to approximate to a definite 
chronology of Paul’s trials and imprisonment. From 
these two fixed points we can construct a chronology 
of the latter part of Paul’s career with only a narrow 
margin of uncertainty. 

(a) ‘Second Missionary Journey’ (Ac 15 36- 
18 22). §S. Galatia revisited, Macedonia, Athens, 
Corinth (114 years), Antioch; 49-53 a.p. Paul ar- 
rives in Corinth shortly after the expulsion of Jews 
from Rome, of which the probable date is the ninth 
of Claudius, 49-50 a.p., and leaves it shortly after 
Gallio’s arrival in 51. 

(b) ‘Third Missionary Journey’ (Ac 18 23-21 30). 
S. Galatia, Ephesus, Corinth, Jerusalem; 54-59 a.p. 
Ephesus 2)%4 years, 55-57; the journey by Troas to 
Macedonia (II Cor 2 12, 13) and thence to ‘Greece,’ 
with 3 months at Corinth (no doubt Ac 20 3); and 
the journey via Philippi to Jerusalem, winter of 
57-8 to Pentecost 59. 

(c) Two years’ imprisonment (Ac 24 17) 59-61; 
appeal to Cesar shortly after Festus’ accession in 61. 

(d) Start for Rome, autumn 61; 3 months in 
Malta (Ac 28 11); arrival in Rome spring 62. Two 
years in Rome (Ac 28 20), 62-64 a.p. 

This, it will be observed, brings us down to the 
outbreak of the Neronian persecution, in which 
according to tradition Paul fell. There is however 
another tradition according to which Paul was first 
liberated, and subsequently suffered a second im- 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


616 


| prisonment. If the succession of Festus be placed in 


60 instead of 61 A.p., and the journey described in II 
Cor 2 12, 13 and Ac 20 1-3 somewhat curtailed in time, 
then it is possible to bring the two years in Rome to 
an end in 63 and to suppose that Paul was clear of 
the metropolis, perhaps in Spain, before the out- 
break of persecution. He may then have been rear- 
rested and put to death at a later stage of the perse- 
cution. But we have no data of value to go upon 
for these events. It is improbable that the Pastoral 
Kpistles, which (in the opinion of the writer of this 
article) are not Pauline as they stand, tho incorporat- 
ing Pauline material, can be used as evidence for a 
second imprisonment, and so far as any solid testi- 
mony goes, Paul’s career ends in 63 or 64 A.D. 


2. For the earlier part of Paul’s career the evi- 
dence is less satisfactory. Gal 1 18-2 1 offers some 
information regarding the interval between his 
conversion and a certain fateful conference with 
Peter, John, and James the Lord’s brother. But 
there are two uncertain factors here: (a) it is not 
certain whether the 3 years of 1 18 are to be added 
to the 14 years of 21, making a total of 17 years (or 
perhaps according to our less inclusive reckoning 
16 or even little more than 15 years), or are included 
in the 14 years, reckoned from the epoch-making 
event of the conversion; (b) it is not agreed whether 
the conference described is to be identified with the 
‘Apostolic Council’ of Ac ch. 15, or to a less formal 
interview which is supposed to have taken place on 
the occasion of the visit described in Ac 11 29-30. A 
recent theory is that the author of Acts has dupli- 
cated accounts of what was really only one visit, 
but even then the question arises, whether Ac ch. 11 
or Ac ch. 15 represents the true place of this visit in 
the narrative. These uncertainties make any 
chronological scheme based on these data precarious. 

The dominant view is that the conference de- 
scribed in Gal ch. 2 occurred between the (so called) 
first and second Missionary Journeys, as described 
in Ac ch. 15. As Paul was in Corinth by 50, after a 
devious and prolonged journey through Asia Minor 
and Macedonia, the start for the second journey can 
hardly be placed later than 49. For the earlier 
journey, through Cyprus and 8. Galatia (Ac chs. 
13 and 14) we have no chronological data. The 
proconsulate of Sergius Paulus in Cyprus (Ac 
13 7) is attested epigraphically, but without indica- 
tion of date. If 48 be taken as a roughly approxi- 
mate date for the Jerusalem conference, then the 
reckoning of Gal 1 18-2 1 would give 34-35 a.p. as the 
latest, 31 a.p. as the earliest, date for the conversion 
of Paul. 


3. For the chronology of the narrative of Ac 
chs. 1-12 we have only one clearly fixed point, the 
death of Agrippa I (Ac 12 20-23), 44 a.p. This per- 
mits us to date approximately the death of James 
son of Zebedee and the imprisonment of Peter (Ac 
12 1-19). The famine mentioned in Ac 11 28 can not 
be dated with precision; various dates between 46 
and 49 have been shown to be possible. But in any 
case the exact relation between the famine and the 
order of events is problematical. Indeed the fre- 
quent changes of scene and the absence of any pre- 
cise indications of succession of events or lapse of 


617 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


New Testament Chronology 
New Testament Text 





time make the whole chronology of this period un- 
certain. As the conversion of Paul may fall in any 
year from 31 to 35 a.p., we are left uncertain whether 
the events from Pentecost (perhaps 29 or 30 4.D.) to 
the martyrdom of Stephen are to be spread over a 
period of 6 or 7 years, or brought within little more 
than a year. The visit of Paul to the Jerusalem 
Church recorded in Ac 9 26-29 is evidently identical 
with that mentioned in Gal 1 18, but the account in 
Ac would never have led us to suspect an interval 
of 3 years from the conversion. According to the 
varying construction of the Galatians passage it 
might be dated approximately to either 34 or 37 
A.D. 

~The fcllowing may be offered as an extremely 
rough approximation to the chronology of this 
period. 
Rentecasts (A012)... eictevasiete te ices tale fais perhaps 29 or 30 a.p. 
Death of Stephen (Ac 7)............ about 31 a.p. 
Missions to Samaria and to pave 

(Ac 8, 11 19-1)... 

Conversion of Paul re 9 4: “19),,. 
Paul’s first visit to Jerusalem ntAS 

ELST A Se ARN PII CIP aE ee ae 
Herod Agrippa’s persecution (Ac 12). 
Paul and Barnabas in Cyprus and 8. 

Calatian CAO Loytmieee wens fee about 46-47 a.p. 
Council of Jerusalem (Ac 15)......... about 48 a.v. 

4. New Testament History ends with Paul’s two 
years in Rome. ‘Traditionally Peter as well as Paul 
suffered in the Neronian persecution which began in 
64 a.p., but of this nothing is said in the N T. The 
next landmark is the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 a.p; but 
altho this event has left its mark on certain parts of 
the N T, it is not definitely alluded to except by 
way of forecast. It is probable that the Apocalypse 
reflects the persecution under Domitian, about 93- 
96 a.D. But all such questions are involved with 
the dating of the N T writings, and reference should 
be made to articles on the several books. 


LiterRAtTuRE: For the enormous literature of this subject a 
general reference must be made to articles in the larger en- 
cyclopedias: in PRE3, Jesus Christus by Zéckler, and Paulus 
by Zahn; Chronology by C. H. Turner, HDB. (the best 
conservative statement), and by v. Soden in HB. (highly 
critical). See also Schiirer, History of the Jewish People in the 
Time of Christ (1890); Harnack, Chronologie der altchrist. 
Intteratur (1897); Ramsay, Was Christ Born at Bethlehem? 
(1898), and St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen (1897); 
Zahn, Introduction to the N T (1907), all representative recent 
works. In James Moffatt’s Historical N T (1901) there are 
very complete and useful tables and summaries of recent 
opinions. See also The Chronology of the N T by A. L. Grieve 
in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (1919). A recent treat- 
ment of the subject i isin G. W. Wade, New Testament History 
(1922) and in the third volume of Eduard Meyer’s Ursprung 
und Anfdnge des Christentums (1923). ©, H: D: 


NEW TESTAMENT, LANGUAGE OF. 
GREEK LANGUAGE. 


NEW TESTAMENT TEXT: 1. N T Autographs 
Not Extant. The Bible did not fall from heaven as 
a ready-made book. It was written by men; men 
also have copied it. God has not been pleased to 
protect the text miraculously from all corruption. 
The autographs, inscribed upon perishable papyrus, 
and not preserved with any special care, soon disap- 
peared. Each copy brought into existence unin- 
tentional or intentional changes in the text. Even 
attempts to correct errors produced new mistakes. 

2. Origin of Textus Receptus. As we must inter- 


. years from 31 a.p. onward 
about 32 (or 35) a.p. 


about 34 (or 37) A.D. 
about 43 a.p. 


See 


pret the Bible, 7.e., establish its original meaning, 
through the intelligent use of our understanding, so 
also we should seek to restore its original text through 
scientific criticism. The consciousness of this duty 
has never entirely left the Church since the days of 
the great, Alexandrian and Cesarean Greek scholar 
Origen (lived 184-253). The exegetes of the ancient 
Church debated text-differences with perfect free- 
dom. Even in the Middle Ages it was well-known 
that for the sake of accuracy correcting was neces- 
sary to copying, and various Bible Correctoria were 
actually in use. Only with printing could the idea 
arise that one text alone could be supreme, and this 
actually happened in the case of the text following 
the Erasmian edd. of 1516 ff., i.e., the Stephanus 
(1550) and the Elzevir (1624). 


3. Rise of Modern Textual Criticism. But the 
Englishman John Mill, as early as 1707, shattered 
the belief in the Divine origin and infallibility of this 
Textus Receptus through the 30,000 variants which 
he counted in eighty manuscripts. During the 19th 
cent. the greatest progress was made in this field, 
especially in two respects: (1) Through Tischendorf’s 
discovery and publication of the most important 
old MSS. (1841-1869), which greatly increased the 
apparatus in size and value over the collections of 
Mill, Wettstein, Matthaei, Birch, Alter, and Scholz. 
(2) Through the development of a method of classi- 
fication of manuscripts and textual criticism by 
Lachmann (1842-1850) and Westcott and Hort 
(1881) which, founded on Bentley’s Proposal (1721), 
far outdistanced the earlier attempts of Bengel, 
Griesbach, and others. While, before his day, cor- 
rections were made only here and there in the Textus 
Receptus, Lachmann followed the right principle in 
deserting this text altogether and constructing one 
based directly upon the ancient manuscripts and 
versions. It was Westcott and Hort, however, who 
showed in a masterly way how to estimate the his- 
torical worth of all these witnesses, and therefrom to 
reconstruct the text. 


4. Witnesses to the Text. The fullest surveys of 
the extant materials for text criticism are given by 
F. H. A. Scrivener, C. R. Gregory, and H. von 
Soden. These are: (1) The Greek manuscripts, which 
are divided according to the character of the writing 
into Majuscules, or Uncials (8rd-10th cent.), and 
Minuscules (9th-15th cent.), the former being desig- 
nated in the lists by capital letters, the latter by 


numbers (a more complicated system has been “ 


adopted by von Soden). The most important manu- 
scripts are these: four that originally comprised the 
whole N T, viz.; the Vaticanus (B) and Sinaiticus 
(x) of the 4th cent., the Alexandrinus (A) and 
Ephremi Syri Rescriptus (C) of the 5th cent.; the 
Washington (Freer) of the 5th cent., containing the 
Gospels, the Koridethi of the 8th cent., containing 
the Gospels; and two bilingual (Greek and Latin) 
manuscripts, once in the possession of Beza, the 
Cantabrigiensis (D), containing the Gospels and 
Acts, and the Claromontanus (D or D2), containing 
Paul’s Epistles, of the 5th or 6th cent. (2) The 
Ancient Versions. Of these the most important are 
the Latin, the Syriac, and the Coptic—of which the 
old Latin is not later in origin than the middle of 


New Testament Text 


Nibshan | A NEW 


STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


618 





the 2nd cent., the old-Syriac dates from about 
A.D. 200, and the Southern Coptic (7.e., Sahidic) 
can not be later than the 4th cent. Of secon- 
dary importance are the Gothic, Armenian, Geor- 
gian, and Ethiopic, of the 4th and 5th centuries. 
These versions have been preserved in manuscripts 
various in contents and date, with many variations 
in readings, and should, therefore, be used only in 
the critical editions of Oxford and Cambridge (the 
Vulgate by Wordsworth and White, 1889 ff., the 
Old-Syriac by Burkitt, 1904, the Peshitta by Gwil- 
liam, 1901, the North-Coptic (Bohairic) by Horner, 
1898 ff., the South-Coptic (Sahidic) by Horner, 1911 
ff.). As these versions generally experienced con- 
tinual revision, on the basis of Greek texts, they 
reflect, in their variations, the development of the 
original text itself. (8) The Patristic Quotations. 
Since these, in the long process of manuscript copy- 
ing, were often accommodated to the standard 
biblical text as known to the copyists, it is necessary 
in their case also to use only the critical editions, 
especially those of Cambridge Texts and Studies, 
Texte und Untersuchungen (Leipzig), of the Vienna 
Academy (for Latin) and the Berlin Academy (for 
Greek) (see, for example, Barnard’s excellent study, 
The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria, in 
Cambridge Texts and Studies, vol. v. 5, 1899). If 
the versions serve to determine the readings which 
were referred to in the church of any given province, 
and thus help to localize a text, so the patristic 
quotations help to date as well as localize it, by ena- 
bling one to follow back even to the 2d cent. a read- 
ing for which, among the manuscripts, there may 
be only late witnesses or, perhaps, no witness at all. 
Just as the text of manuscripts which include several 
parts of the N T differs in purity and character for 
the Gospels, Paul, Acts and Cath. Epp., and the 
Apocalypse, so the versions and the patristic quo- 
tations vary in value, according as the versions are 
careful renderings of the Greek in the one case, and 
the patristic quotations are exactly taken from a 
copy of a scripture book in front of their authors in 
the other. 


5. Principles of Criticism. How is the value of the 
testimony offered by this material to be ascertained? 
It is not sufficient merely to add up the witnesses for 
and against a reading; they must be weighed. Nor 
does age decide; often witnesses of equal age stand 
opposed to each other. A late manuscript may have 
been copied from a very old one, and contain a text 
better than that of an older manuscript that hap- 
pens to be extant. The witnesses must be grouped 
genealogically (the safest criterion of relationship is 
community of error), since the later manuscripts are 
to be referred back to earlier (extant or lost) originals 
(e.g., the socalled Ferrar Group, consisting of 
Gospel-manuscripts 18, 69, 124, 230, 346, 543, 788, 
826, 828, 983, 1689, 1709, all derived from a lost 
Calabrian MS. (probably) of the 9th cent.). Most 
N T MSS., however, contain mixed texts, agreeing 
now with this, now with that group. Consequently 
it is the ever-changing grouping that decides. When 
NBD agree, their reading is generally correct. Less 
certain is the grouping 8B against D, or 8D against 
B, or BD against 8. In the Epp. of Paul NAC is 


stronger than BDG. Furthermore, the groups must 
be arranged according to the history of the text. It 
is comparatively easy to distinguish certain late 
recensions. Rejecting these, we concentrate on the 
old types of text current in the several great geo- 
graphical divisions of the Church, the Alexandrian, 
Antiochian, and Cesarean (these three underlying 
the recensions respectively of Hesychius, Lucian and, 
Pamphilus), and the Western. This may’be illus- 
trated by the following diagram: y 
x = Original text. 
a = text cur- b = text cur- c = text cur- w = ‘Western’ 


rent in the | rent at An- | rent at Cas- | text, never 
churches of | tioch. 2d and | area. 2d and | subjected to 


Egypt. 2d} 3d cents. 3d cents. a scholarly 

and 3d cents. revision. 
Hesychius’s Lucian’s re- Pamphilus’s 

recension. cension. recension. 

c. 300 a.p.? (T309a.D.) 


A bey 


Later Antiochian 
recension ¢. 350 A.D. 

Hesychius preferred a short text; Lucian a rich one (with 
many conflate readings); Pamphilus a good style. 
The fact that the ‘Western’ text was never revised 
explains the indefinite and fluctuating character of 
the witnesses to this type of text. Westcott and 
Hort believed that in B we have the representative 
of a neutral text, and they are probably not far 
wrong. Since their day abundant papyrus evidence 
has shown that this was the prevalent type of text in 
Egypt, which, being a sheltered district, with a 
splendid scholarly tradition, was more liked to pre- 
serve a pure text than any other region of the Roman 
Empire. It is perhaps more than a possibility that 
Origen had something to do with its preservation. 
On the other hand, the ‘Western’ text has gained in 
importance; because it is now known that it was 
widely current in most ancient times, especially since 
the discovery, by Mrs. Lewis, in 1892, of the Sinai- 
Syriac text. Blass, Bousset, Burkitt, Lagarde, 
Nestle, Wellhausen, and others are enthusiastic 
advocates of this Syro-Latin text. The agreement 
of the Old-Latin MS. k (representing the text in 
use at Carthage about 200-250 a.p.) and the 
Sinaitic-Syriac MS. (representing the text in use at 
Antioch about 200 a.p.) must never be despised. 
The truth is that the external witnesses alone do not 
decide. The history of the text shows that prac- 
tically all the most important variants were widely 
current as early as the 2d cent. The 3d and 4th 
cents. produced only new combinations on the basis 
of material that was already to hand. The decision 
rests finally upon the internal probabilities. We have 
to ask, which reading is the one from which it is 
most probable that the others were derived? For 
example, in Mk 1 41 the reading ‘aroused to anger’ 
(D) is more likely to be original than ‘being moved 
with compassion,’ because later reverence rejected 
the more human touch. Again in I Th 3 2 Paul 
calls Timothy the ‘fellow worker of God’ (D). At 
this offense was taken and it was corrected to ‘fellow 
worker,’ 7.e., with us (B), or ‘servant of God’ (&). 
Later copyists, before whom lay both readings, com- 
bined them, in some instances mechanically, as 
‘God’s servant and fellow worker’ (G), or, with more 
insight, as ‘God’s minister and our fellow worker’ 


619 


‘A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


New Testament Text 
Nibshan 





(K L Chrys.). Hence the value of Bengel’s Canon: 
Proclivi lectiont prestat ardua (‘the difficult reading 
is to be preferred to the easy’). Copyists are inclined 
to make readings smooth or more intelligible. There- 
fore the text that causes difficulty or gives offense is 
to be considered the more original; also nearly always 
the text that is shorter, simpler, or less elegant. The 
tendency to improve the style is especially noticea- 
ble in the quotations by the Fathers. Furthermore, 
the context and the style of the Biblical author 
must be taken into account. Copyists familiar with 
the Bible are easily misled into making similar 
passages more nearly alike. O T quotations made 
in the N T were apt to be brought into harmony 
with the O T readings as known to the scribes. The 
first three Gospels were especially subject to this 
harmonizing process. In particular, there was a 
tendency to conform Mk and Lk to Mt, because 
Mt usually came first in copies of the fourfold 
Gospel, and seems to have been the favorite in the 
early centuries. Thus the shorter text of the Lord’s 
Prayer in Lk 11 2-4 was often supplemented accord- 
ing to the longer text of Mt 69-13. 


6. Importance of Textual Criticism for Other 
Disciplines. B. Weiss is altogether right, therefore, 
in claiming that textual criticism can not be carried 
on safely apart from exegesis, nor may it be dis- 
sociated from literary criticism. If, for example, 
Mt and Lk used our Mk, as is now generally becom- 
ing recognized, they can be of service as the oldest 
text-critical witnesses for Mk. On the other hand, it 
is a service rendered to literary criticism if it be 
proved by textual criticism that some verbal parallels 
between Mt and Lk originally did not exist, that 
Mk 16 9-20 and Jn 7 53-8 11 do not belong to these 
Gospels, or that in Eph 11 the words ‘at Ephesus’ 
were not in the original text. The text of the N T 
has also been influenced by dogmatic interests. 
The opposing parties in the ancient Church accused 
each other of falsifying the text, and even to-day we 
are able to detect in the MSS. we have the intrusion 
of dogmatic corrections. For example, the Cap- 
padocian fathers Basil and Gregory (of Nazianzus), 
who were strenuous advocates of the doctrine of the 
Trinity, read at I Co 8 6 an addition concerning the 
Holy Spirit; while the famous Trinitarian passage 
1 Jn 57 is of Latin origin, and can not be traced 
farther back than Priscillian, a Spanish writer who 
died in 385 a.p. A very slight scribal alteration in 
I Ti 3 16 had a far-reaching dogmatic significance 
OC, ‘who’ being read as, or altered into, OC, (the 
usual abbreviation for OHOC ‘God.’). Cf. also the 
variants at Mt 116; Jn 118; Ac 20 28. It was in the 
interest of asceticism that in Lk 2 36 the ‘seven 
years’ were shortened to ‘seven days,’ in Mt 3 4 
the ‘locusts’ were altered into ‘honey-cakes,’ and at 
Mk 9 29 to ‘prayer’ was added ‘and fasting.’ 


7. Value of Conjecture. In spite of the large 
content of the tradition and the quantity especially 
of Greek MSS., it is not at all impossible that at some 
places the original text is lost and can be restored 
only through conjecture. So, for example, Origen 
conjectured that at Jn 1 28 ‘Bethabara’ should be 
read for ‘Bethany;’ at Mk 8 10 the reference to ‘the 
parts of Dalmanutha’ is an unsolved problem, and 


many attempts have been made to recover the 
true text; and Jerome approved ‘Banereem’ for the 
difficult ‘Boanerges’ of Mk 3 17; Westcott and Hort, 
with others, consider that at Col 2 18 and 23 all extant 
texts are corrupt. Conjectural criticism is not to be 
rejected because of its abuse in the hands of some, 
particularly Dutch critics. 


8. The External Form of the Text. Our oldest 
MSS. are not punctuated, nor are there any spaces 
between the words. The punctuation and word- 
division of the later MSS. are not always to be 
taken as correct. At least as early as the 4th cent. 
attempts were made at several chapter-divisions. The 
one now current was the work of Stephen Langton of 
the 13th cent. Our verse-division originated with the 
printer Robertus Stephanus, 1551. The super-and 
subscriptions to the different books, which vary 
greatly in the MSS., are none of them original. The 
notices as to the dates of the Gospels, the place of 
writing, and bearers of the Epistles are not earlier 
than the 4th cent. 


9. Modern Versions. The translations now in 
common use in Protestant churches were made, for 
the most part, in the time of the Reformation and are 
based upon the Erasmian Textus Receptus. As it 
then marked a great advance to set forth a transla- 
tion based on the original Greek text in the place 
of the medieval ones that were derived from the 
Vulgate, so the present time demands a translation 
based upon a critically corrected text. A praise- 
worthy beginning has here been made by the English 
and American Revised Versions. The modern trans- 
lations of Dr. Weymouth, the Twentieth Century, 
of Dr. Moffatt, and of Dr. Goodspeed are all based 
upon a careful study of the N T text. 

LireRATURE: Gregory, Prolegomena to Tischendorf’s Greek N T 
(81884-94), and Textkritik des N T (1900-09); Scrivener, 
Introduction to the Criticism of the N T (41894); von Soden, 
Die Schriften des N T’s (1902-13); Westcott and Hort, The 
N T in the Original Greek (1881), vol. ii; Schaff, A Companion 
to the Greek N T and the English Version (1883); Blass, 
Philology of the Gospels (1898); Nestle, Hinfiihrung in das 
Griechische Neue Testament (41923); Kenyon, Handbook of 
Textual Criticism of the N T (21912); R Knopf, Der Teat d. 
N T (1906); A. Souter, The Text and Canon of the New Testa- 
ment (1913); Vogels, Handbuch der Neutestamentlichen Kritik 
(1923). The most convenient texts with critical apparatus 
for ordinary students are Souter (1918), Von Soden (1913) 
and Vogels (21922). See also Introductions to the N T by 
Holtzmann (1892), Jiilicher (1906, Eng. transl. 1906), 
Zahn (1906, Eng. transl. 1907), and the excellent art. Texts 
and Versions by Burkitt in HB; Thompson, Introduction to 
Greek and Latin Paleography (1912); Kenyon, Facsimiles of 
Biblical Manuscripts in the British Museum (1900). 

. von D.—A. § 


NEW WINE. See VINES AND VINTAGE, § 2. 


NEW-YEAR. See Fastrs AnD Frasts, § 5; and 
Timp, § 4. 


NEZIAH, ni-zai’a (1S}, n%tstah), ‘excellent’: The 


ancestral head of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2 54; 
Neh 7 56). 


NEZIB, ni’zib (2°), n¢tsibh): 
(Jos 15 43). Map II, D 2. 

NIBHAZ, nib’haz. See Semitic Retraton, § 28. 

NIBSHAN, nib’shan (1%33, nibhshan): A city in 
the wilderness of Judah (Jos 15 62), Site unknown. 


A town of Judah 


Nicanor 
Nineveh 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


620 





NICANOR, nai-ké’ner (Nixdéywe): 1. A general of 
Antiochus Epiphanes and afterward of Demetrius 
I, defeated and slain by the forces of Judas Mac- 
cabeus at Beth-horon in March, 161 B.c. (I Mac 
7 39-50; II Mac 15 36 ff.; Jos. Ant. XII, 105). The 
day of his defeat was celebrated annually as ‘Ni- 
canor’s Day.’ 2. One of the seven deacons appointed 
in Ac 6 5. For later legends concerning him, see 
Baronius, Annales, I, 34, cccxix. ARN Reed ly 

NICODEMUS, nik’o-di’mus (Nixddyu0c): A 
Pharisee and member of the Sanhedrin, who visited 
Jesus by night when the latter opened His ministry 
in Jerusalem (Jn 31ff.). Asa well-meaning Pharisee, 
he was impressed, doubtless, by the interest shown 
in the preaching of John the Baptist, and Jesus’ 
first public appearance in Jerusalem attracted his 
serious attention. With others, he was convinced 
that Jesus was ‘a teacher come from God.’ It was 
Jesus’ ‘signs’ that had so convinced him. For his 
own satisfaction he sought an interview with Jesus 
and chose the night-time as perhaps most con- 
venient, possibly in order to avoid criticism on the 
part of his fellow Sanhedrists. The conversation is 
evidently only partially reported in the account in 
the Fourth Gospel. But the salient points are 
evidently reproduced. N. was a sincere Pharisee 
with the general theological and religious conceptions 
of that sect. He probably inquired about the ‘king- 
dom of God’ with no question in his own mind as to 
his own full right to membership therein. Jesus’ 
answer was intended to open N.’s mind to the in- 
adequacy of the whole Pharisaic position, and He 
did this by pointing out that it is the spiritual con- 
dition of one’s heart that determines his member- 
ship in the Kingdom and nothing else. When N. 
shows himself slow to take this in, Jesus gently 
rebukes him for claiming to be a ‘teacher of Israel’ 
and not knowing these elementary (‘earthly’) things. 
The immediate result of the conversation is not 
known. We next hear of N. in connection with 
Jesus’ visit to Jerusalem at the Feast of Tabernacles, 
six months before His crucifixion and eighteen 
months after the conversation of Jn 314. At this 
time N. stands out in the Sanhedrin for a fairer 
treatment of Jesus than that court was inclined to 
give Him (Jn 7 50 f.). Six months later N. and 
Joseph of Arimathea, another member of the San- 
hedrin, cared for the body of the crucified Jesus and 
saw that it was decently buried instead of being 
exposed on the cross over the Sabbath (Jn 19 39). 
These last two incidents indicate a sincere apprecia- 
tion by N. of the purity of Jesus’ motives and re- 
spect, if not affection, for Him personally. That N. 
later became a Christian is not stated in the N T, 
but it is altogether probable. He was so viewed in 
early Christian legend, and a late Apocryphal 
Gospel (also called Acts of Pilate) attributed to him 
was once current in Christian circles (cf. HDB, 
vol. IIT, pp. 544-547). E. E. N. 

NICOLAITANS, nik’’o-lé’i-tanz (NtxoAattat): A 
sect of Christians mentioned in the Apocalypse 
(Rev 2 6, 15). Their words are said to have been 
abhorrent to the church at Ephesus. But at 
Pergamum their teaching was tolerated, contrary to 


is not clear, altho the fact that they are named in the 
same connection with Balaam (2 14) indicates, in 
general, a form of antinomianism. As to how they 
got their name, there is a great difference of opinion. 
Some have suggested that ‘Nicolaitan’ is another 
name for Pauline Christian, and that the passage is 
an attack on Paul (Van Maanen, Paulus, 1891, II, 
pp. 244-251). But that Pauline Christians should be 
hated by the Ephesian Church is not to be thought 
of. Some take Nicolaitan to be the Greek equivalent 
of Balaamite (both words meaning ‘one who over- 
comes (destroys) the people.’ It is more natural to 
derive it from Nicolas without reference to its Heb. 
equivalent. As there is only one man of the name 
in the Apostolic Age (Ac 6 5), tradition early fixed 
on him as the founder of the sect, upon the assump- 
tion that he had apostatized. This, however, can 
not be regarded as certain. As a matter of fact, 
there was a sect of Gnostic Nicolaitans in the 2d 
cent. A.D.; but its connection with Nicolas of Antioch, 
the deacon, is probably fictitious. Hither the here- 
siarch was another Nicolas or the sect took the name 
from a desire to trace its origin to an Apostolic man. 


A. C. Z. 


NICOLAS, nik’o-las (Ntx6Aa0¢): One of the seven 
chosen to deal with the complaint of the Hellen- 
istic widows, a proselyte from Antioch in Syria, and 
probably, as his name indicates, a Greek (Ac 6 5). 
Nothing further concerning him is certainly known; 
but Ireneus, Hippolytus, and other sources of tra- 
dition, probably on insufficient grounds, and not 
without strong dissent from other contemporary 
writers, connect the Nicolaitans (Rev 2 6, 15) with 
him. R. A. F.—E. C. L. 

NICOPOLIS, ni-kep’o-lis (Nixéxoats, ‘city of vic- 
tory’): A city of Greece, where Paul planned to 
spend the winter and directed Titus to meet him 
(Tit 312). There were numerous cities of this name, 
but doubtless that in Epirus on the E. coast of the 
Tonian Sea, situated on the promontory opposite 
Actium, enclosing the Ambracian Gulf on the NW., 
is meant. After his victory over Antony in 81 B.c. 
Augustus founded this city both to commemorate 
that event and as a center of new Hellenic life, and 
under imperial patronage it soon grew in magni- 
ficence and political importance. Quadrennial games 
were instituted in honor of the Actian Apollo, and 
they ranked with the other four athletic festivals of 
Greece. The teaching of Epictetus also brought it 
renown. Paul probably found it a good center for 
evangelizing the west of Greece, and may have been 
arrested here before his second imprisonment. 

R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


NIGER, nai’jor (Nfyee): The gentile name of a 
certain Simeon, who was prominent in the early 
church life of Antioch (Ac 131). Nothing more is 
known of him. 

NIGHT. See Time, § 1. 

NIGHT-HAWK. See Patestine, § 25. 

NIGHT MONSTER: The rendering of'the Heb. 
hilith (Is 34 14, screech-owl AV). In Babylonian 
belief Lilith was originally a female evil demon, and 
then considered as particularly the demon of the 


the Lord’s desire. What their teaching or work was | night. The Biblical writers often made use of such 


621 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Nicanor 
Nineveh 





popular beliefs in enforcing or illustrating their own 
higher teaching. E. E. N. 


NILE: The classic name of the great river of 
Egypt. It is used from the days of Hesiod onward 
(NetXos), but occurs nowhere in the AV, tho it ap- 
pears in RV in Is 197, 8, 23 3, 10; Jer 467, 8, and 
Zec 1011. Neither does it occur in the Heb. O T. 
Moreover it has no Egyptian or Semitic cognates. 
Efforts to connect it with the Phenician nahal 
(Movers), or the general Semitic nahadr (Lepsius), 
have not been regarded as successful. The Egyp- 
tians called the river H’p ( Hapi), and personified it 
in a god of human form, characterized by masculine 
and feminine features. This Nile god is also repre- 
sented as wearing a bunch of aquatic plants and the 
girdle of a fisherman. In the Biblical text the Nile is 
mentioned simply as ‘The River’ (hayy° dr and y°’dr, 
modified from the Egyptian Jotr, Jo’r, and with the 
article; also Shihor, Is 23 3, ‘Nile’ RV; Jer 2 is, 
Sihor AV. By some the Gihon of Gn 213 is supposed 
to be the Nile. 

The Nile has always occupied a distinguished 
place among the great streams of the world, chiefly 
because it furnishes the basis of the life of Egypt. 
It has been truly said, ‘Egypt is the gift of the 
Nile’; for not only is the river essential to the pro- 
ductiveness of the soil as a means of irrigation, but 

it is the very source 

of that soil, which 
it brings in solu- 
tion from the in- 
terior of Africa, and 
deposits on each 
side of its channel 
during its period of 
inundation. The 
exact length of the 
river was unknown 
1 to the ancients, its 
| sources being re- 
garded as shrouded 
in mystery. Its 
regular and _peri- 
odical rise and fall 
were, however, ac- 
curately under- 
stood and utilized. 

At Cairo the inun- 

dation begins with 

the first days of 

June and reaches 

its height about the 

Ist of October; it 

then recedes until 

April. It changes 

its color from white, 

when low, to rud- 
dy, and then to green, when it becomes unwholesome 
on account of decaying vegetable matter. As it 
falls it becomes ruddy again, and finally white. 
y.\an On Js 






Nile God. 


NIMRAH, nim’rd. See Brera-NIMRAH. 

NIMRIM, nim’rim (9°71, nimrim), or more ex- 
actly ‘the waters of Nimrim’: The context in Is 
15 6, Jer 48 34 suggests a well-watered and fertile 


region in Southern Moab. Eusebius identified N. 
with a town, Bennamereim, N. of Zoar. The name 
is found to-day in Wady Numére, at the SE. end of 
the Dead Sea, and higher up, at the source of the 
Wady, are found the ruins of a town in what is still 
a well-watered and fertile region. Oo Ba 


NIMROD, nim’red (11), nimrddh): One of the 
great characters of Gn ch. 10. He wasason of Cush, 
and ‘began to be a mighty one in the earth’ (ver. 
8). Tho the other sons of Cush (ver. 7) were peoples, 
Nimrod possessed all the marks of an individual. 
‘He was a mighty hunter before Jehovah’ (ver. 9). 
His imperial sway extended over ‘Babel, and Erech, 
and Accad, and Calneh (Is 109, ‘Calno’), in the land 
of Shinar’ (ver. 10). ‘Out of that land he went forth 
into Assyria, and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, 
and Calah, and Resen between Nineveh and Calah 
(the same is the great city)’ (vs. 11, 12). He is 
thus distinguished as a hunter, a ruler, and a builder 
of extraordinary ability. We find also in Mic 5 5 
that the land of Nimrod is in parallel with the land of 
Assyria. 

Various attempts have been made to identify this 
ancient Biblical hero with some of the legendary 
characters in early Babylonian inscriptions. One 
of the plausible identifications is that with the Baby- 
lonian national hero, Gilgamesh (formerly read ‘Iz- 
dubar’), when we consider the herculean tasks per- 
formed by him. From the view-point of his renown 
as a mighty hunter, and the possible l'nguistic simi- 
larities, the identification of him with Ninib, trans- 
literated into Aramaic as mwiys, and read Namurtu 
by Jensen (KB VI, 2, p. 12, 1. 44) is not wholly im- 
probable. No identification hitherto made, however, 
is entirely satisfactory. The presence in Assyria 
of many names in which this name Nimrod is pre- 
served testifies to the real basis of the legends and 
traditions still extant. ice Me P: 


NIMSHI, nim’shai ('¥3, nimsht): The father of 
Jehu, King of Israel (I K 19 16, etc.). 

NINEVEH, nin’i-va (23, nin*wéh), Assyr. 
Ni-na-a, Ni-nu-a: 1. Nineveh in Its Glory. The 
last eastern capital of the Assyrian Empire, located 
on the E. bank of the upper Tigris, opposite the site 
of the modern city of Mésul. The building of 
Nineveh is attributed to Nimrod. Gn 1011 f. reads: 
‘Out of that land [Shinar] he went forth into Assyria 
and builded Nineveh, and Rehoboth-Ir, and Calah, 
and Resen between Nineveh and Calah (the same 
is the great city).’ Its beginnings reach into the 
third millenium B.c. From 885 B.c., the beginning 
of the reign of Asshurnatsirpal, it was one of the 
regular residence cities of the Assyrian kings. But 
not until the time of Sargon IT (722-705 B.c.) does it 
seem to have been promoted to the position of real 
capital of the empire; even then this king built his 
great palace at Khorsabad, a suburb to the N. of the 
chief city. Sennacherib was apparently the first 
king who made this city exclusively his residence. 
His son and successor Esarhaddon, and his grandson 
Asshurbanipal, likewise made N. their royal capital, 
and erected therein palaces of stupendous and mag- 
nificent proportions. 

2. Nineveh Fallen. The glory of Nineveh waned 


Nineveh 
Nobleman 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


622 





with the decline of the Assyrian power. According 
to the Nabopolassar Chronicle, this first Neo- 
Babylonian king, ‘the king of Akkad,’ battled with 
the Assyrian army from 616-612; finally, in alliance 
with the Umman Manda (the Medes from the N. 
and NE.), the combined armies crushed Nineveh, 
the Eastern capital in 612 B.c. Assyria’s Western 
capital, Harran, was probably existent until about 
605 s.c. The prophecies of Nahum (ch. 2 f.) and 
Zephaniah (2 13-15) paint in realistic colors the 
tragedy that overwhelmed the great lion of the 
nations. The catastrophe was so disastrous and 
the results so complete that Xenophon with his 
10,000 Greeks, who passed the ruins in the beginning 
of the 4th cent. B.c., could not ascertain what they 


represented. From that date almost to the middle 
of the last 


century, the | 
identity of 
these ruins 
was a mys- 
tery to every | 
traveler who 
saw them. ) 
3. Nineveh | 
Uncovered. jj 
It was in 
1820 a.p.that 
Rich,an Eng- 
lishman, resi- f¥ 
dent at Bag- 
dad, after ff 
careful ex- | 
amination of 
the ruins, 
was the first 
to conclude | 
that they 
represented 
all that re- 
mained of 
ancient Nin- 
eveh. In 1842 
Botta began 
excavations 
on this site, 
but soon 
transferred 
his activity 
to Khorsabad, about 10 m. to the north, where he 
uncovered parts of Sargon’s palace. Between 1845 
and 1850 Layard uncovered a part of the palace of 
Shalmaneser III at Nimroud, about 18 m. S. of 
Mosul, and also identified the site of ancient 
Nineveh just across the Tigris from Mosul, by 
bringing to light some of the palaces of its last 
three great kings. Theactual ruins of Nineveh consist 
of two mounds separated by the stream Khosr. Oneof 
these, Kuyunjtk, on the north, was found by Layard 
to have covered the palaces of Sennacherib (705-681 
B.C.) and Asshurbanipal (668-626 B.c.); and the 
other, Nebi Yunus (‘prophet Jonah,’ for a tradition 
says he was buried here), covered the palaces of 
Sennacherib and Esarhaddon (681-668 B.c.). These 
royal residences were built in magnificent propor- 






NINEVEH, AS REBUILT BY SENNACHERIB AND ASSHURBANIPAL. 
A-—Palace of Asshurbanipal (668-626 B.c.). 
AR—Armory of Sennacherib. 


tions, and their ruins were found to be vast store- 
houses of valuable antiquities, including thousands of 
clay tablets, cylinders, bas-reliefs, statues, and other 
objects of genuine interest. The wall line of old 
Nineveh has been carefully traced, and the walled 
city has been found to have been about 3 m. in 
length and from 1 to 114m. in width, containing on a 
conservative estimate about 3 sq. m., or a little more 
than 1,800 acres of ground. On one of the cylinders 
of Sennacherib (B. M. 103,000) we find that Nineveh 
had fifteen gates piercing its walls, seven on the 
S. and E. sides, three on the N. and five on the W., 
each bearing a significant name, and together speci- 
fying the ruling divinities, the character of the king, 
the guardianship of trade, tribute, etc. If the state- 
ments of the Book of Jonah (8 3, 4 11) regarding 


_Nineveh’s 
size and pop- 
ulation are 
| to be consid- 
ered, we 
| must con- 
ceive of the 
i capital as 
covering in 
the mind of 
i} the writer 
the whole 
stretch of 
territory em- 
braced with- 
1 in these ad- 
jacent sub- 
urban cities, 
viz.: Calah, 
18 m. S. on 
the E. bank 
| of the Tigris, 
Resen, and 
| Rehoboth-Ir, 
| all, as we re- 
member, in- 
cluded in the 
record of Gn 
} 1011f. Then 
almost due 
N., about 10 
m. distant, 
stood the 
palace of Sargon II, nearly as large as Calah, and to 
the }E. about 7 m. another town still unidentified. 
The inclusion of these towns with their territory 
and populations would amply satisfy the largest re- 
quirements. (But see JonAn, Boox oF.) 


Literature: Rich, Narrative of a Residence in Kourdistan and 
on the Site of Ancient Nineveh (1836); A. H. Layard, Nineveh 
and Its Remains (1848); idem, Discoveries in the Ruins of 
Nineveh and Babylon (1853); Jones, ‘‘Topography of Nine- 
veh,” with maps, in the Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 
(1855); Geo Smith, Assyrian Discoveries (1875); Billerbeck 
und Jeremias in Bettrdge zur Assyriologie, vol. iii, pp. 87 ff.; 
C. J. Gadd, The’ Fall of Nineveh (1923); Sees 


WAAL PPMIUM EER eer sissiena 


ain ian antl 


ty) 


watt QUUTUUUTEE ETE UATE TE 


W\ 
nnn | 


B—Palace of Sennacherib (705-681 B.c.). 
1, 2, 3, 4, ete.—Gates (14 in all). 


History of 
Assyria (1923). M. P. 


NISAN, nai’san: The first month of the Jewish 


year. See Time, § 3. 


NISROCH, nis‘rok. See Searric Retraron, § 28. 


623 A NEW STANDARD 


NITER: The Hebrew nether or Greek vitpov is not 
what is now called ‘niter,’ 7.¢., saltpeter (potassium 
nitrate), but common washing soda (sodium car- 
bonate) properly known as natron. It is found in 
many parts of the world as a deposit of alkaline 
lakes, notably in the famous natron lakes of Egypt, 
60 miles WNW. of Cairo, and also in Syria and Asia 
Minor. When an acid, such as vinegar, is poured 
upon soda it produces effervescence (Pr 25 20 ‘soda’ 
RV). The RV renders ‘lye’ in Jer222. E.C. L. 

NO, NO-AMMON, nd”-2’mon (83, nd’, OS S83, 
no’ ’ammon): A great city in Upper Egypt known to 
the classical writers under the name of Thebes. Its 
Egyptian name was n’t, n’t-’m’n. Tho Thebes was 
the capital of Egypt as early as the 11th dynasty, its 
period of glory really began with the New Empire 
(16th cent. B.c.). It was enlarged and embellished 


by the kings of the 18th and 19th dynasties, and | 


even when their later successors moved their resi- 
dence into Northern Egypt, Amon worship with its 
powerful priesthood maintained for Thebes a con- 
trolling influence in the affairs of the state. Thebes, 
however, began to decline after the repeated occupa- 
tions of it by the Ethiopians in the 8th cent. It was 
captured both by Esarhaddon (670 8B.c.) and Asshur- 
banipal ([perhaps in] 667 B.c. and certainly in 663) 
at which time it was sacked and despoiled of its 
glory and from this attack it never recovered. Nah 
3 8 alludes to one of these events, tho it is quite 
uncertain to which. In the days of Jeremiah (46 25) 
and of Ezekiel (80 14 ff.), it was still known as a 
populous city. But these prophets predicted its 
final collapse. Its significance ceased under the 
Ptolemies. Since then the site has been occupied 
only by a group of small villages on both sides of the 
Nile, which, however, abound in magnificent ruins 
(Luxor, Karnak, and Medinet-habu). A.C. Z. 


NOADIAH, n6”a-dai’a (MMTV, nd‘adhyah): 1. 
A Levite (Ezr 8 33). 2. A prophetess who opposed 
Nehemiah (Neh 6 14). 

NOAH, no’a (7, noah, Noe in the Gospels AV, 
‘rest,’ but, according to the explanation of the Heb. 
writer, ‘comfort’ in Gn 5 29): 1. One of the ancient 
patriarchs, the tenth in order of descent beginning 
with Adam (Gn ch. 5 P) and the hero of the Biblical 
Flood-story (in both J and P). The story of Noah 
is interwoven in that of the Flood (q.v.). The Noah 
(Sit Napishti) of the Babylonian flood-legend is im- 
mediately after the Flood glorified. Of this there is 
an echo in Gn 69 (cf. Gn 5 22). Noah is further said 
to have been the discoverer of the culture of the vine 
and of wine-making (Gn 9 20-29). 2. One of the 
daughters of Zelophehad (Nu 26 33; Jos 17 3). A.C. Z. 


NOAH, APOCALYPSE OF: A lost apocalyptic 
writing, fragments of which have been incorporated 
in the Book of Enoch. The name and traditional 
character of Noah were, for obvious reasons, used 
by the apocalyptists in the same way as those of 
Enoch. But the nearness of the traditional dates. 
of the two ancients and their similarity led to the 
merging of the Apocalypse of Noah into that of 
Enoch. That there was a separate book supposed 
to be written by Noah is explicitly stated by the 


Nineveh 
Nobleman 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
Jub. 21 10). But whether this was the book incor- 
porated in Enoch is a matter of conjecture. The 
Apocalypse of Noah consists of chs. 60, 65-69 25, and 
106, 107 of Hth. Enoch, and is more usually known 
under the name of The Noachic Fragments. It 
bears unmistakable marks of having at one time 
existed in a separate form. Ch. 65, for instance, 
begins with Enoch as the speaker, but quite abruptly 
in ver. 5 the narrator appears to be Noah himself. In 
ch. 60 it is the 500th year that is cited as the start- 
ing-point; but Enoch was in his 365th year trans- 
lated, and the Flood took place in the 500th year of 
Noah. These fragments can be put together into an 
approximate unity, but the complete reconstruction 
of the original book is, of course, not possible. The 
book contains accounts of the Flood (chs. 60, 65-67 3), 
of the punishment of the sinful angels (67 4-69 25), 
and of the wonders accompanying the birth of 
Noah (chs. 106, 107). A. C. Z. 


NOB, nob (a3, ndbh): A priestly city (IS 22 11, 
19), the home of the descendants of Eli (I S 14 3, 
Ahijah=Ahimelech), with a sanctuary and ephod 
(21 1 ff.), perhaps founded after the destruction of 
Shiloh. David rested here in his flight from Saul at 
Gibeah, and later all the priests were slain by Doeg, 
at Saul’s command, and the city destroyed. N. 
seems to have been between Gibeah and Adullam, 
where David hid himself (22 1). According to 
Neh 11 32 there was a Nob in Benjamin near Ana- 
thoth, and in Is 10 32 a place of the same name is 
mentioned which must have been on a hill immedi- 
ately to the N. of Jerusalem. The same location 
would answer for the three references, altho as 
yet no trace of a N. near Jerusalem has been found. 
Jerome mentions a Nabe, near Lydda, the modern 
Bét Nabi, 10 m. SE. of Lydda, but this place is too 
far N. and W. for the account inIS 21 ff. C.S. T. 


NOBAH, nd’ba (3), ndbhah): I. The name of a 
Manassite clan which captured the town Kenath 
(the modern Kanawét), evidently on their NE. 
boundary, in the Hauran (I Ch 2 23) toward Aram, 
to which the clan gave its own name Nobah (Nu 


_ 32.42). II. 1. Nobah (Nu 32 42); seeI. 2. A townon 


a road in Gilead, named with Jogbehah (Jg 8 11), per- 
haps the original home of the clan referred to in I, 
above. OgSsck 


NOBAI, nod’bai (333, ndbhay), in AV and RVmg. 
Nebai (the Q¢ré): One who sealed the covenant (Neh 
10 19 [20]). Cosa: 


NOBLE: This term renders Heb. and Gr. words as 
follows: (1) ’addir, ‘mighty’ (Jer 30 21, ‘prince’ RV; 
Nah 3 18); (2) gaddhdl, ‘great’ (Jon 37); (3) hor, ‘free- 
born,’ noble in the strict sense (I K 21 8; Ee 10 17, 
etc.); (4) yaqqtr, ‘precious’ (Ezr 4 10); (5) ndghidh, 
eader’ (Job 29 10); (6) nadhibh, ‘liberal’ (Nu 21 18; 
Ps 83 11), and (7) edyevys, ‘well-born’ (Ac 17 11; I Co 
1 26). A. C.-Z. 


NOBLEMAN: The rendering of two Gr. words: 
(1) edyevns, ‘well-born,’ which is comparatively rare 
inthe N T. In Lk 1912 there may be an allusion to 
the journey of Herod Antipas to Rome to secure the 
rank and title of King (cf. Jos. Ant. XVII, 9 4). (2) 


Little Genesis or Book of Jubilees (10 13; cf. also | @actktxdc, which in Jn 4 46 is rendered ‘nobleman’ 


Nod 
Noon 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 624 





and probably means an officer in the royal house- 
hold. J. M. T. 


NOD, ned (‘ti3, nddh): The land of ‘wandering’ 
(cf. naddh, ‘wanderer,’ vs. 12,14). It is represented as 
a land EK. of Eden, in which Cain settled when he 
fled from the presence of J’ (Gn 416). C.S. T. 

NODAB, nd’dab (273, nddhabh): The name of a 
tribe mentioned with two Ishmaelite tribes E. of 
the Jordan, with whom Reuben, Gad, and the half- 
tribe of Manasseh had war (I Ch 519). CST. 


NOE, noi (Ne): The AV form of the word ‘Noah’ 
(q.v.) in the N T (Mt 24 37, etc.) 

NOGAH, no’ga (3, nodghah): A son of David 
(I Ch 37, 146). 

NOHAH, no’ha (771), nohah), ‘rest’: The ances- 
tral head of a Benjamite family or clan (I Ch 8 2). 

NOMADIC AND PASTORAL LIFE: 1. Origin 
and General Nature. This is the designation of that 
type of life in which the main source and means of 
support is the raising of herds of cattle or flocks of 
sheep and goats. Such a mode of life is purely 
pastoral when private ownership of land is recog- 
nized; but it becomes pastoral and at the same time 
nomadic when all land is held as common property 
and the pasturage and water needed by herd and 
flock are regarded free to the first comer just as air, 
sunlight, and navigable waterways are in modern 
civilization. When this is the case the shepherd 
community, finding the nourishment necessary for 
its flocks and herds exhausted in one region, moves 
to another, and a nomad life results (‘nomad’ =Gr 
youds, from yéuety, ‘to graze’). The conditions for 
the development of this type of life are particularly 
favorable in the great inland territory of Arabia, 
which abounds in rocky plateaux and hill slopes, 
with a thin layer of soil ill adapted to purposes of 
cultivation, but yielding an annual crop of vegeta- 
tion which can best be used as it stands as food for 
grazing animals. Thus from the earliest period the 
inhabitants of Arabia appear to have been nomads. 
In early history they made themselves felt as far 
as Egypt, invading that country as a horde of 
shepherds, and for a time holding it under complete 
control (the dynasties of the Shepherd Kings, or 
Hyksos). The inhabitants of Arabia were for the 
most part a Semitic people, and Semitic tradition 
carries nomad life back to the very beginnings of the 
world’s history. It represents Abel as a shepherd 
and ascribes the beginnings of migratory life to 
Jabal (Gn 4 20). 

2. The Hebrews Originally Nomads. That the 
Israelites, after they had settled in Palestine, looked 
upon themselves as immigrants is shown by the 
very name they took to themselves. (See ErHnoc- 
RAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, §§ 9 and 18, under Eber.) 
Abraham, tho represented as leaving a city in Meso- 
potamia, spent his life in tents and was the owner of 
large flocks as well as the head of a roving tribe. Lot, 
Ishmael, Jacob, and Esau are also represented as 
heads of tribes wandering about the country with 
flocks and herds as their main possessions and means 
of subsistence. The standing and place of residence 
of the children of Isarael in Egypt were fixed by the 
fact that they were shepherds, and in the transaction 


of locating them there lurks a suspicion that they 
might grow to be a public menace, due perhaps to 
the earlier experiences of the Egyptians with the 
Hyksos. Down to the days of the Exodus the 
Hebrews maintained their distinctive character, so 
that before Moses could assume the position of 
leader among them he needed to pass through a 
period of training as a shepherd under a nomad 
chief. The origin of a new nomadic tribe from an 
old one is illustrated in the story of the separation 
of Lot from Abraham (Gn ch. 12). As soon as the 
younger leader had gathered about him a band 
sufficiently large and capable of self-support and 
self-defense, questions of pasturage arose between 
his adherents and those of the older chief. Such 
differences might be settled amicably and fairly, as 
in the case of Abraham and Lot, or they might oc- 
easion bloody feuds and lasting animosities. In 
either case, the end would be the formation of new 
tribes parting from the old ones and seeking advan- 
tageous territories whereon to pitch their tents. Such 
tribes numbering from four to three hundred tents 
(families) are scattered over N. Arabia to-day. (See 
Cornill, Hist. of Israel, p. 36.) 


3. Pastoral Life After the Settlement. Palestine, 
in the larger definition of it as including Moab and 
the Negeb (S. of Judah), furnishes soil for the devel- 
opment of pastoral life unrivaled anywhere. But as 
it abounds also in tracts of land suited for agricul- 
ture, when Israel took possession of it, the nation 
ceased being a purely nomad people, adopting the 
agricultural manner of life of the conquered Canaan- 
ites, occupying their built villages and cities, tho con- 
tinuing to raise flocks and herds as of old. The result 
was a civilization combining the features of both types 
of life. Arable lands everywhere were accepted as 
subject to private proprietorship; they were bought 
and sold, tilled and owned as in all settled com- 
munities. But large sections difficult or impossible 
to cultivate remained common territory. These 
were the hillsides and stony plateaux in the neighbor- 
hood of villages used in common by all the shepherds 
of the village in each case. The name ‘wilderness’ is 
given such stretches of land down to the present day, 
but what is meant is simply a grassy, shrub-clad 
hillside or highland unimproved by cultivation. 
Tho held and used by the men of a village in com- 
mon, such pasture-lands are carefully distinguished 
from similar lands belonging to neighboring villages. 


4. The Shepherd’s Possessions. ‘The shepherd 
takes his name from the chief object of his care which 
is at the same time the chief item of his wealth, the 
sheep. This is, however, his chief, not his only 
possession. In fact, the Heb. and Gr. words (rd‘eh, 
motunv) go back to a more general conception of 
his character and represent him as a ‘feeder’ or 
‘tender’ of pasturing animals. For besides sheep he 
keeps also goats and cattle (oxen, cows), and, in the 
purer nomadic condition, camels (Gn 12 16, 24 10 ff.; 
Job 1 3, 17, 4212). The last-named, along with asses 
(Gn 12 16; I S 15 3; Job 1 3), served as beasts of 
burden, carrying the tents and other simple but 
necessary furnishings belonging to the tribe. — 

5. The Shepherd’s Natural Enemies. Pasture- 
grounds, such as those described in § 3 above, are 


625 





generally found adjoining gorges and ravines (wddys). 
These with the rocky ridges that bound them are 
often irregular in their courses, sometimes converg- 
ing and again diverging, crossing one another or 
abruptly lost in a maze of bewildering summits and 
depressions. The gorges are in the present day, for 
the most part, bare and rocky; but in ancient times 
they were more thickly wooded, a condition of things 
which furnished convenient lurking-places for the 
wolves, the jackals, the bears and, down to crusading 
days, also for the lions, which prowled about for 
stray members of flocks, and sometimes even at- 
tacked the flock and carried away a sheep or goat 
(cf. I S 17 34; Jer 5 6; Jn 10 12). From another 
quarter, the shepherd had to fear, as he does to-day, 
‘the thief’? who ‘cometh not, but that he may steal, 
and kill and destroy’ (Jn 10 10). The ‘thief’ of the 


present-day Palestinian pastoral life is the Bedawi,. 


who regards the stealing of sheep an honorable pur- 
suit. In the OT period marauding bands of the 
Amalekites, Midianites, etc., gave the shepherd 
many an anxious hour. 


6. The Shepherd’s Means of Defense. To protect 
his flocks and herds from these dangers, the shep- 
herd provided a fold (cote) into which he gathered 
the sheep and goats. The fold differed according to 
the nature of the locality where it was to be used. 
If this was a level stretch, the fold was an enclosure 
surrounded by walls sufficiently high to prevent 
wolves and jackals from leaping over, and also sur- 
mounted with branches of thorny bushes to render 
climbing over them very difficult if not impossible. 
If, however, the locality was a hillside, a natural 
cave more usually served the purpose of a fold. 
Such is the case to-day with the cave of Pan at 
Cesarea Philippi (Banias). Before the entrance 
to such a cave-fold was built a wall with a narrow 
door, with a guardhouse commanding it. In this 
guard-house the shepherds gathered by night and 
took turns in watching. As a general thing, for 
purposes of mutual protection and _ assistance, 
several shepherds combined to keep their flocks in 
the same fold (cf. the pl. in Lk 2 8, 15, 20). In the task 
of watching, the dog is to-day found to be of the 
greatest service. Because of his fidelity and ca- 
pacity for training, this animal becomes a guardian, 
not only by detecting the presence of the prowling 
wolf and jackal, and giving warning through his 
prompt barking, but also by constraining the sheep 
and goats to take the path pointed out by the shep- 
herd in cases in which, on account of large numbers, 
they miss the shepherd’s own guidance. Dogs are 
also useful in searching for and rescuing straying 
members of the flock. 


7. The Shepherd’s Manner of Life. The Eastern 
shepherd’s day begins at early dawn. His first 
act is the calling of the sheep together. Each mem- 
ber of the flock has its name (Jn 10 3 #f.), commonly 
that of a flower or fruit, and each knows its name, or 
at least distinguishes the voice of its own shepherd 
from that of all others. As soon as the flock is 
gathered about him, the shepherd leads the way, 
the sheep and goats following him in file, with the 
dogs bringing up the rear. The shepherd himself is 
always armed with a long staff. When he has 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Nod 
Noon 


decided upon which patch of green herbage he will 
let his flock settle for the day, he leads the way to it, 
and the sheep dispose themselves about on the grass, 
while the goats climb the rocks in search of their own 
peculiar pasturage. At midday the shepherd guides 
his flock to some spring or well to water them; for 
unlike Europe and large portions of America, 
Palestine, by its dry and hot climate, makes it neces- 
sary to water pasturing animals regularly. After a 
season of rest following the watering, the flock is 
again led to the pasture-ground, and at night, with 
the same care and watchfulness for each individual, 
it is taken back to the fold. By this time some of the 
younger lambs may find it hard to keep up with the 
older and stronger sheep; these the shepherd carries 
in his arms, giving each one in turn some needed 
rest. This daily routine is interrupted only by the 
sheep-shearing (Gn 31 19, 38 13), which comes in the 
summer. At this season the shepherd gathers in his 
harvest of wool, one of the largest sources of his 
revenue. The occasion is accordingly celebrated 
with great festivities, which occur at the end of the 
shearing. Lambs and kids are slain and roasted 
night after night, and the whole village shares in the 
good things provided by its shepherd population (ef. 
IIS 13 23f.). Itis at this season that the freebooter, 
who has been of service in warding off attacks of 
thieves and marauders, can step in to claim some 
compensation for his informal and perhaps unin- 
vited police protection during the year. Such was 
probably the ground on which David made his re- 
quest for a gift from Nabal (IS 25 2 f.). 

8. Shepherd Life in Institutions and Literature. 
No phase of life has left a deeper impress than the 
pastoral on the ideas, institutions, modes of expres- 
sion, and literary productions of the Hebrews. The 
traces of its influence are found in the provisions of 
the Mosaic legislation (Ex 221, 30; Dt 713, 15 19, 28 4, 
18, 31, 51), which was drawn up upon the assumption 
that the care of flocks and herds was a large and 
important part of the people’s employment. The 
relation of the shepherd to the sheep served to bring 
to the consciousness of the Israelite the nature of the 
relation held by all leaders to the people led by them. 
The prophets never tire of reminding kings, priests, 
and princes of their duties by means of this com- 
parison (Jer 23 4, 25 34 f.; Hzk 34 2, 5,8 .; Zec 10 2f., 
11 3, 5, 8,15f.) The incidents of the shepherd’s daily 
experience furnish some of the most picturesque 
imagery of the Psalter (cf. Pss 23, 80; also Pss 44 11, 
49 14, 78 52, 72, 7913, 957, 100 3) as well as the ground 
of some of the most touching prophetic appeals 
(Jer 50 6; Is 4011; Ezk 346, 11£.; Zec 137). The com- 
parison of human beings to sheep was also used by 
Jesus Himself in His teaching (Mt 7 15, 12 11 f., 
25 32 f.) and with most telling effect in His parables 
(Lk 15 4;Jn102#.). Finally the redemptive work 
of Christ, both on its passive and its active sides (Ac 
8 32), was expressed in the ascription to Him of the 
title of ‘Shepherd’ by His first disciples (I P 2 25, 
5 4; He 18 20), and in this they were but voicing again 
His own claim (Jn ch. 10). See also ISRAEL, SOCIAL 
DEVELOPMENT oF, §§ 7-17. A. C. Z. 


NON, non. See Nun. 
NOON, NOONDAY: Besides denoting a part of 


Noph A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 626 


Numbers, Book of 





the day (see Trmn, § 1), this word is also used to 
designate the time most favorable for an attack on 
a city (because the defenders might be taking their 
siesta? So Peake, Jer 6 4, 15 8; or because then the 
daylight is most intense? Cf.Job514,1117). A.C.Z. 


NOPH, nef. See Mempais. 

NOPHAH, no’fa (M23, ndphah): A town of Moab 
(Nu 21 30, text uncertain). Site unknown. 

NORTH. See Easr. 

NORTH COUNTRY, THE (ji5¥ V7, ’erets tsd- 
phon): A designation, used by the prophets, of the 
quarter from which invaders were to come, also from 
which the exiles would return, in some passages 
translated ‘land of the N.’ (Jer 16 15; Zec 2.6). At 
times, tséphén, ‘north,’ is used by itself with the 
same meaning (Jer 1 14 f., 25 26). It designates 
Assyria (Is 14 31; ef. Zeph 2 13); Babylonia (Jer 61, 
15 12, 46 20, 24, 47 2; Ezk 26 7); various lands (Jer 
113 f£., 4 6, 10 22, 13 20, 25 9, 26); the quarter from 
which Cyrus would march against Babylon (Is 
41 25: cf. Jer 50 3,9, 41, 51 48); Babylon (Zec 2 6, 66, 8); 
various countries from which the exiles would 
return (Jer 318, 1615, 238, 318; cf. Is 436, 4912). The 
expression ‘king of the north’ in Dn 11 6 ff. denotes 
successive kings of the Greco-Syrian kingdom of 
Antioch. CSL: 

NOSE, NOSTRILS: (1) The Heb. ’aph, ‘nose,’ is 
used sometimes in the O T with a meaning other than 
its simple and literal one. (a) By synecdoche the 
‘nostrils’ are viewed as the seat of the ‘breath of 
life’ (Gn 27, 7 22, ete.). (b) Anthropomorphically, 
the ‘blast’ of God’s ‘nostrils’ is spoken of when the 
destructive wind or other nature forces, as His 
agents, are meant (Ex 158; Ps 188, 15, etc.). The ex- 
pression in Ezk 8 17, ‘they put the branch to their 
nose,’ is obscure, but appears to refer to some foreign 
mode of worship condemned by the prophet. In 
Ezk 23 25, ‘take away thy nose,’ ete., refers to the 
mutilation of captives in war. (2) nahar, ‘snorting,’ 
is rendered ‘nostrils’ (Job 39 20 AV, ‘snorting’ RV), 
but its cognate n*hirim is properly rendered ‘nos- 
trils’ in Job 41 20. HE. EL. N. 


NOSE JEWEL. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS 
§ IT, 2. 

NOVICE (veégutoc, ‘newly planted’): Used in I 
Ti 36 1in the sense of ‘lately converted’ and, therefore, 
inexperienced. In later times the word became a 
technical term (‘neophyte’) for new converts. 


NUMBERS, BOOK OF: 1. Composite Character- 
The fourth book of the Pentateuch, which carries 
on the history of Israel in the wilderness from the 
second to the fortieth year of the Exodus. In struc- 
ture it resembles Gn and Ex (see Hexatrnucn, § 7), 
the same sources, JE and P, reappearing in it, and 
being continued to the close. P, as elsewhere, com- 
prises chiefly statistical and legal matter; the bright, 
picturesque narratives belong to JE. 

2. Contents. (I) The section 11-10 28. The book 
begins with a long extract from P (1 1-10 28), the 
leading topics of which are the numbers and disposi- 
tion of the tribes, both in the camp and on the march, 
and the duties of the Levites. Ch. 1 gives a census of 
the tribes, with the exception of that of Levi (whose 





numbers follow in ch. 8). The number of males 
above twenty years old is stated to have been 603,- 
550. Ch. 2 describes the position of the tribes in the 
camp, and their order on the march. Chs. 3 and 4 
state the number of the Levites (22,000 above one 
month old, 8,580 between thirty and fifty years of 
age), their position in the center of the camp about 
the Tent of Meeting, and their duties in connection 
with it. Chs. 5 and 6 contain laws on different 
subjects—the exclusion of the unclean (5 1-4), cer- 
tain priestly dues (5 5-10, supplementary to Ly 6 1-7), 
the ordeal prescribed for the woman suspected by her 
husband of unfaithfulness (5 11-31), the obligations 
of the Nazirite vow (61-21), ending with the beautiful 
formula of priestly benediction (6 22-27). Ch. 7 
describes, with unusual circumstantiality of detail, 
the offerings of the twelve princes of the tribes, at 
the consecration of the Tent of Meeting and the 
Altar. Ch. 8 is again a collection of laws—on the 
arrangement of the lamps upon the golden candle- 
stick (8 1-4), the consecration of the Levites to their 
duties (8 5-22, connecting with 3 5-13), and the period 
of their service (8 23-26). Ch. 9 1-14 enjoins the cele- 
bration of the Passover of the second year,and lays 
down regulations for the observance, in certain cases, 
of a supplementary Passover. Ch 9 15-23 describes 
the signals given by the cloud for the marching and 
the halting of the camp. Ch. 101-10 directs two silver 
trumpets to be made, to be used for starting the 
camps, and on certain other occasions. Ch. 10 11-28 
narrates the departure of Israel from Sinai, and the 
order of their camps on the march. 


(II) The section 10 29-25. With 10 29 the narra- 
tive of JE is resumed (from Ex 34 28). In 10 29-32, 
Hobab is urged by Moses to act as the Israelites’ 
guide through the wilderness. Ch. 10 33-34 describes 
the functions of the Ark in directing the stages of 
their march. In 10 35-36 there is preserved to us, in 
verse, what must have been originally the old war- 
prayer, with which the Ark was taken out to, and 
brought back from, battle. Chs. 11 and 12 narrate 
the murmurings of the people at Kibroth-hattaavah, 
the appointment of seventy elders to assist Moses, 
the sending of quails to satisfy the people’s hunger, 
the vindication of Moses’ prophetic dignity, and the 
leprosy of Miriam. Chs. 13 and 14 contain the nar- 
rative of the spies sent out from Kadesh to explore 
and report upon the land. This narrative is com- 
posite, 13 17b-20, 22-24, 26b-31, 32b, 33, 141 (partly), 3f., 
8 f., 11-25, 31-33, 39-45 belonging to JE, and the rest to 
P. The two accounts differ in representation. In 


JE the spies go only as far as Hebron, in the S. of © 


Judah (13 22-24); in P they go to the far N. of 
Canaan (13 21); in JE the land is fertile, but one 
which the Israelites are unable to conquer (13 27-31); 
in P it is a barren land (13 32); in JE Caleb is the 
only faithful spy, permitted afterward to enter 
Canaan (13 30, 14 24); P couples Joshua with him 
(14 6, 30, 38). Ch. 15 contains chiefly laws from P, 
15 1-16 on the meal- and drink-offerings, 15 17-21 on 
the annual offering of a cake of the first dough, 15 
22-31 on the sin-offering, to be offered for accidental 
dereliction of duty, 15 32-36 an account of the punish- 
ment of a Sabbath-breaker (essentially a law in the 
form of a narrative), 15 37-41 on the tassels (RVmg.) 


627 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Noph 
Numbers, Book of 





to be the distinguishing mark of the Israelite. Chs. 
16 and 17, on the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and 
Abiram, is another composite narrative, the different 
strands of which vary materially in representation. 
(1) JE (16 1b-2a, 12-15, 25-26, 27b-34) describes a rebellion 
of laymen (Dathan, Abiram, and Reubenites) 
against the civil authority of Moses; (2) the main 
narrative of P (16 1a, 2b-7a, 18-24, 27a, 32b, 35) describes 
a rebellion of the people at large, headed by Korah, 
against the exclusive priestly rights of the tribe of 
Levi, as a whole, and the subsequent confirmation 
of the rights of the tribe (16 41-50, 17); (3) a secondary 
stratum of P (16 7b-11, 16-17, 36-40) describes a rebellion 
of Levites, under the leadership of Korah, against the 
exclusive priestly rights of the family of Aaron. 
Sections (2) and (8) thus differ, in that in (2) there is 
no trace of opposition between the priests and the 
ordinary Levites, while in (3) this opposition is 
strongly marked (so Nu chs. 3, 4, 8, 181-7). Ch. 18 
(P) defines the duties and revenues of the priests 
and Levites; ch. 19 (also P) prescribes the ritual of 
purification, after defilement by a corpse, by means 
of water mingled with the ashes of a red heifer. 
Chs. 20-22 (P and JE) describe Israel’s journey from 
Kadesh to the Steppes of Moab, on the E. of Jordan, 
with incidents of the way (e.g., the death of Miriam 
and Aaron, the brazen serpent, etc.). Notice here 
the ancient poetical fragments cited as historical 
authorities, 21 14 f. from the ‘Book of the Wars of 
Jehovah,’ 21 17 £. the Song of the Well, and the poem 
of the Ballad-singers (21 27-30). Chs. 22 2-24 give the 
history of Balaam (JE). The poems in chs. 23, 24, 
describing partly the splendid destiny in store for 
Israel, partly the fate reserved for some of its 
neighbors, are to be regarded as composed not by 
Balaam himself, but by a later hand, and placed in 
his mouth for the purpose of giving expression to 
thoughts deemed suitable to his position; 24 17-19 
seem clearly to allude to the conquests of David. 
Ch. 25 (JE, 25 1-5; P, 25 6-18) records how the Israel- 
ites were seduced at Shittim into idolatry and im- 
morality, and how the zeal of Phinehas was rewarded 
with the promise of the permanence of the priest- 
hood in his family. 


(III) The section, chs. 26-36. Chs. 26-31 all belong 
to P. Ch. 26 describes the second census of Israel 
(cf. chs. 1 and 2) during the wanderings; the sum 
total of males (from twenty years old) is given at 
601,730, besides the Levites (from one month old), 
23,000. Ch. 27 1-11 contains the law of inheritance of 
daughters. In 27 12-23 Moses is commanded to view 
Canaan before his death, and Joshua is instituted as 
his successor. Chs. 28 and 29 are a priestly calendar, 
prescribing the public sacrifices to be offered at every 
sacred season. Ch. 30 relates to vows, defining the 
conditions under which a vow was to be binding. 
Ch. 31 describes how, in accordance with 25 16-18, a 
war of extermination was successfully undertaken 
against Midian. The narrative contains much that 
is both historically improbable and morally repug- 
nant. It is, in reality, not history, but ‘midrash,’ a 
story written with a religious purpose. No doubt 
there was a war of Israel against Midian; but the de- 
tails handed down by tradition have been elaborated 
by the compiler into an ideal picture of the manner 


the division of the land (vs. 16-29). 


in which, as he conceived, a sacred war must have 
been conducted, with the collateral aim of establish- 
ing the rule of the distribution of booty taken in 
war (31 25-30)—a rule which is elsewhere (I S 30 24- 
25) referred to David. That the Midianites were not 
in reality exterminated is shown by the fact that 
they afterward invaded Israel in large numbers (Jg 
chs. 6-8). 

In ch. 32 (P and JE) Moses allots the land E. of 
Jordan to Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manas- 
seh, on condition that they help the other tribes to 
conquer the territory W. of Jordan. The closing 
chapters (33-36) are all from P. Ch. 33 contains 
P’s itinerary of the journeyings of the Israelites from 
Rameses to the Steppes of Moab. Ch. 34 defines the 
borders of Canaan (vs. 1-15), and nominates the 
tribal leaders who are to assist Joshua and Eleazar in 
In ch. 35 forty- 
eight cities are appointed for the residence of the 
Levites (vs. 1-8); six of these are to be, in addition, 
cities of refuge for the manslayer, and regulations 
for their use are laid down. Ch. 36 (supplementary 
to 27 6-11) provides that heiresses possessing landed 
property are to marry into their own tribe, in order 
to preserve the inheritance of each tribe intact. 


3. Characteristics and Historical Value. The 
most attractive parts of the book are those belonging 
to JE. Here Moses is brought before us, ‘in his 
solitary grandeur, patient strength, and heroic faith; 
steadfast amid jealousy, suspicion, and rebellion, 
and vindicated by God himself (12 8) as a prophet 
of transcendent privilege and power’ (McFadyen, 
Introd., p. 45). Every reader will remember his 
noble prayer (11 29), that God would make all the 
people prophets, and put His spirit upon them all. 
The beautiful poems of Balaam are instinct with a 
high sense of Israel’s national destiny. The poetical 
fragments preserved in ch, 21 introduce us to an 
interesting typé of popular Hebrew poetry. In P 
the laws of ordeal in case of suspected adultery (ch. 
5), of the Nazirite (ch. 6), and of lustration by the 
ashes of a red heifer (ch. 19) preserve archaic ele- 
ments, with analogies in the institutions of many 
other primitive peoples, which have been assimi- 
lated to the religion of Israel, and appear here in the 
form and character which they finally assumed. In 
the historical sections of P there is a large artificial 
element, especially in chs. 1-10, where the numbers 
are in many cases historically impossible, and the 
general picture is at variance with that of JE, as 
well as with the data afforded by the subsequent 
history. The simpler nucleus, supplied by tradi- 
tion, has been elaborated by the writer into an ideal 
picture of the organization which it was supposed 
that a sacred nation, marching through the wilder- 
ness, with its God in the midst of it, must have ex- 
hibited. In chs. 34 and 35 (the borders of the land, 
and the Levitical cities), also, there is much that is 
ideal; on ch. 31 (the war against Midian), see the 
remarks above. Behind the earlier source JE lie 
ballads (cf. 21 14, 27) and oral traditions, but even 
so ‘the history of the forty years themselves is a 
complete blank’ (McNeile), as the principal events 
recorded are confined to a few days at the beginning 
and a few months at the end of the wilderness period. 


Numbers, Symbolic 
Nun 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 628 





Lrrerature: The principal commentaries are those of Dillmann 
(1886), Gray, in ICC (1903), Baentsch (1903), Holzinger 
(1903), A. R. S. Kennedy (Cent. Bible), and A. H. McNeile 
(Camb. Bible). S. R. D.*—J. E. M. 
NUMBERS, SIGNIFICANT AND SYMBOLIC: 
1. Method of Counting. The method of counting 

among the Hebrews, as far back as it can be traced, 
was the common decimal system. The language con- 
tains names for nine units and the number ten, with 
compounds. The ten fingers of the two hands are 
believed to have furnished the starting-point and 
standard for the system. 

2. The Writing of Numbers. In the earliest period 
numbers were spelled out in full. This is shown in 
the Moabite Stone and in the Siloam Inscription, 
and is the common practise of the O T. It was not 
until the postexilic period that the necessity was 
felt for employing special signs to represent the 
numbers. In fact, the earliest traces of the use of 
such signs occur on Maccabean coins, and consist 
of the letters of the alphabet. There is no evidence 
that the Hebrews ever invented, or adopted, a 
system of numerical notation such as was used by 
the Phenicians (Schroeder, Phoeniz. Sprache, pp. 
186-189, and Merx, Gram. Syr., table to p. 17). 
But the significance for subsequent generations of 
the introduction of numerals was very great. While, 
on the one hand, the processes of arithmetic were 
largely facilitated, and the convenience of the system 
led to a great development in the science of com- 
putation, on the other, in the written records con- 
fusion of numbers became very easy and common. 
There is no part of the documents transmitted by 
copying so much subject to corruption as the record 
of numbers. 

3. Approximation in Numbers. The Hebrews 
looked upon statistics somewhat as the other nations 
of the Orient. They occasionally tock a census 
(Nu 1 2; Ezr 81; Neh 78). But there are indications 
also that they entertained superstitious thoughts 
about such enumerations (II S 24 2 ff.); and, upon 
the whole, it does not seem likely that in estimating 
and reporting numbers they tried to be very precise. 
On the contrary, the evidence is strong that figures, 
wherever given, except the smallest, were meant as 
general, or round, numbers, which for practical pur- 
poses within definite limits, varying with different 
individuals and peoples, seemed to produce quite 
adequate impressions, and were more convenient for 
use. 

4. Sacredness of Numbers. But in addition to 
such convenience of approximation, among the 
Hebrews a distinction was drawn between some 
numbers regarded as sacred and others regarded as 
profane. ‘Thus there arose a somewhat peculiar 
method of usage involving extensive and elaborate 
symbolism. In other words numbers were made to 
convey not only the ideas of arithmetic, but certain 
mystic significations. 

5. Difficulty in Interpreting Numbers. The prac- 
tical effect of the foregoing principles is such an 
interplay of ideas as to render all generalization on 
the subject untrustworthy. No rule can be laid 
down as to what should be regarded as precise, what 
approximate, and what sacred or symbolical num- 
bers. And yet the absence of such a general rule 


does not preclude the recognition of the difference. 
In Gn 380 36 Jacob sets a three days’ journey between 
himself and Laban (cf. Gn 42 17; I K 12 5, etc.). 
Here the number 8 can not have a religious or sacred 
significance; but in Nu 6 24-26, with the threefold 
repetition of the Divine name in the benediction, 
and in Is 6 3, with the threefold occurrence of the 
term ‘Holy,’ and in other similar instances, the 
number 3 must be viewed as somehow connected 
with the sacredness of the subject. 


6. Approximation and Hyperbole Combined. Ap- 
proximate, or round, numbers are more naturally 
apt to appear in the region of large figures. Such 
are 1,000 and 100. Both of these are found in the 
same connection in Ly 26 8 (cf. also Pr 17 10; Ec 6 3, 
812; Mt 1812; Dt 1 11, 32 30; 1S 187; Is 3017). In 
most of these cases, in addition to the approxima- 
tion, there is an accessory design to enhance the im- 
pression by hyperbolical statement. This is all the 
more present when the number used is larger than 
1,000, as in Dt 32 30, or in I Co 4 15, 14 19, and in 
Rev 5 11. 


7. Sacred Numbers. The symbotical, or sacred 
numbers are 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, 40, 70, and their multi- 
ples. The right of 3 to appear in this list has been 
called in question. In the O T, taken by itself, the 
sacredness of 3 does not appear clearly. The ease 
of the three choices given David (II S 24 13), the 
threefold prostration of Elijah on the dead child 
({ K 17 21), and the three daily prayers of Daniel 
(Dn 6 10) are not convincing. Those already cited 
(§ 5, above) from Nu 6 22-24 and Is 6 3 are more to 
the point, and indicate Babylonian influence. 
Among the Babylonians the triad was the favorite 
sacred group. The primary gods of the pantheon 
were three (Anu, Bel, and Ha); they represent the 
three parts of the universe, heaven, earth, and the 
abyss. Moreover, the number 3 is the smallest of 
those that can not be divided into equal integers, 
and, as confronting one in so many common aspects 
of nature and life, would naturally assume a sym- 
bolical value. The number 4 early became a symbol 
of completeness. It is undoubtedly based upon the 
four directions which stand open to one, 7.e., the 
right hand, the left hand, before and behind. From 
these, in the second place, arises the recognition of 
the four points of the compass ‘four corners of the 
earth,’ Is 1112, Ezk 7 2, Rev 71, 208. But each of 
these corresponds to a wind (Jer 49 36). There are, 
therefore, four winds of heaven (Ezk 37 9; Rev 7 1), 
and also four great rivers (Gn 210). Accordingly, 
in apocalyptic writings 4 is of frequent occurrence. 
There are four world kingdoms (Dn 7 3, 6, 17), four 
horns and four chariots in Zechariah’s vision (Zec 1 
18,61), four living creatures, and four angels of de- 
struction (Rev 4 6, 9 13-15). The number 5 is signifi- 
cant only as the half of a perfect number (Lv 5 16). 
The same is true of 6, which, however,fderives its im- 
portance not so mich from its being one-half of 12, but 
because of its nearness to 7. Inthe seven-day period 
of creation, the six days’ work must be completed 
before the seventh day of rest, in order to make the 
perfect cycle (cf. Jos 6 3, 4, capture of Jericho). The 
significance of 7 has been variously derived, either 
from (1) its being reached by adding 4 and 8, (2) 


ol a 


CO EEE 


629 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Numbers, Symbolic 
Nun 


A LS LL ae eS ee TI A (Pe reer eee ee 


from the division of the lunar month into four 
seven-day sections (weeks), according to the phases 
of the moon, (8) from the fact that seven planets 
were recognized in the earliest Babylonian observa- 
tion of the sky, or (4) from its combining two triads 
and a unit. Of these explanations the most prob- 
able, as far as Biblical usage is concerned, is the 
astronomical one (3), which was certainly widely 
diffused in Egypt and Mesopotamia. The Amarna 
tablets indicate that a sacred number was recognized 
among the Semitic peoples who had dealings with 
one another. Among the Hebrews 7 became the sa- 
cred number par excellence. The sacred times of the 
calendar were based upon it. Besides the weekly 
Sabbath, the seventh month, the Sabbatical year, 
the Jubilee year were determined by it. In other 
sacred relations it appears as the number of the 
priests who blew the horn at the siege of Jericho, in 
the number of days required for the capture of that 
city (Jos 6 4), the number of sacred locks (Jg 16 13- 
19), the frequent seven-day periods taken for deliber- 
ation or preparation (IS 108, 11 3, 138; I K 18 43; 
Ezk 3 15 f.), the seven pillars of Wisdom (Pr 9 1), 
the seven princes of Persia (Est 114), etc. In some 
of the above-named uses the symbolic value of 7 
may have either suppressed its numerical value or 
been combined with it. The following, however, are 
select instances of predominant stress on the symbol- 
ical aspect: The number of times that Jacob bowed 
before Esau (Gn 33 3), the number of women who 
shall take hold of one man (Is 41), the number of 
unclean spirits taking possession of the cleansed 
heart (Mt 12 45), and the number of times that the 
disciple must forgive his offending brother (Mt 
18 21, 22). The half of 7 (33) has likewise a similar 
sacred significance (Dn 7 25, 12 7), of which the 
Apocalypse furnishes other instances (Rev 12 14; 
ef. also 1,260 days [=3% years], 11 3, 12 6, and 42 
[=6X7] months, 11 2, 13 5). The number 10, as 
the highest of the series of units and at the same 
time the first of the second series, or, in other words, 
as the basis of the whole decimal system, could not 
but be vested with sacredness. Whether, as has 
been suggested, it acquired additional regard because 
it is the sum of 7 and 3 is doubtful. Like 7, it is used 
as both a round number and a sacred number, and 
in some of its uses, approximation and symbolic 
value are mingled, whereas in others either appears 
without the other. In Gn 2410, 22, for instance, it is 
a round number (cf. also Jos 22 14; Jg 17 10, etc.). 
But in the Decalog and in the decades of genera- 
tions in Gn, in the parables of the Talents and of the 
Virgins (Mt 25 1; Lk 19 17), and in the apocalyptic 
usage (Dn 7 7; Rev 13 1), the notion of complete- 
ness is more clearly present. But its sacredness is 
most fully brought into view in the tithe system 
and its correlative ritual (Nu 18 24 #.; Dt 14 22 ¢£.; 
Neh 10 37 f.; cf. Nu ch. 7). The significance of 12 
may be traced to the Sumerian subdivision of the 
year into as many months, or revolutions of the 
moon. Twelve also happens to be the product of 
3 and 4;; but, as in the case of 7, it is doubtful 
whether this fact has much to do with its sacredness. 
The tribes of Israel and of Ishmael (Gn 17 20, 35 22) 


were 12. That there was in this number something 


more than the fact of twelve patriarchs, the sons 
of Jacob (or of Ishmael), is manifest from the ef- 
fort to maintain the number, in spite of natural de- 
fections from or additions to it. When one tribe 
(Levi) was withdrawn, another was artificially 
created by subdivision (Joseph into Ephraim and 
Manasseh). The same is true in the N T with the 
number of the Apostles. Twelve is doubled in 
Rev 4 4, 5 8, 11 16, probably by the addition of the 
number of the Apostles to that of the tribes. Mul- 
tiples of 4 and 10, forty, and 7 and 10, seventy, 
naturally follow the significance of their components. 
Forty plays an important part in the chronology 
of the period of Judges and perhaps of the early 
monarchy. It is evidently used as a unit equivalent 
to a generation (Jg 3 11, 30, 5 31; cf. CHRONOLOGY OF 
OT). The duration of the wandering in the wilder- 
ness (Nu 14 33 f£.) and the three periods of the life of 
Moses are also reckoned as 40 each. Seventy was 
the number of the elders of Israel (Ex 24 1), of the 
persons in the household of Jacob at the time of the 
removal to Egypt (Gn 46 27), of the duration of the 
Exile (Jer 25 11 f., 29 10), and of the ‘year-weeks’ of 
Daniel (9 2, 24). 

8. Multiples of Sacred Numbers. Multiples of 12 
occur with the same regular meanings of approxima- 
tion and sacredness in the twenty-four courses of the 
priesthood (I Ch ch. 24), the forty-eight Levitical 
cities (Nu 35 6) the 12X12X1,000 of the redeemed 
in Rev 511. 

9. Interpretation: Gematria. This symbolical use 
of numbers gave rise in the later rabbinical age to 
the theory that all numbers are full of secret mean- 
ings, being the archetypes of the ideas of God in the 
creation of the world and, therefore, the molding 
principles of the universe (Philo, De Leg. Alleg. I, 
4; II, 1; De Mund. Opif. 3, 17, 31). But, if this were 
true, then the converse of it must also be true, 7.c., 
that each object has its fundamental number, and 
that the names of objects conceal in the numerical 
value of their letters the ideal nature of the objects 
themselves. Thus suggestions as to further mys- 
teries in nature and religion were discovered in the 
numerical values of all words in the sacred text. This 
conception led to the building up of a system of rules 
by which these suggestions might be followed. 
Words were transmuted into numbers, and numbers 
back into other words, and the secrets supposed to 
be concealed in the text of the O T were laid bare. 
The system, from its mathematical basis, was called 
gematria (a corruption of yewuetet«z). See SHE- 
sHACH. The only clear case of gematria in the N T is 
to be found in Rev 1318. The number of the Beast is 
here given as 666. From the context it appears very 
clearly that it was intended to be recognized as the 


name of a definite person by the inner circle of the 


readers of the book. At the same time, outsiders 
were to be left in the dark as to his identity. The in- 
numerable interpretations attempted of the passage 
may, therefore, be sifted and reduced to a very small 
number by the exclusion of those that ignore this 
fundamental assumption. 1k OYA 
NUN, non (7313, nin): A man of the tribe of 
Ephraim, the father of Joshua (Ex 33 1; Nu 11 28, 
etc.), always ‘nun’ except in I Ch 7 27, where the 


Nurse 
Offend 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


680 





Heb. has nén, Non AV, which should probably be 
read, as in RV, ‘Nun.’ OR syd be 
NURSE, NURSING: The translation of two Heb. 
roots: (1) ydnagq, ‘suckle.’ The fem. Hiph‘il ptepl., 
ménegeth means a ‘wet-nurse’ (Ex 2 7; Is 49 23, 
figuratively), and also a caretaker for a weaned child 
(II K 11 2; Il Ch 2211). Such a one often remained 
as a special servant to the mature woman (Gn 24 59, 
35 8). Usually, mothers suckled their own children 
(Gn 217; 1S 1 22 f.), but on occasion and in the 
wealthy and noble families a wet-nurse was em- 
ployed (Ex 27 #.). The Hebrew child, as are 
children in the East to-day, was suckled for two 
years (IS 1 22f.), and the weaning was celebrated by 
a feast (Gn 218). (2) ’Gman, ‘support.’ The fem. 
ptepl. ’d6meneth means a female caretaker in charge 
of children (Ru 4 16; II S 4 4). The masce. ptcpl. 


O 


OAK. See Pauesring, § 21; and Semitic Rre- 
LIGION, § 37. ; 
OAR. See Surps AND NaviGaTION, § 2. 


OATH: Normally, the oath is an invocation of 
God to witness the honesty of one’s motives and 
words. In the O T two varieties of it are found, 
one of which was reserved for cases of greater 
solemnity. The simpler and more common of the 
two was called sh*bhi‘ah, ‘swearing’; the more solemn 
alah, a ‘self-invoked curse.’ These appear in the 
N Tas Sexos, dexfGw and éuvdw for the first, and as 
dvabewatitw and xatax Oenatitw (ef. Mt 2672-74). The 
oath was taken ina formal way, altho one of several 
forms might be chosen, such as ‘Jehovah is a witness 
between me and between thee forever’ (I S 20 23, 
similar to Paul’s asseveration in II Co 1 23; Ph1 8; 
Gal 1 20), or ‘God do so to me and more also’ (IS 
14 44; IL S 3 35), or ‘As Jehovah liveth’ (I S 14 39, 
19 6; for other forms cf. I S 3 17, 25 22; II S 15 21). 
In addition to the words of the oath, certain sym- 
bolical acts were performed for the sake of greater 
impressiveness. The simplest of these was the 
raising of the hand toward heaven (Gn 14 22; Dt 
32 40). In exceptional cases the hand might be placed 
under the thigh of the person imposing the oath 
(Gn 24 2, 47 29), as a sign of regard for the mystery 
of generation, whose source was God. A more 
elaborate ceremony consisted in the division of a 
sacrificial victim, and the act of walking between 
the parts (Gn 15 10, 17; Jer 3418). When an oath was 
imposed by another, the simple formula ‘Amen, 
Amen’ on the part of the taker was sufficient (Dt 
27 15-26). Judicial abjurations are mentioned in 
I K 8 31; Mt 26 63. In later times, instead of God, 
things associated with His person or service were 
invoked, such as heaven, Jerusalem, the Holy City, 
the sun, the earth, the Temple (cf. Dalman, Words 
of Jesus, I, 168). The abuse of oaths reached such 
a pass that Jesus expressed Himself sweepingly 
against all oaths, presumably, however, with a view 
of correcting the abuse (Mt 5 34). See Law anp 
Lecat Practise, § 5; and Crimes AND PUNISH- 
MENTS, § 2 (b). 1) OR A 


’6mén means a foster-parent (Nu 11 12; cf. the figura- 
tive use in Is 49 23). King Ahab entrusted his five 
sons to such guardians (II K 101, 5, where the same 
word is translated ‘they that brought them up’). 
CesuT. 


NUTS. Sce Pauusrine, §§ 21 and 23; and Foop 
AND Foop UTENSILS, § 5. 


NYMPHAS, nim’fas (Nvuyoés): If the variant 
reading (Néug«), which has good direct textual sup- 
port (B’, Euth) and is confirmed indirectly by MSS. 
having aitijs in the same verse (B, Syr.?), be correct 
N. was a Christian woman living in Laodicea (Col 
4 15), whose house was used as a gathering-piace for 
Christians (cf. Ro 16 3,15). Perhaps she is especially 
mentioned here because the Colossian Epistle was 
to be read in her house (Col 4 16). Jo MaDe 


OBADIAH, 0”be-dai’a (HINTAY, ‘dbhadhyah{a)) 
‘servant of J’”: 1. The author of the short prophecy 
which bears the name of Obadiah. 2. The governor 
of Ahab’s house, described as a ‘man who feared J” 
greatly’ (IK 183f.). 3. A son of Azel, of the family 
of Saul (I Ch 8 38). 4. A son of Izrahiah of Issachar 
(I Ch 7 3). 5. A Gadite who joined David at Ziklag 
(I Ch 129). 6. The father of Ishmaiah (I Ch 27 19). 
7. Ason of Hananiah and grandson of Zerubbabel 
(I Ch 3 21). 8. A Merarite Levite (II Ch 34 12). 
9. A son of Shemaiah of Jeduthun (I Ch 9 16; but 
in Neh 11 17 ‘Abda’). 10. An officer under Je- 
hoshaphat (II Ch 177). 11. A son of Jehiel (Ezr 
8 9). 12. One who sealed the covenant with Ne- 
hemiah (Neh 10 5). 13. The head of a family of 
doorkeepers (Neh 12 25). A. C. Z. 


OBADIAH, BOOK OF: 1. The Prophet. One of 
the minor prophetic writings of the O T. The author 
gives even less information about himself than is 
customary with the others of his class. In fact, 
with the exception of his name, nothing is known 
of him save what may be indirectly gathered from 
his message. Josephus does, indeed, identify him 
with Obadiah, the governor under Ahab (I K 18 
3 f.); but this is entirely inconsistent with the data 
deducible from the book concerning its setting and 
date. 

2. Contents of the Book. The subject of the book 
is the doom of Edom. Evidently some great calamity 
in the form of an invasion had visited the country. 
The people, who were trusting in the alleged im- 
pregnable rocky fastnesses of their land (vs. 1-4), 
had been forced out of their homes; their towns had 
been plundered and thoroughly stripped of all that 
was of value (vs. 5, 6); and this had been done by 
those in whom they had reposed confidence as con- 
federates. The prophet sees in the visitation the 
power of J’ as a moving and directing cause (vs. 
7-9). Moreover, the ground for the calamity was the 
unbrotherly treatment of Judah by Edom, after the 
siege of Jerusalem (vs. 10-14). The God of Israel 
was to visit a day of vengeance upon all the nations 
(vs. 15, 16), lay Edom low, exalt Israel, restore the 


631 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE 


Nurse 


DICTIONARY Onna 





exiled to their homeland, and establish His king- 
dom among them (vs. 17-21). 

3. Dates. In determining the date of the pro- 
duction, two facts afford help: First, the allusion in 
vs. 11, 12 to the capture of Jerusalem. This can be no 
other than that by Nebuchadrezzar in 586 B.c. For 
in this distress of Judah Edom gave its sympathy 
and appluase to Babylon (Ps 1377). Obadiah must 
then have uttered his words after 586. But, secondly, 
the relation of vs. 1-9 to the oracle of Jeremiah 49 
7-22, while offering a puzzling complication, throws 
light on the literary relationships of the book. The 
similarity of these two passages can not be due to 
coincidence. The difficulty would disappear if 
Obadiah were assumed to have used the words of 
Jeremiah. For the date of the latter’s oracle is 


given as 605 B.c. (46 2); but the unity and move-- 


ment of Obadiah’s thought and the general nature of 
the resemblance in the two passages point rather to 
Jeremiah’s dependence on the minor prophet. But 
this would raise the date of Obadiah to 605 or earlier 
—a result that does not harmonize with what has 
been said of the allusion to the capture of Jerusalem. 
It follows then that either both Obadiah and Jere- 
miah have made use of an older anonymous oracle, 
or that the text of Jeremiah has been amended by 
the incorporation of Obadiah’s words. But, if the 
allusion to the capture of Jerusalem gives the earliest 
date possible for Obadiah, opinions have differed 
greatly as to the latest. Some have fixed it as after 
the Return (432 s.c., Nowack), and even as late as 
312 (Hitzig). The question hinges on who the in- 
vaders of Edom were whose destructive work fur- 
nished Obadiah with the occasion for his prophetic 
discourse. Wellhausen is probably right in answering 
that they were Arab nomads. On the whole, 500 
B.c. is the best latest limit for the ministry of 
Obadiah, and the book was probably written not 
much earlier than that date. Cf. Nowack in Hand 
Kommentar; G. A. Smith in LHzpositor’s Bible; 
Horton in The New Century Bible; J. M. P. Smith 
in ICC (1911). A. C. Z. 

OBAL, d’bal. See Epat. 

OBED, o’bed (1219, ‘dbhadh,’ "IwGhS,’lwB4a), ‘wor- 
shiper’: 1. The son of Ruth and Boaz (Ru 4 17) and 
father of Jesse, the father of David (Ru 4 21 f.; I Ch 
2.12; Mt 1 5; Lk 3 32). 2. A Jerahmeeclite (I Ch 2 
37 f.). 3. One of ‘the mighty men of the armies’ 
(I Ch 11 47). 4. A son of Shemaiah and grandson 
of Obed-edom, of the Korahite family (I Ch 26 7). 
5. The father of Azariah, a captain of a hundred, 
who aided Jehoida against Queen Athaliah in set- 
ting Joash on the throne (II Ch 231). C.S. T. 

OBED -EDOM, 6”bed-i/dom (BITS 129, ‘abhedh 
*édhém), ‘worshiper of [god] Edom’: 1. A Philistine 
of Gath, dwelling near Jerusalem. David left the 
Ark in his house for three months before he carried 
it to Jerusalem (II S 6 10 f.=I Ch 18 13 £., 15 25). 
2. The ancestor of a family of doorkeepers (I Ch 
1518 f., 16 38, 26 4#.; II Ch 25 24), perhaps the same 
as the preceding. 3. A family of singers in post- 
exilic times (I Ch 15 21, 165). C.8. T. 

OBEISANCE (1%, shahah), ‘to bow down,’ ‘pros- 
trate oneself’: This term was used especially of the 


act of homage before a monarch or superior, often 
with a descriptive clause, ‘bowed with his face to 
the earth’ (IS 248 [9]), ‘bowed the head’ (Gn 43 28), 
‘fell on her face to the ground’ (II S 144). RV has 
‘did obeisance’ (II S 9 6; I K 1 31) for ‘reverence’ 
AV, and (IS 248; IIS 14 22; I K 153) ‘bowed him- 
self’? and ‘do obeisance’ for ‘humbly beseech thee’ 
AV (II 8 16 4). In many other passages ‘bow down’ 
or some similar expression is used. In relation to 
a god it means ‘worship.’ C.8. T. 


OBIL, o’bil (7°21, ’abhil), ‘camel-driver’: The 
overseer of David’s camels (I Ch 27 30). 


OBLATIONS. See HEAvE-OFFERING; 
SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 17. 

OBOTH, o’beth (nak, ’dbhoth): <A station on 
the journey from Kadesh-barnea to the plains of 
Moab, probably near the SE. boundary of Moab (Nu 
21 10 f., 33 43 f£.). 


OBSERVING OF TIMES, Etc. See Maaic anp 
DrvinaTIon, § 3. 


OCHRAN, ok’ran (11?¥, ‘okhraén, Ocran AY): 
The father of Pagiel (Nu 1 13, 2 27, etc.). 
ODED, 6’ded (TY, ‘ddhédh): 1. Father of the 


prophet Azariah (II Ch 151, 8). 2. A prophet in 
Samaria (II Ch 28 9). 


ODOR. See Sacririce AnD Orrerines, § 15. 


OFFEND, OFFENDER, OFFENSE: The English 
word offend means literally ‘to strike against,’ as 
an obstacle in the way, and is thus closely related to 
‘stumble.’ The word is now used almost exclusively 
of injury or displeasure caused to one’s personal feel- 
ings, but when the AV was made, the more objective 
senses of ‘doing wrong to,’ ‘sinning against,’ ‘causing 
to go wrong’ were conveyed by the word. Con- 
sequently, the RV has changed the AV renderings 
‘offense’ and ‘offend’ in many cases in which they 
no longer adequately convey the sense of the original, 
altho it has inconsistently retained them in not a 
few instances. ‘These words render the following 
Heb. and Gr. terms: (1) hdta@’, ‘to miss [the mark],’ 
commonly rendered ‘to sin’ (Gn 401; II K 18 14; 
Is 29 21; Gn 209 and Jer 37 18, ‘sinned’ RV), and its 
derivatives hét’, ‘sin’ (Ec 10 4), and hatta’, ‘sinner’ 
(I K 1 21). (2) mikhshdl (from kdshal, ‘to stumble’), 
‘obstacle’ (I S 25 31; Is 8 14, where J’’ Himself is 
spoken of as a ‘rock which is an obstacle [in the 
way],’ a passage which is applied to Christ by Paul, 
Ro 9 33, and by Peter, I P 28; Ps 119 165, ‘occasion 
of stumbling’ RV). (8) ’Gsham, ‘to be guilty’ (Ezk 
25 12; Hos 4 15, 5 15, 181; Jer 2 3, 507 and Hab 1, 
‘suilty’ RV), and ’ashmah, ‘guilt? (II Ch 28 13, 
‘trespass’ RV). (4) bdghadh, ‘to deceive’ (Ps 73 15, 
‘dealt treacherously’ RV). (5) pasha‘, ‘to rebel’ (Pr 
18 19). (6) habhal (in Pi‘él), ‘to injure’ or ‘destroy’ 
(Job 34 31). (7) d&uaorévety, ‘to sin’ (Ac 25 8, ‘sinned’ 
RV), and dyaeria, ‘sin’ (II Co 117, ‘sin’ RV). (8) 
naoketwua, ‘a fall’ or ‘apse,’ z.e., from truth, etc. 
(Ro 4 25, 5 15-20, ‘trespass’ RV). (9) redcxopue, 
‘stumbling-block’ (Ro 14 20), teocxony, ‘an occasion 
of stumbling’ (II Co 6 3), and &xedoxonoc, an adj., 
the negative of the preceding (Ac 24 16; I Co 10 32 
AV; Ph 110). (10 xrtatev, ‘to cause to fall,’ or ‘to 
fall or ‘err’ (Ja 210, 3 2, ‘stumble’ RV). (11) ddtxety, 


and 


Offering 


Old A NEW STANDARD 





‘to do unjustly’ (Ac 25 11, ‘am a wrong-doer’ RV). 
(12) ox&v8aAov, properly a ‘trap’ or ‘snare,’ and then 
‘that which causes to stumble or fall,’ ‘a stumbling- 
block,’ and the derived verb oxavdaAtCey, ‘to cause 
to stumble.’ These two terms occur most fre- 
quently in the Gospels (Mt 5 29 £., 11 6, 187; Lk 
17 1, etc.) and are often rendered by ‘stumble,’ 
‘stumbling,’ ‘cause to stumble,’ etc., in RV. 
E. E. N. 

OFFERING. See Sacririce AND OFFERINGS, 
§ 17. 

OFFICER: This term appears in the AV as the 
translation ‘of nine Hebrew and two Greek words. 
(1) nitstsabh (Niphal ptcpl.), ‘one appointed,’ ‘dep- 
uty,’ ‘prefect,’ used of Solomon’s officers, who had 
charge of the commissariat, or oversight of his 
various building operations (I K 4 5, 7, 27 [5 7], 5 16 
[30], 9 23; II Ch 8 10, Qeré). In I K 22 47 it is trans- 
lated ‘deputy’ (of Edom). (2) nétsibh, ‘prefect,’ 
‘yarrison’ (I K 4 19); elsehwere (except in Gn 19 26, 
‘pillar’), translated ‘garrison’ (I S 105, 13 3, 4, etc.). 
(3) saris, ‘eunuch’ (q.v.), and in the derived meaning 
of ‘officer,’ or, as some affirm, there is another (loan) 
word with this general meaning. EV renders ‘offi- 
cer’: of Pharaoh (Gn 37 36, 40 2, 7, 39 1 [married]); 
of Israelitic kings (I S 8 15; I K 22 9=II Ch 18 8; 
II K 8 6); in Judah (I Ch 281; II K 24 12, 15 [per- 
haps of the royal household, as they are mentioned 
with the women; but Jer 29 2 has ‘eunuch’ in same 
account, ag is the case in 34 19, 38 7, 41 ie], II K 25 19 
{military officer =Jer 52 25, where ARV has ‘officer’]). 
RV has eunuch’ in mg. for all these passages except 
in Gn. Elsewhere in Kings, Is, and Jer sGr7s is trans- 
lated ‘eunuch,’ except IT K 28 11, ‘chamberlain,’ 
an officer in the Temple area; in Est always ‘cham- 
berlain’ with ‘eunuch’ in mg.; in Dn always ‘eunuch.’ 
The Rab-saris appears as a high military officer of 
Assyria (II K 18 17), of Babylon (Jer 39 3, 13). 
(4) pdqiidh, ‘appointed over,’ officer of host of 
Israel (Nu 31 14, 48, also IT K 1115, for which RV has 
‘that were set over’). (5) p*quddah, ‘mustering,’ 
‘oversight,’ ‘office’ (II K 11 18 for the overseer of the 
Temple worship, Is 60 17; I Ch 26 30 AV). (6) 
pagidh, in the sense of ‘deputy’ or ‘overseer’ for 
special duties (Gn 41 34 AV; Est 2 3); of the 
deputy of the king (Jg 9 28), or of the high priest (II 
Ch 24 11); in the Temple (Jer 20 1 ‘chief officer’ RV 
‘chief governor’ AV, 29 26). (7) rabh, ‘chief,’ officer 
of king’s house (Est 18). This word appears in 
compound words, titles of Assyr.-Babyl. officers. (8) 
In Est 9 3 AV ‘officer’ stands for the phrase ‘they 
that did the king’s business’ (so RV). (9) shétér, 
‘scribe,’ ‘arranger,’ ‘organizer,’ apparently a sub- 
ordinate officer; with ‘judges’ (Dt 16 18; Jos 8 33, 
23 2, 24 1); with ‘elders of the people’ (Nu 11 16; 
Dt 29 10 [9], 31 28; Jos 8 33, 23 2, 241); in time of 
war used in conveying orders and organizing people 
for marching (Dt 20 5, 8, 9; Jos 110, 3 2). In I Ch 
23 4, 26 29; II Ch 19 1, 34 13, similar subordinate 
officers are mentioned. In II Ch 26 1 RV has 
‘officer’ for AV ‘ruler,’ but in Pr 6 7 both versions 
render shdtér by ‘overseer.’ (10) xedéxtwo (Lk 12 
58), an officer of justice who inflicts punishment. 
In the parallel passage Mt (5 25) uses (11) dxnoeérne, 
originally ‘under-rower’; then ‘under-officer’: used 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 632 


for officers or servants of the Sanhedrin (I Jn7 
32, 45f., etc.; Ac 5 22 f.), elsewhere translated ‘atten- 
dant,’ ‘minister.’ Os Fae 3 
OG, eg (aiy, ‘dgh): The king of Bashan, over 
whom, and his ally Sihon, Moses obtained a decisive 
victory at Edrei (Nu 21 33). This city and Asb- 
taroth were the capitals of Og’s realm (Jos 138 12). 
He is said to have been a man of gigantic stature, 
‘of the remnant of the Rephaim’ (Dt 3 11). A 
black basalt sarcophagus (called ‘iron bedsted’) of 
his was shown at Rabbah of Ammon. His defeat 
was always looked upon as one of the providential 
events of Israel’s history (Ps 185 11, 1386 20; Neh 
9 22). A. C. Z. 
OHAD, G’had (1738, ’dhadh): The ancestral head 
of one of the clans of Simeon (Gn 46 10; Ex 6 15). 
OHEL, o’hel (77%, ’dhel), ‘tent’: A descendant 
of David (I Ch 3 20). ; 
OHOLAH, o-hd/la, OHOLIBAH, o-hol'i-ba (7278, 
’ohdlah, 2278, ’ohdlibhah), Aholah, Aholibah AV, 
‘her tent’ (or better, ‘she who has a tent’), and ‘my 
tent is in her’ (or better, ‘tent in her’): Symbolical 
names given to Samaria and Jerusalem respec- 
tively, with special reference to the seats of wor- 
ship (‘tent-shrines’) in them (Ezk 23 3 f..). 
A. C. Z. 
OHOLIAB, o-hd'li-ab (38°28, ’ohdli’abh), Aho- 
liab AV, ‘father’s tent’: The associate of Bezaleel 
in the planning and construction of the Tabernable 
(Ex 31 6, etc.). A.C, Z. 
OHOLIBAMAH, o-hol’i-bé’ma ()2°77}8 ohdli- 
bhamah), Aholibamah AV, the ‘tent of the high 
place’: 1. The wife of Esau (Gn 36 2). 2. An 
Edomite chieftain (Gn 36 41, ‘duke’ AV). 
OIL, OLIVE-OIL (expressly so stated in Ex 27 
20; Lv 24 2, but always so to be understood (except 
in Est 212, oil of myrrh): One of the most necessary 





Oil-Press. 


means of subsistence in Palestine. (1) It was used 
both as a plain article of food and in cooking, just 
as butter is among Occidentals. No house could 
conveniently dispense with the oil-cruse (I K 17 
14 f.); hence also the profuse employment of oil in 
sacrifice (see SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 6). (2) 
Another common service to which it was put was 
that of lighting (Ex 27 20, 256). Altho torches often 
served as illuminants in the open air, the oil-lamp 
was far more convenient .and available within the 
house (see Lamp). (3) Oil was also used in personal 


633 A NEW STANDARD 


adornment, especially as a hair ointment prepara- 
tory to participation in high social functions (Is 61 
3; Ps 457). To this end it was often mixed with per- 
fume. The custom of anointing kings and priests 
in the ceremony of their inauguration is probably due 
to this decorative use (see ANoInT). A _ honorific 
action is compared to oil (Ps 1415). The medic- 
inally beneficial properties of oil were at least dimly 
known (Ja 5 14). See Diszkase AND MeEpicINnp, § 3 
(7). These various uses stimulated the production 
of oil in great quantities; so that not only the demand 
for internal consumption was supplied, but a surplus 
was raised for exportation, justifying the classing of 
oil with corn and wine as a principal source of na- 
tional wealth (Dt 7 13; Hos 2 8; Neh 5 11, etc.). Oil 
was ordinarily extracted from the olive by the ap- 
plication of pressure; but a finer quality was obtained 
by gently pounding the ripe fruit in a mortar (Ter- 
umoth, 18 f.). This was the beaten oil of Ex 27 20, 
ete. A. C. Z. 


OIL-TREE. See Pauustine, § 21. 


OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES: The word 
rendered ‘spices,’ b’sémim (Ex 30 23), sammim 
(25 6), designates, properly, the ingredients used in 
the preparation of ointments, perfumery, etc. 

1. Anointing Oil. The holy anointing oil (Ex 30 
23 ff.) was composed of the following elements, in 
addition to olive-oil: (1) mor-derér, t.e., the self- 
exuding myrrh (myrrha stacte), in distinction from 
that which is obtained by puncturing the bark of 
the Balsamodendron (terebinth, acacia); (2) ginne- 
mon-besem, fragrant cinnamon; (3) q’néh bésem, 
fragrant calamus (Calamus odoratus); (4) qiddah 
probably cassia (Laurus cassia, L.). 

2. Incense. For the incense offering also four 
kinds of spices were necessary (Ex 30 34). (1) 
nataph, stacte, a variety of fragrant resin that exudes 
from its tree in drops (LXX, otaxth); (2) shehéleth, 
onycha, the so called incense-claw, or devil’s-claw, 
i.e., the operculum of several varieties of mollusks 
found in the Red Sea (LXX. éw6&), which when 
burned emit a strong odor (as to the possibility of 
its meaning ‘amber,’ cf. ZDMG, XLIII, p. 354); 
(3) helbenah, galbanum, a pungent gum from the 
milky sap of the Syrian fennel; (4) lebhdnah, 
frankincense, the white incense that the Hebrews 
procured from S. Arabia. Frankincense was used 
also as an addition to certain varieties of the minhah 
(meal-offering) and to the showbread (Lv 21f., 15f., 
6 8, 247). The earliest mention of frankincense is in 
Jer 6 20, where it is spoken of as a foreign variety 
of sacrificial material. Calamus is also mentioned in 
this same passage (here gdneh hattdbh, sweet cane 
EV), and in Is 43 24, as used for incense. In fact, 
there can be no doubt that the use of incense in 
cultus-practise was unknown in primitive Israel. 
See also SACRIFICE AND OFrrErRinGs, § 15. As an 
article of luxury it could come into use only in a 
cultus which was strongly influenced by a well- 
developed civilization. Moreover, the prohibition 
(Ex 30 32 f.) of the use of the holy anointing oil for 
any profane purpose shows that persons were often 
not content with the pure oil alone for personal use, 
but mixed it with expensive fragrant ingredients, 
which were imported from foreign countries (I K 


Offering 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Old 


10 10; Ezk 27 22), and prepared either by female 
slaves (I S 8 13, confectionaries AV), or later by 
professional perfumers (apothecaries AV) (Ec 101; 
Neh 3 8; cf. Ex 30 35). An especially costly oint- 
ment was that made of pure nard-oil (cf. ‘spikenard’ 
in Song 1 12, 413 f. and vée30¢ mtottxy in Mk 14 38; 
Jn 12 3). See Narp. 

3. Use on Festal Occasions. It was customary 
for one to use ointment especially at feasts and in 
times of joy. The head was anointed with costly 
oil (Ps 23 5, 92 11; Ec 7 1, 9 8), sometimes so abun- 
dantly that it flowed down on the beard (Ps 133 2). 
Those who could afford it sprinkled their garments 
with powder, ’abhgath rékhél, and myrrh, mér (Song 
3 6), aloes, ’dhalath (Ps 45 9; Song 4 14), saffron, 
karkom (Song 4 14), and cassia, q*tst‘dth (Ps 45 9). 
Women also sometimes carried bags of myrrh, 


_ts*rér hammér (Song 1 13), on the breast, and per- 


fume-boxes (Is 3 20). 

4. Use in Burial of the Dead. The oil of the cedar 
is known to have been used, particularly on the 
bodies of the dead, since it was believed to have the 
effect of preserving them from corruption and de- 
cay. Cedar wood also was used by the Israelites, as 
by the ancient Babylonians, in certain cases as an 
incense offering (Lv 14 4, 49; Nu 19 6). 

W. N.—L. B. P. 


OLD: This term renders a number of Heb. and 
Gr. words: (1) ’dz (only Ps 93 2) with a prep., literally 
‘from that time.’ (2) ’ethmdal, with prep. min, only 
Is 30 33, lit. ‘from yesterday’ =‘already.’ (3) balah, 
baleh (cf. 616’, Jer 38 11, 12), ‘to become old’ by 
wearing out (Gn 1812; Dt 8 4, 295; Jos 9 45, 13; Ezk 
23 43, etc.). (4) ben (Dn 5 31, Aram. bar), ‘son of’ 
(used of males), bath (Gn 17 17), ‘daughter of (used 
of females), in the common expression giving the age 
of persons or animals, e.g., ‘Noah was five hundred 
years old’ is literally ‘the son of five hundred years’ 
(Gn 5 32; ef. Gn 76; Nu 1 3, 315, etc.). (5) zdgén and 
derivatives, ‘to be old’ or ‘aged’=xpecBitepog (Gn 
18 11, 19 4; Jg 19 16, etc.), at times with the coordi- 
nate idea of wise (I K 12 6, 8, 13; II Ch 106, 8, 13). 
(6) yadshish, ‘aged’ (only Job 32 6; cf. 1212, 1510, 298). 
(7) yashaén, always rendered ‘old,’ the opposite of 
‘new,’ ‘fresh’ (Lv 25 22, 2610; Neh 36, 12 39; Song 7 13; 
Is 22 11). (8) ‘adh, ‘antiquity’ (only Job 20 4). (9) 
‘olam (Aram. ‘Glam, Ezr 415, 19), ‘long duration,’ ‘an- 
tiquity,’ is used in the sense of ‘ancient,’ especially in 
the Prophets (Gn 6 4; Dt 327; Is 469, 519; Am 9 11; 
Mic 5 2 [1], 7 14, etc.). (10) ‘athég, ‘to advance’ in 
years (Job 14 8; Ps 67 [s]). (11) hayyim, ‘life’ (Gn 
23 1 AV; cf. also the literal rendering in Gn 47 8 RV 
for the less exact ‘how old art thou’ of the AV). 
(12) panim with prep. le, ‘formerly,’ Dt 2 20; I Ch 
4 40; Ps 102 25 [26], all AV; elsehwere in AV and al- 
ways in RV, except in Ps 102 25 [26], ‘aforetimes,’ 
etc. (13) gedhem, and derivatives, ‘before in place’ 
(often in poetry) comes to mean ‘before in time’ Neh 
12 46; Ps 441; La 17, etc.). (14) rv’shon with prep. 
le, ‘at the first’ (only II S 2018). (15) rahéq, ‘distance’ 
of time (Is 251; Jer 31 3). (16) sébhah, ‘hoary head,’ 
parallel to (3) above, and often rendered ‘old age’ 
(Gn 15 15, 25 8; Jg 8 32; I Ch 29 28; Ps 92 14 [15]). 
(17) yamim, ‘days’ (Nah 2 8, ‘days’ RVmg.). (18) 
d&eyatos, ‘primeval’ (Lk 98; Ac 21 16, etc.). (19) yépwy, , 


Old Gate 
Old Testament, Canon of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 634 





‘old man’ (Jn 3 4). (20) ynod&oxety, ‘to become old’ 
(Jn 21 18; He 8 13; cf. Lk 1 36), yHeac, ‘old age’ (Lk 
1 36). (21) maAatédc, and derivatives, ‘old,’ ‘ancient’ 
(Mt 916; I Co 57, etc.). (22) moré, ‘once,’ ‘at some- 
time or other’ (‘old time,’ I P 35 AV, ‘aforetime’ 
RV; II P 1 21, ‘ever’ RV). (23) xpecBbtepoc, ‘elder’ 
in years (Ac 2 17; cf. Lk 15 25), xpecBbtys, ‘an aged 
man’ (Lk 1 18; Tit 2 2; Phm ver. 9), xpecQirttc, 
‘an aged woman’ (Tit 2 3). (24) xpeédvoc, ‘time’ (Ac 
7 23), lit. ‘when the time of forty years was being 
fulfilled to him.’ C.S. T. 


OLD GATE. See JerusaLeM, § 38. 


OLD PROPHET, THE: InI K ch. 13 an account 
is given of how an ‘old prophet’ deceived a ‘man of 
God’ from Judah who had announced the destruc- 
tion of the altar and priests of Bethel where Jero- 
boam had established the calf-worship of J’’ for the 
Northern Kingdom. The emphasis placed on the 
efficacy of ‘the word of Jehovah’ (vs. 1, 2, 9, 18, 20, 32), 
the mention of the ‘cities of Samaria’ (ver. 32; cf. 
ver. 2), not founded until later by Omri, the name- 
lessness of the chief personages, the definiteness of 
the prophecy as to the name Josiah, and the details 
of his deed, 350 years before the event (II K 23 16-18), 
are proof of the late date of the account as given. 
There is probably a kernel of historic fact at the basis 
of the tradition connected with Bethel. There may 
be some reference to the prophecy of Amos against 
Bethel (Am 3 14), and the destruction of the altar 
by Josiah (II K 23 16-18) may have recalled the 
tradition to mind. It is possible that ‘man of God’ 
is considered a higher title than ‘prophet’ (nabhi’; 
cf. Am 7 14), but the distinction is not brought out. 
The ‘old prophet’ was not a false prophet (as 
Josephus, Targ. Jonath., and the rabbis claimed), 
but a real prophet (Ephrem. Syr., Theodore, etc.). 
It is difficult to understand his motive in deceiving 
the man of God. Thenius suggests that he was 
envious because he had not been sent to Jeroboam; 
Hengstenberg and Keil, that, having sinned by his 
silence in the face of Jeroboam’s deeds, he wished to 
right himself both with himself and others by the 
companionship of the man of God. Whatever the 
motive, he later received a true word from J”, and 
acknowledged the worthiness of the man of God. 
The narrative was evidently intended to teach the 
necessity of the unconditional obedience of the 
prophet to God’s command, which should not in any 
way allow itself to be led astray. Thenius finds the 
additional truth that the spirit of God can speak even 
out of the mouth of the unwilling (cf. the case of 


Balaam). Od snd he 
OLD TESTAMENT, CANON OF. I. Pre- 
liminary Considerations: (1) The Name of a 


Special Class of Books. Students of to-day are 
familiar with the terms ‘canon,’ ‘canonical,’ and 
‘non-canonical’; no doubt they are also aware that 
the words have been in use a very long time, and 
that the idea which gains precision in these expres- 
sions exerted its influence at a still earlier period. 
It is our business to state with such clearness and 
simplicity as may be possible the outline of that 
long history of the life of Israel which has given to 
_ the world the Old Testament. Early in the Christian 


era the conception of a list of books, possessing a 
special character and conforming to a certain 
standard, was present to the minds of thoughtful 
men, but it required a long period of experiment and 
controversy to give to the terms their fixed and final 
meaning. The word ‘canon’ is not found in the N T, 
but in such passages as Mt 21 42; Jn 5 39 the word 
‘Scriptures’ points in this direction, a usage which 
is all the more significant when we remember that 
the fourteen apocryphal books receive no direct 
recognition. This is substantially true even if we 
admit that there are some references to passages not 
found in the O T, and that the apocryphal literature 
influenced, in some measure the N T writers. (Cf. 
Budde, par. 57 and Ryle, p. 165). The Christian 
writers of the next period spoke of ‘The Old Cov- 
enant’ showing that the Church had claimed, as a 
sacred possession, the Jewish documents. These 


were regarded as books fit to be read and published - 


in the Churches, and about the middle of the 4th. 
cent. A.D. the terms ‘canonical’ and related forms 
began to be used. 


(2) The Books of the Hebrew Bible that form this 
Class. When we open the printed Hebrew Bible 
commonly used by students we find on the title 
page, the words ‘The Book of Law, Prophets, and 
Writings.’ The first section, The Torah, consists of 
the Pentateuch, the five books attributed to Moses. 
The second division has two parts: (a) ‘The former 
Prophets,’ Joshua, Judges, I and II Samuel, I and 
II Kings, and (b) ‘The latter Prophets,’ including 
Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and “The Twelve’ so 
called ‘Minor Prophets.’ The Writings, which form 
the third section, are Psalms, Proverbs, Job, Can- 
ticles, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, Esther, 
Daniel, Ezra, Nehemiah, I and II Chronicles. As 
they now stand they are counted as thirty-nine 
books but, while this is exactly the list accepted by 
the Jewish Synagog, they were then reckoned as only 
twenty-four. This is accounted for by the fact that 
Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles were each counted 
as one book; Ezra and Nehemiah were also one; and 
‘The Twelve’ (minor) Prophets were also regarded 
as one book. The fact that Josephus counts twenty- 
two books has caused much discussion into which 
we can not enter; two of the most plausible sugges- 
tions are that he excluded two doubtful books, 
Kcclesiastes and Canticles, or that, for the purpose 
of making the list coincide with the number of letters 
in the Hebrew alphabet; he added Ruth to Judges 
and Lamentations to Jeremiah. These twenty-four 
books have been regarded as standing in a class by 
themselves by both Jews and Christians, tho, as we 
shall see, there were doubts in particular cases, and 
there were a number of books (the Apocrypha) 
competing for a similar position with varying for- 
tunes but without complete success. 

(3) The Final Result of a Long Process. We can 
now, taking our stand at the end of a long moves 
ment, give a brief description of this list or canon, 
which forms the O T of our English Bible, then our 
task demands that we attempt to show'that behind 
a product that has been rigidly fixed and carefully 
guarded for nineteen centuries, there lies a long 
period of living growth. We may call this canon 


i et 


635 A NEW STANDARD 


Hebrew because all of it, except a very small part 
(found mainly in Dn and Ezr) was written and has 
come to us in that language, while many of the post- 
canonical books were written in Greek. It is also 
Palestinian or Jewish, being the list finally accepted 
by the strict Jews of the homeland. Alexandria 
in Egypt was the center from which the additions 
to this canon arose and exerted a widespread in- 
fluence. Further, it is the Protestant canon as, when 
the time came for a final decision, in the 16th cent. 
A.D., the Protestants claimed for this list a unique 
position and supreme authority. The position 
gained in the world by this remarkable collection of 
sacred books is likely to be maintained, arising as it 
does from a variety of forces acting at critical hours 
of the world’s history. 


2. The Various elements of this Long Process: 
(1) The Origin and Collection of the Literature. The 
work of scholars on the Old Testament, specially 
during the last two centuries, has made many 
changes in our views as to the origin of the litera- 
ture, the nature and dates of many of the docu- 
ments. These do not call for direct discussion here, 
but they affect the background of the subject. The 
literature reflects the life of the people and enables 
us to sketch, if not an absolutely accurate, at least 
a useful outline of their history. The period of the 
origin and growth of this literature covers about 
one thousand years. What we have is a survival 
and selection which reflects the power of a progres- 
sive revelation. The idea of revelation, which was 
once held in a dogmatic, rigid form, has become 
more fresh and living through the fuller apprecia- 
tion of the literature in which it is enshrined. From 
the beginning when the life of the people was 
nourished by patriotic songs, wonderful stories, and 
simple laws, it was a continuous movement until 
the time when the fixed result just indicated was 
reached. The passage from oral traditions to written 
documents and the compilation of these documents 
into books was made gradually. Later we may find 
fixed periods and definite events, but in the pre- 
paratory stages we must be careful not to make our 
distinctions too deep. Such words as ‘sacred,’ 
‘secular,’ ‘profane’ may be used in describing the 
attitude of men’s minds in different periods, if we 
remember that they take their tone and color from 
the atmosphere of the time. The words of early 
prophets and poets in the moments of enthusiasm 
had a suggestion of the ‘divine,’ and before it be- 
came the subject of scholarly study the written 
word had its own magic and mystery. And yet we 
may say that in this millenium of Israel’s life there 
was first literature, then sacred literature, and 
finally canonical literature. One careful scholar has 
used the words ‘formation,’ ‘redaction’ and ‘selec- 
tion’ or ‘elemental,’ ‘medial,’ and ‘final’ (Ryle, p. 17) 
in connection with the growth of the Canon. Such 
phrases are suggestive, and useful, if we bear in 
mind that not until the end are they separate and 
complete; while the movement lasted there was an 
overlapping of these stages. 

(2) Historical Stages of the Movement. From 
Moses onward men of prophetic spirit were recog- 
nized as speaking in the name of God for the 


Old Gate 


BIBLE DICTIONARY  ojg Testament, Canon of 


guidance of the people. But it is difficult to fix upon 
the exact time when the consciousness arises that 
such words have a mission for the future. The 
8th cent. B.c., when the sermons of prophets began 
to be preserved, marks a new stage. It has been 
suggested that in the following passages we may 
possibly find the beginning of the O T and the 
nucleus of a Church (B. Duhm), ‘Bind thou up the 
testimony, seal the teaching among my disciples, 
and I will wait for Yahweh,’ ete. (Is 816). ‘Now go, 
write it before them on a tablet, and inscribe it in 
a book, that it may be for the time to come for a 
witness forever’ (30 8). 

The Book of The Law found in the Temple (621 
B.C.) certainly exerted a strong influence in this 
direction (II K 228). The authority of the book had 
to be supported by a ‘prophetess,’ but the time was 
coming when it would rule by its own power. This 
book (Deuteronomy, q.v.),) marks an epoch in the 
religious life of the Jews; for two centuries it exerted 
a powerful influence on their life and and literature. 
What its full effect would have been if the great 
catastrophe had not come we cannot tell. For the 
first time, so far as we know, a religious reform was 
based upon an appeal to the book. It is possible 
that the prophet Jeremiah uttered warnings against 
a slavish literalism and a superstitious reliance on 
the written word. Much can be said for the view 
expressed in the following words: ‘In the authority 
and sanctity assigned at this juncture, to a book, 
we recognize the beginning of the Hebrew Canon. 
And we can not but feel, that it was no mere chance 
but the over-ruling of the Divine Wisdom, which 
made provision for the spiritual survival of His 
chosen people on the eve of their political annihila- 
tion’ (Ryle, p. 61). 

(3) The Growing Importance of the Book. Less 
than forty years after the discovery of the Deuter- 
onomic documents, the great blow fell upon Judah 
and her national life was, for the time being, des- 
troyed. Thatshe survived at all proves that the spirit 
of the true religion lived in the hearts of the best 
people. Ezekiel we know, his preaching for the 
present and his plans for the future; Deutero- 
Tsaiah’s message of consolation and hope still speaks 
in tender tones; one of these was prophet and pastor, 
the other was student and writer. But there must 
have been many loyal men who could appreciate 
these messages and thereby rise to a higher level of 
faith. The remains of the ancient literature played 
a part in saving the religion. When the land lay 
desolate and the Temple was destroyed, men must 
have been driven back upon the writings, the laws 
that linked them to antique days, the songs of Zion, 
the stories of the patriarchs and prophets. It is 
impossible to estimate the loss to the world if this 
small people had been at that time completely 
crushed or absorbed into the life of the surrounding 
tribes. 

The postexilic period (520 B.c. onward) has often 
been regarded as a dull, barren time, but from the 
point of view of the history of the Canon it is of 
great significance; the books that were written In 
this period (cf. Job, Jonah, etc.), and the varied 
compilations show, not the narrowness of a sect, but 


Old Testament, Canon of 
Old Testament Chronology 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


636 





the catholicity of a true Church. True, the worship 
of the Law and the supreme importance ascribed 
to the written word did tend towards hardness and 
exclusiveness, but the terrible tasks of that age could 
scarcely have been completed in an easy, tolerant 
temper. That the task was accomplished at all is 
one of the miracles of history. In Babylon, in Judea, 
and later in Egypt the book began to play its noble 
part. 

3. The Three Stages of the Formation of the 
Canon. (1) Jewish Legends. From the middle of 
the 5th cent. B.c. to the Ist cent. of the Christian 
era brings us to the last stage of our subject when 
more definite lines can be drawn. The Jewish legends 
are interesting as showing the attitude of the ancient 
scholars to historical problems, but they do not 
throw any real light on the movement. The tra- 
dition (or legend) that Ezra, under Divine inspira- 
tion, restored the books that had been destroyed 
and wrote other books under the same influence 
shows simply the great importance attached to the 
work of Ezra ‘the scribe,’ and reflects the impor- 
tance of the period in which he played his part 
(see Ezra). 

The legend that the Canon was fixed by the men 
of The Great Synagog, with Ezra as their President, 
has persisted down to recent times. They were 
supposed to have ‘determined the number of the 
canonical books, and then reduced them to the 
compass of a single body of Scripture; they divided 
it into three principal portions, viz., the Law, the 
Prophets, and the Sacred.’ It is quite true that the 
final canon was formed according to this threefold 
division, but not at one time or by any one council. 
Partly from lack of historical knowledge and partly 
because of the way in which the past was viewed, 
there was tendency to gather round one outstanding 
figure events which we now see to have been the 
result of slow successive steps. The same point of 
view is illustrated in the legend of the LX X, which 
represents the first translation of the Hebrew O T 
into Greek as having been accomplished within a 
brief period by 70 or 72 Jewish scholars. The evi- 
dence we now possess points to the conclusion that 
this important work began about 250 B.c. and 
extended over the following century. The fuller 
light that we possess on the history of Hebrew 
religion and how that religion found expression in 
the literature and finally became fixed in the Canon 
confirms the view that the threefold division finally 
accepted by the Jewish Church is the result of long 
movement and that each stage is connected with a 
critical period in the life of the religion. 


(2) The Law. The word Torah which, in this 
connection, we translate ‘law’ has in the original 
text varied shades of meaning; it may mean ‘teach- 
ing’ or the precepts which are the result of the 
teaching; in later times it came to mean the collec- 
tion of laws attributed to Moses, and then to denote 
the whole Pentateuch. This section of the Old 
Testament was the first to reach real canonical 
postition and in that way came to have, for the 
Jews, the supreme place that was never lost. The 
Jewish Church was based upon this ‘Law-book’ as 
its authoritative constitution, and in this crisis the 


ee I OE OO A A A OA A AAAI AT DDE AAT EE PE 


work of Ezra and Nehemiah exerted a great in- 
fluence. Even if ‘the book of the Law’ (Neh 8 8) 
publicly presented was only that part of the Penta- 
teuch known now as the Priest’s Code it is certain 
that all the documents were combined soon after 
this time (c. 444 B.c.) and regarded as sacred scrip- 
ture. (For the view that it was a collection of Ezra’s 
from various Pentateuch sources, see Ezra, etc., in 
The New Century Bible.) Pointing in this direction 
are the following facts: (1) The Samaritans, who at 
this time were driven into the position of a separate 
sect, kept only the Pentateuch; (2) This section was 
the first part to be translated into Greek for the 
use of the Jews at Alexandria and was probably the 
only official translation; (3) The tradition that the 
Sadducees did not accept the other books as canonical 
may be mistaken, but there are many evidences that 
the Canon of the Jews was not on a dead level and 
that the supreme position was assigned to the Torah. 


(8) The Prophets. It was natural, under the in- 
fluence of a great reformation based on the Law, 
that the other writings should for the time be over- 
shadowed. But a reaction against the strictness of 
legalism and a fuller appreciation of the prophets 
was. bound to come in an age that produced such 
books as Job, Jonah, and the more spiritual Psalms. 
It is likely that the second division existed as a 
collection of sacred books before the Maccabean 
revolt and in fact about the beginning of the second 
century. In II Mac 313 it is claimed that Nehemiah 
showed an interest in preserving the books con- 
cerning Kings and prophets. The author of Eccle- 
siasticus (c. 180 B.c.) in his eulogy of famous men is 
dependent on the historical books, and mentions 
the Twelve (minor) Prophets (49 10). Dan (9 2) 
appears as a student of the books and specially 
of ‘the prophet Jeremiah.’ The reference in the 
prolog of Ecclesiasticus (c. 130 B.c.) to the law, the 
prophecies and the rest of the writings implies the 
existence of the first two divisions. The struggle for 
their religion and the effort to preserve the sacred 
books would tend to exalt these books in the estima- 
tion of pious Jews who declare with regret that 
‘There is no more any prophet’ (Ps 749). 


(4) The Writings. The miscellaneous collection of 
books that forms the third group in the Hebrew 
Bible did not attain to complete canonicity until the 
beginning of the Christian era. Here again historical 
circumstances must be remembered. The Temple 
at Jerusalem was destroyed and the sacrificial sys- 
tem was swept away forever. The growing power 
of the synagog and the increasing reverence for the 
sacred books and the traditions of the elders enabled 
the religion to survive when the national life was 
completely crushed. The influence of the Christian 
movement, with its intense missionary spirit, must 
have thrown the parent Church back upon its own 
documents and dogmas. It is probable that all 
these writings except Dn were substantially com- 
plete before 200 3.c., and that they were used with 
some degree of reverence before their final position 
was settled. The Psalter was the most popular and 
did much to quicken spiritual life in a time of in- 
creasing legalism and scholasticism. What was done 
at the fixed points, when definite lists were formed, 


637 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Old Testament, Canon of 
Old Testament Chronology 





was the recognition and registration of decisions 
that have been reached, through the action of varied 
forces and motives in the spiritual life of the nation; 
after the process is complete, and the one task is 
merely to copy accurately the manuscripts of the 
chosen volumes and to see that no changes, additions 
or corrections are made in the text, then, we are apt 
to think of it as something lifeless and cold. Asa 
matter of fact, it grew out of and was associated with 
all the great moments of the nation’s life. 

4. Disputed Books and Concluding Remarks. 
Evenafter these three lists were complete, questions 
were raised as to the rights of certain books to the 
position claimed for them. On the whole, Dr. Ryle 
states the situation fairly: ‘Their position in the 
Canon had given rise to scruples or perplexity. The 


reasons, however, which led to these adverse 


criticisms are not such as would have any weight 
at the present day. They reflect the subtlety of 
academic discussion more than the anxiety of a 
perplexed conscience. As a rule, they illustrate only 
too well the character of the Rabbinism from which 
they emanated. At the most they testify to the 
degree of tolerance permitted in the range of con- 
troversy and to the probability that, at an earlier 
date, the admission of certain books into the He- 
brew Canon had met with considerable opposition, 
or with only a moderate degree of approbation’ 
(p. 203). 

(1) Ezk was the only book of the prophetic canon 
that caused any serious difficulty, tho there is a 
suggestion of doubts as to whether Jon was equal in 
historical value to the other prophetic books. The 
chief cause of perplexity in the case of Ezk was the 
fact of variations from the Law of Moses (The 
Priestly Code). It was thought that Elias when he 
came would explain the difficulties, but it is said 
that Hananiah, a younger contemporary of Hillel 
(circ. 75 B.c.-10 A.D.) proved equal to the emergen- 
cy; he, when supplied with 300 measures of oil, sat 
down and discovered a satisfactory method of 
interpretation. He is credited with saving the book 
from being classed as ‘hidden’ (apocryphal); per- 
haps the danger has been exaggerated. 

(2) It can easily be understood that with regard 
to Ec, Song and Est the difficulties might be more 
serious. Even after their inclusion:in the third 


canon doubts were expressed and complete una- | 


nimity was not attained all at once. The emphatic 
and extravagant language used in affirming their 
sacred character shows the strength of the opposition 
that had been overcome. Rabbi Akiba (c. 135 a.p.) 
who admitted that there might be grounds for doubt 
in the case of Koheleth (Ec) declared that ‘The 
Song of Songs defileth the hands, for the whole world 
is not equal to the day on which the Song of Songs 
was given to Israel.’ Whatever may be the origin of 
the phrase ‘to defile the hands,’ it is evident that it 
is a strong assertion of the sacred or canonical 
character of the book to which it is applied. It is 
not our business, in this article, to attempt to 
criticize or justify the choice that was made, but 
simply to tell the story of an important historical 
movement that has been fraught with rich con- 
sequences for the literature and religion of the world. 


(3) Concluding Statement. Nothing more needs to 
be said about the Samaritans, who accepted only 
the Pentateuch as their canon. Their copy is useful 
for textual purposes and questions arise as to the 
significance of the fact that it is written in the old 
Hebrew characters; but the people who used it 
persisted merely as a small sect apart from the main 
current of the world’s life. 

With regard to the Apocrypha, Budde’s words 
are worth noting: ‘In fact, to speak strictly, there 
never was suchacanon. The Alexandrian collection 
of Holy Books never underwent that revision in 
accordance with the Pharasaic conception of ‘de- 
filing the hands’ which finally fixed the Hebrew 
Canon.’ But these extracanonical books made their 
appeal to Greek-speaking Jews and to the early 
Christians. From the earliest times down to the 
Reformation there was fluctuation of opinion and 
three views prevailed: (1) that they were canonical 
(Augustine); (2) that they were outside the true 
1.¢., the Hebrew Canon (Jerome), and (3) that they 
held a middle position, that they were ‘ecclesiastical’ 
writings having a good moral influence and suitable 
for reading in the churches (Rufinus). These differ- 
ent views remained, but in the Reformation period 
the Protestant and Roman Catholic positions were 
more clearly defined and set in opposition to each 
other. The Council of Trent 1545-63 reaffirmed the 
Canon of the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage 
(397) and decreed that the said books as they ap- 
pear in the old Latin Vulgate are sacred and canon- 
ical. The Protestants placed them on a lower level 
as books that have no authority in matters of doc- 
trine. 

For a time in Protestant Bibles they held an 
intermediate position ‘between the Testaments,’ but 
now they have been dropped, but at the same time 
increased study has been given to them by scholars 
who are dealing not with the dogmatic issue, but 
with the life of ancient times as revealed in all kinds 
of literature. The question whether some of these 
books show a higher quality of inspiration than 
certain canonical books, e.g., Est, does not concern 
us; as that may be a matter of individual opinion 
and our subject is the origin of the O T Canon as 
fixed by the Jewish Church and its relation to the 
wonderful history out of which it grew. It is likely 
to hold its place, an enduring monument of the 
‘Divine discipline of Israel.’ 

Lirerature: F. Buhl, Kanon u. Text d. A T (1891); Ryle, 

The Canon of the Old Testament (1895); Wildeboer, The 


Origin of the Canon of the Old Testament, Eng. transl. (1892). 
The articles in HDB (Woods), and EB (Budde). W.G. J. 


OLD TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY. While 
the O T contains a great many chronological notices, 
as a whole it has no chronological system. <A 
chronological system requires some fixed event or 
point of time from which all dates may be reckoned. 
No such event finds mention in the O T, altho a 
limited use is made of several different eras. In the 
Pentateuch many events are dated according to the 
year of the life of the person concerned, and the life- 
periods of a long succession of individuals are parts 
of an era computed from the creation of Adam. 
But this mode of reckoning ends with Jacob. All 


Old Testament Chronology 


Old Testament Text A NEW STANDARD 





such dates, moreover, belong to the late P element 
of the Pentateuch and are entirely absent from the 
earlier J and E documents (see HexaTEucH), which 
gave only the vaguest sort of dates and had no 
chronological system whatever. 

An attempt seems to have been made at one time 
to use the Exodus as a starting-point for chronology. 
The notices Gn 15 13, Ex 12 40, and I K 61 seem to 
belong to calculations connected with such an era. 
But there is no evidence that this system was gener- 
ally used. The chronological figures of the Book of 
Judges give no satisfactory results, partly because 
they probably rest primarily on vague tradition, 
partly because they belong to events that were in 
many cases contemporaneous, not successive (as 
they are viewed in the book), and partly because 
they are open to the suspicion that they have been 
manipulated to work out an ideal scheme of 12X40 
=480 years from the Exodus to the Temple (cf. 
I K 61). 

With the Books of Kings definite chronological 
data begin. These are not connected with an era 
but with the regnal years of the kings of Judah and 
Israel. During the period of the divided monarchy, 
we have two sets of figures in the Books of Kings. 
One is a synchronistic scheme in which the acces- 
sions of the kings in Israel are dated according to 
the regnal years of the kings in Judah and vice versa. 
The other is an independent set of figures for each 
reign. There can be no doubt that the latter is the 
older and more trustworthy on the whole and was the 
basis of the synchronism, altho the results ob- 
tained from the two systems do not agree, indicating 
probably that all the figures have not been trans- 
mitted correctly. 

With II K 24 12 we have the beginning of dating 
events by the regnal of the great kings whose 
sway was supreme over SW. Asia, thus connecting 
the Biblical chronology directly with that of the 
larger world of events outside of Palestine. From 
the Exile on most of the O T dates are of this char- 
acter (except in Ezekiel). 

Fortunately, connection can be made between 
many events of the O T history and the exact chron- 
ological records of Assyria. The correctness of the 
Assyrian figures, at least for c. 900-625 B.c., can not 
be doubted, as they are well substantiated and pre- 
sent a practically unbroken record. Thus the earliest 
fixed date of O T history is given us by the in- 
scription of Shalmaneser III of Assyria (860-824) to 
the effect that in 854 Ahab of Israel was one of the 
confederates defeated by him at Karkar. The same 
monarch records that Jehu of Israel paid him tribute 
in 842. Since the reigns of Ahaziah and Jehoram, 
sons and successors of Ahab, are given as 2 and 12 
years respectively, it is evident the date 842 must 
belong very near the beginning of the reign of Jehu 
(Jehoram’s successor) and 854 very near the end 
of Ahab’s reign. Since the 2 years of Amaziah may 
mean really but parts of two successive years and 
the 12 of Jehoram but 10 full years plus part of 
two others, the figures 2 + 12 may represent no 
more than +1+10+1=12. 854 B.c., then, 
may be taken as the date of the close of Ahab’s 
reign and 842 as that of the accession of Jehu. On 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


638 


the basis of these dates, using the figures for the 
regnal years of the kings as substantially correct 
(only subtracting about one year from each reign 
for the overlapping period which otherwise would 
be counted twice), we can get approximately correct 
dates back to Saul’s reign. 

For the period beyond Saul no exact dates can be 
given. The Exodus and the conquest of Canaan 
can be given general dates in view of the ascertained 
facts that Egypt was supreme in Palestine from 
Thotmes III to the end of the Reign of Rameses II 
(except during one short interval) or, in round num- 
bers, from 1500-1225 n.c. The conquest of Canaan 
by Israel must have taken place after this supremacy 
came to an end, especially since there is no trace, in 
Israel’s tradition of the conquest, of any conflict 
with Egyptian forces in Canaan. 

For the Patriarchal Age dates are impossible, as 
the early traditions were entirely without figures. 
Only in the case of Abram (contemporary with Am- 
raphel= Hammurabi?) can a possible but very 
problematic date be suggested. 

The table on pages 640 and 641 presents either 
generally accepted results or, where no general agree- 
ment has been reached, results that appear to com- 
mend themselves as reliable. E.E.N. 


OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE. See Hz- 
BREW LANGUAGE, and ARAMAIC LANGUAGE. 


OLD TESTAMENT TEXT: 1. Precanonical 
Period. 1. Oral Beginnings of Heb. Literature. The 
earliest Heb. literature, like the oldest Arab. poetry, 
was transmitted by word of mouth. The Book of 
Genesis never represents the patriarchs as writing. 
In all their communications with one another they 
depend upon the spoken word (Gn 23 16, 24 34 ff., 
32 3f., 3818). The Pentateuch assumes that writing 
was known in the time of Moses. (Ex 32 32 f.; Nu 
5 23; Dt 17 18), and five fragments are said to have 
been written by Moses (Ex 17 14, 24 4, 7, 34 27 £.; 
Nu 33 1f.; Dt 319, 19, 24, 30, 832 44); but from an 
archeological and historical point of view this is 
improbable. The Bab. and Eg. systems of writing 
were, of course, in existence long before Moses, but 
these were not adapted to the Heb. language. No 
archeological evidence of the existence of the Heb. 
alphabet before 1200 B.c. has been found in Canaan. 
The probability is that it was introduced from Crete 
by the Philistines, who first entered Palestine about 
1200 sp.c. (See ALPHABET.) About 1400 B.c. the 
Canaanites had no writing of their own, but used 
the Bab. language and the Bab. script in the Tell 
el-Amarna letters and in letters to one another. If 
any Heb. records were written before 1000 B.c., they 
must have been written in Bab., and subsequently 
have been translated after the introduction of the 
alphabet. Most of the earliest Heb. literature was 
transmitted orally until after 900 B.c. It included 
the poetry that is found in the historical books 
Gn-I §, stories of the forefathers, and ancient laws 
that were grouped in decalogs in order that they 
might be remembered by counting on tae fingers. 
In transmission of this sort verbal accuracy of text 
was, of course, impossible, so that the primitive form 
of the compositions must have been extensively 
modified before they were fixed in writing. 


639 


2. EKarliest Written Literature. The first books to 
be mentioned by the O T are the Book of Jasher, 
which contained David’s lament (II S 1 18), and 
Solomon’s prayer (I K 8 53, in Gr.), and the Book of 
the Wars of Yahweh (Nu 21 14), which must be 
later than the conquest of Canaan. These were 
followed in the period between 931 and 806 by the 
Judean (J) documents in the Hexateuch, Judges, 
Samuel and Kings. Between 806 and Amos (760) 
the Ephraimite (EK) documents of the same historical 
books were composed. These earliest histories were 
followed by the prophets of the Assyrian period (760- 
626 B.c.), then by Deuteronomy and the prophets 
of the Bab. period (626-538 B.c.). During these 
periods the original autographs of these works were 
written in the old Heb. character, which is the 
same as that found in the Siloam inscription, the 
Mesha inscription, and the Phenician inscriptions. 
In this character only the consonants were written, 
the vocalization being left to oral tradition. The 
original autographs have long since perished, and all 
that have come to us are late copies of MSS. that 
have passed through the hands of many generations 
of scribes. 


3. Early Corruption of Text. During the period 
from 900 B.c. to the formation of the Canon the text 
was exposed to many vicissitudes in consequence of 
the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian wars, the fall 
of Samaria and of Jerusalem, and other national ca- 
tastrophes. Internal evidence shows that it under- 
went extensive corruption, e.g.: (1) A number of 
passages are given twice in the O T (see Girdle- 
stone, Deuterographs, 1894). In all these cases 
we find wide variation in the readings of the two 
recensions. (2) A number of poems of the O T are 
partly alphabetic. The object of the alphabetic 
arrangement is to assist memory, hence when we 
find it only partly carried out, we must assume that 
something has been lost out of the text. (8) Many 
passages of the O T demand the assumption of tex- 
tual corruption from the fact that they yield no clear 
meaning. Thus IS 131 in Heb. reads: ‘Saul was a 
year old when he began to reign and he reigned two 
years.’ (4) Some evident mistakes in the text are 
found also in the earliest versions, so that they must 
have originated at a very early date. Many of them 
are explainable only on the hypothesis of the use 
of the old Phenician character (see ALPHABET). 


4. Adoption of Square Character. During the 
period between the 5th and the 3d cent. B.c. the 
so called ‘square character,’ used by the Aramaic- 
speaking peoples, drove the old Phenician character 
out of general use, altho it still appeared on coins 
of the Maccabean period. As a result of this 
change the books of the O T were gradually tran- 
scribed from the old into the new letters, and in this 
process many new errors unavoidably came into the 
text. Some errors (found also in the most 
ancient versions) are explainable only through the 
use of the square character, and therefore must have 
originated in this period. The recension that then 
became current in Palestine and that was there 
regarded as authoritative we may for convenience 
call the text of the Canon, inasmuch as this was the 
period during which the Canons of the Law and of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Old Testament Chronology 
Old Testament Text 


the Prophets received their final form, and most of 
the Writings also came to be regarded as canonical 
(see O' T Canon). No MSS. of the period of the 
Canon have survived. The descendants of this re- 
cension through comparison of whose readings its 
text must be restored, are the text of the Sopherim 
(Scribes), the Samaritan Pentateuch, the early Tar- 
gums, and the LXX. These four texts and their 
descendants must now be examined in turn. 


2. Text of the Sopherim and Its Descendants. 
1. Text of the Sopherim. The most important line 
of transmission of the Hebrew text of the O T was 
in the MSS. prepared by the religious authorities 
in Palestine. Here in the 2d cent. of the Christian 
era a standard text was adopted that is the parent 
of all existing MSS. and of most of the versions of 


the O T. This is the so called text of the Sopherim. 


The extraordinary similarity of the MSS., both of the 
Palestinian and of the Babylonian type—a simi- 
larity which extends even to the reproduction of 
errors and exceptional letters—and the close agree- 
ment of all the versions made since the beginning of 
the Christian era, prove the thesis of Lagarde to be 
correct, that all these recensions are descendants 
from a single prototype, the so called text of the 
Sopherim (cf. Anmerkungen zur griechischen Ueber- 
setzung der Proverbien, 1863, pp. 1-2). At some time 
in the 2d cent. the exigencies of controversy with 
Christians, and the desire to have a fixed basis of 
discussion between the Rabbis, led to the adoption 
by the Jewish authorities of an official standard of 
the O T. Since that time all copies have been made 
directly or indirectly from this codex, and variant 
codices have been destroyed. The result is that 
no ancient differences of reading have come down 
to us in this family, but only variants that have 
arisen since the standard codex was adopted. A 
memory of the adoption of this standard codex is 
preserved in various forms in Jewish tradition. In 
the Babylonian Talmud (Sopherim 6 4) it is re- 
corded that three Temple MSS. were the basis of 
our present text, and that the principle followed 
was to regard that reading as correct in which two 
MSS. agreed. According to a tradition reported by 
Lagarde (Materialien zur Kritik und Geschichte des 
Pentateuchs, 1868, i, 230 f.), all existing MSS. of the 
O T are copies of a single codex that was rescued 
in the fall of Bitther, the last refuge of the Jews in 
the war of independence. 


2. Palestinian Massoretic Text. Having adopted 
a standard text, the Jewish authorities provided for 
its accurate transmission by raising up a body of 
professional scribes to whom they entrusted the 
copying, pronunciation, and interpretation of the 
sacred records. These scribes are known as the 
Massorites (Massora = ‘tradition’). Such elaborate 
rules were laid down for their guidance in copying 
that it became almost impossible for them to make 
mistakes. From that time to this the consonantal text 
of the Hebrew Bible has remained practically un- 
changed. In the 7th cent. a.p., the vowel-points and 
accents were inserted in the text. Another standard 
codex was then prepared, which reproduced not 
only the consonantal text of the Sopherim, but also 

(Continued on page 642) 


Old Testament Chronology A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 








6 aQAa 8 


Biblical Events 


. 2200. Abraham ? (No certainty as to date). 


Israel in Egypt. 


. 1300-1250. The Oppression of Israel in Egypt. 
. 1250. The Exodus. 
. 1200. The Conquest of Canaan. 

. 1200-1050. Period of the ‘Judges.’ 


Moses. 


1050-1010. Samuel and Saul. 
1010. David—King of Judah. 


1003. David—King of all Israel. 


971. Solomon. 
967. Temple begun (I K 61: 87), 
960. Temple finished (I K 6 8), 


931. Division of the Kingdom. 





Judah Israel 
931. Rehoboam. 931. Jeroboam I. 
915. Abijah 
913. Asa. 
910. Nadab. 
909. Baasha. 
887. Elah. 
885. Omri. Moab conquered. 
874, Ahab. 
(Elijah). 
873. Jehoshaphat. 
854. Ahab at Karkar. 
853. Ahaziah, 
852. Jehoram. Mesha of 
Moab revolts. 
849. Jehoram, (Elisha). 
843. Ahaziah. 
842. Athaiiah. 842. Jehu. Pays tribute to 
837. Joash. Shalmaneser II, 842. 
Israel brought very low 
CLIT 3). 
815. Jehoahaz. 
799. Jehoash. Revival of 
798. Amaziah. Israel. 
c. 790. Uzziah. 
784. Jeroboam II (Amos c. 


c. 750. Jotham (coregent 7). 


760; Hosea c. 750- 
730). 


745. Zechariah. 
Shallum. 
744. Menahem. 
c. 740. Jotham. 
738. Menahem pays Assyria 
(Isaiah). Indemnity (II K 15 
17 ff.), 
735. Ahaz. Appeal to As- | 736. Pekahiah. 
syria (II K 16 5 #f.), 735. Pekah. Coalition of 
Pekah and Rezin 
against Ahaz (cf. Is 
7-9). 
732. Hoshea. 





640 





Other Events 


4000-3000. High state of civilization in both Egypt and 
Babylonia. 

c. 2500. Beginnings of Semitic occupation of Palestine. 

c. 2100. Babylon becomes chief city of Babylonia under 
Hammurabi. 

c. 1800. The Hyksos contro! lower Egypt. 

1500. Conquest of Palestine, etc., by Thotmes III of Egypt. 

1500-1400. Hittite Empire at its height. Hittites control all 
N. Syria. 

c. 1400. Decline of Egypt’s power in Palestine. 
threatening the land. 

1350-1180. Revival of Egypt’s power in Palestine under the 
19th and 20th Dynasties. Palestine lost to 
Egypt after 1180. 


The Chabirz 





Syria (Damascus) Phenicia 


Ae cen 


ce. 950. Rezon I. ce. 1000. Abibaal. 


969 (?). Hiram. 


935. Baalbazer. 
? Hezion. 


2 Tabrimmon. 


918. Abdashtart. 


ce. 900. Ben-hadad I. 900. Ashtart. 
888. Astharymos. 
879. Phelles. 
878. Ithobaal (father of Jeze- 
bel). 
870. Ben-hadad II. 
: 865. Baalazar. 
854. Confederacy headed by 
Ben-haded II vs. As- 
syria defeated at Kar- 
kar, 854, by Shalman- 
eser ITI (860-824) of 848. 
Assyria. 
844. Hazael. 
Israel suffers great re- 
verses in war with 
Hazael. 


Metten. 


820-774. Pygmalion. 
814. Carthage founded. 


Assyria 


812. Ramman Nirari III. 
806-803. Western campaigns. 


812. Ben-hadad III (?) Mari 
on Assyrian inscrip- 
tions. 


797. Syria conquered by Ramman Nirari ITI. 


c. 770? Tabeel (Tab Rim- 


mon ?). 


745. Tiglath-pileser III. 
Great revival of As- 
syria’s power. 


740. Rezon II. 


732. Damascus taken by Tiglath-pileser III. End of this 


Syrian Kingdom. 


641 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Old Testament Chronology 











Judah Israel Assyria 
(Micah). 722. Fall of Samaria. 727. Shalmaneser V. 
End of the Kingdom of 722. Sargon. 
Israel 


719(?). Hezekiah. 


701. Sennacherib’s campaign against Judah. 705. Sennacherib. Makes Nineveh his capital. 
690. Manasseh. Religious decline in Judah. 


681. Esarhaddon. 
650. Deuteronomic law-book written. 668. Asshurbanipal. Assyria reaches climax of power. A.’s 
639. Amon. great palace and library at Nineveh. 
638. Josiah. (Zephaniah.) f 
626. Death of Asshurbanipal, rapid decline of Assyria. 
621. Law-book found. Josiah’s Reform, centralization of wor- : 
ship in Jerusalem. (Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Nahum), 612. Capture of Nineveh by the Medes. End of the Assyrian 
608. Josiah slain by Pharaoh Necho (of Egypt). Empire. 


608-605. Judah under Egypt. Jehoiakim made king by Necho. 
605. Judah subject to Babylon. -| 605. Pharaoh Necho conquered by Nebuchadrezzar. 





Chaldean Empire 





605. Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon. Head of the Ce 
597. Jehoiachin. Chaldean Empire. 
597. Nebuchadrezzar takes Jerusalem. Jehoiachin and many 


others taken captive (lst Captivity). (Ezekiel), : f 
Zedekiah made king. Babylon becomes a magnificent metropolis. 


588. Zedekiah revolts. Nebuchadrezzar lays siege. , 
586. Fall of Jerusalem. (2d Captivity.) Exile. (Obadiah). 586-573. Siege of Tyre by Nebuchadrezzar (Ezk 29 17 ff.), 





Period of the Exile 


: y : 561. Evil-merodach. Releases Zedekiah fr ison. 
Ezekiel prophesies until c. 570. 659) Nergal Sharezer: aaa Toy an tn 
558. Cyrus I becomes king of Persia. 
555. Nabonidus (last king of Babylon). 
ied 550. Cyrus conquers the Medes. 
550. The prophet of Is 40-55 (and other prophecies in 56-66?) . 546. Cyrus conquers Croesus of Lydia. 


539. Cyrus takes Babylon. 


Postexilic Period Persian Empire 
538-536. Edict of Cyrus permitting the Return, and the | °°: Cyrus at head of the Persian Empire. 


Ret der Zerubbabel and Joshua. 529. Cambyses. 
Shas aah a Sgleta-bae vatiio 3 its Sire 522. Revolt of Gaumata (Pseudo-Smerdis). 


521. Darius I (Hystaspis). Organizer of the Persian Empire. 


520. (Haggai. Zechariah 1-8.) 


516. Completion and dedication of the 2d Temple. (Malachi). con see ee Ahaahebacy: 


480. Salamis. 
465. Artaxerxes I (Longimanus). 


458. Ezra goes to Jerusalem with his law-book (P), which is 
adopted as the constitution of the community. 

445. Nehemiah appointed governor. Jerusalem walled and 
fortified. 


Ze hemiah’s 2d visit. Origi f the S i ! 
432. Ne Sean: visi rigin oO e Samaritan Sect 423. Darius II (Nothus). 


404, Artaxerxes II (Mnemon). 
359. Artaxerxes III (Ochus). 
350. Many Jews transported to Hyrcania. (Joel). Samaritan 
routs on Mi. Gerizim. 4 Se 336. Darius III (Codomannus). 
333-331. Persian Empire conquered by Alexander the Great. 


332. Jews subject to Alexander the Great. 





Greek Period 





332-323. Alexander organizing his empire, etc. 332. Alexandria founded. 

323-301. Strife between Alexander’s successors. 

323-197. Palestine under the control of Egypt (Ptolemies). High priest at head of the Jewish community in Palestine. 
Large and growing colony of Jews in Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt. 


250. Beginning of the Greek version of O T, the LXX. (at Alexandria). 

197-142. Palestine under the control of Syria (Seleucids). Hellenizing tendencies in Judaism. 

175. Antiochus IV (Epiphanes) king of Syria. Attempt to Hellenize Judaism. 

168. The decree prohibiting the Jewish religion in Palestine. Jerusalem plundered, Temple desecrated. The revolt under 


the Maccabees. Worship restored and Temple rededicated, 165. 
168-142. The war with Syria for independence. 
166. The Book of Daniel. 
142. Independence secured. 
142-63. Independence of Judea under the Hasmonean (Maccabean) Dynasty. EEN 
67-63. Civil strife. Factions appeal to Pompey. Jerusalem taken, 63. Jews subject to Rome. 4. Ta. IN. 


Old Testament Text 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


642 





the traditional pronunciation of the Tiberian school 
of scribes. By the 10th cent. so many errors had 
come into this text that the famous scribe Ben Asher 
was moved to attempt the construction of a Masso- 
retically correct edition. He prepared a standard 
codex of the O T in which the Palestinian, or Occi- 
dental, textual tradition received its final form. 
This codex has perished, but direct copies from it 
are preserved in the synagogs of Aleppo and Cairo. 
All Western MSS. are descendants of this codex. 


3. Babylonian Massoretic Text. Elhas Levita 
(Massoreth ham-Massoreth) says: ‘The Occidentals in 
every land follow Ben Asher, but the Orientals follow 
the recension of Ben Naphtali.’ (Cf. Ginsburg, 
Introduction, p. 247.) In regard to the latter recen- 
sion the following facts are known: While the Pales- 
tinian scribes at Tiberias were elaborating and fixing 
in writing their tradition concerning the correct pro- 
nunciation of the Scriptures, the Babylonian scribes 
at Nehardea and Sura were engaged in the same 
occupation. Their tradition differed somewhat from 
that of the Palestinians, as numerous early state- 
ment prove. Their labors culminated in the 10th 
cent. in the standard codex of Ben Naphtali, which, 
according to the statement of Levita, quoted above, 
was regarded as authoritative by the Babylonian 
Jews in the same way in which the codex of Ben 
Asher was regarded as authoritative by the Pales- 
tinian Jews. This codex has perished, and no im- 
mediate descendants of it are known. About the 
middle of the last century, however, codices, with 
supralinear punctuation and other characteristics 
reported of the Babylonian Massoretic text, began to 
find their way into Europe from the Crimea and from 
Yemen in southern Arabia. Since that time a consid- 
_erable number of these have been acquired by the 
Library of the British Museum and other great libra- 
ries of Europe, so that now it is possible to say some- 
thing definite about the Babylonian Massoretic re- 
cension. The MSS. date from the 12th to the 17th 
cent., and exhibit three slightly variant systems of 
punctuation, all of which differ from the Tiberian 
system in the signs used for the vowels and accents, 
and in being mainly supralinear. But in spite of these 
differences, the Massoretic tradition represented by 
them is practically identical with that found in Pales- 
tinian MSS. Nearly all have been conformed to 
Palestinian models, and do not represent the gen- 
uine Babylonian traditions. These codices, accord- 
ingly, are of small text-critical value. Only occasion- 
ally have they retained by accident a genuine 
Babylonian reading. 

For centuries the Jews have maintained the curi- 
ous custom of taking MSS. of the O T that have be- 
come stained or worn to a graveyard, and burying 
them with appropriate ceremonies beside some dis- 
tinguished Rabbi. The result is that no ancient 
codices of the O T have come down to us, at least 
none older than the 10th cent. a.p. are known to 
exist. The earliest known copy of any extended 
portion of the Hebrew Bible is the codex of the 
Prophets preserved in the former Royal Library at 
St. Petersburg (now Leningrad). It belongs to the 
Babylonian recension, and was written in 916 A.D. 
The earliest complete MS. of the O T is another 


Babylonian codex at St. Petersburg, written in 
1009 a.p. 

4. The Massora. The Massora (‘Tradition’) is & 
sort of text-critical commentary written in the mare 
gin of most of the codices. It contains the observa- 
tions and discussions of the Tiberian scribes during 
the period from the 2d to the 10th cent. of our era. 
It counts the number of sections, sentences, and 
words in books; it notes their middle sentences and 
middle words; it enumerates passages in which un- 
usual forms occur; it calls attention to abnormal 
letters, spelling, vocalization, or accentuation, and 
warns the scribe against changing these. Words 
that it regards as incorrect it marks with a small 
circle, and inserts in the margin the Q°ré, or sup- 
posedly correct reading, the vowels of which are 
placed under the K-*thibh, or form in the text. 
Similar in character are the S¢bhirin (‘opinions’) that 
suggest an alternate reading to the one in the text. 
Variant readings of MSS. and of other rabbinical 
schools are also recorded. The Massora has been the 
means by which the extraordinary uniformity that 
now exists in the MSS. has been secured, and its 
authority must be final in deciding between variant 
readings of the Tiberian recension. 

The Massora is printed in connection with the Bible text, 
as in the MSS., in the great rabbinic Bible of Jacob ben 
Hayyim (Venice, 1524-25), and in Buxtorf’s rabbinic Bible 
(Basel, 1618-19). There are also a large number of treatises 
which contain the Massora classified in various systematic 
ways, either topical or alphabetic. The most important of 
these are the following: from the 10th cent., Aaron ben Moses 
ben Asher, Digduge hat-Te‘amim (ed. Baer and Strack, 
Leipsic, 1879); from an anonymous author of the same cen- 
tury, Okhla we-Okhla (ed. Frensdorff, Hanover, 1864); Moses 
the Punctuator, Darke han-Nigqud wehan-Neginoth (ed. - 
Frensdorff, Hanover, 1847); Jekuthiel the Punctuator, ‘Zn 
hag-Qore (ed Heidenheim in Me’or ‘Enayim, Rédelheim, 
1812-21, and in Seder Yeme hap-Purim, Rédelheim, 1826); 
Elias Levita, Sefer Massoreth ham-Massoreth, Venice, 1536 
(German transl. with notes by Semler, Halle, 1772; text, 
English transl., and notes by Ginsburg, London, 1867); 
Frensdorff, Die Massora Magna, Hanover, 1876; Ginsburg, 
The Massorah Compiled from Manuscripts, Lexically and 
Alphabetically Arranged (London, 1880-85, 3 vols. fol.). 

§. Printed Editions. All printed editions of the 
Hebrew Bible are based upon MSS. with the Ti- 
berian system of vocalization. The earlier editions 
rest upon a direct collation of MSS. and, therefore, 
have text-critical value. The most important of these 
is the great rabbinic Bible of Jacob ben Hayyim 
ibn Adonijah, published by Bomberg at Venice in 
1524-25, 4 vols. fol. This edition is based upon @ 
careful collation of MSS. and presents for the first 
time an accurate printed reproduction of the stan- 
dard text of the Tiberian school. So well did Jacob 
ben Hayyim do this work that this edition has be- 
come the Textus Receptus of the Hebrew Bible down 
to the present day. All later printed editions are 
based upon this, either alone or in combination with 
the earlier editions. None of these later editions, 
accordingly, has independent text-critical value. 
Arias Montanus in his Hebrew Bible, with interlinear 
Latin translation (Antwerp, Plantin, 1571, one vol. 
fol.), first divided the Hebrew text into chapters, 
and inserted the Hebrew numeral letters in the text. 
He also added the Arabic verse numbers in the mar- 
gin. From this edition and from the polyglots the 
practise of inserting chapter and verse numbers 


648 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Old Testament Text 





spread to all the later editions. Athias in his standard 
edition (1659-61) went so far as to invent enumera- 
tions in Massoretic style of the number of chapters, 
and inserted these among the genuine Massoretic 
summaries at the ends of the books. From him these 
notes have been copied by Jablonski, van der 
Hooght, and all the ordinary editions. The Mas- 
soretico-critical editions of Baer Quinque Volumina, 
Leipsic, 1886) and of Ginsburg (London, 1894) are 
revisions of the standard text of Jacob ben Hayyim, 
1524-25, designed to conform it more closely to the 
teachings of the Massora. They differ from Jacob 
ben Hayyim and from one another only in trivial 
matters of accentuation and vocalization, and they 
represent substantially the standard codex of Ben 
Asher of the 10th cent. The edition of Kittel 
(Leipsic, 1906) reproduces the text of Jacob ben 
Hayyim and gives in foot-notes the more important 
variants of the MSS. and versions. 

6. Versions of the Text of the Sopherim. Besides 
these two families of MSS. all post-Christian ver- 
sions of the O T are based upon the text of the 
Sopherim and, therefore, are of some value in 
restoring the prototype of this recension. Here be- 
long the Peshitto, or Syriac version, the Greek ver- 


sions of Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion in the 
2d cent., the fragments of the versions known as 
Quinta, Sexta, and Septima in the Hexapla of Origen, 
the asterisked passages in Origen’s edition of the 
LXX. in the 3d cent., the Vulgate Latin version of 
Jerome in the 4th cent., the late Targums on Esther 
and some of the other Hagiographa in the 8th and 
9th cents., and the Arabic version of Sa‘adia in the 
9th cent. (See Versions.) Here also belong cita- 
tions of the Hebrew text in the Talmud, Midrashim, 
and other Jewish writings. 

3. Other Independent Texts. Parallel with the 
text of the Sopherim,as a direct descendant of the text 
of the Canon, is the codex written in a modified form 
of the Phenician character that is preserved by the 
Samaritans in their temple at N&blds. Its text is 


independent of that of the Sopherim, but unfortu- 


nately contains only the Pentateuch. It is printed 
in the Paris and the London Polyglots, and a new 
edition with critical apparatus has lately been 
issued by von Gall. 

Other representatives of a text earlier than the 
official edition of the Sopherim are the Targums, 
or Aramaic versions of the O T (see Targum). At 
first transmitted orally, they were later committed to 


GENEALOGY OF OLD TESTAMENT Text. 


Text of Sopherim....... 


Original Autographs — Text of the Canon...... 


Samaritan 
Targums 


Occidental MSS, 
Oriental MSS. 
Printed editions 
Massora 

Grecus Venetus 
Citations 


Tiberian Recension...... 


Babylonian MSS. 
Babylonian Recension.... 1 Karaite MSS. 
Yemenite MSS. 


Nestorian MSS. 
Jacobite MSS. 





Citations in N T 


Greek Version........... 


ReahittOnas ce accle scree Melchite MSS. 
Maronite MSS. 
\ Arabic Versions 
Aquila 
Symmachus 
Theodotion 
Quinta 
Sexta Palest. Fathers 
Septima Syro-Hexapla 
Origen Lat. Hexapla 
Pal. Syriac 
Armenian 
Jerome 
Sa ‘adia 
Late Targums 
{ Citations 
Unrevised text.......... { Uncials 
Origen Cursives 
Cursiveg 
Hesychius.........+:- Alex. Fathers 
Coptic Versions 
Ethiopic Version 
Cursives 
Antiochan Fathers 
Duciane sc en ene wee cies Philoxenian 
Gothic 
Slavonic 
Old Latin 


Josephus 


Old Testament Text 
Omri 

writing. But since they were made from a text 
earlier than the official codex of the Sopherim, 
their readings often have critical value. The dif- 
ficulties with them are, that they are free para- 
phases with extensive explanatory interpolations, 
and that they themselves have suffered much in 
textual transmission. The different Targums vary 
greatly in their value as critical apparatus, those 
on the Pentateuch and that on the Prophets be- 
ing the best, whereas those on the Hagiographa 
are of later origin, and were never regarded as of 
equal authority with those on the Law and the 
Prophets. Most of them are too late to be of any 
great text-critical value, but it is possible, altho 
they did not assume their present form until a late 
date, that they may contain reminiscences of a pre- 
Massoretic form of the text. 


The fourth main descendant of the text of the 
Canon is the Greek version, with all its numerous re- 
censions and secondary versions. The text of the 
Greek Version has come down to us in several recen- 
sions, and only through comparison of these can one 
hope to restore its primitive form. These are: (1) 
The unrevised text, represented by the great uncials 
SAB and the kindred uncials and cursives. They 
show in the main the common text as it existed before 
the revision undertaken by Origen. (2) The revised 
text of Origen in the Hexapla, completed about 
240 a.p. From this are derived the secondary ver- 
sions of the Syro-Hexapla, the Latin Hexapla, the 
Palestinian Syriac, and the Armenian in part. (3) 
The revised text of Hesychius made at Alexandria 
in the 3d cent. From this are drawn the citations 
of the Alexandrian Fathers, and the secondary 
Coptic and Ethiopic versions. (4) The Lucianic 
recension made at Antioch in the 4th cent. On this 
depend the citations of the Antiochian Fathers, 
and the secondary Philoxenian, Gothic and Slavonic 
versions. (5) That underlying the Vetus Itala, or 
Old Latin Version, which was a secondary transla- 
tion from the Greek made in the middle of the 
2d cent. It is an important witness to the original 
form of the Greek text before it underwent the 
revisions of Origen, Hesychius, and Lucian. (See 
Versions.) To this list we should perhaps add 
(6) Josephus, who bases his history upon a Greek 
text that stands midway between that of the uncials 
and that of Lucian. (See genealogical table on page 
643.) 


4. The Process of Text Reconstruction. Because 
of the lack of ancient MSS., the restoration of the 
original text is possible only through comparison 
of existing MSS. Here the method must be a 
reversal of the genealogical process by which errors 
were produced. A comparison must be made of the 
characteristics of a group of closely related MSS. in 
order to determine the characteristics of their 
common ancestor; and by a comparison of other 
groups, the characteristics of other ancestors. These 
ancestors may again be compared, in their turn, to 
discover a still earlier prototype, and this, once more, 
may be compared with other prototypes discovered 
in the same manner. Thus, beginning with MSS. and 
printed editions, one may work backward along 
converging lines toward the original record from 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


644 





which all extant textual material is descended. 
This process implies that we are able to arrange our 
documents in genealogical order. 


In accordance with these principles, the process 
by which the text of the O T is to be reconstructed 
is as follows: (1) All extant Palestinian MSS. and 
printed editions, with their Massora and the remarks 
of medieval Jewish commentators, should be com- 
pared in order to discover the Tiberian prototype of 
the 7th cent. This work has practically been done 
in the massoretico-critical editions of Baer, and 
Ginsburg. (See 2, 5.) (2) All Babylonian MSS., with 
their Massora, should be compared in order to dis- 
cover the Babylonian prototype of the 7th cent. (3) 
The Palestinian prototype and the Babylonian pro- 
totype should be compared with the restored 
originals of the Peshitto, Aquila, Symmachus, Theo- 
dotion, Quinta, Sexta, Septima, Origen, Jerome, 
Sa‘adia, Grecus Venetus, the later Targums, and 
citations in the Talmud, Midrashim, and other 
Jewish writings in order to determine the text of the 
standard codex of the Sopherim in the 2d cent. (4) 
The text of the Sopherim, being thus restored, it 
should be compared with the Samaritan, the Tar- 
gums, and the original text of the Greek version, 
restored by a similar genealogical study of all their 
recensions and secondary versions, in order to dis- 
cover the text of the Canon. (5) The final step in the 
process should be the restoration of the text of the 
original autographs. Where passages are duplicated 
in the O T, criticism has a basis for comparison; but 
where this is not the case, documentary evidence 
fails us, and we are compelled to resort to conjectural 
emendation of doubtful passages. Such criticism is 
always precarious; still conjectures that rest upon 
exact knowledge of the Hebrew language and thor- 
ough acquaintance with Hebrew literature are often 
extremely probable. It is needless to say that the 
elaborate process here sketched has never yet been 
thoroughly carried out for a single book of the O T. 
Many years must elapse before the criticism of the 
versions shall be so complete that they can be used 
in the proper way for the emendation of the Hebrew 
text. Meanwhile textual criticism follows as far as 
possible the lines of research just indicated, but is 
compelled to be more or less eclectic and tentative. 
For genealogy of O T text see table p. 643. No 
critical edition of the O T text exists as yet, and 
even the RV of the O T is made from an unrevised 
text. The separate volumes of Haupt’s Sacred Books 
of the O T, so far as they have appeared, give a 
revised text. Kittel’s Heb. Bible is the Teztus 
Receptus with critical apparatus. Commentaries 
suggest textual emendations in individual books. 
LirerAtTurE: Cornill, Ezechiel (1886), pp. 1-16; Dillmann- 

Buhl, art. Bibeltext des A Tin PRE (21897); Driver, Notes 

on the Heb. Text of the Books of Samuel (1890); Field, 

Origenis Hexaplorum Quze Supersunt (1875); Geiger, -Ur- 

schrift und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (1857); Ginsburg, 

Introduction to the Massoretico-Critical Edition of the Hebrew 

Bible (1897); Holmes and Parsons, Vetus Tesiamentum 

Grece cum Vartis Lectionibus (1823); Kennicott, Vetus 

Testamentum Hebraicum cum Variis Lectionilus (1876-80); 

Kittel, Notwendigkeit und Méglichkeit einer neuen Ausgabe 

der hebrdischen Bibel (1885); Konig, Hinleitung in das 

A T (1893); Kuenen, Der Stammbaum des massoretischen 


Textes des A T in Ges. Abhandlungen (1894), pp. 82-124; 
Nestle, art. Septuaginta in PRE (1897); Ryssel, Unter- 


645 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Old Testament Text 
Omri 





suchung tiber die Texigestalt und die Echtheit des Buches 
Micha (1887); De Rossi, Variz Lectiones (1784-88) and 
Supplement (1798); Swete, Introduction to the O T in Greek 
(1902); Strack, Prolegomena Critica in Vetus Testamentum 
Hebraicum (1873); art. Massora in PRES (1897); Walton, 
Prolegomena to the London Polyglot (1657); Wellhausen in 
Bleek’s Hinletiung in das A T (#1888). Leber: 

OLIVE, OLIVE-TREE. See Pauestine, §§ 21 


and 23; and Foop anp Foop UTEnsILs, § 5. 


OLIVES, MOUNT OF: 1. Names and Biblical 
References. The prominent hill to the E. of Jeru- 
salem (q.v.), also referred to as ‘the ascent of the 
Olives’ (II S 15 30), ‘the mount that is before [E. of] 
Jerusalem’ (I K 11 7), ‘the mountain which is on 
the east side of the city’ (Ezk 11 23), ‘the mount of 
corruption (II K 23 13), ‘the mount that is called 
Olivet’ (Lk 19 29, 21 37; cf. Ac 1 12), or simply ‘the 
mount’? (Neh 8 15). The modern Arabic name is 
Jebel et-Tar. The Mount of Olives is referred to but 
seldom in the O T. David passed over it on his flight 
from Absalom (II S 15 30, 32, 16 1); Solomon built 
high places here (I K 117; cf. IS 15 32), which were 
overthrown by Josiah (II K 23 13f.). In Nehemiah’s 
time there were many trees upon the mount (Neh 
8 15; cf. also Zec 14 4; Ezk 11 23). Its connection 
with the life of our Lord, however, is too well known 
to need detailed mention here (Mt 21 1, 24 3, 26 30; 
Lk 21 37 and ||/s; Ac 1 12). 

2. Description. The Mount of Olives is a hill, or 
rather a range of rounded hills of cretaceous lime- 
_ stone, lying roughly parallel to the E. wall of Jeru- 
salem, and separated from the city only by the 
narrow valley of the Kidron (see map with art. 
Jerusalem). The ridge shows a slight concavity 
toward the city. It is continued to the NW. by 
Mount Scopus, and at the SW. is separated from 
the Hill of Evil Counsel by the Kidron gorge. East- 
ward the slopes of Olivet drop quickly to the wilder- 
ness. The central summit is half a mile E. of the 
Temple hill, 400 ft. above the bed of the Kidron and 
100 ft. above the highest part of Jerusalem. It 
therefore affords a magnificent panorama of the 
Holy City (see plate, JERUSALEM FROM Scopus, NE. 
OF THE Ciry), as well as of the surrounding country, 
including the wilderness, the Jordan Valley, the N. 
end of the Dead Sea, and the mountains of Gilead 
and Moab. The slopes of Olivet are cultivated and 
olive orchards are still fairly numerous, but the 
vegetation is by no means luxuriant. During late 
years a large number of buildings have been erected 
on the mount. 

3. Summits and Traditional Sites. The range of 
Olivet is about a mile long, and it is usually con- 
sidered as having four summits, which are named 
as follows, going from 8. to N.: (1) The Mount of 
Offense is so called from a late tradition identifying 
it with the scene of Solomon’s idolatry. This is the 
lowest summit (2,411 ft.), being of about the same 
level as the Temple site. Upon the steep W. slope 
of the hill cling the miserable hovels of the village 
of Siloam. (2) The Prophets is really a spur of (3), 
but has received a distinctive traditional name on 
account of the small labyrinth of rock-cut sepulchers 
which are known as “The Tombs of the Prophets.’ 
(3) The principal summit, that of The Ascension 
(2,641 ft.), lies directly opposite the Temple hill. 


The site is hallowed by very ancient traditions, 
which, however, are hard to reconcile with the 
statement of Lk 24 50, or with the fact that, in the 
time of Christ, the summit of the mount was 
covered with buildings. The small, octagonal 
Chapel of the Ascension is now in the possession of 
the Moslems, but Christians are allowed to celebrate 
mass there on certain days. Upon this summit is 
the native village of Kefr et-T'ur; here also are the 
extensive buildings and conspicuous view-tower of 
the Russian monastery, besides a number of other 
edifices belonging to various religious orders and 
preserving doubtful traditions. (4) The Vir 
Galilei is the most northerly and highest (2,723 ft.) 
of the four summits. It receives its name from a 
curious and impossible medieval tradition that the 
‘men of Galilee’ stood here when addressed by the 


two men in white apparel (Ac 110 f.). On the W. 


slope of the central hill, near the bottom of the 
Kidron Valley, is the traditional Gethsemane (q.v.). 
The different roads past Olivet to Bethany and 
Jericho should be carefully noted upon the map. 
LITERATURE: Stanley, Sinai and Palestine (1883), pp. 186- 
195; Baedeker’s Palestine (1906), pp. 75-79; Thompson, 
Land and Book (1880), i, pp. 415-462. L.G. L.—L. B. P 
OLYMPAS, o-lim’pes (Oduuraés): A Roman 
Christian to whom Paul sent a salutation (Ro 16 15). 


OMAR, 6’mar (218, ’6mar): A clan chieftain— 
probably also a clan—of Edom (Gn 36 u1, 15; I Ch 
1 36). 


OMEGA, o-mi’ga. See ALPHA AND OMEGA, 
OMER. See Wetauts anpD Mrasurss, § 3. 


OMRI, em’rai (’1)¥, ‘omrz): 1. The founder of 
the dynasty of which his son Ahab is the best-known 
member. Omri himself, however, was equal, if not 
superior to his son, both in ability and achievement. 
At the time when Zimri assassinated Elah and 
usurped the throne, Omri happened to be in charge 
of the king’s army at Gibbethon (I K 16 16 £.). 
He hastened to the capital, Tirzah, besieged it, 
and compelled Zimri to take refuge in the citadel, 
where Zimri perished in a fire incident to the siege. 
Omri was then recognized by the army as king 
in his stead. Some opposition was made to him 
by Tibni, but he evidently soon put this down. 
Omri’s power to grasp the needs of the realm is 
illustrated among other things by his removing the 
seat of government from Tirzah and building a new 
and strongly fortified capital city at Samaria, a site 
much more suitable from both the administrative 
and strategic points of view. His reign of twelve 
years (c. 885-874 B.c.) was signalized by a strong 
foreign policy. Toward Syria he maintained an 
effective resistance, at least checking the aggressive 
movements of that kingdom against Israel. Moab, 
which had shaken off the yoke of Israel during the 
years immediately following the disruption, was 
again subjugated (Sronz or Mrsna, lines 5 ff., under 
Mesua). O. was thus the first king of N. Israel to 
organize and establish the royal government on a 
firm basis; consequently, his name became known 
abroad as that of a great king, for even on the Black 
Obelisk of Shalmaneser II he is named as the an- 
cestor (officially speaking) of Jehu (cf. Schrader, 


On 
Orchard 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


646 





COT, I, 179). 2. A Benjamite of the house of 
Becher (I Ch 7 8). 3. A Judahite of the house of 
Perez (I Ch 9 4). 4. Son of Michael of the tribe of 
Issachar, a ruler (II Ch 27 18). A. C. Z. 

ON, on (jin, ’6n, Egn. ’anw [anu], also Pa-Ra, 
‘house of Ra’ [the sun-god], whence the Heb. Beth- 
shemesh, Jer 43 13, and the Gr. Heliopolis): A city 
situated near the S. end of the Delta on the Pelusiac 
branch of the Nile. It is reputed to be the oldest 
and the holiest city in Egypt. It was the site of a 
temple built by Amenophis I of the 12th dynasty 
and dedicated to the sun. In connection with the 
cult of the sun there was here a school of priests, 
reputed among the Greeks as the most learned in 
the world (Herod. II, 3). From the name of the high 
priest (‘greatest in seeing,’ t.e., observing the stars) 
and from his sacrificial costume, which was decorated 
with stars, it would appear that the cult was more 
than sun-worship, and involved the adoration of 
the heavenly hosts in general. Politically, On was 
not of great importance. From its situation on the 
highway between Egypt proper and Arabia, the 
home of the Semites, it contained a Semitic popu- 
lation, which at times must have been quite large. 
The Potiphera named as Joseph’s father-in-law be- 
longed to the priests of the Sun Temple of On 
(Gn 41 45, 46 20). In the intertestamental period the 
city was made the site of a Jewish Temple by Onias 
(q.v.). The modern site is the village Hl-Matariye, 
where an obelisk erected by Usertesen of the 12th 
dynasty stands to the present day. A.C. Z. 

ONAM, o’nom (O38, ’éndm): 1. The ancestral 
head of a Horite (Edomite?) clan (Gn 36 23; I Ch 
1 40). 2. The ancestral head of a Jerahmeelite clan 
(I Ch 2 26, 28). See ONAN. 

ONAN, 6’nan (1})8, ’éndn): Probably a clan, of 
Canaanite origin, that lost its identity in the amalga- 
mation of clans incidental to the growth of the tribe 
of Judah (Gn 38 4 ff., 46 12; Nu 26 19; I Ch 2 3). 
Possibly the same as ONaAM, 2. EH. E.N. 


ONESIMUS, o-nes’i-mus (’Ovijstyos), ‘profitable’; 
cf. Phm ver. 11 for a play upon the meaning of the 
word: A slave (Phm ver. 16) belonging to the house- 
hold of Philemon, a Christian living in Colosse (cf. 


Phm ver. 1; Col 49). After having stolen some of | 


his master’s property (vs. 11, 18) O. fled to either 
Cesarea or Rome (see PHireMoNn, Ep. To), where 
coming in contact with Paul he was converted, and 
sent back by Paul to his master, evidently in com- 
pany with Tychicus, the bearer of the Colossian 
letter. O. probably carried the Ep. to Philemon with 
him when he returned to his master. For later 
legends concerning him, cf. Acta Sanctorum, II, 
858-859. J. M. T. 
ONESIPHORUS, en’1-sif’o-rus (’Ovystgopes): An 
Ephesian friend of Paul’s who, according to II Ti 
1 i6 ff., sought and found the Apostle in Rome, and 
ministered to his bodily needs (the probable mean- 
ing of dyvéduEey, lit. ‘refreshed’), even at the risk of 
becoming implicated in the charges against him. 
Since only the household of O. is prayed fot and 
saluted in II Ti 1 16, 4 19, it is possible that at the 
time when this Epistle was written he was already 
dead. J. M. T. 


ONIAS, o-nai’as (’Ovfas): The name of three (or 
four?) high priests of the postexilic period (Jos. 
Ant. XI, 87; XXII, 2 5, 41-10, 5 1; ITI, 31-3). It 
may be derived either from ’6ni (the same as ’dn0, 
Neh 7 37), or from n*honyadh by abbreviation. 1. 
Onias I, the son of Jaddua, who entered into corre- 
spondence and alliance with Areus, King of the 
Spartans (I Mac 12 7, 8, 19; the text, however, 
reads ‘Darius’), who reigned 309-265 B.c. Onias I 
must therefore have held office about 300-280 B.c. 
2. Onias II (c. 252 B.c.), the grandson of the pre- 
ceding. It is probable that he is the Onias named 
in Sir 501 (cf. Jos. Ant. XII, 41-3) as a father of the 
high priest Simeon. 3. Onias III, the grandson of 
Onias II. He was the champion of conservatism 
against the Hellenizing party during the reign of 
Seleucus IV (187-175 B.c.). In consequence of this 
conduct he was accused by his enemies. He went to 
Antioch to plead his cause in person before the king. 
He was compelled to remain in Antioch, and finally 
was murdered (171 B.c.) by the agents of his rival 
Menelaus (II Mac 3 1-4 38; I Mac 41-17; Jos. Ant. 
XII, 410, 511). According to most modern scholars 
it is he who is referred to in Dn 9 25 f. as ‘the 
anointed one’ who is to be ‘cut off’ (¢.e., assassi- 
nated) at the beginning of the 70th year-week (171- 
164 B.c.). See Camb. Bible or New Cent. Bible on Dn. 
4. Onias IV, according to some the same as the 
preceding, who escaped death at Jerusalem, fled to 
Egypt (Jos. BJ, I, 11), and there (at Leontopolis) 
built a temple in fulfilment of Is 19 19. Others, 
however, tho believing that there were only three 
of the name, maintain that 2 and 3 above were the 
same (cf. Guthe in #B,s.v.). A.C. Z.—E. E.N, 


ONION. See Pauustine, § 23. 


ONLY BEGOTTEN (uovoyevqs): This phrase ex- 
presses the conception of the unique relationship of 
Jesus Christ to God as given in the Johannine 
writings (Jn 114, 18, 316, 18; I Jn 49). The O T basis 
of the expression is to be found in Ps 27, where J” 
addresses the Messiah in the words, “Thou art my 
son, this day have I begotten thee.’ The filial rela- 
tion of the Messiah to God is always in the back- 
ground in later Judaism (Dn 3 25; see also MEsstan); 
but it only assumes the aspect of uniqueness with the 
clearer and profounder insight into its nature secured 
by the author of the Fourth Gospel and I Jn. In 
other portions of the Scriptures, the words ‘beget,’ 
‘begotten’ are used in their literal senses. The term 
first-begotten (xpwrtétoxoc, He 16 AV, first-born 
RV) presents the thought of the uniqueness, not in 
its transcendent aspect, but in its association with 
spiritual sonship as typified in Christ. (Cf. the sam 
word in Rev 1 5). AnGiaa 

pas i 


ONO, O’no (jx, ’6nd), ‘vigorous’: A Benjamite 
town of seemingly early date (I Ch 8 12, and men- 
tioned in the lists of Thotmes III, ¢. 1600 B.c.), tho 
noticed in the O T only in postexilic writings. It was 
inhabited by members of the postexilie Jewish com- 
munity (Ezr 2 33=Neh 7 37). It was in ‘the plain 
of Ono’ that the enemies of Nehemiah wished him 
to meet them (Neh 6 2). The place is mentioned 
with Lod (Lydda) and is probably the village Kefr 
‘Ana, NW. of Lydda. Map III, D 4. CC. 82 


647 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


On 
Orchard 





ONYCHA, on’i-ka. See OrntmMentTs AND PER- 


FUMES, § 2. 


ONYX. See Sronzs, Precious, § 2. 

OPHEL, o-fel. See JmerusaLem, § 17. 

OPHIR, o’fer (PIS, VPI, ’Ophir, ’dphir): A 
place or country from which gold was brought by 
the navies of Solomon and Hiram to Ezion-geber, 
Solomon’s harbor at the head of the Gulf of Akabah 
(I K 9 26 #., 10 1; II Ch 8 18, 910). Jehoshaphat 
later failed in an attempt to send vessels thither for 
gold (I K 22 48 £.). It was a land famed for the 
quality of its gold (I Ch 29 4; Is 13 12; Job 28 16; Ps 
45 9 [10]; cf. Jer 109; Dn 10 5 ‘gold of Uphaz,’ and 
I K 10 18 ‘fine [maphdaz] gold,’ should probably be 
emended to read ‘gold of [from] Ophir’) and ‘Ophir’ 
(Job 22 24) by itself means fine gold. Its location 
has always been under discussion, and has been 
found in many countries. We know that it pro- 
duced fine gold, was accessible by sea, therefore on or 
near the coast, that the voyage to O. and back to 
Ezion-geber required three years, if I K 10 22 refers 
to the same ships; and that ‘almug’ (II Ch 2 8, 9 10, 
11 ‘alzum’), wood and precious stones (I K 10 11), 
also silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks were brought 
back with the gold. It has been located in (1) 
Africa, on the eastern coast, as far north as the Red 
Sea (Carl Peters, Das Goldene Ophir Salomos, 1895), 
or in East Africa, in Mashonaland, opposite Mada- 
gascar. Mauch (a traveler in HK. Africa) discovered 
in 1871, at Zimbaye, about 200 m. inland from 
Sofala (cf. Sophir of LXX.) remarkable ruins, with 
which are connected reports of gold-mining as early 
as 1500 a.p. (2) In the farther East, where all the 
articles named are found in: (a) the old city of 
Supara or Upara on the Malabar coast in the region 
of Goa. This identification has been made on the 
basis of the LXX. reading (Lwone&, Sophir) of I K 9 
26-28. (b) The Malacca peninsula, where a Mt. Ophir, 
near Johore, is known as producing gold. (c) The 
east side of the Indus delta, where a nomadic people, 
Abhira, were settled. Gold is found in Kashmir, 
farther inland; precious stones, sandalwood (almug 
wood?), apes, and peacocks are also found in India. 
(3) In Arabia: (a) On the SW. coast (so Sprenger, 
Guthe) along the Red Sea, which was a gold-produc- 
ing country and might furnish precious stones and 
almug-wood. The products mentioned in I K 10 22 
could have been secured elsewhere, or, as many 
claim, the verse is a late insertion and its writer was 
confused as to the location of O. (b) The SE. coast 
of Arabia, along the Persian Gulf, for which E. Glaser 
(Skizze der Geschichte u. Geog. Arabiens, 1890, II, 
353-387) makes a strong argument. Gn 10 29, 30 
connects Ophir with Havilah (q.v.) and Sheba (q.v.), 
called ‘sons’ of Joktan, who settled in Arabia. 
Many early authorities identify O. with S. Arabia, 
which was noted for its fine gold, called ‘apyron’ 
(&xveov) by the Greeks. This may be connected 
with the Klamite name (1000-800 B.c.) Apiria (Apii) 
=QOphir (?) for the territory between Susa and the 
Persian Gulf. Glaser claims that on account of the 
winds the voyage might easily have required three 
years. The ships would have gone down the Red 
Sea, eastward along the Somali coast, then along the 


Arabian coast and into the Persian Gulf. Gold, 
silver, almug-wood, and precious stones would have 
been secured at O., the other products at ports on the 
E. of the gulf, or even elsewhere. This view seems, 
on the whole, the most probable. Geib. 

OPHNI, of’nai (22¥, ‘ophni): One of the cities 
of Benjamin (Jos 18 24). Map III, F 5 (but this 
identification is doubtful). 


OPHRAH, of’ra (779¥, ‘ophrah): I. A Jewish 
family name (I Ch 414). II. 1. A town on the NE. 
border of Benjamin (Jos 18 23). Jerome states it 
was Ephrem, 5m. E. of Bethel. A company of 
Philistines from Michmash, §S. of this place, set out 
on the Ophrah road (I § 13 17); other companies 
went to the W. and E. and Saul commanded the S.; 
therefore the road to O. probably led to the N. and 
the O. of Jos 18 23 would be intended. It is identified 
with Tatyebeh, 5 m. NE. of Bethel. Map III, F 5. 
See also Epuraim, 3. 2. A town in Manasseh (Jg 6 
11, 15), belonging to the family of Abiezer, the home 
of Gideon (Jg chs. 6-8). It had the altar ‘Jehovah- 
shalom’ (‘J’’ is peace’) (6 24), and an ephod set up 
by Gideon (8 27). Gideon was buried there (8 32) 
and there his family was slain by his son Abimelech 
(95). It was W. of the Jordan, and not far S. (7 1) 
of the Plain of Jezreel (6 33-35, 8 18 f.), and probably 
N. of Shechem. The site has not been discovered, 
tho identified by some with Fer’ata, 6 m. W. of 
Shechem. C.S. T. 


ORACLE: (1) The rendering of dabhdar, ‘word,’ i.e., 
the Divine word, as given through some appointed 
means, such as, in earlier times, the sacred lot, or a 
seer or ‘man of God,’ or in later times, a prophet 
(II S 16 23; here the earlier usage is meant). (2) 
The (incorrect) rendering of d¢bhir, a term used in 
the description of Solomon’s Temple (q.v.), meaning 
the ‘inner’ or ‘rear’ part or chamber, and applied to 
the most holy place where the Ark was kept (I K 6 
5,16f., etc.; I] Ch 316, etc.). (8) In Pr 311 the Heb. 
text contains the word massa’ (‘burden’), which is 
often used of prophetic oracles (cf. La 2 14), and is 
here rendered ‘oracle’ (‘prophecy’ AV). While it can 
not mean ‘oracle’ in this passage, it may mean 
‘utterance’ in the sense of a wisdom-poem. Some 
scholars think a proper name is intended and render 
‘Lemuel, King of Massa’ (cf. Gn 25 14). (4) The 
rendering of Aéytoy, ‘a little word,’ and hence used 
of a brief utterance, and so of pagan oracles, since 
these were usually brief. In the N T this term is 
used of the O T as a Divine revelation (Ac 7 38, of 
the Mosaic Law; Ro 3 2; He 5 12; I P 4 11, where 
‘oracles’ is the subject of ‘speak’ understood, and 
the meaning is that the Christian teacher is to speak 
in the spirit and manner of, and in harmony with, 
the Scriptures, 7.e., the O T. EK. E. N. 

ORATOR: In the O T this word is used once (Is 
3 3 AV) to translate the Heb. lahash, more correctly 
rendered in RV by ‘enchanter.’ In the N T it 
renders the term 67 twe, applied to one Tertullus 


(Ac 24 1) in the technical sense of ‘advocate,’ or 
‘pleader.’ Us Vic aee 


ORCHARD: The rendering (Ec 2 5 [AV]; Song 
4 13) of pardés, a Persian word meaning an ‘en- 
closure,‘ 7.e., a royal preserve, whether of forest (cf. 


Ordain 
Palace 





Neh 28 RVmg.), or for hunting, or pleasure-grounds. 
Ec 25 RV reads ‘park.’ E. E. N. 
ORDAIN: This is the rendering of words meaning 
(1) ‘to will into being,’ ‘command,’ ‘decide,’ ‘fix,’ or 
‘make,’ and, therefore, bring about that which is or- 
dained (kin, Ps 8 2, ‘established’ RV; m*nah, Dn 2 24, 
‘appointed’ RV; ydsadh, I Ch 9 22; pa‘al, Ps 7 13, 
‘prepared’ RV; gum, Est 9 27; otetv, Mk 3 14, 
‘appointed’ RV). (2) “To set in order,’ or ‘arrange,’ 
‘prepare’ (‘dmadh, II Ch 11 15; nathan, II K 23 5; 
nxatacnevdtetv, He 9 6; Stat&acerv, I Co 7 17; xpoe- 
cotudtety, Eph 210). (3) “To set apart,’ ‘designate,’ 
for a special function or office, ‘to appoint’ (stm, 
stm, Ps 81 5; Hab 112; shdphath, Is 26 12; xolvety, 
Ac 16 4; doettev, Ac 10 42; yetpotovetv, Ac 14 23; 
mpoopttety, L Co 27; th&acetv, Ac 13 48; xpoyedoety 
Jude ver. 4). (4) “To install’ in office, or ‘consecrate,’ 
when the office is viewed as sacred (xaOiotyut, He 
51). The term ‘ordination’ does not occur in the 
Bible. Ordination in the sense of setting apart 
officers of the Church to their peculiar work by the 
ceremony of the laying on of hands (I Ti 414; II Ti 
1 6) has the sanction of Apostolic usage, but is no- 
where defined or enjoined. There is no evidence that 
the act was more than the recognition of the call of 
the ministrant by the Christian community in which 
he was to serve, and the concurrence of the ordinants 
in the call. The call itself came from the Holy 
Spirit (Ac 13 2), but sometimes through election by 
the people, or appointment by the Apostles (Ac 6 5, 
14 23). See also CHurcH Lirn, §§3,8. A.C. Z. 


ORDER: In Ps 110 4 the Heb. dibhrah has no 
technical significance. It means simply after the 
‘manner’ of Melchizedek. In Lk 1 3 ‘in order’ 
(xe8eEH>) is not a conjunction, but an adverb, mean- 
ing ‘in succession,’ ‘one after another’ (cf. also Ac 
11°40 18 23); K. E. N. 


ORDINANCE: A statutory prescription as dis- 
tinguished from consuetudinary law. The principal 
Heb. and Gr. words thus rendered are hugqadh, mish- 
pat, and dtatayy (Ex 12 14; Ps 11913; He 91). See 
also, in general, Law anp Leaat Practise. A. C. Z. 


OREB, d’reb (2NY, AY, ‘drébh), ‘raven’: I. A 
Midianite prince slain by the Ephraimites, who at 
the command of Gideon had gone down into the 
Jordan Valley to cut off the retreat of the Midianaites 
(Jg 7 25,8 3; Ps 8311). II. A place named after the 
Midianite prince (Jg 7 25; Is 10 26), located perhaps 
in the Wddy Far‘ah (see Moore, ad loc, in Int. Crit. 
Com. on Judges). OFh iy ty 

OREN, O’ren (j78, ’dren), ‘cedar’: The ancestral 
head of a Jerahmeelite clan (I Ch 2 25). 

ORGAN. See Music anp Musicat Insrrv- 
MENTS, § 3 (2). 

ORION, o-rai’an. See Astronomy, § 4. 

ORNAMENT. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, II. 

ORNAMENT FOR THE LEGS. See Dress anp 
ORNAMENTS, II, 2. 

ORNAN. See ARAUNAH. 

ORPAH, 6r’pa (127¥, ‘orpah): A Moabitess, one 
of Naomi’s daughters-in-law (Ru 1 4, 14). 

OSEE, 6’zi. See Hossa, § 1. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


648 


OSHEA, o-shi’a. See JosHua. 

OSNAPPER, es’nap-er (18208, ’osnappar; LXX 
*Acevvapée; Lucian, Uaryavaccbens): A king who 
transported peoples to Samaria (Ezr 49 f.); probably 
the Assyr. king Asshurbanipal (Spynqipx, 668- 
626 B.c.) is meant. Sargon (722-705 B.c.) seems to 
have been the first Assyrian king to transport men 
from the East to Samaria in 721 B.c. and 715 B.c. 
(II K 17 24; ef. COT, 276 f.). Esarhaddon (681- 
668 B.c.) also sent colonists to Samaria (Ezr 4 2). 
Altho no other mention is made of Asshurbanipal 
than in Ezr 410, he was the only Assyrian king who 
could have transplanted the inhabitants of Susa and 
Elam. Esarhaddon had brought to subjection the 
whole of Syria and Egypt, and his empire extended 
from Babylon to Egypt. Asshurbanipal, his son, re- 
ceived the Assyrian throne with the western depend- 
encies; his brother Shamas-shum-ukin having been 
set over Babylon. A. quelled an uprising in Egypt, 
conquered the Elamite kingdom, and putting down 
the rebellion of his brother in Babylon became king 
of both Assyria and Babylonia (648 B.c.?). There 
seems to have been an uprising in Syria and Pales- 
tine at the same time, and according to II Ch 33 11 
Manasseh was carried in chains to Babylon. The 
inscriptions mention Manasseh as a vassal of A., 
and the incident as recorded in Ch may well have 
been true, as A. probably resided at Babylon part of 
the time. He erected notable buildings, both pal- 
aces and temples, in various cities of his empire; but 
his greatest service to posterity was in collecting the 
very rich and valuable library of Babyl.-Assyr. lit- 
erature, which was discovered at Nineveh by Layard 
and Rassam (1845-50, and later). See Assyria; and 
NINEVEH. CISAb 

OSPREY. See PALESTINE, § 25. 

OSSIFRAGE. See Pauestine, § 25. 

OSTRICH (Heb. yd‘én, ya‘dnadh, wrongly ren- 
dered ‘owl’ in AV [except in La 4 3]; in Job 39 13 
the present word rendnim is probably a textual 
mistake for y*‘énim. Etymology uncertain). This 
bird of the desert was well-known to the people of 
Palestine, and its chief characteristics are noted in 
the following references: Lv 11 16 (here listed as 
‘unclean’ and not to be eaten); Is :18 21, 34 13, 
43 20; Jer 50 39; La 4 3; Mi 18; and especially in the 
extended description in Job 39 13-18. See Paxs- 
TINE, § 25. E. EL. N. 


OTHNI, eth’nai (39¥, ‘othni): A Levite gate- 
keeper (I Ch 26 7). 


OTHNIEL, oth’ni-el (28°Y, ‘othni’al): The son 
of Kenaz, a younger brother of Caleb (Jos 15 17). 
The first of the so called judges of Israel. His 
courage had been tested, even before he assumed 
the judgeship, when at the invitation of Caleb he 
attacked and captured Kiriath-sepher, and received 
as a reward the hand of Caleb’s daughter Achsah 
in marriage (Jg 1 11-15). Othniel’s judgeship was 
occasioned by his success in repelling the invasion of 
Cushan-rishathaim of Mesopotamia (Jg 37 ff.). See 
JupGEs, Book oF. A.C. Z. 


OUCHES, auch’es (Settings RV): (1) The settings 
for the precious stones on the shoulder-pieces of the 


649 





high-priestly ephod (Ex 28 11, 39 6). (2) Pieces of 
gold work that served as fastenings for the golden 
cords of the breastplate (Ex 28 13 £., 25, 39 16, 18). 
The Heb. term mishb*tsdth means something ‘mixed’ 
or woven together (ef. Ps 45 13 ‘inwrought’), 
indicative of open or filigree work. Driver (Camb. 
Bible on Ex ad loc.) suggests ‘rosettes’ (of strips of 
beaten gold) as a suitable rendering. E. EH. N. 
OUTGOINGS: This term is the translation of two 
Heb. words: (1) métsd’, the place of the sun’s going 
forth, the east (cf. Ps 75 6 [7]), and by zeugma (Ps 
65 8 [9]), ‘the goings forth of the morning and eve- 
ning’ = ‘the east and the west.’ (2) tétsd’dth (fem. 
pl.), ‘the point at which a boundary terminates.’ 
Altho the noun isafem. pl., the Heb. verb is sin- 
gular (Q’ré pl.), and in the original text the noun 
may have been singular. It is used in Jos (17 9, 18, 
etc.) in giving the boundaries of the tribal divisions 
in Canaan, where RV renders ‘goings out,’ while 
elsewhere, in Nu and Jos, it is rendered ‘goings 
forth,’ ‘goings out.’ Ge Sek. 
OUTLANDISH: This term is the old Eng. trans- 
lation for nokhri in Neh 13 26 AV, where RV has 
‘foreign.’ Elsewhere AV usually renders this word 
by ‘strange,’ ‘stranger’ where RV has ‘foreign,’ 
‘foreigner.’ Crna 
OVEN. See Foop anp Foop Ursnsits, § 2. 
OVERSEER: (1) In most instances in the O T 
this is a correct translation of the Heb. terms padgadh 
(noun and verb) and pdqidh, as the root idea signifies 
‘to seek out,’ ‘to care for,’ ‘to inspect.’ (2) In II 
Ch 2 18, 34 13 the Heb. menatststhim might be ren- 


PAARAI, pé’a-rai or -ré (1¥3, pa‘drz): One of 
David’s heroes (II § 23 35), an Arbite (see Aras, II). 
In I Ch 11 37 called ‘Naarai son of Ezbai.’ 


PADAN-ARAM, pé’’den-é’ram. See 
ARAM. 

PADDAN-ARAM, pad’’dan-é’ram (978 118, pad- 
dan ’drém, Padan-aram AV; ‘Paddan’ alone in Gn 
487 is doubtless due to a copyist’s omission; Mecoro- 
tala Luetac, LXX.): See Anam, § 2. 

L. G. L.—E. C. L. 

PADDLE: A term found only in Dt 23 13, for 
which RVmg. substitutes ‘shovel.’ The Heb. term 
so rendered, yathédh, is the common term for a peg, 
or ‘tent-pin,’ and here denotes that the butt end of 
the spear should be shaped so as to be used con- 
veniently for the purpose indicated. EE. E.N. 


PADON, pé’den (1118, padhdn): The ancestral 
head of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2 44; Neh 7 47). 


PAGIEL, pé’gi-el (28932, pagh’al). ‘The ‘prince’ 
of the tribe of Asher (Nu 1 13, etc.). 

PAHATH-MOAB, pé”hoth-md’ab (ANI NIB, pa- 
hath mo’abh): A family from which 2,812 (Ezr 2 6) 
or 2,818 (Neh 7 11) men, in two branches, Jeshua 
and Joab, returned with Zerubbabel, and, later, 200 
with Ezra (Ezr 8 4) and perhaps 218 more of the 


PADDAN- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ordain 
Palace 


dered ‘foremen.’ (3) In Pr 67 the Heb. term 
shotér is one which occurs many times in the O T, 
and always (in RV) rendered ‘officer,’ except in 
this place. On Nos. (1)-(3) see also Orricer. (4) 
On Ac 20 28 see Counc, § 8. HK. E.N. 


OWL. See Osrricu; and Pauesrine, § 25. 


OWNER OF A SHIP. See Suirs anp Navi- 
GATION, § 2. 


OX: Several Heb. words of different root-sig- 
nificance are rendered ‘ox’ in the Eng. Bible. 
(1) shér (apparently cognate with the Lat. taurus, 
Ger. stier, Engl steer), the most generic word used 
irrespective of age or sex. (2) baqar (‘to break 
through’), the term thus meaning the ‘plow-animal.’ 
In addition to these two terms, which represent 
nearly all the O T instances, there are two others: 


par, ‘bullock’; but in Ex 24 5 and Nu 231 (AV) 


‘oxen,’ and ’alliph, ’eleph, meaning the ‘tamed,’ 
‘domesticated,’ or ‘taught’ animal (Is 30 24; Ps 87, 
14414). For the uses to which oxen were put see 
AGRICULTURE, §4; SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 5; 
and PALESTINE, § 24. E. E. N. 


OZEM, G’zem (O¥8, ’disem): 1. A brother of 
David (I Ch 2 15). 2. The ancestral head of a 
Jerahmeelite clan (I Ch 2 25). 


OZIAS, o-zai’as. See Uzzian. 


OZNI, 02’nai (38, ’oznz): The ancestral head of 
the Oznites, a clan of Gad (Nu 26 16), called Ezbon 
in Gn 46 16. 


Joab branch (Ezr 8 9). Hasshub, ‘son’ of P.-M., 

helped in repairing the wall (Neh 3 11), and the head 

of the family sealed the covenant (Neh 10 14 [15]). 

Eight of the family had married foreign wives (Ezr 

10 30). Or sat. 
PAI, pé’ai. See Pav. 


PAINT, PAINTING. See Evn-parnt. 


PALACE: This term is used in the AV as the trans- 
lation of eight Heb. and two Gr. words: (1) ’appe- 
dhen, from the Persian apadéna, ‘treasury, ‘armory.’ 
In Dn 11 45 it means ‘palatial tents.’ (2)’armén, ‘cit- 
adel’; not used before the establishment of the King- 
dom of Israel, and means both ‘citadel’ (I K 16 18; 
II K 15 25, ‘castle’ RV) of the king’s house, and more 
generally ‘castles,’ ‘palaces,’ especially in passages 
of the Prophets, which speak of conquest (Jer 6 5; 
Am 1 4, etc.). (8) birah, ‘castle,’ ‘palace,’ a late 
word from Assyr. birtu, ‘fortress,’ only in postexilic 
lit., used for the Temple (I Ch 291, 19); for the for- 
tress near the Temple (Neh 2 8, 7 2, ‘castle’ RV), and 
for the fortress in (or which is) Shushan, the winter 
residence of the king of Babylon (Neh 11; Est 1 2, 
etc.; Dn 8 2). (4) bayith, ‘house’ (II Ch 9 11 RV); 
‘king’s house,’ the usual term for a royal palace. 
(5) bithan, ‘house,’ ‘palace’ in Est only (1 5, 7 7, 8). 
(6) hékhal, a loan-word from the Accadian e-gal, 
‘great house,’ used for a royal palace (I K 211; Dn 


‘Palal 
Palestine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 650 


eer LL Ee SC EC Ts a Lh nt ae ee 


1 4, etc.; Hos 8 14, ‘temple’ AV); but also for the 
Temple, the palace of God, the supreme King (Is 
61; 1 K 61, etc.). (7) harmon, a word of uncertain 
meaning (Am 43 AV; cf. RV). (8) tiradh, ‘encamp- 
ment,’ ‘settlement’ (Song 8 9, ‘turret’ RV; Ezk 25 4, 
‘encampments’ RV). (9) adAn, a ‘court’ and the 
house itself, ‘palace’ AV (Mt 26 3 £.; Mk 14 54 f.; 
Lk 11 21; Jn 18 15). (10) xpatteerov, ‘the camp of 
pretorian soldiers,’ ‘the pretorian guard’ (so Ph 1 13 
RV). Their quarters in Rome did not include the 
royal palace, altho when absent from Rome the 
emperor was ‘in pretorio.’ See also PReroriuM. 
OAR SRA 

PALAL, pé'lel (228, palal): One who helped on 
the wall of Jerusalem (Neh 3 25). 

PALAN QUIN, pal’’an-kin’: The RV rendering of 
the Heb. ’appiryén (Song 3 9; ‘chariot’ AV), a word 
of foreign origin and of somewhat uncertain mean- 
ing. 


PALESTINE 


OUTLINE OF CONTENTS. 


V. Frora, §§ 21-238. 
VI. Fauna, §§ 24-26. 
VII. HisroricAL GEOGRA-~ 
PHY, §§ 27-38. 


I. Names, BouNDARIES. 
AND AREA, §§ 1-3. 
Il. Torpograpuy, §§ 4-13. 
III. Gronoay, §§ 14-16. 
IV. Tue Criimates, §§ 17-20. 


I. Names, BouNDARIES, AND AREA. 


1. Names. Palestine did not receive its present 
designation from the people of Israel, through whose 
occupation of its soil it has become famous, but 
was so named from the Philistines, the enemies of 
Israel. It is in Herodotus that we first find the 
expression Svela } [lakatctivyn. He meant thereby 
either only the coast of the Mediterranean between 
Phenicia and the Arabian Desert in the S. (I, 105; 
IV, 39; VII, 89), or also the interior country lying 
back of this coast (II, 109; III, 91). As time passed, 
the reference of the name to the interior became more 
usual. It is true that Josephus only rarely uses 
IlaAatottvy (Palestine) for the land of the Israelites 
or of the Jews (Ant. I, 6 4 [§ 145]; XX, 121 [§ 259]). 
But Philo puts HaAatotfyy for Canaan, and simi- 
larly upon coins issued under the authority of 
Vespasian (70 a.p.) we read: Palestina (Palestina) 
in potestatem P. R. redacta. For the terminology of 
Christian writers the usage of Jerome (Com. on Ezk 
27) was influential. By Palestine was understood 
the land inhabited by the Israelites, or Jews, with 
no definite determination of its boundaries. This 
territory belonged, according to the O T, to the 
land of Canaan, but was not the whole of it. The 
Israelites well-knew that they had not gained pos- 
session of all Canaan, for in Jos 11 17, 127, a distinc- 
tion is made between the territory Israel had taken 
from Canaan and that which had not been con- 
quered (Jos 13 2-6), and the well-known expression 
‘all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba’ (I S 3 20; 
IL S 24 2, 15; I K 4 25 [5 5 in Heb.]) designated only 
the N. and S. limits of the territory actually pos- 
sessed by Israel. In the O T Canaan does not repre- 
sent a political unit but a geographical idea (like 
the term Germany), and never had fixed boundaries. 
This is the reason why the attempts in the O T to 
draw the boundaries of Canaan, especially on the N., 


differ so widely, as a comparison of Gn 10 15-19 with 
Dt 11 24; Gn 15 18 and Ex 23 31 with Ezk 47 15-20, 
481. and Nu 841-12 (cf. 18 21) will show. The E. 
Jordan land (‘ébher hayyardén) was never explicitly 
reckoned as belonging to Canaan, and later (from 
Ezekiel’s time) was definitely distinguished from 1t. 
Canaan was called ‘the land of promise’ (He 11 9; 
ef. Ac 7 5) or ‘the promised land’ after such pas- 
sages as Gn 15 17; Dt 6 10; Ezk 20 42. On the con- 
trary, other designations of the O T have a narrower 
sense. For example, such terms as ‘the land of 
Israel’ (I S 13 9); ‘the land of the Hebrews’ (Gn 
40 15; Jos. Ant. VII, 9 6 [§ 219]; Pausanias, VI, 24); 
‘Jehovah’s house’ (Hos 9 15; Jer 12 7); the ‘holy 
mountain’ of J’ (1s 11 9); ‘the holy land’ (Zee 2 
12 {16 in Heb.]; II Mac 17)—all mean only the land 
inhabited by Israel. It was ‘holy’ for Israel, be- 
cause it belonged to J’’ and He or His name dwelt 
therein; for Christians, because it was the theater - 
of Jesus’ activity or of sacred history in general. 


The Egyptian inscriptions show acquaintance with 
the name Canaan, tho they generally use the term 
Haru (cf. in O T, the ‘Horites’) for southern Syria. 
The term commonly employed by the Babylonians, 
Amurru (whence Amorites), signified generally 
Phenicia and the Phenicians. The Amarna letters 
limit this term to the Lebanon region and N. 
Phenicia, and for the 8. part of Syria use the term 
Canaan (Kinahni, Kinahhi). Among the Assyrians, 
from the 8th cent. on, the term mat Hattt, ‘land of the 
Hittites,’ meant not only N. but also S. Syria. Later 
for this expression another is used, ebir ndri (Heb. 
‘ebher hannadhar, Aram. ‘adbhar nahdrda’), 1.e., the 
land W. of (‘beyond’) the Euphrates, which term, 
from the time of Darius, was exactly the term used 
for the Persian satrapy of Syria (Neh 2 7, 9, 3 7; 
Ezr 5 3, 6, 6 6ff.; cf. also ITS 1016; I K 4 24 [He 5 4)). 
To this correspond the expressions in I Mac 7 8, td 
mépay to0 notayod, and I Es 217, 24f. } xolAn Dupta 
xat Dotvixyn (cf. Strabo, 16). Finally, Greek and 
Roman writers use the name Iovéatz, Judea, in the 
sense of Palestine. Originally, this meant only the 
district about Jerusalem occupied by the postexilic 
Jews; later, the kingdom of the Hasmoneans was so 
named (Jos. Ant. XIV, 11 2), then the kingdom of 
Herod (XVI, 2 1), then the Roman province under 
Vespasian (Bell. Jud. III, 7 3; VII, 61; cf. Ptol. V, 
161, 15 6-8). 

2. Boundaries. If one understands by the term 
Palestine the land of Biblical history, 7.e., of Israel’s 
history, from Joshua to Herod, it will not be pos- 
sible to think of fixed boundaries. At the same time, 
the name indicates fairly well what might be spoken 
of as southern Syria, the natural boundaries of which 
are easy to determine. As on the W. it is limited by 
the sea, so it is on the S. and E. by the desert. But 
sea and desert, tho often compared, have as boun- 
daries very different meanings. The coast-line 
along the Mediterranean sea is sharp and changes 
little, but the transition from the cultivated land to 
the desert is gradual and the boundary-line changed 
according to the political conditions. Aitho deserts 
separated peoples from one another in those times, 
yet caravan routes were in existence still earlier as 
avenues of commerce to the open sea. Therefore it 











NWNetden, 
ahd 
Se 


SY 
’ 
\ 
rt 


3 
NS 


4 * 
bs so | 
a = 
94 3Z 
ae i3& 
| 7 *S 4 
ares 3 ; 











































































; ; m Ss | 
! ) i a 
: > = He OS 
08 || S 08 
ce r; Las 
¥ ki aN 
YRULERR > 
iyedzit-Uy Pee & : 
™ 5 wo ee retinal YDANIUNT, 
%, ” y X I}. ; ULE Ne Blog “10g & g 
‘ whe 
g | ynn.ag ~ L TRS 2 | 
Tua. ae Ca bs | 
a | 
<S | 
Awe, i 1 iy Tt 
_ peng igs ~ 52-2 
é vag 
PA ee BL ASO é 3 S12 UF, } 
1S vaodmaysy- ier Bulely ‘S ee ns.i03p GAATITV 
preg mores y ei f asegg ‘ 
J ¢ t cnn ty 
v 
\} 
| 
_ 14K | ‘alov 
STVUId[03g ‘Oyooy K 
h Yun \ ! 
\ =a | 
i 1 
| 6 ¥t yes 
£8 yasiang \ SS i 8 
f {atzeyo 30 
qizyoy 
( 
s 
S raupungh) 
' aray of, — 2 NET oh YDANYAT Ua soy 
= 2% : aoe DBE e ~ sndhiy JO dappn7 
Ss Ve! 3 O€ 02 ol S 0 1¢ 


























puafoing 
: yWeyde1ez 
— 
# 10 eidaieg 
a 
z 
mt Fen 
FS TE date Se See ef Of iry~ete>S. “EF ---7- 
i 





UPA UN SAT ae sny} ‘SOlTeI] UL SoUreU Ue pow : 


umeusedeg :snyy ‘edé£4 uvul0y Ul seovyd Jo saureu yUeTOUY 


HNIDSA LV dt 
IO dvVW 


«08. b8 








wy 


an a Sm 
SHER HL Aoe 


"thm, 


108 SE 


wosy 








J WSBreH- U3 
‘QBo.Jo II 


DqqdPT d 
Quow-eqaru 


ve 
- 


SEAT oD 
ungud of 
“usted, 10 woaKt 


RADE aa 
gery ‘eno 


asl 


‘\ 


Dm 


V4) atl 


Ys 


qorMmoery) 3 


pai” 2. = 


a mda rpeaydOn 
ates ANE NOL Sy, 
\ Ss ore Teed © ba 


j-~ 


, map ruM: 
J. -u0en 


90g Q nsau0T ge 





YoLvay 
AQOIV 


Un 1? ee t 


ne om oe 
—s =-$seet 
Be ed ~~, 


nga 988 2, 
We Bol sola A —9ay-88 ug) 


seQ0US art. Raweeseey 


y~s, 


2 
f « 
f._* 
t 
‘ 


" S~, . 
P: S45 whe 7M EMD 
1ahhesormud -uRe Se ae = 1 
aged Ba aso oir btn 
3 Us _ Sana 1m TRIED S 
; AE ~ 


BOG 





Stes 


‘tanuer 7; 


met “Tet \ 


“ann 


op 2 NOTES me . 


SS 


Desnar 


ede 


ny see 
oH pa 


uritenn ane 


J Sworsa 
Zouk s Iny HES” 


xo, fi 
. 


boedd Sore! pines 


ae envoy {i 
6 OP IL, > ED Yayreani g uM 


ys 
ea any 


“0 oreysy ‘uoTaxYsY 


= S — bu nT--~ ~~ 
1S, eons in Sarde ea Cea: 


> 
ret 


AOU 19 
wont N 


piles tet 


hor cr aS 


reg FUL 3qji 


DEPT 
WOU TN 
es Bi pote ws eae  [st8 vfpy 
HHO WPAN ; 


Me RE 10 vddop? 


i 


7 Dine 12 4y PNT 


es / § 





ey te ¢ 
Wea Ue 
aus 





651 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palal 
Palestine 





is more likely that foreign influences entered Pales- 
tine via the desert much earlier than they did from 
over the sea. On the N. the coast-plain comes to 
an end about 13 m. N. of ‘Akkad; Ras en- Nakira 
and Rds el-Abyad (6 m. farther N.), spurs of Jebel 
el-Mushakkah (1,190 ft. high), rise abruptly from 
the sea and extend eastward to the W. mountain 
boundary of Upper Galilee, which is united to 
Jebel ed-Dahr (c. 2,000 ft. high) by Jebel Htinin 
(3,000 ft.). Jebel ed-Dahr forms the watershed 
between the Nahr el-Litdnit (the Litany) and the 
Jordan and leads on to the foot of Hermon, which, 
situated above the sources of the Jordan, stands out 
distinctly as a natural boundary for the land from 
theS. To the SE. begins the level territory of an- 
cient Bashan, the most northern portion of the E. 
Jordan land with which the history of Israel was 
concerned. 

3. Area. The area enclosed by these natural 
boundaries is not large. The sources of the Jordan 
at the foot of Hermon (at Tell el- Kadi) are distant 
in a straight line from Beersheba 143 m., from 
Kadesh-barnea, 187 m. The breadth narrows con- 
tinually from 8. to N. Through Tell Rifah—Beer- 
sheba—el- Kerak it is 112 m.; through Nebi Yinus— 
Jerusalem—Meshetta 81 m.; through Carmel— 
Tiberias 62 m.; through Ras el-‘Ain—Badnyés 47 m. 
—if 36° E. long. from Greenwich be taken as the E. 
limit toward the desert. Taking the breadth at 
Tell el- Kadi as the northern boundary and that at 
Beersheba as the southern, we have a total area of 
c. 10,000 sq. m. (26,108 sq. km.). Of this, according 
to the English survey (1872-77), c. 5,940 sq. m. 
(15,643 sq. km.) belong to W. Palestine, leaving a 
little over 4,000 sq. m. for E. Palestine. 


II. TorpoGRApPHy. 


4. Horizontal and Vertical Lines of Division. 
Palestine, like the rest of Syria, is primarily the 
western coast-frontier of the Syro-Arabian Desert, 
which extends as a plateau, with an average eleva- 
tion of 2,400-3,000 ft., as far as the Euphrates and 
the Persian Gulf. The coast-line is remarkably 
unbroken. Only in one place does it show any 
deviation worth mentioning, namely, between 
Carmel and the cliffs of Acco (‘Akka) lying opposite. 
Here it bends to the E., forming a circular bay 6 m. 
long and 2 m. wide. On the S. side of the old city 
Acco there was an excellent natural harbor which 
was of greatest importance during the period from 
the Persian supremacy down to and beyond the 
time of the crusades. It is now neglected and filled 
up with sand brought by the Mediterranean current 
from Gibraltar and the Nile delta. The Turkish 
Government, before the war, was attempting to con- 
struct an artificial harbor at Haifa, opposite Acco to 
the S., in order to give the railway to Mecca a 
secure connection with the sea. The attitude of the 
present government of Pal. in this matter is as yet 
uncertain. The rocky islands also that lie off the 
coast, under whose shelter the Phenician harbors 
arose, appear on the S. coast only in the form of 
small rocky reefs which make the shore dangerous, 
e.g., at Joppa (Yafa). The coast is mainly flat and 
sandy; in only a few places does it rise in cliffs from 


the sea (at Askalon, Yafa, Tantara, ‘Ailit, and 
Acco). 

The vertical division of Palestine is more compli- 
cated. It arises from the great natural cleft or fault 
which begins at el-‘Akaba, is widest and deepest in 
the Dead Sea and extends beyond Hermon through 
the Orontes Valley to the north of Antioch. The 
deepest portion, z.e., the Jordan Valley and the 
Dead Sea, separates the general frontier of the Ara- 
bian Desert into two parts, usually termed the E. 
and W. Jordan land. This fact has been of greatest 
significance for the history of the W. Jordan land, 
as it was thereby released from its immediate con- 
nection with the desert and given the opportunity 
for its own historical development. 

The same fundamental topographical lines run- 
ning from S. to N. show themselves also on the W. 


‘slope of the highlands and in the course of the coast- 


line, to a lesser extent also within the highland region 
itself (cf. § 7, below). In only one place are these 
lines apparently broken, viz., by the low-lying Plain 
of Jezreel (Esdraelon), which broadens out from the 
northern foot of Carmel toward the sea and also 
issues on the E. into the upper Jordan Valley through 
easily traversed passes on both sides of the isolated 
Jebel ed-Daht. Here, from remote antiquity, im- 
portant trade-routes have traversed the land from 
K. and W.; here also has often been the battleground 
for the control of Palestine. 

To the S. of this plain the mountain system is very 
simple: in the interior the central ridge, on which 
most of the main road runs naturally from N. to S., 
frequently widened out into smaller plains or valleys 
which are of great importance for the settlement and 
cultivation of the land, at the same time the water- 
shed, which descends rapidly toward the Jordan, on 
the W., slopes much more gradually toward the sea. 
N. of the Plain of Jezreel the watershed draws 
nearer the western side of the Jordan Valley and 
makes possible a somewhat isolated highland region 
toward the sea, which may be taken as the transition 
to the Lebanon and Antilebanon ranges. 

The surface of the E. Jordan territory is of a much 
more simple character. To the E. it extends to the 
desert highland, in a gradual rise or in rounded hills, 
furrowed by broad and deep watercourses. To the 
W. it breaks itself into countless spurs between which 
brooks and rivers have cut deep ravines. The 
descent to the Jordan is often very abrupt. While 
the average height of the E. Jordan plateau is some- 
what higher than that of the W. Jordan land, still 
they run parallel to each other. Both are highest in 
the N. (in Galilee and Jdldn, 7.e., Golan). In the 
central region (Samaria and Gilead) there is a depres- 
sion, and in the S. (in Judah and Moab) again an 
elevation. 

These topographical differences find mention also 
in the O T, where the different parts of the land are 
enumerated according to their natural characteris- 
tics: hiph hayydm, ‘the seacoast’; hashsh*phélah (in 
I Mac 12 38 LepnA&), ‘the underland,’ (‘the lowland’ 
EV), 7.e., the hilly region between the coast-plain and 
the mountains proper (often used to include the 
coast-plain also); Adhdar, ‘the mountain-land’; ha‘- 
drabhah, the Jordan Valley; hammishér, ‘the pla- 


Palestine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


652 





teaw’ (of Moab) (cf. Dt 17; Jos 91; Jg 19; 
II Ch 2610). 

5. The Accessibility and Isolation of Palestine. 
In connection with the consideration of the to- 
pography of Palestine, questions arise as to the 
relative accessibility and isolation of the land and its 
suitability for the intercourse of its people with other 
lands. What the great geographer Carl Ritter 
wrote in 1852 (cf. Ritter, Hin Blick auf Pal. u. seine 
christl. Bevélkerung, 1852; Allgemeine Erdkunde, Bd. 
XV, i., p. 8 f.) concerning the general situation of 
Palestine, viz., that it was distinguished by its 
isolation from the rest of the civilized world and, at 
the same time, by its central position in the midst 
of that world, can be maintained to-day only with 
great reservations. It is true that Palestine lay 
midway between Babylonia and Egypt, the two 
most important seats of ancient civilization (cf. 
Ezk 5 8, 38 12 ‘navel of the earth’). But its natural 
relation to both was different. Palestine is most 
closely connected with the Euphrates and Tigris 
region through N. Syria, while it is separated from 
the delta of the Nile by a broad stretch of desert. 
In accordance with this the Amarna letters show 
the country to have been primarily under the cul- 
tural influence of Babylon, while the Egyptian 
influence at all times has been of lesser import. 

The very ancient trade-route from the Euphrates 
(at Carchemish) to the Nile traversed the land from 
N. to 8S. It reached the Sea of Gennesaret either 
from the Orontes Valley over the Jebel ed-Dahr and 
the highland of Galilee, or it drew near the upper 
course of the Jordan via Damascus, crossed this and 
united itself with the former branch on the W. shore 
of the Sea of G. Thence the road ascended the 
ridge of Tabor and then descended into the Plain of 
Esdraelon. At Megiddo, the mod. Tell el-Mutesellim, 
it left this to find its way to the coast-plain between 
the hills S. of Carmel through the Wddy ‘Ara. Here 
it skirted the foot of the hills, drawing near the coast 
at Lydda (Heb. Lédh), Ekron, and Ashdod, and 
passed on by Gaza and Raphia through the desert to 
the Nile delta. Even to-day this road is much used 
by caravans and for the herds which are driven to 
Egypt for sale, altho nothing is done for its main- 
tenance. Its tributaries will be mentioned later. A 
land traversed by such an ancient trade-route is not 
isolated; it is open to travel and constantly under 
the influence of outside civilization. 

This old trade-route shows that Palestine in the 
N. and S. offered no serious hindrances to commerce, 
while at other places it presented attractive openings 
(cf. Jer 15 7). The Bedawin of the eastern desert, 
the ‘children of the east’ (bené gedhem) of the O T, 
could without difficulty press forward to the W. 
Indeed, the Jordan Valley and River, S. of the Sea 
of Gennesaret as far as the Jabbok, can be crossed 
in many places without danger. Tn its southern 
portion, between the Jabbok and the Dead Sea, it is 
deeper and broader and the fords are much fewer, 
so that here intercourse between the two sides is 
relatively restricted. In the S. the ascent from 
Beersheba is at first easy, but the mountains them- 
selves offer difficulties to passage. Here is the re- 
gion to which Ritter’s term ‘isolation’ is in truth 


Dt 3 10; 


applicable, viz., the southern part of the mountain 
range of W. Palestine. As far as the neighborhood 
of Ndbulus (Shechem) we can travel from N., W., 
and E. through open roads furnished by Nature her- 
self; but the entire southern mountain-land is like a 
natural fortress. The heights have, in places, an 
elevation of nearly 3,600 ft. Only narrow, tortuous 
valleys shut in by steep, overhanging cliffs form the 
watercourses. The country as a whole is much more 
poorly supplied with water than is its northern part; 
consequently it is less fertile. The inhabitants of 
this mountain region were little affected by either 
the warlike or peaceful movements on the roads to 
the west. Large cities which depend on commerce 
for their prosperity were never found here, as the 
land has no commercial possibilities. It is certainly 
no accident that the most important history of the 
land took place in this southern part. The single 
open door to the sea (at Carmel) has been mentioned - 
(§4). But this was of consequence only for the later 
history of the land, after seamen had learned to ven- 
ture on the open sea instead of clinging to the coasts. 

In concluding this sketch we shall speak of the 
natural characteristics of each section of the land. 


6. The Negeb or ‘the South.’ The Negeb or ‘the 
South’ was the most southern part of Canaan ac- 
cording to the O T (Jg 19; Dt 17; Jos 10 40, 1518.; 
Ezk 47 18 f.). The name (generally in the O T with 
the article) denoted (according to the Aramaic) 
probably ‘the dry, barren land.’ Since the LXX. in 
some places rendered the word by vétoc and Alb 
(‘South’), and the Vulgate followed it by using 
meridies or terra australis (and austrum), so the mis- 
leading expressions ‘South,’ ‘south-land’ passed 
over into many modern versions. The Negeb com- 
prised a territory which began at Beersheba, where 
the mountainous region ends, and stretched south- 
ward for about 55-60 m. On the E. and SE. it was 
bounded by the Wady el-Fikra! and its upper 
branch the Wddy el-Marra. On the W. and SW. it 
falls away to the lower level portion of the Wady 
el-‘Arish. Its form was, therefore, that of a triangle 
with the apex turned toward the 8. The Wédy el- 
Fikra (with el-Marra) was the natural boundary 
toward Edom (Jos 151, 21-32), and by the Waddy el- 
‘Arish, the O T ‘brook of Egypt,’ the S. border of 
Israel (and Canaan) was extended to the Mediter- 
ranean (Jos 15 3 f.; Ezk 47 19; Nu 34 5). It is true 
that in this flat waste region no fixed boundary-line 
can be drawn, yet the lower Wady el-‘Arish does 
mark a definite line between the Egyptian desert to 
the W. and the arable region of Palestine to the S., 
as has been stated by Th. Kotschy and W. Barbey. 
On the African side the formation is that of a gravel 
bed overlaid with sand, while on the Asiatic side it 
is that of a hard clay subsoil under a thin covering 
of sand (cf. ZDPV, 1882, p. 220f.). A more detailed 
analysis may be found in P. Range, Geologische 
Karte der Isthmuswiiste, in ZDPV, 1922, plate I. 

The Negeb is a plateau, with its greatest elevation 
in the S. (3,000-3,500 ft.), seamed with countless 
wadys that carry off the waters of the winter rains; 
on the SE. and E. through the Araba into the Dead 





1As the form Wddy is that preferred by the author it is so 
printed in this article. 


653 A NEW STANDARD 


Sea; on the SW. and W. through the Wddy el-‘ Arish 
into the Mediterranean; on the N. and NW. through 
the W addy Bir es-Seba‘ into the same 8. of Gaza. Only 
on the W. slope are any springs to be found, viz., 
‘Ain Kudés, ‘Ain el- Kadérdt, ‘Ain el- Kuséme, and 
‘Ain el-Muwélih. These constitute the most 
valuable asset in the whole region. The southern- 
most, ‘Ain Kudés, is the ‘Kadesh-barnea’ of the 
O T, where the Israelites under Moses sojourned for 
a long period (Dt 1 19, 46; Jg 11 16f.). It is on this 
side of the plateau that the traces of civilization are 
most abundant, such as terraced hills, wells, and 
other structures for water, ruins of cities and castles, 
tho the land has always been more a land of shep- 
herds than of farmers and cities. To the N. the 
mountain-land ends in a well-formed low-lying 
plain (800-1,200 ft. above the sea) toward which 
the waters from S., E., and N. descend, and at Tell 
el-Fari‘ pass on to the sea, In this lowland lie the 
ruins Khirbet el-Miih (or Meleh) and Khirbet Bir 
es-Seba‘. The former corresponds to the city of 
Salt (II S 813; If K 147), the latter to Beer-sheba, 
famous as a shrine, and for its wells (Am 5 5, 8 14; 
Gn 21 33, 26 23-33, 461). About twenty wells are 
known to be extant as a result of the investigations 
made in 1915. 

The watershed of the mountain region at first 
runs from 8. to N., then from SW. to NE., to the 
Mt. Ras ez-Zuwéra, near the Dead Sea. Its ridge 
crossed an important road toward Elath on the 
Arabian Gulf of the Red Sea. Here we are to look 
for the ‘ascent of Akrabbim’ (Nu 34 4; Jos 15 3), also 
Tamar, the fortress built by Solomon (I K 9 18 
[Kthibh]; cf. Ezk 47 i9, 48 28 and Thamaro on the 
Peutinger Tables), the ruins of which have been 
sought in the vicinity of modern Kornib (= Mamp- 
sis?) in the upper Wddy el-Jemen. The explorations 
of recent years have made it clear that the oldest 
settlements, in all probability, are to be ascribed 
to the Nabatzans and that, on the other hand, 
most of the cities were built in Byzantine time, 
from the 4th cent. B.c. onward. Cf. Woolley and 
Laurence, ‘The Wilderness of Zin,’ PHF Annual, 
1914-15; Th. Wiegand, Sinaz (1920). 

7. The Mountain Range from the Negeb to 
Shechem. Because of the general sameness in the 
natural character of this whole region (to which 
attention has been called, § 5, above) we should 
avoid dividing it, on the basis of merely historical 
considerations, into districts such as the hill- 
country of Judea, Samaria, etc. The ‘natural fort- 
ress’ of the hill-country comprises, as has been said 
in §5, the territory northward to Shechem. In this 
sketch it is divided in two parts: (A) from the Negeb 
to el-Bire, and (B) from el-Bire to Shechem. Under 
(A) we treat, first, of the watershed, secondly, of the 
western, and thirdly, of the eastern slope. 


A. (1) The mountain range of Pal. is connected 
with the hills of Negeb (§ 6) through the watershed. 
This watershed extends westward from Rés ez- 
Zuwéra (§ 6, above) about 8 m. to Tell ‘Arad and 
thence follows a northern direction parallel to the 
lines of the great cleft (of the Jordan Valley). Its 
southern part is cut up into three successive terraces, 
forming acute angles with the main line of water- 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine 


shed, by three chains of hills which lift themselves 
out of the lowland near Khirbet el-Milh and Beer- 
sheba. These run from SW. to NE., in the general 
direction of the watershed of the Negeb. The result 
is that between these hills the land slopes to the S., 
é.g., n the case of the tortuous Wddy el- Khalil, 
from Hebron to the neighborhood of Beer-sheba. 
Furthermore, where these lines of hills cross the 
watershed, they form upland plains of different size 
which are remarkable for their fertility. Conse- 
quently, the slope from the crest of the range to the 
KE. is broken into three great terraces. The southern- 
most of these plains is that of Hebron (Gn 37 14), 
which is shut in on the E. and N. by the crest of the 
range (here c. 3,300 ft. high). Hebron was con- 
sidered a very old city (Nu 13 22; cf. Jos. BJ, IV, 
9 7), which is quite credible when we consider its 
situation; for its upland plain is the point where 
four old roads unite, viz., from the N. (Shechem), 
from the W. (Gaza), from the SW. (Egypt via 
Beer-sheba), and from the SE. (Edom via Tamar). 
It furnished also the last resting-place before a long 
desert journey, or the first after such. The second 
upland plain lay, not on the W., but on the E. side 
of the watershed, between Halhul (Jos 15 58), 
Khirbet Teki‘a (Tekoa, Am 11), el- Khadr and Beth- 
lehem, and is famous for the abundant waters of the 
Wddy el-‘Arrib, which were brought probably by 
Herod’s engineers through the (still extant and used) 
conduit to the so called Solomon’s Pools (in the 
springy region S. of Bethlehem), and thence to 
Jerusalem. The third upland plain is also situated 
mainly to the W. of the watershed. In reality, it 
consists of a number of small plains that extend from 
Bethlehem as far as el-Bire and Ramallah, c. 10 m. 
N. of Jerusalem. The portion SW. of Jerusalem is 
called el-Bak‘a or el-Buké‘a, probably identical 
with the Valley of Rephaim of the O T (Is 17 5; 
Jos 158; IIS 518, 22). These plains have their outlet 
to the W. through the Wddy Bét Haninaé (N. of 
Jerusalem) or through the Wddy el-Werd (8S. of 
Jerusalem) into the Wddy es-Sardr, t.e., the 
Valley of Sorek (Jg 16 4). Through this alteration 
in the surface the main line of the watershed becomes 
less marked, is in the main somewhat flattened, so 
that one often crosses it without noticing it. Con- 
sequently, for purposes of cultivation and for resi- 
dence, this part of the crest of the ridge possesses 
great advantages over the lofty chains of the Leba- 
nons. While in the S., at Tell Zif, SE. of Hebron, 
the elevation reaches 2,700 ft. and 3,340 ft. at 
Strat el-Bella‘ (N. of Hebron), at Jerusalem it sinks 
to c. 2,650 ft., but rises again at Bethel to c. 2,890 ft. 


(2) The main western slope is separated distinctly 
from the Shephelah range of hills (see § 4, above) 
by a depression running N. and 8. A number of 
side valleys lead almost at right angles into the main 
valleys that run toward the W., and these taken 
together form a depression parallel to the great line 
of cleavage (N. and S.) which determines the forma- 
tion of the present surface of the land. On the E. 
side of this depression the hills slope toward it quite 
gradually; the W. side is mostly shut in by barren 
heights. This depression begins at the Wddy 
Malake about 5 m. NW. of the village Bét ‘Ur et- 


Palestine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


654 





Tahta (Beth-horon the lower), where the Wddy el- 
Muslib empties from the 8. It is continued south- 
ward in the Wady el-Miktelt, and then broadens out 
at the Wddy Selman into the Plain of Yalé (Aijalon, 
Jg 135; Jos 1010 #.; IZ Ch 1110). This has an eleva- 
tion of 650-800 ft., and is called to-day Merj ibn 
‘Omér. In its midst lay the village Bét Nuba. The 
places Ashuwa‘ (Eshtaol) and ‘Artif indicate the 
line of the depression to the Wddy es-Sardr. It con- 
tinues southward thence in the Wddy en- Najil and, 
S. of the Wady es-Sant (cf. 1S 17 2, 19), in the Wady 
es-Sar (near Adullam and Keilah). This brings us 
to the large Wdady el-Afranj, which leads from 
Hebron to Bét Jibrin, the ancient Eleutheropolis. 
From this point, in the direction of Beer-sheba, only 
a few traces of this elevated eastern edge of the 
Shephelah can be detected. 


From the northern part of the crest of the moun- 
tains some spurs run out toward the W. which were 
used in olden times, especially by the Romans, as 
main routes of travel; since the valleys, owing to 
their narrowness, their many windings, and the 
numerous boulders in their upper courses, are un- 
suitable for roads. Thus, from el-Khadr, near 
Bethlehem, a spur branches out, on which the road 
runs that leads down to ‘Ain Shems, the Beth- 
shemesh of Jos 1510; 1S 612. Another, from Nebi 
Samwil (2,900 ft. high), NW. of Jerusalem—proba- 
bly the Mt. Ephron of Jos 159—connects the villages 
Biddi, Karjet el-‘Ineb, and Saris, from which a road 
leads down into the plain and comes out finally at 
Joppa. A third spur extends from el-J%ib, the an- 
cient Gibeon (Jos 9 8; II S 21 2; I K 3 4 ff.) to the 
upper and lower Beth-horon, along which in ancient 
times the most important road from the neighbor- 
hood of Jerusalem led down into the plain, and which 
was therefore the scene of many conflicts (Jos 10 10- 
14;18 188;1 Mac315ff.). 


(3) The E. slope descends, as has been said, in 
three terraces (in two near Bethel), and is, in general, 
very steep. This makes necessary a brief notice of 
the differences of elevation. The crest of the central 
ridge is, on the average, about 3,000 ft. above the 
sea. The surface of the Dead Sea is 1,292 ft. below 
sea-level. Since these two are distant from each 
other in a straight line only about 153 m., the descent 
averages about 286 ft. to a mile. Except in the case 
of the few sharply sloping plains near the watershed, 
the rains contribute nothing to the fertilizing of the 
soil. The water simply rushes on from stone to 
stone in its unchecked descent. This region is, 
therefore, generally speaking, uncultivable and 
desolate; its better parts only are visited in the spring 
by shepherds with their flocks. There was indeed a 
time when this wilderness from Tekoa to Bethel 
was inhabited by many thousands of men. From 
the 4th to the 7th cent. a.p., it was the favorite 
abode of recluses and monks who here, either in 
caves in complete isolation from others or under a 
communal leadership in the so called lauras, or, 
later, in separate buildings, cenobia or monasteries, 
dedicated themselves to prayer, meditation, and 
labor. We know the names of 50-60 lauras and 
cenobia which stood some on the almost inaccessible 
cliffs of the deep valleys and others on the small 


level places of the steep slopes. The Mughdrat 
Kharétin near Tekoa, once identified with the Cave 
of Adullam, has preserved the name of the earliest 
founder of such establishments, Chariton (320-350). 
Of all these foundations, which have faded away 
since the conquest by the Arabs, but one remains, 
the monastery Mar Saba, founded by Sabas in 478, 
in the awful solitude of the barren slope of the middle 
Kedron (Wddy en- NGr). 

This whole region is called in the O T tne Wilder- 
ness of Judah (Wilderness of Judea in the N T)— 
a comprehensive expression indicative of many dif- 
ferent things: pasture-land (I S 17 28, 25.1 #.) for 
the protection of which towns and cisterns were con- 
structed; also caves which served as hiding-places 
for fugitives and marauders (I S ch. 24; I Mac 
2 28 ff., 9 33, 62 ff.); cities, also, in the wilderness are 
mentioned in Jos 15 61 f., among them En-gedi, ‘the . 
goats’ spring,’ the modern ‘Ain Jidi, 400 ft. above 
the Dead Sea N. of the mouth of the Wddy el-‘Aréje; 
finally, absolutely barren mountains, valleys, and 
level surfaces. The different parts were named after 
near-by places, as the Wilderness of Maon (I 8S: 
23 24f.), of Tekoa (II Ch 20 20), etc. For the north- 
ern part toward Bethel we know only the names of 
specific localities, as the Wilderness of Gibeah (Jg 
20 42 f.), of Michmash (IS 13 8), of Ai (Jos 8 15), ete. 


B. We come back now to the highland which we 
have followed northward as far as el-Bire. The up- 
land plain now becomes smaller and completely 
disappears N. of Bethel between the heights which 
are crowded close together and surrounded by steep 
and deep valleys. We have here the most broken 
and consequently the most intricate part of the 
highland. The watershed verges in a somewhat 
tortuous way toward the E., approaching to within 
9-12 m. of the Jordan Valley, as far as the height of 
et-Tuwanik, 2,847 ft. (SE. of Shechem). Conse- 
quently, the old road toward Shechem leaves the 
crest of the ridge, and making use of several valleys 
running N. to S., especially the Wddy el-Jib, finds 
its way along the western slope. Its course north- 
ward takes it by Sinjil and Lebonah, leaving the old 
town of Shiloh (the mod. Khirbet Seilin), in ‘its 
quiet seclusion, about 3 m. to the E. The short dis- 
tance between the watershed and the Jordan Valley 
makes the descent to the E. very abrupt. There 
are declivities from 2,000 to 2,400 ft. in depth. 
Among the tangled areas of mountains and valleys 
to the W. a long ridge is prominent that stretches 
westward from ‘Ain Sinyd (the Jeshanah of II Ch 
13 19) and Jifnad (the Gophnah of Jos. BJ, III, 3 3). 
On this lay the Roman road from Jerusalem to 
Cesarea. Six m. N., near the village Sinjil, another 
long ridge appears. Between these two ridges the 
deep Wddy Der Ballit winds its way to the lowland. 
In its upper course, where the Wady el-J%b joins it 
from the N., it is flanked by precipitous hills, Burj 
Bardawil, i.e., Baldwin (2,570 ft.), and Burj el- 
Lisdne (3,130 ft.). These, with the crowning hill to 
the E., Dahr el-‘Asir (3,318 ft.), lend a picturesque 
aspect to the region which is only enhanced by the 
fact that the slopes are often covered with olive- 
groves and other green trees. The road to Shechem 
again strikes the watershed, because this bends to 


II dVW 


08,98 9 06,68 WiawapH Yo mor ,O1.ce wea FB opnyzsaoy og. a 09.48 4) / OF F8 g 108.78 Vv 106. %8 












Tats ) ny | te] 


06 ST OL g 0 




















[hm ay S31IW 40 31v0S 
fee |= WA 
Lee >. a pups ~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ 1eny} ‘sozpeyy Uy someM TIEPOW 
274 ’ “Yo | 
if s qi Ww 2 popysy ~~ ~28Ng} ‘od4} wemoy uy seogid jo soureu quo~ay G 


ANLLSATVd 








ot 


NOILUOd NUWAM.LAOS : 


rf 






» 





i 





Y 4 


Ws? 118 ( 
BS JO AUD 
\' ke) 


i 








NY 


Fh 
hal 
3 





Dqag+s9 NAT 
eqs 


\ 
ca ‘ 





S Sas ae 


= UePBPV. 





Z| yorag S 
ZR CSEyy 














MEW ¥ Woy 6 A 
TOUEY ‘ 

MN, f 
WUE i Z, 





1 by fn 
eo] wr 
Tewley-u0zIze 
‘tpen-ug) 





ANI ity, 


yas iy 











be As 
aries 
iy 


unysy == ty & 


uoTeysy UoTeyysy 


ar 











102 G8 





655 A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine 





the W. at almost a right angle from the peak of 
Tuwanik, but in a deep low-lying saddle (1,800 ft.) 
offers an open way to travel from S. to N. The 
same phenomenon repeats itself some miles farther 
N. between Mts. Gerizim (Jg 97; Dt 11 29 £.) and 
Ebal (Dt 27 12 £.; Jos 8 33). There the watershed 
ascends to the peak of Gerizim (2,849 ft.), then sinks 
into the little valley in which Nabulus (1,660 ft.) 
lies, thence ascends again to the top of Ebal (3,077 
ft.)——plain indications that a more open and less 
bold type of mountain is at hand. The city Ndbulus 
(Neapolis) is the successor of the more ancient 
Shechem, which lay, according to Eus. (Onom.), 
some distance farther E., near the modern village 
Balata, where, in fact, we find the actual ‘back’ 
(sh¢khem), 7.e., the watershed, of the land. This 
trough between Gerizim and Ebal is remarkable for 
its abundance of springs, and was certainly one of 
the earliest centers of population in the land. It 
widens out to the E. in a fruitful plain (1,800-2,000 
ft. above the sea), famed for its wheat, which extends 
S. along the E. side of Gerizim about 6 m. and to the 
K. about 5 m. It is named in different ways, after 
the names of adjoining villages, as, ¢.g., sahl sdlim, 
sahl ‘askar, sahl el-makhna. Two important roads 
lead hence westward to the sea, one of which, to 
Joppa, begins on the heights, but later makes use of 
the Wddy ‘Azztn, the other, to Cesarea and Dor 
through the well-watered Wdady Ndbulus. The N. 
foot of Gerizim is well covered with vegetation, but 
the peak is bare. Ebal has practically no vegetation. 
These facts serve to explain Dt 27 12 f., where 
Gerizim is designated as the mount of blessing and 
Ebal as the mount of cursing. 


Shechem, Shiloh, and Bethel, which are men- 
tioned in the oldest narratives of the O T, remind us 
that this region came into the permanent possession 
of Israel very early. It is frequently mentioned 
under the name ‘Mt Ephraim.’ To what part of the 
land did this designation originally apply? Ephraim 
is, strictly speaking, the name of the district occupied 
by that part of the tribe of Joseph which from it re- 
ceived its particular name. As this tribe expanded, 
the name ‘Mt Ephraim’ also went southward, so 
that even places in Benjamin were reckoned to 
‘Mt. Ephraim’ (Jg 45;1S 14 22; ITS 20 21). But the 
most ancient sense of the term must not be deter- 
mined by this later usage. Since Ephraim means 
‘fruitful land,’ the name could not have referred 
originally to the rough and quite stony region near 
Bethel and Dahr el-‘Asir, and since, in later times, 
the southern part of the territory of Joseph was 
called Ephraim, it is not probable that the name 
originally designated the northern part, 7.e., that 
which bordered on the Plain of Esdraelon. This 
region also is not such that the designation ‘mount’ 
would be applied to it throughout. Consequently, 
it is likely that by ‘Mount Ephraim’ was meant 
originally the less rough and stony region extending 
from Lebonah (el-Lubban) to Ydsid (4 m. N. of Mt. 
Ebal). On this supposition the old account in Jos 
17 14-18 becomes intelligible; Joseph enlarged his 
original possession, Mt. Ephraim (ver. 15), by first 
clearing away the forest on the hill (ver. 17 f.) and 
then settling there. The lay of the land shows that 


the higher-situated wood can be thought of only as 
S. of the territory already possessed, that is, in the 
wilder part of the hill-country. 


8. The Highland N. of Shechem. To the N. and 
NW. of Ebal the above-mentioned breaking up of 
the mountain range becomes very perceptible. The 
hills are lower, the slopes more gentle, and the 
valleys broader. Indeed, the openings between the 
chains of hills are often so broad that fairly large 
plains spread out, e.g., the plain (sahl) near the 
village ‘Arrabe with Tell Détén, which corresponds 
to the place Dothan or Dothaim (Gn 37 14-17). To- 
day a road still leads from Jenin, at the S. angle of 
the Plain of Esdraelon to the great highway along 
the foot of the hill region. The rain-water runs 
more slowly over the less precipitous slopes and sinks 
deeper into the soil. On the watershed N. of Ydasid 
there is a basin surrounded by hills, the bed of which 
in the spring after heavy rains becomes a lake, the 
Merj el-Gharak. 'The highest elevation of the W. 
slope is at Shékh Beydzid (2,375 ft.), on the range 
extending W. of Yasid. The hilly region Bildd er- 
Roha (in some places c. 1,600 ft.) makes the connec- 
tion with the Carmel range, which extends almost to 
the water’s edge, with a height of 1,600 to 1,800 ft. 
In ancient times Carmel was famed for its caves 
(Am 9 3) and for the beauty of its verdure (Is 35 2; 
Song 75). To-day it is but sparsely wooded. 

The watershed holds its course N. from Ebal to 

Ydsid (2,225 ft.), and then draws nearer the Jordan. 

The heights of [bztk (2,404 ft.) and Fuki‘a (1,502 
ft.) are distant from it only a little over 9 m. in a 
straight line. The E. slope of the hill region toward 
the Jordan is here of a very different character from 
what we find farther 8. Between the valleys which 
run from NW. to SE. there are a number of ridges, 
all having the same general direction and about 12 
m. long, which approach near the Jordan in single 
peaks, e.g., Karn Sartabe (1,244 ft.), Ras Umm 
el- Kharriibe (690 ft.), and Rés Umm Zoka (830 ft.). 
The valleys between these ridges are quite broad 
and open, in part also the southernmost, the Wady 
FGr‘a, the upper arms of which extend far up near 
the watershed, from the plain near Ndbulus to 
Tubas (Thebez) to the N. The road from Shechem 
to Bethshan on the Jordan runs past Thebez; 
another leads down the Wady Fdar‘a to the Jordan 
at the ford of ed-Ddmiye and thence into the EH. 
Jordan land. 


9. The Plain of Esdraelon. Between the moun- 
tain region to the N. and S. in form like a right- 
angled triangle, lies the Plain of Esdraelon at present 
called Merj ibn ‘Amir. The right angle touches the 
foot of Mt. Tabor (1,848 ft.), which with Jebel ed- 
Dahi (1,700 ft.) and Jebel Fuki‘a (1,710 ft.) forms 
the E. side as far as En-gannim (Jenin). The latter 
mountain forms the continuation of the watershed 
between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. It is 
the Mt. of Gilboa (mod. Jelbén), famed as the place 
of the defeat and death of Saul (IIS 1 21). Jebel ed- 
Dahi is a small isolated mountain with several peaks, 
among which Nebi ed-Dahi (1,700 ft.) is the highest. 
Through the broad, fertile valley to the S. runs the 
Nahr Jalid, which has its origin near the village 
Zer%n, near the ancient Jezreel (I K ch. 21), and 


Palestine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 656 





flows on to the Jordan near Bethshan (Beisan). 
Along its short course there runs an ancient and im- 
portant road to the E. Jordan land. The northern 
narrower valley is drained by the Wddy el-Bire, 
which descends from Tabor to the Jordan. The 
long side of the triangle corresponds to a line drawn 
from Jenin on the S. to the N. slope of Carmel. The 
plain lies 200-300 ft. above sea-level, with its slope 
to the W. in the direction of the bay between Haifa 
and Acco. It has always been inhabited only on the 
edges, since the central part is marshy and in winter 
impassable. The volcanic deposit which was poured 


into this plain for thousands of years from the | 


volcano Jebel ed-Dahi, together with the basaltic 
subsoil, which appears on the surface here and there 
on the edges of the plain, has, through its decomposi- 
tion, given the plain its marvelous fertility. Through 
the western outlet flows the Nahr el-Mukatta‘, the 
Kishon of the O T (Jg 5 19-21; I K 18 40), in the spring 
often raging and dangerous, in the summer a slug- 
gish brook. 

10. The Highlands of Galilee. The mountainous 
region N. of the Plain of Esdraelon divided itself 
naturally into two parts: Lower Galilee and Upper 
Galilee, The boundary between these is formed by a 
range of hills that begins some little distance from 
Acco and extends N. from Ramah (er-Rdme), 
including Nebi Heider (3,410 ft.), Jebelet el-‘Arus 
(8,480 ft.), and Safed (2,790 ft.). Lower Galilee is 
divided by three parallel chains of hills, running 
from W. to E., between which lie small plains. The 
heights along the N. edge of the Plain of Esdraelon 
form the first chain. Among them are the hills near 
Nazareth and Tabor (1,848 ft.). Its crest is isolated 
on all sides and is noticeable, especially from the E. 
Jordan land, because of its well-rounded summit. 
Only on the NE. is the mountain, here covered with 
basalt, connected with the main highland. The 
second chain is of smaller extent. To it belong Jebel 
Tur‘dn (1,770 ft.) and the basaltic Karn Hattin 
(1,038 ft.), which overlooks the Sea of Galilee. To 
the S. lies the small Plain of Tur‘an, to the N. the 
larger Sahl Battdf, called by Josephus (Vita, 45) 
Asochis, and in the O T (probably) Y«phtah-él, 
(‘Iphtah-el,’ Jos 19 14, 27). The third chain is the 
longest. It begins at the village Shefa ‘Amr to the 
W., grows higher and broader toward the E. (Jebel 
ed-Dédebe [1,790 ft.], Ras Kriméan [1,900 ft.]), and 
ends in the steep hills overlooking the Wddy el- 
Hammam at the Sea of Gennesaret. Its caves, 
difficult of access, were the hiding-places of the 
‘robbers’ against whom Herod had to wage a hard 
struggle (Jos. BJ, I, 16 2,4). The fastnesses (I Mac 
9 2; read MecadH0=Heb. m*sddhéth) against which 
the Syrian general Bacchides operated in 145 B.c. 
are found here. To the N. of the chain extends the 
Plain of er-Rdme. 


The watershed continues N. from Tabor with 
many turnings to W. and E. On the whole, it 
gradually draws near to the Jordan Valley, and at 
Hinin (2,950 ft.), not far from the sources of the 
Jordan, identifies itself with the bordering range of 
Upper Galilee. It ends in the Jebel ed-Dahr, which 
separates the Litént on the W. from the Nahr el- 
Hasbant to the E. To the W. of the watershed 


stretches the highland of Upper Galilee, an irregular 
quadrangle, wider in the 8. than in the N. Jebelet 
el-‘Arts, W. of Safed, forms the SE. corner. The 
western edge runs from the village Kisrd (2,520 ft.), 
over Tell Belat (2,020 ft.) and Khirbet Belat (2,467 
ft.) to Jebel Jamle (2,624 ft.), N. of the medieval 
fortress Tibnin (2,412 {t.).. The eastern line is some- 
what broad in the §., viz., from Jebel Jermak (8,922 
ft.), the highest mountain of Galilee, to the heights 
of Safed, known also as Jebel Safed, and famous for 
its abundance of water (here lies the Mérén |[Merom] 
of Jos 11 5, 7), as also for its fertile upland plains. 
Several old roads lead from this place in different 
directions—one through the Wddy el-‘Amid S. to 
the Sea of Gennesaret, another through the Wady 
el- Karn W.to the coast at ez-Z7b (Achzib, Jg 1 31), 
and another through the Wddy Dubdy and the 
Wdady Selikiye N. to Nahr el-Kdsimiye and the 
region of Sidon. The inner part of the quadrangle 
is traversed by two chains of mountains. One ex- 
tends from Jebel el-Ghabiye, SW. of Kades (the 
Kadesh of Jos 207) to the NW. to Khirbet el-Y adhin, 
near Tibnin; the other from Jebel Jermak also to- 
ward the NW. to Khirbet Belét. Between both 
these lie several fertile, well-cultivated, also wooded, 
upland plains. SW. of the second range the land is 
barren and waste, except the small depression el- 
Buké‘a, near the village of the same name. 


11. The Plains Between the Mountains and the 
Coast. It is characteristic of Pal. that plains, smaller 
or larger in size, extend between the mountains and 
the coast. Due to the convergence of the coastline 
from W. to E. toward the mountains, they are of 
triangular shape, with the apex toward the N. The 
Plain of Acco extends from the promontory Rds 
en- Nakiira (see § 2, above) to the N. foot of Carmel, 
12 m. long from N. to S., and 4 m. broad at the S. 
end. The northern part is fertile and occupied by 
peaceful villages. The middle part is crossed by the 
Nahr Na‘amdan (the Belus of antiquity) and is 
marshy, because the sand-dunes at the shore choke 
the outlet of the stream. The southern part, near 
the lower Kishon, is also marshy, yet covered with a 
richer growth of grass, and on the coast near Haifa a 
small grove of palms beautifies the landscape. The 
second plain consists of the narrow strip between 
Carmel and the coast, about 18 m. long and not more 
than 2-3 m. wide. Its S. boundary is formed by the 
Nahr ez-Zerka& (the Crocodile river of Pliny, HN, 
V, 17), in the marshes of which, not far from its 
mouth, crocodiles are still to be found. The heights 
of Bildd er-Roha (see § 8) extend in a spur, el- 
Khashm (554 ft.) to the plain. It is to these heights, 
perhaps, that the expression na@phath, or naphoth dor, 
refers—a region which in Jos 11 2, 12 23 is distin- 
guished from the Shephelah and the other parts of 
Pal., and is probably the same as the ‘heights of 
Dor’ (mod. Tantiira on the sea-coast). 8. of the Nahr 
ez-Zerké the level landscape becomes much broader. 
This region is known in the O T as Sharon (Heb. 
hashshaér6n), which probably means ‘the plain,’ and 
was famed for its abundance of water and luxuriant 
vegetation (Is 33 9, 35 2, 65 10 [here the text is cor- 
rupt]; Song 21). It was consequently well-known 
for its excellent pasturage (I Ch 27 29). The water 


OO Ee 


657 


that drains down from the mountains is checked 
near the coast by a line of sandy or rocky hills, so 
that, in addition to the streams, there are a number 
of marshes and pools; water is, therefore, easily 
reached. In some places these natural dikes have 
been opened by man to take away the excess of 
water. In this way, e.g., the Nahr el-Falik, N. of 
Arsif, arose. ' The landscape is not destitute of 
isolated hills or chains of hills; e.g., near Kerktr 
E. of Cwsarea, and again SW. of Kalansawe and to 
the NE. of Joppa. In Israel’s time these were 
probably covered with forests, since as late as the 
crusades mention is made of woods in the Plain of 
Sharon. To-day only insignificant remnants remain. 
On the average the plain is about 230 ft. higher in 
the E. than in the W. At Cesarea it is about 7} m. 
wide, at Joppa about 123 m. Its 8S. boundary runs 
from the mouth of Nahr Rabin (Map III, C 5), past 
the hill near er-Ramle (8 m. SE. of Lydda), to 
Latrin (near ‘Amwdas [Emmaus, Map III, D 5)). 
During the past forty years the cultivation of this 
plain has made great progress. Near Joppa the 
beautiful orange-groves have become very exten- 
sive. The German Templars, the Syrian Orphan- 
house at Jerusalem, and Jewish societies have 
settled agricultural colonies near Joppa and Lydda, 
and these have made a decided impression on the 
native farmers. 


S. of er-Ramle the Shephelah begins, regarding the 
E. border of which, near the central mountain 
range, mention has already been made (§ 7, above). 
The Heb. hashsh¢phélah is generally rendered in the 
LXX. by 4 (vq) wedtvh, more rarely by td xedfov, or 
transliterated by % cepndA& The Vulgate renders it 
planities or campestria, ‘lowland’ ARV. One must 
not think of the Shephelah as one great plain. On 
the contrary, this region, once the home of the 
Philistines, is divided into several plains separated 
by chains of hills. One is near ‘Akir (Ekron) and 
Yebna (Jabneh), on the lower course of the W ddy es- 
Sardar, called at its mouth Nahr Rabin. Another is 
near Hsdid (Ashdod) and ‘Arak el-Menshiye, on the 
lower course of the W ddy el-Afranj,which unites with 
the Wady es-Sant (the ‘Valley of Elah,’ IS 17 2), 
and is called, at its mouth, Nahr Sukrér. The 
chains of hills generally run E. and W., e.g., the one 
from Bat Nettif (1,515 ft.) past Shékh Da’ ad (590 ft.), 
el- Khéme (298 ft.), and Beshit (197 ft.) to Jabneh 
(83 ft.). Or the second one from Bet ‘Auwwé (1,495 
ft.) 8 m. W. of Hebron, near ed-Dawa’ime and past 
Shékh ‘Ali (1,367 ft.), Tell [bdis (452 ft.), Chirbet 
‘Ejjis er-Rads (831 ft.) to Khirbet Yasin (114 ft.) 
near Ashdod. Another line of hills runs from Ashdod 
parallel to the coast to Sumsum and Der Esnéd, near 
Gaza. In the vicinity of the Wddy el-Hesi the hills 
extend W. for about 12m. The most important are 
Tell en-Nejile (541 ft.) and Tell el-Hest (341 ft.). 
Near the Wddy esh-Sher?‘a the Shephelah gradually 
blends with the level plain of the Western Negeb 
(see § 6, above). From this brief description it 
follows that the expression ‘plain of the Philistines’ 
which is often used to-day, does not correspond 
to the character of the Shephelah. The O T un- 
derstands by the term ‘Shephelah’ the whole hilly 
region as far as the sand-dunes and the rocky 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palestine 





heights of the coast; so also the Onomasticon of 
Eusebius and of Jerome (296, 154; ed. De La- 
garde). In Is 1114 ‘shoulder (kathéph) of the Philis- 
tines’ stands for the Shephelah. In Jos 10 40, 12 8, 
’dshédhoth, ‘slopes,’ means not the hills of the 
Shephelah, but the lower slopes at the foot of the 
mountain region. The expression in Jos 11 16, ‘the 
Shephelah of the hill-country of Israel,’ as tho in 
contrast to a Shephelah of the Judean hill-country, 
has no basis in the natural characteristics of the land. 
There is no Shephelah N. of Wddy Malake (§ 7, 
above). 

12. The Jordan Valley and The Dead Sea. (a) 
Here the Jordan cleft will be discussed only in 
general and mainly from the point of view of its 
relation to the surrounding country. The depression 
begins on the W. side of Mt. Hermon in the Wddy et- 
Teim, through which the most northern of the 
sources of the Jordan, the Nahr el-Hasbani (so 
named from the city Hasbéyd, on Mt. Hermon, near 
which the largest spring breaks forth from a basalt 
cliff, 705 ft. above the sea), flows in a southerly 
direction. After traversing the high Plain of Merj 
‘Aytin (Ijon; cf. I K 15 20; II K 15 29) E. of the 
watershed, it rushes with rapid descent into the 
ravine of the Jordan, which takes its rise on the 
southern foot of Hermon, near the largest springs 
of the river. At Tell el- Kadi (elevation 508 ft.) 
(Dan, Jg 18 28 ff.), an extinct crater, there are two 
springs whose waters flow into the Nahr el-Leddan, 
the ‘little Jordan’ of Josephus (BJ, IV, 11). Further 
to the E., overlooking the village Baniyds (Paneas, 
Jos. BJ, II, 9 1), several springs unite to form the 
third source of the Jordan, the Nahr Baniyds. Here 
is to be found the deep grotto (elevation 1,079 ft.), 
sacred to Pan, from which, according to Josephus, 
the visible course of the Jordan has its beginning 
(Ant. XV, 10 3; BJ, I, 21 3; III, 107). The condi- 
tion of the cave is much altered now, since, in all 
probability, an earthquake has broken the rocks of 
the roof and filled the cave to a large extent with 
the fallen blocks of stone. The three streams above 
mentioned unite about 5 m. 8S. of Tell el- Kadi at an 
elevation of 141 ft. above the sea. The descent of 
the Nahr el-Leddén averages 74 ft. to a mile, that 
of the Nahr Baniyds 240 ft. Thesmall plain through 
which the Jordan now rushes is called Ard el-Hile 
(0846, Jos. Ant. XV, 103; XVII, 21; Huleta in the 
Talmud; cf. Neubauer, La Géographie du Talmud, p. 
27). This name originated before the beginning of 
the Christian Era. It is found also in other parts 
of Syria, e.g., between the Nusairier Mts. and the 
Orontes, W. of Hamd, and probably signifies ‘a de- 
pression’ or ‘basin’ (cf. Eli Smith in Robinson, Bibl. 
Researches, III, Append., pp. 139-179). This basin 
is about 15 m. long and 6 m. wide, is well watered, 
since many small streams empty into it from both 
E. and W., and consequently is very fertile, altho 
partly covered with impenetrable thickets of reeds 
and papyrus. The S. end of this marshy tract is 
covered with water, forming a small lake, the Bahrat 
el-Hiale, in shape like a pear, as the S. end is narrow 
owing to the encroaching hills. English scholars 
speak of its elevation as being 7 ft. above the sea, but 
this figure is somewhat uncertain (cf. Survey of W. 


Palestine 





Pal. Memoirs, I, 195). Its depth is from 10 to 17 ft., 
varying with the time of the year. On the whole, it 
is gradually growing less, as a comparison of its 
present circumference (from 3.6 to 3.2 m.) with the 
statements of Josephus (BJ, IV, 11) clearly shows. 
This author calls it the Sea of the Semechonites (the 
inhabitants of Semecho). Among the different 
names current in later Jewish tradition, one (\DnD) 
agrees with this name. (Cf. Monatsschrift fiir Gesch. 
u. Wissenschaft d. Judenthums, 1860, ii.) To-day 
the whole region is too swampy to be inhabited and 
is not traversed by any road. In the N. part of its 
course, the Jordan is crossed by only two old roads: 
near its source by one that comes from Tyre through 
northern Galilee and goes on by the S. foot of Her- 
mon to Damascus, by the second, between the Bah- 
rat el-Hile and the Sea of Gennesaret which, coming 
from Damascus, crossed the Jordan near the present 
bridge, Jisr Bendt Ja‘kiib, descended into the Plain 
of Gennesaret, and thence led up from the seashore 
through the Wddy el-Hammdm to the Horn of 
HaGttin, and reached the sea, either via the Plain of 
Battof or over Tur‘dn, at Acco. This was called ‘the 
way of the sea’ (Is 91; by the Crusaders via maris). 
The Bahrat el-Hile is 9 m. distant from the Sea of 
Gennesaret, and, as the latter lies 692 ft. below sea- 
level, the fall of the Jordan between the two seas 
averages about 75 ft. to a mile. Its bed is narrow 
and shut in by basalt cliffs. There are but five 
fords between Bahrat el-Hile and the Sea of Gen- 
nesaret. 

(b) Both the course of the Jordan and the sur- 
rounding country S. of the Sea of Gennesaret take 
on an altogether different character. The banks of 
the river consist mainly of loose marl or clay, 
through which, in the spring, the stream often makes 
for itself new channels. Consequently, the river 
water becomes an increasingly dirty yellow as it 
flows on its course. On both sides the river-bottom 
is quite wide and correctly described in the common 
Arabic speech as consisting of two parts: («) That 
immediately near the Jordan is called ez-Zor. It 
includes the bed of the river, but applies chiefly 
to the rank growth of trees, shrubs, and reeds along 
the banks, inhabited by wild beasts,and called ‘the 
pride of the Jordan’ (Zec 11 3; Jer 12 50, 49 19, 50 44). 
The stream is usually hidden from the view even of 
one close at hand by this dense growth, also by its 
high banks. But after the rainy season it rises so 
high that even the trees along its banks are under 
water. On the E. side, this green strip along the 
river-bank is often broader and more level than it is 
on the W. side. (8) The broader region making up 
the whole river-bottom, together with the deep 
depression below sea level, the immense cleft extend- 
ing from the Sea of Gennesaret to the Dead Sea and 
beyond is called el-Ghar, i.e., ‘the depression.’ In 
the O T there is no similar name for this general 
region. The common term hda‘drabhah (Jos 18 18, 
etc.) denotes the dry, mostly barren tracts that pre- 
vail near the Dead Sea and about the lower course 
of the Jordan. The level, low-lying districts receive 
the name ha‘émeq (Jos 13 27) and big‘ah (Dt 34 3). 
Greek writers were the first to use the term addy, 
‘ravine,’ ‘valley,’ ‘hollow,’ corresponding to the 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 658 





common Arabic term (Diodor. IT, 48 9; XIX, 98 4; 
Jos. Ant. XVI, 5 2; BJ, I, 219; Eus. Onom. 214 f.). 


The low-land on either side of the Jordan is now 
accurately known, the W. side through the map 
published by the P. E. F., and the E. side through 
the map of the German Pal. Verein; with the only 
exception of the stretch from Nahr ez-Zerka to the 
Wdady Nimrin, opposite Jericho, of which a map 
is not yet at hand. S. of the Sea of Gennesaret the 
region around the Jordan is very well-watered and 
cultivated, especially on the HE. side. Here the 
Yarmik (so named as early as the Mishna [Para 89], 
the Hieromices of Pliny, V, 18) carries into the valley 
as large a volume of water as the Jordan itself. 
There is an important passage of the Jordan 6 m. 8S. 
of the Sea of Gennesaret (823 ft. below the sea), the 
‘bridge of the junctions,’ Jisr el-Mejami‘, so called 
because here the roads from Tiberias, Bésdén (Beth- 
shan), and from the E. Jordan land come together. 
Near the old bridge a new one has been built over 
which the railroad from Haifa to Damascus crosses 
the Jordan. The width of the Ghor, on the E. side, 
changes; it is about two-thirds of a mile 8. of the 
Wady el- Yabis and reaches up to four miles at the 
mouths of the rivers Yarmuk and Nahr ez-Zerka. 
The waters coming down from the highland have 
cut their bed into the body of the mountain range in 
almost the same direction from E. to W., and the E. 
wall of the Ghér impresses the spectator with its 
great regularity. In some places the soil is not un- 
fertile and is being cultivated, provided the water 
supply is not lacking; but marl and rubble cover wide 
areas in consequence of the breaking of the clods. 
Here and there a natural hill rises out of the plain. 
Artificial hills, 7.e., ruins, are found between the 
Wéddy el- Yabis and the Nahr ez-Zerka. At the foot 
of the mountains lie some inhabited villages. On the 
W. side there is a very fertile and well-watered region 
in the neighborhood of Bésén (803 ft. below sea- 
level). It consists of a plain, part of which slopes 
down to the Jordan, which is traversed by the Nahr 
Jdliid (§ 9), and by many small brooks that flow 
down from Jebel Fukii‘a, which lies to the W. It is 
in the form of a triangle, its N. side being 12-15 m. 
long, its EK. side, as far as the mouth of the Wddy 
el-Mdaleh, 11m. InI Mac 522 and Jos. Ant. XII, 85, 
it is called ‘the great Plain,’ a name elsewhere ap- 
plied to the Plain of Esdraelon (§ 9, above). E. of 
Bésin a new bridge now spans the Jordan river. 


From the mouth of the Nahr Jdlid downward 
the river-bed is shut in by steep cliffs of marl, the 
layers of which are easily undermined and fall into 
the river, at times damming it up and stopping its 
flow. It is due to this that the course of the river 
changes so often and is so tortuous. Between the 
Wady el-Mdleh and the Waédy Abu Sidre the spurs 
of the western mountains approach so near to the 
Jordan that there is no room for a level bottom and, 
of course, no cultivation of the barren soil. Also 
from the E. the mountains in this part approach the 
Jordan river to a distance of two-thirds of a mile (see 
above). The broad valleys on both sides of Karn 
Sartabe, especially the Wddy Far‘a (§ 8), had in 
ancient times well-watered settlements. On the E. 
side the second important tributary stream of the 


Oe 


659 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palestine 





Jordan is the Nahr ez-Zerkd. It is the Jabbok of the 
O T (Dt 2 37, 3 16) and brings down a large quantity 
of water from the heights of the E. Jordan land, but 
only its edges are covered with a thick growth of 
vegetation. From Karn Sartabe the bed of the 
valley widens considerably, but only in the vicinity 
of the ancient Jericho does its character become less 
rough. Six miles N. of Jericho, at the Nahr el-‘Awja, 
Archelais was situated, famous of old for its palm- 
trees (Jos. Ant. XVII, 13 1), and near the beautiful 
spring ‘Ain es-Sultdn are the ruins of the ancient 
city of Jericho, mod. Hrtha (820 ft. below the sea), 
far behind in its cultivation, however, from what, it 
was in the time of Herod (cf. Jos. Ant. XV, 4 2; BJ, 
J, 18 5). The E. side, opposite Jericho, is now 
covered with vegetation and well cultivated. It 
corresponds to the ‘Abel-shittim’ of the O T 
(Nu 33 49), the ‘Abila of Perea’ of Josephus (BJ, 
II, 18 2). Here are to be found the ruins Tell 
Kefrén (Shittim, Nu 25 1) and Tell Rame (Beth- 
haram). But these green spots are really oases, 
surrounded by barren country. Consequently, the 
all-inclusive name for this region in the O T is 
‘artbhoth, i.e., ‘steppes’; ‘steppes (‘plains’ RV) of 
Jericho’ for the western part (Jos 5 10), and ‘steppes 
of Moab’ for the eastern part (Nu 221). The nearer 
the Dead Sea, the more salty and barren the soil 
becomes, due to the alkali of the sea, which has an 
effect some distance inland. In the O T, therefore, 
the name of the most southern district W. of the 
Jordan, the ‘Valley of Achor,’ is the proverbial 
expression for a cheerless waste (Hos 2 15; Is 65 10). 
About 4 m. from the mouth of the Jordan the marl 
cliffs recede from its banks toward the base of the 
mountains, so that the N. end of the Dead Sea is 
_ surrounded by a level shore. 


If we now raise the question whether the Jordan 
Valley is conducive to or hinders intercourse between 
the two sides of the country through which it runs, 
the answer must be different for different parts of the 
long stretch from the Sea of Gennesaret to the Dead 
Sea, which is about 68 m., with a descent from 682 
below the sea at Gennesaret to 1,292 ft. at the Dead 
Sea. The upper part of the course, near Bethshan, 
offers no serious hindrance to such intercourse. The 
fords are here very numerous. It is otherwise, how- 
ever, with the lower part of the course. At the 
mouth of the Nahr ez-Zerka there is the important 
old ford ed-Damiye, the O T ma‘abhar ha’ ddhaimah 
(I K 7 46; II Ch 4 17 £.; corrected text), in the place 
of which, during and after the rainy season, a ferry- 
boat is used. The bridge Jisr ed-Damiye, built in 
the 13th cent., is no longer used, as both the Jordan 
and Nahr ez-Zerkdé have changed their courses. Here 
the depth of the valley (1,144 ft. below the sea) and 
its width (8-9 m.) make the crossing a somewhat 
laborious undertaking. This is even more the case 
below the Zerkd; for the valley grows continually 
lower and wider, and, in addition, there are no fords 
except near Jericho, where there are five. Thirty 
years ago the Turkish Government built here a small 
bridge, which has made the crossing easier for riders 
and for beasts of burden. During the war it was 
made practicable for wheel traffic also. 

(c) The Dead Sea is but the continuation of the 


Jordan cleft, in fact, its deepest part. The water of 
this solitary inland sea is deep blue and its surface 
lies 1,292 ft. below the level of the Mediterranean. 
Its depth varies greatly. N. of the low peninsula, 
el-Lisan, it reaches 1,308 ft. (2,600 ft. below the sur- 
face of the Mediterranean), but in the smaller south- 
ern part it is only from 3 to 20 ft. The level of the 
water in the sea varies, not only during the year (to 
the extent of 6-7 ft. according to the rainfall), but 
also during longer periods. To-day it seems to be 
rising, since in 1820 the southern extremity could be 
crossed on foot, which is now impossible, and a small 
island not far off the NW. shore has become invisible 
within the last 20 years. The shore of both the N. 
and 8S. ends is low and level. In the S. it is a briny 
marsh (es-Sabkha), only passable in midsummer. 
On the E. and W. shores, however, high and steep 
mountains reach close to the water. These must be 
considered as the fragments of the original surface, 
which stood on the edges of the cleft. What was 
between them sank and now lies under the sea. 


Here we touch upon the question of the origin of 
the Dead Sea, to which scientific investigation gives 
an answer altogether different from that furnished 
by the hints we find in the O T. According to Gn 
13 10, 19 25, the Dead Sea originated simultaneously 
with the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah. In 
fact, in Gn 14 3 the plain, which is now covered by 
the water of the salt sea, is called ‘Siddim’. These 
stories are remains of old Canaanite legends which 
were taken over by Israel and survived until a late 
period (Wis 10 6£.; Jos. BJ, IV, 84). The theory 
has been advanced that the Dead Sea is an isolated 
remnant of the ocean that once rolled its waves into 
the Jordan Valley from the S. and after its subsidence 
left this salt sea in the midst of the mainland. But 
this theory is contrary to the fact that across the 
‘Araba, the southern extension of the Jordan cleft, 
as far as the Red Sea, there lies a watershed (er- 
Rishe) composed of chalkstone, 820 ft. above the 
sea-level, which has never been crossed by ocean 
waves. Asa matter of fact, the Dead Sea originated 
simultaneously with the fault that formed the Jor- 
dan depression, and is to be viewed as the deepest 
part of this cleft. 


The geologist who has investigated this question 
most thoroughly, Dr. M. Blanckenhorn, puts the 
disturbance that formed the Jordan Valley at the 
close of the Tertiary period. According to him, there 
was originally, on the site of the Dead Sea, a deep 
basin into which the water from all the surrounding 
country flowed. This somewhat shallow body of 
water became strongly impregnated with mineral 
salts from the hot springs which broke forth when 
the Jordan cleft was formed. At that time this sea 
covered the whole region from the height of er- 
Rishe, in the ‘Araba, to near the Sea of Gennesaret. 
The basis of this theory is the fact that deposits from 
water much fresher than that of the present sea are 
found on the slopes of the ‘Araba, about 1,400 ft. 
above the present surface of the Dead Sea. . Dr. 
Blanckenhorn distinguishes three rainy periods and 
three dry periods in the formation of the Dead Sea, 
which have left their traces in the deposits at differ- 
ent elevations around the edge of the sea. Through 


Palestine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


660 





successive geological disturbances the basin grad- 
ually sank to its present depth. During the sixth 
period (the third dry period) the sea came to its 
present condition. This took place at the beginning 
of the alluvial period, as is evident from the disin- 
tegration of the diluvial material in the southern part 
of the old sea-bed, which came about when the crust 
that formed the bottom of the valley gave way under 
the force of earthquakes. In this way, it is thought, 
the shallow southern part of the sea was formed, 
while at the same time there was cut, in the Jordan 
cleft, the present river-channel with its surrounding 
territory, called ez-Zdr by the Arabs (see above). 
In this later period of the history of the Dead Sea 
Dr. Blanckenhorn places the overthrow of Sodom 
and Gomorrah. That these lay, not at the N., but 
at the S. end of the sea is certain, since Zoar (Gn 
19 20 #.) was near Sodom, and was situated to the 
SE. of the Dead Sea (cf. Jos. BJ, IV, 8 4; Onom. 
ed. De Lagarde, 261, 139; Mukaddasi, in ZDPYV, 
1884, VII, 171; Fulcherius, in Bongars, Gesta Dei, I, 
405), so that the old legend agrees with the conclu- 
sion of geology to this extent, that both indicate that 
the S. end of the sea was the scene of violent physical 
disturbances which might have deeply impressed 
themselves on the memory of early generations. The 
petrified wife of Lot, the ‘pillar of salt’ of Gn 19 26, 
Wis 10 6f., belongs to the formations which are con- 
tinually making and disappearing in the neighbor- 
hood of Jebel Usdum (‘Mt. Sodom’), the salt moun- 
tain at the SW. corner of the sea, 590 ft. above the 
surface. From the mass of the mountain sections 
break off, in form-like prisms, which, after being worn 
away, become isolated pillars of salt, and easily take 
on the appearance of human beings, especially that 
of women. Similar rock pillars, tho existent for a 
much longer time, are to be found in the dolomite 
and sandstone formations near the Dead Sea. One 
sandstone rock on the E. shore S. of the mouth of the 
Waddy el-Mo67ib is to-day called by the Arabs Bint 
Shékh Lat (‘daughter of Sheikh Lot’). Cf. M. 
Blanckenhorn, Entstehung und Geschichte des Toten 
Meeres (1896), and Natururwissenschaftliche Studien 
am Toten Meer und im Jordantal (1912), p. 114 ff. 


13. The E. Jordan Land. The E. Jordan plateau, 
which extends to the border of the desert (§ 4, 
above), is divided, in its W. part, into four main 
regions. (a) The district N. of the Yarmik. This 
extends much farther E. than the other divisions of 
the E. Jordan land, namely, from 18 to 30m. E. of 
36° E. long., which (§ 3, above) has been accepted 
as the E. boundary of Palestine. It has never 
received an all-inclusive name, because its individual 
districts show too distinctive characteristics and 
have never been firmly united politically. 


Above the upper course of the Jordan and the Sea 
of Gennesaret rises the plateau of Jélén, which has 
received its name from the city called in the O T 
Golan (Jos 208, 21 27). Inthe N. the foot of Hermon 
gives a fixed boundary, but there is none to the NE. 
and E. The valleys are broad and shallow; the 
watersheds, one N. towards the Wddy el-‘Ajam, and 
K.. towards the region known as Jiédér, are low. If 
one should follow the line of extinct voleanoes which 
extend in a wide circle from the foot of Hermon to the 


SE., he would come to the Nahr el-‘Allan, which is 
considered to-day as the E. boundary of the Jdldn. 
In fact, it indicates a significant change in the sur- 
face of the country, since EH. of it the volcanic hills 
and great blocks of lava disappear and a broad, 
stoneless, level plain begins. The 8. and W. boun- 
daries of the Jéldn are fixed—the Yarmik, the 
Sea of Gennesaret, and, above this, the Jordan. 
In the O T the names given to this country are (Beth) 
Maacha and Geshur (Dt 3 14; Jos 13 11-13), To-day 
it is customary to distinguish between the rocky and 
the level Jélan. The former is the N. half, a plateau 
with numerous craters in the NE. part, and covered 
with huge blocks and fragments of lava, abounding 
in springs and highly valued for its excellent pasture. 
The craters attain a height of 4,000 ft. or more (Teil 
esh-Shékha, 4,248 ft.; Tell Abu en-Nedd, 4,123 ft.), 
and are still partly covered with oaks or scrub-oaks. 
Formerly, the region was heavily wooded, and a 
century ago was called Yulul el-Hish, ‘forest 
heights.’ The level Jéldn, the southern half, begins 
with an elevation of about 2,300 ft., is less rich in 
springs, but is covered with a dark-brown volcanic 
soil of great productivity, altho little used for agri- 
culture. The ground slopes rapidly toward the Sea 
of Gennesaret on one side and toward the Yarmak 
on the other. The territory in the angle formed by 
the Nahr el-‘Allan, the Yarmik, and the Sea of 
Gennesaret is called to-day ez-Zawiye, ‘the corner,’ 
which corresponds to the Gr. name yuvia tHe 
Batavatas, given to it by Eusebius (Onom. 242). Cf. 
G. Schumacher, Der Dschélan (1887, Eng. trans. 
1888). 

E. of Nahr el-‘Allan there begins a stoneless plain 
in which there are a few small artificial mounds and 
voleanic hills, where are found villages or ruins of 
earlier habitations. The soil is reddish-brown, com- 
posed of disintegrated lava from the craters of the 
mountains to the E., Jebel Haurdén or Jebel ed- 
Driiz, mixed with volcanic ashes and sand. It is 
easily worked and holds the moisture of the rainfalls 
tenaciously—a fact of great importance for its culti- - 
vation, since the country is destitute of springs. The 
wheat produced here, with its translucent kernels, is 
a choice article of commerce. Trees are rare. In 
view of the fact that the plain is somewhat lower 
in the center than on the edges, it is called by the 
Bedawin en- Nukra, ‘depression’ (a word used of the 
hearth which the Bedawin dig in the center of the 
guest-tent). The name Haurén is also common. 
From N. to S. this plain has an average elevation 
of 2,130 ft. It slopes to the W. and the wddys ed- 
Dahab and ez-Zédi carry the water in the rainy 
season to the Yarmik. To the NE. the Nukra 
borders on the Leja, a remarkably rough and im- 
passable region (see TRACHONITIS) and to the E. on 
the Jebel Hauran, which in modern times, because of 
its occupancy by the Druses, is also called Jebel ed- 
Driz, ‘Mt of the Druses.’ Here is the source of the 
lava-beds of the Nukra; for the cone- or gable- 
shaped heights of the mountain are all extinct vol- 
canoes and rise to a height of 5,900 ft., while the 
plain at their feet begins with an elevation of but 
2,624 ft. This mountain, rising gradually from the 
W. to E., is probably mentioned in the Bible, as J 








: : 103,88 Worausay, J = wo 01, S¢ $e 
eT ~ 2, Lm Sa " Pe 5 


— 
| 
Gur-18 

















QUSTATELY C= 


aodd | u010 9 -q79 Ose 


Yee UE ego 
TIME aor, 
nts le sade 


GSBE VETS 





5 3am 


. ea Bey \ ah hon a eiak, 
BI dja PTT < é » | <i anys eS U pr Z. IS . ‘ : IpeV e DV 
OUTUTY, yge \ : 5 4 & 4 + = Bp ip 42 








Rua 79 shy winy 


OS} ed iy uy woAty 





gon 


g 
ie 


Wi 
Pe Wi 
SH, rv Y 
SS 4 M, \ Stn 


z : JW, = \ yA. Sep 
AT 


a ae 





a 





Re 
yy & 
Wass 


s 
Ait 


oetyoyred 


2 See ; a .) vit sy: ie 
ae ee 7 Wveo QP. at ip 





SS NUUP 
i\ Jiiovuet BIlVsxZy 
we 

\ od ae ET 
DYLAZ -29 AYDNT 
6° ny2ys 


spy 219g 
sBjoyidep YDsTIUDT, 
elog ‘10g 


II dVIv 


10F oF8 q 108 8 


2 ae 


/ 


ot 
SSW JO 31vOS 


ae 18NY3 “SOIPRIT UT setTIEM UIOpoTT 


aVyoAS :snq3'edéy uvmoy ur seed jo somuu zueruy 


ANIELSH ITV d 


NOILLUOd TVULLNAD 





OR 86 


a> 
BS 


oy 
Ge) 





661 A NEW STANDARD 


G. Wetzstein has noted (Das Batandische Giebelge- 
birge, 1884). He compared the name ‘Zalmon’ (Ps 
68 14) with the mons Asalmanos (Ptol. V, 15) and the 
har gabnunnim, ‘mountain of gables’ (‘high moun- 
tain,’ Ps 68 16 f., ‘mountain of summits’ RVmg.), he 
identified with the gable-like peaks and volcanic cones 
of the Haurdén range. These ‘mountains of Bashan’ 
(Ps 68 15) were never in the possession of Israel, 
but the plain was; for this corresponds to the Bashan 
of the O T (usually habbdshan), Gr. Bac&v, Bacavitte, 
Batavéx. The region seems then to have possessed 
other characteristics than it does now. We hear 
nothing of the rich produce of agriculture which is 
now reaped yearly, but, on the contrary, of strong, 
fat cattle (Am 41; Dt 32 14; Ps 22 12), and of the 
beautiful oaks (Is 2 13; Ezk 27 6), and even of lions 
and leopards which had their haunts in Bashan 
(Dt 33 22; Song 4 8). The wild beasts have long 
since disappeared from this region, and unfortunately 
the forests also, remnants only of which exist now 
in upper Jdldén. While in the O T Bashan is usually 
associated with pasture-lands (Jer 50 19; Mic 7 14), 
to-day it is mostly under the plow. This change was 
brought about by Herod the Great, to whom the 
emperor Augustus, in 23 B.c., handed over this 
region, ordering him to drive out the ‘robbers’ 
(t.e., Bedawin) (Jos. Ant. XV 10 3; XVI 9 2; XVII 
21f.). In the O T, Bashan denotes a region 
larger than the modern Nukra. It lay be- 
tween Hermon on the N. and Gilead on the S. 
and between Edrei (mod. Der‘d) and Salcha (Sal- 
khad) on the E. (Dt 3 8 ff.), yet so that the districts 
Geshur and Maacha lay W. of Bashan, between it 
and the Sea of Gennesaret (Jos 13 11-13). To the E. 
and §. the limits of the level volcanic region are, of 
course, unchangeable. To the E. were the ‘moun- 
tains of Bashan’ (Ps 68 15, mod. Jebel Haurdn), and 
to the 8. began the steppe (mod. el-Hamdd) sharply 
distinguished from the volcanic region by its bright 
yellow soil. But to the N. and W. the Bashan of the 
O T covered more territory than the mod. Nukra. 
Cf. G. Schumacher, Across the Jordan (1886); Das 
stidliche Basan (1897). 


(b) S. of the Yarmik lies the second part of the E. 
Jordan land, the ‘Ajlin, approximately bounded on 
the E. by the 36th parallel E. long., and reaching 
S. as far asthe Nahr ez-Zerka, the Jabbok of the O T. 
In the first place, something must be said of the 
Yarmik, the large river to the N. It drains a very 
large territory. From el-Jédir in the NE. to the 
Lej& and Jebel Haurdn in the E. and as far as the 
steppe el-Hamdd and the district es-Suwét in the 
SE., all watercourses unite in this river, which swells 
to a great stream after a rainy winter, tho in 
summer it is nothing remarkable. From Jélan 
come the Wddy er-Rukkdd and the Nahr el-‘ Allan. 
The Wddy el-Ehrér, forming the upper course of 
the Yarmik, takes its rise in Jédir. The Wddy 
el-Bajje gives an outlet to the Bahrat el-Bajje, an old 
sea of small area with an inhabited island in it, near 
el-Muzérib, and unites with the Wady ed-Dahab near 
Tell esh-Shthab. From the SE. the deep and im- 
posing Wddy esh-Shellale winds with many turns 
through the plateau, taking the name Wady Waran 
in its upper course. On the lower course of the 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine 


Yarmik, about 7 to 10 m. from its junction with the 
Jordan, lies the remarkable little plain of el-Hammi 
(577 ft. below the sea), mostly on the right bank, 
in which there are six hot springs, each differert 
from the other in the character and temperature of 
its water (Z DPV, 1887, X, 59 ff.). 

The ridge of the plateau lies some distance to the 
BK. It rises from el-Husn (2,204 ft.) southward and 
the heights of Ras Imnif, Ras el-Fanadik, and el- 
Menara indicate the line of watershed between the 
valleys that slope toward the Jordan and the tribu- 
taries of the Yarmik that flow northward. This 
range, called Jebel ‘Ajlin, is still well-wooded, the 
thick growth of oaks and firs being in some places 
impenetrable, while the soil is covered with moss. 
To the E. lies an undulating hilly region 7-9 m. in 
breadth, which slopes away from Zell el- Khandsire 
and the more southerly Rihdb (the Rehob of II S 
10 6, 8) toward the steppe el-Hamdd on the one side, 
and on the other from Kafkafa to the Jabbok. This 
district is called Bildd es-Suwét and is to-day still 
in the possession of the Bedawin (the Beni Hasan), 
but in the time of the Romans and in the first cen- 
turies of Mohammedan rule it was a stable seat of 
civilization, well-protected by roads and fortifica- 
tions. The western foothills of Jebel ‘Ajlin sink, at 
first gradually, toward the Jordan and comprise 
many fertile, well-cultivated districts, e.g., at ‘Ajlin 
on the Wddy ‘ Ajlin, where the olive thrives remark- 
ably and where there are also many small clumps of 
wood. The slopes near the Jordan are mostly tree- 
less, in some spots (as near Mukés [Gadara]) well- 
cultivated, in others steep and rocky. Streams of 
some importance are to be found only in the S. 
Wady el- Yabis, W. Kafrinji, and W. Rajib; they 
carry their water into the Jordan. From Sdakib on- 
ward the above-mentioned ridge runs SW. and W. 
under the name Jebel Mi‘rad. To the S. it falls pre- 
cipitously toward the Jabbok and to the W. toward 
the Jordan. On its N. side, 2 m. SE. of Rajib 
(Ragaba), are the remains of old iron-works (Mu- 
gharat el-Warda), which remind one of the Iron 
Mountain of Josephus (BJ, IV, 8 2). Cf. C. Steuer- 
nagel, Der ‘Adschliin (1925). 

(c) The third part of the E. Jordan land is the 
Belka, between the Jabbok and the Wddy el-M 6jib 
(the Arnon) totheS. (d) A fourth part (the modern 
administrative district el-Kerak) lies between the 
Arnon and the Wddy el-Ahsé (Hasé) inthe 8. The 
northern part of the Belka@ is taken up by Jebel 
Jil‘dd, the Mt. Gilead of the O T. It rises precipi- 
tously out of the Valley of the Jabbok and over the 
Jordan Valley, and contains a number of fertile 
plateaux, partly covered with woods, partly with 
fields and vineyards. Its highest point (3,597 ft.) is 
Jebel Osha‘ (Hosea; cf. Map III, J 4), near the Jordan 
Valley, from whose peak one may enjoy an instruc- 
tive view of the western range and its slope to the 
Jordan. To the E. of it is a small plain, el-Buké‘a 
(2,000 ft. above the sea), nestled in the mountain 
region, which is drained into the Jabbok by deep 
valleys. To the SE., Mt. Gilead rises to the high 
watershed on which the springs of the Jabbok are 
found. It runs by the ruins Ajbehat (Jogbeha, 
Jg 811, 3,433 ft.) through the old Ammonite territory 


Palestine A NEW STANDARD 





from N. to S. This ridge sends its brooks to the 
Jordan, partly through the Wady Shu‘éb, which leads 
down from Jebel Osha‘, and partly through the 
Wady Sir, which unites with the Wddy Hesban 
(Heshbon) andentersthe Jordan plain at Tell Kefrén, 
opposite Jericho. The ridge continues S. to Ma‘in 
(Baal Meon, Nu 82 38) and then, sinking to a level of 
2,853 ft., it divides between the short valleys, which 
run directly W. with a steep incline to the Jordan, 
and the longer valleys, which at first begin in broad 
troughs leading southward, and then unite in the 
Wady Zerké Ma‘%n, which cuts through the plateau 
with a deep gorge and breaks down into the Dead 
Sea at the hot springs Hammam ez-Zerka (the 
Callirhoé of Jos. BJ, I, 33 5). S. of Wddy Zerka 
Ma‘tn we lose trace of the ridge which we have fol- 
lowed in its tortuous course between the Jordan and 
the desert to the E., and to which the landscape 
owes its peculiar character. The plateau now has a 
different and much simpler aspect. It rises to the 
E. and forms a watershed on the other side of which 
the Arabian Desert begins—about 6 m. E. of the 
36th parallel. It is cut up by a large number of small 
wadys that soon unite to form larger valleys and 
finally meet in one main valley which leads through 
a deep gorge to the Dead Sea. The first of these 
main valleys in the Belkd, like the Yarmak and 
Jabbok in the N., is the Wddy el-Mojib, the Arnon 
of the O T. With its large northern tributary, the 
Wddy Heidan, or el-Wdle, it gathers the waters of 
the plateau W. of the desert from a region extending 
50 m. along the edge of the desert. 

The slope of the highlands toward the Dead Sea 
is extraordinarily steep along the northern half of the 
eastern shore. Between the rocks and the water 
there is not room for even a small foot-path. Since 
the crest of the range attains an elevation of from 
2,600 to 3,300 ft., the difference between it and the 
surface of the sea is anywhere from 3,900 to 4,600 ft. 
Near the low peninsula el-Lisdn the shore is wider. 
A road descends from the heights through a valley 
and leads along the beach, thence southward into 
the ‘Araba. The character of the plateau remains the 
same. 

Of the valleys which cut across it on their way to 
the salt sea, the most important are the Wddy el- 
Kerak, the Wady Numeéra, and the Wady el-Hasd, 
or Ahsd, which in its lower course is called Wady 
el-Kuraht. The last-named is to-day the boundary 
between the administrative district el-Kerak and 
Jibal to the 8. It was probably in ancient times the 
boundary between Moab to the N. and Edom to the 
S., and so identical with the ‘brook Zered’ (in its 
upper course, Dt 2 13 f.) and with the ‘brook of the 
willows’ (in its lower course; cf. Is 15 7). Cf. Al. 
Musil, Arabia Petrea, I, Moab, 1907). 


III. Grouoey. 


14. The Rocks. The rocks visible to-day belong 
generally to the upper chalk deposits, which are 
usually named Cenoman, Turon, and Senon. Some 
marbles are found, as the soft Rudist marble (Arab. 
malake) and harder Nerinean marble (Arab. mizzi 
helu, the Santa Croce marble). The formation of this 
mountain region took place, therefore, in the chalk 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 662 


period in the Tertiary Era. Older strata are met 
with E. of the Dead Sea, where the original break of 
the Jordan cleft is visible. Here is found the so 
called Nubian sandstone, and under it the permo- 
carbonic chalk and sandstone, and under this the 
crystalline old volcanic mountain-base, with streaks 
of porphyry and diorite. The flinty strata of the 
chalk were decomposed through the action of the 
water as early as the Tertiary Period, and cemented 
with a chalky shale. In this way the flinty breccia 
originated, which is frequently found as a surface 
formation near Jerusalem, in the Wilderness of 
Judah and in the ‘Ajlin, and is called ndrz by the 
Arabs, because of its fireproof qualities. It was in 
the Tertiary Period also that those outpourings of 
basalt took place which spread themselves over the 
higher parts of the chalky plateau and on the many 
isolated table-mountains. This was the origin of the 
basalt strata on the plateau E. of the Dead Sea, near 
Dibon and at Jebel Shihan, and of similar formations 
in the Plain of Esdraelon, and in Galilee, N. and NE. 
of Tabor, and in the neighborhood of Safed. Of 
later origin were the lava streams which flowed 
down toward the Jordan and Dead Sea in the furrow- 
like valleys, and have become to-day partly eroded 
by the water, as, for example, in the bed of the 
Yarmik. Now these furrow-like valleys did not 
come into existence prior to the origin of the Dead 
Sea (cf. § 12, above); if they have become the chan- 
nels for lava streams, then these must have occurred 
at a later date than that of the formation of the 
Dead Sea. Such eruptions took place in the later 
part of the Diluvian Era, and therefore probably 
after the beginning of the human epoch. It is 
likely that some of the extinct volcanoes of the E. 
Jordan land were still active in historical times, in 
the narrower sense. The earthquakes of which we 
hear in the history of the land were not the result of 
volcanic eruptions, but were due to structural 
changes—that is, to vibrations which originated in 
the displacement of sections of the crust of the earth 
near faults. Several earthquakes are mentioned in 
the Bible (IS 14 15; Am 11; cf. Zec 14 5; Mt 27 51), 
and the prophets frequently made use of such oc- 
currences in their representations of the Divine 
manifestations (Mic 1 3f.; Is 13 13, 2419 f.; ef. further 
C. Diener, Libanon, 1886, pp. 258 ff.). 


15. Minerals. The old iron-works at Rajib in the 
K. Jordan land (cf. § 13, above) show that iron was 
taken from this region in the early days. That 
mining was not unknown in Pal. is also evident from 
Dt 89 and Job 28 1-11, but that these passages have 
that specific locality in mind can not be proved. 
Whether it would be profitable at the present day to 
mine iron in this spot has not been investigated. In 
recent years attention has been drawn to the mineral 
treasures of the Dead Sea and its neighborhood, and 
it has been questioned whether it might not be 
profitable to develop these. The water of the sea 
contains, besides common salt, chlorid of potash, 
chlorid of magnesia, magnesium bromid, and iodid 
of potash. Occasionally, large quantities of asphalt 
appear on the surface. In the immediate neighbor- 
hood of the sea there are also found rock salt, chrome 
oxid, and pure sulfur; at some distance away, petro- 





663 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palestine 





leum, pure asphalt, and asphalt-lime. The ‘slime 
pits’ mentioned in Gn 14 10 are probably an indica- 
tion that in early times, through the action of sub- 
terranean forces, the diluvian deposits were broken 
through and petroleum and asphalt springs, or wells, 
appeared in the neighborhood. 


16. The Soil. The surface formation of limestone 
has long been subject to decomposition through the 
action of moisture and the atmosphere. The result 
is a red loamy soil, very rich and heavy. This is 
the specific virgin soil of the mountain-land. When 
it is adequately saturated with moisture, it gives a 
good yield in return for cultivation. In addition, 
there are a number of places (cf. §§ 9, 10, and 13, 
above) where the much richer volcanic soil occurs. 
Through the intense heat of midsummer the soil 
becomes very hard and cracked, and can be worked 
only after a thorough wetting. In the coast plain 
and the Jordan Valley there is considerable marl 
and sand. At the same time, the level districts of 
the coast are much more favorable for the produc- 
tion of humus than are the mountains. In the moun- 
tain region there is no great deposit of vegetable and 
animal material, which might be changed into 
humus through decomposition, and even if, in the 
autumn, some such material remains left upon the 
rocky surface, it is almost certain to be washed down 
in the winter by the heavy rains, to be deposited in 
part in the hollow places in the mountains, and in 
part in the deep valleys and low-lying plains. So 
it happens that in each year, with the wash from the 
mountain-sides, a great deal of fertile soil is brought 
down. In the E. Jordan land, in many places, con- 
ditions are more favorable for the formation of 
humus, as extensive wooded places still remain, and 
the surface rock is protected from erosion by the 
thick growth of the trees (cf. § 13 (b), above). 


IV. THe CuiMate. 


Since Pal. is situated between 31° and 33° N. lat., 
it belongs in general to the N. subtropic zone. The 
year divides itself naturally into a rainless, hot half 
and a rainy, cold half. The climate differs greatly in 
the different parts of the land. Along the coast it is 
milder and more uniform; in the mountain-land it is 
more severe and changeable. In the Jordan Valley 
it is nearly tropical, while in the E. Jordan land the 
greater distance from the sea and the nearness of the 
desert are important factors. Since we possess sat- 
isfactory meteorological observations for Jerusalem 
alone, we can apply the results of these only pro- 
visionally to the whole land. 

17. The Temperature. The mean annual tem- 
perature on the coast is 20.5° C. (68.9° F.), in Jerusa- 
lem only 17.1° C. (62.8° F.). The teraperature rises 
in the mountain region from April to May very 
rapidly from 14.7° C. (58.5° F.) to 20.7° C. (69.3° F.). 
It attains its greatest height in August, at 24.5° C. 
(76.1° F.). It falls in November to 15.5° C. (59.9° 
F.) and is lowest in February at 8.8° C. (47.8° F.). 
The hottest days, usually in May, June, and Sep- 
tember, reach a temperature in the shade of 37° C. 
(98.6° F.) to 44° C. (101.2° F.). The coldest, in 
January, have a temperature of —4° C. (24.8° F.). 
Frost and ice are seen every year in Jerusalem. The 


latter, however, rarely lasts the day through. The 
differences of temperature within a day are often 
considerable, greatest in the months May-October, 
12.8° C. (55° F.) to 18.1° C. (55.6° F.); smallest in 
December-February, 7.7° C. (46° F.) to 7.4° CG. 
(45.3° F.). The monthly mean is 22.2° C. (71.9° F.). 
The dangers arising from these changes are somewhat 
lessened by the fact that in the hottest months there 
is the least amount of moisture. 


18. The Winds. In the summer, especially in July 
and August, the so called passat wind (a northerly, 
sometimes NW., sometimes NE. wind) blows over 
Pal. It is a dry wind, as it comes from a cooler into 
a warmer latitude and tempers the heat. In 
September and October, also in the spring until May, 
heavy E. and SE. winds are frequent, which make 
the heat almost unbearable because of their lack of 
moisture. In October and November the so called 
antipassat wind comes up from the S., usually 
bringing with it, in Pal., as well as in other Mediter- 
ranean lands, abundant rains (§ 19, below), as it 
comes from a warmer into a cooler region. It con- 
tinues until April and May, when it retreats once 
more to the S. The antipassat is generally a W. or a 
SW. wind (cf. Lk 12 54). Of greatest importance for 
the W. Jordan land is the somewhat regular inter- 
change between land and sea winds, which shows it- 
self both in the yearly period and also in the course 
of each day. In the summer the hot air over the 
heated rocky land rises and flows into the upper 
regions of the atmosphere, toward the sea, while in 
its place comes the cooler air of the lower strata of 
the atmosphere from the sea to the land. In the 
winter, on the other hand, the sea sends to the land 
warm currents of air, the land sending its cooler air 
seaward. During each day also a similar exchange 
of atmospheric currents takes place. During the 
day warm currents flow seaward, while the cooler 
air of the sea comes over the land. In the night the 
reverse process takes place. In consequence of the 
meeting and interaction of these currents of air, at 
times violent whirlwinds arise. The E. and SE. 
winds are the ones most feared, since through their 
excessive dryness not only health is endangered and 
all growing things threatened (Ezk 17 10, 19 12), 
but also because of their violence, and in consequence 
of the dust and sand which they bring with them, 
they are actually destructive (Jer 18 17; Ezk 27 26; 
Job 1 19, 15 2; Heb. rtéiah gadhim, ‘east wind’; the 
word shirocco [sirocco] is derived from the Arab. 
esh-sharki, ‘easterly’). 


19. The Rainfall. The cooler rainy period of the 
year is that in which the antipassat wind prevails 
(§ 18). According to Biblical terminology, it is sub- 
divided into three periods: (1) The ‘early rain,’ Heb. 
yoreh and méoreh, Gr. xedinos (Ja 57), which, during 
October and November (December at the latest), 
makes the land moist, and thereby makes possible 
the beginning of the plowing. (2) The winter rain, 
Heb. geshem, heavy continuous rains, which soak the 
soil and fill the wells, cisterns, and pools. (3) The 
‘latter rain,’ Heb. malqdsh, which falls during the 
latter half of March until the middle of May, fer- 
tilizes the summer crops, and causes the grain to ear. 
The average yearly rainfall in Jerusalem is 581.9 


A NEW STANDARD 


Palestine 





mm. (22.93 in.). On the other hand, at Nazareth, 
about 60 m. farther N. and nearer the sea, it is 611.7 
mm. (24.10 in.). The rainy period is broken up by 
long seasons of drier weather, when, under the in- 
fluence of the warm rays of the sun, everything starts 
to grow. The words in Song 2 11 have reference to 
the cessation of the winter rain. In Jerusalem the 
entire rainfall takes place in 52.4 days, 67.5 per cent. 
being in the months of December and January alone, 
while from May to September no rain falls at all. 
Consequently, after May the dry and the hot season 
coincide, which is so unfavorable for the growth of 
vegetation that in midsummer all the smaller plants 
wither away. Some compensation is afforded by the 
dew. The sea wind (cf. § 18, above) contains so 
much moisture that not only in the spring but also 
even in September and October a heavy dew falls 
each night (Song 5 2; Job 2919). There is no dew, 
however, when the shirocco wind blows from the 
desert, as it dries up all the moisture in the atmos- 
phere (I K 171; Hag 110)... Thunder-storms do not 
occur when the passat winds blow, that is, in the 
summer-time. Thunder and rain during the wheat 
harvest, therefore, cause great terror (I S 12 17 f.). 
In the other months thunder-storms are not rare, 
frequently occurring in April and May. Snow 
(Heb. shelegh) is usual in winter among the moun- 
tains (II S 23 20). In the neighborhood of Jericho 
it is unknown. Hail (Heb. bdrddh) (Job 38 22; 
Hag 217f.) not unfrequently falls in the winter. 


Whether the climate of Pal. has altered during 
historical times is a much-discussed question. E. 
Huntington (Palestine and its transformation, 1911) 
holds that the climate of Pal. was subject to ‘pul- 
satory changes’ within the period of known history, 
with a general tendency towards increasing dryness. 
It appears doubtful, however, whether the reasons 
given for this view can be maintained. The state- 
ments of the Bible, taken as a whole, harmonize with 
the climatic conditions that obtain at the present 
day. In one respect, however, a change has taken 
place. The forests in the W. Jordan land have about 
completely disappeared. In the earliest times, how- 
ever, they were present here, as they are now in the 
E. Jordan land (ef. Jos 17 15; Jer 47, 29; Is 9 18; Ezk 
20 46f.; cf. also § 13, above). It is therefore probable 
that the periodic changes, from one season to the 
other, have suffered an alteration in the sense of 
greater contrasts than was the case formerly. 


20. Water-Supply. The one large river of Pal., 
the Jordan, because of the depth of its river-bed 
(see § 12, above), is of no significance for the irriga- 
tion of the land. This, however, is not the case 
with the waters of its tributaries, where they come 
down from the mountains into the lower and more 
level parts of the Jordan Valley, e.g., E. of Jordan, 
the Yarmiuk, the Nahr ez-Zerkad, and the Wady 
Kefrén (or Hesbén); and W. of the Jordan, the 
Nahr Jalid, Wady Far‘a and others. This was the 
case in ancient times to a much higher degree than 
it is at present, as is evidenced by the ruins of exten- 
sive water-works in Bethshan, in the Waddy Far‘a, 
and at Jericho. The practise of constructing dams 
and using the water for irrigation purposes is presup- 
posed as well-known even in the O T (Is 7 3; Ezk 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


664 


177, 314; Ps 1 3, 6510, 10410; Ec 2 6; Sir 24 42). The 
remaining rivers of Pal. traverse the coast-plain, 
the subsoil of which is filled with water and needs 
drainage rather than irrigation (cf. § 11, above). 
The highland is almost exclusively dependent upon 
the rainfall (cf. § 19, above), and on springs. The 
latter are not found distributed evenly over the 
mountain region. They are numerous in Upper 
Galilee, on the S. and SE. edges of the Plain of 
Hsdraelon and near Shechem. The southern part of 
the mountain country is poor in springs of any size. 
Not until we reach Hebron do we find them becom- 
ing more general, whence they flow northward into 
the Wddy el-‘Arrab and into the Wddy ed-Dilbe to 
the SW. It is seldom that a spring is well walled up, 
e.g., the one at Nazareth, altho remains of old 
structures are frequently found near springs. At the 
present day they are also furnished with few con- 
veniences, sometimes an old sarcophagus being used 
as a drinking-trough. Throughout the history of 
the land, both in peace and war, the springs have 
played an important réle. Whoever had possession 
of them was master of the land. It is evident from 
what has been said that the water-supply from 
springs—that is to say, from the rainfall stored in 
underground recesses—is quite insufficient. Since 
at the present day practically no provision at all is 
made for collecting the rain-water on the surface, 
either by dams or in pools, the water for the most 
part runs away uncared for. Consequently, droughts 
and failures of the harvests are not rare in Pal., and 
if rain is delayed for a long period, many springs 
become dry. This explains why in the O T so much 
is said of drought and famine in the land of Israel 
(IS 211;1 K171#.; Am 47 4.; Jer 14 2-6; Hag 
16,9,216f.). The praise of the land as abundantly 
watered (Dt 8 7) is justified, when it is contrasted 
with the desert; nevertheless the characterization of 
it as entirely dependent on the rainfall (Dt 11 10-12) 
is altogether more correct. The well-known ex- 
pression ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ (Ex 
3 8, 17, 13 5; Nu 13 27, 148, etc.) does not signify the 
abundant return a land yields for its cultivation, for 
the honey spoken of is the honey of the wild bees 
(IS 14 25 £.; Dt 32 13; Mk 1 6), and milk is more 
closely connected with the pastoral pursuits. The 
expression probably refers to certain natural char- 
acteristics of the land, not to results brought about 
by the cultivation of the soil. It seems to have 
been used also of other lands (Nu 16 13), and prob- 
ably was derived originally from a mythological 
source (cf. H. Usener in Rheinisches Museum fiir 
Philologie, 1902, Bd. 57, pp. 177-195). 





V. Frora. 


The great variations in the character of the soil, 
in the distribution of water, and in temperature 
result in a correspondingly great variety in the forms 
and kinds of flora. In the lower Jordan Valley and 
by the Dead Sea, along with the subtropical flora, 
tropical plants are also found, as well as plants that 
belong to the steppe and desert. The fact that the 
greater part of the rainfall is limited to a few months, 
mainly December and January, and that in the 
following period, from May to December, there is. 


665 


a 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palestine 





little rain and the heat is intense, is not at all 
favorable to the flourishing growth of vegetation. 
The variegated verdure which covers the land in the 
spring months of February and March lasts but a 
little while. For months the landscape is a monot- 


onous gray, especially in the southern hill region of 
the W. Jordan land. 





Terebinth-Tree. 


21. Trees and Shrubs. The small forests that 
exist to-day W. of the Jordan, on Carmel and Tabor, 
and in Upper Galilee, give no sure ground for con- 
clusions concerning the appearance and condition of 
the wooded regions in earlier times in this part of 
Pal. (see § 19, above). The wooded regions of the 
H. Jordan land (see § 13, above) are evidence of 
what the condition once was throughout the land. 
The individual trees of these forests are not very 
high or large, nor do they stand very close together. 
The leaf-bearing trees show little of their stems, since 
the leafy branches begin generally but a little way 
from the ground. Where lofty trees are found, there 
is almost no low-growing copse or undergrowth. 
This is found most frequently on the edges of the 
forest, or in places where the trees are fewer and on 
the sides of ravines. The coniferous trees have a 
visible stem with almost no lower branches. A 
forest of leaf-bearing trees consists of several kinds 
of oak, the Prickly Evergreen, or Scarlet Oak 
(Quercus pseudococcifera), Arab. Sindjan, and the 
Valonia-oak (Quercus Agilops), Arab. Mellil, also 
Ballat (or ‘Afs); also of the Terebinth (Pistacia 
Terebinthus), Arab. Butm; the Mastic-tree (Pistacia 
Lentiscus) ; the Strawberry-tree (Arbutus Unedo and 
Arbutus andrachne), Arab. Kékab; the Wild Locust- 
tree (St. John’s-Bread) (Ceratonia Siliqua), Arab. 
Kharrib; the Nettle- or Lotus-tree (Celtis australis 
[and Lotus Zisyphus, Job 40 21 f.}), Arab. Més; the 
Wild Oil-tree—not the Olive, but the Oleaster—and 
the Oil-willow (Eleagnus angustifolia; cf. I K 6 23; 
Neh 8 15; Is 41 9). The coniferous trees are repre- 
sented by several varieties of Fir, Arab. Sndbar 
(Pinus Halepensis), especially the Carica. More 
rare is the Cypress (Cupressus sempervirens, or 





horizontalis). The leafy trees mentioned above are 
found frequently as shrubs, and often, as brushwood, 
cover wide stretches of territory, e.g., on the upper 
W addy el-‘ Arraib N. of Hebron, and on Mounts Tabor 
and Carmel. It is not improbable that this brush- 
wood is the survival of earlier forests. There are 
also found the Phillyrea media, the Storax (Styraz 
officinalis), the Blackthorn and Whitethorn, the 
Judas-tree (Cercis Siliquastrum), the Rock-rose 
(Cistus Creticus), the Furze (Genista), the Laurel, the 
Myrtle, the Caper-bush (Capparis spinosa), and 
many kinds of Willow, Arab. Safsadf. Along the 
brooks the Oleander and the Vitex Agnus-castus— 
the Abraham-tree—are frequently found. 

Of these trees and shrubs not many find mention 
in the O T. The names for oaks and terebinths 
occur frequently, but it is difficult to distinguish 
closely between them. Perhaps the words ’élah and 
’allah generally signify Terebinth, while ’élon and 
’allon mean the Oak. By b*rdsh the Cypress was 
meant. By ‘éts shemen is meant the Oil-willow (see 
above). It is remarkable that we can not certainly 
identify the old names for the Fir or Pine. Probably 
the tidhhar or t’ashshir (Is 41 19), signifies these 
varieties. From this example it is evident how little 
we can learn from the O T itself of many things 
once existing in ancient Pal. Libhneh signifies the 
Poplar; ‘armén the Plane-tree (or Maple?). Of 
shrubs, the resinous varieties are mentioned in the 
OT. The Balsam, tsd77 (Gn 37 25), is either to be 
identified with the Pistacia Lentiscus or the Styrax 
Officinalis. The Tragacanth (Heb. n°kéth) was the 
exudate of the many Astragalus varieties, and the 
Ladanum (Heb. lét) the fragrant resin of the Rock- 
rose (Cistus). In the Lebanon and Antilebanon 





regions there are found several varieties of Juniper, 
while in the E. Jordan land and in Galilee the Junt- 
perus excelsa and Oxycedrus are found. Of Thorns 
the O T gives us so many names that it is impossible 
to identify them certainly with any of the many 
varieties which are now found in the land. 

The Jordan depression contains few trees, but 


Palestine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


666 





shrubs are more numerous. The low thorny Acacia 
is represented by two varieties, the Acacia tortilis, 
Arab. Hs-Sant, and the Ac. Seyal, Arab. Seydl. 
Thorn-shrubs, which grow as large as trees, are 
represented by the Zizyphus Spina-Christi, the 
Zizyphus Lotus, Arab. Sidr, and by the Crategus 
Monogyna, Arab. Sarir. Both bear edible fruit. 
Another spiny shrub is the Balanites Aigyptiaca, 
Arab. zakkim, from the walnut-like fruit of which 
the Arabs prepare the so called Zaccheus-Oil, which 
they sell to travelers as Balsam of Jericho, hence the 
name False Balsam-tree. On the eastern side of the 
lower Jordan and near En-gedi, the Apple of Sodom 
grows—the Calotropis procera, Arab. ‘Oschr—whose 
beautiful fruit breaks with slight pressure and, to 
one’s surprize, is found to be entirely hollow (cf. 
Wis 106 and Jos. BJ, IV, 8 4). The Juniper-bush 
(I K 19 4) (Retama Retam) attains a height of more 
than 10 ft. In the neighborhood of water one meets 
with beautiful Tamarisks, and the banks of the 
Jordan (ez-Z6r; cf. § 12, above) have a thick growth 
of Poplar (Populus Euphratica), Arab. Gharab, 
which grows only in a tropical climate, of Tamarisks, 
of the willow-like Vitex Agnus-castus, Arab. Rish- 
rash, and of many varieties of Reeds (Juncus and 
Arundo). The vegetation of the steppes is found not 
only in the Jordan Valley, but also in the Negeb 
(cf. § 6, above) and in the Desert of Judah (cf. § 7, 
above). 

(The following list contains the names, Hebrew or 
Greek, and English, of all the trees and shrubs men- 
tioned in the Bible. The botanical identifications 
are taken mainly from Tristram, The Natural His- 
tory of the Bible (188058). 


Acacia, shittah (Ex 25 5, etc., shittim AV), Acacia Seyal (in the 
Arab. desert); A. farnesiana, A. serissa, and A. tortilis (in 
Palestine). 

Almond: (1) laz (Gn 30 3; ‘hazel’ AV). 
(2) shagédh. See ALMOND. 

Almug and Algum, ’algimim (I K 10% #-; II Ch 2 8 9 10), 
Uncertain, Sandalwood? 

Aloes. See ALozs. 

Apple, tapptiah, probably the Apricot. 

Ash, ’dren (Is 44 14, ‘fir’ RV), species uncertain. 

Balm, tsdri (Gn 37 *%, etc.). The fragrant gum of perhaps 
several different trees. 

Bay-tree. See BAyY-TREE. 

Box, ¢’ashshiir (Is 41 1, 60 13; Ezk 27 6). Some variety of 
Cedar or Cypress is probably meant, but the Box is pos- 
sible. 

Broom. See Juniper (below). 

Camphire. See Henna (below). 

Cassia: (1) qiddah. See Ornrments aNnD Prrrumess, § 1. 
(2) getsi‘ah (Ps 45 8). The Arab. Cassia (Laurus cassia). 

Cedar, ’erez. See Crpar. 

Chestnut. See PLANE-TREE (below). 

Cinnamon, ginndmén. See OINTMENTS AND Prrrumgs, § 1. 

Cypress: (1) berdsh. See Fir (below). (2) tirzah (Is 44 14, 
‘holm-tree’ RV), meaning uncertain. 

Ebony, hobhnim (Ezk 27 15), 

Elm. See Oak (below). 

Fig, ténah, c0xoyv, Ficus carica. 

Fir: (1) berdth and berdsh. Probably the Cypress is meant. 
(2) ’oren (Is 44 14, ‘ash’ AV), meaning uncertain. 

Frankincense, lebhénah. See OrnrMENTS AND PrerFuMss, § 2. 

Gopher-wood, gopher (Gn 6 14). Probably some variety of 
Pine or Fir. 

Grape. See VINES AND VINTAGE. 

Hazel, liz (Gn 30 3 AV); cf. ALMOND (above). 

Heath, ‘ar‘ar (Jer 17 6, ‘tamarisk’ RVmg. 48 6). See Juniper 
(below); also see Hearn. ; 

Henna, kopher (Song 1 14, 4 13; ‘camphire’ AV), Lawsonia 
tnermis. 

Holm. See Cypress (above). 


Meaning uncertain. 


Husks, the pods of the Locust- or Carob-tree. 

Juniper: (1) réthem (I K 19 4, etc., ‘broom,’ Job 30 4 RV). (2) 
‘ar‘ar. See Hwatu. 

Mulberry, bakha’ (bekha@’im, pl. IL S 5 23), meaning uncertain, 
perhaps the Trembling Poplar or Aspen. 

Myrrh, mor (Ps 45 8; Pr 7 17; Song 1 }%, etc.), Balsamodendron 
Myrrha. See OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, § 2. 

Myrtle, hadhas (Neh 8 15, etc.) Myrtus communis. 

Nut: (1) ’éghéz (Song 6"). The Walnut (Juglans regia). (2) 
botnim (Gn 43 4). The Pistachio-nut. 

Oak: (1) ‘allah, ’élah, ’éldn, and ’allén. Various species of Oak 
or Terebinth. (2) ’élah (Is 6 13, ‘teil-tree’? AV; Hos 4 13, 
‘elm’ AV). The word may be used generically, but the 
Teil or Terebinth is probably meant. 

Oil-tree, ‘éiz shemen (Is 41 }9, etc.; cf. Neh 8 18 AV). 
the Oleaster. 

Olive, zayith, Olea Europea. 

Olive, Wild, dyetéAatos (Ro 11"). 

tree. 

Palm-Tree, ‘amar, ootvé, Phenix dactylifera. 

Pine, tidhhar (Is 41 , 60 1%), meaning uncertain. 
the Elm. 

Plane-tree, ‘armon (Gn 30 37; Ezk 31 8, ‘chestnut’ AV), Platanus 
orientalis. 

Pomegranate, rimmén, Punica granatum. 

Poplar, libhneh (Gn 30 *%7; Hos 4 13), Styraz officinalis (?). 

Shittah-tree, shittim. See Acacia. 

Spice, Spicery: (1) basdm, besem, bosem. See OrIntTMaNTS AND 
PrerruMes, § 1. (2) sammin. Sen OINTMENTS AND 
PrerruMes § 1. (38) nekhd’th (Gn 37 *, etc.). The gum 
of the Astragalus tragacantha and perhaps of other varieties 
of Astragalus. 

Stacte, ndtaph (Ex 30 34). The gum of the Storax. See O:nt- 
MENTS AND PERFUMES, § 2. 

Sycamine, cuxkutvog (Lk 17 6), the Black Mulberry (Morus 
nigra). 

Sycamore, shigmah, suxowoeéa (Lk 194). Ficus Sycomorus. 

Tamarisk, ’éshel Gn 21 33, ‘grove’ AV; IS 22 6, 31 13, ‘tree’ 
AV). Tamariz gallica and T. pallasii. 

Teil-tree. See Oak (above). 

Terebinth (or Oak), ’élah (Smee Oak, above). 

Thick trees, ‘étz ‘adbhéth (Lv 23 4°, etc.), 7.¢., ‘trees with thick ~ 
or abundant foliage.’ 

Thyine, 0Uivoc (Rev 18 12), called Citrus (Citrinus) by the 
Romans (used for incense on account of its odor, and also 
for inlaying). 

Vine. See VINES AND VINTAGE. 

Walnut. See Nut (above). 

Willow: (1) ‘drabhah (Lv 23 4, etc.), not the Willow, but a 
species of White Poplar (Populus euphratica) is meant. 
(2) tsaphtsaphah (Ezk 17 5), generic term. FE. KE. N 


Probably 
The ungrafted Olive- 


Perhaps 


22. Grasses and Smaller Plants. Meadows in the 
narrower sense of the word—that is, well-defined 
districts covered with grasses such as are found in 
more northern latitudes—are not met with in Pal. 
The nearest to anything of this kind is the district 
along the middle Kishon, at the western end of the 
Plain of Esdraelon (cf. § 9, above). Here in former 
times every year grass was mowed for the use of the 
Turkish cavalry, but, on account of the marshy soil, 
the hay is of little worth. Smaller patches of 
meadow are given over to grazing, so that the grass 
does not attain its full growth. Many places of this 
sort are found in the Plain of Sharon. Near brooks, 
rivers, and marshes many varieties of Cane and 
Reeds are found. Particularly interesting is the 
Papyrus antiquorum, which still grows in Pal. near 
the Sea of Gennesaret and Lake Hile, and in the 
Plain of Sharon, while it has completely disappeared 
from Egypt. Large areas of land, both in the plain 
as well as on the mountains W. and E. of the Jordan, 
are clothed in the spring with the beautiful green 
verdure of the perennial grasses. Many different 
varieties mingle together and are interwoven every- 
where with the variegated colors of a large number 
of herbs and flowers. This is the glorious spring 


667 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palestine 





beauty of the land, which unfortunately lasts but a 
little while. In June, or in July at the latest, it 
fades away under the rays of the sun, or because of 
the hot desert winds. Liliacew, Umbellifere, Legu- 
minose, and Labiate are represented by many 
varieties. Hyacinths, Ranunculi, Tulips, Anemones 
(Anemone coronaria), and Adonis Roses (Adonis 
palestine), Sword Lilies, Geraniums, and the 
Orchis mingle their various flowers in striking colors. 
The ‘rose’ of Song 21, Heb. hdabatstseleth, is probably 
the Colchicum autumnale (according to some the 
Narcissus Tazetta). By the term shéshannah we 
should hardly understand the White Lily (Lilium 
candidum), rather the Iris, so common in Pal. (cf. 
ZDPYV, xxi, 1 sq.). The Rose of Jericho (Sir 24 18 
[14]) may possibly be the real rose, which was first 
introduced in Pal. probably during the Persian or 


Greek Era, but the Syriac translation reads instead © 


the Oleander. What is called to-day ‘Rose of 
Jericho’ is a very homely crucifer, an Anastatica 
hierochuntina, which, with moisture prevailing, 
opens, and, with dryness, closes the petals of its 
corona. In the Middle Ages the Asteriscus pygmeus 
was probably considered the Rose of Jericho. 

(The following list contains the names, Hebrew or 
Greek, and English, of all the smaller wild or un- 
cultivated herbs and plants mentioned in the Bible. 
The botanical identifications are taken mainly from 
Tristram, op. cit. 


Bramble. See THorns AND TuIsTLEs (1), below. 

Brier. See THORNS AND THISTLES (8)-(10), below. 

Bulrush, gome’. See REEp (2), below. 

Calamus, gdneh (gq. bésem or hattdbh), Acorus calamus. See 
OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, § 1. 

Caper-berry, ‘dbhiyyoénah (Ec 12 5 RVmg.). 
Mepicine, § 3. 

Cockle, ba’shah (Jok 31 4°), generic term for weeds (so RVmg.). 

Coriander, gadh (Ex 16 31), Coriandrum sativum. 

Flag. See Reep (4), (5), below. 

Galbanum, helbenah (Ex 30 44), 


See DisEASE AND 


See OINTMENTS AND PER- 
FUMES, § 2. 

Gall, rd’sh. See Gauu. 

Gourd, Wild, pagqi‘ah 
(II K’4 %). The Colo- 
cynth or perhaps the 
Squirting Cucumber. 

Grass (Hay), hdtsir. See 
GRASS. 

Hemlock. See GAtu. 

Hyssop, ’éz6bh, meaning 
uncertain; perhaps 
the Caper (Capparis 


spinosa). See Hys- 
SOP. 

Ladanum. See Mrrru 
(below). 


Lily, shishan, shéshan- 
nah, xelvoy; generic 
term for a number of 
flowers: Lilies, Irises, 
etc. 

Mallows. See Saur- 
wort (below). 

Mandrake, didhay, 
Mandragora officina- 
lis. See DiseasH AND 
MepIctIng, § 3. 

Myrrh, lé6t (Gn 37 2, 
431). Ladanum (the 
exudation of the Cis- 
tus villosus). See also 
§ 21 (above). 

Nettles: (1) gimmosh (Pr 24 3° £., ‘thorns’; Is 34 13; Hos 9 8). 

The Sting-nettle ( Urtica pilulifera). (2) hadril (Pr 24 31; 





The Mandrake. 


Job 380 7; Zeph 2 %) The Prickly Acanthus (7), Wild 
Vetches (RVmg.). 

Papyrus, gdme’. See Reep (2), below. 

Reed: (1) qdneh (‘stalk’), xkAauo¢ (I K 14 % ete.). Ge- 
neric term. (2) géme’ (Ex 2 3, ‘bulrushes’; Job 8 ™ and 
Is 35 7, ‘rush’; Is 18 2, ‘papyrus’ RV, ‘bulrush’ AV). The 
papyrus. (3) ’drah (Is 19 7, meadowls], RV correctly). 
(4) "aha (Gn 41 2 18, ‘reed-grass’ RV, ‘meadow’ AV; Job 
8 1, ‘flag’?). The Edible Rush or the Flowering Rush. 
(5) siph (Ex 2 3, 5, ete., ‘flags’; Jon 2 5, ‘weeds,’ i.e., Sea- 
weed). A generic term for marsh and sea vegetation. 


(6) ’agmén (Job 41 29; Is 9 14, 19 15, all ‘rush’; Is 58 5, ‘rush’ 
Arundo Donaz. 


RY, ‘bulrush’ AV Jn 51 32), 







: separ cea gy Piet SFA 3 Cian 
AAO 9 9s ence Nines Tyan yi), cy leanne CCT ee 
’ i b yy fj AK vend Uy e,, 

' ° 


PIE: 
a, 


Ainge 


5 


The Papyrus Plant. See ReEp (2), above. 

Rose, hdbhatstseleth (Song 2}; Is 35 1), meaning uncertain; per- 
haps the Sweet-scented Narcissus. 

Rue, tnyYavoy (Lk 11 42). Generic term (Rutacee). 

Rush. See Rep (2), (4), (6). 

Saltwort, malliah (Job 30 4, ‘mallows’ AV). 

Sodom, Vine of (Dt 32 12). 
above) is meant. 

Sweet Cane. See CaLamus. 

Tare(s), GtGavtov. Bearded Darnel. 

Thorns and Thistles: (1) ’atadh (Jg 9 14 f-, ‘bramble’; Ps 58 9, 
‘thorn’). Rhamnus Europeum. (2) hoah (II K 14 Y, etc., 
‘thorn,’ or ‘thistle’; Is 34 13, ‘bramble’ AV), Generic term 
for Thistle. (3) dardar (Gn 3 18; Hos 10 8, ‘thistle’) 
totBoAos in Mt 7 16.fProbably the Star-thistle. (4) hédheg 
(Pr 15 ¥, ‘thorns’; Mic 7 4, ‘brier’), meaning uncertan; 
perhaps the Solanum Sanctum. (5) qéts (Gn 3 38, ete, 
‘thorns’), &*avOain N .T Generic term for Thorn-plants. 
(6) shamir (Is 5 §, etc., ‘brier’). A generic term for Thorn- 
plants. (7) na‘dtsiis (Is 7 1, 55 18, ‘thorn-hedge’). The 
Thorn-tree or Sidra. (8) barganim (Jg 8 7 16, ‘briers’), 
meaning uncertain. (9) sillén (Ezk 2 §, 28 24, ‘briers’), 
meaning uncertain. (10) sirpadh (Is 55 13, ‘brier’), mean- 
ing uncertain. .(11) sir, ‘thorn’ (Ec 7 8, etc.). (12) tstin, 
‘thorn’ (Job 5 5; Pr 22 5). 

Wormwood, la‘dnah, &tvOocg. Generic term (Artemisia). See 
WoRMWOOD. 


23. Fruits and Garden Products. In almost all 
localities of Pal., whether in the mountains or on the 
coast-plain, one meets with gardens and groves of 
fruit-trees, altho there is a great difference7in the 
varieties of plants and the general appearance 
between those on the coast and those on the moun- 


Atriplex halimus. 
Perhaps the Wild Gourd (see 


Palestine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


668 





tains. The famous gardens of Joppa are mostly 
devoted to Oranges, Citrons, Bitter- and Mandarin- 
oranges. More rarely does one see Almonds, 
Peaches, Bananas, and Dates. Of the numerous 
varieties of Agrumi which are met with to-day, even 
in the gardens of the mountain-land, none are men- 
tioned in the Bible. It is only in the late Jewish 
tradition that the expression ‘the fruit of goodly 
trees’ (Lv 23 40) is applied to the citron (Citrus 
medica, Heb. ‘etrogh, Arab. trunj). The date attains 
its fullest maturity and beauty in the region of Gaza. 
It ripens indeed near Joppa and Haifa, but the 
quality is somewhat inferior. Josephus extols the 
dates of Jericho (BJ, IV, 8 2f.). At present only a 
few comparatively young trees are found there, 
which were planted about forty years ago by the 
Russians in the garden of their hospice. On the 
other hand, palms are frequently met with along the 
E. bank of the Dead Sea at the mouths of streams. 
On the mountains the Palm is only for ornamental 
purposes, as its fruit does not ripen, altho 
Josephus speaks of palms as common in the Plain of 
Gennesaret (BJ, III, 108). Of late years the interior 
of the country E. of Haifa on the road to Nazareth 
has been largely planted with Mulberry-trees (Morus 
alba) for the purposes of silk culture. The blood-red 
juice of the fruit of the Morus nigra is mentioned in 
I Mac 6 34; this tree is now represented by individual 
specimens throughout the land. The Mulberry Fig 
—the Sycamore—was common in ancient Israel, 
not only in the Shephelah (I K 10 27), but also 
among the mountains (Am 7 14;Is910). To-day it is 
more rare, tho not entirely absent in the mountain 
region. Its wood rather than its fruit is prized, as 
is the case also with the St. John’s-tree (Lk 15 16). 


In the mountains the Olive-tree is the prevailing 
tree (e.g., the Mount of Olives near Jerusalem). 
Exceptionally extensive groves are found near 
Hebron, Bet Jala and Bethlehem, in the neighbor- 
hood of Jerusalem, near ‘Ain Karim and Bét 
Hanina, near Jifné and Sinjil, near Nadbulus, and in 
the region of Haifa. The most beautiful olive-trees 
to be seen are in the E. Jordan land near ‘Ajliin. In 
Pal. the cultivation of this tree is very remunerative, 
and Syria is probably the home of the olive. The 
Fig-tree is also found more frequently in the moun- 
tains than in the plains. It is not usually found in 
great numbers in any one place, tho this is the case 
between Bethel and Ndbulus, also near Bethlehem 
and Siloah. Usually single trees of this variety are 
found in the garden or near the house (cf. I K 4 25 
[5 5]). It is remarkable for its vitality. With these 
trees it is usual also to find Pomegranates (Heb. 
rimmon, Arab. rummdan), the fruit of which attains 
in Syria an extraordinary size. Near Kefr Kenna, 
NE. of Nazareth, there is a beautiful orchard con- 
sisting entirely of pomegranate-trees. The Walnut- 
tree is found particularly near Hebron and Ndbulus, 
the Quince near Hebron, Jerusalem, and Nazareth. 
The Apricot is not common, and our more common 
fruits, Apples, Pears, Cherries, and Plums, are also 
rare, tho the pear is found near Artés and Mount 
Carmel. 


A characteristic of the borders of the gardens, 
especially in the plains, is the Cactus Fig (Cactus 


opuntia), a native of America. This plant forms an 
impenetrable hedge with its broad, prickly leaves 
and branches, and from July to September it bears a 
quantity of sweet and nourishing fruit. Vegetables 
can be grown in gardens only in case they are con- 
stantly watered during the hot summer. This has 
been the custom in Pal. from earliest times (cf. § 20, 
above) not only with gardens, but also with fields. 
The most common garden vegetables are the follow- 
ing: Watermelons (Arab. battikh; cf. Nu 115), which 
are profitably cultivated in the German colony at 
Sorona and to the N. at Hl-Mukhdlid; Cucumbers, 
both the larger and smaller varieties, are grown in 
great quantities. The smaller ones (Arab. khiydr), 
eaten raw, are great favorites with the Arabs. Para- 
dise Apples (Arab. banddra), Mallows (Arab. 
bamiye, Hibiscus esculentus), the Eggplant (Me- 
longena, Arab. bddinjan), Onions, and Garlic are 
very common. Cauliflower, Lettuce, and Radishes 
do well. More rare are Turnips (Arab. lift), Carrots 
(jezar), Rutabagas (shamander), Kohlrabi, and 
Spinach. The green Wild Asparagus receives only 
slight attention. Anise, Mustard, Flax, Hemp, 
Sumach (Rhus Coriaria), and Cotton, as well as 
various grains, which belong properly to the subject 
of agriculture, need not be discussed here. Cf. F. E. 
Dinsmore and G. Dalman, Die Pflanzen Paldstinas 
(1912). 

(The following list contains the names, Hebrew or 
Greek, and English, of all the cultivated plants, in- 
cluding grains mentioned in the Bible. The botan- 
ical identifications are taken mainly from Tristram, 
op. cit. Cf. also the two preceding §§. 

Anise, &veov (Mt 23 28). The Dill or Anethum graveolens, 

Barley, s°’6rim. The most common grain in Palestine, 

Beans, pél. Vicia Faba. 

Bitter Herbs, merérim. See Brrrer Hergs. 

Corn. The Eng. rendering of a number of words meaning 
‘grain,’ t.e., wheat, rye, or barley. 

Cucumber: (1) qgishshw’ah (Nu 11 5). Cucumis Chate and C. 
sativus. (2) migshah (Is 1 8, ‘garden of cucumbers’). 

Cummin, kammon, xuy.fvoy (Is 28 %; Mt 23 2%), Cuminum 
sativum. 

Cummin, Black. See Fircuss. 

Fitches. See Fircues. 

Flax, pesheth (pl. pishtim). See Linen. 

Garlic, shim (Nu 115). Alliwm sativum. 

Gourd, gigayén (Jon 4 6; cf. RVmg.). Ricinus communis, 
or perhaps the Bottle-gourd (Cucurbita pepo). 

Herb(s). See Hers. 

Herbs, Green, yereqg. See Hers. 

Leeks, hatsir (Nu 11 5). Allium porrum. 

Lentil, ‘ddhashah (Gn 25 34, etc.). EHrvwm lens. 

Melon(s), ’dbhattihim (Nu 11 5). The Watermelon probably; 
perhaps also the Flesh or Musk Melon. 

Millet, ddhan (Ezk 4°). Panicum miliaceum and the Sorghum 
vulgare. 

Mint, Hdbocwov (Mt 23 28). Mentha sylvestris. 

Mustard, ctvant (Mt 13 24). Sinapis nigra. 

Onion, détsal (Nu 115). Allium Cepa. 

Pannag. pannag (Ezk 27 1”), meaning uncertain. See PaANNaa. 

Rye, Aussemeth. See Sprit (below). 

Saffron, karkém (Song 4 14). Crocus sativus. 

Spelt, kussemeth (Ex 9 32; Is 28 25, ‘rie? AV; Ezk 4 9, ‘fitches’ 
AV). Triticum Spelta. 

Spikenard, See Narp. 

Wheat, hittah several species, Triticum compositum, T. Spelta, 
T. hyberwum. E. E. N.] 


VI. Fauna. ; 
In ancient Israel the anima! world was more 
closely observed than the plant world. Evidence of 
this is found in the attempts to classify the animals, 


669 


which was done more carefully than was the case 
with the subdivision of the plant world, as found in 
Gn 111f. and Ps 104 14-17. In Gn 1 20-25 we have the 
classification into aquatic animals, birds, and land 
animals. The last are subdivided into wild beasts, 
domestic animals, and creeping creatures. Similar 
groups are found in Dt 4 171.; Ps 104 11-26; Ac 11 6, 
10 12. In Gn ch. 2, the wild beasts and birds are 
viewed as the creatures standing in most intimate 
relations with man. In Gn 1 22 the aquatic animals 
and birds are distinguished especially as receiving 
the Divine blessing, while in Gn 1 24 ff. the land 
animals are represented as created on the same day 
with man. From the food law (Lv ch. 11; Dt ch. 
14), as well as from the many exhortations to have 
compassion upon the animals, it may be inferred that 
the animal world was the object of close observation. 


An important difference between the fauna of 


modern Pal. and that of Biblical times is found in 
the fact that to-day wild animals are very much 
more rare than in early times, as might be inferred 
from passages like II K 17 25. The lion, the hart, 
and the larger varieties of antelopes have com- 
pletely disappeared. Bears are found only in the 
mountain-fastnesses of Hermon and Lebanon. Pan- 
thers (leopards) are seen but seldom near the Dead 
Sea and in the E. Jordan land, while their smaller 
cousins, the Felis jubata (Ger. ‘Gepard,’ the ‘hunting 
leopard’ of India) are found, e.g., on Mt. Carmel. The 
wild animals have been destroyed, partly through 
hunting, partly because, with the destruction of the 
forests (§ 21, above), they have lost their hiding- 
places. Lions have not been found in Pal. since the 
crusades. 


24, Mammals. Recent investigations have made 
it certain that in the little land of Pal. several zo- 
ological regions overlap. N. Pal., together with 
Syria, belongs in reality to the Palearctic region, 
while S. Pal., especially the district around the Dead 
Sea, must be counted nearly altogether with the so 
called Ethiopic region, to which also the Peninsula 
of Sinai, Egypt, and Nubia show affinity. In addi- 
tion, there are some varieties of mammals in Pal. 
which belong to Arabia, Mesopotamia, or India. 
The boundary between the representatives of the 
two above-named regions is to be drawn, generally 
speaking, from the southern foot of Carmel across 
to the southern end of the Sea of Gennesaret. There 
is hardly another land on the earth of so small a 
compass as Pal. in which the Mammalia are so 
varied. The following mammals belong to the 
Palearctic region: The Roe, Fallow Deer, Field- 
mouse (Arvicola), Dwarf Hamster, Dormouse, 
Squirrel, Zizel (Spermophilus), Mole, Hare (Lepus 
syriacus), Polecat, Stoat, Stonemarten, Fox (Vulpes 
syriacus), Wildcat (Felis chaus), Badger, and Bear. 
The Ethiopic fauna are represented by the Porcu- 
pine (Acomys), Jerboa, Fat Sand-rat (Psammomys 
obesus), Black-tailed Garden Sleeper (Hliomys 
melanurus), Hare (Lepus Judee, and also sinaiticus 
and egypticus), Hedgehog, Rock-badger ([as in 
RVmg. Coney, EV] Hyrax syriacus, Heb. shaphan), 
Wild Goat (Capra beden, Heb. ’aqqo or ya‘él), Gazelle 
(Gazella dorcas and arabica), Wildcat (Felis bubastis), 
the Desert Cat (Felis maniculata), Lynx (Felis cara- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palestine 


cal), Panther (Felis pardus), Nile Fox, Ichneumon, 
Genet (Genetia vulgaris), and Wild Boar. Some of 
the mammals of Pal. must be reckoned perhaps as 
migrants from the eastern regions, namely, from 
India and Mesopotamia. Among these Nehring 
counts one of the varieties of the Field-mouse ( Neso- 
kia); the Wolf, since it is smaller than the European 
variety and is more like the slim wolf of W. India; 
the Hyena and the Jackal, of which one variety with 
small ears seems related to the Indian, while the 
other with larger ears is like the Egyptian Jackal. 
Of Bats there are in Pal. several varieties. 


For the breeding of animals the conditions in Pal. 
vary greatly. The reason is mainly that in the rain- 
less period—about one-half of each year—there is a 
lack of green herbage throughout most of the coun- 
try. On this account the breeder must be careful to 
arrange it so that the young are born in the spring, 
when throughout the land there is an abundance 
of green fodder. Since the climatic conditions were 
essentially the same in early times as they are now 
(cf. §§ 19-20, above), the care of animals then, as 
to-day was regulated by these conditions. For a 
correct understanding of many of the cultus regu- 
lations, e.g., in reference to the offering of firstlings, 
it is of great importance to have clearly in mind this 
limitation, which the nature of the land lays upon the 
breeding of animals. These conditions affect es- 
pecially the breeding of those animals such as cattle, 
sheep, and goats whose well-being depends upon the 
consumption of green fodder. Horses, mules, asses, 
and camels can more easily dispense with green food, 
and their care is consequently less difficult and at- 
tended with more success. The horse belong either 
to the native breed or to that of Erzerum in Asia 
Minor. Full-blooded horses are not raised in Pal. 
Mules are used generally as the beasts of burden. 
The Ass, especially in the poorer parts of the country, 
is everywhere used and is indispensable for agricul- 
tural purposes. The Camel, sometimes of the 
Arabian variety, sometimes that of Asia Minor, is 
superior to the mule in its ability to carry heavy 
burdens, and is highly esteemed because of its very 
moderate wants, in spite of its ugly form and its 
surly disposition. Conditions for the breeding of 


neatcattle in Pal. are of the poorest. Buffaloes, 
whose milk and butterare noted, are found 
only in the well-watered regions, ¢.g., in the 


Jordan Valley. The native breed of cattle is 
small and unattractive in appearance. In the 
spring-time the quantity of milk produced is 
fairly large, but it is for the most part given to the 
calves, which are left with the cows a long time, 
frequently as long as eight months. After August 
the cows give but little milk. The breed found in the 
Lebanon region is better, and often used for cross- 
breeding with the native variety. The Mohamme- 
dans keep cattle for agricultural work, as well as 
for the sake of the milk. Christians and Jews reckon 
also on the sale of the flesh. The breeding of sheep 
and goats stands on a much higher plane in Pal. than 
does that of cattle, and results in much larger pro- 
duction. The Sheep found generally in S. Pal. are 
those of the large fat-tailed variety. In the northern 
districts there are other breeds which are somewhat 


Palestine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


670 


wale 


smaller and more like the merino. The Fat-tailed 
Sheep is a good milk-producer, but its wool is not 
of great value. The Goats are generally black and 
remarkable for their long ears. There is also a 
variety with short ears. Their skin is of the greatest 
importance for the natives, especially near Hebron, 
since they make from it the vessels in which water, 
milk, wine, and oil are kept. Sheep and goats fur- 
nish the natives their supply of flesh, besides milk 
and cheese, also clothing—so far as foreign manu- 
facture is not preferred—and shoes. These ani- 
mals always find some pasturage, even in the dry 
months, and therefore give milk for a longer time and 
in proportionately larger quantities than do the cows. 
In the spring-time the surplus quantity of milk is con- 
verted by the peasants into melted butter and cheese, 
which serve as nourishment during the dry months 
of the year. 

[The following list contains the names, Hebrew or 
Greek, and English, of all the mammals mentioned 
in the Bible. The identifications are taken mainly 
from Tristram, op. cit. 


Antelope, t¢’6 and to’ (Dt 14 5, ‘wild ox’ AV; Is 51 2, ‘wild 
bull’? AV). Possibly the Oryx. 

Ape, gdph. See ApE. 

Ass, She-ass, Asses’ Colt, Young Ass. See Ass. 

Ass, Wild: (1) ‘arédh. (2) pere’. See Ass. 

Badger, tahash. See SHALSKIN. 

Bat, ‘dtalléph (Lv 11 ®, etc.). General term. 

Bear, débh (IS 17 %4, etc.). Ursus syriacus. 

Beast of the field, hayyath hassadheh (Lv 26 23, etc., 
beast’ AV). 

Behemoth, behéméth (Job 40 15). Hippopotamus. 

Boar, hdzir (Ps 80 18), Wild Boar. 

Bull, Bullock. See Carrie (below). 

Bull, Wild. See AnrEe.LopgE (above). 

Calf. See Carrie (below). 

Camel, gadmal. See CAMEL. 

Cattle, migneh (fproperty’). General term for cattle as property. 
(1) ’abbir, bull.’ (2) par, ‘bull,’ ‘bullock.’ (3) bagar, ‘bul- 
lock,’ ‘cattle,’ ‘herd,’ ‘ox.’ (4) ‘éghel, ‘calf.’ (5) par, shér 
and bdqdr (in fem.), ‘cow,’ (6) ‘eglah, ‘heifer.’ (7) (a) 
shor, (b) ’eleph, ‘ox.’ 

Chamois, zemer (Dt 14 5). Probably the Wild Sheep. 

Coney, shaphan (Lv 11 5, etc.). Hyraz syriacus. The Rock- 
badger. 

Cow. See Carrie (5), above. 

Doe, ya‘alah (Pr 5 1%, ‘roe’? AV). The female Wild Goat (?). 

Dog, kelebh (Ex 117, etc.). A species something like the Collie. 

Dragon: (1) tannin. See Monster. (2) tan (tannim). See 
JACKAL (below). 

Dromedary: (1) békher (f. bikhrah) (Is 60 §; Jer 2 28 AV). See 
CAMEL. (2) rekhesh (I K 4 28), ‘swift steeds’ RV. See 
Horse (below). (3) bené hadrammakhim (Est 8 }° AV, ‘bred 
of the stud’ RV). Meaning uncertain, but probably 
swift horses of special breed are meant. (4) kirkdrdth (Is 
66 2°), see CAMEL. 

Ewe. See Sueep (below). 

Fallow Deer, yahmiir. See Rorsuck (below). 

Ferret, ’dndgah. See Grcxo, § 26, (II) below. 

Fox, shi‘al (Jg 15 4, etc.). Means both Fox and Jackal. 

Gazelle, tsebhi (Dt 12 15. 22, 14 5, 15 22; II S$ 2 18; I K 4 23, ‘roe,’ 
‘roebuck’ AV). Gazella dorcas. 

Goat (and kid): (1) ‘éz (Gn 27 9, etc.). Generic term. (2) 
‘atitdh (Nu 7 ", etc.). (8) sa‘ir (Lv 4 24, etc.). (4) tayish, 
‘he-goat’ (Gn 30 45, etc.). (5) Kid, gedhi (Gn 27 9, etc.). 

Goat, Wild: (1) ya‘él (I S 24 2, etc.). The Ibex, Capra beden. 
(2) ’aqg6 (Dt 14 5). Species unknown. 

Greyhound, zarzir mathenayim (Pr 30 *1). Meaning uncertain. 

Hare, ’arnebheth (Lv 11 8; Dt 14 7). Lepus syriacus and L. 
Judxe. 

Hart, ’ayyal (Dt 12 15, etc.). Generic term for Deer (?). 

Heifer. See Carrie (6), above. 

Herd. See Carrie (3), above. 

Hind, ’ayydlah, ’ayyeleth. Fem. of Hart (see above). 

Horse (q.v.): (1) sis (Gn 47 ", etc.). Generally a chariot-horse. 
(2) pdrash (Gn 50 %, etc.). Usually for a riding-horse. 


‘wild 


(3) rekhesh. A high-bred and swift horse. See Swirt 
Streps (below). (4) rammakh. A mare (?). See Droms- 
DARY (above). 

Hyena. The ‘Valley of Zeboim’ (I § 13 18) means probably the 
‘valley of hyenas.’ See also SpreckLeED Birp of PREY 
(§ 25, below). 

Jackal: (1) tan (pl. tannim) (Job 30 , etc.). See also Dracon. 
(2) shi‘al, means also Fox. (3) ’iyyim (Is 13 22, 34 14; Jn 
50 39), ‘wild beasts’ AV, ‘wolves’ RV. See Wotr (below.) 

Kid. See Goat (above). 

Lamb. See Surnp (below) and LAs. 

Leopard, namér (Song 4 8, etc.), meEdaAtS (Rev 13 2). Felis 
leopardus and F. jubata. Also the Panther. 

Lion: (1) ‘dri, ’aryeh (Gn 49 %, ete.). Generic. (2) kephir 
(Ps 35 1, ete.). Young Lion. (3) labhi’ (Dt 33 2°, etc.). 
Generic. (4) layish (Pr 30 8°). Generic. (5) Aéwv (Ps 5 3, 
etc.). Generic. 

Mole: (1) hdpharpdrah (Is 2 2°). Meaning uncertain. (2) 
tinshemeth. See CHAMELEON (§ 26, below). 

Mouse, ‘akhbar (Lv 11 ®, etc.). Generic term. 

Mule: (1) peredh, pirdah. See Mute. (2) rekhesh. See Drom- 
EDARY and Horse (above), and Swirr Srereps (below). 

Ox. See Carrue (3), (7), above. 

Ox, Wild. See ANTELOPE (above). 

Porcupine, gippddh (Is 14 28, 34 '; Zeph 2 14, ‘bittern’ AV). 
The meaning of the term is not certain. Perhaps Hedge- 
hog. 

Pygarg, dishén (Dt 145). Specific species uncertain. 

Ram. See SHExp (below). : 

Roe, Roebuck: (1) tstbht. See GazELuE (above). (2) yahmir 
(Dt 14 5; I K 4 23, ‘fallow deer’ AV). Aleephalus bubalis. 
(8) ya‘dlah. See Dor (above). 

Satyr, the rendering of sd‘ir in Is 13 21, 34 14, 
and Saryr. 

Seal. See SEALSKIN. 

Sheep (also Ewe, Goat, Lamb): (1) seh, individual term. 
(Goats, etc., small). (2) ts6’n, collective term, small 
cattle. (38) rdahél, ‘ewe.’ (q.v.) (4) kebhes. (5) kesebh. 
‘Lamb,’ general terms. (q.v.) (6) kar, a lamb in the 
pasture or ‘stall.’ (7) faleh (I S 7 9; Is 65 25), a ‘sucking’ 
lamb. (8) ’ayil, ‘ram.’ (9) tsdphir, ‘ram.’ 

Swift Steeds, rekhesh (I K 4 28, ‘dromedary’ AV; Est 8 1, 
‘mule’ AV). Swift horses. 

Swine, hdzir (Lv 117, etc.), Yoteposg (Mt 7 §, etc.). The Wild 
Boar. 

Unicorn, r’@ém. See WiLD Ox (below). 

Weasel, héledh (Lv 11 ”). Some think the Blind Mole (Spalaz 
typhlus) is meant. 

Whales, tannin (Gn 1 2, ‘sea-monster’ RV). 

Wild Goat. See Goat (above). 

Wild Ox, r’ém (Nu 23 22; Dt 33 1, etc.; ‘unicorn’ AV). Bos 
primigenius, now extinct. The German Auerochs. It 
was still extant in Assyr. times and is represented on the 
inscriptions as once inhabiting the Mediterranean coast 


See Goat (above), 


See MonstTEr. 


region. (Cf. Driver on Dt 33 ” in Int. Crit. Com.). 
Wolf, z’ébh (Gn 29 %, etc.), AUxog (Mt 7135, etc.). Canis 
lupus. See JACKAL (above). E E. N.] 


25. Birds. The birds of Pal., as the mammals, 
represent several zoological regions, altho the exact 
classification of the varieties is attended with greater 
difficulties, and the results are more uncertain. The 
Palestinian birds mentioned in the Bible, apart from 
some names of doubtful significance, are found to be 
the same as those of to-day. Birds of prey are: the 
Eagle, Vulture, Falcon, Sparrow-hawk, Kite, and 
Owl. The Raven family is well represented. Of 
marsh- and water-fowl there are the Heron, 
White and Black Stork, the Pelican, Cormorant, 
Flamingo, Wild Goose, Swan, Marsh-hen, Snipe, 
Sandpiper, Crane, Bustard, Sea-gull, Storm-Petrel 
and Grebe. 


On the E. borders of the district el-Belka there 
appears once in a while an Ostrich from the Arabian 
Desert. Of the hen family there are, besides the 
Domestic Fowl, the Partridge (the Caccabis chukar, 
which ranges from Asia Minor to India, the Ammo- 
perdix heyi, and the Frankolinus vulgaris), the Quail, 


671 A NEW STANDARD 


and the Sandgrouse. Wild Pigeons are found in 

great numbers; altho most of these visit the land 

only in course of their migration, yet many remain 
through the winter. In regard to the Turtledove 
whose appearance to-day, just as in the times of 

Song 2 12, is a sign of the beginning of the warmer 

period of the year, it may be remarked that, besides 

the European variety (Turtur communis), which is 
referred to in Song 2 12, there are two other varieties, 
the Ethiopic (7. senegalensis), and the Collared 

Turtle-dove (7'. risorius), which is a native of India. 

Night-hawks, Woodpeckers (Picus syriacus), King- 

fishers, Hoopoes, and Cuckoos are not wanting, nor 

are varieties of Starlings, including the Pastor roseus 
and the Amydrus tristrami. Besides the common 
varieties of Lark there are also found the Alauda 
isabellina near the Dead Sea, and the Desert Lark; 
the Ammomanes deserti, and the Amm. fraterculus. 

Some varieties of Swallow remain in the land 

through the winter, particularly the Oriental Swal- 

low ( Hirundo savignit), also the Cotyle rupestris and 
obsoleta), and of Swifts the variety Cypselus affinis, 
while other varieties appear in the period from 

February to April, the Cypselus apus, probably the 

sus of Jer 87, and the Common Swallow ( Hirundo 

rustica). Garden warblers are present in great 
numbers, also the Finch and our House-sparrow, 
whose beautiful variety, Passer moabiticus, deserves 
special mention. Withthese may be mentioned theTit- 
mouse, the Blue Woodpecker, the Wren, the Wagtail, 
the Oriole, the Butcher-bird, and the Palestinian 
Nightingale, or Bulbul. Thecommon Nightingale also 
visits Pal. and nests in April near the Jordan. The 
beautiful tropical bird Cinnyris osea, which is found 
on the Dead Sea, is also a representative of the fauna 
of India and Nubia. Of Thrushes there are several 
native varieties, and others which visit the land only 
in course of their migration. Cf. G. Dalman, ‘Ara- 
bische Vogelnamen von Palastina und Syria’ in 

ZDPN 1913, 165-179, with the recent literature. 

The breeding of birds receives little attention 
For water-fowls such as Geese and Ducks there is a 
lack of the necessary fresh water. Hens are common, 
but the variety is small. Turkeys are found among 
the Circassians and Christians. The breeding of 
Doves is carried on only in a moderate way. 

(The following list contains the names, Hebrew or 
Greek, and English, of all the birds mentioned in the 
Bible. The identifications are taken mainly from 
Tristram, op. cit. 

Bird of Prey, ‘ayit (Jer 12%). Generic term. 

Birds, Fowl(s), ‘6ph, tsippdr. Generic terms. 

Bittern, gippédh (Is 34 '; Zeph 2 13 f- AV). See Porcurine, 
§ 24 (above). But Bittern is probably right. 

Cock, ZAExtwWPE (Mt 26 *4, etc.). 

Cormorant: (1) shalakh (Lv 11 ”; Dt 14 1”), Exact meaning 
uncertain. (2) g@’ath (Is 3411; Zeph 214 AV). See PELIcAN 
(below). 

(2) 


Crane: (1) ‘adgiir (Jer 8 7, ‘swallow’ AV). Grus cinerea. 
gig. See Swattow (below). 

Cuckoo, shahaph (Lv 11 16; Dt 14 15, ‘sea-mew’ RV). Meaning 

uncertain. 


Dove, yénah, meptotee& (Gn 8 8; Mt 316, etc.). Generic term, 
including both wild and domesticated pigeons. See 
TURTLE-DOVE (below). 

Eagle, nesher. Also means Vulture, probably the Griffin- 
Vulture. See Eac ie. 


Falcon, ’ayyah (Lv 11 14; Dt 14 18; Job 28 7; ‘kite’ AV). Generic 
term, probably meaning Kite. 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Palestine 


Gier-eagle: (1) pereg (Lv 11 1%; Dt 14 12; ‘ossifrage’ AV). Un- 
certain; the Sea-eagle, according to some. (2) raéham 
(Lv 11 18, ‘vulture’ RV). The Egyptian Vulture. 

Glede, ra’ah (Dt 1418), Meaning uncertain. 

Hawk, néts (Lv 1116, etc.). Generic term or possibly the Falcon. 

Hen, evig (Mt 23 %7; Lk 13 34). A general term for ‘bird,’ 
‘fowl,’ etc. 

Heron, ’dndphah (Lv 11 19; Dt 14 18). Generic term. 

Hoopoe, diukhiphath (Lv i1 9; Dt 14 18, ‘lapwing’ AV). 

Kite: (1) dayyah (Dt 14 13; Is 34 15, ‘vulture’ AV). Generic 
term. (2) da’ah, a variant form of (1) (Lv 11 14 AY). 
(3) ’ayyah (Lv 11 14; Dt 1413 AV). See Fatcon. 

Lapwing, diikhiphath. See Hooron (above). 

Night-hawk, tahmag (Lv 11 16; Dt 14 15), 
of Owl. 

Osprey, ‘ozniyyah (Lv 11 13; Dt 14 12). Meaning uncertain. 

Ossifrage, pereg (Lv 11 13; Dt 14 12, ‘gier-eagle’ RV). Lam- 
mergeier or Bearded Vulture (Gypaetus barbatus). The 
largest of the Vultures. 

Ostrich: (1) ya‘dnah (Lv 11 18, etc., ‘owl’ AV). (2) yc‘én (La 
4 3), (3) rdndn (rendnim, pl.) (Job 39 18, ‘peacocks’ AV). 

Owl, ya‘dnadh. See Osrricu (above). 

Owl, Great: (1) yanshéph, yanshiph (Lv 11 "; Dt 14 16; Is 
34 1). Probably the Bubo ascalaphus. (2) gippoz (Is 
34 15), See Dart-snakE (§ 26, below). 

Owl, Horned, tinshemeth (Lv 11 18; Dt 14 18, ‘swan’ AV). 
Meaning uncertain. 

Owl, Little, kés (Lv 11 16, etc.). Generic term. 

Owl, Screech-. See Niaur Monstmr. 

Partridge, qéré’ (I S 26 2; Jer 17 4). 
(Caccabis saxatilis). 

Peacock(s): (1) tukkiyyim (pl.) (I K 10 22). An Indian (Mala- 
bar) word. See Pracockxs. (2) raénadn. See Osrricu 
(above). 

Pelican, ga’ath (Lv 11 18; Dt 14 17; in Is 34 "; Zeph 2 14, ‘cor- 
morant’ AV). Pelecanus onocrotalus and P. crispus. 

Pigeon. See Dove (above). 

Quail, slaw (Ex 16 13; Nu 11 %1-), Corturniz vulgaris. 

Raven, ‘drébh. Generic term. Eight species are found in 
Palestine. 

Screech-owl. See Niagur Monster. 

Sea-mew, shahaph (Lv 11 16; Dt 14 16, ‘cuckoo’ AV). 

Sparrow, tsippér (Ps 84 3, 102 7). Birds in general, and es- 
pecially of small birds (Swallow, Lark, etc.). 


Perhaps a variety 


The Greek Partridge 


Speckled Bird of Prey, tsabhia‘. Meaning uncertain. See 
also Hymna, § 24 (above). 

Stork, hdsidhah (Lv 11 9, etc.). Ciconia alba. 

Swallow: (1) d*rdér (Ps 84 3, etc.). Generic term. (2) sig and 
gis (Jer 8 7, ‘crane’ AV). The Swift (Cypzlus). (3) 
‘agur. See CRANE (above). 

Swan, tinshemeth (Lv 11 18; Dt 14 16, ‘horned owl’ RV). Mean- 


ing uncertain. 
Turtle-dove, ‘ur, toevyav (Gn 15 9; Song 2 12 turtle AV, etc.; Lk 


224), Turtur auriius. 
Vulture: (1) rahdm (Lv 11 38, ‘gier-eagle’? AV). Vultur per- 
cnopterus. (2) dayyah. See Kite (above). 
E. E. N.] 


26. Fishes, Reptiles, and Insects. The waters in 
and near the Jordan Valley, with the exception of the 
Dead Sea, abound in fish. This is especially true of 
the Sea of Gennesaret. Josephus’ statement that 
the Nile fish Coracinus was found in the spring at 
Capernaum (BJ, III, 10 8) finds support in the fact 
that to-day the Sea of Gennesaret, and also the 
neighboring warm springs and Lake Hille, contain 
fish which are also found in the Nile, partly in the 
upper Nile (Clarias macracanthus, of the variety silu- 
rus, Chromis niloticus and C. tiberiadis, etc.). The 
streams and brooks emptying into the Mediterra- 
nean are less abundant in fish. Tristram in his 
Fauna and Flora of Palestine (1884) counts forty- 
three varieties of fish for southern and middle Syria, 
among which are the Carp, Tench, Barb, Shote or 
Sheat-fish, and Blenny. Eels are found in the Kishon 
but apparently not in the Jordan region. Of Ser- 
pents and Lizards there are in Pal. a very large 
number, since the extensive uninhabited stretches 


Palestine 





of country and numberless clefts and holes in the 
rocks offer them welcome places of refuge. Tris- 
tram counts thirty-three varieties of serpents, among 
which are many poisonous ones, such as the Egyp- 
tian Naja haje (Cobra), the Vipera euphratica, the 
Daboia xanthina, the Echis arenicola (also found in 
Egypt), and the Cerastes Hasselquistti. Among the 
lizards, of which, according to Tristram, there are 
forty-four species, mention may be made of the 
African Crocodile, which is found even to-day in 
the marshes of the Nahr ez-Zerkd, S. of Carmel, 
which as early as Pliny (V, 17) was called the Croco- 
dile river. Near the Dead Sea there is also the 
Land-Crocodile, which Herodotus (IV, 192) men- 
tions in Libya (Arab. Waran, or Waral), two species, 
Psammosaurus scincus and Monitor niloticus. The 
most Common Lizard is the Hirdaun of the Arabs, 
the Horned Lizard (Stellio vulgaris), of which there 
are several species. Turtles are found everywhere on 
land and in the water. Insects are extraordinarily 
numerous, as is the case in all warm regions. It is 
sufficient here to mention Spiders, Scorpions, Wasps, 
Wild Bees, Flies, Gnats, Fleas, and Locusts. Of the 
sixty species many are harmless and hence little 
noticed. Greatly feared to-day, as in Bible times, is 
the migratory Locust (Hdipoda migratoria), which 
comes out from the interior of Arabia, and because of 
its voracity inflicts fearful destruction. The peas- 
ants of Pal. do not eat the locust, as the Bedawin do 
in case of hunger, and John the Baptist did out of 
voluntary asceticism (Mk 16). Pal. is well suited to 
the culture of Bees. For hives, the peasants make 
use of jars of baked or sun-dried brick, about 18 in. 
long and 6-9 in. in diameter. The German colonists 
cultivate bees after European methods. Cf. Fr. 
Bodenheimer, Die Tierwelt Pal. (1920). Concerning 
Mollusks, cf. Tristram, The Fauna and Flora of 
Palestine (Survey of Western Palestine, 1884). 

[The following list contains the names, Hebrew or 
Greek, and English, of all the Invertebrata, reptiles, 
etc., mentioned in the Bible. The identifications are 
taken mainly from Tristram, op. cit. 

(1) 

Generic term. 
Wild bees are usually meant. 


Ant, n¢malah (Pr 6 8, 30 35). 

Bee, debhérah (Dt 1 44, etc.). 

Beetle. See Cricket (below). 

Canker-worm. See Locust. 

Caterpillar. See Locust. 

Cricket, hargél (Lv 11 22, ‘beetle’ AV). Some variety of Locust 
is meant. 

Flea, par‘dsh (I S 24 15, 26 2°), 
arritans. 

Fly, Flies: (1) z*bhubh (Ec 10 1; Is 7 18). Some species of Gad- 
fly. (2) ‘arébh (Ex 8 21, etc.). Generic term. 

Gnat, x@vw) (Mt 23 24). Possibly the same as the Mosquito. 

Grasshopper. See Locust. 

Hornet (or Wasp), tsir‘ah (Ex 23 28, etc.). Generic term. 

Horse-leach, ‘dliigah. See Horsn-LBacu. 

Lice, kinnam, kinnim (Ex 8 16 ff., ete.). Pediculi. 

Locusts, Grasshoppers, etc. See Locust. 

Moth: (1) ‘ash (Job 4 ¥, etc.). The Clothes-Moth (Tineidz). 
(2) sas (ofS in N T) (Is 51 8). The Caterpillar of (1). 

Palmer-worm. See Locust. 

Scorpion, ‘agrabh (Dt 8 15, ete.). oxoonloc in N T. 

Snail: (1) shabbelul (Ps 58 8). Generic term. (2) hémet (Lv 
11°). See Sanp-L1zarpD (below). 

Spider: (1) ‘akkabhish (Job 8 14, etc.). (2) s¢manith (Ps 30 28, 
etc.). See Lizarp (below). 

Worm: (1) ¢éla‘, tolé‘ah (Dt 28 %, etc.). Generic term. See 
also Cotors, § 2. (2) rimmah (Ex 16 24, etc.). General 
term. (3) sas (Is 51 8 AV). See Morn (above), 


General term, or the Pulez, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





672 





(2) 

Arrow-snake. See Dart-snaxek (below). 

Adder. See SzerpEnt (3)-(6), below. 

Asp. See Smrprent (3), below. 

Basilisk. See Sprreent (6), below. 

Chameleon: tinshemeth (Lv 11 ®, ‘mole’ AV). 
certain. (2) kéah (Lv 11 * AY), 
DILE (below). 

Cockatrice. See SmrpEnt (6), below. 

Creeping things: (1) sherets (Gn 7 4, etc.; ‘swarms’ Gn 1 2° 
RV). (2) remes (Gn 1 24, etc.). General term for fish, 
reptiles, etc. See Crrepine THINGS. 

Crocodile, liwyadthan (Job 41). 

Dart-snake, kippdz (Is 34 35; ‘arrow-snake’ ERV; ‘great owl’ 
AV). Serpens jaculus. 

Dragon. See Dragon. 

Frogs, ts*phardéa‘ (Ex 8 2, etc.). Rana esculenta. 

Gecko, ‘dndqah (Lv 11 *, ‘ferret? AV). <A species of lizard. 

Land-crocodile, kéah (Lv 11 *°, ‘chameleon’ AV). The Monitor 


Meaning un- 
See LAND-croco- 


Lizard. 
Leviathan, liwydthan. See Crocopiite (above) and SERPENT 
(below). See also LEVIATHAN. 


Lizard: (1) tsabh (Lv 11 %, ‘great lizard’ RV; ‘tortoise’ AV). 
Uromastiz spineps. (2) kéah (Lv 11 *, ‘land-crocodile’ 
RV; ‘chameleon’ AV). The Monitor Lizard. (3) leta’ah 
Lv 11 ®). Generic term. (4) hémet (Lv 11 2°) ‘snail’ AV. 
Probably a species of sand lizard (so RV). 

Serpent: (1) nahdsh. Generic term. (2) tannin (Ex 7 ° ff-). 
Generic term. Also see Dragon. (3) pethen (Dt 32 33, 
etc., ‘asp’; Ps 58 4, ‘adder’). Some species of poisonous 
serpent. (4) sh¢phiphén (Gn 49 1, ‘adder’). The Horned 
Snake (Cerastes hasselquistii). (5) ‘akshiibh (Ps 140 3, 
‘adder’). Some species of viper. (6) tsiph‘dni and tseph‘a 
(Pr 23 82, ‘adder’; in Is 11 8, 14 % [‘basilisk’ ERV], 59 §; 
Jer 8 17, ‘adder’ RV, ‘cockatrice’ AV). Perhaps the great 
Yellow Viper (Daboia xanthina). (7) ’eph‘eh (Job 20 18, 
etc.), ‘viper.’ Species unknown. (8) sdrdph (Nu 21 * 8; 
Dt 8 4, ‘fiery serpent’). Species unknown. See also 
Serapuim. The ref. in Is 14 *% is figurative, and that in 
30 © is mythological in character. See Serpent. (9) 
liwydthan, ‘leviathan.’ See SERPENT and LervraTHAN. 
(10) éytdva (Mt 3 7, 12 34, ete.). The same as (7). (11) 
aonts (Ro 313). The same as (3). 

Tortoise. See Lizarp (above). 

Viper. See Serpent (7), above. 


BK. E. NJ 


VII. HisroricaL GEOGRAPHY. 


27. Earlier Civilization of Canaan. While it is 
possible to-day to trace the history of civilization in 
Egypt and Babylonia—at least in general outline— 
as far back as the fourth millennium B.c., as to the 
state of affairs in Syria during the third and fourth 
millenniums we are almost entirely ignorant, To 
only a small extent has the darkness been illumi- 
nated through the investigations by geologists and 
archeologists during the past few decades. We know 
now that Pal., as well as all Syria, like other parts of 
the earth, had its Stone Age, on which followed a 
Bronze Age and an Iron Age. The monuments of 
the Stone Age consist of numerous articles made of 
flint, bone implements, polished axes and chisels, 
rude pottery shaped without the use of the wheel, 
caves which served both as dwelling-places and as 
places of burial, the first attempts at stone structures, 
pillars, dolmens and cairns (megalithic monuments), 
and cup-shaped depressions hollowed out of the 
rock. To what peoples these belonged it is impos- 
sible to say. From certain indications it would seem 
that they should not be counted as Semites. Wheth- 
er the O T statements regarding the legendary 
Rephaim and Anakim (Dt 2 11) have reference to 
these people is uncertain. Proofs of a Bronze Age 
in Pal. have been brought to light chiefly through 
the excavations of the past thirty years. Imple- 
ments have been found made of bronze, copper, 


673 


bone, and stone, red pottery with the surface scraped 
with a comb and in some cases painted, and pillars 
set up in rows. The cultivation of the olive and the 
vine was known. Human sacrifices were common. 
Plain indications of the influence of the Egyptian, 
Babylonian, and A®Xgean civilizations are evident. 
The population of the land during this period—which 
can be fixed as from 2500 to 1300 8.c.—was Semitic; 
there were, however, certain Aryan peoples, coming 
in from the N. (Hittites, Mitanni), which invaded 
Pal. at times. The use of iron was known at the 
time of the incoming of the Philistines and of the 
Israelitic tribes, yet at the beginning of this period 
the use of bronze and flint was more common. The 
Iron Age is synchronous with the beginning of the 
historical period of the land. Our knowledge of the 
events of the Bronze Age is limited mainly to the 
notices that we find in the so called Amarna letters, 
which are related to the Egyptian control of Canaan. 


28. The Period of the Egyptian Supremacy. The 
Egyptian supremacy which Thothmes III estab- 
lished about 1500 B.c. seems to have been on the 
wane about 1400, the time of the Amarna letters. 
The Hittites had pressed forward from the northern 
limits of Syria toward the S. and were ruling over 
a mighty kingdom, which extended from the Euphra- 
tes to the middle Orontes. In central and southern 
Syria there were only small kingdoms and federations 
of cities. The ‘kings’ ruled over their own city, and 
the territory immediately adjacent (cf. Jg 1 5-7; Jos 
12 7-24). According to Jos 917, 10 2, Gibeon, Che- 
phirah, Beeroth, and Kiriath-jearim were not under 
kings, but formed a sort of confederation. Without 
doubt, the natural characteristics of the land con- 
ditioned the historical circumstances of the in- 
habitants. The small stretch of territory between 
the desert and the sea was unfavorable to the devel- 
opment of a united national life, because of the 
great variation in the character of the soil (cf. § 4 f., 
above), because of the numerous mountains, small 
plains, and deep-cut watercourses. Larger king- 
doms had only a very limited duration. The inhabi- 
tants always found it convenient to break up again 
into smaller groups. 


The O T calls the pre-Israelitic inhabitants of the 
mountains partly Canaanites (so J), partly Amorites 
(so KE). Since, according to the Amarna letters, the 
Amorites were still located in the Lebanon region, 
it is fair to infer that after about 1400 B.c. they ad- 
vanced southward both into the W. Jordan as well 
as into the E. Jordan region, where they were found 
at the time of the Israelitic invasion. The name 
‘Canaanite’ is derived from the name of the land, 
and means the ‘inhabitant of the land of Canaan.’ 
Consequently, it has no ethnographical significance, 
altho such is the impression produced by the orderly 
lists of the people of the land which the Israelites 
were said to have conquered or driven out. The 
formal list reckons six peoples (Ex 3 8, 17, etc.— 
eleven times in all), the secondary forms of the same 
list, seven (Jos 3 10), or ten (Gn 15 19-21), or only five 
or less (Ex 91, 13 5, 238). Wesee in this list not the 
traces of an old tradition, but rather the work of the 
learned historian. We do not know when these 
Semitic peoples came into Pal. It was probably a 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palestine 


gradual process of immigration, which took place 
during the period from 2800 to 1600 B.c. 

The advance of the Israelitic tribes against Canaan 
was prepared for and made more easy through a 
series of historical events. The Egyptian control con- 
tinued to weaken after 1250, until finally it was only 
nominal. The native princes carried on wars and 
marauding expeditions against one another. The 
Hittite kingdom broke up about 1200 into a number 
of smaller dominions. After 1400 the Chabiri, whose 
name is probably to be identified with that of the 
Hebrews, made their appearance in the W. Jordan 
land, partly as soldiers in the service of the native 
princes, partly because they were seeking in a culti- 
vated land better circumstances than the desert 
afforded them. They were not only the predecessors 
of the Israelitic tribes, but served to weaken the 
unity and resistance power of the native population. 

29. Invasion by the Israelites. The occupation of 
the W. Jordan land by the tribes which later were 
united under the name ‘people of Israel’ did not take 
place by means of one great victorious campaign, as 
is represented in the Book of Joshua, but gradually 
(see JosHua, Boox or). From the South there was 
an open way of entrance into the land (cf. § 6 f., 
above), which was made use of by the powerful 
clans of Caleb and Othniel, or the Kenizzites, which 
took possession of the cities Hebron, Debir, or 
Kiriath-sepher, Kiriath-sanna (mod. ed-Dahariye, 
Jg 112-15; Jos 1513-19), and thereby became masters of 
the most southern portion of the mountain-land. For 
the Calebite cities cf. I Ch 2 42-49; I S 30 26-31; also 
ch. 25; and for ‘the South’ (the Negeb), cf. IS 30 14, 
27 10. All the tribes, or clans, of this region re- 
mained independent down to the times of David. 
Probably at intervals they were compelled to pay 
tribute to the Philistines. Even at a much later 
period they still formed a special group in Judah (Jos 
15 13). They occupied themselves mainly with the 
breeding of sheep and goats (I S 25 2). 


The Israelitic (in the narrow sense) tribes entered 
the W. Jordan land from the E. by means of the fords 
of the Jordan (cf. § 12, above). The invasion took 
place in successive stages, two of which we can dis- 
tinguish with some certainty. Simeon, Levi (and 
Judah?), according to Gn ch. 34, made an advance on 
the territory near Shechem, where, in the later his- 
tory, we find only the tribe of Joseph. But Levi and 
Simeon were defeated and scattered (Gn 49 5-7). 
Judah was then forced toward the southern moun- 
tain-land, where it united itself with the Canaanite 
clan of Tamar near Timnah (mod. Tibne), about 8 
m. W. of Bethlehem, and at Adullam (Gn ch. 38). 
Some remnants of Simeon were found later in the 
neighborhood of Beer-sheba (Jos 19 2-8; I Ch 4 28-33). 


The most important step in the conquest was 
taken by the Rachel tribe Joseph. It crossed the 
Jordan near Gilgal (Tell Jeljil), captured Jericho 
(Ertha), Ai (probably Tell el-Hajar), and Bethel 
(Bétin; Jos chs. 2-8; Jg 1 22-26). The cities of Gibeon, 
Chephirah, Beeroth (which probably lay to the W. 
of Gibeon and is not to be identified with el-Bire, 
near Bethel), and Kiriath-jearim (which probably 
corresponds to the mod. el- Kubébe) procured freedom 
and independence by means of a formal treaty with 


Palestine A NEW STANDARD 





Israel (Jos ch. 9; ITS 4 2f., 21 2). By means of the 
victory at Beth-horon (Bét‘ar), between Gibeon and 
the Plain of Aijalon (cf. § 7, above), the tribe of 
Joseph became master of important parts of the 
crest of the range in the 8S. and of its western slopes. 
Its sacred symbol, the holy Ark, was placed in 
Shiloh (Seilin, IS chs. 1-3). From Mt. Ephraim, in 
the original sense of the term, they spread to the S. 
and SW. into the forest-covered heights, which they 
cleared of wood and brought under cultivation (Jos 
17 14-18; cf. § 7, above). In consequence of the grow- 
ing extension of the territory belonging to the tribe, 
a division took place. The clans which inherited 
the more southern portion, that had as neighbors 
the Jebusites of Jerusalem, received the name Ben- 
jamin. The middle clans were known as the people 
of Ephraim, or simply Ephraim, while the Northern 
clans at first were known as Machir (Jg 5 14), later as 
Manasseh. 


In the Plain of Esdraelon (cf. § 9, above) the power 
of the Canaanites was broken through the victory 
which the Israelite tribes won at Taanach (Jg ch. 5). 
The leader of the Canaanites was King Sisera of 
Harosheth, which has been identified with the small 
village el-Harithiye. This victory strengthened the 
position of the Israelite tribes near the Plain of 
Esdraelon, namely, Issachar, Zebulun, and Machir; 
altho the well-known Canaanite cities Bethshan, 
Ibleam, Taanach, Megiddo, and Dor (on the sea- 
coast) remained independent for a considerable time 
after (Jg 1 27; Jos 17 11-13). Regarding the settlement 
of the Northern tribes Issachar and Zebulun, as well 
as the formation of the mixed tribes Naphtali and 
Asher, we know nothing. Of great importance was 
the victory over King Jabin of Hazor (cf. the mod. 
Jebel-and Mer) el-Hadire) near the ‘waters of Merom’ 
(Jg ch. 4; Jos 111-15). The genuine Israelite popula- 
tion of that country remained somewhat small. Con- 
sequently, it received the designation g*lil haggiéyim, 
‘district of the nations’ (Is91;I K 911; II K 1529). A 
portion of the tribe of Dan which did not succeed in 
locating on the western slope of the highland gained 
possession of the city of Laish, near the middle 
source of the Jordan, which then received the name 
Dan (cf. Tell el- Kadi, § 12, above). The neighboring 
places Abel-beth-maachah (mod.’ A bil el- Kamh) and 
Ijon (cf. Merj ‘Aytin, § 10), in the course of time 
identified themselves with this tribe. 


30. Union of the Tribes into One People. The 
place where the Israelite occupation first became 
most securely established was doubtless the terri- 
tory N. and S. of Shechem. Here we find the begin- 
nings of an Israelite dominion something after the 
form of a tribal kingdom founded by Gideon, or 
Jerubbaal, whose home, Ophrah, must have been 
situated between Shechem and the Plain of Esdrae- 
lon (Tell el-Far‘a?). Through his sudden and vic- 
torious attack on the Midianites at the spring of 
Harod (probably the mod. ‘Ain Jdlid, SE. of 
Zer‘in), he drove back these invaders into the E. 
Jordan land. His son Abimelech, who finally united 
Shechem with Israel, lost his life in the siege of the 
Canaanite city Thebez (the mod. Tabds), on the 
road from Shechem to Bethshan. It was the foreign 
control of the Philistines that first united the Isra- 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


674 


elite tribes more closely. Their attempt to take pos- 
session of the interior, lying back of their own coast- 
plain, brought the Philistines into conflict with the 
Israelite tribes near the mod. Wady Dér Ballit, 
since Aphek is to be identified with the mod. Mejdel 
Yaba, near Antipatris. After repeated victories, 
about 1100 B.c. the people of the middle highland 
region, and somewhat later the territory of Judah, 
were compelled to pay tribute. In this extremity, 
Samuel succeeded in inspiring the distinguished 
Benjamite Saul to make the attempt to unify the 
Israelite tribes in a common war against their des- 
potic masters. The home of Samuel is given as 
Ramah, or Ramathaim, in the land of Zuph, on 
Mount Ephraim (I § 11), which in the Onomasticon 
(ed. De Lagarde, 225 f. 96,288.146) is identified with 
‘Pewots (the mod. Rentis), NE. of Lydda. After his 
fortunate deliverance of the city of Jabesh, probably 
the ruin el-Maklib near the mod. Wddy Yabis, E. of 
the Jordan, Saul was proclaimed king by his army 
at Gilgal (IS ch. 11). From Gibeah (Jeba‘) on the 
S. side of Wady es-Suwénit, Jonathan passed over 
and surprized the camp of the Philistines at Mich- 
mash (Makhmds), on the N. side of the same ravine, 
and Saul completed the victory by pursuing the 
Philistines down through the Wddy Selman as far 
as Aijalon (IS ch. 138 f.). 


Saul’s kingdom became the magnet which drew to 
itself the remaining Israelite tribes to the S., N., 
and EK. His campaign against the Amalekites (IS 
ch. 15) shows that even in the territory of the Caleb- 
ites people began to place their hope in him. With 
David, the son of Jesse of Bethlehem in Judah, the 
Judean clans appear for the first time in close rela- 
tionship to the Israelite kingdom. In the E. Saul 
warred successfully with the Moabites, Ammonites, 
and Arameans (I § 14 47 f.; read ’Ardm instead of 
’"Edhém). But his defeat at the foot of Mt. Gilboa 
(mod. Jebel Fukii‘a, § 8, above) rendered all his pre- 
vious successes against the Philistines of no account. 
The latter now took possession of the cities of the 
Plain of Esdraelon, and therewith the control of the 
trade-route as far as Tabor (§ 10, above). 


The work of Saul, which had apparently been in 
vain, was brought to a successful issue by David. 
The Kingdom of Judah which he founded at Hebron 
marked the beginning of a new stage in the history 
of the tribe of Judah, which had been pursuing its 
own fameless way upon its isolated mountains 
throughout the previous 200 years. David brought 
into union with this tribe a territory three or four 
times as large asits original possession, and gradual- 
ly extended it to the SE. as far as the territory of the 
Edomites, to the 8. as far as Kadesh in the Negeb 
(cf. § 6, above), and to the SW. as far as the territory 
of the Philistines. This whole region became known 
as Judah (e.g., Jos 151), but it included tribes which 
up to that time had always been distinguished from 
Judah, such as the Kenizzites, Kenites, and Jerah- 
meelites. Therewith David laid the foundation for 
the rivalry between Judah and Israel, which took the 
place of the old rivalry between Leah and Rachel, 
altho his real purpose was to unite the tribes about 
his own person. He attained his end through the 
death of Ishbosheth at Mahanaim, E. of the Jordan, 


675 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palestine 





and through the capture of the Jebusite stronghold 
Zion, together with his decisive victories over the 
Philistines. The general character of the mountain- 
land, its narrow valleys and numberless hiding- 
places, made it possible for David to take the offen- 
sive against the Philistines, who had once more 
advanced into the highlands. Of the numerous con- 
flicts (cf. II S 21 15-22, 23 9-17) only two are recounted 
with any exactness, namely, that at Baal-perazim 
and at Gibeon (II § 5 17-25). The first-mentioned 
place must be sought for in the upper Wady es-Sarar 
not far from the Valley of Rephaim (§ 7, above). 
The second is the well-known el-Jib. 

This union of the Israelite tribes lasted about two 
generations. The same general course of events was 
taking place throughout the whole land. Israel 


received into her political community those Ca- | 


naanite clans which had not been simply absorbed, 
and gave them equal rights with her own people. So 
it happened with the Jebusites in Jerusalem (II S 24 
16 #.; Zee 9 7), likewise with the Arameans in the 
E. Jordan land, as we learn from the case of Barzillai 
({I S 17 27, 19 31 f#.). In Solomon’s time there still 
remained some independent Canaanites in Israel (I 
K 9 20f.). In this period we should probably place 
the return on the part of certain clans of the tribe of 
Manasseh to the E. Jordan region, where Machir 
settled in Gilead (§ 13, above); Jair occupied the so 
called ‘villages’ of Jair, more exactly ‘encampments’ 
of Jair, and Nobah occupied the city of Kenath (Nu 
32 39, 41f.). The ‘encampments’ of Jair (which were 
nomadic) should not be confused with the thirty 
cities of Jair mentioned in Jg 10 4—which should be 
located, in view of the mention of Kamon, mod. 
Kamm and Kumém (Jg 10 5), W. of Irbid in N. 
Gilead—but are to be placed probably E. of this 
place toward the desert. The city Kenath is proba- 
bly the mod. Kerak in the Nukra, the ancient Ba- 
shan (§ 13, above). The Aramean districts Geshur 
and Maachah, N. of the Yarmik, remained inde- 
pendent altho the city of Golan with its vicinity 
seems to have belonged to Israel (Jos 13 13; Dt 4 43). 
The Israelite territory—not identical with the king- 
dom of David—was usually designated by the brief 
formula ‘Israel from Dan to Beer-sheba’ (II S 24 2). 
The account of the census of Israel and Judah which 
Joab undertook for David (II S 24 1-8) mentions the 
most important points on the border: Aroer on the 
Arnon (mod. ‘Aré‘ir, on the Wady el-Mojib); the 
territory of Gad, which is here the most southern 
part of the Israelite territory E. of the Jordan; the 
region of the city Jazer (mod. Khirbet Sar on the 
Wady Sir); the region of Gilead, which is here the 
northern part of the Israelite E. Jordan territory; 
then the territory of Naphtali, W. of the Jordan, 
with its city Kadesh (mod. Kedes above Lake Hie); 
the city of Dan (mod. Tell el- Kadi); the city of Ijon 
(cf. the mod. Merj ‘Ayn, § 10, above); then to the 
W. the boundary toward the territory of Sidon and 
Tyre; and finally, in a southerly direction, the cities 
of the Hivites and Canaanites as far as the Negeb 
of Judah to Beer-sheba. The boundary-line toward 
the W. is presupposed as well-known. The Davidic 
kingdom included but one small portion of the 
Mediterranean coast, namely, that from Carmel (ct. 


I K 18 30) to the city of Dor (Jos 17 11; Jg 1 27f.). In 
other places the territory of Israel ended with the 
western slope of the mountain-land, and the Sheph- 
elah was divided between Israel and the Philistines. 
These limits of the kingdom remained on the 
whole unchanged during the reign of Solomon. 


31. The Boundary Between the Kingdoms of 
Israel and Judah. ‘The disruption of the kingdom 
brought about no change in the boundary between 
the Israelite territory and that belonging to other 
peoples, but it drew a new one between the two 
kingdoms which was not identical with the old tribal 
boundary. The Southern Kingdom included the 
whole tribe of Judah, with all its dependents, which 
we have already noted (§ 30, above), and in addition, 
the southern part of the tribe of Benjamin, not the 
whole tribe as was the view in later times (cf. I K 
11 32, 36, 1217, with 12 21, 23=II'Ch111, 3). The por- 
tion of the tribe of Benjamin which was reckoned to 
the Kingdom of Judah did not always remain the 
same. King Abijah of Judah is said to have defeated 
Jeroboam I at Mt. Zemaraim, probably in the 
neighborhood of Bethel, and then united the district 
including Bethel, Jeshanah (mod. ‘Ain Sinja, 34 m 
N. of Bethel), and Ephron (cf. mod. e¢-Taijibe, 45 m 
N. of Bethel), with Judah (II Ch 13 3-20). He had 
some agreement with the Arameans of Damascus, to 
the disadvantage of Israel (I K 15 19). But King 
Baasha of Israel came to such an understanding with 
the Arameans that he was able undisturbed by 
them to push back the Judeans as far as the neigh- 
borhood of Jerusalem and to fortify Ramah (mod. 
er-kam, 5 m. N. of Jerusalem), as a frontier fortress 
on the main thoroughfare upon the crest of the 
highland. King Asa of Judah, son of Abijah, felt 
himself too weak to put an end to this oppressive 
situation. Only after he had hired Ben-hadad I of 
Damascus for a large sum to again attack Israel was 
he able to dismantle Ramah. He then built up and 
fortified Gibeah (mod. Dscheba‘) and also Mizpah 
(mod. Nebi Samwil or Tell en- Nasbe?) as frontier 
fortresses of his kingdom (I K 15 16-23). This boun- 
dary-line continued unchanged until the 7th cent. 
From the crest of the highland it ran eastward, 
probably through the precipitous Wddy es-Suwénit, 
while to the W. it touched upon the territory of the 
city of Aijalon, which had been fortified by Reho- 
boam (II Ch 11 10), probably not including Beth- 
horon. In the second half of the 7th cent. the 
boundary-line was again pushed northward. Such 
passages as Is 10 28, II K 23 4, 15 can be understood 
only on the supposition that the boundary of the 
Judean kingdom was near Aiath or Bethel. Such a 
change seems possible only in the time when the 
authority of the Assyrian kingdom on its frontiers 
had weakened; that is, after 645 B.c. It is this 
boundary-line that the author of Jos 18 12 f. has in 
mind when he places the northern limit of the tribe 
of Benjamin at Bethel, and to this same time belong 
the expressions which speak of the house of. David 
as ruling over two tribes, namely, over Judah and 
Benjamin (I K 12 21, 23; II Ch 111, 3, 34 32). It is 
true that after 722 there was no such thing as a 
boundary between the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, 
but between the Kingdom of Judah and the Assyrian 


Palestine 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


676 





provinces to the N. These same observations hold 
true for the extension of the dominion of King Josiah 
as far as the Plain of Esdraelon, which is to be in- 
ferred from II K 23 19 f., 29 ff. 

32. The Tribal Boundaries in Jos chs. 13-19. The 
description of the tribal boundaries which we find in 
Jos chs. 13-19 gives rise to many discussions of 
Israel’s preexilic period. The multitude of details 
which here come in view can not be discussed in this 
place. Only some general observations concerning 
the age, the value, and practical use of these notices 
ean be offered. These notices belong to different 
times and different documentary sources, from JE to 
PC, and have been worked over to a great extent, in 
some cases supplemented, in others abbreviated. The 
material which they contain is preexilic, and the 
authors down to the last redactor were conscious that 
they were dealing with preexilic conditions. But the 
traditional materials which they brought together 
were neither contemporaneous nor similar in charac- 
ter. The redactors also have here and there united 
theoretical considerations along with the material 
which they found at hand concerning the boundaries 
of Israel or of the individual tribes. The most in- 
structive as well as most lucid notices are those con- 
cerning the territory of Judah and Benjamin, as 
they are also most complete. The northern limit of 
Judah (Jos 15 5-11; ef. the 8. boundary of Benjamin, 
Jos 18 15-19) can be understood only as the boundary 
of the tribe of Judah in the preexilic time. The 
southern limit, on the other hand (Jos 15 1-4), is not 
the boundary of the tribe, but of the Kingdom of 
Judah, to which the inhabitants of the Negeb were 
frequently compelled to pay tribute. The tribe of 
Judah extended southward only as far as the neigh- 
borhood of Beth-zur, where the territory of the 
Calebites began (cf. § 29, above), which after David’s 
time belonged actually to the Kingdom of Judah. 
Therefore, the notices here brought together vary 
greatly in character. The localities Zorah and Esh- 
taol are reckoned to the tribe of Dan in Jos 19 41, but 
in 15 33 to Judah, altho, according to Jg 13 2 f. and 
18 11, they are closely connected with the history of 
the Danites. The same thing is found in connection 
with Ir-shemesh (that is Bethshemesh Jos 15 10; 
II K 14.01, 13; II Ch 28 18) and Aijalon (Jg 1 35; II Ch 
11 10, 2818). Each statement represented correctly 
the conditions of the time to which it originally 
belonged, but it is clear that they come severally 
from different periods. The W. boundary of Judah 
in Jos 1511f. is the Mediterranean (cf. Dt 34 2, 11 24); 
consequently, the well-known Philistine cities of 
Ekron, Ashdod, and Gaza are listed as belonging to 
Judah (Jos 15 45-47). The writer knew nothing of the 
fact that under Alexander Jannzeus (104-78 B.c.) and 
Herod the Great a small strip of the coast belonged 
to the Jewish kingdom. He probably based his 
statements on the fact that David had conquered 
the Philistines and reduced them to subjection, and 
consequently counted all their territory as belonging 
to the Kingdom of Judah; that is, he claimed it for 
Judah. Here the author did not deal in facts, as we 
might expect from the whole context, but repre- 
sented the case according to his theory of what 
ought to have taken place (cf. Am 912), The same 


peculiarities are found in the notices of the boundary 
of the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 1811-20). The northern 
limit is determined with reference to the conditions 
that held after the dissolution of the Northern King- 
dom (cf. § 31, above). The assignment of the city of 
Jerusalem to Benjamin is correct only in so far as it 
did not belong to Judah, but in fact still less did it 
actually belong to Benjamin. Here also apparently 
theoretical considerations influenced the writer. 
When we test these most exact statements of the 
tribal boundaries we see that they have been 
brought together through learned efforts indeed, 
altho from our point of view in a very unscientific 
way, since materials varying greatly in character 
have been used indiscriminately. We by no means 
get from them those holy inviolable bounds and 
limits which were supposed to have been set by 
Joshua in the olden time, and which sharply divided 
the territory of one tribe from that of another. It 
would be only a false appreciation of these notices to 
assign them any high historical value. Besides, we 
are unable, even with the help of the good modern 
maps which we now possess, to draw these boundary- 
lines according to the points noted. We find, for 
example, for the northern boundary of Judah (Jos 
15 5 ff.) twelve localities which can be identified are 
given, yet it is clear that a boundary-line drawn 
according to these places would rest only upon sup- 
position. Further, the northern limit of the tribe 
of Dan coincides with the western part of the south- 
ern limit of the tribe of Ephraim. For this we have 
the points (Jos 16 3) lower Beth-horon, Gezer, and 
the sea, but how could any one draw a boundary- 
line on the basis of such information? For most of 
the other tribes we have fewer notices than for 
Judah and Benjamin. The tribal boundaries of 
Dan and Simeon are missing altogether. The text 
of the notices touching Asher and Zebulon is very 
corrupt, and the majority of the places mentioned 
are unknown. The notices regarding the boundaries 
of Issachar, Gad, Reuben, and Naphtali are very 
incomplete, probably abbreviated. The dividing- 
line between Issachar, Manasseh, and Ephraim is 
not definite, and the same was the case regarding 
Reuben and Gad; so that if any one should, in spite 
of all these difficulties, represent the territory of the 
tribes of Israel upon a map, he sets forth things 
that were never actual historical conditions, but 
only creations of the imagination. 


33. The Jewish Territory About Jerusalem After 
the Exile. From Neh ch. 3 we learn what the terri- 
tory was which the families of Judah and Benjamin 
inhabited once more after the Exile, and which was 
therefore administered by the governor Nehemiah. 
It included six larger places: Jerusalem, Jericho, 
Tekoah, Zanoah (mod. Tell Zani‘a), Gibeon, and 
Mizpah, and nine administrative divisions: the 
double districts of Jerusalem, Beth-zur, and Keilah 
(probably Kh. Kila near Zorah), together with the 
single districts Beth-haccherem (mod. ‘Ain Karim), 
Mizpah, and the Plain of the Jordan. The list is not 
entirely complete, altho it includes most of the 
Jewish territory of the year 445 B.c. It isin a mea- 
sure confirmed by the catalog of Neh ch. 7 (=Eazr 
ch. 2), which originally was a list of the families and 


D 


NORTHERN PORTION OF 


PALESTINE 


Ancient names of places in Roman type, thus: Sepphuris 


Modern names in italies, thus: Seffurieh 

feapah 

: rg har) iyeh 8 

&CALE OF MILES ig heryaye! 
0 





TEM 


- Oe, 
YW Gi} 


Tha 
Sen 
Neba ef Madiney 


WP iuin® 4 








¥ 
(Nahr et e/a fy 





adder-of Tyrus 
Ras en-Ndkirah} 








y) Wigs 
& FZ 
Apt. 


T 


LILEE 
ESARE 
RETH 


GA 
© Gey 
CHL ago 


OF 


ap - 
OF 


Sy 





Ug PR. Du, will 
y- 


= <4 


A AY 
ree aS Cah 
WS es Gisepik Tbdar 40 


A L a ! $s 


MW Piatt 











Capitolias 














677 


communities that, about 480, identified themselves 
with the religious community founded by Nehemiah 
and Ezra. Its territory was, as a whole, somewhat 
smaller than that indicated in Neh ch. 3, since all 
the families dwelling in the neighborhood of Jerusa- 
lem did not at first identify themselves with the 
covenant community. To the W. it extended some- 
what further, as we find mention of the localities 
Lod (Lydda), Hadid (Hadithe), and Ono (Kafr 
‘Ana). Probably, these places lay outside of the 
territory occupied exclusively by the Jews, which is 
intended by the statements in Neh ch. 3. This 
difference, however, soon passed away through the 
growing power of the Jewish Church-state. We dis- 
cover this from the notices in I and II Mac. Here 
the limits of Jewish territory—that is, of the Jewish 
Church-state—are, in the S., Beth-zur (I Mac 4 29, 
61), in the N., Beth-horon (I Mac 3 16), and in the 
W., Emmaus, 7.e., ‘Amwds (I Mac 3 40, 42). Corre- 
sponding to such boundaries we have the fortifica- 
tions which Bacchides, ec. 160 B.c., erected ‘in Judea’: 
Jericho in the E., Beth-zur in the S., Emmaus and 
Gazara (Gezer) in the W., and Beth-horon and 
Bethel in the N. (I Mac 9 50 f.). The remaining 
three places, Thimnath, Pharathon, and Tephon, 
can not be identified. 


This small region was not inhabited throughout its 
territory exclusively by genuine Judeans or Benja- 
mites. During the Exile, certainly before the time of 
Nehemiah, the Edomites had pushed northward into 
the territory of the Calebites (cf. § 29, above), and 
had driven the latter, at least in part, from their 
possessions. The Calebites moved northward into 
the region of Ephrath, as we actually learn from I 
Ch 2 18 f., 50-55, and filled the district depopulated by 
Nebuchadrezzar with fresh immigrants. Kiriath- 
jearim, Bethlehem, Tekoah, Zorah, Eshtaol, Neto- 
pha (between Bethlehem and Anathoth), and other 
places are given in I Ch 2 24, 50 ff. as Calebite. When 
these identified themselves with the Jewish Church- 
state, the distinction between Caleb and Judah com- 
pletely disappeared. The territory occupied by the 
Edomites was later known under the Greek name 
Idumza, Hebron remaining the central city. The 
hate existing between the Jews and the Idumzans 
led to open hostilities as early as the time of Judas 
Maccabeus (I Mac 4 61, 5 65). 


34. Judea. Under the term ’Iodq, or "TouSata, in 
I Mac, the territory described in § 33, above, as 
belonging to the Jewish Church-state is meant, but 
with the growing power of the Maccabees the name 
took on a wider sense. Jonathan obtained (147 B.c.) 
the city of Ekron with its surrounding territory (I 
Mac 10 89), and in 145 from Demetrius II three dis- 
tricts touching on the Jewish territory in the N. and 
W., which previously had belonged to Samaria (I 
Mac 11 28, 34; cf. § 35, below), so that now alto- 
gether four new Jewish districts were counted (I 
Mac 11 57). The three districts ceded by Demetrius 
II were named from their chief cities, Apherima, 
Lydda, and Ramathaim, Apherima can be compared 
with the large village ’Egeaetu, Efrea which, accord- 
ing to Onom. ed. De Lagarde, 254, 118; 257, 121, was 
20 Rom. m. N. of Jerusalem, consequently in the 
region of Sinjil and el-Lubban. Lydda corresponds 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palestine 


to the O T Lod (§ 383, above), and Ramathaim 
(Arimathea, Mk 15 43) is the mod. Rentis 74 m. N. 
of Lydda, which in Onom. 225, 96; 288, 146 is called 
Peygts, Remphthis. After Beth-zur on the S. bound- 
ary had been captured from the Seleucids (I Mac 
11 66), Joppa was taken possession of and Judaized 
about 142 B.c. (I Mac 12 33, 13 11), likewise Gazara, 
or Gezer (I Mac 13 43 f.). The three districts just 
mentioned remained even in later times politically 
united to Jerusalem, since the majority of their 
inhabitants were Jews. According to these facts, the 
boundaries of Judea, over against Samaria, were 
determined after the beginning of the last century 
B.c. For the extent of Judea in later times, the list 
of toparchies, or administration districts, which 
Josephus gives (BJ, ITI, 3 5) is instructive, namely: 
(1) Jerusalem, (2) Gophna (Jifnd, NW. of Bethel), 
(83) Akrabata (‘Akrabe, N. of Shiloh), (4) Thamma 
(Tibne, N. of Beth-horon), (5) Lydda, (6) Ammaus 
(‘Amwas), (7) Bethletepha (Béé-nettif), (8) Engaddai 
(Engedi), (9) Herodium (Jebel el-Furédis), (10) 
Jericho (Hrihad). To these as (11) Idumea (§ 33, 
above), S. of Beth-zur, is to be added, which was 
conquered and Judaized by John Hyrcanus (135-105 
B.c.), and is not seldom mentioned by itself along 
with Judea (eg., Mk 37 f.). With the foregoing 
agree the boundaries which are found, partly in 
Josephus, and partly in the Talmud. In Ant. XIV, 
3 4, Korea (Kardwa, in the lower Wady Far‘a) is 
given as the most northern city of Judah, and in BJ, 
III, 3 5, Anuath Borkaios is named as the outpost 
against Samaria, with which we may compare ‘Ain 
Berkit, 2m. NE. of el-Lubban. Further to the W. the 
Talmud (cf. Neubauer, p. 86) mentions Antipatris 
(Kal‘at Ras el-‘Ain, N. of Lydda), which was built 
by Herod the Great as the boundary in that direc- 
tion. Accordingly, the northern limit seems to have 
followed the modern Wddy Ish‘dr and Wady Dér 
Ballit. The boundary toward the W. varied. The 
Jewish population was in the majority, but the land 
was not ‘old Jewish territory. For Joppa and Sa- 
maria, cf. Jos. BJ, III, 3 5; for Cesarea, cf. Ac 12 19, 
21 10. Ekron and Ashdod were controlled by the 
Hasmoneans, Gaza also by Herod. On the other 
hand, Ashkelon was never under the control of the 
Jews. 


The term ‘Judea’ was also used in a wider sense to 
mean a larger extent of territory, the ground of which 
usage is to be found in the conquests of the Macca- 
bees. The meaning of the term varied at different 
times. It was used for the kingdom of the Maccabees 
under Alexander Janneus (Jos. Ant. XIV, 5 2), for 
the territory of the high priest Hyrcanus (Ant. XIV, 
11 2), for the kingdom of Herod (XVI, 21), for the 
territory ruled over by the Roman procurators 
(XVIII, 11; Lk 3 1), for the Roman province of 
Judea (BJ, VII, 61), and for the portion of Syria 
inhabited by Jews (Ac 18,29). It is therefore not 
surprising that Josephus occasionally uses ‘Judea’ 
in the sense of the old Canaan (Ant. I, 6 2, 7 2). 

35. Samaria. In spite of the fact that the last 
remnant of the Kingdom of Israel was inhabited by 
a mixed population with a mixed religion (II K 17 
24 ff.), the haughty attitude toward Judah remained 
the same as n the earlier time, especially as the 


Palestine 
Parable 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 678 





territory of the latter was continually decreasing (cf. 
§ 33, above, and Neh 3 33-37). Beth-horon was the 
home of the powerful Sanballat, who gave Nehemiah 
so much trouble. It was the Maccabees who brought 
about a change in the external conditions, since the 
gaining of the three territories Apherima, Lydda, 
and Ramathaim, 145 B.c., advanced the territory of 
Judah a considerable distance northward (cf. § 34, 
above). In 128 B.c. John Hyrcanus conquered 
Shechem together with the whole of Samaria, and 
united it to the Judean kingdom. Pompey, on the 
other hand, freed the city of Samaria and the terri- 
tory belonging to it between Judea (§ 34, above) and 
the Plain of Esdraelon from the dominion of the 
Jews, and allowed it to manage its own internal 
affairs (63 B.c.); nevertheless it had to pay tribute to 
the province of Syria and furnish its contingent of 
soldiers to the governor of the same. Scythopolis, as 
Bethshan was now called, was united with the Deca-~ 
polis (§ 38, below), while Carmel (cf. § 8, above) had 
probably belonged to the city of Tyre since the fall of 
the Kingdom of Israel (BJ, III, 31 and I, 27). Some- 
where between these two points, according to Jose- 
phus (BJ, III, 3 4), lay the northern boundary of 
Samaria, namely, near the village of Ginaia (mod. 
Jenin), on the edge of the Plain of Esdraelon. The 
southern boundary has already been described in § 
34, above. To the E. the Jordan Valley was the 
limit, and on the W. indefinitely the foothills of the 
highland. The city of Samaria attained to new pros- 
perity through Herod, who rebuilt it (27 B.c.) and 
named it Sebaste. In 72 a.p. the old Shechem was 
replaced by Flavia Neapolis (mod. N4bulus), 
founded by Vespasian. 


headquarters of the Roman procurator of Judea. 


36. Galilee. After 734 B.c., the old Galil (§ 29, 
above) was altogether under the dominion of for- 
eigners. From II Ch 30 10 f. it may be inferred that 
about 300 B.c. a number of families in Galilee felt 
themselves to be in some relationship to Jerusalem. 
But their position among the heathen was not secure. 
Consequently, about 165 B.c. Simon the Maccabee 
was ordered to remove them with their property to 
Judea (I Mac 5 14-23). Through the victories of 
Aristobulus I (104-103 3.c.) the whole population 
was compelled to accept Judaism, a population that 
consisted of remnants of Canaanites and Israelites, 
with additions of Arameans, Itureans (from the 
Lebanons), and Greeks. It was due to this fact that 
the Galileans were somewhat despised by the Ju- 
deans (Jn 1 46, 752). Nevertheless, Josephus praises 
their bravery and love of freedom, which showed 
itself just before and after the beginning of the 
Christian era in their frequent revolutions, partly in 
favor of the fallen Maccabee house, and partly 
against the Romans. The boundaries of the terri- 
tory Galilee (TaAtAatez, the Gr. form of the Heb. 
galtl) we learn in general through Josephus (BJ, 
III, 31 #.). They began N. of Scythopolis and the 
Plain of Esdraelon, extended eastward as far as 
the Jordan and to the Sea of Gennesaret, and, on the 
N., bordered on a district belonging to the old city 
Kadesh (mod. Kedes, in Jos. Kedasa, or Kydyssa), 


On the coast, in 22 B.c., | 
Herod the Great founded the famous seaport | 
Cesarea Palestina, or ad Mare, which was later the | 





which belonged to Tyre (Ant. XIII, 56; BJ, II, 181; 
IV, 23). The western boundary can not be defined 
exactly. A distinction was made between Lower 
and Upper Galilee, the dividing-line being fixed by 
the Mishna as near Kephar-Hananja (mod. Kafr 
‘Andn), by Jos. as at Bersabe (perhaps the same as 
Heptapegon, between Khan Minje and et-Tabigha). 
Quite remarkably, a place like Gamala (Jos. BJ, II, 
20 4; ef. Ac 5 37) was reckoned to Galilee, tho it 
really belonged to Gaulanitis (Jélan), E. of the Sea 
of Gennesaret. The region near the sources of the 
Jordan, Ulatha and Paneas (§ 12, above), were not 
added to the kingdom of Herod until 20 B.c., when 
he was presented with the tetrarchy of Zenodorus by 
Augustus. The capital of Galilee was Sepphoris 
(Seffirije). Under Herod Antipas (4 B.c. to 39 A.D.) 
for a long time the capital was at Tiberias, a city 
founded by him (cf. § 10, above). 

37. Perea. The name ‘Perea’ represents the 
Hebrew expression ‘ébher hayyardén, meaning ‘the E. 
Jordan land.’ The connection of Perea with Jerusa- 
lem came about in the same way as did that of 
Galilee (§ 36, above). At first, Judas Maccabeus 
removed the Jewish population living there to 
Jerusalem (I Mac 5 9-54), but fifty years later, John 
Hyrcanus (134-104 B.c.) began the conquest of the 
K. Jordan land, which was completed by Alexander 
Janneus (102-76 B.c.). Philadelphia alone, the old 
Rabbath-Ammon, resisted him. Since the con- 
quered people were compelled to accept the Jewish 
religion, it is not surprizing if, from the time of 
Pompey (cf. §38, below), we find mention of a Jewish 
territory Perea E. of the Jordan. This territory, 
according to Jos. BJ, ITI, 3 3, wasS. of the district of 
the city Pella, somewhere near the Wady Yabis, and 
included, to the S., the district of the city Machzrus 
(Kh. Mukdawer). Its western boundary was the 
Jordan, while to the E. it extended as far as the terri- 
tory of the Arabian Nabatzans at Heshbon and the 
cities of Philadelphia and Gerasa. Its eastern boun- 
dary would have been represented by a line drawn a 
little E. of es-Salt. Its capital was Gedor (the 
T'adaoea of Ptolemy, V, 14), of which name we have a 
trace in the mod. ‘Ain Jddiir, S. of es-Salt. The rest 
of the E. Jordan land belonged to the territory of 


those cities which were united in the league of the - 


Decapolis (q.v.).. Cf. Guthe, Die griechisch-rimi- 
schen Stddte der Ost-Jordan Land (19138). 


38. The Roman Administration. When Pompey 
organized the Roman province of Syria, 63 B.c., he 
left the specific Jewish region—that is, Judea (with 
Idumza), Galilee, and Perea—under the control of 
the Maccabean high priest Hyrcanus, who, how- 
ever, was subject to the Roman governor of Syria. 
The non-Jewish cities on the coast and in the E. 
Jordan land were ‘freed’ from the dominion of the 
Jews. The latter formed themselves into the league 
of the Decapolis, which in the time of its greatest 
prosperity included Philadelphia on the S. and 
Damascus on the N., and for a long time formed an 
efficient bulwark for the well-populated an, civilized 
K. Jordan region against the Bedawin, who were 
continually pressing in from the desert. In conse- 
quence of a revolt against the Romans, Gabinius, 
the Roman governor (57 B.c.), divided up the Jewish 


ae 
ee 


———. 





g4° 
-MAP OF 


MODERN PALESTINE 


(BRITISH MANDATE) 





wis a Se ees be eee 
Principal Highways mostly Ist Class Roads 
2nd. Class Roada yr cereraite oie es 


Trails cs. se viet teen eer . 


ee ee ae 


definitely 
decided 


Limits of Palestine, tentative .... 
Lands below Sea Level ........ 


Limits of Palestine, 


Pg 


Scale of Miles 


10 20 80 40 5 
Kilometers 
10) e200 40) 50 


Zimma 


S HA 


Nin, 
IN 
Gina 


El Kossaima* 


AE 


ap. 
Dy 
7, 





\ 

t 

El Kuntilla 7 

Sas a 


\ Ss d 
wo 


Le 












































Tibnin , 
et ime 
028 


Zo UN 
Re 
S bes 


a 
Sia Ee 


se 
ZT 


\ 


NG 









~ = . De = ; ‘ A 
We Keurig PAE Ledjash {33 
l, ou 6 <5 a x A I 
JAere ~ J , 
cane MUN ey i 
HY)  Capern i a -|\ 
% TT 
Aponte, = beta ibs 
ea Qu Dibeias oye 
\4 2 ys ~ 










YW, 


ee 
oy 








3 ‘ 
BS Ar rannPniy ithe 
Si 








ZEMIN 


Fi Mnwwwey, 


WO * 
Ss Adjlun 


3s ° 


or 






































f nor * 


uw 
irma- 





4j 
My 








Ny 






fs 
Veet Ln iy 


WY 







x 


c iy » 
SZ ri 
* 


aug 





























yy p= A 
Ys " ’7 be eed =< 
“sv Kalat ed Daba oN 
O ay } 
me ay 
amt \ Js 
oS 4 Diban ie 
ea 5 % 2 
ASS 8 SE hin i 
cas & B81 Ve Arnie s 
1 UI $38 | k= Sol 
Ne Cd | Gn ae 
peers 7] A UAT RL > ———~ ; 
Sys w¥ rs <Siinttins aes ING x 
AIG S pe ace BA 
~ = vw if Ql Kutrani Vi 
; lo “\WSlZsn7~- Pre. \ 
SY Ss MG id Se, ‘g 
Auweira ee Er \ \ 
mmm : (as™ & \ ke ) 
WME % f Z,, AS \ \ / 
CIs 1 SQ \ \ / 
= EA ‘| j 
“sg f J. Ge 0K vee Re. ; 31 
nN FAD 4 —~ 
Ure In, 44 BF qu N 
= ys a rs S 
Py oe / pe g My e? ms a oe as 
= A SS Cur : 
Epa re ( 16 ] ®e He ae % \ 
SASS als Cy SA x 
™. ve \ sus ly : ee ~. 
=—N tes 9 Wal ( Za . 
sS KE =S tay ORI ttt os SF 
CTS Si Cuprafiial “Mee _& 
awe eS ‘ Ke) 7 = My “> / 
Sth a 
iS — We i NG. “4 
we ZS / 
UINWZ % KN yt 9% SEN \ 
- ie NSS ue P yw 8 one .S/ x or) \ 
"¢ iW) ieee Fe 
21M Za ey i \ Me Of FS 2 
y eS f Zz £ NS 
p> PES) AN LORS Hl eA i 
“y Aan 7] = filly Sey h 5 
S|! wiz % He ran 
EY ow = Ft Kalat Anaza ip aap, 
ZY subir rae lane 
KS 1* f \ 
mS ws A Fas BY \ / / 
‘ef Ma 4 ; cee SG aes 
PALS My Fm, aa: a Ne ‘We =! 4 
is) } = F ee ~ \ Dae 
AYS W Petra see ee ye 
£ Hic He 7 oe =~. k ? 7 / 
ny ANY: djl ¢ A 
2 (pua/s pied JEL Jafar. = / 
eS A> NG 22 ': “ Depression) ~aWadt 
Bd LS if Ny 4 = 4 Maan & EG ae 
Se Ait / 2 = § 
HEP SB SES oe, 
Wy = 















Longitude East from Greenwich 





679 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Palestine 
Parable - 





territory into five districts, Jerusalem, Jericho, 
Gazara, Amathus, and Sepphoris, exclusive of 
Idumza, which remained in the control of the wily 
Antipater. The first three of these territories con- 
stituted Judea proper. Amathus (7'ell ‘Amate) was 
made the capital of Perea, as Sepphoris was of 
Galilee. But in 55 s.c. Gabinius restored the old 
conditions, and in 47 B.c. Cesar enlarged the terri- 
tory of Hyrcanus by the addition of the Plain of 
Esdraelon and the seaport Joppa. Altho after a 
long struggle the Maccabean Antigonus with the 
help of the Parthians again became King of the 
Jews (40-37 s.c.), Herod the son of Antipater suc- 
ceeded in having himself named by the Roman 
senate as king (40 B.c.), and having defeated Anti- 
’ gonus ruled from 37 to 4.B.c. He rendered the land 
a great service in that he subdued the Arabian 
Bedawin in the Trachonitis (el-Leja), and brought 
this region, together with the adjacent districts 
Batanza and Auranitis, to a state of settled, peace- 
ful civilization (23 and 7 B.c.). He succeeded in 
adding Gaulanitis also, together with the district 
about the sources of the Jordan, to his kingdom. 
After his death, Augustus decided that Archelaus as 
ethnarch should have Idumzxa, Judea, and Samaria, 
that Antipas should have Galilee and Perea, and 
Philip receive Batanza (with Gaulanitis), Tracho- 
nitis, and Auranitis, the two latter with the title 


tetrarch. But as early as 6 a.D. the territory of | 
Archelaus was united with the province of Syria, | 
altho under special administration of a procurator — 


(6-41 a.p.). Philip, who built the city of Cesarea 
Philippi near the old Paneion at the sources of the 
Jordan (§ 12, above), and Julias on the site of Beth- 
saida, ruled until 33-34 a.p. His territory was united 
with the province of Syria until 37, then was given 
to King Agrippa I, who, in 39-40, also received the 
territory of Antipas, and in 41, Judea and Samaria. 
After his death (44 a.p.) the Emperor Claudius 
placed the whole region under procurators (44-66). 
For the suppression of the Jewish revolt (66-70 
Nero appointed Flavius Vespasianus to the Jewish 
territory as a special province. It remained as the 
private property of the Emperor Vespasian after his 
son Titus had put down the revolt. The province of 
Judea was administered from Caesarea Palestina 
through imperial governors; that is, pretorian legates. 
After the suppression of the last revolt of the Jews 

(132-135 a.p.) by Hadrian, the province was named 

Syria Palestina, with a consular legate at its head. 

After the time of Septimius Severus (193-211 a.p.), 

the simple name ‘Palestine’ was the usual designa- 

tion (cf. § 1, above). 

Literature: Reland, Palestina, 1714; Ritter, Allgemeine 
Erdkunde, XIV-XVII, 21848-54; Robinson, Biblical Re- 
searches (and other works), 1841-65; the publications of 
the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1865-1924; Baedeker- 
Socin, Paldstina und Syrien (‘Eng. transl., 1897); G. A. 


Smith, Hist. Geog. of the Holy Land (111922); F. Buhl, Geo- 
graphie des alien Paldstina (1896), with full bibliography. 
H.G 


PALLU, palla (8192, pall’): The ancestral head 
of the Palluites (Nu 26 5), one of the clans of Reuben 
(Gn 46 9, Phallu AV; Ex 6 14, etc.). 


PALMER-WORM. See Locust. 
PALM-TREE. See Pauzstine, §§ 21, 23. 





PALSY. See Disrass anp Mepicing, III. 

PALTI, pal’tai CYB, palti): 1. One of the spies 
(Nu 139). 2. The person to whom Saul gave his 
daughter Michal, David’s wife, in marriage, after 
David had fled from the court (I S 25 44, Phalti AV; 
II 8 315, Phaltiel, AV, Paltiel RV). 


PALTIEL, pal'ti-cl (28022, palfi’él), ‘God de- 


livers’: 1. A ‘prince’ of Issachar (Nu 34 26). 2. See 
PattI, 2. 

PALTITE, pal’tait (%%27, happalit), ‘the man of 
Beth-palet’ (q.v.): The designation of Helez, one 
of David’s heroes (II S 23 26). Pelonite (I Ch 11 27) 
is probably a textual corruption of ‘Paltite.’ 

PAMPHYLIA, pam-fil’i-a. See Asta Minor, III, 
10. 
PAN: (1) habhittim (I Ch 9 31), from habhath, ‘to 
broil’ or ‘roast,’ is of uncertain meaning, tho proba- 
bly it indicates some sort of a baking-dish. (2) 
mahdbhath (Lv 2 5, 6 21, 7 9, all ‘baking-pan’ RV; 
I Ch 23 29), from the same root as (1), must be some 
kind of a flat broiling- or baking-dish, but exactly 
what is intended is uncertain (cf. the same word in 
Ezk 4 3). (3) masréth (II S 13 9); as the Jewish- 
Aramaic equivalent of this word means ‘pan,’ the 
same meaning is probably to be assigned to the Heb. 
word. On other terms rendered ‘pan’ (kiyydr, sir, 
partir, and tsallahath) see Foop anD Foop UTEnsizs, 
§ 11, and Plate I of HousrHotp Urensits, Fig. 4. 

EK. E. N. 

PANNAG, pan’nag (422, pannagh): An otherwise 
unknown word, which AV gives as a place, RV as 
some kind of confection (Ezk 27 17). Cornill and 
others emend to dhénagh, ‘wax’ (of bees), which goes 
well with ‘honey’ that follows. Grats bel 8 


PAPER. See Books anp Waittng, § 1. 


PAPHOS, pe’fes (IIépoc): A town on the promon- 
tory of Zephyrium near the SW. corner of Cyprus, 
founded by the Phenicians under Cinyras. Old 
Paphos lay near the sea with its harbor at the 
mouth of the Bocarus. New Paphos lay 10 m. 
inland in a fertile plain. P. was noted for the 
sensuous cult of the local Nature-goddess, identified 
with the Greek Aphrodite, who sprang from the sea 
here (the Paphian Aphrodite), where she was wor- 
shiped in the shape of a conical meteoric stone 
(baetylus); an oracle was connected with her famous, 
wealthy temple, the priest of which exercised 
spiritual supremacy over Cyprus. P. was destroyed 
by an earthquake in 14 B.c.; when rebuilt, it was 
named Augusta in honor of Augustus, but this 
name failed to persist. In imperial times it was the 
residence of the proconsul of Cyprus (cf. Ac 13 6 f., 
and see Pauutus, Sererus). Many ruins dating 
from Roman period remain. J.R.S.S.*—S. A. 

PAPYRUS, poa-pai’rus or -pi’rus. See PAa.es- 
TINE, § 22; Books AND Writina, § 1; and Surps 
AND NAVIGATION, § 2. 

PARABLE: 1. Nature of Parables. The essence 
of the parable (Heb. mashdl, Gr. rapaGoAn, from napa 
B&rXetv, ‘to set side by side’) is the idea of com- 
parison. It aims to make use of the underlying 
analogies or resemblances between the natural and 
spiritual spheres. The Biblical usage of the term is 


Parables 
Parbar 


A NEW STANDARD 
not exact. In particular, in the O T mdshél stands 
for a wide variety of figurative forms of expression. 
(See PROVERB.) Occasionally, the nearest English 
quivalent would be ‘argument,’ used in a very general 
sense (Job 271, 291). Again, the word means a 
poetic oracle (Nu 23 7,18; Hab 26) or an obscure and 
enigmatic utterance, perhaps because couched in 
symbolic terms (Hzk 20 49). Inthe N T napaBory is 
applied to certain proverbial or metaphorical expres- 
sions which are not in the form of a narrative, e.g., 
‘If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the 
ditch’ (cf. also Mt 15 14-16; Lk 4 23, 6 39). In the 
Fourth Gospel ‘parable’ is used to render xapotwtla 
(10 6), which is more srictly ‘proverb’ (so RVmg.). 
But the post-Biblical and modern usage of the term 
has tended to narrow its meaning and, in general, to 
limit it to similitudes cast into narrative form. 
Such simpler figurative speech is now called proverb 
or metaphor. More extended forms of conveying 
truth symbolically are the fable, the myth, and the 
allegory. Parable is thus to be distinguished from 
myth, which is also in the form of fictitious narrative 
capable of conveying moral and spiritual instruc- 
tion, and occurs in two forms. The first of these 
results from the unconscious clustering of imagined 
events about imaginary persons in the course of the 
formation of folk-lore. When folk-lore contains a 
kernel of historical fact, it becomes legend; when it 
embodies some truth of natural religion, it is called 
myth. The second type of myth is that of a story 
artificially constructed. In either case myth em- 
bodies and expresses truth, not as a matter of 
practical life, but of speculative thought. In its 
first form, it lacks the element of exact parallel- 
ism between the narrative and the truth conveyed 
through it. In its second form (cf. Plato, Gorg. 523a; 
Phed. 61a), while it approaches most nearly to the 
Biblical parable, it is not limited to the expression 
of spiritual or moral lessons; it is concerned with 
intellectual truth oftener than with ethical principles. 
The fable differs from the parable, first, in not aim- 
ing to represent action possible in nature. It draws 
its characters from the lower brute creation and even 
from the inanimate world. It represents these as 
possessing and using faculties of mind and heart 
just like the human. Foxes and wolves, eagles and 
tortoises, trees and flowers, pots and pans, converse 
with one another like men and women. But a more 
important difference between fable and parable is 
that the former is associated with instruction of a 
type lower than the spiritual. At the highest, its 
object is the cultivation of mere wordly wisdom or 
prudence. Quite often a fable is constructed for no 
other end than to entertain or amuse the reader, 
while a parable is always meant to teach some truth 
of the spiritual or eternal order. Finally, parable 
differs from allegory in that the latter is more elab- 
orate. It involves the possibility of being lengthened 
out indefinitely. It parallelizes the developments and 
sinuosities of an inner or ideal transaction by cor- 
responding terms in the figure. The former is 
characterized by brevity and simplicity. Figure 
and idea touch each other at one principal point. 
In form, also, parable and allegory differ as simile 
and metaphor (cf. ‘The kingdom of heaven is like 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


680 


unto,’ etc., Mt 13 24, 31, 33, etc., with ‘I am the true 
vine,’ Jn 151 or ‘I am the door,’ Jn ch. 10). 

2. Parables in the O T. Of parables in the 
strictest sense, the O T contains only two. The first 
of these is the story through which the prophet 
Nathan awakened in the consciousness of David a 
sense of his guilt in the matter of Bath-sheba (II S 
121 #.), and the second, the similitude of the vine- 
yard used by Isaiah (5 1 ff.) to arouse loyalty to 
Jehovah on the part of Israel. Other stories, such 
as that of the trees assembled to elect a king (Jg 
9 8) and of the thistle and cedar (II K 14 9), are 
more strictly fables. Still others, such as Hzekiel’s 
account of the two eagles and the vine (17 2 #.) 
and of the caldron (24 3 ff.), are allegories. The 
small number of parabolic narratives to be found 
in the O T must not, however, be taken as an 
indication of indifference toward this literary form 
as suitable for moral instruction. 
only apparently small. In reality, similitudes, 
which, tho not explicitly couched in the terms of 
fictitious narrative, suggest and furnish the materials 
for such narrative, are abundant. 


3. Rabbinical Use of Parables. The parable has 
been a favorite method of teaching with the sages 
of Oriental countries in general. Especially did 
eminent rabbis (Gamaliel, Hillel) before and in the 
time of Jesus Christ use it freely. Some of the pro- 
ductions of these men possess much beauty and 
point. One, for instance, aims to impress on the 
mind the Divine origin and value of the Law in the 
following story: A certain king had an only daughter. 
A certain prince from a far land asked and obtained 
her in marriage. As he was about to take his bride 
to his own country her father said to him: ‘She 
whom I have given to thee is my only daughter. I 
can not bear to part from her; yet I can not say 
unto thee, Take her not, for she is thy wife. But 
show me this kindness; wherever thou goest prepare 
me a chamber that I may dwell with you, for I can 
not bear to be separated from my daughter.’ Thus 
where the Law is, God is. (Weber, Jtid. Theol. 
71897, p. 17) But, as a general thing, the parables 
of rabbinical literature are artificial, unnatural, and 
fantastic (cf. Trench, Notes on Parables). 


4. The Parables of Jesus. Jesus used the parable 
form so often and with such effect as to raise it to 
preeminence among literary vehicles of truth. At 
the same time He identified it with His own per- 
sonality as a teacher, tho it is not true to say, as 
Steinmeyer does, that it is a form peculiar to Jesus. 
In all probability, the evangelic records do not 
contain all the parables which He formulated. As 
to those which they do bring down to us, their 
exact number will vary according as one adopts a 
broader or a narrower definition of the term ‘para- 
ble.’ Some limit the number to twenty-seven, while 
others make out as many as fifty-nine. It isenough 
to say that these numbers, far apart as they are, still 
convey an idea of the relative frequency of this mode 
of instruction in the teaching of Jesus. In remark- 
able contrast to this is the fact that the Epistles of 
the N T contain nothing resembling the parables. 
This is also true of the apocryphal gospels. The 
Fourth Gospel stands midway between the Synop- 


The number is - 


681 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Parables 
Parbar 





tics and the Epistles. While it records no parables 
in the strict sense of the word, it does contain 
figurative teaching of Jesus falling under the 
general name of allegory (Jn 107 #., 151 #.). With- 
in the smaller group constituted by the Synoptics 
the distribution of parables is again closely con- 
nected with the main characteristics peculiar to the 
separate documents. Mk, whose obvious aim is to 
tell of the works of Jesus, contains the smallest num- 
ber, giving only one not paralleled in the other two 
Synoptics. Lk, who aims to be full and complete, 
gives the largest number. Mt stands between these 
two, with a collection fairly representative of all 
Jesus’ parables. One striking characteristic of Jesus’ 
handling of parables is His use of them in pairs. The 
similitude of the Mustard-seed and that of the 
Leaven (Mt 13 33; Lk 13 20) convey essentially the 


same teaching. This is true also of the parables of © 


the Hidden Treasure, and the Pearl of Great Price 
(Mt 13 31f.; Mk 4 30; Mt 18 441f.), and of those of the 
Talents and Pounds. In one case, three parables 
appear to contain the same general lesson: the Lost 
Coin, the Lost Sheep, and the Lost Son (Lk ch. 15). 
The design of this repetition was evidently to pre- 
sent more clearly and forcibly truth already once 
expressed by showing it from other points of view. 
But both the grouping and the verbal form in which 
the parables are now extant have been to some 
degree influenced by the medium of the personalities 
through which they have been transmitted, 7.e., 
the consciousness of the evangelists. In respect to 
the literary form, according to Jiilicher, a tendency 
to develop the parables into allegories is to be dis- 
cerned in the Synoptic records (Gleichnissreden, I, 
pp. 183-202). But it is quite possible to exaggerate 
this. 

5. Interpretation of Parables. The object of 
parabolic teaching was undoubtedly to set forth 
clearly and impressively the inner realities of the 
kingdom of God. Yet in the very nature of things, 
to many minds unprepared for this type of teaching 
they incidentally proved a source of mystification 
and apparent concealment of the meaning of the 
teacher (cf. Mt 13 10 f.). With the lapse of time 
and the change of conditions and forms of thought, 
and more especially of forms of expression, the 
tendency to misconstrue and misinterpret the para- 
bles grew. In modern times this tendency has 
often assumed the proportions of complete allegori- 
zation. The interpreters of the Tiibingen school, for 
instance, found in the parables allegories of the con- 
tests between the Judaizing and Pauline parties in 
the Apostolic Church. In more recent days, a 
group of writers including such men as Tolstoy 
(Teaching of Jesus), Kirchbach (Was lehrte Jesus? 
81903), and Kalthoff (Das Christus Problem, 1902) 
read the parables as allegories of social and indus- 
trial conditions and movements. Such allegorizing 
is based in some instances upon accidental resem- 
blances and suggestions, as when in the Lost Coin 
(Lk 15 8) one sees a symbol of the lost soul, because 
just as the coin bears the image of a king, the soul 
bears the image of God. In other instances, allegori- 
zing is based on the use and interpretation of certain 
specific symbols in Scripture, upon the assumption 


that such interpretation of them gives them the 
stamp of authority. As, for instance, because in 
Mt 21 33, the leaders of Israel are portrayed as vine- 
dressers, the vine-dresser in Lk 13 6-9 (the parable of 
the Fruitless Fig-tree) must be taken as meaning a 
leader of Israel; but as the interpretation obviously 
does not fit the character of the person, the allegorist 
is compelled to explain that in this case the vine- 
dresser represents the leaders of Israel ‘as they 
were not.’ Again, in some instances, allegorizing is 
nothing more than the introduction of the theological 
and philosophical presuppositions of the interpreter. 
This was the case with the Tiibingen exegetes, who 
found in the four kinds of ground in the Parable of 
the Sower the four parties or sects of the early 
Christian Church. In all cases this type of inter- 
pretation violates fundamental principles, and mis- 
represents the teaching of Jesus. A parable from its 
nature presents a single thought in a figurative form. 
The thought may be simple as well as single, and in 
such a case, with the discovery and exposition of this 
thought the interpretation is complete. All else in 
the form of the figure must be regarded as back- 
ground or drapery. But the thought may also be 
complex (e.g., that in the Parable of the Sower), and 
then the subordinate features may, by their co- 
incident resemblances in the parabolic figure, throw 
auxiliary light upon it. Naturally, this principle 
leaves it to be determined what in each parable is 
the main thought and whether it admits of or de- 
mands auxiliary illustration. 


LireRATuRE: Jiilicher, Die Gleichnissreden Jesu (1899); Fiebig, 
Altjiidische Gleichnisse und die Gleichnisse Jesu (1904); 
Trench, Notes on the Parables (#41880); Bruce, The Parabolic 
Teaching of Christ (1886); Weinel, Die Gleichnisse Jesu 
(1905); Dods, The Parables of the Lord (21900); Drummond, 
J., Way of Life; Vol. I, Parables of Jesus (1918); Nourse, 
art. ‘Parable’ in ERE, Vol. IX (1917); Swete, H. B., Para- 
bles of the Kingdom (1920). Pe AOU 


PARACLETE, par’a-klit. See Hoxy Sprrrr, § 2. 
PARADISE. See Escuarouoey, § 31; and EpEn. 


PARAH, pé’ra (11811, happdrah), ‘the cow’: A 
city of Benjamin (Jos 18 23). Map III, F 5. 


PARAN, pé’ren (1782, pa’ran): 1. A wilderness 
between Midian and Egypt (I K 11 18), and defined 
more narrowly as including Kadesh, and, by infer- 
ence, also the wilderness of Zin and beyond to the 
S.; but still more narrowly as exclusive of Zin, 
which lies to the N. (Nu 13 21 and 33 36 LXX.). It 
is the modern et Th, a tableland abounding in lime- 
stone formation. It served as the refuge of Ishmael 
when expelled from the camp of Abraham (Gn 21 
21). It was one of the stations of the wilderness 
journey (Nu 1012, 1216 [P]). From it the spies were 
sent out, and thither they returned to make their 
report (Nu 13 3, 26). 2. A mountain, named with 
Sinai, Seir, and Teman (Dt 33 2; Hab 3 3). But as 
these passages are poetical, the intention to name 
an exact spot is doubtful. It may be Jebel Makra. 3. 
El-Paran (LXX. tr. ‘terebinth of Paran’ Gn 14 6), 
a landmark near Kadesh. Since it appears to be 
the extreme southern point reached by the Kings 
of Israel, it may be the same as Elath (q.v.). A. C. Z. 


PARBAR, par’bar (1312, parbar): The Hebraized 
form of a Persian word, meaning ‘summer-house’ or 


Parched Corn 
Patriarchs 





‘colonnade.’ It is the designation of a building con- 
nected with Solomon’s Temple on the W., where six 
Levites were stationed as guards, four at the cause- 
way and two inside the Parbar (I Ch 26 18). The 
word is used in its original Persian form parwdrim of 
one of the courts of the Temple (II K 23 11, pre- 
cincts RV, suburbs AV). J. A. K. 


PARCHED CORN. See Foop anp Foop UTEN- 
sits, § 1 


PARCHMENT: The rendering of the Gr. wen. beavacs 
in II Ti 413. It probably denotes books made of the 
material just coming into use, and therefore reserved 
for more important writings. See also Books AND 
Writina, § 4; and PerGAMuM (end). 


PARDON. See FORGIVENESS. 
PARK. See OrcHARD. 


PARLOR. Not used in RV. In AV it renders 
(1) lishkha@h, a room near the sanctuary in which 
sacrificial meals were held (Dr.) (I S 9 22 [wrongly 
‘guest chamber’ RV]; cf. the ‘chambers’ of the 
Temple; see Tmmpin, §§ 19-20). (2) ‘dliyyah (Jg 
3 20 ff. ‘upper room’ RV) and hedher (I Ch 28 11, 
‘Inner chambers’ RV) for which see Houss, § 6. 

E. E. N. 


PARMASHTA, por-magh’ta (NDYEIB, parmash- 


ta’), Persian for ‘chief’: One of the sons of Haman 
(Est 9 9) 


PARMENAS, par’mi-nas (II«ewevac): One of the 
‘seven’ chosen to administer the charities of the 
Jerusalem Church (Ac 6 5). Nothing further is 
known of him. See Cuurcu# Lire, § 3. 

PARNACH, par’nak (7298, parndkh): A ‘prince’ 
of Zebulun (Nu 84 25). 

PAROSH, pé’resh (YB, par‘osh), ‘flea’: The 
ancestral head of a great postexilic family of the 
same name (Ezr 2 3, 8 3 [Pharosh AV], 10 25; Neh 
3 25, 7 8, 10 14). 

PAROUSIA, par-t’shia- or -si-d. 
TOLoGY, §§ 34 ff. 

PARSHANDATHA, p§ar-shan’da-fha or pair’’shan 
dé’tha (SN73075, parshandatha’), a Persian word, 
‘given by prayer’ (?): One of the sons of Haman 
(Est 97). 


PARTHIANS, par’thi-anz (IIée@cr, Ac 2 9): Men 
of Jewish descent who made their permanent home 
in Parthia, and were found, like many others of the 
Dispersion, at Jerusalem, probably as pilgrims cele- 
brating the festival. 
are nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Parthia was a 
mountainous land to the 8. of the Caspian Sea, 
bounded by Hyrcania on the N., Ariana on the E., 
Media on the W., and Carmania on the 8S. In its 
earliest known history this territory was a part of the 
Persian empire, constituting, according to Herodotus 
(IIT, 93), a portion of the 16th satrapy under Darius. 
It remained under Persian control as late as the con- 
quest of Persia by Alexander the Great. When the 
land passed into the hands of the Seleucids, the 
Parthians revolted under Arsaces and became an 
independent state (ce. 250 B.c.). But, once in- 
dependent, and under the lead of the Arsacids, 
Parthia rapidly grew into an empire extending to 


See Escua- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Parthians, in a strict sense, — 


682 


the Euphrates and the Indus. ‘The Romans found 
this power difficult to deal with. In fact, they never 
conquered it. The Parthians played an important 
part in the history of Judea during the years follow- 
ing Pompey’s conquest (63 B.c.). An invasion by 
them in 39 B.c., tho repulsed at last, necessitated a 
reorganization of the government. They finally 
degenerated and succumbed before the Persians 
under the Sassanids in 226 a.D. A.C, Z, 


PARTITION, MIDDLE WALL OF: An expres- 
sion used by Paul (Eph 2 14) in a passage in which 
he asserts the abolition of all distinction between 
Jew and Gentile. It is probable that he had in mind 
the barrier (sdrégh) in Herod’s Temple that separated 
the outer court of the Gentiles from the inner courts 
accessible to Jews alone (Jos. Ant. XV, 2; BJ, V, 5). 
See Tremp ey, § 28. S. D.—M. W. J. 


PARTRIDGE (qér@’, ‘caller’): A bird common in 
Palestine, but regarded as insignificant in contrast 
with larger game (I § 26 20). In Jer 17 11 its alleged 
habit of stealing a nest and hatching young not of its 
own serves as the basis of a figurative usage. But 
as the partridge does not do this, the prophet is 
evidently using a current notion as the ground of his 
simile. See also PALESTINE, § 25. A.C. Z. 


PARUAH, po-ri’d or par’u-a (18, pariah): 
The father of Solomon’s officer Jehoshaphat (I K 
4 17), 


PARVAIM, par-vé’im or piér’va-im (87778, par- 
wayim): Probably the designation of a region 
where gold was mined (II Ch 3 6). Two possible 
identifications, one in southern, the other in NH. 
Arabia have been proposed. 


PASACH, pé’sak (123, pdsakh): The head of a 
family of Asher (I Ch 7 33). 


PAS-DAMMIM, pas’’-dam’mim. 
DAMMIM. 

PASEAH, po-si’d (122, pdséah), ‘limping’: 1. The 
head of Judahite family (I Ch 4 12, or here a place- 
name?). 2. The ancestral head of a family of the 
Nethinim (Ezr 2 49; Neh 7 51, Phaseah AV, Neh 
3 6). 

PASHHUR, pash’hir, PASHUR (718, pash- 
hair): 1. The son of Malchijah. With Zephaniah, 
the priest, he was sent by King Zedekiah (c. 588) 
to Jeremiah to inquire concerning the outcome of 
Nebuchadrezzar’s attack on Jerusalem (Jer 21 1 f.). 
Later, he was one of those (Jer 381 £.) who were re- 
sponsible for putting Jeremiah in the miry dungeon 
(I Ch 9 12; Neh 11 12). 2. The son of Immer, and 
chief overseer in the Temple under Jehoiakim. He 
smote Jeremiah and had him put in the stocks, from 
which he freed him the next day. Jeremiah gave 
him the name Magor-Missabib (q.v.), and prophe- 
sied that he would go into exile to Babylon (Jer 20 
1#.). As Zephaniah, son of Maaseiah, evidently was 
overseer of the Temple under Zedekiah (IJ K 25 18; 
ef. Jer 29 26), P. probably was taken to Babylon with 
Jehoiachin (597 8.c.). 3. A priestly family which 
returned with Zerubbabel (Har 2 38; Neh 7 41). Six 
of the family had married foreign wives (Ezr 10 22), 
and arepresentative of the family sealed the covenant 


See Ernzs- 


aaa 


683 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Parched Corn 
Patriarchs 





(Neh 10 3 [4]). 4. The father of Gedaliah (Jer 38 1), 


perhaps the same as 2 above. Cosel, 
PASSAGE (ma‘abhdr, ma‘barah), ‘pass,’ ‘ford’: 
This term is found in the AV of Jg 12 5, 6; I S 13 23, 
14 4; Is 10 29; Jer 22 20, 51 32; but the same Heb. 
word is rendered ‘fords’ in Jos 2 7; Jg 3 28; Is 16 2. 
The RV more accurately renders by ‘fords’ in Jg 
12 5, and Jer 51 32 mg. (but ‘passages’ in the text); 
also by ‘pass’ (‘passes’) in IS 13 23, 14 4; Is 10 29, 
and ‘Abarim’ in Jer 22 20. (Cf. ABARIM.) A. C. Z. 
PASSENGER: A word found in Pr 915; Ezk 39 u, 
14, 15 AV in the obsolete sense of ‘one who is passing 
by’ or ‘through’ a place. The RV has the more 
modern ‘they [them] that pass by [through].’ A.C. Z. 


-PASSION: (1) In Ac 1 3, ‘after his passion’ is 
literally ‘after He suffered,’ pete td ralety adcéy. 
(2) The expression ‘like passions’ (Ac 14 15; Ja 5 17) 
is the rendering of the compound adj. éuotorabaje, ‘of 
like feeling,’ and means, in these two instances. ‘of 
like nature,’ ‘with the same natural limitations.’ 
Other occurences of the word need no explanation. 

E. E. N. 


PASSOVER. See Fasts anp Fnrasts, § 7. 


PASS THROUGH FIRE, CAUSE TO. See 
Semitic Retiaion, § 26. 


PASTOR: The original terms rd‘eh, rotwiy, ‘shep- 
herd,’ rendered by ‘pastor’ in Jer 2 8, 3 15, etc., and 
in Eph 4 11 AV, are in these instances used neither 
in their literal sense nor in the modern ecclesiastical 
sense of the Eng. word, but as the equivalent of 
‘ruler.’ Of these renderings RV retains the word only 
in Eph 4 11. See also Cuurcu Lirg, § 8. A.C. Z. 


PASTORAL EPISTLES. See Timoruy, Epis- 
TLES TO; and Trrus, EpisriE To. 


PATARA, pat’a-ra (IIétaex): A seaport of Lycia 
E. of the mouth of the Xanthus, one of the twenty- 
three Lycian republics which formed a confederacy 
of seventy cities under a Lyciarch; the six chief 
cities (Xanthus, Patara, Pinara, Olympus, Myra, 
Tlos) had two votes each. P. was the seat of the 
worship, and a famous oracle, of Apollo Patareus. 
It was enlarged by Ptolemy Philadelphus, who re- 
named it Arsinoé (this name did not persist). Con- 
siderable ruins remain of walls, temples, theaters, 
an aqueduct, baths (built by Vespasian), sarcophagi, 
the pit and circular steps of the Apolline oracle, 
and a triumphal arch with the inscription ‘P. the 
capital of the Lycian nation.’ The ancient harbor 
is now a swamp. At P. Paul changed ships on his 
last voyage to Jerusalem (Ac 211f.). 

J. R. 8. S.*—S. A. 


PATH, PATHWAY: These words render the 
following original terms: (1) ’drah, ‘path,’ ‘customary 
road,’ (Job 19 8; Is 2 3, etc.). (2) mesillah, ‘highway’ 
(Is 59 7; Jl 28). (3) ma‘gal, ma‘galah, ‘wheel-road’ 
(Ps 17 5, 23 3; Pr 2 9, etc.). (4) mish‘dl, a pass 
‘hemmed in’ on each side, or made by hollowing 
(Nu 22 24). (5) nathtbh, nethibhah, a ‘raised road,’ 
‘highway’; in the literal sense (Job 28 7), and figura- 
tively for the course of life (Job 19 8; Ps 119 105; Pr 
115, etc.). (6) sh*bhil, shebhil, a ‘way that stretches 
out’ (Ps 77 19; Jer 18 15). (7) tetBoc, a ‘path made 
by attrition’ (Mk 1 3, and ||s). (8) teoxt&, a ‘circuit,’ 








‘wheel,’ 7.¢., a road that returns upon itself (He 
12 13). Ai Ged 


_PATHROS, path’res, PATHRUISM, path-ri’- 
sim. See Eaypr, § 1; and EranoGraPHy AND 
ErHNoLoey, § 13. 


PATIENCE. See Gon, § 2. 


PATMOS, pat’mos (Iétu.0¢): A voleanic island 
of the Sporades, now nearly treeless, modern Patino. 
It is characterized by an indented coast and has a 
safe harbor. By the Romans it was made a place of 
exile for the lower class of criminals. According to 
tradition, John, the author of Rev, was banished 
thither by Domitian 95 a.p., where he lived at hard 
labor for eighteen months, and had his revelations 
(cf. Rev 19 #f.) in the ‘cave of the Apocalypse,’ now 
connected with the monastery of St. John, founded 


in 1088 a.p. by the monk Christodulus, on the 


authority of a bull (still extant) of the emperor 

Alexius Commenus. The embalmed body of John 

is still shown. Ruins of great antiquity remain. 
J.R.S.S.*—S. A. 


PATRIARCHS: As the etymology implies, a pa- 
triarch (xetercéexns) is one who rules a clan or tribe 
by paternal right. The word is used several times in 
the LXX. (e.g., I Ch 24 31; ‘heads of the fathers’ 
houses’ RV); but does not occur in the English OT. 
In the N T the title ‘patriarch’ is applied to Abra- 
ham (He 7 4), David (Ac 2 29), and the sons of Jacob 
(Ac 7 8 f.). Specifically, the word has come to in- 
dicate one of the early progenitors of the human 
race, or more narrowly, of the tribes of Israel. The 
Biblical patriarchs thus fall into three groups: (1) 
The antediluvians, (2) the names in the genealogical 
list from Shem to Terah, (3) Abraham, Isaac, and 
Jacob. For these last, see articles under the re- 
spective titles; only the first two groups will be con- 
sidered in this article. 

There are two lists of the antediluvian patriarchs. 
The earlier narrative (Gn 416-24, J) traces the descent 
of Lamech from Cain through four generations, and 
frequently couples some interesting event with the 
name mentioned. The second genealogy (Gn 5 3-31, 
P) makes Seth the ancestor of Lamech, inserts this 
author’s customary chronological data, and adds two 
more names, so that there are in all ten generations 
from Adam to Noah. The difference in the spell- 
ing of the two lists is not so great as it appears in the 
English translation. From Shem to Terah (Gn ch. 
11, P) only nine names appear in the Heb. text; but 
the LXX., followed by Lk 3 36, inserts ‘Cainan’ be- 
tween ‘Arpachshad’ and ‘Shelah,’ thus making ten 
generations here also. The different versions vary 
widely as to the longevity of the patriarchs. Thus 
from the Flood to Abraham was 290 years according 
to the present Heb. text, but is given by the LXX. 
as 1,070 years! This gives some idea of the extent 
to which the figures were manipulated by the ancient 
authorities, usually in the interest of some ideal 
chronological symmetry. (See CHRONOLOGY OF THE 
OT.) But according to all the accounts, the length 
of life ascribed is incredibly high. 

It is difficult to determine just what historic facts 
underlie the various genealogies of Genesis. The ten 
antediluvian patriarchs, with their enormous ages, 


Patrimony 
Paul 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


684 





are connected with the] ten kings who, according to 
Berossus, ruled Babylonia for 482,000 years before, 
the Flood. The Sumerian originals of these monarchs 
have recently been discovered (Poebel, Historical 
Texts, 73 f.; Langdon, JRAS, 1923, pp. 251 #.). 
The descendants of Noah (Gn ch. 10 f.) are appar- 
ently personifications of homonymous tribes or 
localities, e.g., Canaan, Zidon, Ophir, Elam. (See 
GENEALOGY.) Even in the later chapters of Genesis 
we are often in doubt as to whether the narratives 
describe the actions of individuals or tribes. (See 
Lot.) We may safely say, however, that there is a 
strong presumption against the individual inter- 
pretation of any of the patriarchs before Abraham. 
Nevertheless, the Biblical writers may have believed 
that these names belonged to individuals. 
LirerAtTuRe: Driver, Genesis (1904); Ryle, Early Narratives 
of Genesis; Lenormant, Les origines de l’histoire; Worcester, 
Genesis in the Light of Modern Knowledge; L. B. Paton, 
“The Oral Sources of the Patriarchal Narratives,” in AJT 
(October, 1904); Skinner, Genesis, in ICC (1910), pp. 134 ff.; 
Rogers, Cuneiform Parallels (1912), pp. 78 ff.; Barton, 
Archaeology and the Bible (1916), pp. 264 ff.; Clay, Origin 
of Biblical Traditions (1923), pp. 124 ff. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 
PATRIMONY. See Faminy anp Faminy Law, 
§ 8. 
PATROBAS, pat’ro-pas or -bas» (IIateéac): A 
member of the early Roman Church (Ro 16 14), 
otherwise unknown. 


PATTERN: This term renders the following Heb. 
and Gr. words: (1) tabhnith, ‘model’ (Ex 25 9, 40; 
Jos 22 28, etc.). (2) tokhnith, ‘measure,’ or ‘stand- 
ard,’ of the ideal temple (Ezk 43 10; cf. 2812 RVmg.). 
(3) mar’eh, ‘appearance,’ used of Moses’ vision of the 
Tabernacle (Nu 8 4). (4) brotdxwotc, an ‘outline,’ 
which serves as a model (I Ti 1 16 AV; ‘ensample’ 
RV; If Ti 1 13, ‘form’ AV). (5) ctéxoc, ‘model’ 
(Tit 27 AV; He 85). (6) drodelyparta, ‘copies’ (He 
9 23 AV). ay. VE iL 

PAU, pé’u (198, pa‘): A city of Edom (Gn 36 39; 
Pai in I Ch 1 50). The LXX. reads ‘Peor.’ The 
site is doubtful. . 


PAUL 


I. Pavu’s Lirz Up ro His Convnrsion. 

1, Birth and Early Training. Paul, WadAoc 
(originally Saul, Zaddkos or YaobA=Heb. 7iRY, 
sh@ ul), was born in Tarsus, a Cicilian city of note, 
intellectually as well as politically (Ac 21 39, 22 3). 
Against this express statement the story of Jerome 
—De Viris illustribus, 5—which makes Gischala of 
Galilee his birthplace can not count. Tarsus had a 
strong colony of patriotic Jews, who sent reenforce- 
ments to Jerusalem during its last siege, and among 
whom Paul was brought up. Whatever influence 
the Greek environment had on him must have been 
mainly unconscious. It was to Jewish influences 
he gave up his mind. Not only his father but 
remoter ancestors were Pharisees (Ac 238 6), and he 
became a devoted Pharisee himself. Yet tho 
Aramaic was his mother tongue (Ac 9 4, 21 40)— 
from which it has been inferred that his parents had 
not been long in the Dispersion—and tho he knew 
the Hebrew O T, he usually quotes the LXX., and is 
to be regarded rather as a Greek than a Hebrew 
Rabbi. He was by birth a Roman citizen (Ac 22 28), 


and Ramsay has the merit of showing how the im- 
perial idea influenced his mind and imagination, and 
even his policy as an evangelist. Attempts to trace 
in Paul other Greek influences which might have 
reached him in Tarsus—e.g., that of the Stoic philos- 
ophy, which had there its native seat, or of the Greek 
mysteries—are quite inconclusive (cf. Clemen, Pau- 
lus (1904), vol. ii, p. 65; W. Morgan, The Religion 
and Theology of Paul (1917); H. A. A. Kennedy, 
St. Paul and the Mystery Religions (1913). When 
Paul says himself (Gal 1 15) that God set him apart 
from birth, it means that all the influences about 
him from the beginning—Jewish, Greek, Roman— 
contributed, apart from any consciousness or inten- 
tion on his part, to fit him for the work of his life. 
There was a predestination in them which made him 
a ‘chosen vessel’ (cxeSoc éxAoyHs¢, Ac 9 15), but which 
he only came to see later. 

Of Paul’s family relations little is known. Later, he had a 
married sister in Jerusalem whose son was old enough to act 
in a delicate situation (Ac 23 16 f-), He himself seems never 
to have married. The gift for celibacy was part of his endow- 
ment for the homeless Apostolic life, As appeals to Rome 
were costly, it has been inferred that in his later days he 
must have fallen heir to some family property. He must 
have had a strong physique to be able to survive what we 
read in II Co 11 23-29, but his presence was not imposing 
(Ac 14 12). He mentions one distressing and repulsive illness 
(Gal 4 13), the one apparently from which he suffered chronic- 
ally or intermittently, and which he elsewhere describes as 
‘a thorn in the flesh,’ ‘a messenger of Satan,’ who buffeted 
him to keep him humble amid the extraordinary revelations 
he had had. Of the various guesses at this (opthalmia, 
Farrar; malarial fever, Ramsay; crampe de predicateur, Godet; 
and epilepsy), there is most to be said for the last, or for 
some form of hysteria. At Tarsus Paul learned the trade 
of oxnvototds (Ac 183), which was connected with the local 
manufacture of cilicitum (goatshair cloth), but it is not certain 
what modern word gives best the best suggestion of the kind 
of work he did—weaver, sailmaker, saddler, or what. Its 
value to him as an Apostle was that it enabled him to make 
the gospel ‘without charge.’ &3&mavoy (I Co 98), and to 
maintain his character for disinterestedness (I Th 2 3; II 
Th 38 ICo9”; II Co12; Ac 20 #), He worked at his 
trade in Thessalonica, Corinth, and Ephesus. 

2. Education in Jerusalem. From Tarsus Paul 
went to Jerusalem to be educated as a Rabbi in 
the school of Gamaliel (Ac 22 3). He became a 
‘zealot’ for God, or for his ancestral traditions (Gal 
114). Many strains of interest united here: national, 
for devotion to the Law meant devotion to Israel; 
intellectual, for a great Rabbi was to the Jews what 
a great philosopher was to the Greeks (Jn 3 10); 
personal, for in his zeal for the Law Paul was 
conscious that he had rivals whom he had to sur- 
pass, if he was to secure his own future (Gal 1 14 
and Ph 3 7); and, finally, religious. Paul was a 
profoundly serious and pious man: he hungered and 
thirsted after righteousness, and he sought it de- 
votedly along this line. To be righteous meant to 
keep the Law, and he strove with all his strength to 
keep it. One of the most important questions to be 
considered in the study of Paul’s life is, What kind 
of experience did he have, spiritually, during this 
period? To this the Epp. make various references. 
In Ph 3 6 he says that he was, ‘as touching the 
righteousness which is in the law, found blameless,’ 
xnatk Stxatocbyyny thy gv vouw yevduevog Auwewxtos, 
which must mean that no one could censure him 
from the Pharisaic point of view. (In the same 
sense, cf. Ac 23 1.) In Gal 1 14 it is implied that so 


685 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Patrimony 
Paul 





long as he was in this Pharisaic life he had a com- 
placent consciousness of some kind: he was not only 
getting on, but getting on better than others. It is 
sometimes maintained that we can not use Ro 7 7 
as a confession of Paul’s personal experience before 
his conversion. The use of the first person singular, 
however, in contrast to the plural in Ro ch. 6 where 
he is dealing with what he assumed to be the com- 
mon Christian experience, as well as the intensity of 
the tone in the passage, supports the view that this 
is autobiography, even if present experience colors 
the remembrance of the past. To assume that Paul 
is describing his present condition would be to deny 
the purpose of the argument to show that Christ 
can do what the law could not do. We can not be 
certain, however, whether ver. 7 refers to a distinct 
moral crisis, in which Paul first discovered the 
opposition of sin and law in himself, or a recurring 
moral situation. What does seem certain is that 
Paul, with all his sincerity, had misgivings as to 
whether the way he was walking really led to right- 
eousness (see Romans, § 2). 


3. First Contact with Christianity. We do not 
know when he came to Jerusalem. We have no 
evidence that he ever saw Jesus in the days of His 
flesh. Apparently he came into contact with the 
new movement in some connection with Stephen. 
The Cilicians (Ac 69) had or frequented a particular 
synagog in Jerusalem and were Stephen’s opponents 
Hence Paul probably encountered Christianity first 
in the form in which it threatened Judaism; Stephen 
had recalled the words of Jesus which threatened 
the destruction of the Temple and, therefore, to a 
great extent the superseding of the Law (Ac 6 14). 
But apart from definite dogmatic differences, a man 
so deeply in earnest with his own religion as Paul 
would soon feel that in the new society there was an 
attitude of the soul to God which was not his 
attitude, and which, if it were justifiable, made his 
religion vain. 

Two ideals and experiences of religion confronted 
each other in the Pharisee [and the Christian, 
and this ardent Pharisee was conscious at once 
that in Christianity he encountered the enemy. 
It was not a Sadducean police regulation, in the 
interest of the public order, which he assisted to 
enforce; it was a genuine religious persecution of 
which he became a leading agent. He often refers 
to this. Sometimes he speaks of the severity of 
the persecution (Ac 22 4, 19 f.), sometimes of the 
good conscience with which he acted (Ac 26 9); 
sometimes he expresses deep contrition (Gal 1 13; 
I Co 159; cf. I Ti 113, where remorse is lightened by 
the reflection that he had acted ‘ignorantly in un- 
belief,’ dyvodv .. . év dxtottg). These references by 
Paul himself are of interest in that they agree with 
the representation in Ac 91, that up to the moment 
of his conversion Paul was persecuting with a good 
conscience. The ‘kicking against the goad’ (Ac 26 
14) does not mean that he was stifling nascent 
Christian conviction. He was to the last moment 
of his prechristian life in the tragic situation de- 
scribed by Jesus; he thought that his persecution 
of the disciples of Jesus was service rendered to 
God (Jn 16 2). . 


II. Pauw’s CoNnvERSION. 


4. Influences Preparatory to Conversion. Paul’s 
conversion is in its issues the greatest event of early 
Christian history. As such, it is three times told 
in Ac (chs. 9, 22, and 26), and there are incidental 
allusions to it in Gal 1 12; I Co 91; II Co 4 6; Ph 
312; 1 Ti 113. It raises three main questions: 

(1) What were its antecedents, in the sense of 
events and experiences leading up to it? In the line 
of what has been said above, some would deny that 
there were any: only thus, it is argued, can the 
supernatural character of Paul’s conversion be main- 
tained. But the supernatureal is not maintained by 
being made blankly unintelligible, and if a super- 
natural event—say the manifestation of Jesus— is 
to have one result and not another, it must be made 


to a mind in one condition and not another—that 


is, to a mind prepared for it. Paul’s state of mind 
had no power to produce the manifestation, but it 
made it possible for him to understand and appre- 
ciate it. As influences contributing to such a state 
of mind reference has been made to the death of 
Stephen, to the conduct of Christians under per- 
secution, to ideas suggested in the course of con- 
troversy with Christians (e.g., the idea with which 
the Christians, basing on Is ch. 53, countered Paul’s 
efforts to make them blaspheme—the idea, namely, 
that Jesus, instead of being accursed of God, as 
Dt 21 23 teaches, had in the love of God become curse 
for us), and, in particular, to the spiritual experience 
of Paul under the Law, as read in Ro 778. This 
experience was the ‘goad’ (Ac 26 14), which, 
tho like a stupid or frantic animal he did not know 
it, was driving him into the arms of Jesus (cf. 
Findlay in HDB, III, 702 n.). 

5. Character of the Event. (2) What was it that 
took place on the way to Damascus? The answer 
Paul himself gives us is that the Lord ‘appeared to 
him’ (I Co 15 8), or that ‘he saw the Lord’ (9 1). 
In I Co ch. 15 he explains his agreement with the 
Twelve on the fundamental facts of Christianity, 
the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. As an 
Apostle he is a qualified witness of the resurrection, 
but resurrection is relative to burial; there is no such 
thing as the resurrection of the spirit. What Paul 
believed he saw-——-and what he believed the Twelve 
saw—was Christ in what he calls ‘the body of his 
glory’ (Ph 3 21). That this had a relation to the 
body which had been laid in the grave is certain, 
but it had been changed as ‘we shall be changed’ 
(I Co 15 51). It is useless to ask how such a body 
can be seen; it can not be seen at all unless Jesus 
(as the Fourth Gospel puts it, 211) ‘manifests him- 
self’; but assuming that He can manifest Himself, 
the question whether Paul’s seeing of the Risen 
Savior was objective or subjective falls to the 
ground. It was both. It was subjective in that it 
was accessible to Paul only, and not to all who were 
physically in the same situation as he, but it was 
objective in that it was no hallucination, but a real 
self-manifestation of the glorified Jesus. All the 
accounts of Paul’s conversion in Ac represent Jesus 
as not only appearing to the persecutor, but speak- 
ing to him; and tho in ch. 9 and ch. 22 a message 
is given through Ananias which in ch. 26 is put into 


Paul 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


686 





the lips of Jesus Himself, yet all three narratives 
agree with Paul himself in Gal 1 16 in connecting 
with his conversion his vocation to preach the gospel 
to all men. 

6. Relation to Paul’s Theology. (3) This antici- 
pates our third question: To what extent was Paul’s 
gospel. immediately given or involved in this ex- 
perience? ‘There was something which he called 
‘my gospel’ (Ro 216, 16 25; II Ti 28); not Christianity 
simply, but, in a nature so strong with an experience 
so distinct, Pauline Christianity. What part of this 
peculiar phenomenon can be traced to this hour? 
The following points seem tolerably certain: (a) 
This experience fixed Paul’s Christology. Christ to 
him is predominantly the Risen One, the Lord of 
Glory. It is not the incarnation which rules his 
thoughts, as in the Fourth Gospel, but the resurrec- 
tion. His Christ is one in whom all carnal limitations 
disappear (II Co 5 16), one who shares the Father’s 
throne, and has been declared Son of God in power, 
in virtue of the resurrection from the dead (Ro 1 4). 
In the splendor in which He appeared to Paul He 
is the ‘image’ (eixdv, IT Co 4 4; Col 1 15) of God; 
it is the ‘glory of God’ which shines in the face of 
Jesus Christ (II Co 4 4-6). (b) It fixed his escha- 
tology. Paul saw the Lord, and the world in which 
the Lord lived was henceforth for him the real world. 
Immortality and glory were not indeterminate con- 
ceptions for Paul, half real or less. There was 
nothing so real to him as the Lord and His glory. 
But the Lord of glory was the Son of God, the first- 
born among many brethren, and Paul’s whole 
hope was to be conformed to the image of God’s 
Son (Ro 8 29). It is a mistake to interpret this only 
ethically; the image includes all Paul saw at his 
conversion; the ethical and the incorruptible are 
blended in it in the Divine. The whole of Paul’s 
Christianity can be put into the eschatological prop- 
osition, ‘We shall bear the image of the heavenly’ 
(I Co 15 49), if we understand ‘image’ in the full 
Pauline sense (II Co 4 4-6). (c) It fixed his soteriol- 
ogy, perhaps not in all the dogmatic or controversial 
or apologetic forms he afterward gave it in Gal or 
Ro, but in substance and effect. He knew from 
this time on with absolute certainty that salvation 
is of the Lord. It begins on God’s side and with a 
gracious act of God in Christ which man has done 
nothing to merit. Paul was going madly on the 
wrong road when he obtained mercy (I Ti 113), was 
apprehended or arrested (Ph 3 12), turned, and put 
right. Define this experience by relation to God, and 
it takes the form of a doctrine of Divine sovereign 
grace—God out of His pure mercy saves whom He 
will. This is the fundamental doctrine of redemp- 
tion as a doctrine of God, and all the gospel is in it. 
Define this same experience by relation to man, and 
it takes the negative form of a doctrine excluding 
all human rights or titles to salvation. God did not 
appear to Paul in Christ because of what he had done 
or was doing. It was not his devotion to the Law 
which was rewarded with salvation. All he had ever 
done, or tried to do, faded into nothingness, or only 
rose to impeach him; salvation was in Christ alone 
and in surrender to Him, not in anything Paul could 
do apart from Him, or antecedent to Him. This 


again is the fundamental doctine of redemption as a 
doctrine of man, and all the gospel is in it—righteous- 
ness by faith alone, apart from work of law. Paul 
knew now that nothing statutory contributes any- 
thing to salvation; it is all in Christ, crucified and 
exalted, and in the free response which Christ evokes 
in the heart. (d) Finally, it fixed his vocation as 
Apostle of the Gentiles. (See [2], above.) This does 
not depend on the fact that the Christ who appeared 
to Paul was not the Jewish national Messiah, but 
the heavenly Messiah, who was to have rule over all 
(cf. Briickner, Paul. Christologie, p. 29); it depends 
on Paul’s instinctive perception that he was being 
saved by Christ not as a Jew and a Pharisee, but as 
a man and a sinner. Absolute grace has in it the 


promise of universality; in the relation of absolute 


debt to God, all distinctions of men disappear. 


Iii. Pauu’s Aposrouic Lire. 


7. Early Ministry. We have two accounts in the 
N T of what immediatlly followed Paul’s con- 
version (Gal 1 16 f.; Ac 9 19 #.). We may assume 
that his intercourse with Ananias (Ac 9 9-18) meant 
something for him, and that he either knew before- 
hand or received from him, the tradition of the Chris- 
tian fundamentals to which he refers in I Co 15 3. 
Paul there represents himself asa linkin the chain of 
tradition (cf. 11 23, napéSwxa. . .8 xat maeérAaBoy), but 
in Gal ch. 1 he insists that he owed to men neither his 
gospel nor his apostleship. From Damascus he went 
to Arabia (the Haurdn? or Sinai?), but apparently 
not for any length of time. The three years of Gal 1 
18, mentioned after his return to Damascus, where he 
preached as a Christian (Ac 9 20) and made disciples 
of his own (ver. 25), seem to have been spent more 
in that city than in Arabia. His escape from 
Damascus at the risk of his life is referred to in Ac 
9 23 #.; II Co 11 32. He went up to Jerusalem, to 
make acquaintance with the great man of the 
Church (Gal 1 18), and stayed with him a fortnight. 
No doubt from him he would hear much of Jesus. 
Otherwise, we should infer from his own account in 
Gal that the visit was one of much privacy. The 
narrative in Ac 9 26 ff. gives a different complexion 
to this visit, and seems to imply more (ver. 28 f.) 
than can easily be put into a fortnight, but both 
accounts end consistently. In Ac 9 30 Paul is sent 
via Ceesarea to Tarsus; in Gal 1 21 he comes into the 
regions of Syria and Cilicia (the latter usually a kind 
of annex, politically, to the great province of Syria). 
Paul himself mentions these facts as proof that he 
did not owe his gospel or his Apostolic commission 
to the Twelve. How could he, if he had exercised 
a Christian ministry which God had blessed both 
before he had seen any of them and in entire in- 
dependence of the fugitive contact he had later had 
with one of them? 


8. Period of Obscurity. This brings us to the 
obscure period of Paul’s life, which, tho the chro- 
nology is uncertain, was of considerable duration. 
Between his first visit to Jerusalem (Ac 9 26) and 
his second (Ac 11 30, 12 25), Lightfoot and Turner 
reckon eight years, Ramsay ten, Harnack eleven 
(?). (For a full examination of all the evidence, 
ef. Turner in HDB, art. Chronology. See also 


687 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Paul 





N T Curonotoey, ITT, 2-3.) What did he do all 
this time? In Gal 1 23 he says that the Christian 
churches in Judea heard from time to time that 
their former persecutor was preaching the faith he 
once attacked. No doubt the existence of churches 
in Cilicia, which numbered Gentiles among their 
members (Ac 15 23), was due in part to his work 
at this time. It was apparently toward the close of 
this period that Barnabas, who, according to Ac 
9 27, had stood sponsor for Paul at Jerusalem, acted 
a second time as his good genius and brought him 
to Antioch. A great church had grown up there, 
which contained both Jewish and Gentile members; 
The reading “EA Anvas in 11 20 seems the more prob- 
able for two reasons: (1) it would have been nothing 
new for the Gospel to be preached to Greek-speaking 
Jews; (2) had Gentiles not been included from the 


first as well as Jews, would the populace have found. 


a nickname necessary for the new community? 
Barnabas, who had thrown himself heartily into the 
work, felt that this was the place for Paul. He went 
to Tarsus to seek him out (Ac 11 25), and when he 
returned with Paul, they were for a whole year 
hospitably entertained by the church (cuvay@fvat, 
Ac 11 26, as in Mt 25 35; Dt 22 2; Jg 19 18; cf. Bartlet, 
Com. on Acts 1902, ad loc.). It was this flourishing 
and generous church which, when a famine came 
soon afterward (44 or 45? a.p.), sent help to the 
poor saints of the mother church at Jerusalem by 
the hands of Barnabas and Paul (Ac 11 30, 12 25). 
For discussion of this journey and its relation to 
that described in Gal 2 1 see Commentaries of 
Lightfoot, Sieffert (Meyer series) and Burton in 
ICC, and, opposed to them, Ramsay in his Church 
in the Roman Empire and his St. Paul the Traveler. 


9. Missionary Journeys. With the return of 
Paul and Barnabas to Antioch we enter on that 
part of the Apostle’s career on which we have the 
fullest information. In the church of Antioch there 
was organized the first distinctive mission. The 
story of it is told in Ac chs. 13 and 14. 

There is a formal propriety in laying out the 
life of Paul from this point according to the pro- 
gram in Ac. In harmony with this we have (1) 
the first missionary journey, through Cyprus and 
certain cities in Pisidia and Lycaonia, in Ac 13 1- 
14 28; (2) the second, which, traversing part of 
the same ground in reverse order, carried the Apostle 
eventually to Philippi, Thessalonica, and Corinth, 
and thence once more to Antioch via Jerusalem 
(if this is implied in ‘having gone up and saluted 
the church,’ (Ac 18 22), in Ac 15 40-18 22; (8) the 
third, which, after passing from Antioch through 
the Galatian country and Phrygia and through 
the upper inland parts of Asia, led to a long sojourn 
in Ephesus. This may have been broken by visits 
to places within reach, and was terminated when 
Paul went via Troas to Macedonia, and thence to 
Corinth, returning once more by the route de- 
scribed in Ac chs. 20 and 21 to Jerusalem—all this 
in Ac 18 23-21 15. At the same time, there is much 
to be said for the view of von Dobschiitz (Probleme 
des apostolischen Zeitalters (1904), p. 58), that if we 
wish to have a really illuminating view of Paul’s 
work it is better to distribute it into two areas than 


into three periods. In accordance with this scheme 
he worked first in the regions of Syria and Cilicia, 
his headquarters being Tarsus and Antioch. Here 
he had a colleague, perhaps at first something 
approaching a patron, in Barnabas, and was ap- 
parently on some kind of terms with the Jerusalem 
church. His later sphere of work was in the regions 
of the Aigean, his headquarters being Ephesus and 
Corinth. Here he had assistants, but no colleague 
in the sense in which Barnabas had been a colleague. 
He was absolutely his own master, and tho he 
had the most intense desire to keep on terms with 
Jerusalem and maintain the unity of the body of 
Christ, he was jealous of his Apostolic independence 
and resented Jewish Christian intrusion into his 
churches. When his work in the Algean regions 
was done, his mind turned to Spain (Ro 15 24). He 
would not build on another man’s foundation (Ro 
15 21; II Co 10 16), and evidently, as Zahn suggests, 
Egypt and Rome were already occupied. 


10. Controversy over Admission of Gentiles. It 
is impossible to enter into the details of a life so 
rich, but some features in each period of it must be 
noted. The churches of Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, 
and Derbe, founded during the first journey, are 
identified by many scholars—especially by Ramsay 
—with the churches of Galatia to which the Epistle 
is addressed (the South Galatian view). It is a 
serious but not conclusive argument against this 
that Paul addresses the churches in question as if 
they owed their being solely to him (Gal 4 13-20), 
whereas Barnabas was at this time his colleague and 
not his inferior. He could hardly have been men- 
tioned in the Epistle only to be censured for ‘dis- 
simulation,’ bréxerats (213). (But see Acts, § 8, and 
Gauatians, § 4.) Against this it is to be noted 
that from Ac 13 9 Paul becomes the leader of the 
enterprise (cf. ver. 13, ‘Paul and his company’; ver. 
16, ‘Paul’; vs. 43-50, ‘Paul and Barnabas’). However, 
whether they were or were not the churches of 
Galatia, it was in connection with them that the 
controversy broke out which was the subject of the 
Epistle to the Galatians. While he preached in 
Pisidia and Lycaonia—which were included in the 
Roman province of Galatia—Paul had been harassed 
by unbelieving Jews; after his return, his gospel was 
challenged by Jewish Christians, who found it not 
false, but imperfect. They said ‘it is needful to 
circumcise them’ (the Gentile converts) ‘and to 
charge them to keep the law of Moses’ (Ac 15 5). 
Paul had evidently preached the gospel implied in 
his conversion, that Christ crucified and exalted, 
and the soul’s response to Him in faith, are the 
whole of Christianity; and to him it was as much 
treason to Christ to supplement this gospel as to 
supplant it. .To condition the Christian standing 
of the Gentiles by anything statutory was to give 
it up altogether, and tho Paul was quite willing to 
be a Jew to Jews (I Co 9 20), he would resist to the 
uttermost any suggestion that the Gentile must 
become a Jew in order to be in the full sense a 
Christian. This would not only mean that he him- 
self had run in vain (ets xevév, Gal 2 2), but that 
Christ had died for nothing (8woedky, ver. 21). 

11. The Council Decree. The provisional settle- 


Paul 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


688 





ment of this question is recorded in Ac ch. 15. 
Whether Paul is referring to this settlement in Gal 
ch. 2 is very doubtful. Some scholars, on the basis | 
of the ‘South Galatian’ view, hold that the Epistle 
to the Galatians was the first of Paul’s letters, and 
was written in the first heat of the controversy from 
Antioch before the Council was held; and there is 
much to be said for this conclusion: for (1) it re- 
moves the difficulty of reconciling the accounts in 
Ac ch. 15 and Gal ch. 2 of Paul’s visit to Jerusalem; 
(2) the conduct of Paul, Peter, and Barnabas as 
depicted in Gal is more intelligible before than after 
the decrees in Ac ch. 15 (per contra, see GALATIANS, 
§3). This decree was entirely in Paul’s favor. 
Nothing was added to his gospel; he was recognized 
as the Apostle of the Gentiles, whose ministry to 
them had been sealed by God as effectively as that 
of Peter to the Jews. There is no sufficient reason 
to question the genuineness of the ‘apostolic decree’ 
in Ac 15 231. If the concessions required of the Gen- 
tile Christians had been required as conditions of 
salvation, Paul could not have accepted them; 
but as ‘articles of peace,’ concessions made in love 
to brethren whose Jewish habits gave them a natural 
horror of certain things they are quite in the spirit 
of I Co chs. 8-10. 

The decree, however, assuming its genuineness, 
did not settle everything. By the concessions it 
required from Gentiles it secured to an appreciable 
extent the peace of mixed congregations and the 
unity of the Church, but it said nothing about the 
relation to the Mosaic law of Christians who were 
born Jews. The Pharisees might still say it was 
religiously binding on such, and therefore, for ex- 
ample, on Paul; whereas the logic of Paul’s gospel— 
as malignity enabled his enemies to see (Ac 21 21)— 
pointed unambiguously to the conclusion that the 
Law had now as little importance for the Jew as for 
the Gentile. It was in principle abolished by 
Christianity. Christ was the end of it to every 
believer (Ro 10 4). In this there were possibilities 
of future strife and bitterness which time did not 
fail to develop. 

12. The Galatia of Ac 166. The second missionary 
journey, however, does not seem to have been much 
troubled by them. Paul, who had parted unhappily 
from Barnabas, seemingly over John Mark (Ac 
15 37), perhaps for deeper reasons, if what is recorded 
in Gal 2 13 had already taken place, had taken Silas 
for his companion, and at Lystra added Timothy 
as his assistant (Ac 16 3). He carried conciliation 
to the very verge of his principles when he circum- 
cised Timothy. The text and meaning of Ac 16 6 
are both in dispute. According to the ‘North Gala- 
tian’ view, Paul now passed through the Phrygian 
and Galatic country after and because he was hin- 
dered by the Holy Spirit from going W. into Asia to 
Ephesus. This would be the occasion on which he 


1Cf, Lightfoot on Gal, ad loc.; Chase, Hulsean Lecture, pp. 
93 ff.; von Dobschiitz, Probleme, p. 86, thinks the decree 
misplaced in Acts. Paul, he argues, clearly hears of it for the 
first time on a later visit to Jerusalem at 21 %; it was a 
measure adopted in the regions of Syria and Cilicia after he 
had left them for good, and was at work in the Asian-European 
field. (But see Acts, § 8.) For the non-canonical text and 
interpretation of the decree cf. Harnack, Die Apostel- 
geschichte, pp. 188 ff. (Eng. transl., pp. 248 ff.). 


first visited Galatia, and the Galatia now visited 
would be the part of Asia Minor ethnographically as 
well as politically entitled to the name. (But see 
Acts, § 8; GavaTiAns, § 4.) Sickness had delayed 
him, and the Galatians gave him and his message an 
enthusiastic welcome (Gal 4 13). He had delivered 
the Apostolic decrees to the churches he founded in 
common with Barnabas (Ac 16 4), but in this in- 
dependent mission there is no mention of them, and 
this may be why they are not alluded to in the 
account given in Gal of the controversy at Jerusalem. 
According to the ‘South Galatian’ view, Paul did 
not necessarily visit Galatia proper at all; and if 
the Epistle is dated early its references are to the 
first missionary journey, and not to the second. 


13. First European Work. Still Divinely guided 
and controlled, the Apostle reaches the other side 
of the Aégean, and plants Christianity in the great 
provinces of Macedonia and Achaia. In the former, 
he had the churches he loved best (Thessalonica, 
Philippi); in the latter, his most successful, or at 
least his best-known foundation (Corinth). 

It was from Corinth, during his stay of eighteen 
months, that he wrote the Epistles to the Thessa- 
lonians, the contents of which mus not, however, 
be regarded as constituting the whole of his gospel 
at this stage of his work. InI Th 1 10 (monotheism 
and the second advent); I Co 2 2, 15 3; Gal 31 
(Christ crucified, an atonement for sins), we see the 
substance of his preaching during this journey; in 
I Co 9 19-23 the principles on which he acted. In 
Thessalonica and Corinth he worked at his trade 
and burdened no one; but twice in Thessalonica he 
consented to accept help from his friends in Philippi 
(Ph 416). When Paul bade farewell to the brethren 
in Greece, he was accompanied by two new and 
devoted friends, Aquila and Prisca (Ac 18 2; Ro 
16 3). The ship in which he sailed from Cenchreze 
touched at Ephesus, and he had time to enter the 
synagog and talk with the Jews, but, tho he promised 
to return, he cound not stay (Ac 18 19 f.). 


14. Further Asia Minor Work. Of the visit to 
Jerusalem and to the church there which closed this 
journey, Luke tells nothing (Ac 18 22). Perhaps 
there was nothing pleasing to tell. If Gal was 
written at the later date, we may from it partially 
reconstruct Paul’s experience on this third journey 
in the following way: Paul may have become aware 
now of the opposition which was being organized 
against his work by Jewish Christians, and which 
came out soon after at Antioch in the hostile pres- 
sure brought to bear upon Peter by ‘certain from 
James’ (Gal 2 12). The ‘epistles of commenda- 
tion’ (II Co 3 1) may have already been given to 
the men whom in the course of his third journey 
we find in Galatia preaching another gospel (Gal 
1 6), in Corinth assailing his apostleship, and claim- 
ing on ‘carnal’ ground a relation to Christ which 
he could not claim (I Co ch. 9; II Co chs. 3, 10, 11 22), 
and, worst of all, preaching ‘another Jesus’ whom 
Paul did not preach—.e., a Jesus in the sense of 
Jewish nationalism and its hopes (II Co 11 4), not 
‘the Son of God who was preached among you by 
us,’ as he writes to the Corinthians (II Co 1 19), ‘by 
me and Silvanus and Timothy.’ The atmosphere 











098 off oft 508 08% HEED cee se OOF gta FG OpNaTSUOT 086 


| SS eee 


; Feddor 
28 \ oa ULFEALBS 
-_ 
| a yganset) 
| _ : 
! sypute[(Old 
Ayia BO*BSERD 
goats 
‘: uopls 
\" 


a \ 
a ome agro 




















LEL Ut 1192020 02 pattafsitnr, som wruopohT utsyznoy yy? 2d00%9) 
‘AV 986 02 dF 90L mous v2nIMH H20U200UT 
“a'¥ 90107 ‘d'V ZL Moufv2yIDD vUII0NT 


‘A'V BZ) 0} 114N]DH N10U200NT 


‘O'H 0F 92 '0'T 9g3 Mouf 14M] DH [ 


Ost 00T 0g oo 0 















S3TIW SO 31V0S 


GINYOM ANTITAVd AHL 





AD 











aust) 
} 


s 











gid es "hd : 


y 


asoplug P 


wa soo 
8) 


SO Q P 
vi, ie) 
NIST. 


otadiePelld puatug 
VI@QAT Wy 




















o yoy eagshT? oS) ¢ 
| amy eooy-PNELD Te ‘ 














° 
soursisg So 

7 . 
( / uo0rysureapyo 4 
a TC iS¢ 4a SN Fe 

WA: 23 | 
LS Yeouo 
ooiztg bah 











hiss 
NY 





Y 
povinsonve’S 





Q aes a 
} rc 
> 3 $ LE 
SG we 























689 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Paul 





in which all this was organized can not have been 
pleasant for Paul, and very likely his stay was short. 
At Antioch he lingered longer, making his way via 
the Galatic country and Phrygia to Ephesus. Dur- 
ing this second visit to Galatia, according to the 
‘North Galatian’ view (implied in td xeétepov, Gal 
4 13; the first is alluded to in Ac 16 6), he was able 
to warn the disciples (Gal 1 9) against the new 
gospel which was no gospel, but which was so soon 
-to bewitch them. Ephesus was now for three years 
Paul’s center; ‘All they that dwelt in [Roman] Asia 
heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks’ 
(Ac 19 10), partly by Paul’s voice, partly through 
Pauline Christians like Epaphras (Col 1 7), who 
introduced the gospel into Colossx, and possibly to 
places like Hierapolis and Laodicea (Col 2 1, 4 13; 
Rev ch. 2 f.), where the disciples had not seen Paul’s 
face in the flesh. 


15. Troubles in the Corinthian Church. Into the 
complicated questions connected with Paul’s rela- 
tion to Corinth while at Ephesus it is impossible to 
enter here. We know that I Co was written from 
Ephesus, near the end of his stay (16 5-9); that he 
had written an earlier letter now lost (I Co 59); that 
he had paid a visit to Corinth (his second) in dis- 
tressing circumstances (II Co 21, 1214, 131); that he 
had written in connection with this another letter, 
probably lost (tho some seek it in IIT Co 10 1-13 10. 
See CorInTHIANS, EPISTLES TO THE, § 11), ‘out of 
much affliction and anguish of heart, and with 
many tears’ (II Co 2 4); and that what we call 
II Co, assuming its unity, was written from Mace- 
donia, to which province he proceeded when he was 
expelled from Ephesus. The distressing circum- 
stances referred to, which were connected with a 
personal injury of some kind, had been overcome 
by the letter written ‘out of much affliction,’ and 
are finally disposed of in II Co chs. 1-7; chs. 8 and 9 
deal with the collection he is making for the poor at 
Jerusalem (Gal 2 10), and chs. 10-18, on this view, 
deal with the general condition of the Corinthian 
church—especially the opposition in it to Paul’s 
apostleship and gospel, and the survivals in the com- 
munity of pagan immorality (but see CoRINTHIANS, 
EPISTLES TO THE, §§ 8-11). He followed his letter 
quickly, and in the three winter months which he 
spent in Corinth wrote the Epistle to the Romans. 
Some scholars also place Gal in this period on the 
ground that it contains a developed theology, the 
result of Paul’s experience as a preacher, and that 
it has a close affinity with Ro. But neither of these 
reasons is conclusive. As has already been shown, 
Paul’s conversion contained implicitly his distinctive 
gospel; he was then a man of mature age, a learned 
thinker, who could very rapidly make explicit to 
himself what was implicit; there is nothing in Gal 
which would require a theological development 
covering a number of years after his conversion. 
The theology of Ga as of Ro represents ‘no tempor- 
ary phase of his thinking,’ but the gospel he preached 
at all times. ‘The resemblance is due not to nearness 
in time, but to oneness of faith.’ (See Garvie’s Life 
and Teaching of Paul, pp. 40-47.) Reasons have 
already been given for an earlier dating of Ga. 
This earlier date is possible only on the ‘South 


Galatian’ view, but does not necessarily follow from 
it (per contra, see GALATIANS, Ep. To, §§ 4 f.). All 
the Epistles of this period deal with the gospel as 
a doctrine of redemption. They argue, as against 
men who would introduce a statutory element into 
Christianity, that it is entirely an affair of grace 
and of inspiration; that the security in it for holiness 
is not any system of commands or prohibitions, but 
union with Christ, the sense of debt to Him, and the 
indwelling of His spirit; and that apostleship does 
not depend on historical relation to Jesus, which is 
in itself of no value, but on the revelation of the 
Risen Lord (Gal 1 16), the comprehension of the 
new covenant (II Co ch. 3), a life of devoted ser- 
vice and suffering (II Co chs. 6 and 11), and the 
Divine attestation of success in evangelic work (I Co 
9 2; IT Co 3 2 f.). Ro expounds systematically in 
calmness of spirit the theology stated controver- 
sially with some heat of temper in Gal—an addi- 
tional reason for allowing a considerable lapse of 
time between the two epistles. 


16. Final Jerusalem Journey. When Paul left 
Corinth in the spring for Jerusalem he was attended 
by delegates from most of his churches (Ac 20 4; 
II Co 8 19; I Co 16 3), in joint charge of ‘the collec- 
tion’ (I Co 161). He hoped this great proof of Gen- 
tile love would unite the churches and conciliate 
good-will at Jerusalem to himself and his gospel, 
but he was very anxious and uncertain (Ro 15 30.), 
and against all omens pressed on under some Divine 
compulsion (Ac 20 23, 21 4, 11-14). The event justified 
his fears. The N T tells nothing of the way in 
which the collection was accepted, but we see from 
Ac 21 20 that the Pharisaic party had entire ascen- 
dency in the church, and tho Paul, to conciliate 
them, carried compliance to an extreme which it is 
hard to justify on his own principles (Ac 21 23-26), 
yet when he fell into the hands of his Jewish 
enemies, the church does not appear to have done 
anything to help him. 

17. Voyage to Rome. After appearing before the 
Sanhedrin at Jerusalem, and before Felix and Festus 
at Cesarea, he was compelled to protest against 
injustice and delay (he had been a prisoner fully two 
years, Ac 24 27) by exercising his right as a Roman 
citizen to appeal to the emperor. The voyage to 
Rome is told by an eye-witness (Ac 27 1-28 16). 
Paul was probably handed over at its close to the 
princeps peregrinorum (officer in charge of the 
foreigners), in a kind of military custody. He 
rented a house in which for two years he carried on 
his work unimpeded. The Epistles of his imprison- 
ment belong to this period, and Philippians, which 
was certainly written in Rome (Colossians [q.v.] and 
Philemon [q.v.] are by some referred to the Cesarean 
imprisonment), throws some light on the situation. 
The gospel had adherents in the palace (Ph 4 22), 
but there were much dissension and ill-feeling among 
Christians themselves, even among those engaged in 
evangelizing (1 15. See Puiziprians, § 1). Loyal 
and disinterested men, with no by-ends in their 
Christian work, were rare (2 21). The Pharisaic- 
Christian propaganda against Paul’s work was still 
going on, and the Apostle warns his beloved Philip- 
pians against it in one of his most passionate and 


Paul A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 690 





(But see Puitiprrans, § 
1.) The great characteristic of the prison Epistles, 


scornful outbursts (8 2). 


however, is their Christology. It is perhaps in- 
correct, in view of I Co 8 6, II Co 89, to speak of an 
advance or development in Paul’s thought; every- 
thing is latent in these passages which is unfolded 
in Col 1 13 ff.; Ph 2 5 ff. But where asin the con- 
troversial Epistles of the third journey (I and II Co, 
Gal, Ro) Christianity is presented as a doctrine of 
redemption having the Son of God indeed as its cen- 
ter (Ro 1 4; II Co 1 19), it is in the Epistles of the 
imprisonment presented more directly as a doctrine 
of Christ. If this needs to be supplemented, we may 
add—and of the Church as the body of Christ. 
Christ is in the forefront in Col, the body of Christ 
in Eph. The sum of both may be given in the words 
of Col 2 9: ‘In him dwelleth all the fulness of the 
godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full.’ 
Christ has absolute significance for the Apostle; all 
things have to be defined by relation to Him. God 
is revealed in Him alone; creation is constituted in 
Him alone; the Church is brought into being, and has 
its being, in Him alone. No one knows what God 
is, or the universe, or the Church, or redemption, 
apart from Him; but in Him the full and final mean- 
ing of all is disclosed. The Apostle, so to speak, 
takes the metaphysical responsibilities of his doctrine 
of redemption, and sets the example to believers of 
Christianizing all their ideas of God, man, and the 
universe. Christ is held up not only as a historical 
person, with whom the Twelve had associated—not 
only as a representative or a universal person, the 
second Adam—but unequivocally as an eternal and 
Divine person. The occasion for this, no doubt, lay 
in external circumstances; but the possibility of it 
and the impulse to it could only lie within, in the 
Christian experience of the Apostle himself (see 
Couossians, § 2, and Epumsrans, § 4). 


18. Release and Second Imprisonment. The life 
of Paul can not be clearly traced beyond Ac 28 31. 
If the imprisonment at Rome here recorded ended 
in condemnation and his death, the author of Ac 
must have known, and it is difficult to say why he 
not only did not tell, but actually suggests (as ver. 
30 f. do) the opposite, unless he intended, as has 
been suggested, to write a third treatise. A favor- 
able issue to his trial was also confidently expected 
by Paul himself; see Phm ver. 22; Ph 1 24 ff., 2 24, 
from which it appears that he meant after his long 
confinement to visit his churches in Macedonia and 
Asia. Further, the Pastoral Epistles, whether 
genuine or not, show that this view was prevalent 
in the early Church (but see Trmoruy and Titus, 
Epp. To). If the Pastoral Epistles are genuine 
they show that Paul’s appeal to Cesar was suc- 
cessful; that he obtained his liberty and revisited 
many of the scenes of his former activity (Ephesus, 
Macedonia, Troas, Corinth, Miletus), besides break- 
ing new ground (Crete, Nicopolis in Epirus); and 
that he carried through an organizing work, of which 
Ac has no record. Whether he succeeded in his plan 
of advancing to Spain is not certain: the reference to 
‘the limit of the West’ (cd téoua cig Sbcews) in 
Clement of Romeisan argument that he did. If this 
assumption is correct, Paul was acquitted on his 


first trial before the Neronian persecution broke out 
in 64 a.p.; but as all tradition ascribes his martyr- 
dom to Nero, he must have been rearrested, and have 
undergone the imprisonment referred to in the 
Pastorals, before that emperor died in 68. (See for 
Pauline dates, in general, New TESTAMENT CHRO- 
NoLogy.) It is, however, maintained by some 
scholars that the Pastoral Epistles can not be re- 
garded as genuine, altho they contain authentic 


fragments, dealing with events, persons and situa-. 


tions which can be fitted into the historical frame- 

work of Acts. Dr. Harrison has worked out such a 

theory in great detail, having dealt with the lin- 

guistic phenomena more fully than has been done 

before. (See Pasrorat Epistues.) 

LireRAtuRE: The best short introduction to St. Paul’s life 
and work is Sabatier’s L’Apétre Paul (Eng. transl. edited 


by Findlay, 1896); Lewin’s Life and Epp. of St. Paul 
(21875); Ramsay’s St. Paul the Traveler (1896), and The 


Church in the Roman Empire (1893); A. Deissmann, Paul - 


(Eng. transl. 1912), most instructive as to Paul’s relation 
to contemporary conditions; A. E. Garvie, The Ife and 
Teaching of Paul (1910); H. Weinel, St. Paul, the Man and 
His Work (1906), are all helpful for understanding the 
outward conditions which affected Paul’s work. Of his 
experience attractive presentations are offered by Gardner, 
The Religious Experience of St. Paul (1911), and Deissmann, 
The Religion of Jesus and the Faith of Paul (1924), altho 
the second unduly depreciates the value of St. Paul as a 
theologian. His significance for to-day is discussed in 
Peabody, The Apostle Paul and the Modern World (1923); 
ef. also D. M. Ross, The Faith of St. Paul (1923); C. H. 
Dodd, The Meaning of Paul for To-day (1923); <A. H. 
MecNeile, N T Teachings in the Light of St. Paul’s (1923); 
C. E. Jefferson, The Character of Paul (1923). Of Introduc- 
tions to the Epistles Holtzmann’s (31892) on the critical 
and Zahn’s (31906, Eng. transl. 1908) on the conservative 
side are unrivaled; but Jiilicher’s (61906, Eng. transl. 1904) 
and Godet’s (1893, Eng. transl. 1894) are infinitely more 
readable, and for most readers very serviceable. Commenta- 
ries in English: Lightfoot (Galatians 91887, Colossians and 
Philemon 1879; Philippians 81888, and Notes on Epp. of 
St. Paul, 1895); Gifford (1906); Sanday and Headlam on 
Romans in ICC (1895); Edwards on I Co (1885); Findlay 
on I Co (1900); Robertson and Plummer on I and II Co 
in ICC (1911, 1915). -Paul’s theology can be studied in 
Bruce, St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity (1894); Stevens, 
N T Theology (1899); Somerville, Si. Paul’s Conception 
of Christ (1897); Pfleiderer’s first book on the _ subject, 
Der Paulinismus (21890, Eng. transl. of Ist ed. 1877); 
Holtzmann’s Lehrbuch der neut. Theologie (21911); Feine’s 
Theologie des Neuen Testaments (?1919), and Weizsicker’s 
Das apostolische Zeitalter (21892, Eng. transl. 1894-95) are 
indispensable to students. Cf. also H. A. A. Kennedy, St. 
Paul and the Mystery Religions (1913); S. Angus. The 
Mystery-Religions and Christianity (1925). 
J. D.*—A. R. G. 


PAULUS, pé’lus, SERGIUS (Zéeyto¢ Hairos): The 
proconsul of Cyprus when Paul visited the island 
on his first missionary journey. In 22 B.c. Cyprus 
became a senatorial province and was henceforth 
governed by a proconsul, or a propretor with title 
and rank of proconsul. Luke’s accuracy in employ- 
ing the title proconsul in Ac 13 7 is vindicated not 
only by the above-named facts, but also by an in- 
scription at Karavastasi (ancient Soli, on the N. 
coast of Cyprus), in which Paulus is mentioned as 
proconsul. Of the twenty known governors of Cyprus, 
Sergius Paulus (45 a.p.) is known solely from Luke 
and the inscription of Soli. (Cf. Hogarth, Devia 
Cypria, p. 113 f.). A BENS es als Phar Peet 


PAVEMENT: The terms martsepheth (II K 16 17) 
and rits*phah (II Ch 7 3; Est 1 6; Ezk 40 17¢., 42 3), 
both from réatsaph, ‘to arrange in layers, or rows,’ 





691 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Paul 
Peep 





refer to stone carefully laid in order, probably in 
plaster. Such stonework constituted the border of 
the floor of the Temple court and of the banqueting 
hall of the Persian king. On the occurrence of the 
term in Jn 1913, see JbRUSALEM, §44. HE. E.N. 


PAVILION: The rendering of sdkh, sukkah 
‘booth,’ ‘tabernacle,’ or ‘tent-like dwelling.’ The 
word is used in the literal sense in Is 4 6, ‘tabernacle’ 
AV; Nu 25 8, ‘tent’? AV; I K 20 12, 16, ‘huts’ RVmg., 
and also figuratively in poetry designating the 
mystery which surrounds the person of God (Ps 
27 5, 31 20). A. C, Z, 


PEACE: The two words translated ‘peace’ in EV 
have a greater range of meaning than is at first ap- 
parent to the English reader.! 

(1) The Heb. shalém (primarily ‘completeness,’ 


‘soundness’) comprehends (a) cessation from war - 


(Jos 915; Ee 3 8); (b) friendship between individuals 
(Gn 26 29; Ps 28 3) or with God, especially in the 
covenant relations (Nu 25 12; Is54 10); (c) tranquillity 
or contentment (Is 32 17 f.); and (d) in varying 
degrees of emphasis, almost everything which makes 
for safety, welfare, and happiness. ‘Peace’ is thus 
the most comprehensive and highly prized gift of 
God, and is promised as the crowning blessing of the 
Messianic Age (e.g., in Is96f.; Mic 55). (2) These 
conceptions were all carried over into the N T etehyn, 
which appropriated even greater breadth and depth 
of meaning, culminating specifically in that peace 
which is the gift of Christ (Jn 14 27, 16 33; Ro 51; 
Ph 47). This peculiarly Christian blessing may be 
defined as ‘the tranquil state of a soul assured of its 
salvation through Christ, and so fearing nothing 
from God, and content with its earthly lot, of what- 
ever sort that is’ (Thayer, Gr. Lex. of the N T). 
‘Peace’ is the favorite Biblical greeting (often, how- 
ever, translated ‘well’ in EV, e.g., Gn 29 6; II K 4 26), 
both oral (IS 117; II K 9 22; Lk 24 36) and written 
(Ezr 417; Dn 41; every N T Epistle except Ja and 
I Jn), and to this day is one of the most common 
words upon Semitic lips. See SALUTATION. 

For the peace-offering (shelem), which may have 
been considered as solemnizing an alliance of peace, 
see SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 10. 

L.G.L.—E. C. L. 


PEACE-OFFERING. See Sacririck anp Or- 
FERINGS, § 10. 

PEACOCKS (0%9N, tukkiyyim): These fowls are 
mentioned as imported by Solomon in connection 
with his trade with S. Arabia and the East (I K 10 22; 
II Ch 9 21). Some modern scholars doubt the cor- 
rectness of the reading. In Job 39 13 the Heb. 
renanim means ‘ostriches’ (cf. RV). EK. E. N. 

PEARL (uceyaeltys): A gem very much prized in 
N T times and used as an ornament (Mt 7 6, 13 46; 
I Ti 29; Rev 17 4, 21 21). Its use among the ancient 
Hebrews, however, is extremely doubtful. The 
word so translated in Job 28 18 AV (gdbhish) occurs 
but this once in the O T, and its cognates in Assyr. 
and Eth. show that the RV ‘crystal’ is more correct 
(cf. Oxf. Heb. Lex.). ASGCRZ: 

1*To hold one’s peace’ is, of course, merely an idiomatic 


English rendering of Heb. and Gr. expressions meaning ‘to 
be silent.” There is no reference to ‘peace’ in the original. 


PECULIAR PEOPLE (TREASURE): A phrase 
in the AV which renders certain expressions that 
denote the conception of proprietorship in its most 
intense form. The Heb. term lying at the basis of 
them all (s¢ghullah, ‘possession’) was evidently at first 
applied to treasure cherished and kept in reserve 
for oneself as a source of exceptional pleasure and 
value, possibly also held dear because it cost special 
effort in the acquisition (I Ch 29 3; Ee 28). After- 
ward, and as attached to the word ‘people,’ it 
signified God’s special and exclusive relation to 
Israel (‘am s¢ghullah, ‘people of possession’), and 
might be paraphrased: ‘people jealously cherished 
and guarded as a treasure’ (Dt 7 6, 14 2, 2618). But 
even with the word ‘people’ omitted, the term still 
designated Israel as J’’s own treasure (Ex 19 5; 
Ps 135 4, ‘peculiar treasure’ AV). The thought is 
the same as in Dt 329, ‘J’’s portion is his people.’ 
In the N T the phrase is merely reproduced in cita- 
tions from the O T (Aabe neprotctoc, Tit 214; Auds 
etc neptnotynaty, I P 29; cf. Eph 1 14), the difference 
in translation being due to the strongly idiomatic 
nature of the original Heb. The RV consistently 
carries through the accurate, tho paraphrastic 
rendering, ‘people for God’s [my, his] own posses- 
sion.’ As Gaze 


PEDAHEL, ped‘s-hel (28712, pedhah’él), ‘God 
has redeemed’: A ‘prince’ of Naphtali (Nu 34 38). 


PEDAHZUR, pi-da’zir or ped’a-zér (VSN, 
pdhahistir), ‘the Rock has redeemed’: The father of 
Gamaliel, ‘chief’ of Manasseh (Nu 1 10, 2 20, etc.). 

PEDAIAH, pi-dé’ya (1719, pedhadyah, W319, pedha- 
yahu, in I Ch 27 20), ‘J’’ hath ransomed’: 1. The 
grandfather of King Jehoiakim (II K 23 36). 2. 
The third son (I Ch 3 18) of King Jehoaichin (Jeco- 
niah), and probably born in Babylon, as his father 
was under nineteen when taken into exile (II K 24 
gf.). According to I Ch 3 19, he was the father of 
Zerubbabel, who elsewhere is called son of Shealtiel, 
brother of P. 3. The father of Joel, ruler under 
David of Manasseh, W. of the Jordan (I Ch 27 20). 
4, A son of Parosh, and a helper in repairing the wall 
(Neh 3 25). 5. One who stood at the left of Ezra 
when he read the Law (Neh 8 4). 6. A Levite, ap- 
pointed by Nehemiah on his second visit to Jeru- 
salem, and as one of the treasurers in charge of 
receiving and distributing the tithes (Neh 13 13). 
7. A Benjamite, the ancestor, in the third genera- 
tion, of Sallu, a postexilic inhabitant of Jerusalem 
(Neh 11 7; ef. I Ch 97). C.S. T. 


PEDESTAL. See Tremp te, § 15. 


PEEL: This term is the AV translation of mdraf, 
‘to pull out, or off [feathers, or hair].’ In Is 18 2, 7, 
in a description of the Ethiopians, we read, ‘ a na- 
tion scattered and peeled’ (AV), ‘tall and smooth’ 
(RV), ‘dragged away and peeled’ (RVmg.). ‘Smooth’ 
or ‘polished’ would seem to be the best rendering, 
and in keeping with the primary meaning of the 
Heb. For ‘peeled’ (Ezk 29 1s AV) ARV has ‘worn’ 
(by the chafing of burdens). In Gn 30 37,38, ‘peeled’ 
RV is the correct translation of the Fi‘él of pdtsal 
(instead of the archaic ‘pilled’ of AV). C.S. T. 


PEEP. See Maaic anp Divination, § 4. 


Pekah 


Peor A NEW STANDARD 





PEKAH, pi’ka (1P2, peqah): The son of Remaliah, 
and king of Israel (736-733 B.c.). Under Pekahiah, 
son of Menahem, P. was general-in-chief of the 
armies of Israel. He did not, however, share his 
master’s disposition to trust in Assyria, who was by 
inheritance and choice a pro-Assyrian. Accordingly 
P., growing impatient, broke into the palace of 
Samaria with a band of 150 Gileadites, slew Peka- 
hiah, and took the reins of government into his own 
hands. He then assisted in organizing an anti- 
Assyrian league, with Rezin of Damascus and the 
kings of Arvad, Gaza, Ashkelon, Moab, Ammon, 
Edom, and the Arabian queen Shamsie. Judah 
declined to join the alliance, and a special coalition 
was formed between Rezin and Pekah with the 
object of attacking Jerusalem, dethroning Ahaz, and 
placing Tabeel (q.v.) in his stead (Is76). According 
to II Ch 28 5. (the details of which account have 
little or no support in the earlier sources in II K 
16 5 #. and Is ch. 7), the war which ensued, com- 
monly called the Syro-Ephraimitish war, lasted only 
a few months. Jerusalem was attacked by a large 
army; Edom took occasion to seize upon Elath on 
the Red Sea, and general havoc was wrought 
throughout Judah. ~The numbers (120,000 slain 
and 200,000 captives taken by the allies) given by 
the Chronicler are incredibly large. But evidently 
Ahaz was driven to extremities. Contrary to the 
advice of the prophet Isaiah, he appealed for help to 
Tiglath-pileser III. Upon the arrival of the As- 
syrians the allies hastily abandoned the siege of 
Jerusalem and found themselves compelled to pro- 
tect their own territories. Tiglath-pileser III carried 
on a campaign of devastation in the Northern King- 
dom, subjugated the territory as far as the Sea of 
Gennesaret and deported the leading citizens of the 
country (II K 15 29). P.’s policy was thus proved to 
be a failure. His opponents of the pro-Assyrian 
faction seized the opportunity of forming a con- 
spiracy by which he was deposed and slain, and 
Hoshea, their leader was elevated to the throne. 

A. C. Z. 


PEKAHIAH, pek’’s-hai’a (70P3, pegahyah), ‘J” 
opens’: The son of Menahem, King of Israel (II K 
15 22-26; 737-736 B.c.). His father had declared him- 
self in favor of political friendship with the great 
Assyrian Empire. Pekahiah seems to have been un- 
able to maintain this pro-Assyrian policy. In less 
than two years from his accession he fell a victim to a 
political and military conspiracy. The troubles of 
the times are pictured in the prophecies of Hosea. 

A. C. Z. 


PEKOD, pi’kod (TiP8, peqddh): A Chaldean peo- 
ple in the Babylonian army (Ezk 23 23; cf. Jer 50 21), 
the Pukddu of the Assyr. inscriptions, a tribe in SE. 
Babylonia, adjoining Elam. Some find in Jer 50 21 


(cf. mg. ‘visitation’) a symbolic name for ‘Babylon.’ 
rials 


PELAIAH, p1-lé’ya or pel’’a-ai’a (7PN9B, pela’yah, 
and m2B, p*layah), ‘God has done a wonder’: 1. A 
descendant of David (I Ch 3 24). 2. One of Ezra’s 


assistants (Neh 87). 3. A prominent Levite (Neh 
10 10). 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


692 


PELALIAH, pel’s-lai’a (2223, prlalyah), ’J” 
judges’: A priest (Neh 11 12). . 

PELATIAH, pel”a-tai’a (2022, p-latyah [also 
ptlatyahi]), ‘J’’ delivers’: 1. A Simeonite leader (I 
Ch 4 42). 2. A prince of Judah, in Jerusalem, .seen 
in a vision by Ezekiel in Babylonia as guilty of 
death (Ezk 111 #.). The death of P., which fol- 
lowed immediately, was also, apparently, made 
known to the prophet in his vision (11 13), tho, as in 
many other places in Ezekiel, it is difficult to dis- 
tinguish between the symbolic and the actual. 3.A 
grandson of Zerubbabel (I Ch 3 21). 4. The name of 
a postexilic family (Neh 10 22). HE. E. N. 

PELEG, pi’leg. See ErHnocrapHy AND ErH- 
NOLOGY, § 13. 

PELET, pi’let (voD, pelet): 1. A Calebite clan (I 
Ch 2 47). 2. A Benjamite who attached himself to 
David (I Ch 12 3). Keir 

PELETH, pi'leth (N22, peleth): 1. The name of a 
family of Reuben (Nu 16 1), perhaps the same as 
Pallu (q.v.). 2. A descendant of Jerahmeel (I Ch 
2 33). 

PELETHITE, pel’i-fhait or pi’leth-ait. 
CHERETHITES AND PELETHITES. 

PELICAN. See PAuEsTINnE, § 25. 

PELONITE, pel’o-nait (7398, plont): The desig- 
nation of two individuals in I Ch 11 27, 27 10, and 
11 36. But the text should be corrected according 
to the |/s in II S ch. 23—in the first instance to ‘Pal- 
tite’ (II S 23 26), in the second, to ‘Gilonite’ (II S 
23 34). H. E.N. 

PEN. See Books anp WRITING, § 2. 

PENCE. See Money, II. 


PENCIL (71%, seredh, line AV): An instrument 
used for marking on wood, preparatory to carving 
(only Is 4413). Some would translate ‘red chalk’ (cf. 
RVmg.), others ‘stylus.’ See also ArTIZzAN Lirs, § 5. 

Osa 

PENDANT. See Dress anp OrnAMENTS, IT, § 2. 

PENIEL, pi-nai’el. See PENUEL. 

PENINNAGH, pi-nin’a (139, p¢ninnah): One of the 
wives of Elkanah (IS 1 2, 4). 


PENKNIFE: The term renders the Heb. ta‘ar 
sophér, ‘the knife of the scribe,’ 7.e., the small knife 
used in making and keeping in order reed pens (Jer 
36 23). See also Booxs anp Wrirtna, § 2. 


PENNY, PENNYWORTH. See Money, II. 


PEN OF THE WRITER: An expression found in 
Jg514AV. The passage is well rendered by Moore 
(ICC, J), ‘those who carry the muster-master’s 
staff.’ Burney would omit ‘muster-master’s’ as a 
gloss. EK. E. N. 

: PENTATEUCH, pen’ta-tiik. See Hmxarrucn, 

1: 

PENTECOST, pen’ti-kest (xevtqxoorh, scil.hugoa), 
‘the fiftieth [day]’: This term is used in II Mac 12 32; 
To 21; Philo, De Septen., § 21, for the se¢ond of the 
great annual feasts (q.v.) of the Hebrews, which fell 
fifty days after the beginning of the harvest (Lv 
23 15, 16). In the later literature it is sometimes 


See 





693 A NEW STANDARD 


designated by the Aramaic name ‘afsarta, ‘closing’ 
(ef. Jos. Ant. ITI, 106). 

1. Inthe O T. In Ex 23 16 (E) the second of the 
annual feasts is called the ‘feast of the harvest,’ 
which is more specifically described as ‘the first- 
fruits of thy labors, which thou sowest in the field.’ 
In Ex 34 22 (J) it is called the ‘feast of weeks,’ where 
the time is more definitely specified as the beginning 
of the wheat harvest. In Dt 169 the latter term is 
explained as derived from the length of the interval 
(seven weeks) between the beginning and end of the 
harvest, z.e., the wheat harvest. It followed the 
Feast of Unleavened Bread, which marked the be- 
ginning of the harvest. No regulations are given in 
the legislation of Dt for the observance of the feast. 
It simply emphasizes the joyfulness which is to char- 
acterize its observance, the free-will character of its 


offerings, and its nature as a tribute to J’. On the 


other hand, in the Holiness Code (Lv 23 15 f.) the 
time of the feast is set at seven Sabbaths complete 
after the morrow of the Sabbath following the pre- 
sentation of the first-fruits’ (vs. 15-162), and specific 
sacrifices are prescribed (vs. 16b-20). The day is to 
be observed with a convocation, and no servile work 
is to be done (ver. 21). The Priestly Code (P) (Nu 
28 26 f.) does not specify the date of the feast, this 
being naturally determined by the date of the Pass- 
over, which falls on the 15th of Nisan. In addition 
to the offerings prescribed in the Holiness Code, the 
regular offerings of the Passover Feast are required 
(vs. 26-31; cf. Nu 28 19f.). The briefer and less spe- 
cific prescriptions for this feast in the Priestly Code 
as compared with those for the Passover and Taber- 
nacles indicate that, at the time of the compilation 
of this legislation, it was of relatively less impor- 
tance than the other feasts, while its purely agricul- 
tural character in all the codes and the absence of 
any attempt to connect it with events in the national 
history (as, e.g., in the case of the Passover, Ex ch. 
12; Dt 16 3) indicate that it originated after the 
settlement of the Hebrew tribes, being borrowed 
probably from the Canaanites. 


2. In Philo, Josephus, and Later Jewish Litera- 
ture. Later references to the feast in Philo and 
Josephus show little change in its character. Philo 
(De Sec., § 30; cf. De Sepien., § 21) simply interprets 
allegorically the O T regulations, emphasizing es- 
pecially their Sabbatical character. Josephus men- 
tions ministrations in the Temple by the priests at 
night (BJ, VI, 5 3), and a sacrificial meal partici- 
pated in by the priests alone (Ant. II, 106). Ata 
later period, however ‘cf. Talmudic tractate Pesach 
68b), it was celebrated as the feast of the giving of 
the Law, because of the general coincidence of its 
date with that of the promulgation of the Sinaitic 
law (Ex 191 #.). This is strikingly brought out in 
the Book of Jubilees, where a number of Divine 
revelations are said to have been given on the day 
of the Feast of Pentecost (11, 61, 141, 151). 


3. In the Early Church. Paul’s desire to be at 
Jerusalem at P. (I Co 16 8; Ac 20 16) indicates that 
on the occasion of this feast Jerusalem was visited by 
Jews from abroad (cf. Jos. Ant. XIV, 18 4; XVII, 
10 2). This may account in part for the choice of 

_this time for the first great Apostolic proclamation 


Pekah 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Peor 


of the Gospel (Ac 2 14). Moreover, the close asso- 
ciation of the outpouring of the Spirit with the day 
of Pentecost in Ac 2 1 (especially according to the 
text of D) is in line with the tendency already noted 
(§ 2, above) to change the feast from one of thanks- 
giving to a memorial of Divine revelation. This 
association is even more strongly brought out in 
early Christian literature (cf. especially Augustine 
Epis. 54 ad Jan.). 

It is to be observed that in early Christian custom 
the celebration of P. occupied the whole period be- 
tween Easter and the outpouring of the Spirit (cf. 
Tert. De Bapt., 19; Orig. Contra Celsum, 8, 22; 
Const. Apos., 5, 20), not being limited to one day 
until the Council of Elvira in 305. See also Fasrs 
AND Frasts, § 7. 


LireratuRE: Nowack, Heb. Arch., pp. 138 ff.; article on 


Pentecost by Benzinger in HB; E. von Dobschiitz, Ostern 
und Pfingsten, p. 31 f. For the date of its Christian ob- 
servance consult Wiesler, Chron. d. Apos. Zeiialter, p. 16 f. 


PENUEL, pr-ni’el, or PENIEL, pr-nai“el (78129, 
pnw’ él, and 788, pni’él), ‘the face of God’: I. The 
name of the place near which Jacob crossed the 
river Jabbok (Gn 32 30 f.) after his ‘wrestling’ with 
the angel. The Heb. tradition sought thus to explain 
the name, but the basis of the story utilized in Gn 
was probably a legend connected with the ancient 
(pre-Israelitic) sanctuary at Penuel. It is mentioned 
later as a fortified place, the tower of P. (Jg 8 8-17), 
and still later as ‘built,’ z.e., strengthened by Jero- 
boam I (I K 12 25). Site unknown. II. The name 
of two individuals. 1. The ‘father’ of Gedor (I Ch 
44). 2. A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 8 25). 

K. E. N. 


PEOPLE: Of the various Heb. terms rendered 
‘people,’ the one most distinctive and used in the 
vast majority (about 95 per cent.) of instances is 
‘am, from a root (II, ny in Ges.-Buhl) meaning ‘to 
build together,’ and thus primarily a body of people 
bound together by some bond, probably used in the 
first place of a tribe or clan in which the bond was 
kinship. It is used of a people as a political entity, 
while géy, ‘nation,’ emphasized the racial distinc- 
tions. Israel was an ‘am, and, particularly, the 
‘people’ of J”. Naturally, the word is often used in 
a general sense. In late O T times the expression 
‘am ha’drets, ‘the people of the land,’ was used 
technically for the non-Jewish element in the land 
(Ezr 4 4, 10 2, etc.). In post-Biblical Judaism this 
expression came to mean the ignorant (Jews) in con- 
trast to the learned. Inthe N T, the two main words 
are Aaéc, the equivalent of the O T ‘am and used in 
much the same way (Mt 1 21; Mk 11 32, etc.), and 
Byxroc, ‘crowd’ or ‘multitude,’ but often used in a less 
specific sense for people in general (Mt 7 28, ry 


PEOPLE OF THE EAST. See East; Hasr 
Country; and CHILDREN oF THE East. 


PEOR, pi’ar (VY3, happ*dr), ‘the Peor’: A 
mountain of Moab, overlooking Jeshimon (q.v.) 
(Nu 23 28). According to Buhl, Geog. Pal., p. 123, 
it lay to the N. of Nebo, but this identification is 
uncertain. It was probably the seat of the worship 


Perazim 
Persia 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


694 


of ‘the Baal of Peor’ (see Baat-PEoR), which is 
meant by ‘Peor’ in Nu 25 18, 31 16; Jos 22 17. 
E. E. N. 

PERAZIM, per’a-zim (O°%"]8, p*ratsim), ‘breach- 
es’: A mountain referred to in Is 28 21 as the scene 
of some well-known event, probably that of ITS 5 20. 
See BAAL-PERAZIM. 

PERDITION. See Escuarotoey, §$ 49. 

PEREA, pi-ri’a (IIceatx): The name given by 
Josephus to the portion of Palestine E. of the Jordan. 
In the O T this is called ‘ébher hayyardén, ‘the other 
side of the Jordan’ (Gn 50 10 £.; Nu 221, etc.) and in 
the N T (where the word ‘Perea’ does not occur) 
népav tod Lopdd&vou, ‘beyond the Jordan’ (Mt 4 15, 
191, etc.). In the time of Christ Perea with Galilee 
was under the dominion of Herod Antipas. See 
Pa.eEstInE, §§ 13 and 37. K. E. N. 

PERES. See Mrne, Meng, etc. 

PERESH, pi’resh (12, peresh): A son of Machir 
(I Ch 7 16). 

PEREZ, pi’rez (712, perets), ‘a breach’: Pharez 
AV in O T, except in I Ch 27 3 and Neh 11 4, 6; 
Phares in N T Mt 1 3; Lk 3 33: One of the twin sons 
of Judah and Tamar (Gn 38 29). The tribe of Judah 
was, accordingly, subdivided into the two branches 
of Perezites and Zerathites (Pharzites and Zarhites, 
Nu 26 20 AV). The Perezite branch was again sub- 
divided into Hezronite, from Hezron, and the 
Hamulites, from Hamul. David was a Perezite, 
which fact gave the clan the preeminence after his 
days (Ru 4 13). It was also further glorified by 
Jashobeam, a general under David (I Ch 273). The 
name of Perez naturally occurs in the genealogy of 
Christ. A.C. Z. 

PEREZ-UZZAH, -vz2’a (TY YB, perets ‘uzzah), 
‘the breach of Uzzah’: The name given to the place 


where Uzzah was smi’ ten for touching the Ark (II 
S$ 68;I Ch 1311). 


PERFECT, PERFECTION: Perfection is in the 
O T ascribed to God, to man, and to impersonal 
objects. (1) When applied to impersonal objects 
(shalém, e.g., ‘A perfect and just weight,’ Dt 25 15; 
nakhon, ‘established,’ ‘perfected,’ the ‘perfect day,’ 
Pr 418, etc.), the word is the synonym of ‘complete,’ 
7.¢., full in measure, ideal in quality and with exactly 
fitted parts. The notion does not, however, occur 
with an attempt at precision, but with the same 
freedom and approximation to exactness as outside 
the Bible. (2) When applied to the Divine character 
or works, from the nature of the case, the term must 
connote absolutely the best in all respects that it is 
possible for the speaker to think of (tamim, IIS 22 31; 
Ps 18 32; Job 37 16; Dt 32 4). (3) When used of man 
it denotes, first of all, conformity to the ideal enter- 
tained at the time, and is therefore a relative and 
quite variable and expansive term. David claims to 
be perfect in this sense (Ps 18 23), tho elsewhere con- 
fessing sinfulness (Ps 51 3 ff.). Asa was perfect be- 
cause his attitude was right in all things, tho his 
conduct in the matter of removing the high places 
did not conform to the law of J’’ (shdlém, I K 15 14). 
This kind of perfection was attained by many of the 
towering figures of Israel’s history. Noah and Job 


were perfect (tamim, Gn 69; Job 11, 8,23). Itisa 
duty to attain such perfection (Dt 18 13). 

In the N T use of the term the ethical element as 
distinguished from the statutory, the positive as dis- 
tinguished from the negative, and the inward as 
distinguished from the outward become prominent. 
The notion thus becomes absolute. When Jesus 
holds up the ideal it is to show it as existing in God 
(Mt 5 48). Mere performance of duty does not make 
perfect (Lk 17 10). In the Apostolic teaching the 
light shed by the life and example of Jesus is thrown 
on the idea (Ph 2 5; Eph 4 32). And this is finally 
worked out in the Ep. to the Hebrews into a ‘doc- 
trine of perfection’ (7 11, 12 23). A. C. Z. 


PERFUME BOXES. See Dress anp ORNA- 
MENTS, II, 2; and OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, § 3. 


PERFUMER. See OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, 
§ 2. 
PERGA, pior’ga (Iléeyn): In Roman times the 
capital of Pamphylia, situated near the mouth of the 
Cestrus. P. was captured by Alexander on his east- 
ward march, but played only an insignificant réle in 
history. It was the seat of a famous cult of the 
Asiatic Nature-Goddess, locally known as Leto, akin 
to the ‘Artemis of the Ephesians,’ and called the 
‘Queen of Perga.’ Her figure and temple appear on 
coins of P. The site of this temple, which was 
plundered by Verres, is not positively identified, but 
probably it was on the Acropolis, N. of the city. The 
ruins of P. show that it was a wealthy town. The 
well-preserved theater seated 13,000 people; the 
stadium is also well preserved. Besides these there 
are ruins of a palestra, baths, agora, covered market- 
porticoes, and a basilica. It was at P. that Paul 
first landed on the soil of Asia Minor, Ac 13 13, and 
here it was, perhaps, that he was afflicted with a 
severe illness (malaria, the ‘thorn in the flesh’ of 
Ii Co 127). On their returr ‘com the mission in §. 
Galatia, Paul and Barnabas ‘spoke the word in P.’ 
with what success Ac does not say (Ac 14 25). See 
Asta Minor, III, § 12. J.R.S.8.4—S. A. 


PERGAMUM, por’ga-mom (Iléeyapoy): A city of 
Mysia, situated 15 m. from the sea, at the confluence 
of two small rivers in the Caicus valley. It lay at 
the foot of a lofty, steep, terraced hill, towering 1,000 
ft. above the plain and crowned by an acropolis, the 
site of the earliest settlement, said to have been 
made by Arcadian colonists under Telephus, son of 
Heracles. The Greek element predominated as 
early as Persian times. Attalus I (241-197), was the 
first ruler to assume the title of king. He defeated 
the Gauls, about 235, and quartered them in that 
portion of Phrygia thenceforth known as Galatia 
(see Asta Minor, III, 5). In commemoration of his 
victory, he erected as a votive monument the famous 
Gigantomachia at Athens, of which the ‘Dying 
Gaul’ (Gladiator) is a reminiscence. Attalus I con- 
solidated his kingdom by a wise alliance with Rome, 
which used P. as a ‘buffer-state’ between Macedonia 
and Syria. In emulation of Alexandria and Rhodes, 
Attalus I proved himself a liberal patron of all 
industries, but especially of letters, learning (the 
school of rhetoric greatly influenced Roman oratory 
and learning), and art (the Pergamenian school of 


695 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Perazim 
Persia 





sculpture). His son, Eumenes II (197-159), con- 
tinued the policy of alliance with the Romans in 
their wars with Antiochus and Perseus. He fought 
with Scipio at Magnesia (191), and on the fall of 
Antiochus (190) received the Thracian Chersonesus 
and the cis-Tauran domains of Antiochus. His 
kingdom was almost identical with the ancient 
kingdom of Croesus (Phrygia, Lydia, Pisidia, Pam- 
phylia, parts of Lycaonia, and perhaps Caria). He 
founded the famous library, which Antony after- 
ward gave to Cleopatra (200,000 rolls), who incor- 
porated it in the library of Alexandria. In com- 
memoration of tke victory over the Gauls, he built 
on the Acropolis a great altar (40 ft. high) to Zeus, 
the Savior (‘the throne of Satan’ Rev 213), which he 
decorated with sculptures and a colossal frieze in 
high relief, depicting the battle between gods (Per- 
gamenians) and giants (Gauls). This was one of the 
marvels of the age and now decorates the Berlin 
Museum. He was succeeded by his brother Attalus 
II (Philadelphus) (159-138), also a patron of art and 
letters and founder of Attalia and Philadelphia 
(q.v.). His nephew Attalus III (Philometor) at the 
close of his short reign (138-133) bequeathed his 
kingdom to Rome. In 130 B.c. the Romans organ- 
ized the kingdom of Pergamum into Provincia Asia 
(see Asta Minor, ITI, § 1) with Pergamum as capital 
(hence Rey 2 12 the ‘sword,’ the symbol of Roman 
authority), seat of a coventus (judicial district), and 
center from which radiated the Roman roads for 
western Asia Minor. During the reign of Eumenes 
II the librarians of Alexandria, jealous of the library 
of Pergamum, induced Ptolemy to prohibit the 
exportation of papyrus (for bookmaking). This pro- 
hibition redounded to the good of mankind, for it led 
to the invention of parchment (Pergamena charia), a 
more enduring material for books, alluded to in Rev 
217, ‘I will give him’ (not your white parchment, but 
something even more durable) ‘a white stone’ (or 
tessera, and I will imitate the example of Octavianus 
with his new imperial title Augustus, and will write 
upon the white stone) ‘a new name’ (of God). The 
catalog of the library of P., made by Crates, was of 
great value to writers on the history of literature. A 
globe of the earth stood in the front court of the 
king’s palace. P. was the birthplace of the rhetor 
Apollodorus and of the physician Galenus. It was 
famous for the worship of Asclepius, to whose shrine 
and school of medicine ailing visitors flocked from 
everywhere. It early accepted Christianity and was 
one of the ‘Seven Churches’ addressed in Rev 2 12-17. 
Tho the Attalids were less greedy for divine honors 
than the Seleucids and the Romans, P. became a 
noted center of the imperial cult as attested by its 
proud little ‘Thrice-Neokorus.? A temple was 
erected on the Acropolis to Augustus, who appears 
on a marble pediment as ‘Son of God, God Sebastos.’ 
Hadrian also appears as ‘God’ on an altar-piece 
bearing an inscription of a choir-gild. This cult was 
maintained by gilds of Theologi (cf. title Theologos 
of John). P. was also a stronghold of magic (ef. 
R. Wiinsch) which wrought such terror in Asia 
Minor. J. R.S. S.*—S. A. 


PERIDA, pi-rai’da. See PerupA. 


PERIZZITE, per’i-zait (172, p*rizzz): One of the 
races in Canaan which the Israelites were expected 
to displace (Ex 33 2; Dt 2017). There is much un- 
certainty as to their character and affiliations. They 
were not a race of great importance like the Hittites 
and Amorites, or even the Canaanites. Their name 
is not given in Gn ch. 10 among the descendants of 
Canaan (peoples of the Canaanite group). It has 
therefore been suggested that they were the aborigi- 
nes of Palestine whom the Canaanites dispossessed 
and enslaved (Dillmann, Com. on Gn., ch. 10). Ac- 
cording to a better theory, they were not a race at 
all, but a class or caste among the Canaanites, noted 
for dwelling in villages (cf. Moore, on Jg 15in JCC). 

A. GC. Z. 


PERPETUAL: This term is the rendering of three 
Heb. words: (1) nétsah or netsah, the root idea of 


which is ‘brightness’ or ‘brilliancy’and then ‘con- 


tinuance’ (Ps 9 6, 74 3; Jer 85 [the verbal form], 15 18; 
Am111), (2) taémidh, ‘continuance’ or ‘continual,’ in 
the sense of taking place day by day continually 
(Ex 30 8; Lv 6 20; Ezk 46 14). (8) ‘dlam, ‘age’ or 
‘age-long, much like the Gr. aidy, aldyvtoc, and used 
sometimes in a sense practically equivalent to 
‘eternal’ (Jer 5 22; Hab 3 6, etc.), but generally ina 
less absolute sense (Gn 9 12; Ex 299, etc.). E.E.N. 


PERSECUTION: All the words rendered ‘persecu- 
tion’ and ‘persecute,’ with the exception of OAfdr¢ 
(Ac 11 19), etymologically lead back to the notion of 
pursuing. The persecutor is pictured as hunting and 
following after the persecuted. The idea of persecu- 
tion, as ‘oppression for the sake of conscience,’ is 
only vaguely present in the O T. It came to the fore- 
ground through the experiences of the Maccabean 
age, especially under Antiochus Epiphanes. In the 
N T it is always held in view as a possiblity (Mt 
13 21; Mk 10 30), and so made a matter of record when 
it occurs in fact (Ac 81). A CA: 


PERSEPOLIS, par-sep’o-lis (ITepcéxoAtc): The 
ancient capital of Persia proper, plundered by Al- 
exander the Great. It is referred to in II Mac 9 2 
as the city which was entered by Antiochus Epiph- 
anes (circa 165 B.c.) for the purpose of robbing a 
temple (cf. 1 Mac 61). But it is improbable that a 
temple was then at Persepolis. E. E. N. 


PERSIA, PERSIANS: Persia (012, paras) is the 
name given in the O T to a country lying SE. of 
Susiana and NW. of Carmania with the Persian Gulf 
to the SW. and Arabia to the NE. Like Media, it 
was inhabited by people of Aryan (more precisely, 
Iranian) stock. See ErHNoGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, 
§ 6. BP. sprang into sudden importance with the ap- 
pearance of Cyrus the Great (529 B.c.), under whose 
leadership its people overthrew the Median suprem- 
acy, gained control of Media and thus established an 
empire of their own. Cyrus then proceeded to cap- 
ture Babylon (538 B.c.), which was at the time in the 
hands of the weak successors of Nebuchadrezzar. 
The whole of the vast possessions of Babylon, in- 
cluding Judea, were transferred to the new empire. 
Media, tho subject to P., must, however, have oc- 
cupied a privileged place, as its name is associated 
with that of Persia in the title of the controlling 
powers (‘Persia and Media,’ Est 1 3, 10 2; cf. also 


Persis 
Peter 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


696 





the usual designation ‘Medo-Persian Empire’). The 
monarchy founded by Cyrus was ruled successively 
by Cambyses (529-521), Darius I, Hystaspes (522- 
486), Xerxes I (486-465), Artaxerxes I, Longimanus 
(465-424), Darius II, Nothus (424-405), Artaxerxes 
II, Mnemon (405-359), Artaxerxes III, Ochus (359- 
338), Arses (338-336), and Darius III, Codomannus 
(336-331). Of these the O T knows and names Cyrus 
(Is 45 1), Darius I (Hag 11, 2 10; Zec 11), Xerxes 
(‘Ahasuerus,’ Est 1 1, etc.; Ezr 4 7), Artaxerxes I 
(Ezr ch. 7 passim; Neh ch. 2 passim), and possibly 
Darius III, Codomannus. With the conquest of P. 
by Alexander (333-331 B.c.) the empire came to an 
end. The subsequent return to power of a Persian 
dynasty (the Sassanids), at the end of the Parthian 
domination (226 a.p.), falls outside the limits of the 
Biblical period. 

The religion of the ancient Persians was a dualistic 
system, either devised or perfected by Zoroaster 
(Zarathustra, c. 600 B.c.?). Its sacred book was the 
Zend-Avesta and its two eternal principles Ahu- 
ramazda (Ormuzd) and Ahriman (Angra-Mainyu). 
In the main, this system appears to have been inde- 
pendent and of non-Semitic origin; but in its later 
forms it became associated with Semitic ideas, as in 
the worship of Mithra (the sun-god). In its turn, 
the Avestan system influenced at least the form of 
the Semitic religions and among them later Judaism. 
But the points of contact between the O T and N T 
on the one side and Zoroastrianism on the other are 
not numerous, being limited perhaps to angelology 
and demonology (but cf. Mills, Avestan Eschatology, 
1908; also Stave, Hinfluss des Parsismus auf d. 
Juden, 1898; on the whole subject, A. V. W. Jackson, 
Persia, Ancient and Modern, 1905 and on Zoroast- 
rianism, James Hope Moulton: The Teachings of 
Zarathustra (1917). A. C. Z. 


PERSIS, por’sis (ITIeeats): A Christian woman at 
Rome to whom Paul sends a salutation in terms of 
warm commendation (Ro 16 12). 


PERUDA, pi-rii’da (8718, peridh@): The an- 
cestral head of a family of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 
2 55; Perida in Neh 7 57). 


PEST, PESTILENCE. See Diskasz anp MeEpI- 
CINE, §§ 2, and 4 (2) and PLacuzE. 


PESTLE: A short, thick instrument used for 
pounding or crushing material (grain, ete.) in a 
mortar (Pr 27 22). In Pr 27 22 the words ‘along with 
bruised grain’ are probably a late gloss (cf. Toy, 
ICC, ad loc.). See also Morrar; and Plate II of 
HovusEHOoLp UTENSILS, Fig. 13. E. E. N. 


PETER, SIMON, THE APOSTLE: 1. Name. The 
original name of Simon Peter (Xtwwyv Téteo¢) was the 
Heb. name, |\¥2¥, Shim‘on, Gr. Dupedv, Eng. 
Simeon, which was easily shortened to conform to 
the Gr. Xfuwy, Simon. By this name he was fa- 
miliarly known even after his surname Cephas was 
in common use (cf. Ac 15 14). 

2. Early Life. P. was the son of a certain Jona or 
John (Mt 16 17; cf. Jn 1 42, etc.) and was, according 
to Jn 1 44, a native of Bethsaida, tho later he became 
a citizen of Capernaum, where he had a house, and 
with his brother Andrew was engaged in the fishing 
business in partnership with Zebedee and his two 


sons, James and John (Mk 1 16-31=Mt 4 18-22; Mt 
8 14-15 = Lk 5 1-11; Lk 4 38-39). He was married, and it 
is probable that in later years his wife accompanied 
him on his missionary tours (cf. I Co 95). Tho not 
wealthy, Simon was a man of some property, not a 
poor, grossly ignorant laborer. Of his early educa- 
tion and attainments we know nothing definite. 
Galilee, his home, was practically a bilingual coun- 
try. A good degree of Greek culture was possessed 
by the Greek or Gentile elements of the population. 
Hence Simon had abundant opportunity of becom- 
ing well-acquainted with colloquial Greek, tho his 
mother tongue was, of course, Aramaic. In child- 
hood he was probably taught, as many other Jewish 
children were, to read the Hebrew Scriptures, altho 
in the rabbinical sense he was not learned (Ac 4 13). 


3. First Contact with Jesus. Among those who 
flocked to hear John the Baptist were Peter and his 
brother Andrew—an indication of their interest in 
the religious hopes of the times. John’s words made 
such an impression that the brothers attached them- 
selves to him as (at least temporary) disciples. Soon 
after, Andrew met Jesus and at once sought his 
brother Simon and brought him to Jesus, who even 
then foreshadowed his future career by saying that 
he should be called Cephas (Gr. Kyoé¢,fromthe Aram, | 
ND" képha’, ‘rock,’ of which the Gr. xéteos [Eng. 
Peter] ‘rock,’ is the translation; cf. Jn 1 35-42). After 
continuing with Jesus for a while, they seem to have 
returned to their accustomed occupation. To what 
extent P. was with Jesus during the period covered 
by Jn chs. 2-4 is uncertain. When Jesus opened His 
public ministry in Galilee He summoned the brothers 
to a more permanent discipleship (Mk 1 16-20, and 
ls). For this summons their previous acquaintance 
with Jesus had prepared them, and it was with 
enthusiastic self-sacrifice that they left all and fol- 
lowed Him. As yet, however, P. was only one of 
many whom Jesus attracted to Himself during the 
early months of His work in Galilee. This was a 
testing-time for Simon. He was a whole-hearted, 
tho often blundering, disciple. While he had much 
to learn, he was also willing to be taught, and finally 
he showed such appreciation of Jesus’ person and 
teaching that he was chosen by Jesus to be one of 
twelve, selected from the larger body of ‘disciples,’ 
who were to be ‘apostles,’ z.e., intimately associated 
with Him to learn of Him and (ultimately) to be 
sent out by Him to declare His message and carry on 
His work (Mk 3 14). 

4. Peter One of Jesus’ Most Intimate Disciples. 
With the bothers James and John, P. made a group 
of three with whom Jesus was most intimate and 
who alone were associated with Him on such occa- 
sions as the Transfiguration and the Prayer in the 
Garden of Gethsemane. To P. and his companions 
Jesus’ refusal to allow the enthusiastic crowds, after 
the feeding of the five thousand (Mk 6 31-44; Jn 
6 14-15), to proclaim Him as Messiah must have been 
a great disappointment. But the Twelve remained 
steadfast even after Jesus’ popularity began to 
wane, and it was P. who voiced their conviction 
later in response to Jesus’ searching question that 
He was indeed the Messiah (Mk 8 29; Mt 16 16a; 
Lk 9 20; cf. Jn 6 68). Mk, our earliest Gospel, appar- 


697 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Persis 
Peter 





ently knew nothing of the encomium on P. (the 
‘keys’ passage) which follows in Mt (16 16b-20), and 
Lk. also seems to have been ignorant of it. Mt must 
have picked it up from some less widely circulated 
group of traditions, and its genuineness is very 
questionable. It breaks violently into the context 
as given in Mk and Lk (and preserved in Mt also), 
for the Peter who is so severely rebuked in Mk 8 
31 ff. and 11 5 is very different from the Peter of Mt 
16 16b-20. If this passage preserves a genuine teaching 
of Jesus it must have been given under other cir- 
cumstances. But even this supposition is beset by 
difficulties. If a personal primacy of P. over the 
Church is taught it is strange that the rest of the 
N T and the documents of early Christianity give 
not the slightest hint that P. ever claimed or 
exercised any such supremacy. P. himself was still 
far from comprehending the real nature of Jesus’ 
mission. He had no conception of a suffering 
Messiah. When Jesus soon after declared that it 
was necessary for Him to go to Jerusalem and 
suffer, P. protested vehemently and was severely 
rebuked. The Transfiguration scene may have 
given him a deeper insight into the nature of Jesus’ 
personality. Thus his education proceeded, new 
lessons being learned daily. The experiences of 
Passion Week were full of significance for P. He 
and John were sent into the city to prepare the 
Passover meal, which became the Lord’s Supper 
(Mk 1412 f. and ||/s). He was a witness of the Agony 
in the Garden (Mk 1432 ff. and|ls). When Jesus was 
arrested, P. drew his short sword and struck off 
the ear of one Malchus (Jn 18 10). Tho with the 
others he fled when Jesus was arrested (Mk 14 50), 
he followed the party into the city and through the 
influence of the unnamed ‘disciple’ gained admission 
into the palace where Jesus’ trial was proceeding 
(Mk 14 54 and ||s; Jn 1815 #.). Here, when taunted 
by a servant-maid, with an oath he denied that he 
knew Jesus (Mk 14 66 and ||s). Overcome by shame, 
he went outside and wept. He witnessed Jesus’ 
sufferings on the cross. These scenes were so in- 
delibly stamped on his mind that years after the 
impression was still vivid (I P2 23,51). The despair 
that settled over his soul when he saw his beloved 
Master die was not lighted by any strong hope of a 
resurrection. But when the women early Sunday 
morning brought the news of an open and empty 
tomb, P. and ‘the other disciple’ ran to investigate. 
They found the tomb empty and wondered, with an 
incipient faith, at the orderly appearance of the 
grave-clothes (Jn 20 3-10), and then returned to their 
company. Later in the day Jesus appeared to P., 
the first of the Twelve to whom He showed Himself 
after the Passion (Mk 16 1-8; Lk 24 35; Jn 20 1-10; 
1Co 155). To P. this was as a new birth, filled with 
a living hope (I P 1 3). He was present at most of 
the post-resurrection interviews between Jesus and 
His disciples, and to him in particular, probably 
because of his denial Jesus very tenderly and sug- 
gestively reentrusted the Apostolic commission, in- 
timating at the same time the self-denial and suffer- 
ing involved in his future career (Jn ch. 21). 


5. P. One of the Leaders of the Infant Church. 
P. now took a leading part in the direction of 


ee 


nS 


the little band of disciples that was the nucleus of 
the Christian Church. It was he who proposed the 
election of a successor to Judas Iscariot (Ac 1 15 ff.) 
and on the day of Pentecost came forward to make 
the first statement of Christian doctrine to the world. 
The sermon as given in Ac 2 14-36 centers about the 
necessity of proving to the Jews that the crucified 
but now risen Jesus was indeed God’s Messiah. The 
line of argument followed, from the analogy be- 
tween ancient prophecy and the recent events con- 
nected with Jesus, was a convincing one to many 
Jews, and large numbers confessed their faith in 
Jesus as Messiah (Ac 2 37 #.). Up to the time of the 
persecution that followed the martyrdom of Stephen 
the new movement was confined almost exclusively 
to Jerusalem, and it was P. who had the chief share 
in the guidance of affairs. His associate was John. 


These two figure prominently in the accounts of the 


first conflicts with the Jerusalem authorities (Ac ch. 
3 f.). It was P. who rebuked Ananias and Sapphira 
for their covetousness (Ac 5 1-11), who was spokes- 
man for the Apostles in their formal trial before the 
Sanhedrin (Ac 5 17-42), and whose fame was such 
that later tradition said that even his shadow was 
able to perform miracles (Ac 5 12-16). After the 
martyrdom of Stephen the Christian movement took 
on larger proportions, spreading throughout Pales- 
tine and into the neighboring countries. To a 
certain extent it was supervised by the Apostles. 
Ac preserves a record of two visitations by P. in con- 
nection with this work. The first was when he and 
John were sent by the Apostles to oversee the evan- 
gelistic labors of Philip in Samaria. Here P. came 
in contact with the magician Simon and severely 
rebuked his cupidity and lack of spiritual perception 
(Ac 814-25). The second tour led him as far as Joppa 
(Ac 9 32 f.), whence he was summoned by a vision 
and by messengers from Cornelius, a centurion at 
Cesarea, to be the first to preach the gospel to 
Gentiles (Ac ch. 10; cf. 1118, 156). In this matter P. 
also found himself doing what he had never done 
before, fellowshiping freely with Gentiles, recog- 
nizing then as Christian brethren, and eating with 
them. When P. returned to Jerusalem he was called 
upon by the stricter members of the Church at 
Jerusalem to explain this unusual conduct. His 
defense, that he had been guided by the Holy Spirit 
and that the Spirit’s presence had been manifested 
while he was preaching to the Gentiles (Ac 11 1-18) 
was accepted, tho probably with misgivings by some 
persons. 

Some time after this P. was arrested by order of 
Herod Agrippa, with a view to executing him on the 
following day. But he escaped and left Jerusalem 
immediately (Ac 12 1-17). Whither he went is not 
said, and for all further knowledge of Peter’s move- 
ments we must trust to incidental statements in the 
N T or to the somewhat unreliable notices in early 
Christian literature. Since Herod Agrippa died in 
44 a.p., the events narrated in Ac chs. 1-12, in case 
they are arranged in chronological sequence, must 
have covered a period of about fifteen years. We 
may say, then, that for that length of time P. was 
the foremost figure of the early Apostolic Church. 
It was during this period, three years after his 


Peter : 
ater, First Epistle of AN HW STANDARD 





conversion, that Paul visited Jerusalem to talk 
matters over with P. (Gal 1 18), staying with him 
fifteen days. This could not have been later than 
38 a.p., and was probably a year or so earlier. 
Paul’s desire to have this personal interview with P. 
incidentally reveals the important place held by the 
latter in the Apostolic Church at that time. His 
subsequent career was just as important, but its 
details have not been preserved. About five years 
later (49 a.p.), P. was present at the Council in 
Jerusalem and took a leading part in its delibera- 
tions (Ac 15 6 ff.; Gal 2 1-10). By this time he had 


become recognized as the ‘Apostle of the Circum- | 


cision’ (Gal 2 7), through whom God was working 
as effectually as He was through Paul for the ‘Un- 
circumcision’ (t.e., the Gentile world). These ex- 
pressions suggest that P.’s activity was—like his 
own—largely missionary in character and to the Jews 
of the dispersion as his was to the Gentiles. For 
this reason P. was in Jerusalem probably only 
occasionally after his escape from Herod Agrippa in 
44 a.p. We learn further, from Gal 2 11-14, that at 
Antioch (either soon after the Council of 49, before 
Paul set out on his second missionary journey [49- 
52 a.p.], or at the close of that journey, when Paul 
was at Antioch for a while; cf. Ac 18 23), P. was 
sharply rebuked by Paul for weakly yielding to 
emissaries of the strict Judaistic party of Jerusalem 
and withdrawing from that familiar fellowship with 
the uncircumcised Gentile members of the church. 
which was characteristic of the church of Antioch. 
Full fellowship with the Gentile converts had not 
been specifically discussed at the Council of Ac ch. 
15, and P.’s withdrawal did not expressly violate 
the terms of the agreement reached in the Council. 
It violated the principles there followed, however, 
and deserved Paul’s rebuke (see also GALATIANS). 


6. Later Career of Peter (After50A.D.). Of the 
remainder of P.’s career we are in almost total ig- 
norance. He appears to have continued his mis- 
sionary labors. In these he was frequently accom- 
panied by his wife (I Co 9 5). Early Christian 
tradition erroneously looked back to him as the 
first ‘bishop’ of the Church of Antioch. But it is 
certain that he did not organize the great Church. 
Other ancient traditions speak of his labors in Asia 
Minor, especially in the regions near the Black Sea. 
These may be no more than inferences based on the 
address of the First Epistle. At what point in this 
later period are we to place the two Epistles at- 
tributed to him? The authenticity of the first is 
more certain than that of the second. It was written 
from ‘Babylon’ to the ‘dispersion’ of northern Asia 
Minor. Both terms have been taken in a figurative 
sense, and it is possible that the letter was sent 
from Rome. Mark was with the Apostle at the 
time (serving as his ‘interpreter’ [Eeweveutys, so 
Papias; see Marx, Gosprt or, § 1 (h)] and gather- 
ing the material [in part] for his Gospel), also 
Silvanus, who appears to have penned the Epistle 
(5 12-13). Since Silvanus was Paul’s companion as 
late as when he wrote ITI Cor (1 19), P.’s letter must 
be dated after 55 a.p. And since Paul’s later letters 
from Rome, Ph, Col, Eph, Phm (59-61 a.p.), be- 
tray no evidence of personal contact with P. in 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


693 


Rome, a possible view is that P. was in Rome 
between 56 and 59 and thence sent his message 
to the churches of Asia Minor—not to the Pauline 
churches there, but to other communities that were 
less directly connected with Paul’s work. To what 
place P. went after leaving Rome, whence he sent 
the second letter, in case it is his, and whether he 
returned to Rome—all these are points on which 
we possess no direct information. According to a 
wide-spread tradition, which has become generally 
accepted in Christendom, P. suffered matyrdom at 
Rome. It must be admitted, however, that the 
explicit evidence for this tradition can not be traced 
much further back than 180 a.p. 

Obscure, but significant, hints in the N T indicate 
that even while Paul and P. were still alive the anti- 
Pauline party tried to play off Peter (and the rest of 
the original Twelve) against Paul. At Jerusalem 
Paul had come to close grips with the extremists 
(Gal 2 4£.). They followed up their hostility to Paul 
by their Judaizing propaganda in Galatia in which 
Paul’s Apostolic status was challenged. The ‘Cephas- 
party’ in Corinth and the bitter opposition to Paul 
in that church was probably due to these same 
enemies or persons influenced by them who seem 
to have eventually insinuated that Paul was no real 
Apostle. (cf. I Cor 112, 91; If Cor 11 4,13, 12, ete.). 
The later stages of this anti-Pauline movement are 
seen in the pro-Petrine pseudo-Clementine litera- 
ture. The query arises: was it the desire to exalt 
Peter (the leader of the Twelve) over against Paul 
that may have led to the working over of a saying 
of Jesus into the (extreme) form now found in Mt 
16 16b-20? 


7. Uncertainty as to Our Knowledge of P.’s 
Last Years. The earliest notice of P., outside of 
the N T, in early Christian literature (J Clement, 
V) is indecisive. The statement in the Epistle of 
Ignatius to the Romans (about 110 A.p.) at most 
merely implies the presence at some time of both 
Apostles in Rome. All that can be said in fairness 
as to P.’s presence in Rome has been said, with full 
acknowledgment of the uncertain character of the 
evidence, by the eminent R. C. historian, Du 
Chesne (Hist. Anc. de lHglise, Tome I [1908] p. 
61 ff.). Later writers represent P. as having not 
only labored but suffered martyrdom in Rome. It 
is probable, but by no means certain, that P.’s later 
years were spent in the West and, in part, at the 
capital. It was inevitable that many legendary 
details should be invented to fill out a complete story 
of P.’s career in the city. The exact place of his mar- 
trydom (or burial), many minute details regarding 
the same, and the exact period of years (25) of his 
sojourn (as early as c. 170 a.p. he was spoken of as 
having founded the Church), the representation of 
him as first bishop of the Roman Church, the attribu- 
tion to him of an apocryphal Gospel, an Apocalypse, 
and a ‘Preaching,’ the famous story of his contro- 
versy, in conjunction with Paul,with the magician 
Simon Magus before Nero, and the strange distor- 
tion of the same story in the pseudo-Clementine 
literature for the purpose of attacking Catholie 
Christianity—such was the result of combining float- 
ing tradition, uncertain legend, wilful invention, and 


A NEW STANDARD 


— 


699 





extravagant imagination. None of these details, not 
even the widely accepted opinion that the Apostle 
was martyred under Nero about 64 a.p., can be con- 
sidered to rest on a sure foundation. Apart from 
the two N T Epistles bearing his name (their 
genuineness presupposed), we know nothing of his 
activity after the events referred to by Paul in Gal 
2 11-17. 


8. Theological Teaching of Peter. The position 
to be assigned P. in the development of N T doc- 
trine is difficult to state. We have no direct sources 
for his earlier teaching. The discourses in the first 
chapter of Ac are of course not verbatim reports and, 
at least to some extent, represent the general views 
of primitive Christianity as much as those of any one 
Apostle. The Gospel of Mark, constructed mainly, 
according to early tradition, from P.’s teaching, may 
indirectly represent P.’s maturer views regarding 
Jesus’ person and work. The doctrine of the Epis- 
tles of P. is easily ascertained, but here also we are 
confronted not only with the question of genuine- 
ness, especially of the Second Epistle, but also with 
the problem of the extent to which the doctrine 
shows the influence of Paulinism and thus represents 
a stage of P.’s thought when he had modified his 
earlier views under the influence of Paul. 


A chief characteristic of P.’s teaching, as reported 
in Ac, is that it appears to have been developed as 
occasion demanded. From Jesus P. had received 
much more than he had been able to formulate into 
definite propositions. He had revealed the Father, 
the higher standards of life, certain great truths 
of the Kingdom, and He had also impressed the 
disciples with the great significance of His person and 
work, and had more than hinted at the necessity of 
His death and the certainty of His resurrection. But 
P. had not organized these points into a system when 
Jesus’ death and resurrection occurred, followed by 
His departure, and the disciples were left to formu- 
late and carry forward the new faith. The speech of 
P. at Pentecost shows what he first fixed upon as the 
salient points of the new doctrine. Jesus of Naza- 
reth, tho crucified, is in truth the Messiah. His 
life showed that He was ‘approved’ by God, His 
death was a part of God’s plan, evidenced in O T 
prophecy, and His resurrection, also prophesied 
and now witnessed to as a fact by those who saw 
Him, has been followed by His exaltation to (or by) 
God’s right hand. He is now in heaven and is 
active among His followers by the Holy Spirit, whom 
He sends from the Father. The central thought 
here is the Messiahship of Jesus. This Messiah- 
ship was interpreted as nearly -as possibly accord- 
ing to current Jewish ideas, but in the light of the 
facts they knew of Jesus as modifying those ideas. 
Jesus was all that the term ‘Messiah’ ought to mean. 
The blessings of the new age, of forgiveness of sin, of 
the Holy Spirit, were all assured in Him as Messiah 
and to reject Him was to reject the whole counsel 
and plan of God (Ac 2 14-36, ete.). Within this general 
scheme there were many points as yet undeveloped, 
such as the real relation between Jesus and the 
Father, the ultimate reason for His death and its 
relation to forgiveness, the way in which the salva- 
tion in Him was to become universal, etc. P. de- 


Peter 
Peter, First Epistle of 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 

veloped in his thinking along these lines, step by 
step, not always consistently (cf. Gal 211 .). His was 
not an original mind, rather a practical one. He 
probably received from, as much as he contributed 
to, the general body of doctrine held by the Apostolic 
Church. His first Epistle shows to what stage his 
thinking had advanced when it was written. But 
even in this he is still the practical Christian believer 
rather than the theologian. See Weiss, Bib. Theol. 
of N T, §§ 39-40, 44-51; Stevens, Theol. of the N T, 
pp. 258-324; Works on the Apostolic Age by 
McGiffert, Ropes, Purves, ete. E. E.N. 


PETER, FIRST EPISTLE OF: 1. Attestation. 
The epistle, altho not found in the old-Syriac ver- 
sion or the Muratorian Canon, is referred to by 
many of the earliest Christian writers. Thus, it is 


used at the close of the 2nd cent. by Irenzus and 


Tertullian. Much earlier Polycarp quotes from it, 
é.g., 1 P18in Polyc. 13, I P 2 21 in Polye. 81, 2, and 
I P 212 in the Latin of Polye. 102. Eusebius (HE 
III, 39) says that it was used not only by Polycarp 
but by Papias. The later writers mentioned above 
assign the Letter to the Apostle Peter. We can not 
see much force in the argument based on the con- 
tention that in the Petrine discourses reported in Ac 
and in this Epistle a word is used for the Cross 
(E6XA0v) which is never elsewhere so used in the N T 
except in quotations from the O T. 

2. Address. There has been much controversy re- 
garding the address, ‘to the elect who are sojourners 
of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 
Asia, and Bithynia.’ This does not necessarily pre- 
suppose that the Letter was sent to Jewish Chris- 
tians. We know (e.g., from the Epistle of James) 
that the term ‘dispersion’ had been carried over from 
the ancient people of God to the new. Further, 
Ewald’s suggestion, modified by Hort, that the 
order of places given in the address corresponds to 
the directions taken by the bearer of the letter, is 
not convincing. We are inclined to find a much more 
general kind of designation in I P 11, and see no 
grounds for supposing minute geographical exact- 
ness. 

3. Place of Writing. The only trace of the locality 
from which the Epistle was written occurs in 5 13. 
There the writer says: ‘She that is in Babylon, elect 
together with you (‘your sister-church in Babylon,’ 
Moffatt), saluteth you.’ The Church Fathers be- 
lieved that ‘Babylon’ was a cryptic name for Rome. 
It is so used in the Apocalypse. Professor Souter 
believes that like the ‘dispersion’ it was used be- 
cause the Epistle was written at a time when it was 
not safe for Christians to write to one another con- 
cerning their religion, and he compares the entire 
lack of an address with the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

4. Date. A much more difficult question is the 
date. A decision turns on the question: Was the 
persecution referred to in the Epistle domestic or 
public? Chase points out that not a word is found 
in the Epistle about men shedding their blood or 
laying down their lives for the gospel. ‘None of the 
passages .. . contains any reference to or any hint 
of an organized persecution.’ We are compelled to 
ask: Can the attitude of the State to Christians, as 
represented in the Epistle, be associated with a 


Peter, First Epistle of 


Pharisees A NEW STANDARD 


fairly early date? Ramsay holds that if it can be 
proved that Peter died before 70 a.p., the Letter 
must be assigned to another author. Admittedly, 
our knowledge of the precise relation of the Roman 
government to Christians between 60 and 90 a.p. 
is extremely vague, but so prominent an authority 
as Mommsen believes that the condition of things 
suggested by the evidence of the Epistle may have 
originated as early as the time of Nero. In that 
case we are probably justified in assigning the docu- 
ment, as Bigg does, to the period between 58 and 
64 a.p. Our data, however, on the subject are too 
meager to admit of dogmatic assertions. 


5. Purpose. Plainly, the purpose of the Letter is 
to give encouragement to persecuted Christians. 
That is the reason why throughout the prevailing 
note is that of hope. Probably Moffatt is right in 
saying that ‘the emphasis put upon it [viz., Hope] 
here is due to the emergency of the moment rather 
than to any idiosyncrasy or dogmatic prepossession 
on the part of the author’ (Introduction, p. 321). 
That also is the reason why so much emphasis is 
laid on the sufferings of Christ. Of course, these 
sufferings had become central for the thought of the 
entire Church. Accordingly we need not discover in 
the author’s references to the expiatory value of the 
death of Christ a direct dependence on Paul. Like 
most other Christian leaders of the time his debt 
to Paul must have been great. As a matter of fact 
the Epistle contains many echoes of Paul’s Epistle 
to the Romans. But he bears witness to a conscious- 
ness which was prior to Paul. And, as Moffatt well 
says, ‘the proper appreciation of this central popular 
Christianity in the Apostolic Age is vital to the 
proper focus for viewing the early Christian litera- 
ture’ (op. cit., p. 331). 

6. Language of the Epistle. One of the problems 
connected with the authorship is the admirable 
Greek in which the Epistle is written showing in 
this a marked contrast with IIT P. Perhaps some light 
is thrown on the question by the statement of 5 12: 
‘By the hand of Silvanus, a faithful brother (in my 
opinion) I have written you,’ etc. (Moffatt’s tr.). 
Did Peter dictate the Letter, or, as Zahn supposes, 
did he entrust its actual composition to Silvanus? 
The latter hypothesis would explain a great deal, 
and it is in no way unreasonable. Von Soden has 
actually suggested that Silvanus was the author of 
the Epistle. This, he thinks, would explain its 
Pauline character. It is, however, improbable that 
after the death of Peter he should have written in 
Peter’s name, and put this testimony to himself in 
Peter’s mouth. On this hypothesis we might have 
expected him to choose Paul rather than Peter as 
his mouthpiece. 

7. Descensus ad Inferos. Perhaps the most notable 
feature of the Epistle is the passage which deals with 
the Descensus ad Inferos, 3 19 ff. The line of thought 
is as follows: ‘As you suffer in the flesh, so also did 
Christ. But through the extreme and innocent suf- 
fering His spirit remained untouched and potent. 
Nay, it was set free for a more immediately effective 
work, and for a wider range of influence. In His 
emancipated and renewed spirit He entered the 
world of spirits as the herald of forgiveness and 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


700 


restoration to those who belonged to the generation 
which the Jews thought especially cursed. And as 
after His death He ‘went’ into the prison-house of 
disembodied spirits, so after His resurrection He 
‘went’ into heaven and is now there triumphant and 
supreme over powers and authorities and angels’ 
(Dods). 

We are by no means impressed by Dr. Rendel 
Harris’ emendation, which presupposes that the 
word ’Evaox has been omitted after év 6 xat in 3 19, 
by a ‘scribe’s blunder in dropping some repeated 
letters.’ . 
LITERATURE: The best commentaries are those of Bigg (ICC, 

1901); Hort’s Fragment on 1! to 2 17 (1898), and Gunkel 

(in Vol. 2 of Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, ed. by 

J. Weiss). H. A.A. K. 

PETER, SECOND EPISTLE OF: 1. Attestation. 
The external attestation of the epistle is exceedingly 
late, meager, and indecisive. Apparently Origen, in 
the 3d cent., knew of its existence, but was aware 
that some rejected it. Possibly it was known at 
Rome in the time of Hippolytus. Eusebius deliber- 
ately placesit among the disputed writings of the New 
Testament Canon. We know that Peter’s name was 
associated with a large group of pseudepigraphic 
writings. These were the Gospel of Peter, the 
Apocalypse of Peter, and the Acts of Peter. So it 
is not surprizing to find a Second Epistle of Peter. 

2. Relation to Epistle of Jude. Probably the most 
notable fact about the document is its intimate 
connection with the Epistle of Jude. There has been 
much discussion as to which of the two is indebted 
to the other. ‘The whole of Jude from ver. 4 to 
ver. 18, with the exception of vs. 14 and 15, is repre- 
sented in the 2d ch. and the first three vs. of the 3d 
ch. of II P.’ Scholars are coming with growing 
unanimity to accept the conclusion of Bishop Chase 
that ‘the various lines of argument converge, and, 
as far as demonstration is possible in literary ques- 
tions, demonstrate the priority of Jude.’ 

3. Hellenistic Coloring. But further arresting 
features of the Epistle call for attention. It has a 
very noteworthy Hellenistic coloring. Thus at the 
very beginning occur the phrases Gela dévayut¢ (1 3) 
and Ocet« ptots (1 4), which point to the 2d cent., 
‘when a diffused stoicism was predominant through- 
out the empire,’ one of whose key-notes was partici- 
pation in the divine nature. This marked Hellenistic 
coloring is associated with an extraordinary vocabu- 
lary which Chase calls ‘an ambitious one.’ As an 
example, we may quote the word éxéxrys, used in 
the description of the Transfiguration (1 16). This 
word is taken from the Greek mysteries, ‘where it 
denoted one who -was admitted to the third and 
highest stage.’ The use of it is distinctly artificial 
and unnatural. The language as a whole is in 
marked contrast with that of the First Epistle. Its 
heightened rhetoric is much more potent in the 
Greek than in the restrained English of the AV or 
RV. 

4. References to Pauline Epistles. One of the 
most significant passages is the reference to Paul’s 
Epistles in 3 16. The writer groups the Pauline 
Epistles with the yeapat, which mean primarily the 
O T. That is to say, a definite collection of Paul’s 
Letters is presupposed, and a collection which pos- 


— 


' Egyptian pr‘o, 


7O1 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Peter, First Epistle of 
Pharisees 





sesses canonical authority. This must inevitably 
point to the 2nd cent., and, with the use of the 


Epistle of Jude, to a date after Peter’s death. 


5. Subject. ‘Not without truth,’ says Dods, ‘is 
knowledge (éxfyvwots) said to be the key-note of 
the Epistle.’ The main subject, however, with 
which the writer is concerned is the reestablishment 
of belief in the Second Advent (1 11, 16, 19, 3 3 f.). 
There are false teachers who ridicule that doctrine. 
To refute them, the writer especially relies on the 
idea of the delay as due to the long-suffering of 
God (3 8 f.), and he shows that their skepticism was 
associated with impure living (8 11 f.). 

LirersTuRE: Every important feature of the Epistle is 
admirably discussed by F. H. Chase in HDB. The best 
‘commentaries in English are those of Bigg (ICC) and J. B. 
Mayor (1907). H. A. A. K. 


PETHAHIAH, peth’’e-hai’a (™MNNB, pthahyah), | 


‘J’’ opens’: 1. The ancestral head of ihe nineteenth 
course of priests (I Ch 2416). 2. A Levite who had 
married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 23). 3. A Levite who 
assisted Ezra (Neh 9 5). 4. A Jew who was the 
deputy-governor for the district of Jerusalem (Neh 
11 24). He was responsible to the governor of the 
whole province. HK. E. N. 
PETHOR, pi’thér (1iN3, pthdr): The home of 
Balaam in Mesopotamia near ‘the River,’ 7.e., the 
Euphrates (Nu 22 5; Dt 23 4 [5]). It is usually iden- 
tified with Pitru, mentioned by Shalmaneser IT 
(860-825 B.c.), and with Pe-d-ré in a list of Thoth- 
mes III (c. 1500 B.c.). Itis just S. of Carchemish, on 


the Sdjin, a few miles from its junction with the 


Euphrates. Some scholars, taking ‘the River’ to 
mean the Nile, locate P. in Egypt. OF Te Nes be 

PETHUEL, pi-fht’el (9B, pthw’ él): The father 
of the prophet Joel (Jl 1 1). 

PEULLETHAI, pi-vl’e-thai (D?Y2, p*“ullethay, 
Peulthai AV): The ancestral head of a family of 
Korahite temple-porters (I Ch 26 5). 

PHALEC, fé’lek (®adéx): An ancestor of Jesus 
(Lk 3 35 AV; Peleg RV, as in the O T). 

PHALLI, fal’u. See Patuv. 

PHALTI, fal’tai, PHALTIEL, fal’ti-el. See Parr. 

PHANUEL, fa-niii’el or fan’yu-el (PavounA): The 
father of the prophetessAnna (Lk 2 36). 

PHARAOH, fé’rd (978, par‘dh, Papad, from 
‘oreat house’): An honorific title 
(analogous to the modern ‘Sublime Porte’) given the 
Egyptian king during the Biblical period. It ap- 
pears sometimes in association with the personal 
name of the king (II K 23 29; Jer 44 30) and some- 
times alone (Ex 111, 51; I K 1118-20). In the inscrip- 
tions it occurs as far back as the fourth dynasty, but 
not as an equivalent to the term ‘king,’ as in the 
Hebrew Scriptures. This usage dates from the begin- 
ning of the New Empire and can have passed into 
Palestinian modus loquendi only after 1000 B.c. 
Accordingly, it is absent from the Tell el-Amarna 
tablets (1400 n.c.). The Pharaohs were nominally 
absolute monarchs by virtue of divine origin, but in 
reality dependent on, and directed by, the heredi- 
tary monarchs (‘governors of provinces’). A sign of 
their sovereignty was the double crown of Upper and 
Lower Egypt. 


The Pharaohs alluded to in the Bible are the fol- 
lowing: (1) A contemporary of Abraham (Gn 12 
14-20). But the name is here evidently made to con- 
form with the later usage, 
since it is certain that in 
Abraham’s time the kings 
of Egypt were not as yet 
called Pharaohs. Neither is 
the identification of the in- 
dividual Pharaoh in this 
case possible, in view of the 
great uncertainty as to the 
exact dates of the time of 
Abraham. (2) The Phar- 
aoh of Joseph. It is quite 
probable that this monarch 
‘was one of the Hyksos 
(15th or 16th dynasty), 
who reigned at On (Helio- 
polis). But here, too, the 
name Pharaoh is given by 
accommodation, and _ all 
further identification must 
be a matter of conjecture, 
as even the Egyptian names 
in the Joseph narrative (Potipherah, Asenath, Zaph- 
nath-Paneah) do not occur in the Egyptian records 
earlier than the 25th dynasty, and the whole record 
as at present cast is expressed in terms of a later 
period than the events. (3) The Pharaoh of the op- 
pression was probably Rameses II. Tho this identi- 
fication is not beyond question, the name Raamses 
(Ex 1 11), as a store city built by the Hebrews, and 
other considerations (cf. Driver in Hogarth, Auth. 
and Arch., 52 ff.) render it more probable than the 
view that this Pharaoh was Amenophis III or IV. 
Rameses II reigned sixty-seven years (1292-1225 
B.Cc.)and was succeeded by (4) the Pharaoh of the 
Exodus, or Merenptah. (5) Solomon’s father-in-law 
(I K 2 46, 31), a Tanite king of the 21st dynasty. 
(6) Shishak (c. 945-924 B.c.), the founder of the 22d 
dynasty, and invader of Judah under Rehoboam 
(I K 14 25), is nowhere in the O T called Pharaoh, 
probably because he was definitely known as a 
contemporary personality and singled out from 
among the Pharaohs in general. See also Eayprt, 
§ 10. (7) Pharaoh Necho II (609-593 3.c.) of the 
26th dynasty (II K 23 29; cf. Eaypr, § 13). (8) 
Hophra (588-569 B.c.), contemporary of the capture 
of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 44 30). Besides 
these, there are also allusions to (9) the unnamed 
brother-in-law of Tahpenes (I K 11 14-22); (10) a 
contemporary of Sennacherib and Hezekiah (II K 
18 21); and (11) father of Bithiah, who married 





Pharaoh with the Crown 
of Upper and Lower 
Egypt. 


Mered (I Ch 4 18). See also Eayrr. AxvGog: 
PHARES, fé’riz, PHAREZ, fé’rez. See Prruz. 
PHARISEES, far‘i-siz: 1. Name. The word 


‘Pharisee’ is derived from the Heb. root prsh. There 
is, however, some difference of opinion as to the form 
of the verb from which it is derived; and the meaning 
of ‘separatist? and ‘separated’ both have their 
champions. In the time of Jesus the Pharisees con- 
stituted a society known as ‘neighbors,’ which 
numbered about 6,000. To speak of them as a 


Pharisees 
Phenicia 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


702 


nC ESS nnonSESnnnSISIEIInISInII Ut tT US 


‘party,’ especially as a political party, is to misrepre- 
sent their true character. 

2. General Tenets. Asin the case of the Sadducees 
and the Essenes, they are described by Josephus as 
the Jewish equivalent of one of the leading schools of 
Greek philosophy. According to him, they occupied 
a middle ground between the necessitarian position 
of the Essenes and the belief in absolute free will of 
the Sadducees (Ant. XVIII, 13; BJ, Il, 814). They 
believed that the souls of the righteous after death 
entered into new bodies, but that those of the wicked 
were left in Sheol suffering punishment (cf. Ac 23 6). 
They believed also in the existence of angels and 
spirits, both evil and good (cf. Ac 237-9). Their most 
pronounced opinions, however, have to do with the 
so called ‘oral law’—a mass of halakhéth, or authori- 
tative interpretations of the Torah, out of which 
finally developed the Talmud (Mk 7 5-8; cf. also 
Mt ch. 23). On entering their societies they bound 
themselves to observe the regulations governing the 
Sabbath, tithing, and ceremonial purity. Indeed, 
their endeavor to distinguish between that which was 
‘clean’ and that which was ‘unclean,’ and to keep 
themselves ‘separate,’ gave them their name. They 
were held in high esteem by the common people, who 
honored them for their knowledge of the Law. In 
fact, this devotion to the Law must be regarded as 
the central characteristic of Pharisaism. The syna- 
gog was the peculiar institution of the Pharisees as 
the Temple was for the Sadducees. At the same 
time, the Pharisees insisted on the support of the 
Temple and seem to have introduced certain rites 
which the Sadducees finally adopted, such as the 
libation of water brought from the Pool of Siloam. 
Along with legalistic development there was in 
Pharisaism a strikingly idealistic Messianic hope. 
The Pharisees, through both their religious and 
political sympathies, were the one group to develop 
this hope, altho in its transcendental rather than 
its political aspects. To them rather than to the 
Essenes is to be attributed the apocalyptic literature 
(q.v.), with its passionate longing for the establish- 
ment of the Messianic kingdom and the punishment 
of the enemies of Israel. 


3. Origin. The Pharisees, as they existed in N T 
times, were the outcome of that remarkable historical 
development which began with the Maccabees. The 
persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes served to draw 
sharp lines of distinction between those Jews who 
had yielded to the Hellenistic drift, represented by 
the high priest and the wealthy class of Jerusalem, 
and those who were loyal to the conception of 
Judaism which had been inaugurated by Ezra. The 
latter were a party—if it is proper to call them by 
that name—known as the hastdhim, or ‘Pious’; also 
Hasideans or Assideans. We do not know muchin 
detail concerning this group, but in general they 
seem to have been under the influence of the Scribes 
and to have occupied no prominent political or social 
position. In fact, the revolt under the Maccabees 
was in many respects like the revolt of the peasants 
during the German Reformation, except that the 
‘Pious’ did not at the start seek social reorganiza- 
tion. The ‘Pious’ were subjected to persecution by 
the Syrians because of their devotion to the Law of 


Moses and their refusal to compromise in any way 
with the royal demand for conformity with the 
Greek religion. It would seem that the ‘Pious’ 
gradually broke into two groups during the period 
of the struggle for national independence prior to 
John Hyrcanus (135-105 B.c.). On one side were 
those who stood merely for the performance of 
Judaism as a cult; on the other side, those who, while 
equally loyal to their religion, were swept into the 
field of politics. The first group developed into the 
Essenes, the second into the Pharisees. 


4. Development Under the Maccabees. It is not 
easy to trace the process of development of this 
latter group, altho there are certain outstanding facts 
which may serve to mark its progress. Jonathan 
(161-142) and Simon (142-135) counted upon the 
assistance of these political religionists and gave 
them prominence in the body known as the Gerousia 
(or Sanhedrin). During the latter part of Simon’s 
reign there seems to have developed a certain degree 
of hostility toward the Maccabean policy of making 
international treaties and a tendency to apply the 
principles of separation to politics as well as to per- 
sonal religion. About the same time also there ap- 
peared the first of those great teachers who laid the 
foundations for later rabbinism. This process of 
differentiation within the religio-political group 
became very distinct in the time of John Hyrcanus, 
who carried the international and general political 
policy of the Maccabean house into an attempt to 
build up a state of the ordinary Syrian type. It was 
apparently under John Hyrcanus that the group 
devoted to the Law was first called ‘Pharisees’ 
doubtless because their idea of separateness had been 
developed into something like a general policy 
governing all aspects of life. During the reign of 
John Hyrcanus a sharp break came between the 
Maccabean house and the Pharisees, and the latter 
became the opponents rather than the supporters of 
the new government. The reason for this transfor- 
mation of allegiance, according to Josephus, was the 
suspicion thrown by a prominent Pharisee upon the 
right of John Hyrcanus to hold the priesthood be- 
cause his mother had been a captive. The real 
grounds were doubtless the general opposition 
between the policies of the Pharisees and the Macca- 
bees, to which reference has been made. The son of 
John Hyrcanus, Alexander Jannzus (104-78), pur- 
sued an extreme monarchical policy. If Josephus 
with his Pharisaic sympathies is to be trusted, 
Alexander was essentially a military ruler, bent on 
conquering the surrounding territory, and, following 
the precedent set by his brother Aristobulus (105- 
104), called himself king. This step served to 
strengthen the Pharisees’ opposition, and for a num- 
ber of years Judea was rent by civil war between the 
people and their sovereign. The outcome of this was 
to solidify the opposition of the Pharisees to the 
establishment of a monarchy in Judea, yet, para- 
doxically, to develop its policy to such an extent 
tent that when at the death of Alexander his widow 
Alexandra took his place and ruled tke country ten 
years, hers was in reality a Pharisaic administration, 
under the leadership of her brother Simon ben 
Shetach. 


703 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Pharisees 
Phenicia 


rrr hennenenenerneenenensiene see 


5. Development Under the Romans. With the 
death of Alexandra Judea was again swept by civil 
war, Hyrcanus I being supported by the Pharisees, 
and his brother Aristobulus by the Sadducees. Asa 
result of this internecine conflict the state came 
under the control of the Romans (63 B.c.), and the 
Pharisees were left to become an influential group, 
primarily religious devotees to the Law, but pos- 
sessed of great political influence. During the reign 
of Herod I the Pharisees were in constant opposition 
to the monarch, but he was sagacious enough to 
recognize their power in the state and not to attempt 
any persecution, altho he punished severely any 
attempts at revolt. While the political influence of 
the Pharisees increased among the people, the 
group, or as it can now be called, the Society, espe- 
cially developed along religious and academic lines, 


devoting itself to building up the oral law, which . 


was to explain and protect the Law of Moses. 

6. Pharisaic Tenets. During the half century pre- 
ceding the destruction of Jerusalem (70 a.p.) the 
Pharisees grew increasingly influential, both among 
the learned and among the unlearned. Under them 
the Mosaic legislation was so developed as to be- 
come at once a mass of detailed statutes governing 
every aspect of life, and a standard of virtue which 
the common people could never expect to attain. 
It would be a mistake, however, to think of the 
Pharisees as consciously hypocritical, or as lacking 
genuine religious sentiment. They recognized God 
not only as a lawgiver, but also as loving Israel, and 
along with their halakhoth they developed a theory of 
the ‘evil impulse’ (yetser ha-ra‘) and a code of moral- 
ity, known as the ‘Two Ways,’ which appears later 
in the Didache. Personally, the Pharisees were 
inclined to be ascetic, and in the time of Jesus had 
begun to develop a system of fasting twice a week 
(cf. Lk 18 10 f.; Mt 914). The criticism passed by 
Jesus upon them was not so much against their 
general moral precepts as against their general atti- 
tude toward God and religion (cf. Mt 23 1-3). With 
Him, God was the Father, to be obeyed through 
love; according to the Pharisees, God was primarily 
the Lawgiver, to be obeyed through fear (cf. Ga 
2 3-5, 51, 613; Ro 814; II Jn 17). It should be 
noticed also that the Rabbis themselves divided the 
Pharisees into seven classes, considering five of them 
‘fools,’ or ‘hypocrites.’ The highest type were called 
‘God-loving.’ The Pharisees’ attitude toward the 
revolution of 66.4.D. was one of hesitation. They 
finally undertook the management of the revolt, per- 
haps, if we may so infer from Josephus, with the hope 
of keeping it within moderate bounds. In this at- 
tempt they were disappointed, as they were over- 
powered by the Zealots and other radicals. With the 
destruction of Jerusalem they were forced to make 
their home in other cities, particularly Tiberias, 
where their teachings were reduced by their suc- 
cessors into the Mishna, and the movement which 
they represented finally passed over into rabbinism. 
Lirerature: Schiirer, GVJ, II, 3d. ed., 388 sg.; Herford, Pharisa- 

ism; Box, ‘‘Pharisees,’”’ ERE; G. F. Moore, “The Rise of Nor- 

mative Judaism,” Harv. Th. Rev.(Oct. 1924, Jan. 1925). S.M. 

PHAROSH, fé’resh. See Parosu. 

PHARPAR, far’par (1273, parpar): One of the 
two ‘rivers of Damascus’ (II K 512). Itis one of the 


smaller tributaries of the Abana, and flows from 
Hermon eastward S. of Damascus, losing itself, like 
the Abana, in the desert. See also Abana, and Map 
ys a 

PHARZITE, far’zait. See Parnz. 

PHASEAH. See Pasran. 

-PHEBE, fi’bi. See Puasn. 


PHENICE, fi-nai’si or fi/nis. See Pumnicta; and 
PHCNIX. 


PHENICIA: 1. Country. Phenicia, fi-nigh’1-a 
(Potyixn, Phoenicia RV, Phenice, Phenicia AV), 
is the name given the territory on the E. coast 
of the Mediterranean, that anciently extended in 
general from the Orontes River on the N. to 
Mt. Carmel on the 8. and from the shore-line of 
the sea E. to the backbone of the Lebanon range 
of mountains and its N. and S. projecting 
hills. This entire stretch of shore-line is somewhat 
more than 200 m.long from N. to S. The shore 
plains (for there are several of them between the 
rivers emptying into the Mediterranean) vary in 
width between one and ten miles. Tho Phenicia 
included cities throughout this entire stretch of land, 
P. proper may be limited on the N. by the river 
Eleutheros, and on the 8. by the Ladder of Tyre. 
Within these limits we find the location of the chief 
cities of this people. Some of these were Tyre, Sidon, 
Sarepta, Gebal (Byblos), Lycus, Tripolis and Arka. 

2. Name. The name is derived from the Greek 
word, phenix (polvté), which was used as a proper 
name to indicate something that was of a reddish 
hue. The Greeks are said to havenamed the Canaan. 
ite peoples who carried to them quantities of purple 
dye or purple-dyed materials, ‘phenix-men.’ Hence 
the designation fastened itself on the peoples who 
occupied this territory, and then was extended to 
the land occupied by them. 

3. Sources of Information. There are numerous 
inscriptions in the language of the Phenicians. These 
documents have been found in Phenicia itself, in 
some of the colonies established by P. merchantmen, 
or trade-centers built up in several seaports 
accessible to the Mediterranean. But they are nearly 
all short, scrappy, not historical, and comparatively 
late; that is, in the main, not earlier than the Persian 
period. Only one inscription dates from the 9th 
cent. B.c., and it was found on the fragments of a 
bowl discovered in Cyprus, but gives us no valuable 
information. The most useful of these brief inscrip- 
tions furnish sketchy pictures of worship, lists of 
kings covering certain epochs, and divinities. When 
we turn to the records of other countries we find 
more detailed information. Egyptian, Babylonian, 
and Assyrian inscriptions contain numerous state- 
ments of prime importance scattered through their 
records from the 16th cent. B.c. to the Persian period. 
The O T, too, is a valuable source of evidence to the 
commercial importance of P., especially from the 
8th to the 6th cent. B.c. (cf. Is ch. 23; Ezk chs. 27, 
28). Josephus, Eusebius, and later Greek writers 
testify to the prominence of the Phenicians. Only a 
beginning has been made in bringing to light the 
remains of that great nation, scattered as they are 
over a dozen different lands. 


Phenicia 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


704 





4, People. Tradition records much regarding the 
beginnings of Phenicia. Herodotus tells us (11, 7 89) 
that the Phenicians came originally from the Red 
Sea, thought to have been the Persian Gulf, where 
there were two islands, Turos and Arados, doubtfully 
the originals of Tyre and Arvad. . Other traditions 
embody equally incredible stories. The inscriptional 
materials for definitely deciding this question are 
too scant to be of value; hence we must fall back on 
other evidence. Language, religion and ethnology 
all contribute to the settlement of this point. Their 
language was a Semitic tongue, only dialectically 
different from the Hebrew of the O T. Their 
religion was almost sui generis; tho we know much 
about its characteristic elements, next to nothing 
is known about its origin. Its people were properly 
classed with the Canaanites as far back as they are 
known to us, in the 16th cent. B.c. They occupied 
the coast-line and developed on the sea, while their 
brethren farther inland developed on the land, and 
in course of time they became almost two peoples. 


5. Early History. The most ancient authentic 
records about the Phenicians can not be dated earlier 
than the 16th cent. B.c., tho there are many tra- 
ditions of their immense antiquity and fabulous 
maritime activities. In fact, Sargon I =Shar-gani- 
sharri (c. 2750 B.c.), Naram-Sin (son of Sargon I) 
ruled from Elam to the Mediterranean Sea. Arad- 
Sin held sway to the same western sea. Gudea 
(2450 B.c.) brought cedar from the Lebanon moun- 
tains for his temples in Lagash. Both Hammurabi 
and Ammiditana held sway to the Lebanons but 
not over the Phenician coast. Whether it was occu- 
pied by Phenicians at that period is a question. 
From Egypt king Snefru (c. 2930 B.c.) sent ships to 
Syria to get cedar timber for his temples. The life of 
Sinuhe (c. 1980-1935 B.c.) gives a glance at the 
peoples of Syria and presumably of Phenicia in that 
period. There are references to P. in Egyptian in- 
scriptions of about 1550 B.c., which called the coun- 
try Kupna (Miiller, Aegyptiaca, pp. 77 ff.). The 
records of the Asiatic campaigns of the Egyptian 
monarchy, notably of Thutmose III (1501-1447 
B.c.), often mention the Phenicians as if they were 
a people with very definite traits, location, and 
strength. The famous papyrus, Anastasi I, gives a 
list of Phenician cities in existence at that day. But 
the most notable and reliable contemporary source 
of information on this period is the group of Tell el- 
Amarna letters. By means of these we ascertain 
that several Phenician cities were already estab- 
lished and important in the 15th cent. B.c. We find 
among the whole number mentioned Acco, Kana, 
Tyre (Uzu in Amarna letters), Sidon (a chief city 
at that date), Berytus, Byblos, Arka (Irkata in 
Amarna letters), and Simyra. These cities and 
towns, as shown in these letters, were subjects of 
Egypt in that day. It seems that the Egyptian 
monarchs, soon after the expulsion of the Hyksos 
kings, followed up their advantage by conquer- 
ing Palestine, Syria, and Phenicia, Thutmose I 
extending his boundaries as far as the Euphra- 
tes. Henceforth, through the reigns of the 18th 
dynasty to that of Amenhotep IV, the cities and 
provinces of Syria and P. paid tribute to Egyptian 


monarchs. This suzerainty was partially termi- 
nated by an invasion of the Hittites from the N., 
which was aided by desert peoples. Some of the 
cities surrendered to the Hittites, others attempted 
to remain loyal to Egypt, and still others became in- 
dependent. 

Thence down through the 19th dynasty (14th and 
13th cents. B.c.) of Egypt, P. experienced varying 
fortunes and misfortunes, tho most of the time 
subject to the Pharaoh. Early in the 12th cent. 
a great invasion of all the E. coast of the Mediter- 
ranean by sea-forces from Asia Minor and Europe 
resulted in the defeat of the invaded and the settle- 
ment of coast-lands by such people as the Philistines 
(q.v.). 

6. In Times of Early Israel. When we first meet 
the Phenicians in the times of David and Solomon, 
they seem to be an independent people, with an 
extensive merchant marine and a notable skill as. 
artizans. Tyre was the chief city, and its king, 
Hiram, was its royal director. With the Hebrews 
they had a reciprocity treaty for mutual gain (IIS 
5 fs LK ebb). 


7. Commercial Extensions. The location of P. 
on the seacoast, cut off by mountains on the land 
side from easy contact with other lands in close prox- 
imity, seems to have turned its inhabitants to a sea- 
faring life. This method of travel and trade gradually 
led them to adjoining shores, to farther shores, to 
distant shores, until they had tried all waters with- 
in reasonable reach. Skilful in ship-building, in 
manufacturing choice articles of trade, they estab- 
lished with every accessible land valuable com- 
mercial relations (Is ch. 23). On land also they had 
regular routes for the exportation and importation 
of costly wares (cf. Ezk chs. 27 and 28).. When 
Solomon extended his commerce to distant ports, he 
employed experienced Phenician sailors to man his 
ships. When Sennacherib required ships to cross 
the Persian Gulf in his war on Elam, he imported 
Phenicians to build his ships. When NechoII of Egypt 
(608-596 B.c.) required a fleet of sea-going ships he 
applied to the Greeks for their construction, and to 
the Phenicians for experienced seamen to man them. 
When Jonah fied from the face of the Lord, he 
embarked at Joppa on a Phenician ship. They were 
the seamen, the Englishmen, of those days. Some of 
their trading-posts were Cyprus, Carthage in N. 
Africa, and Tarshish in Spain. 


8. Colonial Extensions. These trading-posts 
gradually became centers in which native Phenicians 
settled in the interests of trade. Not many centuries 
passed before each important trade-center became 
a kind of colony, where commerce, religion, and 
politics of the Phenician stamp took root. S. Europe 
N. Africa, W. Europe, possibly E. Africa, and S. 
Arabia bear marks of early Phenician influence. 
But colonies in the modern sense of the term these 
were not. Their ultimate purpose was commercial 
and financial. If they could secure and hold the 
trade of these distant lands, others might have the 
political and religious control of therm Tyre was 
the reputed mistress of the seas and of land-com- 
merce in Solomon’s day and for centuries later. 

9. Government. P., like Babylonia in early times, 


705 


had no centralized government, but consisted of a 
number of city-states. Each had its king and the 
bond of union between them was barely visible. 
Claim to the throne seems to have been hereditary 
until a revolution allowed a usurper to be seated. 
Slight information has come down to us regarding 
the government of these cities. Some Roman writers 
tell us that a council of ten men, or an aristocracy, 
due either to early tribal prominence or to wealth, 
was the real governing body. In earlier times Sidon, 
and later Tyre, were prominent among all the group 
of Phenician cities, tho exercising no real authority 
over their inferiors. ; 


10. Religion. The Phenicians were a people 
overwhelmed with a pantheon crowded with about 
fifty divinities. Their fragmentary inscriptions, 
their proper names, and their language are bur- 
dened with the names of deities. These gods had 
certain relations with mankind, and men were to a 
certain extent under their perpetual protection. Of 
the origin of these divinities we know next to noth- 
ing. Some of their names occur hundreds of times. 
The most prominent of these gods, either standing 
alone or in compound names are: (1) Adonis, 7.e., 
Tammuz (Ezk 8 14); (2) Asclepios, or Eshmun, 
extensively revered in Sidon, Cyprus, and Carthage; 
(8) Baal, occurring in hosts of proper names, and 
worshipped also by both Israelites and Phenicians; 
(4) Molech, named under the form milki in many 
proper names; (5) Melkarth, ‘city king,’ the ba‘al of 
Tyre; this name is also found frequently in Cyprus 
and Carthage; (6) Anath, seen in O T proper names 
such as Beth-anath (Jos 19 38), and Anathoth; (7) 
Ashtoreth, occurring often in the O T, the same as 
Astarte; (8) Tanith, the chief goddess of Carthage, 
her name being found more than 2,000 times in 
Phenician inscriptions. Of her origin and nature we 
know almost nothing. The Phenicians chose high 
places as peculiarly appropriate for worship, and 
there they built their temples and altars. They had 
their sacred streams, springs, and trees. In fact, 
these were their most appropriate places of wor- 
ship. 

11. Independence. In.the time of Solomon P. 
seems to have enjoyed independence, Tyre being 
pre-eminent. In Ahab’s day Ethbaal was king of 
the Sidonians (I K 16 31). Gradually, however, 
all these coast-cities seem to have come under the 
authority of Tyre. This condition of things is con- 
firmed by the statements of Assyrian kings, who give 
us a list of Phenician cities. 

12. Subject to Assyria. The first Assyrian ruler 
to record his invasion of Phenicia was Asshur- 
natsirpal in 876 B.c. Of their cities he names 
Tyre, Sidon, Byblos, Mahallata, Maisa, Kaisa, 
Amuri, and ‘Arvad in the sea,’ which brought him 
tribute. Shalmaneser IIT (859-824 B.c.) had little 
difficulty with them, for rather than suffer defeat 
and waste they quietly submitted with tribute. 
They did the same for Adad-nirari (811-782). But 
all internal administration was in the hands of the 
Phenicians themselves. 

The accession and aggressive policy of Tiglath- 
pileser III brought a new era to Syrian lands. 
This great king and Sargon II name three states, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Phenicia 


viz.: Aradus, Byblos, and Tyre, the northern portion 
of the coast-line now being reckoned with Hamath. 
When Sennacherib invaded P., Lule (Elulaios) is 
called ‘king of Sidon’; Tyre lost its authority for a 
time over the coast-lands, and over Citium on the 
island of Cyprus. Sennacherib, on the flight of 
Lule to Cyprus, put Itubaal on the throne of Sidon, 
levying on him a heavy annual tribute. Under 
HEsarhaddon (681-668 B.c.) Sidon rebelled against 
Assyrian authority, but was soon captured, ruth- 
lessly destroyed, and its population deported (675 
B.c.). Esarhaddon built a new town on another 
site, called it ‘Esarhaddonburg,’ and set over it an 
Assyrian governor. Altho the coast-land possessions 
of Tyre had a governor, the whole proceeding was a 
make-believe, for the Assyrian could neither conquer 
Tyre nor force it to recognize him. The notable 


- stela found at Senjirli bears on its surface a gigantic 


figure of Esarhaddon, holding in his hand two 
thongs, one passing through the lip of the puppet 
figure of Tirhaka, king of Ethiopia, and the other 
through that of Baal, the king of Tyre; but this is 
another empty boast, for he captured neither of 
them. The king of Tyre, according to Asshur- 
banipal (668-626 B.c.), became frightened after the 
conquest of Egypt by the latter, and paid a heavy 
tribute. Some of the cities, notably Acco, were 
severely punished for rebellion. 


13. Decline of Power. The decline of Assyria 
left the Phenician cities free for a time. But the 
success of Nebuchadrezzar’s army in Palestine and 
Syria included the conquest of P., except the island 
city of Tyre. Some time during this period Tyre 
lost her political grip on her colonies, as well as 
over the mainland towns. The influx of Greek 
influence on land and sea rather weakened Tyre’s 
influence, and allowed Carthage to forge ahead asa 
sea-power. For some centuries thereafter Carthage 
was the most prominent Phenician city, tho 
Tyre during all this time was an amazing commer- 
cial success (cf. Ezk ch. 27). Persian domination 
made Sidon the first city of P. The finest ships. 
in Xerxes’ fleet were built by the Sidonians, whose ~ 
king was second only to the Persian monarch. 
Tyre came third in honor. Under Persia, for a cen- 
tury and a half, this little country and all its cities 
prospered marvelously. A severe setback was given 
it in 350 B.c., when the king of Sidon joined with 
Nectanebos of Egypt to resist the authority of 
Persia. Artaxerxes III swooped down upon Sidon 
and almost annihilated it with sword and flame. 

14. Macedonian Conquest. The conquests of 
Alexander carried with them the capture of the 
island city of Tyre. Its partial destruction and the 
sale of its inhabitants into slavery gave it a stun- 
ning blow from which it never recovered. The 
story of the Phenicians as a nation then came to 
an end, tho the struggle of the individual cities, 
has continued for centuries under Greek, Roman, 
Saracen, Turkish, and now French rule. 

Literature: Movers, Die Phénizier (1842-56); E. Renan, 

Mission de Phénicie (1864); Pietschmann, Geschichte der 

Phénizier (1889); Kenrick, Phenicia (1855); Rawlinson, 


History of Phenicia, and Phenicia (1889) in the Story of 
the Nations series; Wheeler, Alexander the Great (1900). 


Phibeseth 
Philippi 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


706 


i  — 


PHIBESETH, fai’bi-seth or fib’1-seth. See Pi- 
BESETH. 


PHICOL, fai’kol (75°8, pikhal, Phichol AV): The 
captain of the host of Abimelech, King of Gerar, in 
the days of Abraham (Gn 21 22, 32 [E]), and also in 
the days of Isaac (Gn 26 26 [J]), more than half a 
century later. The chronological difficulty disap- 
pears when we note that the two accounts of J and E 
were originally independent, and are but variant 
traditions of the same occurrence. H. E. N. 


PHILADELPHIA, fil’’a-del’fi-a (@tAcderpta): A 
city in Lydia, at the northern foot of Mt. Tmolus, 
on a natural terrace overlooking the valley of Coga- 
mus. It was founded by Attalus II. The valleys of 
the Meander and Hermus form a loop round Tmolus, 
with a low watershed at the sources of the Cogamus. 
P. lies in this loop, and hence guarded the ‘door’ or 
‘gateway’ of the great trade-route between Sardes- 
Pergamum and the East, the entrance to which was 
‘a door opened’ to her as a missionary (Rev 38). P. 
never attained the importance postulated by its 
strategical position. It is aptly characterized by the 
words ‘little power’ of Rev 3 8. The surrounding 
country is very fertile, because of its volcanic 
character. The city is now called Ala-shehir, ‘Red 
City,’ because of the color of its soil. Its situation on 
the edge of a volcanic region has ever proved its 
bane and prevented its growth. Its people have 
preferred to live in safer quarters in the open 
country, because earthquakes (cf. ‘the hour of trial,’ 
Rev 310) were so constant (cf. ‘he shall go out thence 
no more,’ Rev 3 12) that Strabo wondered that any 
one should live in P. It was called ‘Little Athens,’ 
because paganism was especially vital there, and 
displayed its piety by numerous temples (cf. ‘I will 
make him a pillar in the temple of my God,’ Rev 3 12) 
and frequent religious festivals. It also bore the 
name Decapolis. P. changed its name twice; once 
to Neocesarea (c. 17 A.D.) in honor of Germanicus, 
who had dispensed Tiberius’ gift to the city when 
it was destroyed by an earthquake; another time 
(70-79 a.p.) to Flavia in honor of Vespasian (cf. 
Rev 3 12, ‘I will write upon him the name of my 
God, and the name of the city of my God, . . . and 
mine own new name’). P. was also a stronghold of a 
stubborn form of Judaism called the ‘synagog of 
Satan’ (Rev 39), because of hatred toward the Chris- 
tian Jews. It was Christianized at an early period, 
perhaps evangelized by Paul or his companions. It 
had its early martyrs (cf. ‘thou didst not deny my 
name,’ Rev 3 8), and eleven martyrs of P. suffered 
later with Polycarp (155-156 a.p.). P. suffered many 
sieges at the hands of the Byzantines, Crusaders, 
Barbarians and Turks, and was always sustained by 
the promises in the Apocalypse. It was captured in 
1390 by the Turks after a siege of eight years; ‘pa- 
tient’ to the end, it was the last city in Asia Minor 
to fall into Turkish hands, and has also ‘patiently’ 
persisted in Christianity to this day. 

J.R.S.S.*—S. A. 


PHILEMON, fi-li-men (@:Aqwov): A prominent 
Christian of Colosse, to whom the Apostle Paul 
wrote a brief Epistle. Nothing authentic is known of 
him, except what is to be gathered from the Epistle, 


which is that he was a citizen of Colosse (ver. 1; cf. 
also Col 49); that he was wealthy, for he had slaves; 
that he had been converted to Christianity through 
the efforts of the Apostle himself (ver. 19); and that he 
was an active Christian, possibly an officer, in the 
Church (‘fellow worker,’ ver.1). It is also clear that 
he was the head of a household, two of whose mem- 
bers are mentioned by name (Apphia and Archip- 
pus, probably his wife and son respectively). To 
these items tradition has added that he was a bishop 
of Colosse (Apost. Const. vii, 46), and that he 
suffered martyrdom by stoning during the reign of 
Nero, together with Apphia, Archippus, and Onesi- 
mus. A.C. Z. 


PHILEMON, EPISTLE TO: The briefest of 
Paul’s Epistles and the only one addressed to an 
individual on a matter of personal concern. Yet 
Philemon is associated in the introductory saluta- 
tion (vs. 1-3) with Apphia and Archippus, and ‘the 
church’ in his house, a fact which deprives the letter 
of its merely individual character. Following the 
salutation, the Apostle gives expression to his thank- 
fulness for the Christian faith and love of Philemon 
(vs. 4-7). This prepares the way for the main sub- 
ject of the writing, which is (vs. 8-21) a request, 
couched in the most delicate and yet manly terms, 
that Philemon take back a runaway slave, Onesi- 
mus, whom Paul calls his ‘son’ [in the spirit], doubt- 
less because somehow during the course of his im- 
prisonment he had come in contact with him and 
brought him to the knowledge of Jesus Christ. 
Resorting to a play on the meaning of the name 
‘Onesimus’ (‘profitable’), the Apostle suggests, no 
doubt with reference to the unnamed wrong done by 
Onesimus (ver. 18), that the latter had indeed been 
unprofitable in the past, but would now be profitable 
both to his master and to the Apostle himself. He 
pleads with Philemon on the ground of the common 
faith of himself and Onesimus, which had exalted 
the relation of master and slave to one of brother- 
hood. He promises to make good whatever loss the 
slave had caused his master, either before or in the 
act of his escape. Having made this request in as 
urgent and tender a manner as possible, he closes the 
letter with the usual salutation and benediction, 
adding an expression of his hope that he would 
speedily be free to visit Colosse and asking Phile- 
mon to prepare a lodging for him (vs. 22-25). 

The time of the writing of the Epistle was the im- 
prisonment of the Apostle at Rome (61-63 a.p.); for 
it was only in such a populous center that a fugitive 
slave could have expected to find the conditions 
favorable for making his escape effective. More- 
over, the letter was undoubtedly taken to Philemon 
at the same time as that to the Colossians by Tychi- 
cus, with whom Paul associated Onesimus as a co- 
bearer of the two Epistles (Col 47 £.). This fact also 
indicates more precisely that the letter was written 
in the earlier part of the Roman imprisonment. Its 
genuineness was called into question by the Tiibin- 
gen critics, mainly on the ground of its close relation 
with Col. The motive for the composition of such a 
letter was alleged to be the presentation through an 
illustrative example of the bearings of the Christian 
religion on contemporary social life, and the char- 


707 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Phibeseth 
Philippi 





acters were said to be allegorical. A more strictly 
historical method of study has discredited this 


theory. 

LirErRATURE: Lightfoot, Colos. and Philem. (81886); Vincent 
in ICC (1897); G. Currie Martin in New Century Bible 
(1902). A.C 


PHILETUS, fi-li’tus (®tAynté6s): An errorist, men- 
tioned in II Ti 2 17 in connection with Hymenzus 
(q.v.), said to hold that the Resurrection, 7.e., of 
Christian believers, has already taken, place, thus 
denying the Christian doctrine of the resurrection 
of the body. 


PHILIP, fil’p (®fArrxoc), ‘lover of horses’: 1. 
Philip the Apostle, mentioned in all the lists of the 
apostles (Mt 103; Mk 318; Lk 614; Ac113) Inthe 
Synoptics nothing is recorded beyond the mention 
of his name, but in Jn there is frequent reference to 
P. (1 44 f., 65f., 12 21£.,148f.). By the close of the 
2d cent. P. is clearly identified with Philip the 
Evangelist (see 2 below). The beginnings of this 
identification seem to appear already in the N T (see 
below), with the result that there is practically no 
independent data concerning the Apostle Philip. 

Philip the Apostle is explicitly identified with Philip the 
Evangelist by Polycrates, Bishop of Antioch (about 190 a.p.), 
quoted by Eus. HE III, 31 8; V, 24. From Eus. III, 39 ° it 
has been argued that the same identification is made by Papias 
(about 140 a.v.). Clement of Alexandria (about 190 a.p.) in 
Strom. III, 6 1* makes the same identification, declaring that 
Philip the Apostle gave his daughters in marriage (cf. Eus. 
HE III, 301). Apparently independent statements are made 
about P. the Apostle in the Johannine tradition, but careful 
examination and comparison with Ac leads the present writer 
to believe that there is confusion even here. (Compare, e.g., 
the suggestion in Jn 65.7 that P. buy bread with the appoint- 
ment of P. as almoner to the widows in Ac 6 5; and especially 
P.’s introduction of Greeks to Jesus in Jn 12 * with P.’s 
missionary activities in Ac 8 > % f-), This confusion is the 
more easily explained if the Johannine writings originated in 
the Province of Asia, where Hierapolis, the later home of 
Philip the Evangelist, was a very early Christian center (Col 
4 3, Cf. Bousset, Theol. Rundschau, July, 1905, p. 293 f.). 

2. Philip the Evangelist, first mentioned in Ac 65 
as one of those appointed to oversee the distribution 
of alms to widows. All the persons mentioned in this 
list have Greek names, which would seem to indicate 
Philip’s Hellenistic origin. This makes all the more 
natural his missionary activity after the persecution 
occasioned by the work of Stephen (Ac 8 4£.). It 
accounts also for his later residence in Cesarea, which 
there is no reason to question (Ac 21 8). Like some 
of the Apostles, Philip was married, and according 
to Ac 219, had four daughters, virgin prophetesses. 
Our later information concerning him and them is 
derived largely from the Montanists. Proclus, 
quoted by Caius (about 210), says (Eus. H#, ITI, 
31 4) that ‘after him [some unknown prophet] there 
were four prophetesses, the daughters of Philip at 
Hierapolis in Asia. Their tomb is there and that of 
their father.’ Polycrates (Eus. HH, ITI, 31 3; V, 24) 
mentioned only three daughters of Philip, two buried 
at Hierapolis, and one in Ephesus. The fourth may 
have died before Philip’s removal from Cesarea. 
The later tradition, according to which this Philip 
was bishop of Tralles (Menol. Basil, in Migne, vol. 
exvil, col, 104, 168), is plainly an attempt to dis- 
tinguish again between this Philip and the Apostle. 

3. Philip the Tetrarch. One of thesons of Herodthe 


Great by Cleopatra of Jerusalem (Jos. Ant. XVII, 

1 3) and a stepbrother of Herod Antipas (q.v.). By 

his father’s will he was assigned the territory of 

Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanea and Panias (Jos. 

Ant. XVII, 81; cf. Lk 31), with the title of tetrarch 

The appointment was confirmed by Augustus (Ant. 

XVII, 11 4, Gaulanitis omitted and Auranitis added). 

Lk 19 12 #. may be an allusion to or reminiscence 

of Philip’s visit to Rome at thistime. He married 

Salome, the daughter of Herodias (Jos. Ant. XVIII, 

5 4), the wife first of his half-brother Herod and then 

of another half-brother (Herod Antipas), so that He- 

rodias wasreally the stepmother of Philip, not his wife, 
as represented in Mk 617 ||, Mt 143; unless, indeed 

Herod, the first husband of Herodias and father of 

Salome, bore also the name Philip, which, however, 

remains conjectural. Cf. Schirer, GVJ°, vol. I, 

p. 435, note 19, and per contra, Swete, Com. on Mk, in 

loc. His reign covered a period of nearly forty years 

(4 B.c. to 34 a.v.), after which his territory became 

a part of the province of Syria (Jos. Ant. XVIII, 48). 

Like his father, he was a great builder. He was a 

just man, on the whole the best of the Herods. See 

CSAREA Puitippi; and Heron, § 6. 

Lirerature: The fullest discussion of the relation between 
Philip the Apostle and Philip the Evangelist is that of 
Zahn in Forschungen, VI, pp. 158-175. Cf. also Schmiedel, 
EB, art. ‘Philip’. For Philip the Tetrarch consult Schirer, 
GJV8, I, 425 ff. JeiMak, 
PHILIPPI, fi-lip’ai (®fArrxor): A city and fortress 

in Macedonia, near the Thracian frontier, situated 

on a steep hill overlooking the valley of the Angites 

(Gangites) river, bordered on the N. by forests, on 

the 8. by a marsh, beyond which is the sea. Its sea- 

port was Neapolis. Its original name was Crenides, 
from numerous springs (xefqvn) about the hill. It 

was the location of an Athenian colony after 360 

B.c. Crenides was captured by Philip of Macedon 

in 358 and renamed Philippi. Its chief importance 

for him consisted in the gold-mines, called Asyla, in 
the neighboring hill of Dionysus, and P. was not 
far from the auriferous Mt. Pangeus. It passed to 

Rome 168 8.c. P. emerged from obscurity in 42 B.c., 

when it was the scene of the great battle between 

Octavius and’ Antony on the one side, and Brutus 

and Cassius on the other—each with nineteen le- 

gions. It was on the heights of P. that Cassius com- 

mitted suicide after the battle which cost him 8,000 

men, while Octavius and Antony lost 16,000. Later, 

Augustus made P. a Roman colony with the name 

Colonia Julia Philippensis, which probably after the 

battle of Actium was changed to Colonia Augusia 

Julia Philippensiwm, when its citizens received the 

tus italicum (=immunitas et libertas). As a Roman 

colony, P. began to outstrip Amphipolis and to lay 

claim to the dignity and title of ‘first’ city (Ac 16 12) 

when visited by Paul about 50 a.p.; Luke was per- 

haps a native but non-resident of Philippi, and the 

‘man of Macedonia’ who appeared to Paul in a 

vision (Ac 169-10). P. was the scene of a great event 

in Paul’s life (Ac 16 11 ff.) and the home of the first 

Christian church on European soil, to which ten 

years later Paul adressed an Epistle. Early in the 

2d cent. Ignatius visited P. on the way to martyr- 
dom, and Polycarp addressed to the church at P. an 

Epistle. J. R.S. S.*—S, AL 


Philippians, Epistle to 
Bonete A NEW STANDARD 

PHILIPPIANS, EPISTLE TO THE: One of Paul’s 
Epistles, addressed ‘to the saints that are at Philippi 
with the bishops and deacons.’ 


1. Paul and the Philippian Church. Paul’s interest 
in Philippi began with the visit in answer to the call 
to ‘come over to Macedonia and help us’ (Ac 166f.). 
Whether the man of Macedonia was Luke, and 
whether Luke was a native of the town, as Ramsay 
argues, we do not know. Paul heeded the call, 
and arriving at Philippi, he found a group of 
‘devout persons’ (‘God fearers’) from among the 
Gentiles, headed by Lydia (q.v.). His unfolding 
of the {Gospel to them at the ‘place of prayer’ 
(See Prayer, § 3) resulted in the formation of the 
Philippian church, of which the jailer in the 
city doubtless became a prominent member. With 
this church Paul sustained especially cordial rela- 
tions. He made two, possibly three, visits to it and 
twice at least (possibly four times) the church sent 
him gifts (416 and II Cor 119, ef. Ph 415). The last 
of these gifts had arrived some time before the writ- 
ing of the Epistle. It had come by the hands of 
Epaphroditus as a token of the church’s devotion to 
him. When Epaphroditus fell sick the Apostle was 
much distressed both personally and because of the 
Philippian Church’s interest in him. No other 
church, so far as we know, was as loyal to Paul and 
none responded to his leadership with as clear an 
understanding of his ideas. He regards their 
Christian life as a vindication of his ministry and 
a source of satisfaction to himself (2 15, 16, 4 1). 


2. Occasion, Object, Characteristics. The special 
occasion of the Epistle was the arrival of Epaphro- 
ditus with a gift of money from the Philippian 
Christians (2 25, 4 18), and its object is to express 
Paul’s gratification and gratitude for this kindness. 
Other matters are included in the writing, such as 
the exhortation to harmony, to self-forgetful service 
of one another, warnings against Judaistic teachings 
and licentious lives. But these are subsidiary 
and incidental. Hence the characteristic of the 
writing is predominantly that of joy (‘epistola de 
gaudio,’ Bengel). The doctrinal element in it is 
comparatively small; but so much of it as the Apostle 
has felt called upon to include (2 5-9) has served as the 
basis of a most stimulating discussion on the method 
of the incarnation. 

3. Date and Place of Writing. That the Epistle 
was written from some prison is explicitly stated 
(1 20). But from what prison? Until recently, there 
was one imprisonment of Paul’s certainly known and 
another held to be most probable. The first be- 
tween 56 and 61 a.p. consisting of two stages, 
namely in Cesarea and Rome; the second, in Rome, 
traditionally placed in the Mamertine, whence Paul 
was led to execution. This latter could not have 
been the imprisonment referred to in Philippians. 
In 1900, H. Lisco of Berlin (Vineula Sanctorum) 
suggested the possibility of an earlier imprisonment 
at Ephesus (before 55). Deissmann came inde- 
pendently to the same conclusion (Light from the 
Ancient East, 1910, pp. 229-231), and later: in his 
contribution to Anatolian Studies, etc., in honor of 
Sir W. M. Ramsay (1924)), attaching to it the 
theory that the ‘Letters of the Captivity’ were 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


708 


written at this time. Others have given their sup- 
port to this view (Kirsopp Lake, B. W. Bacon, B. W. 
Robinson). But upon the whole, the theory has 
not advanced beyond the stage of a hypothesis. Per 
contra, the considerations in favor of the older view 
that the imprisonment during which Paul wrote 
letters was the Caesarean-Roman, gained strength 
with the more thorough discussion of the question. 
There remains, however, the further problem as to 
whether Paul wrote Philippians from Cesarea or 
from Rome. The internal evidence points to Rome. 
Only here could Paul have been in touch with 
Christians belonging to ‘Cesar’s household’ (4 22). 
In Cesarea the phrase could only have meant the 
official group in the headquarters of the Imperial 
government, which is very improbable. Rome was 
also a place where many were active in the propaga- 
tion of the Gospel, some moved by genuine zeal, and 
others out of ‘faction, not sincerely’ (1 14-18). The 
mention of the ‘Pretorian guard’ (113) also indicates 
Rome. Furthermore, the relation of Philippians 
with Philemon and the probability that Paul would 
come into touch with Onesimus in Rome rather than 
in Cesarea, confirms this view. Accordingly, the 
general consensus of scholarship fixes upon Rome as 
the place of the writing. 


But if Paul wrote it at Rome, did he do so during 
the earlier or the later portion of his imprisonment 
there? From the affinities of thought and spirit 
between it and Ro on one side, and the other Epis- 
tles of the imprisonment on the other side, shading 
off as they do into the Pastorals, Lightfoot (Philip. 
pp. 30 ff.) argued for the earlier date. Ph would 
thus be a connecting-link between the four great 
doctrinal Epistles and the later writings of Paul. On 
the other side, in behalf of the lateness of Ph, it has 
been said that the Roman imprisonment is assumed 
in it to be a matter of some standing (1 7, 13 f., 17); 
that the Apostle is looking forward to his speedy 
liberation (1 25, 2 23 f.); that it presupposes at least 
four journeys between Philippi and Rome as having 
taken place since Paul’s arrival at Rome; and finally 
that at the time of the writing Paul’s companions 
had left the city, since he does not mention them by 
name in his salutations, but, on the contrary, ex- 
plicitly says that he was left alone (2 19, 20). Accord- 
ingly, the great majority of later investigators 
(Weiss, Godet, Holtzmann, Jiilicher, Vincent, Zahn) 
have dated the Epistle from the last days of the im- 
prisonment (63 or, better, 61 a.D.). 


4. Contents. The salutation (1 1, 2), in which 
Paul joins Timothy’s name with his own, is followed 
by an expression of thanksgiving. ‘This is based 
upon Paul’s personal relations with those addressed, 
their fellowship in the furtherance of the gospel, and 
their general steadfastness in the spiritual life. The 
thanksgiving imperceptibly passes into a devout 
prayer for their spiritual progress and comfort 
(1 3-11). The Apostle then gives them an account of 
his own circumstances, especially of his efforts to 
promote the spread of the gospel, and those of some 
who preached not sincerely, but ‘of envy and strife’ 
(112-26). This is followed by an exhortation to unity 
and lowliness of mind (self-forgetfulness in the ser- 
vice of others), taking Jesus Christ as their model 


709 A NEW STANDARD 


(1 27-2 11) and, to stimulate them still further in this 
course, he appeals to them on the ground of his 
personal relation to them and the joy that he and 
they should have in one another (2 12-18). He then 
tells them of his intentions, the proposed visit of 
Timothy, and of the illness and recovery and mis- 
sion of Epaphroditus (2 19-30). At this point there 
occurs a rather abrupt turn from personal to more 
general affairs. The Apostle begins with the exhorta- 
tion to ‘rejoice,’ As he has prefixed the word ‘finally’ 
to the expression, it would be natural to suppose that 
he was about to close the letter; but either because, 
after an interruption involving an interval of time, 
he has seen the need for writing to them upon a new 
subject, or because, while even writing he has real- 
ized such a need, the Apostle breaks into a warning 
against the danger from the influence of Judaizing 


teaching among them. He illustrates by the con- | 


trast of the Jewish Law and the experience of grace 
in his own past life what he wishes them to take into 
account (3 1-16); but this easily leads to another im- 
plicit warning against the very opposite danger from 
the side of disregard of moral law as exemplified in 
the lives of some who observe no law but that of their 
fleshly natures (8 17-41). At this point the Apostle 


- returns to his exhortation, asking two of the mem- 


bers of the Philippian Church (Euodia and Syn- 
tyche) to put their dissensions aside (4 2, 3). He ex- 
horts all to joyfulness, to a sturdy resistance of the 
spirit of anxiety, and to the pursuit of all things 
good and noble (4 4-9). The last paragraph (4 10-20) 
is reserved for an acknowledgment of the pecuniary 
contribution sent to the Apostle through Epaphro- 
ditus, concluding with an expression of his assurance 
that the spirit of kindness which prompted his 
readers to this deed would have its adequate reward 
The Epistle then ends with the usual salutations 
from ‘all the saints, especially them that are of 
Cesar’s household’ (4 21) and the benediction (4 22). 


5. Genuineness and Unity. That Paul wrote the 
Epistle was first questioned by Evanson (Disso- 
nance, etc., 1792, p. 263), but the real discussion of 
the subject was not begun until Baur classified it 
with the ‘conciliatory tendency’ documents, pro- 
duced toward the end of the Judaistic controversy. 
But tho Baur’s followers (Schwegler, Holsten, etc.) 
for a time persisted in the denial of the Pauline 
authorship of the Epistle, under the repeated search- 
ing investigations given the subject from a less 
biased point of view (Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, Jii- 
licher) its genuineness has been brought more and 
more clearly into view. In more recent years, an 
argument in favor of its pseudonymy has been at- 
tempted by van Manen (FB, s.v.; also Handl. d. 
Oudchrist. lett., 1900), but without any apparent im- 
pression on the majority of scholars. 


But, assuming its genuineness, the further ques- 
tion of the unity of the writing has been raised. On 
the strength of an allusion by Polycarp to ‘epistles’ 
by Paul to the Philippians, Le Moyne (Varia Sacra) 
propounded the view that the writing as extant 
consists of two Epistles fused into one in the process 
of transmission. This view has been made the basis 
of efforts to separate what precedes 3 1 and what 
follows, and to construct each into a distinct Epistle. 


BIBLE DICTIONARY __ Philippians, Epistle to 

But the language of Polycarp implies nothing more 

than that Paul had communicated with the Philip- 

pians by letter, the plural being, as is often the case, 

a more vivid form of the singular; and all efforts at 

the partition of the Epistle have been unsuccessful. 

This is also true of more recent attempts to disprove 

its integrity (Spitta, Zur Geschichte u. Lit. d. Urchris- 

tenthums, 1893; C. Clemen, Die Einheit d. paulin. 

Briefe, 1894). 

LITERATURE: Weiss, Der Philipperbrief (1859); Lightfoot, 
St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (1885); J. Agar Beet, 
Commentary on Eph, Ph, Col, and Phm (1891); Vincent, 
Ph and Phm in ICC (1897); G. Currie Martin in New 
Century Bible (1902); Maurice Jones in Westminster Comm. 


(1917). Cf. also Introductions to the N T by Zahn, Salmon, 
Weiss, Godet, Jiilicher, ete. AT Cc. Z. 


PHILISTIA, fi-lis’ti-a or -list’ya, PHILISTIM, 
fi-lis‘tim, PHILISTINES, fi-lis’tinz (NY22, p-lesheth, 
"AY ?B plishtt): 1. Name. The term ‘Philistia’ 
designated a strip of fertile land including many 
towns between the Mediterranean and the Sheph- 
elah, beginning S. of Joppa and stretching indefi- 
nitely to the borders of Egypt. The name is the 
basis of the term ‘Palestine.’ It was already given 
by the Assyrians as early as 800 B.c. (Palastu, Pilistu, 
Schrader) broadly to southern Palestine. By the 
Egyptians, however, only the Philistines are ex- 
pressly named (Pulesati, in the monuments of the 
reign of Rameses III). The O T usage of the name 
Philistine is peculiar. In the singular it is given to 
individuals only (Goliath, I 8 17 8, 18 3, etc.) and 
only in the plural to the people as a whole, differing 
in this from other gentilic adjectives (e.g., Hittite, 
Hivite, Canaanite, etc.), which are used collectively. 
This usage points to a sense of difference between 
the Philistines and other non-Israelites, and is sup- 
ported by the translation of the term in the LXX. 
into &AAéquAct (but sometimes uvAtottefy), and 
also by the fact that the Philistines are preeminently 
‘the uncircumcised.’ 

2. Origin and Affiliations. Recent investigations 
have led to the conclusion, now generally adopted, 
that the Philistines were one of the group of ‘sea 
peoples’ which in the latter part of the 18th and 
early part of the 12th cent. B.c. overran the E. Med. 
coast region (and even attempted the conquest of 
Egypt), and broke up the Hittite control of N. Syria. 
The Philistines (7.e., Pulesati, their own name, as 
given in the Egn. inscriptions) settled on the sea- 
coast of ‘Palestine’ (then Canaan) giving their own 
name to the region. ‘These people were non-Sem- 
itic in origin, hailing from Crete (probably) and also 
from the islands of the Au¥gean and the SE. coast of 
Asia Minor, whence they were driven by the for- 
ward movement of other peoples (perhaps the 
Phrygians). 

3. Organized Life. Religion. The organization 
of the Philistines was effected around the five 
principal cities of Philistia (Ashdod, Ashkelon, Ek- 
ron, Gaza, and Gath). Whatever primitive tribal 
distinctions may have existed among them (Caph- 
torim, Cherethim, Philistim) were completely dis- 
placed by this redistribution of the population ac- 
cording to which each principal city became the 
center of a circuit and gave its name to its inhabi- 
tants (Ashdodite, Gittite, etc.). These five circuits 


Philistia 
Phebe 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


710 





were ruled over by five lords (s*ranim, always used 
in pl., Jg 3 3; Jos 13 3; 18 58, 6 16, etc.), and appear 
to have been independent of one another, tho they 
commonly acted in concert, betraying the existence 
of a more centralized rule not specifically named. 
Whether the office of ‘lord’ was hereditary or elec- 
tive, and whether it involved military as well as 
civil functions, and, further, what was its exact 
relation to that of king (e.g., Achish of Gath, IS 
21 11, etc.; Mittinti of Askelon, and Hanun of Gath, 
Keilins. Bibl. II, 20), does not appear clearly. 
Special commanders are, however, named ‘princes,’ 
sdrim, more correctly ‘chieftains’ (I S 18 30, 29 2), 
who evidently had charge of the armies (I § 23 3, 
28 1). Their religion, which was probably either 
altogether or partly borrowed from the Canaanites 
whom they conquered, shows Semitic character- 
istics such as the worship of divinities in pairs 
(Dagon and a fish-goddess, Marna and Derke- 
to, apud Diod. II, 4) and Semitic divine names (the 
foregoing as well as Baalzebub). They had sooth- 
sayers (Is 2 6) and priests and diviners (I S 6 2) as 
well as temples (Jg 16 26). 


4. History of the Philistines. The Philistines 
make their appearance in history at nearly the same 
time with the Israelitic invasion of Canaan. It 
was inevitable that, sooner or later, the Israelites, 
as masters of the highland, and the Philistines, in 
control of the coast, should come into conflict. In 
the first stage of the conflict which ensued their 
higher development as a military people gave them 
the decided advantage (Jg 107 #.). In spite of tem- 
porary checks to their encroachments (Jg 3 31), they 
succeeded in bringing the Israelitic tribes under their 
yoke. The conquest was completed during the last 
years of Eli, when they captured and carried into 
their own territory the emblem of Israel’s nascent 
national life, the Ark of the Covenant (IS chs. 4 f.). 
The weakness of Israel, however, was only the result 
of inexperience and lack of organization, and when, 
under Saul, unity of action and strong leadership 
were attained, the Philistine yoke was shaken off, 
and under David the oppressors were even put under 
Israelitic suzerainty (II S 81, 21 15 f.). For the 
rest of the period of their independent existence, 
Philistines and Israelites seem usually to have been 
at peace with each other, but occasional conflicts are 
noted in I K 15 27, and 1615 (9th cent.) and in II K 
18 8 (8th cent.). The Assyrians in their invasions 
of' Palestine found much in the Philistine cities to 
seize; and their monuments contain many accounts 
of attacks on them. Inthe Maccabean age the Jews 
appear to be in possession of Philistia. The name 
Philistine ‘was still, in the days of Josephus (Ant. I, 
6 2), used mainly of Philistia, tho the application 
of it to {the whole land of Israel had already come 
into use (Jos. Cont. Ap.I, 22). Cf. W. Max Miller, 
Asien und Europa, p. 387 ff., and for the later inves- 
tigations, Macalister, The Philistines, Their History 
and Civilization (1914); Cambridge Anc. History, Vol. 
IT (1924), p. 283 ff. A. C. Z.—E. E.N. 


PHILOLOGUS, fi-lel’o-gus (@:26Xov0¢): A Chris- 
tian in Rome to whom Paul sent a salutation (Ro 
16 15), 


PHILOSOPHER (¢Aés090¢), PHILOSOPHY, 
gtAocopta, from ¢fdoc, ‘lover,’ and cogla, ‘wisdom’): 

1. Origin of the Term. There is an ancient tra~ 
dition (Cicero, J'usc. V, 3) to the effect that the 
term was invented by Pythagoras; but it is not 
sufficiently supported. The earliest use of the word 
is in its strict etymological sense by Herodotus (1 3) 
in a passage where he represents Solon as traveling 
in search of wisdom (‘philosophizing’). Plato under- 
stands by philosophy, first, the Socratic love of the 
truth as distinguished from and opposed to the 
Sophistic assertion of it (Phedr. 278, ‘Wisdom be- 
longs only to God, man can be only a lover of wis- 
dom’ = ‘philospher.’ Cf. also Lysis, 218). Thus at its 
beginning, the term was intended to point out the 
relativity of knowledge; it shows the existence of a 
consciousness of limitations in knowing. It was an 
expression of modesty. But as the object of the 
search for the truth can not be anything short of the 
ultimate reality, Plato goes further and defines those 
as philosophers who set their affections on that 
which in each case really exists (Rep. 480). In the 
Platonic system, accordingly, philosophy is identi- 
fied with the more technical dialectics. With Ar- 
istotle, the first and most common sense of the 
word is left behind, but the technical sense develops 
into two branches according as the sphere of the 
search for wisdom is looked at narrowly or broadly. 
In the former case, there are many philosophies (Met. 
IV, 1, 1026, 18; Mathematics, Physics, Theology). 
In the latter sense, philosophy is the science of pure 
being (Met. VI, 1, 1026, 31; cf. XI, 3, 1060, 31), or 
as later renamed, metaphysics. The Stoics, consis- 
tently with their fundamental position that the 
essence of things is moral rather than intellectual, 
understood by philosophy a striving after virtue, 
which, however, they conceived broadly as including 
and dominating theoretical as well as_ practical 
affairs. Hence, according to them, philosophy is pro- 
ficiency in physics, ethics, and logic (Seneca, Epist. 
89, 3). It is distinguished from ‘wisdom,’ which is the 
science of divine and human things (Plut. De Plac. 
Philos. 1, Proem). The Epicurean idea is, like the 
Stoic, associated with the notion of the supreme 
good. Epicurus himself is said to have defined 
philosophy as ‘the rational pursuit of happiness’ 
(Sext. Empir. Adv. Math, XI, 169). 


2. Philosophy and Christianity. Thus at the time 
of the first preaching of Christianity, philosophy 
had secured a recognized place as the mistress of 
that peculiar province of knowledge which is ex- 
plored, not because of any need of outward life, but 
either from a simple desire for knowledge for its 
own sake, or as furnishing a unifying principle and 
goal for allaction. As suchit had been cultivated for 
over five centuries, and produced a number of con- 
crete systems, each aiming to set forth the inner 
unity of the universe and to make ultimate reality an 
object of definite knowledge. The earlier of these 
systems (Ionic, Eleatic, Heracleitean, Pythagorean, 
Anaxagorean, Atomistic, Sophistic, Socratic, Cy- 
renaic, and Cynic with minor variet:es) had lost 
their hold as final and satisfactory solutions of the 
probiem. The influence of Socrates was still per- 
ceptible through the systenis of Plato and Aristotle, 


Til A NEW STANDARD 


but these systems themselves were believed to need 
modification and development along certain lines. 
Of the post-Aristotelian philosophies, the Stoic and 
Epicurean were most widely held; and it is with 
these that Christianity came in contact. Of the 
pre-Christian Greek systems, however, Platonism 
had already touched and measurably affected Jew- 
ish thought in Alexandria, and thus also later en- 
tered into the formulation of Christianity so far as 
its doctrinal content was concerned. In another 
way, too, Christianity and philosophy came in con- 
.tact, z.e., when adherents of the former assumed an 
aggressive attitude within heathendom. 


3. Philosophy and the N T. The explicit allusions 
to philosophy in the N T (Ac 17 18; Col 2 8) are 
naturally related to current forms, and indicate on 
the one side the recognition of common ground on 
which an understanding must be reached between the 
teachings of Christianity and those of philosophy;and 
on the other, irreconcilable differences on the ground 
of which the Christian teacher must warn his pupils 
against its illusive attractions. The philosophers of 
Ac 17 18 were evidently interested in Paul’s preach- 
ing, a fact largely due to their having grappled with 
the same problems as were presented most prom- 
inently by the Apostle in his preaching. The earlier 
Stoicism was pantheistic; the earlier Epicureanism 
agnostic, if not positively atheistic. But in the days 
of Paul these two types had drawn closer to each 
other, the former becoming more and more theistical 
and the latter deistical. By Epictetus (Diss. i, 9) 
God, without being completely detached from the 
universe, is recognized as Creator and Guardian and 
is even spoken of as Father of men. Seneca goes 
further, and makes conduct depend on the realiza- 
tion of God’s personal attention to human affairs. 
‘So live among men as if the eye of God were upon 
you; and so address yourself to God as if men heard 
your prayer’ (Hpist. 10). And even Providence and 
immortality had come to be regarded as living 
issues in the realm of philosophy; and, what is more 
important from the practical point of view, the 
ruling place of philosophy in life was recognized. 
Cicero calls philosophy ‘the director of our lives, 
the friend of virtue and enemy of vice.’ So far as 
contemporary philosophy was busied about solving 
these problems, the first teachers of the gospel 
neither challenged it nor cast suspicion on its work 
and influence. Their attitude toward it was that 
of interested neutrality. The philosophers on their 
side, misled by the fact that the postulates and 
mediate aims of Christianity were so near akin to 
those of their own profession, regarded it as a species 
of philosophy, a view which gradually worked its 
way into Christian circles and became the dominant 
one in the 2d cent. under Justin Martyr and Tatian. 


4. Abuse and Distrust of Philosophy. But philos- 
ophy had its imitations and illegitimate outgrowths. 
On account of these, both in the N T allusions to 
it and in the literature of the general period, a cer- 
tain undertone of distrust is perceptible and a cer- 
tain tendency to caution and discrimination in deal- 
ng with it. First of all, its votaries cultivated a 
quasi-Pharisaic contempt for the outside world. 
This gave rise to a series of personal traits and habits 


Philistia 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Phebe 


by which the philosopher was distinguished from 
the non-philosopher layman. The former was known 
for his long and unkempt hair and beard, his 
generally slovenly dress, his scorn for luxuries, and 
his alleged abstemiousness and self-contentment. It 
is upon these grounds that the satirist Lucian makes 
his vigorous attack on the philosophic sects of his 
day (Vitarum Auctio, Piscator, Hermotimus, Con- 
vivium, Nigrinus, etc.). In the persons of such men 
philosophy was but the mask that concealed selfish- 
ness, vainglory, greed, and sensuality. In fact, the 
portraiture of Lucian is based upon the existence of 
shameless hypocrisy in the ranks of philosophy. In 
another way the name of philosophy was used by 
schemers who exploited the region of the occult, the 
border-land between religion and science, and made 
a source of gain of the natural hunger for true 


knowledge of the inner meaning of the world and its 


Creator. A. CG. Z. 


PHINEHAS, fin’e-has (ONY2, pinchds, probably 
an Egyptian name, pe-nehasi; cf. Nestle, Figen. 
112): 1. The son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron, 
and high priest (Ex 6 25; Jg 20 28; I Ch 6 4, 50), dis- 
tinguished for zeal in behalf of J’, which he displayed 
by stepping forward at a critical time to punish an 
offender in Israel and thus stay a plague (Nu 257 f..). 
This deed was always regarded as most deserving, 
and was celebrated both in poetic composition (Ps 
106 30) and in the later historical records (Sir 45 23; 
I Mac 2 26, 54). It must be viewed not merely as an 
act of rebuke against mixed marriages, for such 
marriages were not in themselves offensive if the 
non-Israelite were willing to forsake idolatry and 
enter into the covenant of J’’. It was rather because 
in this particular case the alien insisted on bringing 
her religion as a seed of corruption into Israel. P. 
officiated as the priest in the war with the Midianites 
under Joshua (Nu 31 6), and was deputed to go into 
the land of Gilead to rebuke the tribes on the EH. 
of the Jordan for building an altar, a step regarded 
as the possible beginning of disintegration for Israel 
(Jos 22 13). He was assigned an inheritance in the 
hill-country of Ephraim (Jos 24 33). 2. A son of 
Eli, slain in the war with the Philistines (I § 1 3, 
44#.). 3. The father of Eleazar, a contemporary 
Ezra (Ezr 8 33). Ae Gide 


PHLEGON, fli’gen(®iéywy): A Christian of Rome 
to whom Paul sent a salutation (Ro 16 14). 


PHBE, fi’bi (®olGy, Phebe AV): A ‘servant’ 
[‘deaconess’ RVmg.] of the church at Cenchrez, 
whom the Apostle Paul commends to the Roman 
Church (Ro 161). The additional item given in the 
description of her as ‘a helper’ (succourer AV, 
xpoot&tts) is the feminine of a word meaning, in 
general, ‘patron,’ or ‘protector.’ In Athens the office 
of patron involved the charge of the affairs of per- 
sons without civic rights. The Roman law recog- 
nized the patronus as the representative of the 
foreigner. Such patrons were not uncommon in 
Jewish communities (cf. Schiirer, Die Gemeinde- 
verfassung d. Jud. in Rom, p. 31). But Phoebe 
could have occupied such a place only informally 
and unofficially, and must have been a person of 
wealth and position to do so. A.C. Z. 


Phoenix A NEW STANDARD 


Pillow 





PHENIKX, fi’niks (Poiu&, PotvE, Phenice AV) 
A place E. of Sphakia on the S. coast of Crete, the 
only harbor that affords safe anchorage at all seasons 
of the year, because of the peculiar configuration of 
its entrance, which opens toward the northeast and 
southeast winds (Ac 27 12). Strabo, Ptolemy, 
Stadiasmus (Mar. magn.), and Luke use the form 
PoivE, while Ptolemy distinguishes between gotvt- 
nods Atuyy (the harbor) and Potvé x6Atc (the city). 
The name of the harbor (now Lovtro) was transferred 
to the city on the plateau 2,000 ft. above the harbor 
where it still persists as Phinikia. J. R.S.S.*—S. A. 


PHRYGIA, frij’i-a. See Asta Minor, III, 11. 
PHURAH, fit’ra. See Purag. 

PHUT, fot. See Pour. 

PHUVAH, fiti’va. See Puan. 


PHYGELUS, fai-gi’lus (®iyeXo0c, Phygellus AV): 
A member of the Christian brotherhood who, in II 
Ti 1 15, is represented as having ‘turned away’ from 
Paul with ‘all that are in Asia,’ evidently through 
fear of becoming involved in his fate, or for doc- 
trinal reasons. See also HeRrmMoGENES. J. M. T. 


PHYLACTERY, fi-lak’tar-1 (gudAaxtherov, the 
same as the NYY, totaphoth, frontlets of Dt 6 8 f., 
11 18): The Gr. term means literally ‘a means of 
preservation’ either of that which it is designed to 
preserve (i.e., the Law in the memory) or as that 
which is meant to preserve the wearer from harm; 
hence an amulet or charm, more probably the latter. 
Whatever the original significance of the word, there 
is no doubt that it was used as synonymous with the 
tephillah (pl. t¢phillin) of later Judaism, which is 
approximately rendered ‘prayer-band.’ The use of 
t*phillin is based upon four passages of the Law (Ex 
13 9, 16; Dt 6 8, 1118). These were interpreted to 
mean that the true Israelite should actually wear 
the written Law on his arm and on his forehead. The 
passages in Ex, however, are manifestly metaphor- 
ical. About those in Dt there is some vagueness, 
admitting of their being taken literally. In any case 
these four texts were used as the emblem of the 
whole Law, and placed in the phylacteries. These 
phylacteries consisted of two leather pouches each 
fastened to a band and by the band attached to the 
worshiper’s person. The more important of the 
two was subdivided into four compartments and 
was tied to the head so as to bring it between the 
eyebrows (hence ‘frontlet’). Each one of its com- 
partments contained a copy of one of the passages 
above named as enjoining the use of phylacteries. 
The other phylactery, consisting of one compart- 
ment, was tied to the inside portion of the left arm 
in such a manner as to bring it as near as possible 
to the heart when the arm was bent in joining the 
two hands together. The date of the origin of the 
custom of wearing phylacteries may be approxi- 
mately fixed as the 2d cent. B.c. (cf. Kennedy in 
HDB). The custom was fixed into a law in the 
Talmud directing every male Israelite after his 
13th year to use them at morning prayers except 
on Sabbaths and_ festivals. The wearing of 
phylacteries, which is perpetuated to the present 
day within orthodox Judaism under the technical 
title of ‘laying the tephillin,’ is highly ritualistic in 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


re b- 


its nature and requires rigid conformity to certain 
minute regulations in the construction of the 
pouches, in the order in which they must be put on 
and taken off, and in the form of words to be 
uttered while being put on and taken off. 

Jesus, by implication, disapproved of the stress 
laid on the use of phylacteries by the Pharisees. He 
pointed this out as a sign of their love of display. 
‘They make broad their phylacteries’ (Mt 23 5). 
This means that they wore larger pouches than 
ordinary, and made the bands by which they were 
attached to their persons correspondingly broader., 
It is possible that His utterance regarding them may 
have been actuated by the additional consideration 
that phylacteries were fast becoming, if they had 
not already become, objects of superstition. It is 
certain that somewhat later they were regarded by 
many as means of protection against demons. 
LrreratuRE: The rabbinical tractate TJephillin, ed. Ralph 

Kircheim (1851); Tract Berakot, transl. by Cohen (1921) 

passim; Oesterly and Box, Rel. and Worship of the Syr. (1907). 

Ginsburg (art. ‘Phylactery’ in Kitto-Alexander’s Bibl. Cycl.); 

also the fully illustrated article in JZ. PM / 


PHYSICIAN. See Diszasrt anp MeEpIcINE, § 3. 

PI-BESETH, pai-bi’seth (022°3, pi bheseth, 
Phibeseth AV), ‘house of Bastet,’ the cat goddess: 
The city Bubastis, the mod. Tell-Basta, with ex- 
tensive mounds, in Lower Egypt on the HE. side of 
the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. It was the capital 
of the 18th nome of Lower Egypt, and in 1000 
B.c., under the Bubastic (22d) dynasty, became next 
in importance to Thebes. Its temple, containing 
important monuments, has been recently excavated 
by Naville. P. is referred to incidentally in Ezk 
30 17. EP add Re 


PICTURE: This word is the rendering in AV for 
two words, meaning perhaps ‘something to look at,’ 
both from the root sakhah, ‘to look out,’ ‘look for.’ 
For (1) maskith, RV reads ‘figured [stones]’ (Nu 
33 52), to agree with Ly 261, 7.e., stones with carv- 
ings or pictures used as idols. Other renderings are 
‘watch-towers.’ ‘standards’ (as conspicuous); or 
by emendation, ‘ships.’ In Pr 25 11 ERV has bas- 
kets, ARV network (carving) of silver. For (2) 
stkhiyyadh, RV reads ‘imagery’ (Is 216). C.S. T. 

PIGEON. See Pauustine, § 25; also SacriIFIcE 
AND OFFERING, § 5. 

PI-HAHIROTH, pai’-ha-hai’reth (NVNI"B, pz 
hahiréth): The last encampment of the Israelites 
before the crossing of the Red Sea, near Baal- 
zephon (Ex 14 2, 9; Nu 33 7; we should also read 
‘Pi-hahiroth’ for ‘Hahiroth’ in ver. 8). The loca- 
tion is unknown. C25aiks 


PILATE (Ilévttoc IktA&coc): Pontius Pilate was 
the fifth Roman procurator of Judea, Samaria, and 
Idumea (26-36 a.D., or 27-37 [Dobschiitz]). Pilate’s 
origin is obscure. He obtained knighthood either 
by birth or favor. One medieval tradition makes 
him a Gaul of Vienne, another a German hostage 
in Rome who joined the 22d legion., fought in 
Pontus (hence Pontius), and obtained the name 
Pilatus because of his skill with the pilwm; on 
another less probable view he was a descendant of a 
freedman (pileatus, corrupted to pilatus, from pi- 
leus, the ‘felt cap’ worn by manumitted slaves) 


71s 





formerly owned by a member of the Samnite gens 
of the Pontit. P. was appointed procurator by 
his patron Sejanus, the anti-Semitic prime minister 
of Tiberius, and was probably instructed to crush 
Jewish fanaticism. His predecessor, Valerius Gratus 
(14-25 a.p.), had resided quietly in Cesarea, con- 
tent to enrich himself (among other ways by selling 
the office of high priest), and had respected Jewish 
superstitions. P. gave offense from the outset. He 
transferred the headquarters of the army from 
Cesarea to the palace of Herod (the Pretorium, 
Mk 15 16, etc.) in Jerusalem. The Roman standards, 
surmounted by eagles and banners with embroidered 
portraits of the god-emperor, were held by the Jews 
to be a violation of the second commandment. P. 
had remained in Caesarea, whither an excited mob 
repaired from Jerusalem to beg him to remove the 
abomination from the holy city. They clamored 
about the palace for five days; on the sixth P. 
admitted them to his judgment seat and threatened 
to massacre them unless they dispersed. They re- 
fused, and offered their bare throats to the soldiers. 
Finally, P. ordered the removal of the obnoxious 
standards, probably induced thereto by a bribe 
from Jerusalem. His second offense consisted in 
taking money from the sacred treasury (Corban) 
to construct an aqueduct from the Pools of Solomon 
to Jerusalem. Shocked at this deed, the Jews 
gathered before his tribunal, abused him, and 
accused him of embezzling a portion of the funds. 
In anger P. had the mob mercilessly butchered. 
P. gave a third offense by hanging up inscribed 
shields in Herod’s palace. The Jews appealed to 
Tiberius, who ordered the removal of the shields to 
the temple of the divine Augustus in Cesarea. In 
similar frequent tumults the Zealots of Galilee took 
@ prominent part, whereupon P. complained in- 
effectually to Herod Antipas, whom he further 
offended by attempting to punish the Zealots in 
Galilee. P. went to Jerusalem in 29 (see N T 
Curonovoey II, IJ, (I).) to be on the ground during 
the Passover, because he had reason to anticipate 
trouble, and during this visit occurred the events 
that will make him notorious as long as Christians 
repeat ‘suffered under Pontius Pilate.’ That the 
Jews could be conciliated was shown by Vitellius, 
who visited Jerusalem in 36, and won the good-will 
of the populace by a remission of taxes, and of the 
priests and people by permitting the official robes 
of the high priest. (hitherto stored in the castle of 
Antonia) to be deposited in the Temple. The final 
offense of P. led to his downfall. An impostor of 
Samaria claimed that he had received a revelation 
to the effect that Moses had concealed certain gold 
vessels on Mt. Gerizim. The people of Samaria, 
hitherto loyal to Rome, had gathered in a body 
(unhappily armed) to hunt for these vessels. P. 
sent soldiers to disperse the mob; a bloody massacre 
ensued and a whole village was destroyed. The 
Samaritans complained to Vitellius, who deposed P. 
(36-37) and sent him to Rome for trial. Tiberius 
died before P. reached Rome, and he languished in 
prison for some time. His case was probably never 
tried, and his end is enshrouded in uncertainty. 
Eusebius asserts that after many calamities P. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Phenix 
Pillow 


committed suicide to forestall execution by Caligula. 
Malalas says that Pilate was beheaded by Nero. 
According to the legend in the Mors Pilati, his body 
was thrown into the Tiber, but the demons caused 
such perturbations in the river that the body was 
removed to Vienne and finally sunk in a lake on 
Mt. Pilatus, where it still causes storms. The Acta 
Pilati, professedly P.’s official report to the emperor 
concerning the trial and crucifixion of Christ, played 
a great rdle in early times; Justin Martyr appealed 
to them (thrice); so did Tertullian (about 180) and 
Kusebius (about 280). This record was destroyed, 
probably by Maximian (311). The extant Acta 
Pilati form a portion of the Gospel of Nicodemus, 
belonging to the 4th-5th cents., and were written 
for Jews by Jewish Christians. The Epistola 
Pilati, addressed to Claudius or Tiberius, purports 


-to be P.’s account of the resurrection of Christ. The 


Paradosis Pilati tells of P.’s trial, condemnation, 
and execution by Tiberius. P. prays to Jesus, who 
forgives him. This legend formed the basis of P.’s 
canonization as a saint in the Abyssinian Church 
(June 25), while in the Coptic Church he is reckoned 
one of the martyrs. The Mors Pilati tells of his 
banishment to Vienne, suicide, and final burial in 
Lake Pilatus. ‘Tradition makes P.’s wife (Procla, 
or Claudia Procula) a ‘proselyte of the gate’ and a 
secret follower of Jesus. She is canonized as a saint 
in the Greek Orthodox Church (October 27). 
J.R.S.S.*—S.A. 

PILDASH, pil’dash (¥1?72, pilddsh): The ances- 

tral head of a Nahorite clan (Gn 22 22). 


PILGRIMAGE. The rendering of mdghér (in pl.), 
‘sojourning,’ ‘place of sojourning’ (Gn 479; Ps 119 
54; also Ex 6 4 AV). There is no suggestion in these 


_ passages of the earthly life as a mere temporary 
- ‘sojourning’ (place) preparatory to a more abiding 


one (in heaven). But such apparently was the 
meaning N T writers (cf. He 1113 and I P 211) read 
into this and similar O T expressions. E.E. N. 


PILHA, pil/‘ha (8722, pilha’ Pileha AV): The 
representative of the postexilic family (Neh 10 24). 


PILL. See PEEL. 


PILLAR. See Tempter, § 14; and Semrric Rr- 
LIGION, § 29. 


PILLAR, PLAIN OF THE: The designation of 
the place where Abimelech was made king (Jg 9 6 
AV, ‘oak [terebinth] of the pillar’ RV). The Heb. 
mutstsabh, ‘pillar,’ is with Moore, Int. Crit. Com., ad 
loc., to be emended to matstsébhah, and we should 
read ‘the massebah-tree,’ perhaps the stone set up 
by Joshua (Jos 24 26 f.) under the oak by the Sanc- 
tuary of J’’ in Shechem. C. 8:7. 


PILLOW: This is the rendering in AV of several 
words. (1) kabhir, something ‘netted’ (IS 19183, 
16, ‘quilt? or ‘network’ RVmg.). Michal used it 
‘at the head’ of the teraphim either to support the 
head or else as a net to cover it. (2) keseth, a band 
or fillet used as a charm in divination (Ezk 13 18, 29). 
(3) mera’dshoth (fem. pl.), ‘place at head’ (Gn 28 11, 
18). RV has here correctly ‘under his head’; and for 
the same Heb. word in I § 26 7, 11, 16, ‘at his head’ 
for ‘at his bolster’ AV; in I S 26 12 ‘from Saul’s 


Pilot 
Plagues 





head’ for ‘from Saul’s bolster’ AV; in I 8 19 13, 
16, ‘at his head’ for ‘for his bolster’ AV. InI K 
19 6 the rendering is the same in both versions. 
(4) xpocxepkAtoy (Mk 4 38) means a cushion such 
as was used for a seat by rowers. 4, ae BS 

PILOT. See Surps anp Navigation, § 2. 

PILTAI, pil’tai or pil’té COB, piltay): The head 
of the priestly family of Moadiah (Neh 12 17). 

PIN: In all the occurrences of this word it is 
the rendering of the Heb. ydadthédh, which means 
‘a, (wooden) peg,’ and is often used to denote the 
tent-pin. (Cf. Jg 4 21 f., 5 26, where AV has ‘nail.’) 
See also Natu. 

PINE AWAY. 
§ 4 (1). 

PINE-TREE. See PatzestIne, § 21. 

PINION. See Gop, § 2. 

PINNACLE. See Tremptp, § 30. 

PINON, pai’nen (]72, pindn): A clan chieftain of 
Edom (Gn 36 41; I Ch 1 52). See also Punon. 

PIPE. See Music anp Mousicau INSTRUMENTS, 
§ 3 (2). 

PIRAM, pai’ram (O83, pir’dm): King of Jar- 
muth, captured and put to death by Joshua (Jos 
10 3, 16-27). 

PIRATHON, PIRATHONITE, pir’a-fhen, -ait 
(JiNY 1B, pir‘athon), ‘height’ (?): The home of Abdon, 
the last of the minor Judges (Jg 12 15); also of one of 
David’s heroes and captains (II § 23 30; I Ch 11 31, 
27 14). It was in Ephraim, in the hill-country of the 
Amalekites, generally identified with Far‘dta, 5 m. 
SW. of Nablus (Shechem); by G. A. Smith as a for- 
tress at the head of the Wdaédy Fd‘rah, NE. of Na- 
blus. A Pirathon was fortified by Bacchides (I Mac 
9 50). Cust: 

PISGAH, piz’ga ('1303, pisgah, always with the 
art., and always in the phrases ‘top of P.’ and 
‘slopes [‘springs,’ Dt 4 49 AV; ASHDOTH PIS- 
GAH, Jos 12 3 AV] of P.’): A mountain summit, 
mentioned as a landmark and station of the Israelites 
in Moab (Nu 21 20; Jos 12 3, 13 20). It was noted 
as an outlook-point. Here Balak built seven altars 
for Balaam, and invited him to survey the hosts of 
Israel (Nu 23 14). Moses also viewed the land of 
promise from it (Dt 341). In this case it is ex- 
plicitly identified with Mt. Nebo in the Abarim. 
Identified also with Naba, a ridge about 214 m. in 
length and 14 m. broad projecting westward from 
the plateau of Moab near the NE. corner of the 
Dead Sea. It commands a comprehensive view of 
the whole of SE. Palestine (G. A. Smith HGHL, 
p.563). A. C. Z. 

PISHON, pai’shen (lB, pishén, Pison AV): 
One of the rivers of the Garden of Eden (Gn 2 11 f.). 
See EprEn. 

PISIDIA, pai-sid’1-a. See Asta Mrnor, III, 12. 

PISPA, pis’pa (820985, pispa’): A descendant of 
Asher (I Ch 7 38, Pispah AV). 

PIT: This word renders the following original 


terms: (1) bdr, ‘a large hole made by excavating’ 
(Gn 37 20 ff., etc.). (2) b’ér, ‘well’ (Gn 14 10, etc.). 


See Diszas—E AND MEDICINE, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


714 





(3) gébh, ‘trench’ (Jer 14 3, ‘cistern’ RV), also 
gebhe’ (Is 30 14, ‘cistern’ RV). (4) giimmats, ‘ditch’ 
(Ee 10 8). (5) pahath, ‘opening’ (II S 17 9, 18 17; 
Jer 48 43, etc.). (6) sh’dl, ‘hollow’ (Nu 16 30, 33; 
Job 17 16, etc., often rendered ‘hell’). (7) shihah, 
shehith, shehith, shahath, shthah, all from the same 
root idea ‘to sink down,’ (Pr 2214, 28 10; La 4 20; Job 
33 18, etc.). (8) Bé8uvoc, ‘deep place’ (Mt 12 11) 
and (9) gpé«e, ‘well’ (Lk 14 5; and, figuratively, 
Rev 91). The term is also used metaphorically as 
the equivalent of either the grave (Job 33 18), Sheol 
(Nu 16 30, 33), or a snare. A unique usage is that 
of Is 511, where Sarah, the ancestress of the people, 
is so designated. A.C. Z. 


PITCH: In the Bible ‘pitch’ means bitumen, 
which was used in making boats water-tight. It 
occurs (Gn 6 14) as the trans. of képher, a word bor- 
rowed from the Assyr. kupru; and in Ex 2 3, Is 349 
as the trans. of zepheth, also a loan-word. Accord- 
ing to Ex 2 3, it was used with hémar (the usual Heb. 
word for ‘bitumen’) in protecting Moses’ basket from 
the water. In Is 349 it is represented as a fluid and 
burning. All three words may mean the same, 
hémar alone being Heb. Oe Fad be 


PITCHER: This word renders (1) kadh, an 
earthen jar used for holding and carrying water 
from wells or springs (Gn 24 14 f.; Ee 12 16, etc.). It 
served also as a receptacle for oil or flour (I K 17 12, 
‘barrel’ AV and ERV, and ‘jar’ ARV), and was 
made with handles, by which it might be lifted and 
carried about, and with a mouth large enough to 
permit the insertion of a torch (Jg 7 16 #.). (2) ne- 
bhel, also rendered ‘bottle’ or ‘flagon’ (La 4 2). 
(3) xeedutoy, ‘earthen vessel’ (Mk 1413). See plates 
of Potrery (p. 68) and HovusgeHotp Urtensizs I 
(p. 273). A.C, Z, 

PITHOM, pai’fhom (9%2, pithdm): A town in 
Goshen, in Lower Egypt, founded by Rameses II as 
a store-city (Ex 1 11 [JE], treasure city AV). Its 
Egyptian name was pa-T’um or pa-‘tum (‘house of 
Tum,’ or ‘house of the setting sun’). It was situated 
on the banks of the canal connecting the Nile with 
the Red Sea. Its ground-plan was in the form of a 
perfect square enclosed by strong walls. Within 
this enclosure stood a temple dedicated to Tum (the 
god of the setting sun), and subterranean chambers 
of various sizes, quadrangular in shape, without 
communication with one another, and approach- 
able only from above. These were lined with walls 
and floors of brick made, some with, and some 
without, straw. There is little doubt that they were 
intended for the storage of grain and other pro- 
visions (cf. Naville, The Store City of Pithom, 1885). 

AG Ze 

PITHON, pai’then (JMB, pithdn): A grandson 

of Jonathan (I Ch 8 35, 9 41). 


PITY (also compassion, which as the synonym 
of sympathy [fellow-feeling] occurs only in I P 31 
and He 10 34; elsewhere it is always the equivalent 
of pity): One or both of these words are used to 
render: (1) hamal (Ex 2 6, etc., root idea ‘to spare’). 
(2) hesedh, ‘goodness,’ ‘kindness’ (Job 6 14 RV). 
(3) his (vb. Ezk 9 5; Dt 7 16, etc.). (4) hanan, hén, 
‘favor,’ ‘grace’ (Jer 22 23 RV, etc.). (5) nidh, ‘to 


7 Sa ~ 
ie = 
ae ee 


715 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Pilot 
Plagues 





show grief’ (Ps 69 20). (6) raham, rahamim, ‘deep 
emotion’ (Am 1 11, ete.). (7) eVorrayxvos, Ja 5 11; 
I P 3 8, ‘compassionate’ RV. (8) oixtefoery (Ro 
915). The feeling of kindness toward the weak, the 
erring, and suffering is uniformly represented as one 
that exists in the heart of God toward men and is 
enjoined upon as well as encouraged in the Israelite 
toward his fellow Israelites, especially the poor (Zee 
79; Pr 19 17), the helpless and the defenseless (Ps 
146 9), and the distressed (Job 6 14); but not toward 
an enemy (Dt 7 16) and an alien. Yet by its associ- 
ation with the will of J’ it takes its place in the 
complex of relig- 
ious affections (Hos 
6 6). Jesus, by ob- 
literating all race 
and ritual distinc- 
tions as to those 
who should eall 
forth the sentiment 
(Lk 10 25-37), gave 
the law of compas- 
sion universal 
breadth. A.C. Z. 


PLAGUE: This 
term is frequently 
used to render, 
somewhat loosely, a 
number of Heb. and 
Gr. words: (1) mag- 
géphah and negheph 
(from ndghaph, ‘to 
push’ or ‘strike’), a 
‘stroke,’ as a pun- 
ishment from God 
(Ex 9 14, 12 13; Nu 
14 37, etc.). (2) 
makkah (from néa- 
khah, ‘to smite,’ a 
‘smiting’ or ‘stroke,’ 
Lv 26 21; Nu 11 33, 
etc.). (3) negha‘ 
(from ndgha‘, ‘to 
touch’), a ‘touch,’ 
z.e., the touch of 
God, by a visita- 
tion of sickness or 
otherwise (Gn 12 
17; Ex 11 1; and es- 
pecially in Lv ch. 
13 f., of the ‘plague’ 
of leprosy). (4) 
debher, ‘pestilence’ and consequently nearer ‘plague’ 
in the usual sense of the term than the other words 
so rendered (Hos 13 14). The pestilence that 
brings death is what is meant, and the sense of the 
statement is that J’’ Himself will be as a death- 
dealing pestilence to the unrepentant Israelites. 
(5) ud&owtE, a ‘whip’ or ‘scourge,’ used of sickness 
(Mk 3 10, 5 29, 34; Lk 7 21). (6) xAnya, a ‘blow’ or 
‘stroke’ (Rev 9 20, 11 6, etc.). See also Disnase 
AND Menpicineg, §§ 2 and 4 (2). E. E.N. 


PLAGUES, THE: The term usually given to the 
series of disasters that befell the Egyptians when 
the Israelites were seeking to gain their freedom. 





Ss. 


Store City of Pithom and its Vicinity. 


These were viewed by the Heb. writers as visitations 
of J’ upon the Egyptians for refusing to let Israel 
go and as demonstrations of His almighty power 
(Ex 7 3 ff., 9 14, etc.). As the narrative (Ex chs. 
7-10) now stands, there were ten such occurrences: 
1, blood; 2, frogs; 3, lice; 4, flies; 5, murrain of 
cattle; 6, boils; 7, hail; 8, locusts; 9, darkness; 10, 
death of the first-born. But this narrative is com- 
posite (see Exopus, § 4 f.), and no one of the 
three original narratives gave the full list of ten. 
The list of J was the longest, comprising seven (Nos. 
1 [which in J is viewed as foul water in the river, 
not blood], 2, 4, 5, 
Cee 10s. what? of 
E comprised five 
(Nos lait, Saas 
10), while that of 
P also included five 
Caen Oateene 
Those given in all 
three documents 
were apparently 
only Nos. 1 and 10, 
but it is possible 
that in E and P 
the lists were long- 
er than is now ap- 
parent. In Pss 78 
and 105 also there 
are lists of the 
plagues, seven in 
each case, of which 
Six are identical, 

ut the order is 
different. Evidently 
there were variant 
traditions in Israel 
respecting the num- 
ber, the tendency 
perhaps being to 
consider seven as 
the correct number 
(cf. the apocalyptic 
use of this number 
in Rev 151 f., 21 
9, ‘the seven last 
plagues’). 

In each of the 
narratives (J, E, P) 
a miraculous char- 
acter is assigned to 
the plagues, but in 
different degrees. In the oldest (J) only the general 
exercise of His control over nature by J” is assumed. 
It is J” that brings them about, but how is not told, 
except by suggesting the use of some natural agency, 
as the wind in connection with the locusts, 10 13, 19 
(cf. the same view of the recession and return of the 
waters of the Red Sea in J in 14 21, 27). While in 
J the plagues are above all punishments, in P, and 
to a less degree in E, the marvelous character is made 
more prominent in that the plagues are brought by 
the stretching out of touch of Aaron’s (P) or Moses’ 
(E) rod, and it is in P’s narrative that the plagues as 
wonders or signs are especially emphasized (see the 


ie oepaaa City | 
chtraeet 8 


oy 
IE 





Plagues 
Poetry 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


716 





analysis of the narrative in Exopus, §4f.). Itis rea- 
sonable to infer, therefore, that in the earliest form 
of Israel’s tradition the ‘natural’ side of the plagues 
was recognized and that which made them so re- 
markable was their occurrence in connection with 
Israel’s struggle for freedom in which their prophet- 
ically gifted leader was enabled to interpret and use 
them as signal manifestations of J’’ in favor of His 
people. And that in those times, when every extra- 
ordinary natural phenomenon was referred directly 
to Divine action, such would be the interpretation 
not only of the Israelites but even of the Egyptians 
is altogether probable. 

It would not be surprizing, then, if a close study 
of the narrative of the plagues in connection with 
natural phenomena characteristic of Egypt should 
reveal that certain of them seem to be connected 
in a sort of natural sequence, which renders the 
narrative more intelligible to the modern reader 
and at the same time adds to its historical prob- 
ability. The results of such observations have been 
gathered and convincingly presented by Prof. A. 
Macalister in .HDB, s.v., who is followed in the 
main by McNeile in his recent Com. on Exodus 
(1908, Westminster Commentaries). The Nile often 
becomes a dull red after reaching its height (in 
August), and the water might easily, under special 
circumstances, become foul, as the red color is 
due to immense numbers of minute living organ- 
isms. Such conditions would be favorable for the 
appearance of unusually large numbers of frogs, 
plagues of which have occurred a number of times 
in Egypt, generally in September. The decomposi- 
tion of the dead frogs would favor the breeding of 
innumerable swarms of flies and other insects, and 
produce unhealthful conditions likely to bring about 
pestilence among beasts as well as men. Hail-storms, 
very rare in Egypt, have been known to occur in 
January, which is about the time demanded by 
what is said about the injury done to the crops by 
the hail (9 21). In the wake of the hail-storm the 
east wind brought with it locusts (a common plague 
in SW. Asia). The darkness that could be ‘felt’ 
(10 21) might easily have been caused by the terrible 
hamsin wind which brings with its hot blast sand 
and fine dust so that even breathing is difficult. The 
last visitation, the death of Egypt’s first-born, con- 
nects itself naturally with the general pestilential 
condition of the country at that time. Thus, there 
were, in general, but two great natural agencies at 
work to cause such a series of disastrous visitations, 
the presence of an unusually large quantity of decay- 
ing animal matter, and an unusual degree of atmos- 
pheric disturbance, bringing violent storms of wind 
and hail. That a tradition, centuries old before it 
was written down, should be an exact account, 
correct in every detail, of such a series of occurrences 
is improbable. The tradition gradually took its 
present form under the influence of dominant re- 
ligious and other conceptions. But its historical 
basis is not thereby overthrown, nor is it necessary 
to give up the essential correctness of its view that 
these visitations were evidences of God’s power and 
of His care for His people Israel. E. E. N. 


PLAIN: This term is used (in the AV) for seven 


Heb. and one Gr. words or expressions. (1) ’abhél, 
‘meadow, always in compound names of places 
(as Jg 11 33, ‘Abel-cheramim’ RV, ‘meadow of 
vineyards’ RVmg.). (2) ’élén, ‘oak’ (‘terebinth’ 
RVmg.), only found in this form in names of places 
(Gn 12 6, 13 18, 14 13, 181; Dt 11 30; Jg 4 11, 9 6, 37; 
IS 10 3; cf. Jos 19 33). (8) big‘ah, ‘open, broad, val- 
ley,’ used as the opposite of hills or mountains, often 
rendered ‘valley’ (Dt 87, 11 1; Ps 104 8; Is 41 18, 
63 14), used of level land (Is 40 4; Ezk 3 22 f., 8 4; 
cf. 371, ‘valley’), for the ‘plain’ of Babylon (Gn 11 2; 
ef. Dn 3 1), of Ono (q.v., Neh 6 2), of Aven (Am 
1 5, ‘valley’ RV) between the Lebanon and Anti- 
lebanon, for the Jordan Valley (Dt 34 3), and for 
other ‘valleys’ (cf. Jos 11 17, 12 7; Zec 12 11; II Ch 
35 22; Jos 118). (4) kikkér, ‘circle’; always rendered 
‘plain,’ and, except in I K 7 46, II Ch 4 17, in RV 
with a capital P. It designates the Jordan Valley 
south of where it broadens out at the Jabbok, as far 
as and including the Dead Sea, if the ‘cities of the 
plain’ (Gn 1312) were S. of the Dead Sea (Gn 13 10f., 
19 17 #.; Dt 34 3; II S 18 23; Neh 3 22, 12 28; cf. Mt 
3 5, ‘region round about the Jordan’). (5) mishér, 
evel country’ (Ps 27 11, 143 10 ARVmg.; Jer 21 13; 
Zec 47; I K 20 23, 25; cf. Is 40 4, 42 16; Ps 26 12). 
‘The plain’ is the technical term for the table-land 
of Moab or Reuben (Jos 20 8) from the Arnon to 
Heshbon (Dt 3 10, 4 43; Jos 13 17, 21; IZ Ch 26 10; 
Jer 48 8, 21), called also ‘P of Medeba’ (Jos 13 9, 16). 
(6) ‘Arabhah, ‘steppe,’ ‘desert-plain.’ The technical 
term for the hollow or depression (Dt 1 1 RVmg.) 
of the Jordan Valley, the Dead Sea, and S. to the 
Gulf of Akabah. El-Ghér is the modern name from 
the Sea of Galilee to 6 m. 8. of the Dead Sea, below 
that el-‘Ardbah. The AV renders by ‘plain’ or 
‘plains,’ except (so also RV) in Ps and the Prophets, 
where a desert or wilderness is intended. The RV 
retains ‘plains’ in some cases (Nu 22 1, ete.; Dt 
34 1, 8; Jos 4 13, 5 10, 13 32; IT K 25 5=Jer 39 5= 
52 8); elsewhere in RV it is ‘Arabah.’ RV emends 
the text in II § 15 28, 17 16 to read ‘fords.’ See also 
ARABAH. (7) sh¢phélah, Jowland,’ the technical term 
for the low hills between the Mts. of Judah and the, 
Maritime plain, 8. of the vale of Aijalon (I Ch 27 
28; II Ch 9 27; Jer 17 26, etc.). It is distinguished 
from the mountains, the Arabah, the Negeb (south), 
and the plain by the sea (Dt 17; Jos 91). See PAuus- 
TINE, § 7 (b). It is often rendered (in AV) ‘vale,’ 
‘valley.’ RV has uniformly ‘lowland.’ In Jos 11 2 it 
refers to the lowland W. of Carmel, and near the 
coast. (8) téxo¢g medtvécg (Lk 617 RV, ‘level place’). 
GC. ee 

PLAISTER. See Puaster. 

PLANE. See Arrizan Lirs, § 5. 

PLANET. See Astronomy, § 38. 

PLANE-TREE. See Patzsring, § 21. 

PLANK. See Surps anp NaviaaTion, § 2. 

PLASTER: (1) sidh (n. and vb.), ‘lime,’ ‘white- 
wash.’ In Dt 27 2-4, the stones were to be covered 
with a preparation of lime, to provide a surface on 
which writing might be inscribed with a pigment, 
as was done in Egypt. (2) gir (Aram.), the plaster 
on a wall (Dn 5 5), similar to stdh above. (3) tuéah 
(vb.), ‘to overlay,’ ‘smear,’ the walls of a house with 


717 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Plagues 
Poetry 





a mud plaster (Lv 14 42; cf. vs. 43, 48). (4) marah 
(vb.), a medical term, ‘to smooth’ or ‘smear’ a boil 
or sore with a plaster (of figs in Is 38 21). C.S. T. 
PLATTER: The rendering of two Gr. words: (1) 
mapotts, lit. ‘a side-dish’ (xao&, ‘by the side of,’ and 
boy), 2.e., a dish ‘in which delicacies are served up’ 
(Thayer, Gr. Lex. of N T) (Mt 23 25f.). (2) atvaé, ‘a 
board’ or ‘tablet’ and here a flat dish or ‘platter’ 
in the ordinary sense (Lk 11 39; charger AV in Mt 
148 #.; Mk 6 25 #.). Such a dish could be of earthen- 
ware or of metal. ‘Charger’ is also used in AV to 


render g*‘araéh (Nu 7 13, etc.) and ’dghartdl, prob. ' 


‘bow!’ (Ezr 19), both ‘platter’ RV. HK. E.N. 
PLAY: (1) ndghan, which means ‘to play on a 
stringed instrument’ (I § 16 16, etc.; II K 3 15; Ps 
33 3; Ezk 33 32). (2) tsahaq (Pi‘él) in Ex 32 6, to 
enjoy oneself with singing and dancing, after sac- 
rificing (cf. vs. 17, 19; and xaftev in I Co 10 7). 
(8) sdhaq (Pi‘él), to ‘play’ or ‘sport,’ by singing and 
dancing with music of stringed instruments (I S 
187; 11S 65, 21; I Ch 13 8, 15 29), of the playing of 
children (Zec 8 5), of contending in a tournament 
(II S 2 14), of playing or sporting with something 
(Job 40 20, 41 5 [40 29]). (4) Sha‘a‘ (Pilpél), ‘the 
playing’ of a child (Is 11 8). Cane Le 
PLEAD. See Law anp LEGAL Practissg, § 4. 


PLEASANT PLANTS. (Is 17 10.) See Aponis, 
PLANTINGS OF. 


PLEDGE: An article given as security or surety 
for the restoration of money borrowed. In early Heb. 
society such articles were apt to be garments, or a 
utensil of some sort (Ex 22 26; Dt 24 6-17; Job 24 3, 
etc.). In later times fields and houses were mort- 
gaged (Neh 5 3) and outside parties were invoked as 
security (Pr 61, 11 5, etc.). In all periods the way 
was open for the cruel oppression of the poor by 
the rich in respect to pledges. Both the Law and the 
prophets sought to mitigate the evils and inculcate 
a more humane spirit (see reff. above; also Am 2 8; 
Ezk 187). The wise men warned against the risk 
involved in becoming a surety (Pr 61, 11 15, 22 26, 
etc.). The word pledge has, however, other mean- 
ings, asin I § 1718, a ‘token’ to assure those at home 
of the safety of those in camp. In Gn 88 17-20 the 
meaning is self-evident. In II K 18 23, Is 36 8, ‘give 
pledges to’ should be ‘make a wager with’; so 
RVmg. See Earnest; also TRADE AND COMMERCE, 
§ 3. EK. E.N. 

PLEIADES, plai’a-diz or pli’a-diz. See Asrron- 
omy, § 4. 

PLOW: The plow in common use in Palestine 
even to-day is a very primitive instrument, as will 
be seen by the accompanying illustration (cf. also 
Plate under AGRICULTURE). ‘The framework is 
rudely constructed and not of great strength. The 
plowshare (’éh; cf. Is 2 4; Jl 310; Mic 4 3) is almost 
flat (rather than upright) and merely breaks up the 
surface of the soil to the depth of three or four inches, 
instead of turning it over in deep furrows as is the 
case with the plows used in Europe and America. 
The word mahdréshah [from hdarash, ‘to cut in’] is 
also rendered ‘share,’ I S 13 20, and ‘mattock’ in 
ver. 21, while ’éh is rendered coulter, but as the 
Oriental plow has no coulter this is certainly wrong. 





According to the LX X., mahdréshah should be ren- 
dered ‘sickle.’ The passage has probably suffered 
in transmission. See Fitz. In plowing, the single 





Syrian Plow and Ox-goad. 


handle is held with the left hand, leaving the right 
free to use the goad. See also AGRICULTURE, § 4. 
K. E. N. 

PLUMB-LINE, PLUMMET. See Arrizan Lirs, 
§ 4, 
PLUNDER. See Warrargz, § 5. 

POCHERETH, pek’1-refh, HAZZEBAIM (haz’’- 
si-ba/im 04% 2B, pokhereth hatsts¢bhayim, P. of 
Zebaim AV): The name of a subdivision of ‘Solo- 
mon’s servants’ (Ezr 2 57; Neh 7 59). 


POET (xotnths): This word is used only in Ac 
17 28 by Paul in introducing a quotation to his 
Athenian audience from a Stoic writing (Cleanthes, 
Hymn to Zeus). But as the same sentiment is 
expressed by Aratus (8d cent. B.c.) in the more 
precise form in which he reproduces it (Phenomena), 
the Apostle uses the plural ‘poets.’ Paul quotes 
another Greek poet (Tit 1 12}, tho calling him 
after the Hebrew fashion a prophet (Epimenides, 
On Oracles). In I Co 15 33 there is a trace of poetic 
form, but as no author is named, the presumption is 
that the words were a popular proverb. <A. C. Z. 


POETRY: 1. The N T in Prose. The N T is 
composed entirely in prose, with the exception of 
quotations from previous poetical writings and pos- 
sibly liturgical formulas used by the earliest: Chris- 
tians in worship. Such may be the Magnificat (Lk 
1 46b-55) and the Song of Zacharias (Lk 1 68-79) and 
I Ti 31. The effort to reduce sayings of Jesus to 
the parallelistic forms of Hebrew poetry (Briggs, 
New Light in the Life, etc.) can at best apply only 
to the Aramaic originals of those sayings. This 
leaves the whole Greek portion of the Bible, his- 
torical, didactic, and apocalyptic, in prose. 

2. Poetic Form in O T. Inthe O T, however, at 
least six whole books and large portions of others 
are poetic, not only in form but in contents (Ps, Pr, 
Job, Song, Ec, and La, to which may be added Sir 
and Wis of the Apocrypha). The Hebrews were no 
exception to the rule that all races in their earlier 
stages of development express their inner life in 
verse. Before they began to write the records of 
their tribal or national achievements, they had al- 
ready become possessed of a collection of songs and 
epic accounts of ancient leaders, small portions of 
which have been embodied in the Bibilical text. 
The lost books of Jashar (q.v.) and the Wars of 
Jehovah (q.v.) were undoubtedly poetic. The Song 
of Lamech (Gn 4 23 f.), the Blessing of Jacob (Gn 
ch. 49), the Blessing of Moses (Dt ch. 33), the Song 


Pontius 
Praise 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


720 





artificial cisterns, reservoirs, etc.). In the same 
verse the AV ‘ponds’ (=RV ‘pools’) renders the 
Heb. ’dgham, ‘stagnant water’ (left by the receding 
Nile). On Is 19 10 (AV) cf. RV. See also Poot. 

KE. E. N. 


PONTIUS, pon’shus or pon’ti-os. See Private. 
PONTUS, pen’tus. See Asta Minor, III, 13. 


POOL, POND: Several Heb. words are thus ren- 
dered in EV. (1) ’dgham denoted especially, tho 
not always, a collection of stagnant water (Ex 7 19, 
8 5, ‘ponds’ AV; Is 14 23), which was apparently 
contrasted with (2) a miqweh or ‘gathering to- 
gether’ (cf. Gn 1 10; Lv 11 36) of water in a 
storage-pond (Ex 7 19 ‘pools’ AV). (8) An art- 
ificial reservoir was commonly called a berékhah 
(Arab. birket, N T xodruuBnbea, In 5 2f., 97 f.). 
These reservoirs were supplied with water by 
surface drainage, by springs, or, more rarely, by 
a conduit from a distant source. The smaller pools 
were usually rectangular excavations lined with 
cement. The largest, like ‘Solomon’s Pools’ near 
Bethlehem (cf. Ec 2 6), were constructed by dam- 
ming up some narrow valley. The Bible mentions 
particularly the pools at Gibeon (II S 2 13), Hebron 
(II S 412), Samaria (I K 22 38), Heshbon (Song 7 4), 
and Jerusalem (q.v., §13f.). L.G. L.—L. B. P. 


POOR: 1. Terms Used to Describe the Poor. 
A variety of words is used both in the Heb. and Gr. 
to characterize those in need. The most important 
are the following: (1) rdsh (ptepl. of rish, to which 
the N T terms xévys, xtwx6s, correspond), which 
is the distinctive word to mark poverty in the 
common use of the term (I S 18 23; II § 12 3 £.; 
Pr 10 4, 13 8, etc.). (2) ’ebhydn (represented in the 
N T by xévyc, rrwxdc, évdens) denotes one who is in 
want either of means or of help, and so may be 
translated either ‘poor’ or ‘afflicted’ (Ex 23 6, u, 
etc.). (3) dal (represented in the N T by defevije, 
méyns, mtWYX6¢, tametvdc), which signifies ‘thin,’‘ re- 
duced,’ ‘feeble,’ and describes not only those who 
are literally in want, but also those who are reduced 
in social condition, oppressed, or miserable (Gn 41 
19; Ex 23 3, etc.). (4) ‘ant Gn the N T cévue, 
TTWX6s, TOa’s, tanetvoc), translated in our English 
versions mostly by ‘afflicted’ or ‘poor,’ denotes one 
who is ‘miserable’ more perhaps from ill treatment 
and oppression than from actual poverty, tho, of 
course, the latter kind of misery is included. The 
three terms ’ebhyén, dal and ‘dnt are used with a 
religious connotation, 7.e., while those who are 
described (particularly by the term ‘Gnz) are in 
some form of wretchedness, they may be looked 
upon as the godly, the servants of Jehovah. This 
use of the terms appears in the Psalms in the recur- 
ring phrase ‘the poor and needy,’ which refers to 
those who elsewhere are called ‘the godly,’ the 
‘righteous.’ (See Driver in HDB, vol. iv, p. 19.) 
One other word requires attention and this is ‘a@ndu, 
which signifies humble-minded toward God, and is 
usually rendered ‘meek’ (represented in the N T by 
tametvoc, TTWYSS tH tvebuatt, ceatc). It is in the 
prophetic and poetic books of the O T that these 
words appear with a wider range of meaning than 
that of mere material want (Ps 10 17; Is 61 1, etc.). 


2. Treatment of the Poor. As at all times and 
among all peoples, so in Israel the poor were always 
to be found. They were not forgotten in the pro- 
visions of the Law, and the spirit of true religion 
was set forth as one of kindliness and helpfulness. 
The Law, in the interests of the poor, provided for 
the right of gleaning (Lv 19 9, 10; Dt 24 19, 21); for 
the prohibition of usury (Ly 25 35, 37); for portions 
from the tithes to be shared by the poor after the 
Levites (Dt 14 28); for the daily payment of wages 
(Lv 19 13), and by other like regulations for re- 
lieving the hopelessness of poverty. According to 
Israelitic law, no Jew could lose his freedom through 
poverty, and there came to him stated periods of 
‘release,’ a time when he could redeem his property 
(Lv 25 39, 47). Selfishness and greed once and again 
defeated the claims of righteousness in these matters, 
and the Prophets were earnest in their warnings and 
rebukes. The spirit of the O T is exalted in its” 
attitude toward the worthy poor. Proverbs and 
and Ecclesiastes have much to say in regard to 
the poverty which comes through wilful folly, but 
they equally set forth the blessings of him who 
helps the needy and honors God ina wise charity. 
In the N T Church the poor became from the 
first the object of earnest care (Ac 4 34 ff., 6 1; 
Ro 15 26; Gal 2 10; Ja 2 2-6). See also Manx, Mrrx- 
NESS. J.S. R.—L. B. P. 

POPLAR. See PALESTINE, § 21. 


PORATHA, po-ré’ tha or pér’a-fha (NDB, péra- 
tha’, a Persian word): One of the sons of Haman 
(Est 9 8). 


PORCH: In Jg 3 23 the word misd¢rén, rendered 
‘porch,’ is of uncertain meaning, and it is not known 
to what part of the house it refers. In Mk 14 68 
the xpoatAtovis probably the ‘vestibule’ of the ai), 
or ‘court,’ situated at the avdAdy, or ‘gateway’ 
(‘porch’ in Mt 26 71). The word otoé (Jn 5 2, 
10 23; Ac 3 11, 5 12) means a covered colonnade pro- 
tecting those walking, or standing, from the sun 
and rain. See also Tempe, §§ 8, 20, 27; and 
Sotomon, § 4. E. E. N. 


PORCIUS, pér-si-us or -shi-us. See Frstvus. 
PORCUPINE. See Pauxsting, § 24. 


PORT: This term is used once (Neh 2 13 AV) for 
sha‘ar, which elsewhere in AV (and RV here) is 
rendered ‘gate.’ Cr Sits 


PORTER: The rendering of shd‘ér (Aram. tara‘, 
Hizr 7 24). In II § 18 26, II K 7 10 it refers to the 
‘gatekeeper’ of a city gate. The former passage 
we should perhaps emend so as to read ‘at the gate’ 
for ‘unto the porter.’ In IIS 46, as emended by 
many following the text of LXX., it is used of a 
doorkeeper (female) of a house. Elsewhere the term 
refers to the gatekeepers in the Sanctuary. It 
is often used in Ch, Ezr, Neh, and usually rendered 
‘porter’ in AV, but RV has ‘doorkeeper’ in several 
passages in Ch (I Ch 15 18, 16 38, etc.). In Ezr and 
Neh the doorkeepers and singers are distinguished 
from the Levites (cf. Ezr 2 41 #.; Neh,7 44 f.., etc.), 
but in Ch they are called Levites (I Ch 231 f., etc.). 
According to I Ch 23 5 the porters numbered 
4,000; they were ‘sons’ of Korah and Merari (I 
Ch 26 19). See also PriesrHoop, § 9. CS 


721 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Pontius 
Praise 


PORTION: The rendering of (1) ’Ghaz, ‘what is 
laid hold on’ (Nu 31 30 AV, but ‘one drawn out 
of? RV). (2) dabhar, ‘thing,’ ‘affair’ (II Ch 31 16 
AV, also EVmg.; but ‘duty’ RV; Job 26 14 AV 
and RVmg., but ‘a small whisper’ RV). (3) hebhel, 
‘line’ (Jos 17 5, 14, 19 9, ‘part’ AV, ‘line’ RVmg.; 
Ezk 47 13). (4) héleq, helgah (Aram. hdlag, Dn 
4 15; Ezr 4 is), ‘share,’ especially in the division of 
inheritance (Gn 14 24, 31 14; ‘Naboth’s portion,’ II 
K 9 21). (5) hég, denoting the orderly or lawful 
share, as if determined by ‘statute’ (hdq) (Gn 47 22 
AV and RVmg.; Pr 31 15; ‘tax’ RV). (6) mahd- 
légeth, ‘section,’ ‘subdivision’ (Ezk 48 29). (7) 
manah, mnath, ‘part’ (IS 1 4; Ps 63 10). (8) pi-she- 
nayim, ‘mouth of two,’ z.e., enough to fill the mouth 
of two persons=double share (Dt 21 17; II K 2 9. 
But in such instances the numeral is used not in 
its strict mathematical sense but as a general 
designation of great abundance). (9) shekhem, 
‘shoulder’ (Gn 48 22, ‘mountain-slope’ RVmg., a 
significant way of denoting a piece of land in a hilly 
country). (10) pathbagh, ‘delicacy’ (Aram., Dn 1 8f.). 
(11) wéeoc, ‘part? (Mt 24 51; Lk 1512). (12) ottowéreroy 
‘measure of wheat’ (Lk 12 42). In EVV ‘portion’ is 
used either absolutely in the sense of ‘part,’ as of a 
whole, or relatively, of what may fall to one out of a 
common mass, such as a meal (Hst 9 19; Ps 63 10), or 
patrimony (Lk 15 12). In the latter case, the exact 
sense is that of ‘share.’ From this usage arises a 
more specific one, viz., since a share in an ancestral 
estate is regarded with feelings of peculiar apprecia- 
tion, and since rights in it are inalienable, ‘portion’ 
expresses Israel’s rights and privileges in its God 
(‘He is the portion of his people,’ Ps 119, 57, 142 5; 
Jer 51 19; La 3 24). The obverse of this is also 
true, t.e., Israel is J’’s portion (Dt 329; Zee 2 12). 
(Cf. also ‘portion of a weak man,’ Job 20 29, 27 13; 
Is 17 14.) A. C, Z. 

POSSESSION. See Demon, Demonotoey, §§ 
4 ff.; and Faminy AND Famity Law, § 8. 

POST: The rendering of the Heb. rits, ‘runner,’ 
which, in such passages as II Ch 30 6, 10, Est 3 13, 
etc., Job 9 25, Jer 51 31, denotes the swift messengers 
used to carry royal messages. In the Persian ser- 
vice they were mounted on the swiftest horses, and 
were noted for their speed (cf. Herodotus, 898). See 
also Hous, § 6. K. E. N. 

POT. See Foop anp Foop Urernsits, § 11. 

POTIPHAR, pot’1-far (12°DiB, potiphar, abbre- 
viated from ‘Potiphera,’ q.v.): The name of the 
‘officer of Pharaoh’s, the captain of the guard’ 
(‘chief of executioners’ RVmg.), who bought Jo- 
seph from the Midianites (Gn 37 36, 391). The 
name of the office he occupied (sar hattabbahim) is 
evidently given not in its exact Egyptian form, for 
it does not correspond with any one of the numerous 
court position known to be attached to Egyptian 
royalty, but in its equivalent in Palestinian and E. 
Semitic terminology. The Heb. term saris (rendered 
‘officer’) means eunuch; but Potiphar was a married 
man (Gn 397#.), and, accordingly, the word is prob- 
ably used in a general sense not involving sexual 
disability, which is sometimes the case, tho married 
eunuchs are not unknown to history (cf. Burkhardt, 
Arabia, I, 290; Ebers, Aegypten, p. 299), A.C, Z, 


POTIPHERA, po-tif‘il-ra (31) ‘MiB, palt phen 
ra‘): Priest of On, Joseph’s father-in-law (Gn 41 45, 
50, Potipherah AV). The Egyptian meaning of the 
word is ‘he whom Ra gave.’ With the omission 
of the article (in Egyptian) it becomes Potiphar. 

A. C. Z. 

POTSHERD, pet’shord”: The rendering of the 
Heb. heres, ‘a piece of pottery,’ either a whole piece 
or its broken fragments: the latter in Job 2 8, 41 30; 
Is 30 14 (sherd); Ezk 23 24; the former in other 
instances. Broken fragments of pottery were in 
common use as a cheap and convenient material on 
which to write notes, letters, and memoranda. See 
also Porrery. K. E. N. 


POTTAGE. See Foop anp Foon Urensits, § 3. 
POTTER, POTTERY: From the earliest historic 


times pottery has been made in Palestine. Ex- 


cavations have brought to light many specimens, 
showing the usual development from the more crude 
to the more finished products as time advanced. 
Most of the vessels used in the Hebrew household 
were made of pottery. Their frailty is used by the 
O T writers to illustrate human helplessness before 
God’s power (Ps 2 9; Is 30 14; Jer 19 11) and the 
power of the potter over his clay to illustrate the 
Divine sovereignty (Is 64 8; Jer 18 2 f.; Ro 9 20-24). 
See Artizan Lirz, §§ 7-9; with Illustration. 
POTTER’S FIELD. Sce Jerusatem, § 46. 


POUND. See Money, I, 2, and IT; and Wzrcurs 
AND Mrasurgs, § 4. 


POWER: This term renders Heb. and Gr. words 
as follows: (1) ’él, ‘strength’ (in the phrase ‘it is in 
the power of my [thine, their] hand,’ Gn 31 29; 
Pr 3 27; Mice 21). (2) g*bharah, ‘might’ (a poetic 
word, Ps 21 13, 71 18, 145 11; Job 41 12, ‘strength’ 
RV). (8) z*rda‘, ‘arm’ (Ps 79 11). (4) hayil, ‘force’ 
(IS 91, ‘valor’ RV; Ezr 4 23). (5) yddh, ‘hand’ 
(Dt 32 36). (6) kdah, ‘strength’ (Gn 31 6; Ex 15 6). 
(7) kaph, ‘palm’ (Hab 29, ‘hand’ RV). (8) memsha- 
lah, ‘dominion’ (II Ch 329). (9) ‘az, ‘dz (Gn 49 3; 
Ps 62 11). (10) “tzzuz, ‘strong one’ (Is 43 17, ‘mighty 
man’ RV). (11) shiltén, ‘authority’ (Ee 8 4, 8). 
(12) ta‘dtstimath, ‘substance’ (Ps 68 35). (13) tégeph, 
‘energy’ (Est 10 2). (14) ’él yadh, ‘power of hand’ 
(Neh 5 5). (15) dex, ‘rule,’ ‘authority’ (Lk 20 20, 
‘rule’ RV). (16) Sdvayutc, td Suvacéy, ‘power’ (Mt 
24 30; Lk 91, ete.). (17) é§ouctz, ‘authority’ (Mt 
9 6; Rev 2 26, ‘authority’ RV; Ro 9 21; Jn 1 12, 
‘right’ RV). (18) icydc, force’ (II Th 19; II P2 11, 
‘might’ RV). (19) xe&ctoc (Eph 1 19; He 2 14). (20) 
The word ‘power’ sometimes appears without a 
definite equivalent in the original, but as a necessary 
complement of the thought as in Rev 13 14 f. AV, 
‘had power to,’ etc., where RV more literally ren- 
ders ‘it was given him to,’ ete. A.C. Z. 


PRATORIAN GUARD, PRETORIUM. See 
PRETORIUM. 


PRAISE: 1, Preliminary Definitions. The term 
‘praise,’ as descriptive of sacred utterance, has two 
uses which are usually blended, tho sometimes 
distinguished. The first of these regards the con- 
tent of the utterance, denoting such expression to- 


Praise 
Prayer 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


722 





ward God as is highly charged with jubilant senti- 
ments like adoration and thanksgiving. The second 
regards rather the manner of the utterance, denoting 
the poetic and musical formulas in which these 
sentiments are liturgically embodied. In the first 
usage ‘praise’ is more or less contrasted with 
‘prayer’ in its narrow sense (humiliation and suppli- 
cation). In the second usage ‘praise’ is sometimes 
extended so as to cover any musical form of worship, 
even if not Godward in direction or not jubilant in 
tone. 

The Biblical concept of ‘praise’ is chiefly con- 
veyed by the frequent use, especially in the Psalms 
and the later histories and prophecies, of such words 
as halal, ‘praise,’ yaddhadh, ‘give thanks,’ shabhah, 
‘praise,’ bdrakh, ‘bless,’ zdmar, ‘sing praise,’ ‘anah, 
‘sing,’ shir, ‘sing,’ rdénan, ‘shout,’ gil, ‘rejoice,’ etc.. 
with their derivatives. The exact shades of meaning 
in some of these are uncertain, and indeed do not 
seem to be consistently observed (halal apparently 
contains the notion of making brilliant, yadhah 
that of extending the hands in protestation, barakh 
that of kneeling, z@mar that of playing an instru- 
ment, ‘dnah that of antiphony, gil that of circling in 
a dance, etc.). Evidently the Hebrew idea of social 
worship included the excited and vociferous out- 
pouring of feeling in words and tones, in which the 
conspicuous mental elements were the objective 
laudation or magnifying of God and the declaration 
of subjective loyalty and zeal on the worshiper’s part. 
In the N T the principal terms are edAoyety, aivety, 
éxatvetv, and buvety and their derivatives, emphasi- 
zing the ideas of ‘eulogy,’ ‘glorification,’ and ‘song.’ 

2. Referencesin the O T. The distribution of the 
O T references to ‘praise’ in these technical senses 
suggests that the practise was chiefly developed from 
the time of the Exile onward. For example, hdlal 
(directed toward God) occurs about seventy-five 
times in Pss, twenty in Ch, five in Ezr and Neh, and 
seven elsewhere—all probably late. The Hebrew 
name of the Psalter is ¢*hillim, ‘praises.’ One of the 
types or ceremonies of sacrifice was the tédhadh, com- 
monly rendered ‘thanksgiving,’ but probably more a 
protestation of loyalty than of gratitude. A fre- 
quent ejaculation is hallelai-Yah, ‘Praise J’ (see 
HA.ueLusaH). It would seem, therefore, that with 
the development of a fuller cultus came the necessity 
for these poetic and musical elements. Praise was 
essentially a social act, performed normally in the 
Temple (or synagog) as a part of the stated ritual. 
(For many references as to details, see under Music.) 
The Psalter takes its name from the fact that most 
of its contents were formulas for such use, tho the 
difference in texture between its poems is con- 
siderable (see under Psaumsg, §§ 4 ff.). Characteristic 
psalms of praise are 24 7-10, 28 6-9, 47, 67, 92, 93, 95, 
96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 113, 116, 117, 118, 145, 148, 150, 
with many more in which reflective or historical 
elements are interwoven (such as 18, 46, 65, 103, 
104, 107, etc.). Books IV and V are particularly 
strong in this regard, but praiseful introductions, 
conclusions, refrains, and episodes occur in all parts 
of the collection. Notable examples of poems of 
praise outside the Psalter are the Song of the 
Exodus (Ex ch, 15), that of Deborah and Barak 


eR a a a ee ee SSS 


(Jg ch. 5), that of Hannah (IS ch. 2), that of David 
(II S ch. 22=Ps 18), that of Jonah (Jon ch. 2), and 
that of Habakkuk (Hab ch. 3)—with the poems pre- 
served in the N T (Lk chs. 1-2). Altho the materials 
of some of these are apparently early, they all have 
been at least reworked in the style of the Psalter. 
The same praiseful spirit is clear in the many doxol- 
ogies (see § 4, below) scattered through the N T (Gal 
15; Ro 1 25, 95, 11 33-36, 16 25-27; II Co 11 31; Ph 4 20; 
Eph 3 20-21; I Ti 1 17, 6 15-16; II Ti 4 18; [1 P4 un, 
5 11; IT P 3 18; Jude vs. 24-25; He 13 21; Rev 1 5-6, 
48, 11, 5 9-10, 12, 13, 7 10, 12, 11 17, 15 3-4, 16 5-7, 19 1-2, 
6-7). 

3. Favorite Topics and Sentiments. So familiar 
are most of the classical passages of Biblical praise 
that the many aspects and implications of their 
thought are not always clearly perceived. Their 
great and most essential topic is the infinite nature of 
God, especially His supremacy, holiness, truth, jus- 
tice, and wisdom. These regal attributes are dwelt 
upon with such singular richness of feeling and vigor 
of expression that the Biblical phraseology is a 
treasury from which all liturgies have drawn con- 
stantly. Interwoven with these ascriptions of power 
and moral perfection are abounding recognitions of 
God’s goodness and mercy in the constitution of the 
world, in the course of national history, and in per- 
sonal experience. Adoration thus passes over into 
thanksgiving. Further, the thought of what God is 
and how He manifests Himself awakens exclama- 
tions of enthusiasm and confidence in the soul that 
feels itself the chosen object of His care. Hence out 
of adoration and thanksgiving grow exultation, 
loyalty and zeal. And all these bring with them a 
greater or less degree of trust and assurance for the 
future. If God is everlasting and unchangeable, then 
beneath His care all life, present and to come, is safe 
and full of peace. 


4. Doxologies. Literally, a doxology is an ascrip- 
tion or acclamation of ‘glory’ to God, but usually ex- 
tended to cover various liturgical concluding-formu- 
las of adoration and thanksgiving. Asarule, doxolo- 
gies include some phrase like ‘forever,’ emphasizing 
the eternity of God and of His praise, and they are 
customarily accompanied by the response ‘Amen.’ 
Doxologies differ from benedictions in that they 
declare or exhort to the veneration of God instead of 
invoking blessing or favor from Him. Striking illus- 
trations in the O T are the doxologies appended to 
the ‘books’ of the Psalter (see PsAuMs) and those in 
the N T Epistles and Apocalypse (see § 3, above). 
Several Psalms conclude in a doxologic strain (as 
7 17, 18 49, 21 13, 24 7-10, 30 12b, 45 17, 52.9, 57 5, 11 [re- 
frain], 79 13, 145 21), and several begin in a similar 
way (as 9 1-2, 18 1-2, 29 1-2, etc.). Ejaculations like 
‘Hallelujah’ (q.v.), ‘Blessed be God’ (Ps 68 35), ‘Bless 
the Lord, O my soul’ (Ps 103 1, 22, 1041, 35) and ‘His 
loving kindness . . . forever’ (Ps 118 29, 136 1-26, 
etc.) belong to the same general class. The Gloria of 
the Angels (Lk 2 14) and the ascriptions of the Heay- 
enly Hosts in the Apocalypse are notable. All these 
have been extensively utilized in Christian liturgies. 

Wi aaa 


_ PRAYER: 1. Preliminary Definitions. In every re- 
ligion that has a clear conception of a personal God 


723 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Praise 
Prayer 





there will be attempts at verbal and vocal intercourse 
with Him. Such intercourse is prayer in the general 
sense. It is usual, however, to distinguish between 
‘prayer’ proper, which is in prose and spoken, and 
‘praise,’ which is poetic and sung (see Pratsp). It is 
usual, also, to draw a line between conversational or 
‘ejaculatory’ prayer, which is closely mingled with 
common activities, and ‘formal’ prayer, which im- 
plies some withdrawal from such activities and a 


greater degree of rhetorical order and finish. The 


most common O T term for praying is pdalal (Hithp.) 
and for prayer, t*phillah, the root-meaning of which 
is disputed. It seems to contain some notion of 
‘cutting’ or ‘separating,’ whence come conjectures 
that it may suggest an old Semitic custom of self- 
mutilation in petition, or that of dividing and arrang- 
ing a sacrifice, or even the habit of self-scrutiny in the 
Divine presence. Most of the other O T words sug- 
gest entreaty or supplication, which was the pre- 
dominant element of the general Hebrew conception, 
tho the formal prayers preserved contain many other 
elements. The commonest N T word is eiyecbat, 


which seems to emphasize the notion of ‘calling | 


aloud,’ of vociferous appeal, while in other frequent 
terms, like detcOat and airety, ‘petition’ is uppermost. 
For the ‘giving of thanks’ the standard term is 
e0Yaplotety. 

2. Summary of References. The whole Bible, but 
especially the O T, abounds in references to the prac- 
tise and the subject of prayer. The O T histories 
and prophecies frequently represent men as speaking 
freely to God, as He does to them (as in the stories of 
Gn chs. 3-4; Ex chs. 3-4; Is ch. 6; Jer ch. 1, etc.). 
Most of these are simply cases of the literary anthro- 
pomorphism which is a familiar characteristic of 
Hebrew style. But the practise of deliberate prayer 
is also extensively noted or implied (see § 3, below). 
There are many extended prayers, which, tho em- 
bedded in the narratives, are very highly formulated, 
as if shaped by mature liturgical practise, so that 
they seem to be samples of the styles belonging to 
_ public worship (see examples below). In the N T 
the Gospels offer something concerning the prayers 
of Jesus, with some specific teachitigs from Him, and 
in Paul’s writings especially the purport or sum of 
his habitual prayers is often indicated. Under 
‘prayer’ may also be grouped various formulas of 
benediction, malediction, greeting, and farewell that 
are couched in devout language. 


3. Places, Times, and Attitudes. In early times 
the place of prayer was probably wherever sacrifice 
was offered, the two forms of worship being closely 
interdependent (Gn 12 8, 26 25, etc.). But while the 
relation between the two was not forgotten, they 
were later often separated. Thus in the Temple 
ritual it is not clear that there was much public 
prayer by the priests, tho private prayer by the on- 
lookers was customary (Lk 110). Naturally for the 
devout the Temple became the place of prayer par 
excellence, toward which, if at a distance, the face 
should be turned (I K 8 30, 33, etc.; Ps 57; Is 567; 
Mk 1117; Ac 31), and its site has since retained this 
significance. But as synagogs developed, they also 
became ‘houses of prayer,’ since in their services 
prayers replaced the sacrifices of the Temple. From 


their usages the first Jewish Christians undoubtedly 
patterned their social services (Ac 2 42, 6 4). The 
tmeocevyx, place of prayer, at Philippi (Ac 1613), was 
probably not a building, but simply a retired spot in 
the open air, such as Jews often used in places where 
there was no synagog. Private prayer, of course, 
might occur anywhere, as within a chamber (Dn 6 
10), on the housetop (Ac 10 9), or at a street-corner 
(Mt 6 5). The times of sacrifice at the Temple— 
morning, ‘evening’ (7.¢., early afternoon) to which 
the hour of sunset was added, naturally gave rise to 
similar times for prayer, tho of these not much men- 
tion is made (Dn 6 11; Ps 55 17, 141 2; Ac 31, 10 30). 
The instinctive conception of prayer is reflected in 
the bodily attitudes adopted, ‘all of which imply 
respect, humility, or eagerness, such as standing 
(Hannah, I S 1 26; Solomon, I K 8 22; the Pharisee, 
Lk 18 11), sitting (II S 7 18), kneeling (Ezra, Ezr 9 5; 
Jesus, Lk 22 41; Stephen, Ac 7 60), or bowing toward 
the ground, and even prostration (Eliezer, Gn 24 26; 
Elijah, I K 18 42; the people, Neh 86). In the first 
two attitudes the hands were usually extended up- 
ward (Ps 141 2) or spread out (Ps 143 6). 


4. Some Special Types. One of the earlier types of 
prayer was that of ‘inquiring’—seeking some token 
as to the wisdom of an action or the truth of an 
opinion—which is common in primitive stages of 
religion generally. It is not clear how the reply to 
such inquiries was usually obtained—probably 
through some form of lot. Besides many instances 
that are explicit (Eliezer, Gn 24 12-14; the people, Jg 
11, 20 18, 23, 28; Gideon, Jg 6 36f., 39; Saul, 1S 14 37, 
41, 44; David, I S 23 10-12, 30 8; IL S 21, 5 19, etc.), it 
is not unlikely that a similar sense is hidden under 
many vague references to ‘seeking Jehovah.’ The 
Hebrew mind was naively ready to turn to God in 
prayer at all sorts of practical junctures, as to a pro- 
tector and friend. Very notable are the prayers at- 
tributed to Jeremiah. The longer examples (Jer 
10 23-25, 12 1-3, 14 19-22, 15 15-18, 17 12-18, 18 19-23, 
20 7-13, 32 17-25), besides many brief ejaculations, 
seem organically part of the narrative in which they 
stand, tho the last may have been editorially ex- 
panded in accordance with liturgical usage. It is 
not clear whether certain other cases in the proph- 
ecies should be classified here or under the next head 
(Is 63 15—64 12; Mic 7 14-20; Hab 1 2-17). The ques- 
tion of their exact interpretation depends upon the 
theory of the structure of the books in which they ap- 
pear. Scattered through the histories are rather 
numerous prayers, often marked by great richness of 
form and contents. Among these striking examples 
are Jacob’s petition when in fear of Esau (Gn 32 9- 
12), the intercessions of Moses (Ex 32 11-13, 31-32; 
Dt 9 26-29; Nu 14 13-19, etc.), David’s reception of the 
promise regarding Solomon (II § 7 18-29; I Ch 17 
16-27), Solomon’s petition for wisdom (I K 3 6-9; IT Ch 
1 8-10), and his great prayers at the opening of the 
Temple (I K 8 23-53, 56-60; II Ch 6 4-6, 14-42), Heze- 
kiah’s appeal against Sennacherib (IT K 19 15-19; Is 
37 16-20), the confessions of Ezra (Ezr 9 6-15), Nehe- 
miah (Neh 1 5-11) and the people (Neh 9 5-38), and 
Daniel’s thanksgiving and intercession (Dn 2 20-23, 
9 4-19), besides many similar passages in the Apoc- 
rypha (as To 3 2-6; Wis ch. 9, etc.). It is evident 


Prayer 
Predestination 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


724 





that most, if not all, of these are to be ascribed to the 
editorial period in which the various books took their 
final shape; but even so, they offer striking evidence 
of the literary development of liturgical prayer in 
the age of Judaism. This remark applies also to the 
traditional formulas of the modern synagog. Besides 
all these, there are numerous prayers in poetical 
form, both in the poetical books, like Job, Psalms, 
and Ecclesiasticus, and embedded in the histories 
and prophecies. Several of the Psalms are called 
‘prayers’ (Pss 17, 86, 90, 102, 142, and cf. 72 20 and 
Hab 31), and the same term is often used in the text 
as if applying to the utterance in general (Job 16 17; 
Ps 611, etc.). See PRAISE. 


5. Effect Upon Christian Usages. The forms of 
thought and expression found in the prayers of the 
O T have had an inealculable influence upon all 
Christian usages, both because they are marked by a 
singularly elevated and comprehensive spirit of 
worship, and because their literary embodiment is 
full of dignity, warmth, and richness. If they are 
carefully examined, they are found to illustrate more 
or less all the main constituents of prayer in general 
—humiliation, profession or declaration, supplica- 
tion (including intercession), thanksgiving, and 
adoration. Every historic liturgy has been power- 
fully influenced by them, as well as the myriad 
utterances of free prayer. 


6. Jesus’ Habit and Teaching. The Gospels often 
mention Jesus’ habit of prayer, usually in connec- 
tion with important junctures in His minstry, as at 
the Baptism (Lk 3 21), before the first preaching 
tour (Mk 1 35; Lk 5 16), when the Twelve were set 
apart (Lk 612), at the feeding of the 5,000 (Mt 14 19, 
23; Mk 6 41, 46; Lk 916; Jn 611, 23), at the feeding of the 
4,000 (Mt 15 36; Mk 8 6), at Cesarea Philippi and 
before the Transfiguration (Lk 9 18, 28-29), at the 
return of the Seventy (Mt 11 25-26; Lk 10 21), as the 
occasion for a teaching (Lk 11 1), at the raising of 
Lazarus (Jn 11 41-42), in blessing the children (Mt 
1913; Mk 1016), regarding the Holy Spirit (Jn 14 16), 
at the Last Supper (Mt 26 26-27; Mk 14 22-23; Lk 
22 17, 19, 32; I Co 11 24-25), in the Intercessory Prayer 
(Jn ch. 17), at the Agony (Mt 26 36, 39, 42, 44; Mk 
14 32, 35-36, 39; Lk 22 41-44), and on the Cross (Lk 
23 34; Mt 27 46; Mk 15 34; Lk 23 46). Tho all these 
references may not have exactly the same historic 
texture, we surely infer from them that prayer was a 
frequent feature of Jesus’ daily life, yielding an 
incessant refreshing of His spirit. Among the re- 
corded teachings of Jesus are several concerning 
prayer, almost wholly upon its supplicatory side, 
as, for example, regarding simplicity (Mt 6 5-8), re- 
garding God’s fatherly attitude (Mt 7 7-11, 21 22; Lk 
11 5-13, 18 1-8), regarding unity in asking (Mt 18 19), 
urging intercession for enemies (Mt 5 44; Lk 6 28; 
Mk 11 24-25), and for helpers (Mt 9 38; Lk 10 2), be- 
sides the suggested model, or Lord’s Prayer (see be- 
low), and the striking promises to those who stand in 
perfect fellowship with Him and ask ‘in his name’ 
(Jn 14 13-14, 15 7, 16, 16 23-24, 26). These passages 
differ somewhat in significance. None is more 
weighty than this: ‘If ye abide in me, and my words 
abide in you, ask whatsoever ye will, and it shall be 
done unto you’ (Jn 15 7), if the force of the condi- 


tional clause be duly noted. The so called Lord’s 
Prayer appears twice (Mt 6 9-15; Lk 11 1-4), in two 
somewhat different forms. Tho its phraseology 
was derived from current Jewish usages, the colloca- 
tion of thoughts was new, and we must believe that 
Jesus filled the familiar words with a fresh depth of 
meaning. Just what was His intention as to the use 
of the formula by His followers is disputed, since 
oltws oty, ‘after this manner,’ may mean ‘in these 
precise words’ or ‘in this general style’ or ‘with this 
spirit.’ From the variations in the two texts and 
the striking paucity of clear references to the prayer 
in the rest of the N T, we infer that no exact verbal 
prescription was meant. See also Lorp’s PRAYER. 

7. In Apostolic Usage. Among the early Christian 
converts the habit of social prayer is recorded as a 
matter of course (Ac 1 14, 24, 2 42, 4 31, 6 4, 6, 12 5, 12, 
13 3, 14 23, 215; I Co 11 4-13), besides being implied in 
many exhortations. The use of prayer is attributed | 
to the Apostolic leaders, especially to Peter, John, 
and Paul (Ac 31, 6 4, 8 15, 9 11, 40, 109, 11 5, 16 13, 
16, 25, 20 36, 22 17, 28 8). In Paul’s Epistles are ex- 
tensive suggestions of how broad and deep was the 
scope of his personal thanksgiving and supplications 
on behalf of those among whom he worked (I Th 
1 2-3, 213, 39-13; II Th 1 3, 11-12, 2 13-14, 16; I Co 1 4-8; 
II Co 1 3-4; Ro 1 8-10; 101, 11 33-36; Ph 1 3-11; Col 
1 3-13; Eph 1 3, 15-21, 3 14-21; Phm vs. 4-6; I Ti 1 12, 17; 
II Ti 1 3-5, besides many brief references). The in- 
junctions about prayer in the Apostolic writings are 
also abundant and urgent (I Th 5 17-18; II Th 3 1-2; 
I Co 11 2-16, 14 2-17; IIT Co 1 11; Ro 8 26-27, 12 12, 
15 30-32; Ph 4 6; Col 4 2-4; Eph 6 18-20; I Ti 2 1-2, 8; 
Ja 1 5-8, 4 2-8, 5 13-18; I Jn 3 21-22, 5 14-16). From all 
these it is plain how vital and fruitful the exercise of 
prayer was known to be in the early stages of Chris- 
tianity’s development. To this the number and 
character of the formal salutations and benedictions 
distributed through the N T add further instructive 
witness, tho the date of some of them may be later 
than that of the documents with which they appear. 

Wasik 
PRAYER, LORD’S. See Lorp’s PRAYER. 


PRAYER, PLACE OF. See Prayer, § 3. 


PREACH, PREACHING: 1. In the O T. Terms 
used in the O T and the N T to designate the proc- 
lamation of Divine truth, religious and ethical. In 
the O T garda’, ‘to call,’ ‘proclaim,’ ‘cry,’ ete., is used 
frequently of the prophetic message (cf. Mic 3 5 of 
false prophets) in various aspects as (1) denuncia- 
tion (Jon 1 2), (2) revelation of the Divine will (Jer 
116), (3) Messianic promise (Is 611). It is even used 
to describe a political propagandum set forth by the 
Prophets (Neh 6 7). In two passages bdsar, ‘to 
declare good news,’ is used (Ps 68 11; Is 611). With 
the gradual decline and disappearance of spoken 
prophecy during and after the exile, garda’ came to be 
used of written messages (Zec 1 14), until finally, 
with the ever increasing prominence of the written 
torah and the disappearance of Hebrew as a spoken 
language, the function of the preacher became largely 
that of interpretation (m%thurgdm; cf. Ezr 47 for 
the word [‘set forth’ EV], and for the idea Neh 8 8). 

2. In Later Judaism. With the development of 
the synagog, ‘application’ (d‘rdsh@’, lit. ‘inquiry’) as 


725 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Prayer 
Predestination 





well as interpretation of the tdrah became essential 

and ‘preaching’ in the original sense of fervid, re- 

ligious and ethical appeal, subordinate (cf. Philo 

De Sept, ch. 6; Quod Omnis Probus, ch. 12). 

3. In the N T. To the extent that the new era, 
beginning with the Baptist, was a revival of 
prophecy (Mt 11 9), ‘preaching’ resumed its former 
character. Consequently the terms xnebacev, ‘to 
proclaim as a herald,’ and xjevyue, ‘preaching,’ are 
frequent inthe N T. Jesus’ mission is essentially one 
of ‘proclamation’ of good tidings concerning the 
Kingdom of God (Mk 1 14; Mt 4 23), expressed by 
such terms as elayyéAtov and evayyeAtCecbat. At the 
same time Jesus continued to ‘teach’ in the synagogs 
in the traditional sense referred to above (i.e., by 
reading, interpreting and applying the Law and the 
Prophets (Mk 1 39; Lk 4 16f.). 

The earliest Apostolic ‘preaching’ was essentially 
prophetic in character, consisting of testimony con- 
cerning the Resurrection of Jesus and His imminent 
return for Judgment (cf. Ac 2 32-36; I Co 151 £.; 
I Th passim), which soon came to include the ethical 
implications of the message (notably in Paul’s 
‘preaching,’ cf. I Th 41f.) Apostolic ‘preaching’ is 
designated by such terms as edayyeAtlecbat, xat- 
ayyéierv, ‘to announce,’ ‘declare’ and Aadetv, ‘to 
speak.’ In the original custom of the early Church 
preachers were those who had been witnesses 
(udéetupes) of what Jesus had said and done. With 
the spread of the gospel and the lapse of time, the 
‘preaching’ office was assumed by others, especially 
those endowed with ‘the word of wisdom’ and ‘of 
knowledge’ (I Co 128). These constituted a distinct 
order in the early Church, known as Prophets 
(ef. Eph 4 11), who with the office of ‘preaching’ 
sometimes joined other functions of a predictive 
character (Ac 11 27). In the Pastoral Epistles and in 
the Didache ‘preaching’ is becoming more and more, 
if not entirely, the function of the Bishop (I Ti 3 2; 
Did xv, 2). See also Courcu Lire AND ORGANIZA- 
TION, §§ 6, 7. 

Literature: For the history of the use of edayyéAtoy and 
evVayyeAlCecOat in connection with N T ‘preaching’ consult 
Milligan, Comm. on Th, p. 141 f. For the use of these 
terms in inscriptions and papyri, see Moulton and Milligan 


Vocabulary of the Gr.N T, under EdayyéAtov and Etay- 
yertCo. 1 Gad 


PREACHER, THE. See EcciestasrTeEs. 


PRECEPT: The rendering of (1) mitswah, ‘order,’ 
‘ordinance,’ or ‘appointment’ (Neh 9 14; Is 29 13 
AV, ‘commandment’ RV; Jer 35 18; Dn 9 5). (2) 
piqqudhim, ‘ordinances’ (Ps 119 passim). (3) tsaw 
‘maxim’ (Is 28 10), a specification of a general law 
made brief and easy for purposes of instruction. 
(4) évtoAn, ‘charge’ (Mk 10 5; He 9 19 AV, ‘com- 
mandments’ RV). A.C. Z. 

PRECINCTS: The rendering of the obscure 
DN78, parwarim (II K 23 11, suburbs AV; I Ch 
26 18 RVmg.). See also ParBAR. 


PREDESTINATE, PREDESTINATION: These 
words are generally used in theological discussion 
for the doctrine that God has from eternity deter- 
mined upon all those individual human beings who 
shall be saved by His grace. The word ‘predestinate’ 
does not occur at all in the English of the O T and 


only four times in AV of the N T, where in RV it is 
replaced by the word ‘foreordain’ (Gr. xeooettety, 
Ro 8 29, 30; Eph 1 5, 11). 

1. Strict Predestinarianism. According to the 
school associated with the names of Augustine and 
Calvin, the idea of predestination is supposed to 
lie behind or above that of election (see ELEcTION). 
The term ‘election’ stands for that act or process in 
time through which the grace of God reaches and 
grasps and does its effectual work upon com- 
munities (as Israel) and individuals; ‘predestination’ 
stands for that eternal purpose which was in the 
mind of God before time began. Already the whole 
program of the universe lay before that Mind, 
completely willed and foreseen in all its minutest 
details. The processes of time are but the realizing, 
objectively to God, of that absolutely perfect plan 


_ of them which proceeded from His will and was, as 


it were, subjectively foremirrored in His thought in 
eternity. This must include not only the quiver of 
every leaf but every sin of every soul, and the final 
destiny of each individual soul. That destiny God 
has willed eternally, whether it be salvation or 
destruction. The doctrine that the fate of the lost 
was irrevocably fixed in eternity is known in theology 
as the doctrine of preterition (passing over). In 
support of this general position appeal is made both 
to Seripture and to reason, and these sources of 
authority are applied to three main elements in the 
situation: (1) All who believe in God atall believe 
in His eternal power and wisdom as well as in His 
righteousness and love. He is the Being from whose 
will and plan the actual universe takes its rise. He 
can not be conceived of as ignorant of His own de- 
signs at any point, or as unable to fulfil them. Nor, 
on the other hand, can any fact or event be con- 
ceived as existing or occurring apart from His will; 
that would be simply a partial atheism. Moreover, 
the Scriptures fully reveal and attest this concep- 
tion of God. Even the O T announces Him as the 
Creator of all, whose wisdom is the source of the 
universe and controller of all its events (Gn ch. 1; Pr 
3 19, 20, 8 22-31; Ps 104 27-30; Jer 10 12; Is 40 12, 13), 
who thoroughly comprehends the inner life of man 
(IS 167; Ps 139; Jer 179, 10) and directs his whole 
course of experience (Job 5 11-15; Pss 90, 91; Pr 
16 33). And all this is abundantly confirmed and 
illumined in the N T. The teaching of Jesus rests on 
the idea of God’s complete sovereignty over nature 
and man (Mt chs. 5-7); and so it is with the Apostolic 
teaching. God is not to be pictured ‘acs? in specula 
sedens expectaret fortuitos eventus’ (Calvin). (2) 
The universal human consciousness is aware of a 
guilt it can not remove, a thraldom in sin which 
it can not break. This, too, is assumed, asserted, 
expounded throughout Scripture (see Sry). This 
carries with it the conviction that man can never 
gain any merit before God’s righteousness. His only 
just desert is the extremity of punishment (Is 1 28; 
Ezk 18 4; Ro 39-20, 6 23, 7 24; I Jn 216,17). If God 
were to destroy the whole race, the act would be a 
just one in view of man’s universal sin. (3) But 
Scripture describes what man’s reason could never 
have discovered, viz., the working of the redeeming 
grace of God: (a) This loving-mercy of the righteous 


Predestination 
Preparation Day 





Judge selected Abraham and his race after him as the 
first instrument of a glorious purpose. ‘Through- 
out the O T we are made to see that God always 
takes the first step, always chooses the person whom 
He would use or bless, whether as prophet or king, 
or private saint, even a heathen king (Hr 11; Is 44 
28). Moreover, the rise of the Messianic hope means 
that God caused His ultimate purpose to be reflected 
in broken beams upon the hearts of His prophets and 
prophet bards (Heb. 11, 2). (b) The sending of 
Christ was predetermined in eternity (Eph 1 4; cf. 
Jn 17 24); the individual man in Christ had his place 
assigned him in the same eternal plan of God (Ro 8 
29, 30, 9-11; Eph 1 4-11). There is nothing more fully 
and variously insisted on in the N T, or more con- 
stantly confirmed in the experience of believers than 
this, that salvation is the unmerited and gracious 
gift of God. Mercy from its very nature never can 
be deserved, never can be earned, never can be ex- 
plained. Its root lies always deep in the mystery of 
His character and of His purpose who grants the 
mercy. Even the atonement which reveals, secures, 
and pledges this mercy to those who are ‘the called 
according to His purpose’ does not explain the grace 
from which it sprang, nor confer any right, even on 
‘the called,’ which is outside of that grace itself. 
(c) But further, this mercy which is eternally fore- 
ordained can not be defeated in time. That the 
grace of God is irresistible is also said to be wit- 
nessed alike by the N T and the universal Christian 
consciousness. The very act of faith in which this 
grace is realized is self-abandonment to the final 
power of God and is itself His gift (for which Eph 
2 8, with questionable exegesis, is usually cited). If 
the grace is irresistible through which the elect one 
passes into the life of Divine fellowship, the doctrine 
of final perseverance follows with an inevitable 
necessity 


2. Opposing Systems. The doctrine which has 
been sketched above took its rise in the mind of 
Augustine, who was stimulated to formulate and 
develop it by the positions taken by one who is 
known in Church history as Pelagius. (1) The 
Pelagian doctrine was an extravagance in its con- 
ception alike of man’s freedom and of Divine grace. 
The former is exaggerated to the extent of main- 
taining that every man is absolutely free at every 
moment to decide between right and wrong, that 
there is no inheritance of sinful conditions, that 
habit is no bond, and that, therefore, the grace of 
God is a mere adjutorium, an auxiliary to the native 
power of man to do good. (2) A mediating position 
is that occupied by the various degrees of semi- 
Pelagians (including the Roman Catholic Church 
since the Council of Trent), otherwise called Syner- 
gists, who hold that the human will cooperates with 
the Divine grace; this need not imply that man has 
any merit in salvation, since, as Melanchthon put 
it, his will leads him to seek that power from God 
without which salvation is impossible, and that 
power flows from sheer and undeserved mercy. (8) 
A third method adopted, for example, by J. B. 
Mozley (A Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine 
of Predestination, #71883), consists in assuming an 
agnostic position on philosophical grounds. This 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


726 





whole matter liesin a region where our ideas are both 
true and indistinct. We may start from the fact, and 
fact it is, that God makes the first approach to every 
individual in pure and unmerited grace, or from the 
other equally sure fact that man is conscious of 
desiring and seeking God and conscious of deliberate 
choice when he accepts mercy, and then we may 
make deductions regarding the ultimate relations 
between that Divine will in eternity and man’s will 
in time; but these deductions must inevitably be 
inadequate and therefore false. We are inherently 
incapable of thinking from these two bases—the 
eternal plan and the human will—so as to discover 
their harmony. 


3. Bases of Criticism of Predestinarianism. No 
helpful criticism of the Augustinian doctrine is 
possible which does not fully acknowledge the 
extraordinary speculative strength and the deep re- 
ligious spirit of that system. It founds and centers — 
all on God; and in this it immeasurably surpasses 
the puny homocentric systems which have their 
brief day. Religion is the discovery that man needs 
God absolutely, and the gospel is an answer, wholly 
out of God’s will of love, to that infinite need. The 
Augustinian system is an attempt to do full honor 
to.that human need and that Divine will. Hence 
criticism which weakens man’s sense of complete 
indebtedness to grace or which so insists on his free- 
dom as to involve the notion of a self-wrought 
righteousness is a wound to the heart of the Chris- 
tian consciousness. But the Augustinian system 
has been opposed by innumerable evangelical Chris- 
tians (specially by those known as Arminians) at 
two points: viz., in its doctrines of preterition and 
of irresistible grace. The true predestinarian can 
not conceive of saving grace except as irresistible, 
and hence he maintains that to the non-elect, to 
the souls that perish, it was never intended to be 
applied. Those are the main points of attack. And 
the arguments may be conveniently set forth as 
follows: 


(1) Regarding the passages which are cited above 
as the principal Pauline passages on the subject, the 
following facts seem to be important: (a) In Ro 
8 29, 30, the writer’s imagination carries him forward 
to the state of glory, to review the entire process from 
the final result. Looking backward, the perfected 
soul must attribute all its stages to the loving will of 
God. No human self-will has place or merit or 
praise in that wondrous retrospect. And all is traced 
ultimately to Him who in His eternal will foreor- 
dained what has come to pass. Nothing is said here 
about either the relation of this will to the lost or 
the function of the human will in the process. And 
yet this function is abundantly recognized else- 
where as a reality both stern and essential. (b) In 
Ro chs. 9-11, the discussion is concerned primarily 
with national life and destiny, but the Apostle does 
not avoid direct statements which must apply pri- 
marily to the individual (9 19-24). And there it is 
that the preteritionist can find verbal support for 
his position (esp. vs. 21, 22). But, on the other hand, 
the same great passage contains statements which 
attribute full responsibility for the disaster to the 
human action: (a) Israel sought righteousness by 


G27 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Predestination 
Preparation Day 





‘works’ and not by ‘faith’ (9 31 f£.); (b) the very 
‘zeal for God’ being bound up in their minds with 
a false conception of God’s righteousness led them 
astray (10 2, 3); (c) yet some did hearken, tho not 
all (10 16; cf. 3 3); (d) when Christ was preached 
certain branches were broken off ‘by their unbelief’ 
(11 20); (e) and ‘God is able to graft them in again’ 
(11 23, 24)—in a passage where the thought fluctuates 
constantly between the idea of the nation rejecting 
Christ and the individual doing so; (f) even the de- 
cree which ‘shut all up unto disobedience’ was tele- 
ological, and its aim is uttered in the astonishing 
statement, ‘that he might have mercy upon all’ (11 
32). (g) The remaining passage (Eph 1 3-14) is again 
concerned with the fact that in Christ Jew and Gen- 
tile are made one in the new community which is 
called the Church, and which is so richly described 
in this Epistle. As to this passage, emphasis must be 
laid upon the fact that no decree is described which 
is not conditioned by the name of Christ. Nor is the 
phrase ‘the good pleasure of His will’ left undefined, 
as if some end beyond all conception lay concealed 
in His redemptive act. Rather is it quite clearly 
described as ‘the praise of the glory of his grace.’ 
Grace, the holy and loving will of God, is as such 
the source, and its exercise is the end, of the whole 
process. To be gracious—to be love—is God’s 
nature, and to fulfil that nature in His relations to 
man, under the conditions of His righteous char- 
acter, is the object of the redemption in Christ. 


(2) Seripture as a whole assumes that man ex- 
ercises choice toward the will of God, whether that 
will appear as law to be obeyed or as grace to be 
accepted. In each case the result, whether of blame 
or praise, is attributed to the attitude of the human 
soul (e.g., Ro 2 1-16). Hence Israel’s unbelief is the 
real ground of Israel’s rejection; not original sin, 
but this climactic sin of despising grace. To this 
the whole course of the Christian consciousness bears 
witness. It carries in its life the two elements of 
dependence on God and action upon that depen- 
dence, of choice toward God and surrender to His 
choice. Neither can be ignored without damage to 
the conscience and the will of man. Paul is conscious 
of God’s call (Gal 1 15), but does not shrink from 
saying that he fights against his lower nature lest he 
should be ‘rejected’ (I Co 9 26, 27). The Philippians 
must work out salvation because God is working in 
them (Ph 2 12, 13). Throughout, the appeal of the 
gospel is to men who can act upon it, and throughout 
it is the sincere appeal of God’s love to all men. 
There is no darker side to the doctrine of preterition 
than its seeming attribution of insincerity to the 
assertions that God loves the world, that it is not 
His will that any soul should perish, and that He 
offers mercy without respect of persons. 


(3) The preteritionist is open to attack on other 
grounds, drawn from the wider range of Christian 
doctrine. One or two points only can be noted here. 
(a) The statement of Augustine that the lost are 
passed over in order to display God’s justice and the 
elect are saved in order to display His grace has lost 
its point since the rise of the fuller doctrine of a 
vicarious Atonement. The very nerve of that doc- 
trine is that in the saving of men by the Cross God 


has revealed His righteousness. Punishment is no 
longer necessary for that. (b) Again, the statement, 
that if faith is itself a determining factor in God’s 
choice then salvation is of merit, has also lost its 
point; for we no longer look on faith as a work 
which secures merit (see JusTiFIcATION). It is in its 
very nature the denial of personal merit and the 
acceptance of a Divine righteousness and a Divine 
strength. (c) Yet again, when Paul passes from the 
agony of the particular situation in which Israel is 
placed, to regard the cosmic or universal meaning of 
Christ in Eph ch. 1 and Col ch. 1, he does not present 
the eternal will of God as unconditioned. The Son of 
His love conditions the eternal purpose of God (Col 
113 ff.). Everything is foredetermined in relation to 
His Person and in the name of that eternal love. 
Human history is seen in the light of this love, as it 
were through the conditioning person of the Son. 


‘But in this case it must be human nature as it is 


acted upon by Christ, and as it reacts toward Him, 

that God eternally planned. Destiny is fixed not by 

ancestral sin, or by any fact apart from, or in addi- 
tion to, the redemption in Christ, but by the su- 
preme sin, which is unbelief—the rejection of His 

Supreme grace. 

Literature: For references to and descriptions of the chief 
controversies, see Harnack’s History of Dogma (transl. 1900); 
Fisher’s History of Christian Doctrine (1896); R. Seeberg, 
Lehrbuch der Dogmengeschichte (1895); also J. B. Mozley, 
cited above. For Biblical material, see the works of H. J. 
Holtzmann, B. Weiss, G. B. Stevens, etc., on N 7’ Theology, 
but especially Sanday and Headlam, Romans in ICC. 
See also the relative section on Election in the works on 
Systematic Theology by Martensen, Dorner, Kaftan, 
Chas. A. Hodge, A. H. Strong, etc. In HDB see articles on 
Election (J. O. F. Murray), Predestination (B. B. Warfield), 
Reprobation (James Denney). Bruce, St. Paul’s Concep- 
tion of Christianity (1896), ch. 17; D. W. Forrest, The 
Authority of Christ (1906), ch. 6 (On Human Destiny); 
A. G. Hogg, Redemption of This World (1922), ch. 6. 

W. D. 


PREFER: John the Baptist bore witness that, 
tho Christ was temporally his successor, yet, owing 
to His possessing an eternal priority, He had come 
to take precedence over him (€ureocbév wou yéyovey, 
Jn 1 15, 30, ‘become before me’ RV, ‘preferred’ AV), 
who was simply the ‘forerunner.’ 8. D.—M. W. J. 


PREPARATION DAY (xapacxeuvn): This term 


signifies in general any day which preceded a great 


feast. The usage is somewhat analogous to that of 
the English ‘eve’ (Christmas eve, New-year’s eve, 
etc.). In a very narrow sense, it came to be the 
name of the single day of the week which precedes 
the sabbath. Between these two extremes of usage 
lie the N T occurrences of the term (Mt 27 62; Mk 
15 42; Lk 23 54; Jn 19 14, 31, 42). In the Synoptics 
the day indicated is presumably Friday. Mark even 
explains by adding ‘that is, the. day before the 
Sabbath’ (xeockBatov). ‘John uses the qualifying 
expression ‘of the Passover’ as if the day preceding 
the Passover was customarily called ‘the prepara- 
tion of the Passover,’ irrespective of whether it fell 
on Friday or any other day. The rabbinical des- 
ignation of the day was ‘erebh happesah, ‘eve of 
the Passover,’ which is not exactly equivalent to 
John’s usage. Accordingly, John must have meant 
it either as the Synoptics did—that is, of the Friday 
of Passover week—or in a sense in which the ety- 


Presbyter 
Priesthood 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


728 





mological and primitive meaning coalesces with the 
conventional and specific one. That Friday was 
called the Preparation is very clear from Josephus 
(Ant. XVI, 6 2) and the ecclesiastical usage of the 
first half of the 2d cent. which undoubtedly followed 
that of the Jews (Did. 8). See also Fasts anp 


Frasts, § 7. ALO Zs. 
PRESBYTER, PRESBYTERY. See Cuurcu 
Lirs, § 8. 


PRESENCE: In most instances the occurrences 
of this word in EV need no discussion. But where 
the ‘presence’ of God is meant, the meaning is, in 
some cases, not immediately obvious. In all such 
instances the Heb. term is pénim, ‘face’ (in various 
forms, ‘face of,’ ‘my face,’ etc., often rendered ‘be- 
fore me,’ etc., in RV). (1) In one group of passages 
it is the invisible, but not less real, indwelling of God 
(or J’) in His sanctuary that is meant (II Ch 20 9; 
Ps 95 2, etc.). (2) In other cases it is the manifesta- 
tion of the power of J’’, in nature, war, pestilence, 
etc., that is in mind, ancient thought assigning such 
things to the immediate action of Deity (Ps 68 8; Is 
19 1, 64 2£., etc.). (3) Those parts of the earth to 


which He was supposed to be particularly near, or | 


in which He was particularly interested, or where 
He was accustomed to manifest Himself were ‘in 
His presence’ (Gn 3 8, 4 16; Jer 52 3, etc.). (4) More 
generally, His omnipresence is sometimes in mind 
(Ps 139 7, etc.). (5) The spiritual communion with 
God, felt as a blessed and present reality, is spoken 
of as His ‘presence’ (Ps 16 11, 31 20, 51 il, etc.). 
(6) The personal presence of God in His heavenly 
abode or court is referred to at times (Job 1 12, 27; 
I Ch 16 27 [?]). (7) Finally, we have the most sig- 
nificant use of the term in Ex 3314f. Moses, not 
satisfied with the promise of the ‘angel’ (Ex 32 34, 
33 2), begs for a fuller and closer manifestation of J’, 
and this is the reply, ‘My presence shall go’ (with 
thee’), to which Moses responds, ‘If thy presence 
go not up, carry us not up hence.” In other words, 
‘presence’ here means the personal presence of J” 


in the midst of His people. The whole passage with | 


its sequel in 34 6 ff. is one of the most elevated and 
spiritual in the O T. E. E. N. 
PRESENT. Sce Grrr; and Tax, Taxation. 
PRESIDENTS (7279, sar¢khin, probably a Per- 
sian loan-word, Dn 6 2-7): A title of administrative 
officers whose duties, however, are not defined, 
tho the incumbents seem to have been in a 
position of authority over the satraps. A. C. Z. 


PRESS, PRESS-VAT. See Vines AnD VINT- 
AGE, § 1. 


PRETORIUM: Gr. xoattéderov, a Latin word 
which was adopted into later Greek. It originally 
meant the headquarters of the ‘pretor’ or general 
in a camp; then came to be applied to the official 
residence of the ruler of a province. AV renders it 
common hall in Mt 27 27, and judgment hall in 
Jn 18 28, 33, 19 9; Ac 23 35; while in Mk 15 16 
it takes over the word Pretorium, and in Ph 1 13. 
translates ‘palace.’ The RV gives Pretorium in 
all the gospel passages, translates ‘palace’ in Ac 
23 35, and Pretorian Guard in Ph 1 13. In Jeru- 
salem the procurator had as his temporary resi- 





dence, or ‘pretorium,’ the palace of Herod in the 
western part of the city, near the Jaffa gate, tho 
some identify it very improbably with the castle of 
Antonia, the massive citadel and barracks that over- 
hung the Temple, the headquarters of the troops 
in the city. The magnificent palace of Herod the 
Great in Caesarea was used by the Roman procura- 
tors of Judea as their official residence. The render- 
ing of the RV in Ph 1 13 has good historical support. 
In this case Paul was chained to the soldiers of the 
guard. But Ramsay, following Mommsen, inter- 
prets the word as meaning ‘the supreme Imperial 
Court, doubtless in this case the prefect, or both 
prefects, of the Pretorian Guard together with the 
assessors and high officers of the court.’ 
R. A. F.—E. C. L. 

PREVENT: This word is used, in its more archaic 
sense, in the AV as the translation of qadham (in 
Pal and Hiph‘il), xpopOcdvety and gOdvey. It 
means: (1) “To be before,’ ‘anticipate’ in time (Ps 
119 147 f.; Job 41 11 [3]; Mt 17 25; I Th 4 15). (2) 
‘To bring timely help,’ ‘to succor’ (Ps 21 3 [4], 59 10 
[11], 79 8; Is 2114). (3) ‘to frustrate,’ ‘to come upon’ 
RV, with hostility (II S 22 6, 19=Ps 18 5 [6], 18 [19]; 
Job 30 27; Am 910). In Job 3 12 RV reads ‘receive 
me,’ 7.e., care for me so that I do not die. C.S. T. 


PREY: This term renders the following Heb. 


| words: (1) bdzaz, ‘to rob’ or ‘to spoil,’ and its derived 


nouns baz and bizzah, ‘spoil,’ ‘plunder,’ nearly always 
used of the spoil, persons or property, taken in war 
(Nu 14 3; Dt 2 35; Neh 4 4, etc.). (2) tereph, ‘that 
which is snatched’ or ‘torn,’ used mainly of the 
prey of wild beasts (Gn 49 9; Nu 23 24, ete.). (8) 
shdélal, and its noun shalal, usually rendered ‘spoil’; 
the common word for the spoil of battle (Jg 5 30; 
Jer 20 5, etc.). (4) malqdah (from laqah, ‘to take’), 
‘that which is taken’ (Nu 31 11 f., etc.). (5) ‘adh, 
‘booty.’ This term occurs in the present Heb. text 
in three places (Gn 49 27; Is 33 23; Zeph 3 8), in but 
one of which (the first) is its meaning certain. (6) 
’Okhel, ‘food’ (Job 9 26, 39 29). (7) tsayidh (from 
tstidh, ‘to hunt’ [?]), ‘food’ in general (Job 38 41). 
See also WARFARE, § 5. E. KE. N. 


PRICKS: In the O T this word is used in Nu 33 55 


| to translate the Heb. sékh (pl. sikkim), meaning 


anything sharp, LXX. ox6Aov (cf. II Co 127). In 
the N T the same word is found in Ac 95 AV, asa 
translation of xévte«, ‘goads,’ which, however, lacks 
good textual authority in this place. It does occur, 
however, in the account of Paul’s story of his con- 
version before Agrippa in Ac 26 14. Pe Td Ye 
PRIESTHOOD: 1. Introductory Statement. The 
subject of the Israelitic priesthood is involved in 
much obscurity. Our evidence is contained in a 
number of sources belonging to different periods, 
some of them only imperfectly preserved, many of 
them of uncertain date, all furnishing a number of 
data impossible to unite in a perfectly consistent and 
satisfactory presentation. In the second place, 
during the whole period of the existence of the priest- 
hood in Israel (nearly 1400 years) conditions were 
constantly changing, and this progressive movement 
is only imperfectly represented in our sources, some 
of which describe the conditions of an earlier time, 
others lay down principles to be put in force at some 


729 


future day, others set forth ideals never realized, 
while in but comparatively few cases, probably, do 
they describe things as they actually were at the 
date of writing. No discussion of the priesthood of 
Israel can hope to arrive at more than tentative con- 
clusions, at least on many points. In the following 
article the historical development of the priesthood 
will receive most attention, other aspects of the 
subject being subordinated to this. 


2. The Priesthood in the Earliest Documents. 
In the earliest documents of the O T the priesthood is 
generally mentioned only incidentally, not discussed 
specifically. The usual Heb. (and Phenician) term 
for priest was kohén. Among the early Arabs the 
related term kdhin signified ‘seer,’ and it is likely that 
in the earliest (pre-Mosaic) period the Heb. kohén 
and the Arab kahin were very much alike, especially 
since our earliest evidence (see below) regarding 
Israel’s priests emphasizes their ‘prophetic’ functions 
even more than their ‘priestly,’ in the ordinary sense 
of that word. A satisfactory etymology of kéhén has 
‘ not been found (cf. Koberle in PR E?, vol. xvi, p. 32), 
altho the sense ‘the one who stands [to officiate as 
priest]? has many advocates (cf. Driver, Camb. 
Bible on Ex 281). The term k¢mdrim, chemarim, 
found a few times (II K 23 5; Hos 105; Zeph 1 4) asa 
designation of idolatrous priests, was probably a 
foreign word. 


(a) The Priesthood in J and E and the older Por- 
tions of the Historical Books Jg-II K. 

Very little is said regarding priests in the old nar- 
ratives J and E. The patriarchs offer sacrifice as 
heads of their families or clans (Gn 12 8, 159 f., etc.). 
Rebekah goes (to a sanctuary with a priest?) ‘to in- 
quire’ of J’’ (Gn 25 22). In the former case the act is 
not thought of as specifically priestly. Incidentally, 
in Ex 19 22 (J) priests are mentioned as present in the 
camp, but who they were, whether the priests of the 
several tribes, or ‘Levites’ as Aaron was (cf. Ex 4 14), 
is not stated. On the other hand, in the account of 
the ratification of the covenant. in 24 5 (E), instead of 
priests, ‘young men of the children of Israel’ were 
sent by Moses to offer the sacrifices. The difference 
here may be that of the view-point of the two docu- 
ments, E seeming to be little interested in the or- 
ganized priesthood. In the old accounts of the Mo- 
saic legislation in Ex 20 22-23 33 and 34 10-26 nothing 
whatever is said of priests. But the implied references 
to sanctuaries (20 24, 22 29, 23 14-19, etc.) assume a 
priesthood as existing. The passage which (tho only 
a fragment) gives us practically our only early in- 
formation regarding the regular priesthood in Israel 
is Ex 32 25-29 (J), where the ‘sons of Levi’ are repre- 
sented as being rewarded for their loyalty to J’, at 
the time of the great defection of the mass of the 
people, by the priesthood; for this is the meaning of 
the technical expression (ver. 29) ‘consecrate your- 
selves . . . to Jehovah’ (lit. ‘fill your hand to J’”; ef. 
Jg 17 5; also Ex 28 41, etc.). The same event is 
referred to in Dt 108 (based on JE), where, more ex- 
plicitly, it is said: ‘At that time Jehovah set apart 
the tribe of Levi, to bear the ark of the covenant of 
Jehovah, to minister unto him and to bless in his 
name.’ In the notice about the making of the Tent 
of Meeting (Ex 38 7-11, E, also a fragment) it is 


A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Presbyter 
Priesthood 





rather surprizing to read that Joshua (instead of 
‘priests’ or ‘Levites’) was appointed by Moses to 
have charge of the Tent. In the JE sections of 
Joshua, which have been subjected to a pretty thor- 
ough-going ‘Deuteronomic’ revision (see Hrxa- 
TEUCH, § 20, and Josuua, Book or, § 5), priests, or, 
as is said in 3 3, ‘the priests the Levites,’ carried the 
Ark at the crossing of the Jordan (ch. 3) and at the 
siege of Jericho (ch. 6), which is in agreement with 
Dt 108. In Jg the only reference to priests is in the 
old and instructive story in ch. 17 f. regarding the 
foundation of the sanctuary at Dan in the most 
northern part of the land. In this story we learn 
that two of the important functions of a priest were 
caring for a sanctuary and consulting the oracle 
(i.e., being the medium through whom the Divine 
will was to be ascertained). We learn further: first, 
that it was possible in ancient Israel for one to set 
apart one of his own family to act as a priest (17 5; 
ef. 1S 71; II S 818) tho himself not of a priestly 
family, and second, that a ‘Levite’ was, however, 
considered the legitimate person to be a priest (17 13). 
It is also interesting to note that the ‘Levite’ spoken 
of here hailed from Bethlehem-judah, as tho he were 
a Judahite by blood and a ‘Levite’ by profession, 
i.e., the term ‘Levite’ seems not to be used here in the 
tribal sense. This ‘Levite’ was looking for a perma- 
nent home (17 9), and was evidently glad to accept 
the offer made him by Micah, and still more content 
to become the priest of the tribe of Dan (1819f.). Ac- 
cording to 18 30, he was none other than a grandson 
of Moses, but it is probable that this notice is to be 
distinguished from the main story as containing a 
separate tradition. 


The information concerning the priesthood given 
in the early narratives in I and II S is of the highest 
value, altho not as full or clear as we might wish. 
With Eli, ‘the priest’ at the sanctuary in Shiloh, 
were associated his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, 
who seem to have had the active management of the 
sanctuary largely in their hands (I § 1 3, 9, 212 €., 
etc.). The sanctuary at Shiloh was a ‘temple,’ not 
atent. The arrangements appear to have been quite 
simple. There was easy access on the part of the 
worshipers to the immediate vicinity of the door of 
the sanctuary (19 f.,212f.). Instead of a large body 
of ministering ‘Levites’ (as required in the Priest’s 
Code; see § 9, below) we read only of a priest’s ‘ser- 
vant’ attending to the cooking of the sacrifices (2 13). 
While there seem to have been well-known customs 
regarding the method of sacrifice, the priest’s portion, 
etc., the absence of everything like the elaborate pre- 
scribed ritual of P is noteworthy (212 ff.). Nothing is 
said of the genealogy of Eli in the earlier portions of 
the narrative (in I S chs. 1-6). As priest, Eli had 
charge of the sanctuary, exercised prophetic func- 
tions, and acted also as local judge. As Shiloh was 
the sanctuary where the Ark was kept, it was the 
most important sanctuary in Israel. At the same 
time, the whole narrative seems to be altogether in- 
consistent with the idea of one only ‘high priest,’ the 
head of a hierarchy such as is described in PC. (see 
§ 9 (b), below). 

In the story of Samuel’s leadership of Israel (I S 
chs. 7-12) there is no mention whatever of priest or 


Priesthood A NEW STANDARD 


Levite. Samuel was, technically, neither, tho, with 
the exception of being stationed permanently at a 
sanctuary, he exercised all priestly functions (cf. 
especially [S$ 913). In the stories of Saul’s campaign 
against the Philistines (I S 14 3, 18 f.) and of David’s 
struggle with Saul (I S 23 6-10) priests appear as 
bearers of the ephod (q.v.), by which the will of J” 
was ascertained. In the first of these references it is 
Ahijah, son of Ahitub the grandson of Eli; in the 
second, it is Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, also son of 
Ahitub, and therefore either a brother of, or identical 
with, Ahijah. In either case the descent from Eli is 
to be noted (tho it rests solely on the notice in 14 3). 
The story of Saul’s massacre of the eighty-five 
priests at Nob is of interest mainly for its intimation 
of the large number of priests at that sanctuary, all 
of them belonging apparently to the same family, or, 
better, clan. The story is late in its present form, 
however, and may not represent accurately the 
actual occurrence. The account of David’s ex- 
perience with Ahimelech at Nob (211-9) isinteresting 
mainly as implying that at this place there was a very 
important sanctuary, where the holy showbread was 
placed before J’’, and where David’s trophy, the 
sword of Goliath, was laid up ‘behind the ephod.’ It 
is usually assumed that Nob succeeded Shiloh as the 
residence of the priestly family of which Eli was the 
head when Shiloh was devastated (or threatened) by 
the Philistines, but of this there is no direct evi- 
dence. It is more likely that at Nob there was an 
old independent sanctuary with its own body of 
priests, as was the case at Gibeon (I K 3 4), Bethel 
(IS 10 3), and many other places. 


When David became king and established a sanc- 
tuary of J’’ at his new capital, Jerusalem, he put his 
companion and friend in exile, Abiathar, in charge as 
priest (II 8 8 17, 20 25). With him was associated 
Zadok (lineage not given). No special importance 
is attached to these priests in the entire account of 
David’s reign, not even in the account of the removal 
of the Ark to Jerusalem. David himself, on im- 
portant occasions, assumes a priestly attitude and 
performs priestly acts (II S 6 14-19; cf. the similar 
attitude of Solomon, I K 8 22 ff.), and even appoints 
certain of his sons to act as priests (II 88 is). The 
subordination of the priests to the royal authority is 
assumed throughout the history of the kingdom. 
This is clearly evidenced in Solomon’s deposition of 
the aged Abiathar and banishment of him to his 
patrimony at Anathoth (I K 2 26f.). In the account 
of the dedication of Solomon’s Temple the priests are 
merely mentioned as the ones who transported the 
Ark from David’s sanctuary to its new resting-place 
(IK 838.). The part taken by the king, who acted 
the part of a priest-father to his people, was so con- 
spicuous that nothing but mere routine work was 
left for the priests to do. 


In the account of the innovations introduced by 
Jeroboam I in N. Israel, it is said that he ‘made 
priests from among all the people, that were not of 
the sons of Levi’ (I K 12 31). The point of view here 
is evidently that only ‘sons of Levi’ were legimate 
priests. Jeroboam himself is represented as offi- 
ciating (as a matter of course) at the altar as priest- 
king (I K 12 33, 13 1-4). 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 730 


The remaining passages where mention is made of 
priests in I and II K, down to the account of the 
reign of Josiah, add little to our information. It 
was ‘the priest’ of J’’ Jehoiada, whose wife was a 
king’s daughter according to II Ch 22 11), who or- 
ganized the revolt against the usurper Athaliah and 
her Baal-cult, and placed the legitimate heir Joash 
on the throne (II K 11 4f.). The account in II K 
ch. 12 incidentally reveals the presence of a number 
of priests in attendance at the Temple, but the ad- 
ministration of affairs appears to have been some- 
what lax. It is interesting to observe that the king’s 
word was supreme. ‘The priests were his subordi- 
nates and obeyed his commands. The same sub- 
serviency to the royal will is to be noted in the case 
of Urijah, head priest of the Temple under Ahaz, 
at whose command a new altar, after a heathen 
model, was made to displace the old altar used by 
Solomon (II K 1610 £.). 


(b) The Attitude of the Eighth-Century Prophets 
Toward the Priests. 

The great prophets of the 8th cent., Amos and — 
Hosea in N. Israel, and Isaiah and Micah in Judah, 
dealt with the religious conditions of their times 
frankly and courageously. 

Amos rebukes the masses, especially the upper 
classes, for their excessive zeal for formal religion 
coupled with lack of regard for morality, and for 
corrupt practises at the sanctuaries (27 f.); for their 
selfish delight in sacrifices, free-will offerings, and 
tithes (8 4 f.), and in pilgrimages to famous shrines 
(5 5); and for their idea of the supreme importance 
of such forms of worship (5 21 #.). Amos could not 
have had a high opinion of the priests of the sanc- 
tuaries where such ideas were fostered. As the signs 
of the gracious providence of J’’ in the past history 
of Israel he names prophets and Nazirites (2 11), but 
(significantly?) omits priests. His reply to Amaziah, 
the priest of the ‘king’s sanctuary’ at Bethel, deals 
with him as an individual rather than as a priest and, 
apparently, does not question the legitimacy of his 
priesthood (7 10 ff.). 

In Hosea the N. Israelite priesthood is severely 
arraigned. It is not the illegitimate (7.e., non- 
Aaronic, or even non-Levitic, as might be expected 
from I K 12 31) status of these priests that is con- 
demned, but their gross neglect of known duty. This 
duty, according to Hosea, was mainly to teach the 
people to know J” (4 49) aright. Instead of doing 
this, the prophet declares ‘they feed on the sin of my 
people and set their heart on iniquity’ (48). Thatis, 
they were content with the rich income they derived 
from the elaborate cultus, which was full of gross 
corruptions, and only encouraged such things in- 
stead of rebuking them (cf. also 51#., 69). For cultus 
itself, 7.e., sacrifices, etc., Hosea, like Amos, seems to 
have had little respect (cf. 6 6), and therefore the 
‘law’ (46) which the priests were to teach Israel was 
the moral and spiritual element of the religion of J’, 
not the ceremonial. In Isaiah (287) and Micah (3 11) 
two charges are made against the priests, drunken- 
ness and teaching ‘for hire,’ indicating that the Jeru- 
salem priests were in as sad Tas of reform as were 
those of N. Israel. 

(c) The Evidence of Dt 33 8-11. 


731 A NEW STANDARD 


This passage in the ancient poem entitled “The 
Blessing of Moses’ is so important as to demand the 
closest attention. At whatever date the poem was 
written, it expresses the view of the priesthood enter- 
tained by devout followers of J’’ at that time. The 
main points emphasized here are the following: 


(a) The priestly class is designated as ‘Levi’ and 
counted as one of the tribes of Israel. (b) Their de- 
votion to J’”’ is set forth in the strongest terms and 
stated to have proved itself in a test at Massah and 
Meribah. (c) Their loyalty is further shown by the 
fact that they have placed fidelity to J’’ above all 
other claims, even those of kindred. (d) Their 
peculiar privilege is that to them is entrusted the 
‘Thummim’and ‘Urim’ of J’’. (e) Their priestly duties 
are, in the main, three: to make known the will of J’ 
through the sacred oracle or lot (‘Thummim’ and 
‘Urim’), to teach Israel the law and ordinances of J”, 
and to officiate at the altar of J’. (f) Finally, the 
more secular aspect of ‘Levi’ is revealed in ver. 11, 
where the prayer is that J’’ may bless His substance 
and put down His enemies. 

But the date and the interpretation of this impor- 
tant passage are open to debate. To the present 
writer a date in the 9th cent. or early in the 8th cent. 
seems satisfactory. The reference to a ‘testing’ at 
Massah and Meribah (ver. 8) suggests the events 
recorded in Nu 20 10-13 (cf. Ex 17 2-7), but the tradi- 
tion is not identical What is said in ver. 9 is 
probably to be explained by Ex 32 27 ff. (see above). 
The ‘Thummim’ and ‘Urim’ are referred to in IS 
14 41 (according to the true Heb. text) and in 28 6, 
and there can be little doubt that it meant the sacred 
lot which it was the priest’s special privilege to un- 
derstand how to ‘cast’ and interpret. 


3. Historical Result. It is on the basis of a correct 
interpretation of these early notices that a true 
view of Israel’s priesthood must rest. A very diffi- 
cult phase of the problem is that relating to the con- 
nection between the tribe of Levi and Levi as the 
priestly element in Israel. The notice in the ancient 
poem (Gn 49 5 ff.) shows clearly that there was a 
tribe Levi, but there it is purely secular and is con- 
demned, while in Dt 33 8 ff. it is religious and praised. 
Aaron is spoken of as ‘the Levite’ in a sense other 
than tribal in Ex 414. Weare here in the presence of 
an insoluble difficulty. Conjectural solutions abound, 
but none is satisfactory (cf. Burney, The Book of 
Judges, 1920, pp. 436-441). Whatever the original 
tribal connection of the Levites may have been, this 
much seems certain—that from Moses’ time on 
until after the Exile the priestly class in Israel was 
spoken of as ‘Levites.’ The etymological significance 
of the word /éwt is unknown, and no theory can be 
based on conjectures regarding it. To reward their 
loyalty to J’’ Moses constituted the Levites of his 
day the priests of the newly organized people. This 
meant originally not the exclusive right to offer 
sacrifices, for that could be done by almost any one 
in ancient Israel, but rather the guardianship of the 
Ark, the care of any sanctuary of J’’ in Israel, the 
custody of the sacred lot, and the duty of making 
known the principles and practises of the religion of 
J’’ to the people. This is actually about all that the 
early sources permit to be asserted regarding the 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Priesthood 


priesthood as organized by Moses. They leave us 
in almost complete ignorance: regarding the position 
of Aaron. He is mentioned in both J and EH, but 
rather as a mere assistant or subordinate of Moses, 
and in the organization at Sinai he is assigned no 
special place. We do not know how he came to be 
viewed as an important priest and head of the 
priestly line of any given sanctuary. 

When the tribes of Israel settled in Canaan and 
distributed themselves over its territory they made 
use of a large number of sanctuaries, scattered in 
different parts of the land (see Hicu Piacr). While 
the most important of these was, perhaps, Shiloh, 
because the Ark was finally there, many others were 
held in high esteem, e.g., Gilgal, Bethel, Beer-sheba, 
Nob, Gibeon, Hebron, etc. At each of these per- 
manent sanctuaries there was a priesthood and 
this priesthood was composed (probably) of Levites. 
Levites who were not attached to any particular 
shrine maintained themselves as best they could. 
Only as a Levite was attached to a sanctuary was he, 
under normal circumstances, actually a priest. 


The establishment of the Davidic sanctuary at 
Jerusalem proved to be an event of most decisive 
influence on the priesthood of Israel. Here, after the 
Temple of Solomon was built, was the most magni- 
ficent sanctuary in Israel. While it is true that the 
early record in I K does not give us many details 
regarding the priesthood here, and, on the other 
hand, that the accounts in I and II Ch regarding 
David’s elaborate arrangements of priests and 
Levites and other ministers of the sanctuary is 
doubtless but a projection back into the Davidic 
Age by the priestly author of Ch of the ideas and 
institutions of his own day, still it is altogether 
likely that from the first the arrangements at this 
royal sanctuary were somewhat elaborate—that 
is, there were numerous priests, the leading family 
being that of Zadok, and these were graded into! 
several classes as the ‘great,’ or chief priest (II K 
12 10, 22 4, 8, 23 4), and the priests of the ‘second 
order’ (II K 23 4, 25 8), and the three (or more) 
‘keepers of the threshold’ (II K 23 4, 258). In addi- 
tion, there were probably numerous subordinate 
Temple servants, such as ‘hewers of wood and draw- 
ers of water’ (Jos 9 21 ff.), consisting mainly of people 
of foreign blood, as captives in war or remnants of 
the old Canaanite population now reduced to servi- 
tude (cf. I K 9 20 f.), who were the ancestors of the 
later and more formally organized groups known as 
‘Nethinim’ (q.v., and cf. I Ch 9 2; Ezr 2 43, etc.), and 
‘the children of Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 2 55, etc.). 
But of the details of the whole organization and the 
methods of their administration of their office, 
little is positively known. 


The status of the priesthood in the Kingdom 
period was high. Probably, there was no other class 
in ancient Israel whose influence was so great. The 
glowing eulogy in Dt 33 8 ff., which states this in its 
most favorable terms, reveals the priesthood at its 
best, and it is altogether probable that at many a 
sanctuary in ancient Israel the priesthood were 
revered as the exponents of the Law of J” and the 
guides of the people in the way of His judgments. 

The support of the priesthood was derived mainly 


Priesthood 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


732 





from the various kinds of offerings, as those portions 
which were unconsumed on the altar or by the wor- 
shipers were the share of the priests. There were 
other sources of income such as tithes (cf. Am 4 4), 
and presents of money or provisions (cf. Gn 28 22; 
IS 103). The earlier notices say almost nothing 
about this, but in the later codes the income of the 
priests is quite definitely prescribed, doubtless in 
accordance with ancient usage. 

With the passing away of the Northern Kingdom 
in 722 B.c., the future of the priesthood became de- 
pendent entirely on the fortunes of Judah and 
Jerusalem, especially the latter, and from this time 
on the history of the priesthood becomes practically 
that of the priestly organization at Jerusalem. Here 
was the center of the organized religious life of the 
nation, and the customs followed here would be 
likely to be imitated in the other sanctuaries of 
Judah, of which there were many, until the reform 
of Josiah (621 B.c.) abolished them all and made the 
Temple in Jerusalem the sole public sanctuary in 
Judah. 


4, The Priesthood in the Code of Dt. This brings 
us to the view of the priesthood set forth in the Code 
of Dt, which was compiled some time near 650 B.c. 
(see DeurERoNoMY, § 5) and made the basis of 
Josiah’s reform of 621. 


In the introduction to the Code (10 8) the tribe 
of Levi is spoken of as having been ‘set apart’ by 
J’’ to bear the Ark, to ‘minister’ before J’’, and to 
‘bless’ in His name, and in accordance with this the 
tribe had no special territory, like the other tribes, 
but was scattered here and there throughout Israel 
and dependent largely upon the good-will and 
charity of their fellow Israelites (cf. also 181 ff.). 

In this Code the standing expression for the priests 
is ‘the priests the Levites’ (18 1 and passim), 1.e., 
the Levites (viewed in Dt as the members of the 
tribe of Levi) are the priestly element in Israel and as 
such every Levite is de gure a priest, altho he might 
not be one de facto. This view is fully stated in 181-8, 
which must be interpreted for its historical signi- 
ficance in the light of the preceding prescriptions in 
ch. 12, in which the position is taken that there is to 
be but one sanctuary in the land where the sacrifices 
can be legitimately offered and priests officiate and 
the people assemble for their social worship. The 
officiating priests at this sanctuary (which was the 
Temple, altho never expressly so named) were 
Levites, and to this sanctuary any Levite dwelling 
in any part of the land had the right to come and 
officiate as a priest (18 6-8). This regulation, apart 
from the view that underlies it, is probably to be 
understood as intended to cover those cases that 
were likely to occur whenever the Code should be- 
come generally observed. It is not likely that the 
Code has in mind a constantly shifting priesthood at 
Jerusalem. It can hardly be doubted that, when 
the Code was compiled, the Jerusalem priesthood was 
fairly well organized. This is implied in the Code 
itself, incidentally, in the phrase ‘the priest that 
shall be in those days’ (26 3). It is of utmost im- 
portance to observe that in Dt ‘priest’ and ‘Levite’ 
are practically equivalent terms. There is no trace 
of the idea that the Levites were the servants of the 


priests. The only distinction is that not all Levites 
were actually officiating as priests at the sanctuary. 


The support of the priests is provided for in 18 3f. 
thus: ‘And this shall be the priests’ due from the 
people, the shoulder, and the two cheeks, and the 
maw. The first-fruits of thy grain, of thy new wine, 
and of thine oil, and the first of the fleece of thy 
sheep shalt thou give him.’ Other provisions in the 
Code, such as we find in 12 12, 18, 14 27, 29 (where the 
Levite is to receive a share of the tithes every three 
years as also in 26 12 ff.), 16 11, 14, indicate that these 
gifts were not always brought to the sanctuary, but 
could also be distributed to the Levites, who, like 
the ‘stranger,’ were to be found ‘within thy gates’ in 
all the cities of the land. What were the duties of 
these numerous Levites, who were scattered here 
and there throughout the land, is not in the Code, 
probably because the ideal (all priests at the one only 


sanctuary) and the actual conditions at the time 


(many Levite-priests scattered over the land at the 
various sanctuaries) were somewhat in conflict and 
no clear statement was possible. The importance 
of the Levites in the local communities is perhaps in- 
dicated in 17 9, 12, 19 17, and 21 5, where it is implied 
that they constituted a part of the local judiciary. 
A query suggests itself: was there any opposition at 
any time to the claim of exclusive priestly rights, 
etc., on the part of ‘Levi’? Cf Nu ch. 17 and see 
AAROoN’s Rop. 


5. The Effect of the Reform of 621 B.C. Such 
were the general conditions when the reform of 621 
brought about a change with far-reaching conse- 
quences. In general, the immediate effect of this 
reform was that the provisions of the Code of Dt 
were now made binding on the religious life of the 
nation (II K ch. 23). All formal religion was now 
concentrated in Jerusalem. The many sanctuaries 
(‘high places’) of the different cities of the land were 
dismantled and the Temple was made the only legi- 
timate place of worship. The effect was to greatly 
enhance the prestige of the priesthood of the Temple. 
However, the priests of the old local sanctuaries who 
now flocked to Jerusalem were not allowed ‘to come 
up to the altar of Jehovah at Jerusalem’ (II K 23 9), 
i.e., they were refused the full privileges accorded 
them by the Code (Dt 18 6-8), but were allowed ‘to 
eat unleavened bread among their brethren.’ Here 
we are to find, in all probability, the beginning of 
that formal distinction, unknown to the Code of 
Dt, within the ranks of the Levitical body, between 
the ‘priests’ proper and the remaining Levites, who, 
while retaining certain priestly privileges and en- 
titled to support, were not allowed to officiate at the 
altar. The priestly body which was in actual posses- 
sion of the Temple at the time of the reform tena- 
ciously clung to its privileges, and henceforth 
counted itself as the only legitimate body of priests. 
They could claim descent from Zadok, and the tend- 
ency as time passed was to emphasize this as the 
test of legitimacy. It is not likely that the Temple 
priests were able to carry out this program with 
complete success, and in spite of their efforts the 
ranks of the priesthood were probably quite ma- 
terially increased by country Levites, who asserted 
their rights and were able to maintain them. This 


— + 


733 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Priesthood 





will account for the relatively large number of 
priests in postexilic days. 

The references to the priests by Jeremiah, whose 
work was contemporary with the reform movement, 
are mainly to the effect that they were delinquent 
in the fulfilment of their duty as the teachers of 
righteousness (1 1, 18, 2 8, 26, etc.). The organization 
remained, as before, subservient to the royal will 
and was as willing to sanction the policy of the cor- 
rupt Jehoiakim and Zedekiah as to approve that of 
their righteous father, Josiah. Incidentally, ref- 
erences in Jer (191, 201, 29 25 f., 52 24) show that the 
priesthood was well organized up to the fall of Jeru- 
salem (586 B.c.). 


6. Ezekiel’s Theory of the Priesthood. The 
leniency with which the exiles were treated enabled 
the priests to maintain their organization and made 
it possible for them to plan for the measures to be 
taken when the restoration should take place. The 
prophet Ezekiel, himself a priest, stated his views in 
his ideal sketch of the future community (Ezk chs. 
40-48). The Levitical priesthood is to be divided, ac- 
cording to Ezekiel, into two classes: the one, the 
‘sons of Zadok who from among the sons of Levi 
come near to Jehovah to minister unto him’ are to 
be ‘the keepers of the charge of the altar’ (40 46). 
These alone are to be priests in the full sense of the 
word (44 15 f.). The other group, designated as ‘the 
Levites, that went far from me when Israel went 
astray,’ could minister in the sanctuary, ‘having 
oversight at the gates of the house, and ministering in 
the house; they shall slay the burnt offering and the 
sacrifice for the people and shall stand before them 
to minister unto them.’ But ‘they shalk not come 
near unto me to execute the office of a priest unto 
me nor to come to any of my holy things, unto the 
things that are most holy; but they shall bear their 
shame. . . . Yet I will make them keepers of the 
charge of the house’ (44 10-14). The reason assigned 
for this prescription, viz., that the Levites ‘went 
astray,’ must be taken to refer to the ‘high-place’ 
worship, which had been put under the ban by Dt, 
and which was doubtless largely tainted with idola- 
try, altho under Manasseh ai least, if not at other 
times, the ‘sons of Zadok’ in Jerusalem must have 
been guilty of the same thing. 


The functions and privileges assigned to the priests 
by Ezekiel are set forth most fully in 44 15-31. They 
alone were permitted to enter the sanctuary and 
minister at the ‘table’ (7.e., altar). When so doing, 
they were to be clothed with appropriate (linen) 
vestments, which were not to be worn at other times. 
They were to keep their hair trimmed, but not 
shaven. They were to abstain from wine when 
ministering within the inner court. In their marriage 
relations they were to be circumspect. They were to 
teach the people of J” the difference between the 
‘holy’ and the ‘common,’ the clean and the unclean. 
They were to be the judges of the people, and they 
themselves were to observe all the commands. Their 
income and support were to be derived entirely from 
their office. They were to eat the vegetable offerings, 
the sin-offering, and the trespass-offering. All 
‘devoted’ things were to be theirs, also the first of the 
first-fruits, and the heave-offerings, and the first 


meal for baking. A strip of territory in the center of 
the land 25,000 cubits long by 10,000 wide was to be 
reserved for them and their families. In the center 
of this was the sanctuary (500 cubits square). To 
the N. of this was to be another like strip assigned 
to the Levites, while S. of it a narrower strip (5,000 
cubits wide) was for the ‘city.’ To the E. and W. of 
this square (25,000 by 25,000 cubits) was to be the 
territory of the ‘prince,’ whose main duty was to pro- 
vide the offerings (451-8). These specifications show 
that to Ezekiel the future community was viewed 
from a purely theocratic point of view—a church 
rather than a state. At the center was to be the 
sanctuary, and next to that the priesthood, the holy 
portion of the community, standing between the 
community and God. 

It is remarkable that in all these details there is no 


~mention made of a high priest or of gradations in the 


priestly body. Further, there is no reference to 
Aaron, or to the ‘sons of Aaron’ as a designation of 
the priests. All the other Levites are considered to 
have had a legitimate title to the priesthood, but to 
have forfeited it through their misconduct. In all 
these respects the differences between Ezekiel and 
the Priest’s Code are noteworthy. 


7. The Priesthood in the Holiness Code (Lv chs. 
17-26). Parallel in many respects to the Code of Dt 
and Ezekiel’s ideal constitution is the code now 
generally known as the Holiness Code (HC) in Lv 
chs. 17-26 (see HexatEucn, § 23, and Leviricus). 
Here the tendency so marked in Ezekiel is found 
elaborated more fully. The rules of ceremonial 
purity to be applied to the priests are laid down with 
much detail (21 1-22 16). In distinction from, and pos- 
sibly intended as an advance upon, Ezekiel’s posi- 
tion in HC we find distinct mention (21 10-15) of the 
‘high priest among his brethren, upon whose head 
the anointing oil is poured, and that is consecrated 
to put on the garments.’ This priest, above all 
others, is to be most careful of his conduct (cere- 
monially). In HC also the priests are spoken of not 
as Levites, but as ‘sons of Aaron’ or ‘the seed of 
Aaron,’ and, apparently, the priesthood is restricted 
to these. But many scholars regard this as a later 
addition to the original form of HC. All that can be 
said with certainty is that among the priestly scribes 
of the exilic and postexilic times, who busied them- 
selves with the task of perfecting the Law as the 
constitution of the new community, the position that 
descent from Aaron was necessary in order to be a 
priest finally became so well established that it was 
regarded as indisputable. The passages exhibiting 
this view in HC are probably later than Ezekiel, 
whatever may be said of the date of this Code in its 
original form. It may well be that descent from 
Aaron was the reply made by non-Zadokite priests 
whose legitimacy was challenged by the Zadokite 
group. 

8. The Priests at the Time of the Return. In 
the lists of the returned exiles preserved in Ezr and 
Neh it is said that 4,289 priests returned, belonging 
to four main families: Jedaiah-Jeshua, Immer, 
Pashhur, and Harim (Ezr 2 36-39; Neh 7 39-42). 
Apparently, these represent the four main families 
into which the whole body of priests had been divid- 


Priesthood A NEW STANDARD 


ed in the Exile period. This number was later 
increased—finally to twenty-four. In addition to the 
priestly element that returned, there were 74 Le- 
vites, 148 ‘singers,’ the ‘sons’ of Asaph, and 138 
‘porters’ representing six families. The small num- 
ber of Levites in comparison with the priests is 
remarkable. Ezra, seventy-five year later, also 
found the Levites unwilling to leave Babylonia for 
Palestine; only by earnest effort did he secure 
eighteen to go with him (Har 8 18 f.), and with them 
220 Nethinim. 

The priests, then, made up a large proportion 
(approximately one-tenth, according to the figures 
given) of the returned exiles. At the head of this 
body was Joshua, the son of Jozadak, grandson of 
Seraiah, the chief priest of the Temple at the time 
of the fall of Jerusalem. To this official is accorded 
a very high place by the prophets Haggai (Hag 1 1, 
12 ff., 21 ff.) and Zechariah (Zec 31 ff., 611 ff.). Here 
we find the high priest coordinated with the governor 
appointed by the Persian king in the exercise of 
authority in the community The redactor of 
the Book of Zechariah recognizes him as worthy 
of a crown, and thus imputes to him something 
of an ideal of Messianic significance. Thus we 
see that one phase of Ezekiel’s program, the 
subordination of the civil to the priestly au- 
thority, began to be realized in the postexilic 
period and almost immediately after the Return. 
While exact data are wanting as to the details of 
the development, all conditions were favorable to 
bringing about the result we find set forth, from a 
more or less ideal point of view, in the legal or 
‘priestly’ portions of Ex. Ly, Nu, and, later, pre- 
supposed in the narrative of the Chronicler (I and 
II Ch, Ezr, Neh), written about 300 B.c. 


9. The Priesthood as Set Forth in PC. The 
theory of the priestbood in PC is set forth partly 
in the form of historical narrative and partly in the 
form of legal prescription. In general, the narrative 
portion serves mainly as furnishing a convenient 
background for the laws. The perplexing and diffi- 
cult problem of the relation of the different strata 
discoverable in PC to one another can not be dis- 
cussed here. It may suffice to state that most critics 
to-day distinguish three main elements in the com- 
position of PC, viz.: (1) the purely legal element 
consisting of laws of various dates; (2) the main 
narrative outline in which the theory is most com- 
pletely set forth; and (8) supplementary material, 
which was added from time to time with a view 
either to force practise into more perfect con- 
formity with theory or to adjust the formal law to 
a more close harmony with actual practise. Con- 
sequently, the representation of the priesthood 
found in PC is marked by many apparent dis- 
crepancies and inconsistencies. The prescriptions 
were never all in operation at any one time, and 
some of them, probably, were never actually 
practised. 

The theory of the priesthood in PC may be con- 
sidered conveniently under the following points: 

(a) The Distinction Between Priests and Levites. 

The priests are limited strictly to Aaron and his 
male-descendants. Other members of the tribe of 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


734 


Levi are simply Levites, not priests. Aaron and his 
sons alone can ‘come nigh unto the vessels of the 
sanctuary and unto the altar’ (Nu 18 1-7; cf. Ex 
29 9).. According to Nu 8 5 ff., the Levites were 
‘given’ to Aaron and his sons as their ministers. 
Thus from the old view that ‘priest’ and ‘Levite’ 
were equivalent terms, the advance was made to the 
position that the ‘Levite’ was no priest at all, only 
the priest’s servant. In the emphasis on descent 
from Aaron as the indispensable qualification for the 
priesthood, the condition laid down by Ezekiel, de- 
scent from Zadok, is carried back to its ideal starting 
point, Aaron himself. In other words, the descend- 
ants of the Temple priesthood of Josiah’s day who 
successfully resisted the provisions of the Code of 
Dt (which would have placed all the Levite-priests 
on the same level) and who were supported by 
Ezekiel (in the distinction he made between them as 
‘sons of Zadok’ and the others as priests who ‘went. 
astray’ and therefore, tho Levites, were not to 
‘come near’ to J” to minister unto Him, Ezk 40 46, 
44 9 f.)—these priests, as ‘sons of Aaron,’ are viewed 
in PC as the only legitimate priests. But what of 
the large number of representatives of old priestly 
families who failed to make good any claim to be 
regarded as ‘sons of Aaron’? These are viewed as 
‘Levites’ merely—more than mere laymen, but not 
privileged to be priests. The attempt to put such 
a theory into practise must have met with many 
difficulties and perhaps aroused hard feeling. Pos- 
sibly, the peculiar story in Nu ch. 16, regarding 
Korah (without the passages referring to Dathan 
and Abiram) with the sequel in ch. 17, was intended 
to teach that any resistance to the exclusive claims 
of the Aaronite priests was a most serious matter. 


(b) The Importance Attached to the High Priest. 

In PC there are but two kinds of priests: the main 
body, with no distinctions between its members, and 
over these, with peculiar privileges and responsibili- 
ties, ‘the high priest among his brethren, upon whose 
head the anointing oil is poured, and that is con- 
secrated to put on the garments’ (Lv 2110). Altho 
the anointing is here considered a peculiar privilege 
of the high priest (as also in Ex 29 7; Lv 6 20 ff., 
8 10, 16 32), yet in other passages not only Aaron, 
but his sons are represented as anointed (Ex 28 41, 
29 21, 40 13, 15; Lv 7 35 f., 8 30). The high priest 


was viewed as the lineal descendant of Aaron 


through his son Eleazar and Eleazar’s son Phinehas 
(Nu 20 23-29, 25 10-13). Strange as it may seem, no 
special provision is made in PC for the transmission 
of this important office from father to son, tho 
the detailed description of the investiture of Aaron 
and his sons (Ex ch. 29; Lv chs. 8 and 9) with 
the sacred office and the notice of Eleazar’s suc- 
cession (Nu 20 23-29) may be intended as giving 
all necessary directions (cf. Ex 29 29 f.). The high- 
priestly dress is described minutely in Ex 28 1-38, 
29 5-9, 39 1-31; Lv 8 6-9 and 16 4, 23. Like other 
priests, the high priest wore an undergarment, or 
coat and breeches of linen (Ex 28 39, 42). Over 
these was worn a robe of blue elaborately decorated 
and having a number of golden bells attached to its 
skirt (Ex 29 31-35). Over the robe the costly ephod 
was worn. This was a garment something like a 





135 A NEW STANDARD 


- waistcoat or vest. As worn by ordinary priests, it 
was of plain white linen. The high-priestly ephod 
was Joined together at the shoulders, and also girded 
or fastened on the body with a girdle of the same 
elaborate workmanship as the ephod itself. To 
each shoulder-piece an onyx stone, engraved with 
with names of the tribes of Israel (six on each stone), 
was attached, held in place by a golden setting 
(ouches AV) (Ex 28 6-14). Over the ephod the high 
priest wore on his breast the breastplate described 
in detail in Ex 28 15-30 (see Sronrs, Precious, § 2). 
In the breastplate, which therefore must have been 
something like a pocket, were placed the Urim and 
Thummin (q.v.). On his turban, or miter, there 
was a golden plate engraved with the words wap 
mivb, ‘HoLy TO JeHovaH,’ in which the whole 
theory of PC regarding Israel as the ‘holy’ people, 
and of this people as represented in their high priest, 
was significantly expressed. On the Day of Atone- 
ment the high priest, when officiating within the 
sanctuary, wore a special dress consisting only of 
linen breeches, coat and girdle, and miter (Lv 16 4, 
23). On the solemn service of this day the mediatorial 
office of the high priest was most clearly exhibited 
(Lv 16 11 ff.). 


(c) Priests’ Duties and Privileges. 

In PC the priests’ duties are mainly sacrificial (cf. 
the manual of worship, Lv chs. 1-7, ete.). They and 
they alone could officiate at the altar and enter the 
sanctuary and care for its holy things. In the time 
of PC, the old idea that any Israelite could offer a 
sacrifice had entirely passed away. The priest was 
viewed as completely ‘separated’ unto J’’ and as such 
must be especially particular against contracting 
any ceremonial defilement, so that practises allow- 
able to other Israelites were forbidden to the priests 
(ef. Lv 10 8f£., 21 1-24). Tho laying greatest emphasis 
on the sacrificial duties of the priesthood, their old 
function of teaching is not entirely overlooked (Lv 
10 11, altho even here the ceremonial law seems to 
be mainly in mind). To the priest alone belonged 
the duty (or privilege) of blessing the people, and 
in so doing he was to use a prescribed formula (Lv 
9 22; Nu 6 22-27). The revenue of the priesthood is 
in PC supposed to be derived wholly from the 
offerings (inclusive of first-fruits, tithes, redemption 
money, etc.). On this subject PC simply expanded 
and defined more exactly what had been traditional 
practise from time immemorial. The various pre- 
scriptions relating to this matter will be found in 
Ex 29 27 f.; Lv 2 3, 10, 6 16-18, 26, 29, 7 6-10, 31-36, 
1012-15, 249; Nudof., 6i9f., 188-32. It should be noted 
how completely the ceremonial (‘holiness,’ ‘separa- 
tion’) emphasis has displaced the moral in PC which 
seems to have forgotten that the priest should be 
an example of righteousness. 


(d) The Levites, as Distinguished from the Priests. 

The legislation of PC is all formulated with the use 
of the legal fiction of the Mosaic Tabernacle (q.v.) 
as the standard sanctuary. The main duty of the 
Levites is the ‘charge’ of the sanctuary (Nu 3 5 f.). 
As no Levite could enter within the sanctuary (Nu 
4 20), their duties were confined to the court and its 
furniture. Nowhere, perhaps, is the purely ideal 
character of much of the legislation of PC revealed 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Priesthood 


more clearly than in its representation, in Nu chs. 
3 and 4, of the service assigned to the more than 
22,000 Levites in the care of that small Tabernacle 
and its few articles of furniture. But PC was legis- 
lation intended really for the Second Temple and 
the religious commonwealth of the returned exiles, 
and, understood as such, the prescriptions in Nu 
chs. 3 f., 8, and 16 had a real significance. The 
Levites in PC signify the great body of Temple 
servants who waited on the priests and performed 
the more menial tasks connected with the Temple 
service. PC recognizes no other class of sanctuary 
servants as legitimate (cf. Nu 3 10 f.). As all the 
Levites were not needed at the Temple at any one 
time, it was prescribed that forty-eight cities with 
their adjacent territory should be set apart in 
different portions of the land as Levitical cities (Lv 
25 32-34; Nu 35 1-8; Jos 21 1-42; I Ch 6 54-81). The 
Levite’s period of service at the sanctuary was to 
extend from his 25th to his 50th year (Nu 8 23-26, 
but cf. 4 3). 


In PC (ch. 3 f.) the Levites are organized, on 
the genealogical principle, into three great divisions, 
each descended from one of the three sons of Levi, 
Gershon, Kohath, and Merari. Each of these main 
groups was further subdivided into a number of 
smaller groups, on the same principle, the priests 
proper forming one of the divisions of the Ko- 
hathites. 


Nothing is said in PC of any kind of service to be 
performed by the Levites other than that of assist- 
ing the priests in the care and transportation of the 
Tabernacle. But in I Ch 6 31 ff., 9 14-34, 15 5-24, 
and, more fully in chs, 24-26, we find a number of 
references, not all in perfect agreement, in which the 
musical service of praise is assigned to the Levites, 
besides their duty as doorkeepers, apparently quite 
important, and the other duties in connection with 
the care of the building (see Music anp Musicau 
INSTRUMENTS, § 4). What we find in Ch thus 
represents a stage of development later than that in 
PC, altho we can not be sure whether all that is 
given in Ch represents the actual conditions at the 
time of the Second Temple. The representation in 
Ch that all these arrangements were in force in 
David’s time is, in the light of the narrative in I 
and II K, certainly unhistorical (see CHRONICLES, 
Booxs oF). The Levites thus constituted a very 
important, numerous, and well-organized element in 
postexilic Judaism, in spite of the fact that a large 
number of them were at first quite reluctant to re- 
turn from the land of captivity (cf. Ezr 8 15 ff.). 

At the time of the Return there were two other 
small bodies of Temple servants, the Nethinim (q.v.) 
and the ‘children of Solomon’s servants’ (Ezr 2 43- 
58= Neh 7 46-60), who were counted as clergy, not 
as of the laity (cf. Ezr 7 21), who are not mentioned 
in PC and but once in Ch (I Ch 9 2). It was contrary 
to the theory of PC to count any one but a Levite 
as qualified to serve at the sanctuary, and the silence 
of Ch may be accounted for by the supposition that 
by 300-250 s.c. these bodies had come to be recog- 
nized (genealogically) as Levites and had been 
absorbed into the general body of Levites on which 
Ch lays so much importance. 


Priesthood 
Prince 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


736 


San En nnn EEEBmenuasaimsanntetitaiieasaieieiminenienenineni miata Vn nan | ammniaTad nin Gan iia ails) rey tensed acetoi-sy eaaiens eu epaeuanmnae: 


10. The Priesthood in the Later Persian Period. 
The actual condition of the priesthood in the later 
Persian period is obscurely revealed in the record in 
Ezr and Neh. The high priest was the religious head 
of the community, but not until after Nehemiah, 
when the hold of Persia on the western provinces of 
the empire was weaker, does he seem to have been 


recognized as its civil head, and then, possibly, be- | 


cause the Persian government consented to have 
him act as governor in lieu of a separate Persian 
official appointed for the purpose. Ezra, who was 
entrusted with the authority of governor (cf. 7 25), 
and Nehemiah, who had the title as well as the 
authority, seem to have paid little attention to the 
high priest in their day. This was perhaps because 
the high priest, with many of the common priests, 
was opposed to Ezra’s program of reform. Nehemiah 
had the assistance of Eliashib, the high priest, in the 
rebuilding of the wall of Jerusalem, other priests 
aided the work in the same way (Neh 3 1, 3, 21 £., 
28 f.), and priests assisted and cooperated in the great 
work of promulgating and adopting the Law as the 
constitution of the community (Neh 8 4 ff., 10 1-8), 
Certain priestly families consented also to take up 
their permanent abode in the city, the others, pre- 
sumably, continuing to reside in the country and 
coming into the city only as their duties at the 
sanctuary required, In process of time this led to a 
subdivision of the whole priestly body into the 
twenty-four courses, or relays, which are described 
in I Ch 241-19. The basis of the classification here is, 
as usual, genealogical, sixteen courses being reckoned 
to the descendants of Eleazar and eight to those of 
his brother Ithamar. This arrangement continued 
in force until N T times (cf. Lk 15; Jos. Vita, 1). 


Notwithstanding the formal adherence of the 
priesthood to the new order instituted by Ezra and 
Nehemiah, there were many who were secretly in 
favor of a much less rigorous policy and even some 
who cared little for the more ideal and sacred aspects 
of their office, Evidence on this point is found in the 
severe arraignment of the priesthood by the prophet 
Malachi and in the account in Neh 13 4 f,, 28 £., of 
Nehemiah’s conflict with the high priest and certain 
members of his family. 


11. The Priesthood in the Greek and Roman 
Periods. Of the history of the priesthood from 
Nehemiah (c. 432 B.c.) to the Maccabean revolt 
(168 3B.c.) very little is known. The list of high 
priests given in Neh 12 10 f. carries the succession 
down to Jaddua, who was in office when Alexander 
conquered Asia. From notices in Josephus the list 
can be continued as follows: Onias I (son of Jaddua), 
Simon I (son of Onias I), Eleazar (another son of 
Onias I), Manasseh (uncle of Eleazar), Onias II 
(son of Simon I), Simon IT (son of Onias IT), Onias 
III (son of Simon II), who became involved in 
difficulties with his sovereign Seleucus IV of Antioch, 
and, according to one account (II Mac 4 1-6), was 
held in captivity near Antioch until slain by the 
usurper Menelaus (II Mac 4 33 f.); but according 
to another account he fled to Egypt, where he 
founded the rival temple at Leontopolis (Jos. BJ, I, 
11; VII, 102). Very little is known of the administra- 
tions of these high priests. Simon II, ‘the just,’ 


has a sure place in Jewish history through the 
warm eulogy upon him in Sir 50 1-21. This passage 
contains, perhaps, our most reliable information 
regarding the priesthood in this period, and shows 
it in its most attractive aspect. 


In the great contest between Hellenism and Jewish 
patriotism and conservatism which led to the Macca- 
bean revolt, large numbers of the priests were found 
ready and even eager to throw down the barriers 
and open the doors to the most radical and corrupt- 
ing influences of Hellenism. The story told in IT 
Mac chs. 1-7 need not be repeated here. Jason, the 
brother of Onias III, faithlessly abused the trust 
reposed in him by his brother and bribed Antiochus 
IV to confer upon him the office of high priest (ce. 
175 s.c.). But Jason was soon supplanted by the 
still baser Menelaus, who offered the king a higher 
sum than Jason was paying. This man held the 


office when the aged Mattathias, also a priest (I Mac - 


21), raised the standard of revolt. Numbers of the 
priests still remained faithful, as did also the mass of 
the people. With Menelaus, who lost favor and 
was executed by order of Antiochus V (c. 164 8.c.), 
and his successor Alcimus (q.v.), who died about 160 
B.c. (I Mac 9 54 ff.), the Maccabean party would 
have nothing to do. When Judas Maccabeus re- 
stored the worship of J’ at Jerusalem (165 B.c.), 
tho ‘he chose blameless priests’ (I Mac 4 42) to 
officiate, there was no recognized high priest and 
the office was vacant until the Feast of Tabernacles 
(153 38.c.), when Jonathan, brother of Judas, 
accepted the royal appointment and assumed the 
office. On Jonathan’s death (148 3B.c.) he was suc- 
ceeded by his brother Simon. 


Onias ITT (assassinated by hired agents of Mene- 
laus in 171 B.c.), was the last of the old line of high 
priests in legitimate succession, as Jason, Menelaus, 
and Alcimus were only usurpers. With Simon a new 
line began, since the people voted to make the high- 
priesthood hereditary in his family (I Mac 14 41). 
Both Jonathan and Simon were not only high priests, 
but also held the chief political authority. As presi- 
dent of the Council (see SANHEDRIN), which now be- 
came more important than before, the high priest was 
virtually the chief justice of the nation. This union 
of two distinct offices in one man was continued with 
Simon’s successors, who later (first with Aristobulus 
I, 105-104 s.c.) assumed the title of ‘king.’ The 
Maccabean, or Asmonean, line of priests came to an 
end virtually with Hyrcanus II, whom the Romans 
deprived of political authority in 63 B.c., allowing 
him to retain his high-priestly office. Hyrcanus 
was carried into exile by the Parthians in 40 B.c. 
From the time of the accession of Herod the Great 
(37 B.c.) until the Fall of Jerusalem (70 a.p.), the 
high priests were set up and deposed entirely at the 
caprice of the Herods or of the Roman governors. 
The twenty-eight high priests who held office during 
this period of 107 years were selected, in most cases, 
from four or five leading families. One who had 
once held the office was even after his deposition 
accorded a dignity and honor which raised him far 
above the level of the ordinary priests. To such 
men the title ‘high priest’ was still given, and per- 
haps also to other members of the most prominent 





737 A NEW STANDARD 


priestly families, even tho they may never have 
actually held the high office. This will account for 
the somewhat loose use of the term in the N T and 
also in Josephus. 

The political aspect of the office of high priest, 
which became so prominent in the Maccabean pe- 
riod, never lost its prime importance. The revenue 
of the Temple, which was controlled and used by the 
priests, was enormous. The priesthood culminated 
in an aristocracy (see SADDUCEES) possessed of im- 
mense wealth and great influence. It was inevi- 
table that they should be deeply interested and 
involved in politics, and their policy was, in general, 
that of submission to the Herodian or Roman au- 
thority, in order that they might not be disturbed or 
dispossessed of their wealth and position by a popu- 
lar revolt. More and more, after the supremacy of 
the Law was established by the efforts of the priest- 
scribe Ezra, but especially after the Maccabean war, 
the old teaching function of the priests was taken 
over by the scribes (q.v.), most of whom were Phari- 
sees, while the priestly party was known as the Sad- 
ducees. Between these two parties no love was lost. 
But the priesthood was too strongly intrenched 
behind the walls of tradition and the popular devo- 
tion to the Temple and its services, which, accord- 
ing to the Law, were in their hands exclusively, to 
be uprooted except by the most violent catastrophe. 
This came at last with the destruction of the city and 
Temple in 70 a.p., in which sanctuary and priest- 
hood, so long allied, went down together, never to 
be revived, while scribism survived and remains 
even to-day. 


LITERATURE: Hebrdische Archdologie by Nowack (1894) and 


by Benzinger (2d ed. 1907); Baudissin, Die Geschichte des 
Alitestamentliche Priesterthums (1889) and article Priesthood 
in HDB; the articles Priest and Levites in HB; and Hoher 
Priester, Levi, and Priesterthum in PRE’; Schiirer, HJP, 
i, pp. 195-305; HRE, vol. x, pp. 307 ff., 322 ff.; MoNeile, 
Westminster Com., on Ex, pp. Ixiv ff.; Driver, Camb. Bible, 
on Ex (1911) passim; 
I and II (passim), and in Camb. Bible on Dt hE 


PRINCE: This word renders sixteen Heb. and 
three Gr. words: (1) ’dhashdarp¢nin, Aram. from the 
old Persian, meaning officials over several small 
provinces, ‘satraps’ RV (Dn 8 2, 3, 27, 61 ff.; in Ezr 
8 36; Est 3 12, 89, 9 3, where the Heb. form of the 
same word is used; AV has ‘lieutenants’). (2) 
hashmannim (Ps 68 31), ‘ambassadors,’ ‘nobles,’ con- 
jectured from the text. Briggs renders ‘swift mes- 
sengers’ (from past ptepl. of hush, ‘to hasten’). 
(3) kohén, ‘priest’ (Job 12 19 AV), as representatives 
of an important order in the community. (4) 
naghidh (lit. ‘one in front’), hence a ‘leader,’ ‘ruler,’ 
or ‘prince’ (Job 31 37; Ps 76 12 [13]; Pr 28 16); used of 
the king of Israel (I K 147, 16 2, etc.), always in 
RV [mg. ‘leader’] for the king of Israel where AV has 
‘captain’ (I S 9 16, etc.) or ‘ruler’ (IIS 6 21, etc.); for 
foreign rulers (Ezk 28 2; Dn 9 25f.); for the high 
priest (Dn 11 22). The same word is used for other 
high Temple officials and translated variously ‘ruler’ 
(I Ch 9 11, etc.), ‘governor’ (II Ch 287 AV), also for 
a military officer (II Ch 32 21, ‘leader’ RV). (5) 
nadhibh, ‘willing’ or ‘noble’ in character, then in 
rank; a poetic term for nobles or princes (I S 2 8; 
Job 12 21; Ps 107 40, etc.). (6) ndsikh, a late word 


G. A. Smith, Jerusalem (1908) Vols. | 


Priesthood 
Prince 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 





perhaps from Assyr. nastku (vb. naséku, ‘to anoint? 
or ‘install’) (Jos 18 21, ‘dukes’ AV; Ezk 32 30; Mic 5 4; 
Ps 83 11 [12]; Dn 11 8 AV, ‘molten images’ RV mg. 
correctly). (7) nasi’, ‘one lifted up,’ ‘a chief prince.’ 
It is used of Solomon (I K 11 34); elsewhere (except 
in Ex 22 27) it occurs only in Ezk, P, and Ch, for 
which AV usually has ‘prince’ but also ‘captain’ and 
‘chief’ in P. RV renders almost uniformly by 
‘prince.’ In Ezk it is used of Zedekiah (7 27, 12 10, 12, 
21 25 (30), 19 1); of chief men of Judah (21 12 (17), 
22 6, 45 8, 9); of the future Davidic king (34 24, 37 25), 
and theocratic ruler (44 3, etc., chs. 48 f. often); and 
of foreign princes (26 16, 27 21, 30 13, 32 29, 38 2, 3, 
39 1, 18). In P it is used of non-Israelite chiefs (Gn 
34 2; Nu 25 18; Jos 13 21), of Abraham (Gn 23 6); 
heads of Ishmaelite tribes (Gn 17 20, 25 16); else- 
where in P and Ch of rulers of the congregation (Ex 
16 22; Jos 9 15, 18, 22 30, 34 31, 35 27; Lv 4 22; Jos 9 18b, 
19, 21, 17 4, 22 14, 32) and especially of the tribal chiefs 
and representatives in their religious organization 
(Nu 1 16, 44, 2 3, etc.; fifty-seven times, especially in 
Nuchs. 2,7 and 34; I Ch 210, 4 38, 56, 7 40; II Ch 12; 
IK 81; II Ch 52). (8) seghdnim, a loan-word from 
Assyr. Saknu (vb. Sakdnu, ‘to set,’ ‘appoint’), which 
means the ‘prefect’ of a conquered province (Is 41 25 
AY, ‘ruler’ RV, ‘deputy’ RVmg.). For other render- 
ings of this word cf. Ezk 23 6, 12, 23; Jer 51 23, 57. (9) 
part‘mim (from the old-Persian fratama, ‘first’) (Dn 
1 3, ‘nobles’ RV; cf. Est 1 3, 69). (10) gdtsin, ‘de- 
cider’; used of a military chief (Dn 11 13 AV, ‘cap- 
tain’ RVmg.; cf. Jos 10 24; Jg 11 6, 11); more gen- 
erally, of a man in authority (Mic 31,9 AV, ‘rulers’ 
RV; Pr 2515 AV, ‘rulers’ RV, ‘judge’ RVmg., where 
Toy reads getseph, ‘anger’; cf. Is 1 10, 22 3; Pr 67). 
(11) rabh, ‘chief’ (Jer 39 13, 411 AV, ‘chief officers’ 
RV) (see Orricer (7)). (12) rabhrebhan (Aram.), 
‘lords’; used of Babylonian kings (Dn 5 2, 3 AV, 
‘lords’ elsewhere). (13) rdzdn, ‘a potentate,’ parallel 
to ‘king’ (Pr 14 28). (14) rdzén, ptepl. of rdzan, ‘be 
weighty,’ ‘commanding’ (Jg 5 3; Pr 815, 31 4; Hab 110, 
parallel to ‘king’; Is 40 23, parallel to ‘judges’; cf. 
‘rulers’ in Ps 22). (15) sar, ‘ruler,’ ‘captain,’ ‘prince’ 
(corresponding to Assyr. Sarru, ‘king’). This term 
occurs very often, more especially in the later O T 
literature, for various officials of high rank under 
foreign kings; of Ammon (II S 10 3; Am 1 15; I Ch 
19 3); of Assyria (Is 10 8, 31 9); of Babylon (II Ch 
32 31; Exzr 7 28; Jer 38 17, 18, 22, 39 3, 50 35, 51 57); of 
Edom (Is 34 12); of Egypt (Gn 12 15; Is 19 11, 13; Jer 
25 19); of Elam and Media (Is 21 5; Jer 49 38); of 
Gilead (Jg 10 18); of Greece (Dn 10 20); of Midian 
(Jg 7 25, 83); of Moab (Nu 21 18, 22 8 #., 23 6, 17; Am 
2 3; ef. Jer 487, 49 3); of Persia (Est 1 3, etc.; Dn 
10 13, 20, and in RV 89, 9 3); of the Philistines (I S 
18 30); of Succoth (Jg 8 6, 14); for officials under kings 
of Israel and Judah (never for king’s sons); under 
David (I Ch 22 17, 23 2, 246, 29 24; Ezr 8 20); Solomon 
(I K 9 22; I Ch 23 2); Jehoshaphat (II Ch 177); Ahab 
(I K 20 14f.); Hezekiah (II Ch 29 30, 30 2f., 318, 32 3); 
Josiah (II Ch 35 8); Jehoiachin (Jer 241=II K 2412, 
14); Zedekiah (II Ch 36 18; Jer 24 8, 34 21); in general 
(Job 3.15, etc.; Ps 45 16 [17], etc.; Pr 8 16 etc.; Ec 107, 16, 
17); for officials of Judah or Israel (II Ch 125, 6, 214,22 
8, etc.); of the tribes (Jg¢5 15, Issachar; I Ch 281); ofthe 
postexilic community (Ezr 8 25 RV, 29, 91, 2, 10 14; 


Princes, Seven 
Prophecy 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


738 


a 


Neh 11 1, 12 21 £.); of the host of Jehovah (Jos 5 15 
RV, ‘captain’ AV); of the sanctuary (I Ch 24 5 f., 
‘governor’ AV). The RV often renders it by ‘cap- 
tain,’ for a military officer (‘prince’ AV; e.g., I Ch 
27 22; II Ch 219, etc.). (16) shdlish, ‘military officer’ 
(Ezk 23 15), but elsewhere rendered ‘captain.’ (17) 
dexnyos, ‘chief leader,’ used of Christ (Ac 5 31; cf. 
the same word in Ac 3 15, ‘author [RVmg.] of life’; 
He 2 10, 12 2, ‘captain’ AV, ‘author’ RV). (18) 
&exwy, ‘ruler’ (Mt 20 25; I Co 26, 8; Rev 15, all AY). 
The ‘prince’ of the evil spirits is referred to (Mt 9 34, 
12 24; Mk 3 22; Lk 1115, ‘chief’ AV), the ruler of the 
irreligious world (Jn 12 31, 14 30, 1611; Eph 2 2). (19) 
hyewoy, ‘first,’ ‘chief? (Mt 2 6, quoted from Mic 5 2 
(1], which reads: ‘among the thousands [‘families’ 
mg.] of Judah’). The Heb. ’alphé, ‘thousands of,’ 
was read as ’alliiphé, ‘chiefs of.’ OS ed 


PRINCES, THE SEVEN: Seven men named in 
Est 114 as those who were privileged to see the king’s 
face and sit ‘first in the kingdom.’ Their names are 
given as ‘Carshena, Shethar Admatha, Tarshish, 
Meres, Marsena, and Memucan, the seven princes 
of Persia and Media.’ Tho these names are not 
evidenced otherwise, they seem to be of Persian for- 
mation, and the statement in the book may thus 
rest on a historical foundation. E. E. N. 


PRINCIPALITY, PRINCIPALITIES (Goexm, do- 
yat): Angelic beings which, according to Jewish spec- 
ulations current in N T times regarding the world 
of spirits, were arranged in different ranks, and were 
denoted by the term éexn (pl. dexat). Paul makes 
use of this terminology (Ro 8 38; Eph 1 21, 3 10; 
Col 1 16, 2 10, 15), without implying to what extent he 
accepted such speculations as true. In Eph 6 12 the 
aoxat are evil powers. In Tit 31 powers of this world 
are meant. See also ANGELOLOGY, § 5; and Gnos- 
TICISM. EH. E. N. 

PRISCA, pris’ka (IIpicx«, or in some places the 
dim. form IToefoxtAAaw): The wife of Aquila (q.v.) and 
always mentioned with him. Since in Ac 18 2 it is 
only affirmed that Aquila was a native of Pontus, 
from the form of Prisca’s name in Ac (Priscilla), we 
are justified in assuming her Roman origin (cf. the 


Cemeterium Priscille at Rome), if indeed the name | 


of Aquila also be not that of a Roman freedman 
(CIL, VI, No. 12,273). From the fact that when the 
two are mentioned the name of Prisca often precedes 
that of her husband (less often in D), it has been 
inferred that she was the more important personage 
of the two (Ro 16 3; II Ti 419; Ac 18 18, 26). Accord- 
ing to Harnack (ZNTW, 1900, pp. 16-41) Aquila 
and P. (mainly the latter) were the possible authors 
of He. Of this there is, however, no positive proof. 
A bap ped ih 
PRISCILLA, pri-sil’s. See Prisca. 


PRISON: A term used for several Heb. and Gr. ex- 
pressions: (1) béth h@’dstirim(hdstirim, K°thibh), ‘house 
of the bound [7.e., prisoners]’ (Ee 4 14); Jg 16 21, 25. 
Moore (ICC, ad loc.) would read pl. of ’éstr, ‘bond’; 
cf. the following. (2) béth hd’ésiir, ‘house of the 
bond’ (Jer 37 15). (3) béth hakkele’, ‘house of con- 
finement’ (I K 22 27=II Ch 18 26; II K 17 4, 25 27; 
Jer 37 15, 18; Is 427, 22; Jer 37 4 [ef. Qert and Kethibh], 
52 31); cf. ‘prison [kele’] -garments’ (II K 25 2= 
Jer 52 33), lit. ‘garments of imprisonment.’ (4) béth 


sdhar, ‘the round house’: a tower (?), the name of or 
for a prison in Egypt (Gn 39 20-23, 40 3,5). Sdhar is 
perhaps a Hebraized Egyptian word. (5) béth hap- 
p°quddéh, ‘house of visitation’ (7.e., punishment) or 
‘oversight,’ in Babylon, in which King Zedekiah was 
imprisoned (Jer 52 11). (6) mahpekheth, ‘stocks,’ an 
instrument in which legs and arms were confined, 
compelling a crooked posture. They were used as a 
punishment for Jeremiah (Jer 29 26, ‘stocks’ RV; cf. 
Jer 20 2, 3) and for Hanani (II Ch 16 io, ‘house of the 
stocks’ RVmg.). (7) mattadrah, ‘guard,’ ‘ward,’ used 
with hdatsér, ‘court of the guard’ RV (Jer 32 2, 8, 12, 
33 1, 37 21, 38 6, 13, 28, 39 14, 15; Neh 3 25), except Neh 
12 39, ‘gate of the guard.’ This court was in the 
king’s palace, and Jeremiah was placed there to keep 
him from working against the king, perhaps also to 
protect him (Jer 38 28; cf. vs. 24 ff.). (8) masgér, 
dungeon (Is 24 22), a figure for exile (Is 42 7, ‘dun- 
geon’ RV; Ps 1427 [8]). (9) ‘dtser, ‘coercion’ (Is 53 8, 
‘oppression’ RV correctly). 
‘house of the guard’ (Gn 42 19), a place of detention, 
translated elsewhere in ward (Lv 24 12; Nu 15 34; cf. 
mishmar in Gn 40 3, 4, etc.). (11) In Is 611 ‘prison’ is 
supplied in EV after p°qah-qoah, ‘opening,’ as a 
figure of freeing from the darkness of prison. (12) 
Seopwthoroyv (Mt 11 2; Ac 5 21, 23, 16 26, ‘prison- 
house’ RV). (13) otxnue, ‘a dwelling-place’ (Ac 127, 
‘cell? RV). (14) choenotc, the place where prisoners 
were kept (Ac 5 18, ‘ward’ RV; cf. 4 3, ‘hold’ AV, 
‘ward’ RV). (15) guAax4, ‘a place where captives 
were kept,’ the term most often used in the N T 
(Mt 5 25; Mk 617; Lk 8 20; Ac 5 19, etc.), and in the 
LXX. for the more common Heb. terms. (16) The 
RV (in Mt 412; Mk 114) renders rapadobjvat by ‘de- 
livered up’ (‘cast into prison’ AV). OMS Hef A 

PRISON GARB. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 
§ 3, (b). 

PRIZE (8ea@etov): The reward for victory in the 
Grecian athletic contests, consisting of a simple 
wreath, composed, in the Isthmian games (near 
Corinth; ef. I Co 9 24) of pine, in those at Olympia 
of wild olive, etc. The honor was intensely and 
universally coveted. In Ph 3 14, where the language 
is metaphorical, the prize is the purified heavenly 


life, the reward for success in the Christian race. 
S. D.—M. W. J. 


PROCHORUS, prek’o-rus (Ilp6yo0e0¢): One of the 
‘seven’ chosen to administer the charities of the 
Jerusalem Church (Ac 65). See Cuurca Lirs, § 3. 


PROCONSUL (éObxatoc, deputy AV): The past 
consul or past pretor acting in the provinces as 
deputy consul. After 53 B.c. five years must elapse 
before the past pretor could become proconsul. 
The proconsul was clothed with military, civil, and 
judicial authority. His powers were unlimited. 
The term of office was one year, but often prolonged. 
Two such officers are named in the N T, Sergius 
Paulus (Ac 137 #.) and Gallio (Ac 1812). Reference 
is also made to the office without specific mention of 
persons (Ac 19 38). J. R.S. S.*—E. E. N. 


PROCURATOR. See GOvERNOR. 


PROFANE: The term renders the Heb. words 
(1) hol (Ezk 22 26, 42 20 AV, but ‘common’ RY) fr. 
halal (‘to be loose’), used in the sense of ‘to profane,’ 


(10) béth hammishmar, — 


739 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Princes, Seven 
Prophecy 





etc.; very frequent in the law as the opposite of ‘to 
be holy’ or ‘clean’; (2) hdnéph (Jer 23 11, 15, but ‘hy- 
pocrisy’ AVing. and ‘ungodliness’ ARV); and (3) the 
Gr. BéBnAoc, ‘impious’ (I Ti 1 9). A. C. Z. 


PROFESSION. See ConFEssIon. 


PROGNOSTICATOR. See Asrronomy, § 9; and 
Maaic anp Divination, § 7. 


PROMISE: In the O T both the verb and the noun 
‘promise’ are used in the ordinary sense of a declara- 
tion of one’s intention. The Heb. text of the O T 
has, in fact, no word equivalent to ‘promise,’ but 
uses the more generic term ‘word’ and the verbs ‘to 
speak,’ ‘to say.’ In the N T, on the contrary, the 
terms rendered ‘promise’ (énayyeAta [especially with 
the article], éxéyyeAwa, éxayyéAAecbat) are specific 
to the point of technicality. 

Of all the N T writers, the Apostle Paul gives the 
clearest conception of what was understood by ‘the 
promise.’ Even in his speech before Agrippa, he 
defines it as the central fact of Jewish religious 
thought that God of old had declared His design to 
visit His people in the person of His Anointed (Ac 
26 6, 7). This promise had been fulfilled in Jesus 
of Nazareth. For Paul, ‘gospel’ and ‘promise’ are 
equivalent. That was the ‘promise’ before Jesus 
came, which is the ‘gospel’ after He completed His 
work; conversely, that is the ‘gospel,’ since the 
Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which was the ‘promise’ 
under the O T. In this sense Paul makes the promise 
the only revelation of the mode of salvation. It was 
by the promise that men were saved under the O T, 
not by the Law. For the promise was made to 
Abraham, and Abraham antedates the Law by four 
centuries (Gal 317). This is evidently the force also 
of the argument in Ro ch. 4. How far the same 
thought was in the mind of Peter when he declared 
in his discourse on Pentecost that the promise had 
been intended for his hearers it is impossible to say. 
But his appeal is to a well-known expectation, and he 
aims to arouse a vivid realization and appreciation 
of the content of the promise. 

The promise stands related to the general subject 
of prophecy as the heart to the whole body. It is 
at its very core and constitutes its life principle. It 
is, therefore, related to the covenant as the equiva- 
lent for God’s share init. But, like the covenant, it 
was conditional and must be appropriated by the 
individual for himself through the act of faith. Hence 
the inseparable connection of faith and promise in 
Paul’s discussion (Ro ch. 4). A. C. Z. 


PROPERTY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS. See 
CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2; FAMILY AND 
FamiLty Law, § 8; TRADE AND CoMMERCE, § 3; 
and WEALTH. 


PROPHECY, PROPHET: 1. Names. The 
names given the prophet in the Bible are quite 
significant. In the O T he is called r@’eh, hozeh, 
nabhi’?. The first two, almost synonymous, from 
roots r@’ah and hazah, both ‘to see,’ suggest the 
man of vision, and are properly rendered ‘seer.’ The 
prophet is thus one whose sight pierces through 
the veil that hides the world of Divine things, or 
one for whom this veil is lifted occasionally so that he 
obtains an inner knowledge of the realities beyond. 


The term nabhi?’ (from ndbhd’, ‘to announce’ [tho 
some make this root a weaker ‘form of nabha‘, ‘to 
bubble up,’ ‘pour forth’ a stream of speech under i in- 
spiration]), presents the prophet as a man of speech, 
one who gives forth words under strong excitement, 
or in an exalted state of feeling. The difference 
between the first two and the third of these terms 
lies in the fact that the first two point to the method 
of the prophet’s receiving his information and the 
nature of that information, whereas the third points 
to the method of the delivery of his message. In 
addition to these strictly technical terms, the 
prophets had applied to them other designations, 
more or less descriptive of their office and work. 
They were ‘keepers,’ or ‘watchmen’ (Is 21 11 ff.; 
Jer 6 17; Ezk 3 17, 337; Mic 7 4; Hab 21 #.; Is 52 8, 
56 10, 62 6), ‘men of God nn of God,’ ‘the man 


‘of God,’ IS 2.27,9648.; I K 12 29; Il K 4 22, 25), 


‘servants of J’” (Is 20 3: Jer 25 4, 26 5, etc.), ‘mes- 
sengers of J’” (Is 42 19, 44 26; Hag 113; Mal 31). In 
the N T the common term is xpoghtys (from x6, 
‘before,’ and gnul, ‘to speak’), ‘one who speaks 
before,’ 7.e., ‘forward,’ ‘forth,’ or better, one who 
stands in the presence of (before) an august per- 
sonage, as a minister before the king, and com- 
municates his will to the people, who have no im- 
mediate access to him. A prophet is then a servant 
of God who represents him before men. He is thus 
the obverse and complement of the priest. Just as 
the priest represents the people before God, taking 
their prayers and offerings into His presence, so the 
prophet represents God to the people, taking His 
message or word to them. 


Z. Development of Prophecy. In its origin He- 
brew prophecy is associated with kindred develop- 
ments among the non-Israelitic peoples, andis rooted 
in the desire to know the Divine will with reference 
to the ordinary affairs of life. This desire has pro- 
duced among all the races of mankind countless 
forms of soothsaying and divination. Among the 
Israelites this craving for supernatural knowledge 
was purged of its lower associations, and as it gained 
spiritual strength it grew into public-spirited and 
lofty service of God and of His people. From 
another point of view, ‘the man of God,’ who at 
first secured and gave men knowledge from God 
affecting their private welfare, was called of God to 
a higher mission as a vehicle of His spirit and voice, 
to the end that His kingdom might be advanced 
upon earth. The development of prophecy in Israel 
thus includes two distinct periods with a long transi- 
tion between them. The first period extends appar- 
ently to the days of Samuel, and the transition ends 
with the appearance of Elijah. During this age of 
transition two kinds of prophets, the one called a 
seer (rd’eh) and the other the ‘prophet’ more strictly 
speaking (the ndbhi’) existed. These were distinct 
from each other, and neither of them was exactly 
what the prophet later became, e.g., in the days of 
Elijah or Isaiah (IS 99). The change began by 
the transfer of the name of the prophet to the seer 
and the gradual obliteration of the distinction. 
That the individualistic conception of the prophet’s 
function survived long into the transition period is 
clear from such facts as Saul’s consenting to consult 


‘Prophecy ‘A NEW STANDARD 


a seer with reference to the lost asses (I S 9 6), 
Ahaziah’s sending an embassy to Baalzebub to 
know whether the injury he had received from an 
accidental fall would prove fatal (II K 1 2), and 
Jehoshaphat’s inquiring of the prophets whether 
the campaign on which he and Ahab of Israel were 
venturing would result in victory (I K 225 f.). On 
the other hand, long before what we have called the 
period of transition, Hebrew prophecy had cast 
off those cruder outward practises (the obervation 
of the flight of birds, of the entrails of sacrificial 
victims, incantations, etc.) by which the Divine 
will was supposed to be conjured into view. Urim 
and Thummim, ephod, and even sacrifice as means 
of consulting God were relegated to the priestly 
office (see UriIm AND THUMMIM). It was very late 
however, before the prophetic spirit so completely 
possessed its subjects as to make them trust to the 
moral force and rational conviction inherent in their 
message. In the earlier ages the prophets did not 
hesitate to use violent physical measures in en- 
forcing their teaching. Samuel hewed Agag to pieces 
(IS 15 33), Elijah put to death the prophets of Baal 
(I K 18 40), also those emissaries of King Ahaziah 
who had addressed him disrespectfully (II K 1 10, 12). 
Elisha cursed, in the name of J’’, the lads who ridi- 
culed him (II K 2 24). In the latest times it was most 
usual for the prophet to endure suffering in the faith- 
ful execution of his work (see, however, for an early 
example of this, the case of Micaiah, I K 22 27). 


3. ‘Schools’ of Prophets. During the later portion 
of the period of Judges the prophets come into view 
in organized communities or ‘schools.’ These were 
associated with the worship of J’’, for they are con- 
nected with the shrines located at such places as 
Jericho (II K 25), Gilgal (II K 4 38), Ramah (IS 
19 18), Gibeah (I S 10 5, 10), and Bethel (II K 2 3). 
From these centers they exerted a strong influence; 
and their appearance at any particular spot was 
often the signal for the outbreak of a contagious re- 
ligious fervor. Saul, on being anointed king, fell in 
with a company of them, and ‘the spirit of God came 
mightily upon him,’ rendering him, for the time 
being, a sharer of their characteristic activities, 
which, it is said, gave rise to the proverbial utter- 
ance: ‘Is Saul also among the prophets?’ (IS 1011f.). 
The great leader of these prophetic gilds (whether 
he was also their first organizer does not appear 
clearly) was Samuel. His position as ‘judge’ no 
doubt added to the esteem in which the prophets 
were held for their own sake. It may have been due 
to his influence that Saul suppressed the heathen 
counterpart of prophecy in Israel and outlawed the 
practise of necromancy and soothsaying together 
with other forms of magic arts. The fact that he 
was himself the first, and only one on record, to 
violate this law (case of the witch of Endor, I § 
ch. 28) is all the more significant of the consciousness 
that the difference between prophecy as a factor in 
the life of Israel and the divination common among 
the heathen was vivid, and that the true nature of 
prophecy was appreciated by the intelligent Israelite. 

4. The Prophet as Statesman. It was of the 
essence of theocracy that it fostered dependence 
upon him who knew the will of God, 7.e., the prophet. 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


740 





In the administration of the affairs of government 
his knowledge was absolutely essential. The part of 
the prophet, therefore, in the Israelite state was 
from the beginning conceived to be of the utmost 
importance. Moses, the dictator of the Exodus 
period, is the ideal and prototype of all subsequent 
prophets (Dt 18 18, 34 10). His successor, Joshua, 
took up this part of Moses’ work as well as the 
political, without, however, being given the technical 
name of prophet. Samuel combined in his person 
the offices of judge and prophet. With the coming 
of the monarchy the kings had beside them what 
may be called court-prophets. Gad was ‘David’s 
seer’ (II S 24 11). Heman is given the title of ‘the 
king’s seer’ (I Ch 25 5). With the division of the 
kingdom, and the corruption of the worship of J’ 
by Jeroboam, there arose a natural antagonism be- 
tween prophets and kings, reaching its culmination 
in the fierce conflict between Elijah and the dynasty - 
of Omri on the other. It does not appear that Elijah 
was a member of any prophetic school, but in his 
implacable warfare against Baalism and his deter- 
mined efforts to put it down he doubtless had the 
sympathy, if not the outward support, of all the 
prophets of J”. His primary object was to purify 
and restore the worship of J’”’ to its ideal condition. 
It is this that gives him his epoch-making signifi- 
cance in the history of Israel (see Exisan). Under 
Elisha the same purpose was maintained, and even 
more successfully pressed, since Elijah had already 
fought the hardest part of the battle. The com- 
bined ministries of these two prophets cover a period 
of 100 years (circa 875-775 B.c.), and as the closing 
years of the later prophet probably overlap the 
earlier portion of the ministry of Jonah the son of 
Amittai (II K 14 25), and possibly that of Amos, 
they lead up to the type of prophecy that is best - 
known. It is true that the dynasty of Jehu did 
much to conciliate the prophets by reinstating the 
worship of J’, and His servants as the counselors 
of the kings (II K 10 30 #.), but the relation of kings 
and prophets never became quite ideal in the North- 
ern Kingdom. When Amos came forward, he did 
not meet with a cordial reception. It is true he did 
not possess the professional training and was not 
classified as a prophet, but this does not altogether 
account for the surprize and annoyance of the royal 
party at his appearance in Israel and the effort to 
get rid of him (Am 7 10-13). 

5. The Prophet as the Preacher of Righteousness. 
The type of prophet represented by Amos became 
permanent. It is a type that combines in the same 
personality the character and work of the high- 
minded, independent statesman and that of the 
teacher of pure morals and preacher of spiritual 
monotheism. The prophets of this class took part 
in public affairs, but they were for the most part 
content to address their words to the people. They 
stood in the position of semi-independent leaders, 
seeking to mold the affairs of society and of the state 
from the point of view of the moral principles in- 
volved in the religion of J’. Their efforts were 
largely aimed at the leavening of the body politic with 
the leaven of sound ethical teaching, tho they did not 
always refrain from urging definite programs in the 





741 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Prophecy 





event of great public crises. Isaiah clearly outlined 
to Ahaz what he ought to do in view of the Syro- 
Ephraimitic alliance (7 3 ff.), and !Jeremiah per- 
formed a similar duty toward Jehoiakim and Zed- 
ekiah (36 27, 38 14); but, on the whole, the prophets 
would have been content to leave the course of 
affairs to be determined by the new state of moral 
life engendered by their preaching. They never 
flinched from exposing the evils that were sapping 
the national life, or from denouncing unprincipled 
leaders and warning against short-sighted policies 
and foreign alliances. 


6. Prophetic Inspiration. The secret of the proph- 
ets’ power was the invincible conviction in their 
own souls and in the souls of their hearers that the 
message which they delivered was not their own 
invention, but came directly from the God whom 
they served. They felt themselves to be appointed 
to their life-work and equipped for it by an irresist- 
ible influence which was none other than the very 
spirit of J’. They represent this spirit as filling and 
possessing them and impelling them in their labors 
(Mic 38; Ezk 115). It was as if a mighty hand had 
seized them and was moving them on in spite of 
themselves (cf. Ezk 3 22, ‘the hand of Jehovah was 
there upon me’). The first touch of this influence 
was often a vivid experience recognized as a solemn 
inauguration into their life-work (Is 61 ff.; Jer 1 4 f.; 
Ezk 14 .). In many cases the call was met with 
a natural reluctance growing out of a sense of in- 
sufficiency for the great duties brought into view. 
Jeremiah pleaded his youth and lack of fluency in 
speech (1 6). Ezekiel was prostrated by the over- 
powering sense of God’s presence and had to be 
raised and encouraged before he could take up the 
task assigned him (1 28, 21f.) Long before these, 
Moses had passed through a similar experience (Ex 
3 11ff.). But once yielded to, the call made them 
brave and carried the assurance of a Divine com- 
mission at each successive service involved in it. 
‘The word of Jehovah came’ to the prophet as 
occasion required (Jer 141, 151, ete.; Zec 81, etc.). 
Just how this took place is not said. In many 
cases it was through visions (see REvELATION, § 10). 
Hence they introduced their messages with the for- 
mula “Thus saith Jehovah’ (Am 1 3, 6, etc.; Mic 
6 1, etc.). 

7. False Prophets. The name ‘prophet’ was from 
the beginning assumed by many who did not realize 
its meaning, had no idea of the work and office, 
and no right to it. The first occasion on record when 
it became necessary to discriminate between these 
and the true prophets of J’ was in the reign of 
Jehoshaphat, when Micaiah, the son of Imlah, stood 
up against the 400 ‘false prophets’ (I K 226). The 
difference between the true and the false was in this 
case presented as consisting not in the source of the 
inspiration of the two classes, but in the motives 
actuating the men on each side. It was the same 
J’” who sent the ‘lying spirit’ to Zedekiah and the 
spirit of truth to Micaiah, but He sent the former, 
because Zedekiah was more anxious to speak words 
pleasing to the king than to tell the truth which God 
might make known to him, and the latter, because 
Micaiah cared nothing for the feelings of the king, 


and was intent upon declaring the will of God alone. 
The responsibility for the evil consequences is placed 
on Ahab. The principle is more clearly stated by 
Micah (211). The false is he who accommodates his 
message to the corrupt state of mind of his hearers, 
and preaches what is pleasing to them. In a certain 
sense the false prophet is a creature of the popular 
demand for smooth sayings (Is 30 10 #.). The motive 
of such a prophet may be traced to a most selfish 
root—he prophesies fair things for a reward, and 
‘whoso putteth not into their mouths, they even 
prepare war against him’ (Mic 35). The true prophet 
could only say of the false that he had not received 
his inspiration from J’’. His was a ‘vision of his own 
heart’ (Jer 23 16-32). The differences between the 
true and false prophets were, therefore, that the 
former had (1) a message from J’’ accompanied by 
inspiration, (2) an absolute disregard of the accept- 
ability’ (pleasing effect) of his message on his au- 
dience, and (3) a similar disregard of the conse- 
quences of his delivering it on his own comfort and 
outward welfare. On all these points the reverse 
was true of the false prophet. 


8. Test of True Prophecy. But how are the 
hearers of a prophet to know that he has a message 
from God and that his motives in bringing it are 
pure and unselfish? Evidently, only from the nature 
of the message and its agreement with what they 
independently know of God. All external attesta- 
tions and corroborations must be subsidiary and 
auxiliary, and therefore yield uncertain and meager 
results as means of convincing men of the Divine 
origin of an utternace. Elijah appealed to the super- 
natural manifestations of power as evidence of the 
truth of his claim for J’ as against Baal, but the 
effect was insignificant and superficial, because the 
minds of the people with whom he had to do did 
not recognize the difference between a miracle 
whose direct efficient cause was God’s will and one 
which was mediated through magical and occult 
arts. An appeal is suggested further in Dt 18 22 to 
the fulfilment of the predictive element in prophecy 
as a proof of its Divine origin; but from the nature 
of the case this proof would be of little, if any, use 
to the persons and the time immediately addressed 
(cf. Jer ch. 28). What the hearer of a ‘word of God’ 
wants to know is whether at the time he is listening 
he can be sure that he is hearing the voice of a 
true messenger of God. That something predicted 
will come to pass in the future may accredit him 
to posterity, or possibly even to the hearer him- 
self in case he lives to see the fulfilment of the pre- 
diction, and again have occasion to hear the same 
prophet, but it can not attest the message for the 
time and occasion of its deliverance. Hence should 
the message call for immediate action, it must fail of 
its purpose, if the fulfilment of the predictive element 
in it is to be its credential. Hence, too, in the Deuter- 
onomic passage the testing question is given as one 
that may validate the claim of the prophets to the 
people as a whole through a series of generations 
rather than to the individual audiences they may 
address at particular times. In actual practise also 
the test was found inadequate and led to complaints 
(Ezk 12 21-28). 


Prophecy 


Propitiation A NEW STANDARD 





9. Written Prophecies. At first prophecy, like 
forensic oratory, was purely oral, perhaps even ex- 
temporaneous in form (cf. the term word, burden, 
i.e., ‘oracle,’ ‘utterance’). It was natural, however, 
that so far as it had value for more than the mere 
occasion that called it forth, it should be preserved. 
How early the practise of writing down prophetic 
oracles was resorted to is not known. It is exceeding- 
ly probable that certain fragments of very old written 
oracles are incorporated in somewhat later docu- 
ments. Is chs. 15 and 16 are by many supposed to be 
an illustration. By a few critics they are even as- 
cribed, upon the basis of an obscure tradition, to 
Jonah, the son of Amittai, in the reign of Jeroboam 
II (780-740). It is precisely the reign of Jeroboam II 
that furnishes the first undoubted writing down of 
prophecies in the case of Amos. From the days of 
Amos onward the intimate connection of prophecy 
with governmental policy makes it possible to trace 
its history and note its adaptation to the times. 
During the days of the growing influence of Assyria, 
Amos and Hosea were active in the Northern King- 
dom, Micah and Isaiah in the Southern. As Babylon 
prevailed and up to the Exile, Nahum, Zephaniah, 
and Jeremiah were leading prophets. During the 
earlier years of the Exile, we have Obadiah, Habak- 
kuk, and Ezekiel, followed at the end of the Cap- 
tivity by Deutero-Isaiah. The prophets of the Res- 
toration were Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, and 
those of the post-restoration (Greek) period, down 
to the middle of the 2d cent. B.c., were Joel (prob- 
ably), Jonah, and Daniel. 


10. Literary Style and Prophecy. In the matters 
of diction and style there are, strictly speaking, no 
peculiarities distinctive of the prophets, They use 
poetry or prose according to the prevailing custom 
of their day or the requirements of the particular 
subject of their discourses. ‘The poetic form is 
more common in the writings of the earlier canonical 
prophets and the prose in the later. In general, 
both in poetical and prose composition, the play of 
the imagination is large and free. This is, however, 
due partly to Oriental traits of mind, and partly to 
the excitation and exaltation of the prophet because 
of the importance of his message. Vivid figurative 
language is quite a favorite; but the idea 
of a technical, symbolical vocabulary devised or 
developed for use by the prophets only, as for in- 
stance, the choice of the word ‘day’ to signify ‘year,’ 
or of ‘mountain’ to signify ‘kingdom,’ is a mere 
figment of the imagination. Whenever crypto- 
graphic expressions are used, as by Jeremiah in his 
allusion to Babylon under the name ‘Sheshach’ 
(q.v., Jer 25 26, 51 41), it is precisely as the same 
method might be used elsewhere than in prophecy. 
These modes of expression were simply intended to 
conceal from outsiders the identity of the things 
alluded to, while they revealed them to the people 
Interested. 


11. Interpretation of Prophecy. The starting- 
point in the interpretation of prophecy is that the 
prophetic word is always addressed in the first place 
to a specific audience. There is no such thing as 
prophecy dealing with non-existent situations. 
Every word of God is called forth by a definite time 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


742 


and environment. But when the exigency that has 
elicited it has passed away,:the word does not lose 
its value; for in meeting the exigency the prophet 
has announced principles of permanent validity. 
Whenever similar situations arise in the future the 
prophecy serves as a standard to be referred to. 
Circumstances may change, but principles remain 
the same; and once uttered, principles must be recog- 
nized as having bearings whenever similar circum- 
stances arise again. The interpreter must then first 
ask: What did the prophet intend to say to his 
immediate audience? and afterward: What under- 
lying principles of his utterance may be taken as 
his message to the world of mankind for all time? 
This does not mean that the prophet had two 
separate audiences in view when he spoke, but that 
the fundamental positions on which his address is 
based are the same for all ages. 


12. Predictive Prophecy. The primary object of © 


the prophetic declaration being to bring men into 
closer harmony with the Divine will (righteousness), 
the declaration often took account of what God had 
done in the past. The prophet in such a case was a 
historian. He recorded God’s dealings and the 
occasions in men’s conduct (obedience or rebellion) 
which moved him in the exercise of His mercy or 
justice. Much of Hebrew Prophecy consists of these 
appeals to the past and is in narrative form. In the 
broadest sense of the word that section of the O T 
which tells of God’s guidance of His people is pro- 
phetic. Jewish tradition, true to an accurate in- 
stinct, called its contents ‘The Prophets’ (n*bhi’im). 
It includes the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and 
Kings. But the prophet also announced the Divine 
will for the present, and was in that capacity a 
preacher. Finally, as he looked forward into the 
future and declared God’s purpose to achieve certain 
results, he became a predicter. The relation of this 
power to predict to the natural or acquired sagacity 
and political insight and foresight, possessed in a 
measure by all real statesmen, has been made a 
subject of a sharp controversy. It is sufficient to say 
that to the Hebrew of the prophetic age such a 
question would have been meaningless. The power 
of the prophet to foresee and announce beforehand 
events which J” designed to accomplish was a gift 
of J’ endowing and distinguishing its recipient as a 
special agent of God in furthering His will. The 
prophets as a class did indeed possess a large amount 
of political sagacity; but they invariabley viewed the 
quality as something not acquired by education, 
inherited, or otherwise obtained in natural ways, but 
as a bestowment from on high. But predictions may 
be of merely passing importance, such as the one by 
Amos that Jeroboam (II) should ‘die by the sword’ 
(7 11), or of eternal moment, such as the long line 
of utterances referring to the establishment of the 
kingdom of God upon earth. They may be further 
viewed as absolute and contingent. Inasmuch as 
the object of the communication of God’s will was to 
bring about a change for the better in the conduct 
of men, predictions of evil were in the great majority 
of instances no more than warnings or threats 
against persistence in evil doing. When the change 


aimed at by the prophetic word was accomplished, 


743 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Prophecy 
Propitiation 





the prediction was canceled. If the people would 
‘amend their ways and their doings, and obey 
Jehovah, their God,’ then ‘Jehovah will repent 
him of the evils he hath pronounced against you’ 
(Jer 2613). The mere appearance of absoluteness in 
a prediction is no sure sign of its being really such. 
Jonah did not put his prediction that Nineveh 
should be destroyed in forty day in a contingent 
form (3 4), and yet when his preaching had had its 
effect, the actualization of it became unnecessary. 


13. Fulfilment. When, however, what was fore- 
shadowed, either in a general outline of the Divine 
plan or as a specific event, came to pass, the proph- 
et’s word was said to be fulfilled (xAnootcba, Mt 
414; Lk 4 21). The term is, however, one applied to 
O T Scripture broadly and not to the predictive ele- 
ment alone (cf. Mt. 3 15, 517, to ‘fulfil righteousness,’ 
‘the law,’ 7.e., ‘to obey’ and thus vindicate or to fill 
with a larger meaning; cf. Paul’s expression ‘to 
establish,’ Ro 3 31). The actualization of predictive 
prophecy is its vindication and clarification. But 
it is not solely on this account that it is called 
fulfilment, but also because it adds to the signifi- 
cance of the utterance the sanction of the firm 
conviction that the word spoken was a true one. 
There can be no question, however, about the use 
of the expression at times in a rather formal and 
technical sense. Especially does the phrase ‘that 
it might be fulfilled which was spoken’ (Mt 1 22, 
2 15, etc.) come to have the force of a mere formula 
of quotation, since it is not always in their original 
senses that it introduces the words of the prophets. 


14. Prophecy in N T. During the interval be- 
tween the close of the prophetic section of the O T 
and the birth of Jesus there was a general feeling 
that the spirit of prophecy had fallen into silence. 
When, however, John the Baptist made his public 
appearance, it was believed that the long silence 
was broken. At all events, there was a general re- 
ceptivity toward the words of John himself. When 
the fame of Jesus’ works and words went abroad, 
He was without hesitation accorded by many the 
name and standing of a prophet (Mt 21 11; Mk 615; 
Lk 7 16). Jesus Himself characterized John the 
Baptist as a ‘prophet and more than a prophet’ 
(Mt 119). In the days following the first planting 
of the Christian Church the name was given to that 
class of ministers whose utterances were accom- 
panied by special signs of spiritual exaltation (see 
Cuurci Lire AND ORGANIZATION, § 6), though they 
may have lacked the clearness and coherence of 
others who were more strictly called teachers (Ac 
11 27, 21 10; I Co 12 28, 14 29; Eph 35; see Teacuina, 
TEACHER). With the end of the Apostolic Age, this 
type of ministry seems to have become quite rare 
and to have completely disappeared during the 
course of the 2d cent. It was revived, however, at 
least in name, toward the end of the same century 
by Montanus and his associates. Since that time 
the tendency has been to restrict the use of the name 
‘prophet’ to the circle of Biblical speakers and writers 
who brought inspired messages from God to men. 


Literature: O T Theologies by Schultz, Oehler, Piepenbring, 
and Davidson. Articles on Prophecy in HDB and EB; 
W. Robertson Smith, The Prophets of Israel (21895); Kirk- 
patrick, The Doctrine of the Prophets (1892); Cornill, The 


Prophets of Israel (Eng. transl. 1898); A. B. Davidson, 
O T Prophecy (1903); E. Kénig in ERE, vol. x, pp. 384-392; 
J. Skinner, Prophecy and Religion (1922). Aine 
PROPHETESS: In Is 8 3 the word means simply 
the wife of the prophet, elsewhere a woman exercis- 
ing prophetic functions. Five such are mentioned 
in the Bible. Miriam (Ex 15 20), Deborah (Jg 4 4), 
Huldah (II K 22 14), Noadiah (Neh 6 14), and Anna. 
(Lk 2 36). In Rev 2 20 a woman who claimed to be 
a prophetess, to whom the author gives the oppro- 
brious name Jezebel, is severely condemned for her 
false and immoral teachings. A.C. Z.—E. E. N. 


PROPITIATION: This word is used by RV only 
four times in the N T (Ro 3 25; He 2 17; I Jn 2 4, 
410). The revisers were careful to show in their 
marginal readings that in two other places the same 
Greek root is used. In the publican’s prayer (Lk 


18 13) for ‘be merciful unto me’ they suggest ‘be 


propitiated to me.’ In He 9 5 for the ‘mercy-seat’ 
they suggest ‘the propitiatory.’ These two mar- 
ginal readings take us directly back into O T usage, 
whereas the other four, as applied to a person, are 
peculiar to the N T. 

1. In the O T the Heb. word (képhar and deriva- 
tives) is generally translated in the LXX. .by the 
Gr. word tAdéoxec8a and derivatives, which become 
‘propitiate’ in the English N T. But in the English 
versions of the O T ‘propitiate’ is never used. In 
its place very often appears the word ‘atonement,’ 
which again does not occur in RV in the N T (and 
in AV only in Ro 511). In the O T the uses of k&phar, 
whose root meaning is ‘cover,’ are most varied, and 
the translations likewise vary (cf. Gn 32 20, ‘appease,’ 
lit. ‘cover his face’; Lv 4 20, etc., ‘make atonement’; 
Ps 65 3, 79 9; Is 67, ‘forgiven,’ ‘expiated’ mg.; Ps 
78 38, ‘forgave’; Pr 16 14, ‘pacify’; Is 47 11, ‘put 
it away,’ etc.; on the kappdoreth, 7.e., mercy-seat, 
see ARK). But two main usages are to be distin- 
guished as the most extensive and most important. 
(a) First, we have the use of the word in relation to 
the effect of sacrifice, especially of the sin-offering 
(see SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS). It would appear 
that in some way the blood of the animal (Lv 17 11), 
when applied to the altar, was thought to ‘cover’ the 
sin and even the person of him on whose behalf the 
priest was acting (Lv 5 18, 19 22). In this class of 
passages the priest is said to make the atonement, 
and the result is that God forgives. (b) But in 
passages which are not concerned with sacrificial 
ritual kaéphar is used of the immediate Divine act of 
pardon; and in these it is He who ‘covers’ the sin, 
hides it from His own eyes, so that His dealing with 
the sinner is not henceforth in respect of that sin. 
In at least two passages the word is used with the 
threat or prayer that sin shall not be forgiven (Is 
22 14; cf. IS 3 14, where sacrifice is mentioned, and 
Jer 18 23). It is remarkable that in many of those 
passages in which God is said to forgive sin no 
mention is made of any means of atonement, as in 
Is 67 (where the ‘coal’ or ‘hot stone’ from the altar 
[of incense?] can hardly be equivalent to sacrifice), 
279; Ezk 16 63; Ps 65 3, 78 38, 799. In some of these 
cases the sin was probably committed ‘with a high 
hand,’ 7.e., it was a breach of that covenant within 
which alone the sacrificial system hadits force. And 
hence we find this marvelous act of Divine mercy 


Propitiation 
Proverbs, Book of 


“A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


T44 





traced directly and only to the mercy and loving- 
kindness of God (e.g. Ps 25 11, 130-3, 4). This region of 
experience remained for Israel inexplicable. How can 
men account for, or trust in, a mercy which covers sin 
even before repentance (Cheyne on Is 27 9)? And 
why should atonement—the covering of sin with 
blood—be necessary for sins of infirmity and ignor- 
ance, and none be needed for those which strike at 
the very throne of God? It is superficial to solve the 
problem by saying that the sacrificial view was lower, 
because it grew out of primitive notions of the Divine 
nature and relations, and was really abolished for the 
higher spirits by the other view that the Divine for- 
giveness is unconditioned save by the repentance 
which its promise produces. The two views lived on 
together in Israel. They seem to find a reconciliation 
in the Isaianic picture of the servant of Jehovah. 
They are both justified in the N T experience as 
that was created by Christ and described by the 
Apostles. 


2. This is not the place to discuss the Christian 
doctrine of atonement (see RECONCILIATION AND 
ATONEMENT). We must only refer to the one fact 
that in the N T Christ Himself is spoken of as taking 
the place of the sin-offering and becoming the means 
by which human sin is covered and Divine forgive- 
ness takes effect. In each of the N T passages the 
word is used in relation to sins and their forgiveness. 
In Ro 3 25 f. there is the explicit statement that Jesus 
‘in His blood’ exercised a propitiative function 
(Deissmann proves his case [HB, 3033, 3034] that 
thacthetoy must be taken in general terms to mean 
‘propitiatory thing,’ unless the context compels us 
to say ‘sacrifice.’ But his attempt to elude the sacri- 
ficial reference in this verse fails because the words 
‘set forth’ and ‘in his blood’ make the reference to the 
death of Christ more obvious and natural than to 
‘blood fellowship with the exalted spiritual Christ’). 
In the Johannine passages the word is used without 
exposition, as if it described a fact most familiar to 
the Christian consciousness, that Christ Himself, in 
His whole meaning and value, as well as in His sacri- 
fice, is our propitiation. It is, on the one hand (I Jn 
2 4), a ground of confidence and comfort to the man 
who has sinned, and that because it describes the re- 
lation of Christ to our sins (within the covenant, as it 
were). On the other hand (I Jn 4 10), it is the fact 
through which the very essence and glory of the love 
of God has been made known to us. In sending His 
Son to be the propitiation for our sins, God has gone 
far beyond the region of sins of infirmity or ignor- 
ance. It is all sins, of all men, which have been here 
dealt with by Christ. And from this act of God, from 
nothing earlier or lower, we are able to reach the 
conclusion that God is love. In He 2 17 we are mov- 
ing among many O T associations. But the all- 
changing fact here is that we are dealing with a 
Person of superhuman, nay of supreme, qualities. 
The Son of God became incarnate (2 14, 17), in order 
that He might become the kind of high priest who 
could propitiate as to the sins of the people (cf. Ro 
8 3, where xept &uaotlas carries with it the idea of 
sacrifice offered for sins). 


The implications here can not be dealt with in this 
article. Suffice it to point out that (1) the ‘propitia- 


tion’ in the sense of 1 (b) above, the covering of sin 
by God’s pardon, is here traced back, as in the O T, 
to His own spontaneous grace, His holy love. That 
(2) in the Person of Christ, His Son whom He sent, 
we again find the propitiation of 1 (a) above. In His 
death He has somehow ‘covered’ sin. The twofold 
Hebrew view of Divine forgiveness is here lifted 
to unity. That (3) this propitiation was not first a 
theory and then a dogma. It was first an experience 
and then a message; for they actually found the 
forgiveness of God; and they found it in connection 
with, or through, their whole historical experience of 
the Person of Christ in life and death and life again. 
LitERATURE: Besides reff. under articles RECONCILIATION and 

ATONEMENT, and Sacririce, see Ritschl, Rechtfertigung und 

Verséhnung (31889), II, pp. 68-88, 185-219; J. Herrmann 

Die Idee der Stihne im A T (1905) (contains useful summary, 

Kap. I, of discussion by Hofmann, Ritsch], Riehm, and 

Schmoller); 8. R. Driver in HDB, IV, pp. 128-132; G. A. 

Deissmann, art. Mercy-seat, in HB, II, coll. 3027-3035; 


A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the O T (1904), chap. x; 


Marti, Gesch. d. Israel. Relig. (21897), pp.228-231; A.Seeberg, 

Der Tod Christt in seiner Bedeutung f. d. Erlésung (1895); 

James Denney, The Death of Christ (1902); H. Rashdail, 

The Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (1919), esp. 

pp. 130-132; Macleod Campbell, The Nature of the Atone- 

ment (51878), pp. 166-173; J. Scott Lidgett, The Spiritual 

Principle of the Atonement (21898), chap. iii. D. M. 

PROSELYTE, pros’i-lait (xpoondutos): 1. In the 
O T. The common translation of the Heb. gér, mean- 
ing a convert from one religion to another, specifical- 
ly a convert to the religion of Israel. In the earlier 
O T usage gér means simply a resident ‘stranger’ or 
‘sojourner,’ as distinguished from the nokhri or 
‘foreigner’ (Dt 14 21; cf. II S 1 13 with II § 15 19). 
Gradually, however, in the Holiness Code (HC) and 
Priestly legislation (P) the term was appropriated to 
the description of the non-Israelite inhabitant of the 
land who either wholly or in part became incor- 
porated into the religious life of the nation (cf. Ex 
12 19, 48; Lv 17 8, 10, 15; Nu 15 14,15). In IT and II Ch 
gér is used to designate not only foreigners in the 
land proper, but other foreigners also who accept the 
Jewish faith (I Ch 13 2; II Ch 30 25), 7.e., the mean- 
ing approaches the strictly technical sense of pro- 
selyte, t.e., ‘a convert from another faith.’ See also 
GENTILES. 

2. In the LXX, and Later Literature. While this is 
not the only sense in which reochAvutos is used in the 
LXX. (cf. Ex 22 21; Lv 19 34; Dt 5 14; against Allen in 
Expositor, October, 1894, pp. 264-275), it is the pre- 
dominant usage (cf. Nu 35 15; Lv 17 8; I Ch 22 2; 
To 18 [x]; Ps 93 [94] 6). This is the only sense in 
which the word is used in the Mishna (see passages 
cited by Schirer, GJ V4, III, p. 175), in Philo (De 
Monarch. I, § 7), and in the N T (Mt 23 15; Ac 2 10, 
6 5, 13 43). 

3. Development of the Proselyting Spirit. This 
gradual change in the meaning of gér and xpochAvutos 
indicates a corresponding development in the prose- 
lyting spirit in later Judaism, which undoubtedly 
received an impetus from the universalism of the 
later prophets, notably the Second Isaiah, while the 
struggle to ‘purify the land’ under Ezra and Nehe- 
miah, issuing in the priestly legislatiou} not only 
resulted in the incorporation into the religious com- 
munity of many foreign residents in the land, but 
actually opened a legal way for the reception of men 


745 A NEW STANDARD 


of other than the Jewish race (cf. Lv 24 22). More- 
over, the revival of the national spirit under the 
Maccabean princes was accompanied by an active 
propagandism with resort even to methods of force 
(Jos. Ant. XIII, 91, 11 3, 151; cf. also such passages 
as Is 2615; Ps 47 8, 609f., which may be Maccabean). 
The same spirit was furthered also by the circum- 
stances of the Diaspora, which brought Jews into 
contact with other races and naturally stimulated 
their desire not only to maintain their position, but 
also to enlarge their influence. That as a result large 
numbers of Gentiles, some of them persons of in- 
fluence, accepted Judaism either wholly or in part is 
evidenced not only by Josephus (BJ, VII, 33; II, 
39; Contra Ap. II, 40) and the N T (Lk 75; Ac 2 10, 
13 50), but also by contemporary poets and historians 
(Horace, Sat. I, 9 68-72; Juvenal Sat. 14 96-106; Dio 
Cassius 37 17), and by burial inscriptions (e.g., CL, 
No. 29,756; CIGr, No. 9,903). 


4. Admission and Status of Proselytes. The con- 
ditions under which outsiders were admitted to the 
Jewish community and their status naturally varied 
at different times and in different places. First of all 
were the proselytes proper who theoretically, at 
least, were members of the Jewish community (géré 
hatstsedheq). For these, as in fact for all persons, the 
priestly legislation required the full acceptance of the 
Jewish law and of Jewish rites as expressed in the 
formula, ‘One law shall be unto him that is home- 
born and unto the stranger’ (Ex 12 49; Lv 24 22; 
Nug14). This was the condition under which neigh- 
boring tribes were incorporated by the Maccabean 
princes (e.g., by Aristobulus I; Jos. Ant. XIII, 11 3). 
In the early Christian Church, also, it was the con- 
stant contention of the Judaizing party that con- 
verts must at least be circumcised (Gal 6 12). But 
even in the land itself (cf. Ezr, Neh, passim) it was 
difficult or impossible to maintain this strict stand- 
ard, so that there gradually grew up a class of 
adherents much larger in number, commonly called 
‘they that feared Jehovah’ (yir’é-Yahweh, Ps 115 11, 
118 4; Mal 3 16), or goBodwevor (also csBduevor) tov 
Oedy (Ac 13 43; Jos. Ant. XIV, 7 2; CIL, Nos. 29,759, 
29,760, 29,763). As the term itself implies, these had 
at least renounced idolatry, and probably also ob- 
served certain Jewish rites such as the keeping of the 
Sabbath and abstinence from certain kinds of food 
(Juv. Sat. XIV, 96-106). Josephus mentions also 
fasting and the bearing of lights (Contra Ap. 39). It 
is certain also that immersion, t*bhilah, - ‘bath,’ 
was required in the case of adherents as well as of 
proselytes (cf. Pesach 8 8; Orac. Sibyll. IV, 164). 
These were also in the habit of visiting the synagog 
(Ac 17 4). For the later (essentially erroneous) 
views as to ‘proselytes of the gate’ and their relation 
to ‘proselytes of righteousness’ see Schiirer, GJ V4, 
Ps st. 


5. Proselytes and the Early Christian Church. In 
isolated cases converts were undoubtedly won 
directly from among the Gentiles, but in the early 
Christian period at least most converts came from 
among the proselytes and adherents to Judaism (Ac 
2 11, 65, 8 27, 10 2, 11 20, 18 43, 141, 1614, 17 4, 187). 
The missionary zeal of the early Christians was often 
only a new direction given to the proselyting energy 


Propitiation 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Proverbs, Book of 


of the Jews (cf. Gal 113 f£.). There are certain ob- 

servances and customs of the early Church which in 

all probability were suggested by Jewish regulations 
for proselytes and adherents. This may be the 
origin of the restrictions laid upon the Gentile 

Christians in the so called Apostolic decree of Ac 

15 29. This also may have been the origin of baptism 

both as practised by John the Baptist and in the 

early Church (ef. Didaché, ch. VII, and see also 

BaprisM). 

LITERATURE: The most exhaustive discussion of the subject 
is that of Bertholet, Der Israeliten Stellung zu Fremdem. 
Schirer, GJ V4, should also be consulted, particularly III, pp. 
150-188. Also Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des 
Christentums, p. 1 f.; Hirsch, art. on Proselyte in JE. See 
also GENTILES. J. M. T, 


PROSTITUTE, PROSTITUTION. See Crimzs 
AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 (c); and Hartor. 


PROUD BEAST. Sce Pauesting, § 24. 
PROVENDER. See FoppEr. 


PROVERB: This term renders the following Heb. 
and Gr. words: (1) hidhah, of Aramaic origin, mean- 
ing ‘shut,’ ‘closed,’ hence that which is of hidden 
meaning—a riddle or puzzle; rendered ‘proverb’ only 
in Hab 2 6; elsewhere rendered riddle, hard question, 
dark saying, etc. (2) mdshdl (from the vb. méashal, 
the use of which is similar to that of the noun), root 
idea, ‘comparison’—hence a saying which conveys 
more than its simply literal meaning, and thus (a) a 
‘similitude’ or ‘parable’ (Ezk 17 2 f., ‘riddle,’ 
‘parable’ AV, 20 49, 24 3, ‘parable’ EV), (b) a ‘pro- 
verb’ in the ordinary sense of the word (Pr 11, 6, 101, 
etc.), (c) a saying or sayings with some special or 
even prophetic import (Nu 23 7, 18, 24 3 #.; Ps 49 4, 
78 2; Job 27 1, 291, all rendered ‘parable’), (d) a 
common proverbial saying (I S 10 12, 2413), and (e) 
an expression of contempt or reproach, a taunt 
(Dt 28 37; 1 K 97, etc.). (3) napotule (from raeé and 
olwos, ‘way,’ hence ‘a saying aside from the way,’ #.e., 
not an ordinary saying or, according to others, a 
‘way-side,’ 2.e., tribe or common saying), a ‘proverb’ 
proper (II P 2 22), or an obscure or ‘dark’ saying 
(Jn 16 25, 29 AV). (4) naeaBorn, ‘comparison’ (Lk 
4 23 AV; less happily rendered ‘parable’ in RV, 
altho this is the usual meaning of the word). See 
further PRovERBs, Book or; and Wispom, WISE 
MEN. EK. E. N. 


PROVERBS, BOOK OF: 1. Name. The Proverbs, 
or, asin AV, The Book of Proverbs, is entitled in the 
Heb. Bible simply »5wn, from its first word mishlé, 
‘the proverbs of’ (Solomon). The full title of the 
book in its present form is ‘The proverbs of Solomon, 
the son of David, King of Israel.’ This title was, in 
all probability, attached to the book by a late 
editor, on the basis of the captions of the old collec- 
tions of proverbs now embodied in the book in 101 ft. 
and 25 1 ff. 


2. Contents. The analysis of Pr, which is com- 
paratively simple, is as follows: 

Introduction, 1 1-6, indicating the practical purpose the book 
is intended to serve. 

I. The excellence and nature of wisdom and wise conduct, 
1 7-9 38, 

1. The practical value of wisdom, set forth by means of 

sundry warnings and exhortations, 1 7-7 27 and 
Q 1-18, 


Proverbs 


Provoke A NEW STANDARD 





2. Wisdom in its more universal and transcendent as- 
pects, as the only safe principle of life and as the 
associate of J” in the work of creations, 8 1-36, 

II. ‘The proverbs of Solomon,’ a collection of 375 (376) 
wise saying (‘proverbs’) covering the general field 
of practical morality, 10 1-22 16, 
III. Two short sections, each having its own caption, 22 17- 
24 2 and 24 23-34, containing proverbs closely similar 
in character, but not in form, to those of Div. II. 
IV. A second collection of 137 ‘proverbs of Solomon,’ similar 
to those of Div. II. This collection is said to have 
been made by ‘the men of Hezekiah, King of Judah, 
25 1-29 2%, 
Vv. A collection of discourses on various topics: 
a. The ‘words of Agur,’ 30 1-38, 
b. The ‘words of King Lemuel,’ 31 !-9. 
ce. The worthy woman described, 31 1°-*1, 


3. Literary Characteristics. While the entire ma- 
terial of Pr, both as to literary form and contents, 
belongs to the ‘Wisdom Literature’ and manifests 
the general characteristics of that class of literature, 
the contents of Pr are not of the same uniform char- 
acter throughout, and it is upon the differences to be 
observed in the character of the material in the 
several sections that certain conclusions may be 
reached as to the age and compilation of the book. 

The word ‘proverb’ (q.v.) is applied in Pr to 
several distinct literary forms. The simplest of 
these is a couplet or distich, 7.e., an aphorism con- 
sisting of two members, which bear both a rhythmic 
and a logical relationship to each other. The 
rhythmic relationship consists in the number of 
accents or beats in each of the lines or members (in 
the original Heb.). The scheme may be 3 and 8, 
e.g., 107 

zekhér tsaddig libhrakhah, 

weshém resha‘tm yirgabh, 
or 4 and 8 as in 121, or 3 and 4 as in 14 28, or 4 and 4 
as in 25 2 (the illustrations are from Kittel). It is 
not certain that lines of two beats or accents occur. 
Logically, the two members of a proverb may be 
related as antitheses (antithetic parallelism) as 101, 2, 
etc., or as both stating the same thing but in different 
words (synonymous parallelism), or as exhibiting a 
comparison; or both members may form distinct 
parts of the same continuous thought, each supple- 
menting the other in a variety of ways. 

The couplet is the fundamental form used in Pr 
and the other Wisdom books (Job, Ec). Only rarely 
does a tristich (three-membered proverb) occur (e.g., 
22 29, 28 24). Quatrains (or double distichs) are, 
however, frequent. Even in the more discursive 
parts of the book, where, instead of isolated prov- 
erbs, the same subject is discussed in a number of 
consecutive sentences, the fundamental form of the 
couplet maintains itself (e.g., ch. 7). 

4. Order of Composition. When the book is ex- 
amined in the light of the use of these various forms, 
interesting facts are revealed. The long section 
II (10 1-22 16) consists entirely of couplets of three or 
four beats each (the apparent exception, 19 7, is 
probably textually corrupt). In this section each 
couplet is, without exception, a complete ‘proverb’ 
in itself. No principle of arrangement seems to have 
been followed in making this collection, unless we 
discover it in the fact that in chs. 10-15 the parallel- 
ism is mainly antithetic, while in chs. 16-22 it is 
mainly either comparative or continuous. So far as 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 746 


subject-matter is concerned, no order of arrange- 
ment can be discovered. Sect. IV (chs. 25-29) pre- 
sents the same general characteristics as Sect. IT. 
In Sect. III (22 17-24 22), on the other hand, the 
parallelism is synonymous, and the quatrain (or 
double couplet) is the form mainly used. In Sect. 
V, a (ch. 80) the parallelism is synonymous, but 
there is a tendency to overstep the bounds of the 
quaitrain and make use of three or even more couplets 
to express the complete thought. In Sect. V, b and 
ce (ch. 31), the synonymous quatrain is the standard 
form. When we pass now to Sect. I (1 7-9 18), we 
have, instead of aphorisms consisting of single or 
double couplets, a more extended treatment of 
separate themes, e.g., 1 8-19, a warning against keep- 
ing company with sinners; 1 20-33, wisdom’s call or 
appeal, ete. Further, all the separate discourses in 
Sect. I deal with some aspect of the common subject 


‘wisdom,’ and are pervaded by a peculiar hortatory 


tone (‘ my son’), which reminds one of portions of 
Dt. It is the tone of the teacher, urging his pupil 
to listen and heed his instruction. This section is, 
- therefore, more of a unity than any other part of the 
book. 


From the point of view of literary character the 
proverbs in Sect. Il must be pronounced the most 
perfect. These are not mere popular sayings, but 
products of fine literary workmanship. In fact, 
there are no ordinary popular proverbial utter- 
ances, such as might be picked up in the market- 
place, in Pr. What we have to do with here is the 
choicest product of the Wisdom schools and pre- 
supposes long training and practise before such art 
could be brought to the degree of perfection we see 
exhibited in Pr. In point of perfection, the proverbs 
in Sect. IV are only a little inferior to those of Sect. 
II. Comparison will show that, in the main, these 
proverbs are somewhat less polished and sententious, 
and a little more clumsy than those in Sect. II. 
In Sect. I the pure ‘proverb’ form is deserted, and 
the couplet is made use of only to do service in a 
more extended form of discourse which might better 
be classed as poetry. 


5. Authorship and Date. From the foregoing facts 
certain general conclusions may be drawn as to the 
authorship and date of Pr. It is evident that the book 
is not a unity, but rather a compilation of material 
of varied character, some of which was found at 
hand by the compiler, in the form of collections 
already furnished with captions of their own (Sects. 
II, III, a, IIT, b, and IV). Two of these sections are 
entitled ‘The proverbs of Solomon’ (II and IV). The 
title of the book (1 1) is probably only a convenient 
designation by a late editor in view of the position 
assigned to Solomon in Israelitic tradition as the 
most brilliant of Israel’s wise men. In view of the 
well-attested character of this tradition (I K 4 29 f., 
10 1), it is undeniable that some of Solomon’s proy- 
erbs may be found in Sects. II and IV. But the 
Solomonic authorship of either of these two collec- 
tions is out of the question. The whole background, 
religious, ethical, social, and politicai,’ presupposed 
in these collections, taken as a whole, belongs to an 
age much later then that of Solomon. The same 
observation is true in even greater measure of the 


GAT 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Proverbs 
Provoke 





other parts of the book (Sects. I, III, and V). On 
the other hand, it does not seem necessary to come 
down to a late postexilic date for Sects. II and IV— 
undoubtedly the earliest portions of the book. The 
main arguments relied upon by Toy—for example, 
the monotheism, the absence of nationalism, the pic- 
ture of social life, the philosophical conceptions, and 
the relation to the other Wisdom books of the Jews— 
apply either only to the book in its present final 
form or to the other sections (I, III, and V), and are 
more than counterbalanced by other considerations, 
especially by the fact that the argument from silence 
tells equally well against as for a postexilic date 
for these two sections. The references to the king, 
the absence of all references to the predominantly 
priestly, legalistic, type of life of later Judaism, the 
earnest moral tone—all these point just as signifi- 
cantly to the last century or two of the preexilic 
period (cf. Kittel). Which of these two collections 
is the earlier is now impossible to determine. Most 
scholars consider the perfect finished form of the 
proverbs of Sect. II an evidence of earlier date, but 
Davidson argues, on the contrary, that the less 
finished proverbs of Sect. IV are the older. Who the 
author or authors of these two most ancient collec- 
tions were is, of course, unknown. All that can be 
said is that they are the product of the Wisdom 
schools (see WispoM, Wise Men). The other sec- 
tions of the book are undoubtedly later than II and 
IV, all of course also emanating from the circle of 
‘wise men.’ Apart from the Introduction, Sect. I 
is the latest part of the book and is probably to 
be dated in the early part of the Greek period or 
in the latter part of the Persian, 7.e., between 350 and 
250 B.c. 


6. Purpose and Teaching of Pr. The purpose of 
the whole compilation is set forth with sufficient 
clearness in the Introduction (1 1-6); to impart the 
knowledge of ‘wisdom,’ ‘instruction,’ the understand- 
ing of the words of ‘the wise,’ to give to the young 
man ‘knowledge and discretion,’ etc. The purpose 
was practical, z.e., moral and religious rather than 
speculative. Pr was thus intended to serve as a book 
of practical morality in which the purely ethical is 
not definitely distinguished from the religious. The 
fundamental note of wisdom is ‘the fear of Jehovah’ 
(17, 910, 15 33). The theology of the book throughout 
is a pure, simple monotheism. There is little refer- 
ence to existing religious institutions, and yet a strong 
religious tone pervades the book. There is no irrev- 
erence, no atheism or even skepticism. A sincere 
belief in God and in His wise and just government is 
everywhere manifest. The ethical principles of Pr 
might be called to-day utilitarian. But this is only 
because there was no clear or generally accepted 
view of the future life. The old eschatology, in which 
Sheol is simply the final gathering-place of the dead, 
where existence is only of a negative sort, was still 
regnant. The reward of good conduct is a truly 


happy and prosperous life, and that of evil conduct | 


is disaster. Honesty, truthfulness, prudence, tem- 
perance, justice, generosity and pity, self-control, 
industry, humility, purity and chastity—such are 
the virtues extolled and emphasized in Pr as the 
marks of the truly wise man. He who neglects these 


things and practises their opposites is a ‘fool.’ The 
ideal of family life is high. Faithfulness in the mar- 
riage relation and obedience to parents are urged 
with great earnestness. The description of the 
capable housewife in 31 10-31 is a classic. In all this 
it is the individual, not the mass or the nation, as so 
commonly in the Law and the Prophets, who is ad- 
dressed, and it is individual, not public or national, 
ethics (and religion) with which Pr is concerned. 

Of philosophy, in the Greek sense, there is nothing 
in Pr. Only in ch. 8 is there an approach to a philo- 
sophical line of thought. Here ‘wisdom’ is almost 
personified and viewed as the universal principle of 
creation, but the thought is not worked up into a 
definite theory. 

In Pr we have what may be called the practical 
application of the lofty teachings of prophecy and 
the formal righteousness of the Law to the every-day 
life of the individual. The ethical elevation of the 
Prophets is not reached in Pr, but these practical 
deductions by the wise men, the teachers of Israel’s 
youth, must have been of the greatest service to re- 
ligion and morality. The finer Christian virtues of 
the N T are not to be found in Pr, but this was due 
mainly to the limitations of the age to which the 
book belongs. See also Wispom, Wisr Men. 
LiveRATURE: The general character of the book is well set 

forth by Toy in Enc. Brit. and EB, and Nowack in HDB, 

all s.v. Proverbs. See also Driver in LOT, and Kittel in 

PRE3, vol. xviii (1906); Cheyne, Job and Solomon (1887); 

Kent, The Wise Men of Ancient Israel (1895); Davison, 

The Wisdom Lit. of the O T (1894); Toy, ICC (1899, very 


thorough); Perowne, in Camb. Bible; G. C. Martin, in New 
Cent. Bible (1908). E. E. N. 


PROVINCE (éxapyela): One of the main divisions 
of the Roman Empire (Ac 23 34, 251). Augustus in 
27 B.c. divided the administration of the provinces 
between the Senate and himself, assigning to the 
former those undisturbed by war or acute difficulties; 
so that, under changing circumstances, from time to 
time provinces were transferred from one jurisdic- 
tion to the other. Over the senatorial provinces 
governors of consular rank in Africa and Asia (of 
pretorian rank elsewhere), called proconsuls, were 
appointed, and enjoyed great dignity tho little 
power, as they had no military control. Over the 
imperial provinces the emperor, at his pleasure, ap- 
pointed his own imperial legates of consular rank 
where the military necessities of the provinces were 
large (of pretorian rank where they were smaller). 
These legates also directed judicial affairs, holding 
the power of the sword, and procurators under them 
were responsible for finance. When a district was 
subject to unusual disturbances, it might be placed 
under a procurator who was only partially subordi- 
nate to the legate of his province, but had a separate 
military command and could try even Roman 
citizens, except when they appealed to Cesar. Such 
was the relation of Judea to Syria in 6-41 and 44-66 
a.p. Not only in Judea, but in the great cities of 
Egypt and Asia Minor, the Jews were allowed ex- 
ceptional privileges under their own laws. On the 
whole, the provinces were well governed. 

R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


PROVOKE: The rendering in most instances of 
ké&‘as, to be angry, or irritated, especially of man’s 
sinful conduct as arousing the Divine anger. The 


Prudence 
Psalms, Book of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


748 


na 


verb nd’ais, ‘to despise,’ is so rendered in AV of 
Nu 14 11, 23, 16 30; Dt 31 20; Is 14 (cf. RV). Provo- 
cation (He 3 8, 15) is a quotation of Ps 95 8, where the 
Heb. m*ribhaGh refers to the incident recorded in 
Ex 177 (cf. Nu 2013). EK. E. N. 


PRUDENCE, PRUDENT: These words (in AY) 
render terms from four Heb. and two Gr. roots: 
(1) bin, ‘to understand’ (Jer 497, Qal. ptepl.; Is 1013, 
Niph. ptepl., ‘understanding’ RV; Is 16 18, Hiph. 
ptepl., ‘skilful’ RVmg.; Pr 16 21, 18 15; Is 5 21, 29 14; 
Hos 14 9 [10]). (2) ‘ardm (Pr 19 25, ‘beware’ AV, 
‘earn prudence’ RY), and derivatives; noun ‘ormah 
(Pr 1 4, ‘subtility’ AV 8 12, 85 ‘wisdom’ AV); adj. 
‘Gram, ‘to be crafty,’ ‘shrewd,’ always in Pr in good 
sense of intellectual sobriety and acuteness (Pr 12 16, 
23, 13 16, 14 8, 15, 18, 22 3, 27 12). (3) sékhel, sekhel, 
‘insight,’ ‘discretion’ (II Ch 2 12 [11], ‘discretion’ RV), 
and the derived verb saékhal, Niph. ptepl., ‘one who 
acts circumspectly’ (Pr 19 14; Am 5 13), Niph. fut. 
(Is 52 13, ‘deal wisely’ RV). (4) gdsé@m, ‘diviner’ as 
in RV (Is 8 2). (5) gpdvyctc, ‘understanding,’ 
joined with cogia (Eph 18). (6) ouvetég (LXX. for 
Heb. nabhén), ‘intelligent,’ ‘having understanding’ 
(Mt 11 25=Lk 10 21; Ac 137; I Co 119 from Is 29 14). 

Goss; 

PRUNING-HOOK. See VINES AND VINTAGE, § 1, 


PSALMS, BOOK OF: 1. Canonical Place and 
Traditional Title. The Book of Psalms is the chief 
extant collection of the national and religious poetry 
of Israel. In the Heb. O T it is the longest, usually 
the first and certainly the leading book in the Hagio- 
grapha or third division of the Canon. Its traditional 
title in Hebrew is ‘Praises’ (t¢hilltm) and in the LXX. 
and the N T, ‘Psalms’ (YaApot), and both Hebrew 
and Greek thought further connected it with David 
(tz tod Aavel3, II Mac 213; Ac 2 25, 4 25, etc.), whence 
came the title ‘Psalms of David’ in the Latin, older 
English and other versions. The collective term 
‘Psalter’ is from the Cod. Alex. of the LXX (vaArh- 
etoy, properly the name of a musical instrument). 

2. Number of Poems and Division into Books. In 
both the Hebrew and the LXX. the book consists 
of 150 poems, but the numbering in the LXX. 
differs from that in the Heb. text (Pss 9-10 and 114- 
115 being united and 116 and 147 each divided— 
besides an appended Ps 151). It is to be noted that 
there are some duplicates (as 14=53; 40 13-17=70; 
57 7-i1-+60 6-12 = 108, etc.), that some poems are more 
or less divisible (18, 19, 22, 24, 89, 144, etc.), and 
that many Psalm-like poems in the O T might be 
added (as from Ex 15, I § 2, Is 12 and 38, La 1-5, 
Jon 2, Hab 38, etc.). The collection is laid out in 
five ‘books,’ namely, I, 1-41; II, 42-72; III, 73-89; 
IV, 90-106; V, 107-150, the ends of the first four 
being marked by special doxologies (41 13, 72 18-19, 
89 52, 106 48). At the foot of Book IT there is also 
the note, “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are 
ended.’ This division into books is probably con- 
nected in some way with the growth and gradual ar- 
rangement of the collection. The total number of 
poems included may have some relation to a scheme 
of stated readings in synagog services. 

3. The Captions or Titles of the Poems. Most of 
the poems have captions or titles of some sort, 
which, together with a few other interjected terms, 


are clearly not integral parts of the poems themselves 
(tho so treated in the Heb. text), but editorial notes 
or rubrics. Their date and origin are unknown, but 
at least a considerable time before the LXX. trans- 
lation was made. They belong to several different 
classes. Some seem to designate to what species 
the poem belongs, especially shir = ‘song’ (30 times, 
in Ps 45 with ‘of loves’ added and in Pss 120-134 
with ‘of ascents’ added); mizmdér, a more technical 
term for a religious ‘psalm’ (57 times, 13 of which are 
with shir); maskil, maschil, usually taken to mean 
an instructive or meditative ode (13 times, once with 
shir, once with t*phillah and once with both shir and 
mizmor); mikhiam, michtam, which may mean some- 
thing highly valued (6 times and also perhaps in 
Is 38 9, once with ‘to teach’ added); t*phillah= 
‘prayer’ (5 times); ¢hillah=‘praise’ (once); and 
shiggayon (also in pl. shighyondth, shigionoth, in 
Hab 3 1), perhaps a dithyramb (once). [It should 
be noted that as regards these terms and other points 
in the captions the LXX implies a text not exactly 
like the Heb. that we have.] Tho the contents of the 
poems do not clearly justify the above interpreta- 
tions, the terms at least mark dividing-lines between 
the poems and suggest that the collection is made 
up of pieces of varied character. It may be that 
maskil and mikhtam refer to some liturgical or 
pedagogic application, now unknown. In this case 
they belong with certain marks of intended use, like 
‘to teach’ in Ps 60, ‘to remind’ in Pss 38 and 70 (pos- 
sibly connected with the incense-offering), ‘for the 
todhah’ in Ps 100 (usually translated ‘thanksgiving’ 
or ‘thank-offering’), ‘for singing’ in Ps 88, ‘for the 
Dedication of the House’ in Ps 30 and ‘for Sabbath’ 
in Ps 92. The LXX adds other such rubrics, for ex- 
ample assigning Pss 24, 48, 94 and 93 to the first, 
second, fourth and sixth days of the week respec- 
tively. The expression ‘For the Supervisor’ (or 
‘Chief Musician’) occurs 55 times (all but three in 
Books I, II and III), possibly in each case applying 
to the preceding rather than the following Psalm (so 
Thirtle). In 26 cases words are added that are sup- 
posed to refer either to melodies to be used or to 
some general method of musical rendering (for all 
these see under Music anp Musicau InstRUMENTS, 
§ 6). 

What seem to be attributions of authorship occur 
in the captions of 101 poems, David being named in 
73 cases (Pss 3-9, 11-32, 34-41, 51-65, 68-70, 86, 101, 
103, 108-110, 122, 124, 131, 133, 138-145), Asaphin _ 
12 (Pss 50, 73-83), the Korahites in 11 (Pss 42, 44-49, — 
84-85, 87-88), Solomon in 2 (Pss 72, 127), Moses, 
Ethan and Heman in 1 each (Pss 90, 89 and 88, the 
last also being in the Korahite list), and ‘the afflicted’ — 
in Ps 102. Of the 49 anonymous or ‘orphan’ poems 
the LXX. gives 12 to David (Pss 43, 67, 91, 93-99, 
137, but the last also to Jeremiah), 4 to Haggai and 
Zechariah (Pss 138, 146-148, but the first also to 
David) and 1 to the sons of Jonadab (Ps 71), besides 
some variations from the Heb. in other cases. The | 
matter is further complicated by variations in the 
versions and in the Talmud, the latter assigning 
poems to Adam (Pss 92, 139), Melchizedek (Ps 110), — 
Abraham (Ps 89), ete. The Hebrew preposition 
before the names is regularly -b, which need not 













749 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Prudence 
Psalms, Book of 





mean ‘by’ as of an author, but only ‘associated with’ 
as of some other traditional connection. Hebrew 
thought undoubtedly took it as a mark of author- 
ship, and thus it has been generally received since. 
This view is strengthened by the fact that Pss 3, 7, 
18, 34,51, 52, 54, 56, 57, 59, 60, 68, 102, 142 have 
notes naming the historical occasion concerning 
which the poem was prepared or used, all but one of 
these (Ps 102) being connected with the story of 
David in Samuel. The most striking of these is 
Ps 18, where both caption and poem duplicate IIS 
22 in full, tho with much verbal variation. Since 
this latter chapter is an appendix rather than a part 
of the history proper, this correspondence estab- 
lishes little except that readings from the histories 
and poems related to them appear to have often 
been combined—a fact illustrated by the existence 
of several such poems in sifu in the histories, tho 
not repeated in the Psalter. 


4. Critical Value of the Captions. If the captions 
are taken as direct statements of authorship and 
even of historical occasion, from them must proceed 
the critical view of the Psalter as a whole and the 
interpretation of its several poems. This was not 
uncommon in the older commentation. But this 
hypothesis encounters so many difficulties that it is 
now almost universally given up. The general 
belief is that the captions afford valuable means of 
identifying collections antecedent to the present 
Psalter, literary sources out of which it was built 
up. Thus, especially as regards the ‘Davidic,’ the 
‘Korahite,’ and the ‘Asaphic’ poems, their appear- 
ance in almost continuous series or blocks seems to 
imply that they had previously been collected. Of 
this the colophon in 72 20 is a strong corroboration, 
tho its exact placing is a cause of discussion. The 
hypothesis of antecedent manuals accounts for 
doublets like 14=53, especially in conjunction with 
the remarkable fact that 42-83 is mainly Elohistic in 
its use of the divine names, while all the rest of the 
collection is mainly Jahvistic. Book IV mostly con- 
sists of a series of ritual songs of such related quality 
that they may well have formed one of the prior 
collections (this series includes Ps 107). In Book V 
there are the two groups known as ‘Hallels’ (Pss 113- 
118 and 146-150) and also the series entitled Songs 
of Degrees or Ascents (Pss 120-134), which may 
have been used by pilgrims ‘going up’ to Jerusalem 
at the annual feasts or songs sung ritually on one of 
of stairways in or near the Temple. The general 
hypothesis of ‘psalters within or before the Psalter’— 
here only merely sketched—accords with many phe- 
nomena in the poems themselves as well as in the 
captions. But it is not easy to work out in detail, 
especially as we can only guess how much original 
material has been left out in editing and how far 
what is retained has been reworked to fit new con- 
ditions. It is not strange that different conclusions 
are reached as to the sequence and genesis of each 
single element. Briggs, for example (in JCC, 1906- 
07), sets up a complicated scheme of successive 
source books; the salient feature of Elohism in Pss 
42-83 he attributes to late editors working in Baby- 
lonia. J. P. Peters, on the other hand (in his The 
Psalms as Liturgies, 1922), argues ingeniously that 


the Elohistic section originated four or five centuries 
earlier in the Northern Kingdom for use at the sane- 
tuaries of Dan, Shechem, Bethel, etc., but was later 
remodeled for use at Jerusalem. 

5. Selah. The term seldh is of unknown meaning. 
It occurs 71 times in the Heb. Psalter, all in Books 
J-III, except Pss 140 and 143) and thrice in Hab 83— 
always at the end of a verse except in Pss 55 19, 
57 3; Hab 3 3, 9, usually after an obvious passage or 
section, rarely at the end of poem (Pss 3, 9, 24, 46, 
tho not in the LXX. except with 9, which is there 
grouped with 10). In Ps 9 16 it is preceded by 
‘Higgaion.’ The interpretations of it vary widely. 
The LXX renders it by 3&daAy«, ‘break’ or ‘transi- 
tion,’ but the Targum, the Gr. versions and early 
patristic writers (like Jerome) by det, semper, el¢ 
téXoc, els tod atdvac, etc., ‘always’ or ‘forever.’ 


‘The Heb. form may come from a root meaning ‘to 


lift up,’ whence the modern conjecture that it is a 
rubric calling for a fresh outburst of voices or instru- 
ments. But, on the other hand, from its placing in 
the poems it has also been regarded as a sign for a 
pause or silence. Some have further questioned 
whether it may not be an abbreviation for an un- 
known expression. At all event it is not an essential 
part of the poems in which it occurs.} 

6. Poetic Form. In their poetic form the Psalms 
present features like those of other poetical books 
and the detached poems in the O T. These include 
a marked tendency in a given poem or passage to 
use lines of about equal length and with the same 
number of strong accents, many striking cases of 
assonance and alliteration (but not rime) and a re- 
markable parallellism between small groups of lines, 
worked out according to several distinct plans. The 
prevailing verse is the couplet or distich, but mono- 
stichs are not uncommon at the opening of poems, 
and tristichs are also frequent. The Heb. text comes 
to us with a careful system of added marks or accents 
(as also in Job and Proverbs), probably indicating a 
traditional mode of cantillation, tho just how and 
from what period, is not known. Refrains, marking 
a stanza-structure, occur obviously in Pss 42-48, 46, 
49, 57, 80, 107, etc., with many less evident cases. 
Many other poems fall into somewhat equal sections 
(such as Pss 50, 148, ete.). The obscure term selah 
may be a sign of similar divisions (see above). Sev- 
eral poems are alphabetic or acrostic in some way, as 
by lines (Pss 111, 112), by verses (Pss 25, 34, 145), 
by double verses (Pss 9-10, 87—the former very im- 
perfect), or by groups of eight verses, each beginning 
with the same letter (Ps 119). Most of these have 
a more or less didactic quality (except Ps 145), and 
the plan was probably to aid memorization. As a 
whole, the Psalter poetry, like that. elsewhere in the 
O T, is decidedly finished and artistic in expression, 
implying practised skill in both writers and editors. 
(It should be noted, however, that the actual text 
that we have is in individual passages confused, 
difficult and probably corrupt.) 

7. Notable Groups of Poems. While fully recog- 
nizing the really extraordinary individuality of the 

1 It is just possible that the word seldh refers to a ‘step’ 
or ‘advance’ in the act of performance, hence cognate with 


mésillah (II Ch 9 4; Ps 84 5), and analogous to ma ‘dlah in the 
title ‘Song of Degrees’ or ‘Ascents’ (Pss 120-134). 


Psalms, Book of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


750 


great majority of the poems, the attentive and 
sympathetic student early begins to note that many 
of them fall into groups or classes, each marked by 
some strong likeness in topic, spirit or manner. 
These groups are only partially coincident with the 
mechanical groups indicated by the captions. When 
analysis is carried down into separating single poems 
into their constituent parts and allowing for the 
probability that such poems as these are often de- 
cidedly composite, the actual distribution of certain 
distinct strains of expression proves to be intricate 
and even perplexing. More and more, however, the 
study of the facts of this nature proves important 
as bringing into view several types of sentiment and 
embodiment that appear to be well recognized and 
in vogue, so as to have acquired a somewhat estab- 
lished phraseology and manner. Some of them prove 
to have striking similarities with other parts of the 
O T, especially with prophecies like Isaiah, Jere- 
miah, and certain minor books, with the Wisdom 
literature and with certain parts or aspects of the 
histories. 

Thus many poems have a meditative or moni- 
torial cast, such as Pss 1, 8 (which completes the 
picture of the Creation as given in 104), 15, 19, 
24a, 33, 34, 37, 49, 50, 90, 111, 112, 119, 1389, ete. 
There are several historical poems, either recounting 
ancient facts, as in Pss 18, 78, 89 (where vs. 19-37 
curiously supplement Ps 78), 105, 106, 1382, 135, 
136 and several passages elsewhere, or dwelling on 
certain events, chiefly catastrophes, that seem nearer 
at hand, as in Pss 46, 48, 76, 83 (on the jubilant side), 
and Pss 44, 74, 79, 89 38-51, 137, etc. on the despon- 
dent side). The historic persons named range only 
from Melchizedek and Abraham down to David, 
and, of the tribes, Judah, Ephraim and Manasseh 
(or ‘Joseph’ collectively) are those chiefly mentioned, 
with slight references to four more. Of places, re- 
gions and countries, Jerusalem and ‘the Land’ are 
repeatedly named, while Pss 83 and 137, with some 
scattered passages, supply a few more references. 
The so called ‘royal’ Psalms, mentioning David, a 
‘king’ or ‘the anointed’ (Pss 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 61, 
63, 72, 89, 110,°132), are linked together by repeated 
expressions that imply a rather settled tradition of 
thought in which are blended the personality of 
David, the ideal of the Theocracy and the national 
self-consciousness (apparently personified as ‘David’). 
These are often called ‘Messianic’ in some distinct 
sense. The Temple is mentioned or clearly implied 
in at least one out of three poems and may be con- 
jectured in many more; and these references are 
widely distributed. Songs of an evidently liturgical 
or ritual quality abound, with many short passages 
of like tone, especially in the last two books (but 
note also Pss 20, 24b, 47, 65a, 67, 84, etc.), usually 
embodying adoration and thanksgiving. Altho these 
contain surprizingly few vivid references to the 
ritual of sacrifice (which is elsewhere mentioned or 
implied to a limited extent), they are naturally 
associated with that ritual. The recent contention of 
Peters (op. cit.) that all the poems are to be regarded 
as specific rituals for sacrifices seems on the whole 
much overdrawn. Very conspicuous are the poems 
made up chiefly of outcries under great adversity or 
objurgations against ‘enemies’ or ‘the wicked.’ These 


constitute what is usually called the ‘imprecatory’ 
aspect of the Psalter. Of the many whole Psalms in 
this class some are particularly intense in what seems 
to be a personal reaction (such as Pss 35, 41, 109), 
while others evidently have to do with national con- 
ditions. The frequent recurrence of tones of suffer- 
ing, indignation and sometimes despair arrests 
attention and provokes inquiry. In many cases (as 
in Pss 12, 37, 69, 88, etc.), two classes seem sharply 
contrasted—on the one side the ‘godly,’ ‘righteous,’ 
‘poor,’ and ‘needy,’ on the other the ‘wicked,’ ‘vio- 
lent’ or some similar expression, as if a local com- 
munity were divided into moral factions. 

8. Are ‘I? and ‘Me’ Personal or Collective? 
Throughout the collection the pronouns and verbs 
vary irregularly. between singular and plural, some- 
times in adjacent verses, sometimes by sections, 
sometimes as between whole poems. There has been 
much debate whether the singulars refer to the in- 
dividual author or stand for the nation or its com- 
mon consciousness by a sort of personification. 
Opinions differ widely as to given cases, tho the 
critical tendency is now to think that the notions 
and experiences are more often collective than 
purely personal. This view is strengthened by the 
frequency of conventional phrases and trains of 
thought. 

9. The Critical Problem in General. The critical 
problem of the Psalms is exceedingly intricate and 
difficult. The main questions are evidently as to 
their origin and date, as to the method and motive 
of their collection and as to the interpretation con- 
sequently to be put upon the book as a whole and 
upon individual poems. Certain primary factors in 
the problem are hard to define and appraise, such 
as, for example, (a) the stages of development in 
Hebrew poetry in general, (b) the extent and nature 
of psalmody in the first and second Temples respec- 
tively, (c) the historic background, personal or 
national, for the strongly plaintive or ‘imprecatory’ 
tone running through the Psalter, and (d) the ques- 
tion of priority as between the Psalms and other 
parts of the O T in cases where quotation one way 
or the other seems to have been made. No summary 
can here be given of the varying views of com- 
mentators on these or other factors or even touch 
on all sides of the problem. Some of the great diver- 
sities of criticism are due to a failure to allow for the 
probability of compositeness in the book and in its 
parts. The collection is surely not a homogeneous 
unit, neither are its constituent ‘books’ nor its 
apparently serial groups. Some at least, perhaps a 
majority, of its poems are themselves only editorial 
or traditional units. Wherever a poem or a group of 
poems is composite, conflicting views about it are 
inevitable. So a closer scrutiny is desirable to dis- 
cover whether the text indicates that materials of 
different texture and intention have been combined. 
In this mere subjective feeling on the critic’s part is 
not a safe guide, though it may help after objective 
lexical and logical analysis has been applied. The 
following compressed statement is naturally in- 
fluenced by the present writer’s efforts to pursue 
such analysis.? 


2 See hig four articles in JBL (1913-14), the details of which 
are too voluminous for record here. 





751 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Psalms, Book of 





10. Origin and Date. The various periods to which 
the composition of the Psalms has been assigned 
range through eight or more centuries—from the 
time of David (about 1000 B.c.) to that of the Macca- 
bees (from 167 B.c.), or even considerably later. 
Using the supposed evidence of the captions, on the 
one hand, it has been held that all or most of the 
poems were written by David or his more immediate 
successors. On the other hand, it is now not un- 
common to find all or most of them placed late in 
the postexilian period, if not wholly in the Macca- 
bean time and its sequels. Neither of these extreme 
views seems tenable in the face of the evidence. 

An important critical fact is that running through 
the collection are three prominent strains of expres- 
sion, each fairly distinct in diction and range of 
thought and sentiment. These may be named the 
plaintive, the liturgical, and the didactic. The plain- 
tive material is marked by some tone of gloom, re- 
pining, protest, or denunciation, with passionate en- 
treaty for the intervention of God’s justice and 
power. The mind of the writers is in a state of stress, 
almost of agony. The liturgical material, per contra, 
is jubilant, confident and praiseful, resting on the 
mighty and merciful attributes of God, tho some- 
times with a rather ceremonious and conventional 
type of expression, combining assertion with direct 
prayer and praise. The didactic material is reflec- 
tive, retrospective or hortatory, dealing sometimes 
with general problems of existence, sometimes with 
facts in past history, sometimes with every-day 
affairs, all from the viewpoint of an observer or 
teacher. In general, the plaintive material may 
suggest the prophetic habit of mind, the liturgical 
that of the priest, and the didactic that of the wise 
man or scribe. In the first and third sets of pas- 
sages are found the clearest parallelisms with other 
O T books, in each case rousing the query whether 
such books were not in use. Some of the plaintive 
matter (that pertaining to national disaster) seems 
to be earlier than that of the other classes, while 
other plaintive matter seems subsequent. Many 
cases occur where such matter has been reworked, as 
if to rectify its pessimism or adapt it for continued 
use after its original occasion had disappeared. It is 
fairly clear that the intention of the completed col- 
lection was both didactic and liturgical, making it a 
religious manual with more than one aspect. In 
addition, attention is due to any poems and passages 
as do not fall readily into the above three categories, 
but are either vestiges of an older time or fresh 
products of other impulses. Such unclassified 
matter constitutes a fourth topic for study. 

Regarding all these, a working hypothesis is 
needed that shall harmonize the data in the Psalter 
with the general progress of Hebrew history. If 
part of the plaintive material is somewhat primary, 
the earliest national situation available is that. of 
the Exile (after 586 B.c.), while the troubles of 
the restored nation, a century or more later, favored 
the retention of this and also further additions, 
especially as communal and partizan antagonisms 
developed. The liturgical style is naturally asso- 
ciated with the restored Temple (after 516 B.c.), 
in whose services psalmody was probably far 
more conspicuous than in the Temple of the 


several kinds. 


monarchy. It is here that traces of ritual in- 
fluences from Babylonia are most likely to be found. 
As to the didactic material, something depends on 
the obscure question of the relation of the Psalms to 
other O T books. If Jeremiah, for instance, quotes 
from them, they must precede his time so far as given 
passages go. If, on the other hand, certain Psalms 
presuppose the completed Pentateuch, such poems 
must be postexilic. It is hard to see what direct 
connection the strongly didactic poems have with 
the Temple system. They suggest rather that dis- 
cursive and pedagogic interest which was ultimately 
concentrated in the institution of the Synagog. They 
supply matter for instruction through personal 
memorization (like Proverbs). How early such writ- 
ing began is not clear, but it was prominent after the 
Exile. The unclassified material probably is of 
Some of it may well be preexilic, 
especially where akin to the fresh and strong odes 
still extant in the histories. But much of it may come 
from poets in much later times who stepped aside 
from the beaten track of sentiment and style. Room 
should be freely left for poems or passages from as 
early as the time of David, but the difficulty of 
identifying such is serious. 

If the Psalms be thus regarded as a gradual literary 
growth, mostly in the Exile and afterward, we must 
further inquire for the popular need and the definite 
sphere of use that shall account for their formal pre- 
servation and final acceptance as Scripture. As 
already said, some psalmody may have had place in 
the first Temple, especially as it became the center 
of the whole nation. But it is in conditions of the 
Exile that attempts at religious assembly of another 
sort gave occasion for using songs of plaintive outcry 
and petition. After the Return services at the 
Temple offered place for ceremonious liturgical song, 
supplemented by any less formal gatherings outside. 
As such gatherings for edification and catechetical 
effort increased in influence—of which general 
tendency the weighty fact of the O T is an evidence— 
psalmody doubtless took a deeper hold on popular 
affection and its formulas became more fixed. Ulti- 
mately, as parties within the community became 
separated and the gap between the orthodox and the 
lax, between the ‘pious’ and the ‘wicked’ became 
more evident, fresh growths of poetic expression were 
natural, including new plaintive songs on the one 
side and idealistic ‘Messianic’ songs on the other. In 
general, this hypothesis leads to regarding Books II- 
III as representative of the earlier or exilic impulse, 
Book IV and much of V as illustrative of the Temple 
interest and Book I (with scattered poems else- 
where) as containing the special sentiments of the 
rather late time when the collection was completed. 
This locates the origin of the main contents of the 
collection between about 575 and about 200 B.c. 

11. Editorial Method and Motive. Assuming, as 
most critics now do, that the present Psalter was 
compiled out of prior collections, the date of the 
final editing must, of course, have been before the 
LXX. translation of the Hagiographa was made 
(here assumed as during the 2d cent. B.c.), but how 
much before is unknown. Who the editors were and 
even where they worked is unclear, as also who were 
those of the earlier books marked with names like 


Psalms, Book of 


Puhites STANDARD 


A NEW 


‘sons of Korah,’ ‘Asaph,’ ‘David,’ etc. Many fea- 
tures in the prior collections may have been modi- 
fied or obliterated. But enough remains to lead us 
to infer that they were service-books for the Temple 
and for other places of religious assembly. The final 
motive is often said to be to make a Temple hymn- 
book. But this seems not broad enough, since there 
is so much that is inconsistent with all we know of 
Temple services and since this latter material is 
pushed into prominence. The musical directions in 
some of the captions, it is true, seem to indicate 
Temple usages, but the transfer of these to the devel- 
oping Synagog is not hard to conceive. Other points 
in the captions, as well as much in the poems, em- 
body that exaltation of Scripture which became a 
strong characteristic of the synagog system. 


Various studies have been made to show why the 
poems were arranged in their present order. Verbal 
correspondences may have played some part in cer- 
tain cases, but other cases imply an intentional con- 
trast in topic or spirit. It seems likely that at cer- 
tain points the editors sought to temper or offset 
extreme expressions by more moderate ones. The 
aim seems to have been to preserve what had become 
traditional, with only. that amplification or rectifi- 
cation needed to fit it for constant and general use. 
This applies notably to the cases where plaintive 
poems are supplied with liturgical endings, openings 
or refrains. The general success of the editorial 
process is shown by the ready way in which the 
Psalms have passed over into Christian usage in 
translation or paraphrase as standard formulas for 
prayer, praise and devout meditation. 


12. Interpretation and Significance. It follows 
from this line of thought that the high value of the 
Psalter lies in its light upon Hebrew religious con- 
victions and sentiments as held in experience and 
expressed in public and private devotion. This light 
falls chiefly upon the period following the Exile, 
when the work of the greater prophets had been 
wrought and after the discipline of the Exile had been 
undergone. But it is helpful also as to earlier times, 
since the national consciousness is unbroken in its 
development. The Psalter brings some evidence of 
the infiltration of religious ideas from both Baby- 
lonia and Persia, but the main substance of its faith 
and hope is its own. 


Since the book is a miscellany, its contents need 
to be used with discrimination, all parts of it not 
being equally significant and many poems requiring 
comparison with others of the same class for due 
elucidation. An instance of a striking difference in 
texture is found in Ps 112, which is a singular effort 
to duplicate Ps 111. A group that calls for much 
comparative consideration is that of the so called 
‘royal’ psalms, which are best handled with some con- 
ception of the ideal Israel as the center. Throughout 
the book are terms and phrases which in translation 
must be rendered by language that in Christian 
application has acquired a special and even technical 
sense. The meaning of these, and hence the massive 
import of the poems in which they occur, can be 
made sure only by comparison of passages both with- 
in the Psalter and somewhat outside. Under such 
thoughtful study, however, the book as a whole pre- 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


T52 





sents a singularly vivid and uplifting picture of the 
popular theology, piety, and ethics of Judaism, re- 
vealing a profound sense of God’s nature, providence 
and grace, an elevated outlook upon the world and 
all human life as ordained and administered by Him, 
much fine valuation of the fact of sin and of practical 
standards of conduct, and noble insight into deep 
experiences of faith, penitence, consecration and hope 
that have a lasting power of inspiration. It is debat- 
able just how much really individual spirituality is 
directly expressed, but such spirituality is constantly 
implied in the sincere and heartfelt treatment of 
general ideas. Oftentimes the tone of utterance 
seems to be not only of the community or people, 
but in some sense of humanity as understood by the 
Hebrew mind. In all these ways the Psalms stand 
immeasurably superior to anything analogous in the 
religious literature of other ancient peoples. 


Among the greater passages relating to the nature . 


and attributes of God, many Psalms are classical— 
as the chain of canticles to Him as King in Pss 92- 
100; of His omniscience and omnipresence in Ps 139; 
as Shepherd in Pss 23 and 80; as the overshadowing 
Protector in Ps 91; as the source of faithful mercy in 
Pss 108, 107 and 145; and as Creator in Pss 104 and 
8 (the latter beautifully setting forth man’s place 
as His vicegerent). The two ‘ways’ or ‘paths’ of 
righteousness and wickedness are strikingly con- 
trasted again and again, as in Ps 1, while the upright 
character is concisely delineated in Pss 15 and 24. 
Devotion to the Law is elaborately expressed in 
Pss 119 and 19b. The more intense references to sin 
and forgiveness are found in Pss 32 and 51. A touch- 
ing wistfulness toward religious ordinances is con- 
tained in Pss 42-43 and 84, with a passionate loyalty 
to Jerusalem as the Holy City in many poems. Out- 
bursts of an ardent and exalted faith appear in Pss 
27, 33, 34, 37, 63, etc. The greater hymns of praise 
are Pss 24b, 67, 118, 147, 148, 150 and the canticles in 
Book IV named above. Special recognitions of 
Nature as eloquent of God are found in Pss 19a, 29, 
65b, 104, 147, etc.; while Pss 18, 50 and 97 contain 
notable ‘theophany’ passages, the divine majesty 
being depicted in symbols from the physical world. 


Of the special hymns of national history, Pss 78, 165 — 


and 106 dwell on olden times as certifying God’s 
peculiar care for Israel; Pss 44, 74 and 89 emphasize 
the contrast between the time of His favor and that 


of His chastening; while Pss 22, 30, 31, 35, 69, ete., 


as they stand, are elate with the feeling of emergence 
from depression into joy, actual or expected. It is 
not too much to say that in Pss 2, 18, 20, 21, 45, 46, 
47, 48, 72, etc. signs appear of a consciousness that 
Israel has a world mission beyond its own borders. 
The vision of personal immortality and a future 
judgment is not distinct, but the trust in ultimate 


verity and righteousness, with repeated signs of © 
‘Messianic’ expectation, suggest a notable sweep of — 


religious philosophy, not carried out into detail. 
Altho it is true that close critical study somewhat 
alters the general aspect of the Psalter, what is lost 
in personal or concrete vividness is more than made 
up by the revelation of diffused national thoughts 


and sentiments on the part of the nation that was 


before all others God’s Light-bearer in the ancient 
world. 





ee eee 


753 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Psalms, Book of 
Puhites 





LireRATURE: From the enormous and bewildering mass of 
treatises it must suffice here to mention only the general 
commentaries of De Wette (1811), Ewald (1836) Hitzig 
(1836), Olshausen (1853), Hupfeld (1855), Delitzsch (1859), 
Perowne (1864), Gritz (1882), Cheyne (1888), Bithgen 
(1892), Wellhausen (1895), Duhm (1899), Kirkpatrick 
(1903), and Briggs (1906-07). Those of Baithgen and 
Kirkpatrick are perhaps the most generally serviceable, 
while that of Briggs is the most elaborate. Mention should 
also be made of J. M. P. Smith’s The Religion of the Psalms, 
(1922), and J. P. Peters’ The Psalms as Liturgies (1922), 
tho the latter urges many points that are open to debate. 
A stimulating homiletical exposition is that of Maclaren 
(1903-04). 


PSALMS OF SOLOMON: This is a collection of 
short poetic compositions patterned, in general, 
after the model of the canonical Psalms and grouped 
together under the name of Solomon, tho for what 
reason does not clearly appear. They nowhere 
claim to be composed by him. They are indepen- 
dent of one another, but all reflect the conditions of 
the same general environment and are pervaded by 
the same tone and spirit. The age of their origin can 
be fixed with reasonable definiteness as between 70 
and 40 s.c. There are clear traces in them of the 
presence of Pompey on the horizon (called ‘the 
mighty striker’ who comes from the ends of the 
earth, 8 16), of Aristobulus IT and Hyrcanus II, and 
of the desecration of the Holy City by the Gentiles 
(2 20, 8 23, 24), and finally, allusions to the /shame- 
ful death of the persecutor in Egypt (2 29, 30). All 
this points to the days of the Roman conquest. There 
are eighteen psalms in the collection, and of these 
Nos. 17 and 18 are clearly Messianic. The former 
points to the coming of the Messiah, and the latter 
portrays the glories of the Messianic Age. They 
were originally written in Hebrew and were known to 
the ancient Fathers, by some of whom they were con- 
ceded a deuterocanonical value. They are extant in 
a small number of Greek and Syriac MSS. The Greek 
text has been edited by H. B. Swete (1899). An 
English edition with critical introduction and notes 
has been published by Ryle and James (1891). See 
also the edition by Kittel in Kautzsch, Die Apokry- 
phen u. Pseudepigraphen d. A T, 1900, and Charles, 
OT Apoc. and Pseudepigr. (1913). A.C. Z. 


PSALTERY, sel’tar-. 
INSTRUMENTS, § 3 (3). 


PTOLEMAIS, tol’1-mé@‘is (IItoAcyats): A town 
situated at the N. end of Acco bay, on a tongue of 
land backed by a fertile plain nearly 4 m. wide. It 
was an old and flourishing Canaanite town, which 
was not conquered by the Israelites and is mentioned 
only once in the O T (Acco, Jg 1 31). Its situation on 
the commercial road between Mesopotamia and 
Egypt gave it importance in international struggles, 
and in the war for Jewish freedom. In the 3d cent. 
B.C. it received the official name Ptolemais, from one 
of the Ptolemies. The crusaders called it Acre, from 
the old Hebrew name, and it was their chief landing- 
place. As the natural seaport for Damascus and 
Galilee in their trade with Egypt, Asia Minor, and 
the West, it became very prosperous. Paul landed 
there from Tyre on his last visit to Jerusalem (Ac 
ALN): R. A. F.—E. C. L 


See Music anp MusIcAL 


8 The dates given are those of first editions in each case, 


PUAH, piii’a, PUA, piii’a (7815, pa’ah, MP, puw- 
wah; in I Ch 71 Puvah, Phuvah AV): 1. The second 
son of Issachar (Gn 4613; Nu 26 23) and the ancestor 
of his clan the Punites. He was the younger brother 
of Tola, who, as eponymous hero of the Tola clan, 
and one of the minor Judges, was called the ‘son’ of 
Puah (Jg 101). 2. (1935, pa‘ah). A midwife of the 
Hebrews (Ex 1 15). CY Sin 


PUBLICAN: An inaccurate translation of teAdvat 
(telonat). The publicans, publicani, originally con- 
tractors at Rome for public works and services or 
farmers of the public land, were under the Republic 
the contractors who bought from the government, 
through the censors, the privilege of collecting the 
taxes in a territory. These rights were sold at public 
auction to the highest bidders, who recouped them- 
selves handsomely by subletting at a profit on the 
price agreed to by the government. The publicani 
formed joint stock companies, the members of which 
were knights, senators being excluded by their rank. 
Both the contractors and their subordinates and 
agents were known as publicani, who were the bane 
of the provinces under the Republic. Under the 
empire these tyrannous agents were stripped of 
arbitrary powers, controlled, and finally abolished. 
The ‘publicans’ (telonat) of the gospels were not 
identical with these exacting publicani, nor were 
they the regular collectors of the customs. Julius 
Cesar abolished (47-44 3B.c.) the control of the 
publicant in Judea, making the native ethnarch re- 
sponsible for the taxes. In 6 a.p., when Judea be- 
came incorporated with Syria, the publicant were not 
employed, the government retaining direct control 
of taxation. The telonat, tax-gatherers, of the 
gospels were small contractors, each of a single tax, 
and had no relation to the publicani. Their relation 
to the Roman Government is indeterminate. They 
were natives and Jews (which made them objects of 
fanatic detestation) who prayed in the temple and 
with whom Jesus sat at table. The taxes collected 
by them were only direct taxes in money, not tithes 
or levies in kind. ‘The telonai were persons of 
substance. S. A. 


PUBLIUS, pob’li-us (IIérit0¢): The chief man in 
the island of Malta who befriended Paul at the time 
of his shipwreck on the way to Rome (Ac 287), and 
whose father Paul healed (Ac 28 8). The title ‘chief 
man’ (6 cedtos) is found in Maltan inscriptions 
(Inscr. Gr. Ital. et Sic. 601), and probably refers to 
the highest Roman official on the island (ef. Cicero, 
In Verr. 4, 18). Another form of the name is 
‘Poplios,’ which may be a Greek rendering of 
‘Popilius’ (see Ramsay, St. Paul the Traveller and 
Roman Citizen, p. 343). Ja MoTs 


PUDENS, piti’denz (IIod8y¢): An early Christian 
at Rome who sent greetings to Timothy through 
Paul (II Ti 4 21). The name is found in Roman 
inscriptions (CTL, VI, 15,066) and was borne by 
several men of note, hence the attempt to idenitfy 
our Pudens, e.g., with Aulus Pudens, the friend of 
Martial (cf. Epigrams, IV, 13; XI, 63), but without 
sufficient reason (cf. Ellicott on II Ti 4 21). See 
CLAUDIA. J. MEAP. 


PUHITES, piii’haits. See Puruirss. 


Pul A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 754. 


Pure 





PUL, pol. I. As personal name, see T1GLaTH- 
PILESER. II. As geographical name, see Pur. 


PULSE: (1) The incorrect rendering of the adj. 
galt (from qgdalah, ‘to roast’ or ‘parch’), meaning 
‘roasted’ or ‘parched grain’ (II § 17 28, where the 
repetitionof the word is probably a scribe’s blunder). 
(2) In Dn 1 12, 16, the Heb. zérd‘tm or zéro‘nim 
means ‘that which grows as a result of sowing [the 
seed]’ and consequently ‘pulse’ is too restricted in 
meaning. Vegetable food in general is meant. 

EK. E. N. 

PUNISHMENT. See Crimes anpd PuNISH- 


MENTS, § 3. 

PUNITE, pit’/nait. See Puan. 

PUNON, piu’nen (jnp, puindn): A station on the 
wilderness journey (Nu 33 42f.). The name may be 
the same as Pinon (q.v.), which would indicate a 
locality in Edom. E. KE. N. 


PUR, pdr, PURIM, pii’rim. See Fasrs anp 
Feasts, § 2 (1); and Esrumr, § 6. 
’ PURAH, pii’ra (778, purah, Phurah AV): The 
servant of Gideon (Jg 7 10). 


PURE, PURITY, PURIFICATION: 1. Usage of 
Terms. The ideas of cleanness and uncleanness 
(purity and impurity) are expressed in the Bible 
through a series of synonymous terms only vaguely 
distinguishable from one another. (1) The com- 
monest of these are the contrasted tahér, clean, 
‘pure,’ and tamé’, unclean, ‘impure,’ with their N T 
equivalents xa$ced¢ and d&xdébaetos. Other terms are 
(2) barar, with more direct reference to physical 
cleanness (Ps 18 26). (3) zakh, with reference to 
freedom from mixture with foreign substances (Ex 
27 20; Lv 24, 7; Ex 30 20). (4) hamits, ‘salted’ (Is 30 
24 ‘clean’ AV, ‘savory’ RV). (5) hdsaph, ‘stripped’ 
(J117). (6) ndgi, with reference to moral innocence 
(Ex 237; Ps 24 4). (7) &yvéc, ‘innocent,’ ‘spotless’ 
CLUB 0 aay Sean ey 29): 

2. Cleanliness. Bodily cleanliness, as in itself a 
desirable and enjoyable condition, was prized in 
Bible lands as elsewhere. The Egyptian priests 
bathed their bodies in cold water twice every day 
and twice every night (Herod. IT, 27). That it was 
not a mere priestly custom appears from the inci- 
dent of Pharaoh’s daughter bathing in the Nile (Kx 
25). The custom of bathing in public was, however, 
introduced late among the Jews, and public baths 
were first built in imitation of the Greeks and 
Romans (I Mac 1 14). In the earlier period there is 
no mention of any special arrangement known under 
the name of bath. Bathing (rdhats, also shdtaph in 
I K 22 38) in the O T is the washing of the body for 
ceremonial purposes (Lv 15 5 ff.; cf. also Jn 18 10). 


3. Cleanness as Fitness to Come Before God. 
But cleanness was regarded as something more 
than bodily cleanliness. The latter wasa part of the 
former, and the former was governed by the religious 
motive of acceptability before God. To be clean was, 
in this sense, to have everything removed from one’s 
appearance or constitution which would bar the way 
to the free approach into the presence of God. One 
was clean or unclean as he conformed or failed to 
conform to certain requirements which were re- 
ligiously or ceremonially prescribed. 


4, Physical Defects Uncleanness. From this 
point of view imperfection of physique, at least as 
far as perceptible to the eye, was a disqualification 
for approach to the altar, and to that extent to be 
reckoned as in the same class with uncleanness, tho 
not formally included under the name (Lv 21 18 ff.). 
Among those whose approach would profane the 
sanctuary of J’’ were men that had bodily blemishes, 
such as lameness, blindness, curvature of the spine 
(crookbacked), scurvy, etc. 

5. Cleanness and Holiness. To be clean, however, 
was not the same as to be holy. Clean is rather the 
opposite of common, and unclean the opposite of 
holy. These four terms constitute four gradations 
of approach to the ideal of perfect purity for man. 
Unclean represents the furthest remove from it; 
common comes next, clean third, and holy is the 
nearest. 


6. Sources of Defilement or Pollution. (1) Un- 
avoidable. The occasions of uncleanness were either 
involuntary and unavoidable, or conscious and 
avoidable. Of the former class were such natural 
vital phenomena as seminal emissions, inclusive of 
gonorrhea (Ly 15 2, 16) and menstruation (Lv 15 19). 
With these were included, as a necessity of life, 
sexual intercourse (Ly 15 18; Ex 1915; 18 214; 11S 
11 4) and childbirth (Lv ch 12). Leprosy also be- 
longed to this class (Lv ch. 13), and, finally, contact 
with one who was unclean from any of the causes 
above specified (Lv 15 6; cf. flowers, in vs. 24 and 33 
AV), contact with unclean things, principally the 
bodies of the dead (Nu 19 11-22), and contact with 
things touched by unclean persons (Lv 15 9). 

(2) Avoidable Sources of Uncleanness. Of the 
avoidable sources of defilement, eating of the flesh 
of certain animals was the chief. These are enu- 
merated in Lv. 11 2-24 and Dt 14 2-21. The list 
includes beasts which part the hoof and chew the 
cud, living creatures in the waters that have not 
fins and scales (Gunkel conjectures it was because 
they do not belong to the class of chaos-beast, or 
the nahash of the sea; according to Professor Mills, 
of Oxford, it was because they were created by a 
demon or demons) and winged creatures without 
general characterization, but included in a special 
list of taboo. The carcasses of such animals were 
also unclean (Lv 11 11, 24 f.). Eating of the flesh 
of torn or unnaturally slain animals was also a 
source of uncleanness (Ex 22 31; Lv 17 15; ‘stran- 
gled’ things, Ac 15 25; and animals sacrificed to idols, 
Ex 34 15; Ac 21 25; I Co 1028). Finally, blood was 
tabooed, for ‘blood is the life’ (Gn 9 4). For other 
reasons pieces of fat, specially designated in the 
ritual for sacrifice, were tabooed (Ly 7 23, 25, 27). 
Moreover, all desecration, such as the touch of a 
forbidden tool (Ex 20 25), worship of idols (Ezk 
20 31), etc., was said to pollute. 

7. Growth of List of Unclean Things. Tho these 
sources of defilement are given in a compact list in 
P, it is not probable that they were all clearly in view 
from the outset. The tendency with the lapse of 
time was to lengthen the list and intensify the dis- 
tinction. In N T times the Pharisees had 
elaborated the definition of clean and unclean in a 
very artificial manner. The ordinance of Lv 15 11 





755 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Pul 
Pure 





was made the basis of a system of ablutions before 
meals; and one who did not conform to this provision 
ate with unwashed—that is, common—hands (de- 
filed, Mk 72 RV). But even this was not thought 
sufficient, for to wash after the meal was also re- 
quired. To provide for the successful or beneficial 
carrying out of this requirement it became necessary, 
in houses where feasts were to be held, to have water- 
pots with water for the guests to use in these ablu- 
tions (Jn 27); and further to secure against danger of 
defilement in any other way a system of washing of 
cups and pots and brazen vessels was devised (He 
99f.; Mk 7 4). 


8. Importance of the Ceremonial. How large the 
importance of the question of purity and purification 
had become is shown by the fact that a new teacher’s 
standing was apt to be gaged by his attitude to the 
matter. 
the faithful Jews to explain their master’s teaching 
on this question (Jn 3 25). (On the refinements de- 
vised and observed in later Judaism see Schiirer, 
HJP, II, ti, pp. 106-111; Edersheim, Life of Jesus 
the Messiah II, 10.) It is worth noticing that among 
the things which rendered unclean was the use of 
canonical or sacred books. It was a question, for 
instance, whether the Song of Solomon rendered un- 
clean. Those who believed in its canonicity said it 
did; those who did not, took the opposite ground. 

9. Jesus’ Attitude. Jesus’ attitude toward this 
elaboration was that of the prophetic reformer, who 
drives back to the ethical root of the system. His 
teaching does away with ceremonial impurity alto- 
gether. Cleanness and uncleanness inhere in moral 
attitudes and relations, not in physical contacts 
(Mk 7 1-23 and ||s). 


10. Unclean Land. But uncleanness might be con- 
tracted by a whole country. (1) In the case of a 
murder which remained unpunished (Dt 21 1-9) as 
no expiation could be made for the land except by 
the death of the murderer (Nu 35 33). (2) Through 
immorality (Jer 31). (3) Through idolatry (Jer 
27f., 32; Hos 610). Foreign countries were un- 
clean because of the false gods worshiped in them 
(Am 7 17). The food eaten in foreign countries 
was, therefore, also unclean (Hos 9 3f.; Ezk 4 13). 
This is what made the Exile such a fearful visita- 
tion of wrath to the Israelite (IS 2619). Profana- 
tion of holy ground was liable to take place when 
aliens trod it (Ezk 44 7, 9, pollute AV, Ac 21 28), 
and, in fact, all alliances and compromises with 
idolatry are occasions of profanation (Ezk 36 18). 

11. Modes of Purification. Purification was a 
restoration of the privilege of approach to the altar. 
It involved incidentally freedom of participation in 
the functions of social life. The process by which it 
was secured varied according to the kind and degree 
of uncleanness contracted. Simple and general puri- 
fication was secured through the bathing of the body 
and of the clothes of the person purified (Lv 15 8, 10, 
11). These were then put on again at the end of the 
day. This was all that was required in cases of un- 
cleanness contracted with a person having an issue 
or by contact with anything rendered unclean by 
such a person (Ly 15 5-11). 


12. Special Ritual. For purification from unclean- 


The disciples of John were challenged by » 


ness of a severer kind, special rituals were devised. 
(1) The simplest of these was that for cleansing from 
an issue (Lv 1519). In this case uncleanness lasted 
seven days. At the end of that time, by washing the 
body and the clothing in running water, unclean- 
ness was removed; but on the eighth day the person 
must appear before the priest with two turtle-doves 
or young pigeons and offer one for a sin-offering and 
the other for a burnt-offering. (2) In cases of child- 
birth cleansing depended first of all on the sex of 
the new-born infant. (a) If this were a man child, 
the period of uncleanness was fixed at seven days 
(Lv 12 2). A period of thirty-three days following 
was known as ‘the days of purification,’ during which 
the mother was not allowed access to the Sanctuary, 
nor could she touch anything hallowed lest she defile 
it. At the end of the days of purification, she pre- 
sented a lamb as a sacrifice and in cases of extreme 
poverty a pair of turtle-doves or young pigeons (Lv 
12 8; Lk 2 24). (b) For a daughter the duration of 
both the days of uncleanness and of purification were 
doubled. Otherwise the ritual was the same. (3) In 
case of leprosy the time of purification was fixed at 
seven days. It was inaugurated by the presentation 
of the person healed with two clean birds at the gate 
of the city (he having previously lived in separation 
outside). The priest killed one of the birds, allowing 
its blood to flow into a bowl of water. Then he took 
a bunch of hyssop, dipped it into the bowl and 
sprinkled the person. Next he released the other 
bird. The person was then declared clean, shaved 
his hair and washed his clothes and spent the seven 
days of his purification still in separation; but on the 
seventh day, he again washed his clothes and shaved. 
On the eighth he appeared at the Sanctuary with two 
male lambs and a female one, or in case of poverty 
with one lamb and two doves or pigeons, together 
with a meal-offering, one as a burnt-offering and 
the other lamb as a trespass-offering. The priests 
then anointed the person’s right ear, right thumb, _ 
and right big toe with the blood of the trespass- 

offering, and with part of the oil; the remainder of the 
oil he poured on the person’s head after making a 
libation before J’. The man was thus completely 
pure (Lv ch. 14). (4) Most peculiar of all was the 
ritual for purification from uncleanness contracted 
by contact with a corpse. The first step was the 
selection of a red heifer without blemish, which also 
had never been put to service by man. This heifer 
was sacrificed, her body being burned with cedar 
wood and hyssop and scarlet, and the blood sprinkled 
toward the Sanctuary. The ashes of the sacrifice 
were gathered and preserved, and whenever needed, 
mixed with living water. This water, now called holy 
water (‘water for impurity’), was then sprinkled 
upon the person defiled, on the third and on the 
seventh day, and on washing his clothes and his body 
as in simple purification such a person was pure 
(Nu ch. 19). (5) The restoration of the Nazirite 
accidentally made unclean by contact with a corpse 
was effected by his serving seven days of purification 
in separation, at the end of which he shaved all his 
hair. On the eighth he brought two turtle-doves or 
young pigeons to the door of the sanctuary (one for 
a burnt-offering, and the other for a sin- and trespass- 


Purge 
Quotations 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


756 





offering like that offered by the leper on being 
healed). This closed the ceremony (Nu 6 9-12). 
A. ya, 


PURGE: This term, in its former broad meaning 
of ‘purify,’ ‘cleanse,’ by removing what is impure, is 
used correctly for one Gr. and six Heb. words: 
(1) barar (Ezk 20 38; Dn 11 35, ‘purify’ RV); (2) 
diiah (Is 4 4); (8) zdqaq (Mal 8 3, ‘refine’ RV); (4) 
hata’, in Pi‘él (Ps 517, ‘purify’ RV); (5) tahér (II Ch 
34 3, 8; Ezk 24 13, ‘cleanse’ RV); (6) tsdraph (Is 
1 25); (7) SraxcBaetterr (Mt 3 12; Lk 317, ‘cleanse’ 
RV); éxxadatpery (I Co 57; IL Ti 2 21); xaOaottery 
(Mk 7 19; He 9 14, 22, ‘cleanse’ RV); xaOatoev (Jn 
15 2; He 1 3, ‘cleanse’ RV); xaOapropédc (He 1 3, 
‘purification’ RV; II P 19, ‘cleansing’ RV). ‘Purge’ 
is also found in the AV for forms of kadphar, for 
which the RV has the correct renderings (Ps 65 3 [4], 
799; Is 67, 2214, 279; Ezk 43 20, 26; Pr 166;1S 3 14) 
‘forgive,’ ‘explate.’ Gis os Ped Bo 


PURIM, piti’rim. See Esrumr, § 6; and Fasts anp 
FEASTS, § 2. 


PURPLE: In the Bible the word ‘purple’ always 
refers to purple-dyed stuffs (of various kinds), or 
garments made from them, not to the dye itself. 
See Cotors, § 2; and Dress anD ORNAMENTS, § 5. 


PURSE. See Baa (2); and Dress anp ORNA- 
MENTS, § 2. 


PUT, pot (ui, put, Phut AV, Gn 106; Ezk 27 10): 
One of the four sons of Ham, in the ethnological and 
geographical table of Gn ch. 10, the others being 
Cush (Ethiopia), Mizraim (Egypt), and Canaan. 
Put, together with Lud, furnished mercenaries for 
the armies of Tyre (Ezk 27 10), of Egypt (Jer 46 9; 
Ezk 30 5), and of Gog (Ezk 38 5). Their favorite 
weapon was the bow. Nahum (3 9) groups them 
with the Lubim, 7.e., Libyans, as helpers of No-Amon 
or Thebes, and in the Genesis table they are grouped 
with the Egyptians and the Ethiopians. Im all 
the prophetic passages the LXX. supports this view 
by translating Put ‘Libyans,’ and many O T com- 
mentators accept this identification, which is still 


Q 


QUAIL. See Patestinn, § 25; and Foop ANnpD 
Foop Urrnsiis, § 10. 

QUARRIES (0°?°D5, p*silim, ‘graven images,’ 
Jg 3 19, 26, RVmg.): The Heb. term strictly means 
‘hewn stones.’ The region of Gilgal (q.v.), where 
these ‘quarries’ were located, was noted for a group 
of sacred stones, possibly objects of worship, men- 
tioned as a landmark. There is no evidence of a 
stone quarry in the place (cf. Moore in JCC). In 
I K 67, ‘quarry’ RV does not correspond to any 
Hebrew word, but translates the passage according 
to its sense (‘before it was brought away’ RVmg.). 
For quarrying stone among the Hebrews cf. Ben- 
zinger, Hebr. Arch.1, p. 236; and among the Egyp- 
tians, Maspero, Dawn of Civilization, p. 383 f. 

A. C. Z. 

QUARTER, SECOND. See Jerusatem, § 36. 

QUARTUS, kwér’tus (Koteptos): A Christian 


further confirmed by the Coptic name (Phaiat) 
of the W. part of Lower Egypt. Egyptologists (e.g., 
Miiller, Asien u. Europa, ch. vii) deny the correct- 
ness of this identification, and regard Put as the 
Hebrew name of the land of Punt, of the Egyptian 
inscriptions. This land stretched along the African 
coast of the Red Sea from the desert E. of Upper 
Egypt down to Somaliland. From the inscriptions 
of the 12th, 18th, and 20th dynasties we learn of a 
lively commercial intercourse between Egypt and 
Punt. From it the Egyptians imported slaves, 


_monkeys, spices for incense, gold, ivory, ebony, 


ostrich feathers, and eggs. The inhabitants were 
partly negroes and partly of Hamitic stock. If this 
identification be correct, the prophets use ‘Put’ in a 
broad sense, to include all Africa E. of Egypt and 
Ethiopia. For Pul, Is 66 19, read, with LXX., ‘Put.’ 
J. Ay 1 

PUTEOLI, piu-ti’o-lai (TlottoAot): A Roman sea- 
port N. of Naples. It was founded by Greeks in 
512 B.c., and called Dicearchia; occupied by Rome 
in 215. It became a Roman colony in 194, and was 
renamed Puteoli (‘fountains,’ ‘craters’) It was the 
chief commercial city of Italy, in direct touch with 
the Orient, and had a large Oriental population. It 
is mentioned but once in the N T (Ac 2813). 

J.R.S. S.*—J. M. T. 

PUTHITES, pid’ thaits (M5, pith, Puhites AV): 
One of the clans inhabiting the region of Kiriath- 
jearim (I Ch 2 53). 

PUTIEL, pid’ti-el (9838, pati’al): The father of 
the wife of Aaron’s son Eleazar (Ex 6 25). 


PUTRIFYING SORES: See Disrasse AND MEDI- 
CINE, §§ 4 (5), and 6. 


PUVAH, pid’vd. See Puan. 
PYGARG, pai’garg. See Patesring, § 24. 


PYRRHUS, pir’vs (IIbee0¢): The father of Sopater 
of Bercea, one of Paul’s companions on his last visit 
to Jerusalem (Ac 20 4). 


PYTHON, pai’fthen. 
TION, § 9. 


See Macic anp DIvINA- 


whom Paul associates with himself in salutations to 
the Roman Church (Ro 16 23). Mentioned in the 
same verse with Erastus, ‘treasurer of the city,’ he 
is designated simply as a ‘brother.’ SMA: 


QUATERNION, kwa-ter’ni-on, from Vulg. qua- 
ternio (Gr. tete&dtov, ‘a squad of four’): A division 
of soldiers, consisting of four men, usually assigned 
to the guarding of prisoners. Four quaternions 
were placed over Peter at the time of his arrest by 
Herod (Ac 12 4). One quaternion was on guard at 
the Crucifixion (Jn 19 23; cf. Ev. Petri 9). The 
night being divided into four watches, one of the 
companies would watch while the other three slept 
through each watch. J. R.S. S.*—S. A. 

QUEEN: The original terms so renderéd are: (1) 
malkah, m*lekheth fem. of melekh, ‘king,’ and Gacl- 
Atcoa; used only of the Queen of Sheba, Vashti, 
Esther, Belshazzar’s mother (?), Candace, and in 





T57 A NEW STANDARD 


Song 68f.; Rev 187. (2) g*bhirah, ‘mistress’; the 
title of the queen mother (I K 15 13 ARVmg.; Jer 
13 18, etc.), and once of the consort (I K 11 19). 
(3) shéghdl, ‘wife’ (Neh 2 6; Ps 45 9). (4) sarah, 
‘princess’ (Is 49 23; cf. I K 11 3). 

The ‘queens’ of the polygamous Orient were as 
a rule merely members of an immense royal harem, 
whose status was somewhat higher and more secure 
than that of the concubines (Song 6 8; cf. I K 111-8). 
Often, however, a certain wife would enjoy her 
lord’s special favor, and consequently be raised to a 
position roughly corresponding to that of a modern 
queen consort (Tahpenes, I K 11 19); Vashti, Est 
ch. 1; ef. Neh 2 6). This would ordinarily be the 
first wife married after the king’s accession, espe- 
clally if of noble birth (Pharaoh’s daughter, I K 
3 1; Jezebel, I K 16 31); but the favorite might be 
chosen for her beauty (Est 2 7, 17), or because she 
had given birth to an acceptable heir (so apparently, 
Bathsheba; cf. I K 2 13). The O T, however, does 
not apply the title ‘queen’ to the wife of any living 
Hebrew monarch. 

On the other hand, as in Oriental courts to-day, 
the king’s mother often exercised a most weighty 
influence (Jer 13 18; cf. II K 24 12; I K 15 13; ?7Dn 
5 10). Only after Ahab’s death was Jezebel called 
‘queen’ (II K 10 13); and it was as queen mother 
that Athaliah gained the influence which she later 
used to usurp the throne (II K ch. 11). King Sol- 
omon’s attitude toward his mother is also significant 
(I K 219). 

The only female sovereigns mentioned in the 
Bible are the Queen of Sheba (I K ch. 10; Mt 12 42 
‘and ||s), Candace of Ethiopia (Ac 8 27), and Athaliah 
of Judah (II K ch. 11). L. G. L.—E. C. L. 


QUEEN OF HEAVEN. See Semitic ReEtiaion, 
§ 14 (7). 

QUEEN OF SHEBA: The Arabian queen who 
visited Solomon (I K 10 1-10). Nothing more is 
known of her outside of what is given in the Biblical 
story. For the country Sheba (also called Seba) 
see ARAB, ARABIA; ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOL- 
oay, §§ 11, 138; SaBEaAN; and SuHEsa. 


QUESTION. See Provers; and Wispom, WIsE 
Men, § 2. 


QUICK, QUICKEN: These words occur often 
in AV and are occasionally used in RV to render 
terms usually translated ‘alive,’ ‘living,’ ‘to make’ 
or ‘keep alive’ or ‘to cause to live.’ At times the 
meaning is purely physical (e.g., Nu 16 30; Ac 10 42; 
etc.); in other cases, especially in the Psalms, while 
the physical reviving is the basis, the expression 
often includes more. In Paul, spiritual newness of 
life is sometimes meant (e.g., Eph 2 5; Col 2 13), but 
generally, it is the resurrection life that is intended 
(Ro 417, 811, ete.; cf. also Jn 5 21,663). E. E.N. 


QUICKSANDS. See MEpITERRANEAN SEA. 


QUIRINIUS, kwai-rin’1-us (Kueqvtos): The name 
of a Roman governor of Syria under whom a census 
was taken in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus 
(Lk 21, 4; Cyrenius AV). No explicit mention of 
such a census occurs elsewhere, but Q. is known 
to have been governor in 6 4.D. and to have taken a 
census then (Jos. Ant. XVIII, 11, 2 2). For the dif- 


Purge 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Quotations 


ficulty raised Ramsay (Was Christ Born in Beth- 
lehem? {1898]) proposes the following solution: There 
was a system of periodic enrolments in Syria in cycles 
of fourteen years, beginning from the first annus 
Augusti (23 B.c.). An enrolment was therefore due, 

and was made, in Syria in 8 B.c.; but for state 
reasons Herod had it deferred in Judea until late in 
the summer of 6 B.c., when Quirinius was special 
legatus Augusti to carry on war against the Homona- 
denses (6-4 B.c.), being in command (hyepovebwv = 

dux; Luke here also is correct) of the army and direct- 

ing the foreign policy of Syria, while Varus (governor 
of Syria, 7-4 B.c.) retained the administration of 
the civil affairs of the province. This enrolment, in 

order to save the susceptibilities of the Jews, was 
given a Jewish character, being conducted according 

to tribes and households. Consequently, no tumults 


_ occurred. This explanation, while perhaps possible, 


is involved in too many conjectures to be considered 
probable without further definite evidence. The 
known facts are that Q. was consul in 12 B.c.; 
was appointed legatus Augusti for Syria for the first 
time, 6-4 B.c., proconsul of Asia, 3-2 B.c., and 
legatus Augustt for Syria for the second time, 6-9 
A.D. (after the death of Herod). During this second 
governorship the famous enrolment of Quirinius 
took place, causing tumults, because Judea was now 
incorporated into the Roman Empire, and the enrol- 
ment was considered a mark of servitude. Q. died 
21 A.D. J.R.S. S.*—E. E. N. 


QUIVER. See ARMs AND ARMoR, § 3. 


QUOTATIONS: 1. In the O T. Quotations by 
O T writers from preexisting sources are of two kinds, 
i.e., those whose sources are given and those made 
anonymously. Of the first class are the citations 
from the Book of Jashar Jos 10 13; II S 1 18); the 
Book of the Wars of Jehovah (Nu 21 14); and, in the 
LXX., the Book of the Song (I K 8 53). Many cases 
of reference to the Book of the Chronicles of the 
Kings of Israel and to the Book of the Chronicles of 
the Kings of Judah are also specifically found in I, 
II Kings and I, II Chronicles (cf. Israel, I K chs. 
14, 15, 16, 22; II K chs. 1, 10, 13, 14; I Ch ch. 9; 
II Ch chs. 20, 33; Judah, I K chs. 15, 22; II K chs. 
8, 12, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21; Judah and Israel, II Ch chs. 
25, 28, 32; Israel and Judah, II Ch chs. 27, 35, 36; 
Kings, II Ch ch. 24), but not by way of quotation. 
Of the second class are the poetic passages, such as 
the Song of Lamech (Gn 4 23 f.), the Song of Moses 
(Ex 15 2-13), and many prose extracts which, from 
the nature of the case, can not be positively identi- 
fied. To the latter class must be added also the 
passages common to two or more writers, with 
reference to which the question arises whether they 
are original with either of the writers, always ad- 
mitting the possibility of their being quoted by 
both from some antecedent writing (e.g., Is 2 2-4= 
Mic 4 1-3; Ob ver. 5=Jer 49 9). 

2. In the N T. (1) From Pagan Writers. Quota- 
tions by N T writers from pagan writers and from 
the Apocrypha are rare. The clearest cases are the 
lines introduced by Paul into his discourse on Mars 
Hill (Ac 17 28, from Aratus, or Cleanthes), and into 
his letters (I Co 15 33, from Menander; Tit 1 12, 
from Callimachus; I Co 12 12-27, perhaps from the 


Quotations 
Rachel 


A NEW STANDARD 
fable of Menenius Agrippa), and by Jude into his 
Epistle from Hth. En. and Ass. Mos. vs. 9, 14). 

(2) From the O T. Quotations in the N T from 
the O T are very numerous. They are found in 
every book of the N T, except Phm, I, II, and III 
Jn, and II P, and are drawn from every book of 
the O T except Est, Song, and Ec. It is not easy to 
draw the line between an explicit quotation and a 
trace of the influence of an older writer’s language 
on a later one. Statistical statements on this sub- 
ject must be taken with some allowance. Swete 
allows only 160 such direct quotations, while West- 
cott and Hort give the number as 1,279. Never- 
theless, the number of explicit quotations from the 
O T in the New has been computed with an approach 
to accuracy as 275. 

3. Classes of Quotation. According to the rela- 
tion which quotations sustain to the original text, 
they may be classified as follows: (1) Direct cita- 
tions translated immediately from the Hebrew O T 
(e.g., Lk 117 from Mal 31). These are not numerous. 
(2) Direct quotations made from versions. Of these 
the vast majority are based on the LXX., and 
develop differences between the original as found 
in the O T and the form of it which appears in the 
quotation, such as: (a) changes in the order of the 
clauses, ¢.g., Ro 10 20 reverses the order of clauses 
in Is 651, from which it is taken. (b) The addition 
of a word or clause, e.g., in Jn 6 31, from Ps 78 24 
(‘do it’ is not in the O T, but added by the LXX.). 
(c) The mistaking of one Heb. word for another, 
because of identity of radicals, e.g., Ac 15 17, took 
the Heb.nay (dhm)in Am 9 12 to mean’ddham, ‘man,’ 
instead of ’Hdhdm,‘Edom.’ (d)The changing of words 
by slight changes of radicals, e.g., Ac 15 17 from Am 
9 12, giving ‘seek’ (yidhr¢shi) for ‘possess’ (yir¢shi). 
(e) The substitution of words or clauses by pro- 
cesses now impossible to trace, e.g., Ro 9 27 f., from 
Is 10 22. (f) The substitution of different render- 
ings, which would be admissible as alternate transla- 
tions of the same Heb. originals, e.g., He 17, from 
Ps 104 4, where the word ‘wind’ is used instead 
of ‘spirit,’ both being possible renderings of riah 
(cf. also He 2 6-8, from Ps 8 4-6, where ‘angels’ 
appears instead of ‘God,’ for ’éldhtm). Besides the 
LXX., however, the Aramaic translations occasion- 
ally serve as the basis of quotations, as in Ro 9 33, 
10 11 and I P 26, 8, from Is 28 16 (here the Targumic 
insertion ‘in him’ is reproduced); I Co 15 54, from 
Is 25 8, where ‘forever’ is the Aram. for ‘unto 
futurity.’ (8) Indirect, or secondary, quotations are 


NOGRAPHY AND EruHnouoey, § 13. 

RAAMIAH, ré’’a-mai’a (7221, ra‘amyah), ‘J’ 
thunders’: One of the leaders of the Return (Neh 
77; Reelaiah in Ezr 2 2). 

RAAMSES, ra-am’siz (O02), ra‘amsés) Rameses 
AV: A store-city named in connection with Pithom 
as built by the Israelites under the direction of 
Egyptian task-masters (Ex 1 11). It was situated 


BIBLE DICTIONARY | 758 


made not from any O T text or version, but from 
writings into which they had been incorporated. 
The existence of such quotations is attested by the 
agreement of two or more N T writers varying 
uniformly from the known O T texts. Such cases 
could not, of course, be attributed to habits of 
memory, and, tho they might be due to the use of 
lost or unknown texts, it is more likely that they 
arise from citing quotations (cf. I P 2 6 f. with 
Ro 9 33; Ro 1219 with He 10 30). (4) Quotations from 
memory are such as agree with no text exactly and 
present a considerable freedom in reproducing the 
original. Such are Ro 11 4 from I K 19 18; Jn 2 17 
from Ps 69 9; cf. also I Co 14 21 £. from Is 28 11 f. 
(5) Parallelistic quotations give the sense of the 
original writer without any effort to reproduce his 
words. (6) Combined quotations utilize more than 
one O T passage, and are quite common (eg., Ac 
15 17, from Am 912 and Jer 12 15). 

4. Principles Governing Quotations. The princi- 
ples upon which N T quotations are made from the 
O T are precisely the same as those which govern all 
quotations elsewhere in literature (cf. Johnson, The 
Quotations of the N T from theOld).While the sacredness 
of the O T to the N T writers is everywhere mani- 
fest, there is a great latitude in the use of its lan- 
guage. (1) Some O T passages are used in their 
exact O T sense. (2) Others are taken as containing 
general principles, which had an application in their 
original form, but might be applied also to the time 
of the reader. (3) A third class are the quotations 
based on the principle of accommodation. This is 
done when the language of an old writer is adopted 
as a chaste and familiar form of words to express 
one’s own thoughts (cf. Mt 2 18, from Jer 31 15 f.). 
(4) A fourth class is that in which O T transactions 
are allegorized, and the language referring to them 
incorporated in an allegorical sense (cf. Gal 4 21 ft.; 
I Co 9 9). 

5. Introductory Formulas. Efforts to establish dis- 
tinctions according to the formulas by which quota- 
tions are introduced do not succeed. The formulas 
‘The Scripture saith,’ ‘It saith,’ ‘It is written,’ 
‘Then was the Scripture fulfilled which saith,’ ‘This 
was done that the Scripture might be fulfilled,’ 
sometimes mean no more than quotation-marks in 
modern book-making. 

LireratureE: Turpie, The O T in the N (1868); Toy, Quota- 

ions in the N T (1885); Johnson, The Quotations of the N T 

from the Old (1896); Huhn, Die Alitest’liche Citate u. Remi- 


niscenzen im N T (1900); Dittmar, Vetus Testamentum in 
Novo (1899-1903). 


R 
RAAMA, ré’a-ma, RAAMAH, ré’a-ma. See Eru- 


in or near Goshen. The name suggests its having 

been founded by Rameses II, generally supposed to 

be the Pharaoh of the Oppression. See also Prrnom. 
AS ke ae 


RABBAH, rab’a (731, rabbah), ‘great [city]’: 
The capital of the Ammonites; usually Rabbath and 
Rabbath-Ammon. One of the most important cities 
on the KE. of the Jordan. Map I, G 8. It was 
besieged and captured by David (II S 12 29; I Ch 





759 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Quotations 
Rachel 





20 1), but was allowed self-government under its own 
princes (II S 17 27). It must have consisted of two 
parts, of which one was stormed by Joab (IIS 12 27), 
and the other by David. It was here that the sar- 
cophagus (‘iron bedstead’) of Og, King of Bashan, 
was to be seen (Dt 311). In the 3d cent. B.c. it was 
Hellenized, and given the name of Philadelphia after 
Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 B.c.). According to 
Polybius (V, 71), Antiochus the Great seized and 
annexed it to his dominions (218 B.c.); but in 135 it 
was in the hands of Zeno Kotylas (Jos. Ant. XIII, 
81). The modern site is fixed by the name ‘Amman 
in the upper Jabbok (Wddy ‘Amman) NE. of Hesh- 
bon. According to Conder, there are here ruins of 
Byzantine, Arab, and Roman (of the age of the 
Antonines), as well as prehistoric times. The N. 
portion of the site ends in a pool hewn out of the rock, 
and accessible from the city through an underground 
conduit (Polybius, V, 71). This was probably the 
citadel stormed by Joab. Cf. the plan of the mine 
and the description in Baedeker’ Paldstina wu. Syria; 
also Barton, Archeology and the Bible, p. 217 f. 
A. C. Z. 
RABBATH, rab’ath. See RaBBan. 


RABBATH-AMMON, rab’ath-am’en. See Ras- 
BAH. 


RABBI, rab’1 or rab’ai, RABBONI, rab-bd’nai: A 
title given by the Jews to their learned teachers. The 
Heb. form rabbi? (31) is from rabh (2) with the 
pronominal ending 7, ‘my,’ and means literally ‘my 
great one,’ or ‘my master’ (in a polite sense). Other 
(Aram.) forms were rabban and rabbon. The Gospels 
frequently change the Heb. rabbi to &ddhoxarXoc, 
‘teacher’ (perhaps also to xderoc, ‘lord,’ Mt 17 4, or 
émtot&tys, ‘overseer’ or ‘ruler,’ Lk 9 33), but at times 
simply transliterate it by 6a@@f (or éa@Get) (Mt 
23 71.; Jn 1 38, etc.). Mary at the tomb used the 
Aramaic form rabb6ni, ‘my master’ (Jn 20 16). Jesus 
forbade His disciples to claim this title, since He 
alone was qualified for such a title (Mt 23 8 f.), and 
God alone should be called ‘father,’ also a title which 
the Jewish teachers applied to their learned doctors. 
See Dalman, Words of Jesus, xiv. E. E. N. 


RABBITH, rab’ith (3, rabbith): A town of 


Issachar (Jos 19 20). Map III, G2 (identification not 
certain). 

RAB-MAG, rab’mag (4°23, rabh-mdgh = Babyl. 
rab-mu-gt), ‘great prince’: A title of one of the officers 
present at the capture and destruction of Jerusalem 
in 586 B.c. (Jer 393). Of the various explanations of 
the meaning of the title, that above suggested seems 
most plausible. ElViek. 

RAB-SARIS, rab-sé’ris or rab’sa- (0°9"31, rabh- 
saris: The title of one of the three officers whom 
Sennacherib sent to demand the surrender of Jeru- 
salem (II K 18 17); also of one of the officers of 
Nebuchadrezzar who sat in the council at the fall 
of Jerusalem (Jer 39 3). There are different theories 
as to the interpretation of the word. The common 
meaning attached to it is that found in Dn (1 3), 
‘master of the eunuchs.’ It may be an Assyro-Bab- 
ylonian compound, rab@ sa ré8it meaning ‘chief.’ 
This at least would seem most nearly its significa- 
tion in the case of foreign officers. Such a meaning 


may have been toned down in the Hebrew ideas to 
‘chief of the eunuchs,’ who were the responsible 
personages about the court. Lea be 
RAB-SHAKEH, rab-shé’ke (72¥31, rabhshdqeh, 
Assyr. rab-sdka (Zimmern), ‘chief cupbearer’: Title 
of one of the officers with the Tartan (q.v.) and Rab- 
saris sent by Sennacherib to demand of Hezekiah 
the surrender of Jerusalem (II K 18 17, 19, 26-35). He 
was an officer, apparently next in importance to the 
Tartan, for in the council over the surrender of the 
city he was the spokesman for the Assyrian army, 
and was able to speak in two Palestinian languages, 
Hebrew and Aramaic. Pe NL 


RACA, ré’ka (6axdé, Mt 5 22; abbreviated and 
transliterated from the Aram. régan, ‘empty [head]’): 
A term expressive of contempt. Its Gr. equivalent 
‘Thou vain man’ (xevé) appears in Ja 2 20. The 
word does not occur often enough to warrant a safe 
generalization as to the degree or kind of feeling it 
expresses. It is a question whether it is stronger or 
weaker than ‘Thou fool.’ Its position in the context 
between mere silent anger and expressed contempt 
for moral worthlessness points to its signifying an 
intermediate feeling which is more reprehensible 
than suppressed anger, but less so than unbridled 
moral condemnation of others. AW LZ, 

RACAL, ré’kal (77, rakhal, Rachal AV): A place 
to the leading men of which David sent presents 
(1S 30 29). But the LXX. reads Carmel (in Judah), 
which is probably correct. 

RACE: This term translates Heb. and Gr. words 
meaning in general ‘course’: (1) ’drah, ‘path’ (Ps 
19 5, ‘course’ RV); but more specifically the place in 
which race-contests were held; (2) méréts, ‘running’ 
(Ec 911); (8) &yav (He 121); (4) otédtov (I Co 9 24, 
‘race-course’ RVmg.) and the contest itself. The 
figure of the foot-race, as representing life and its 
struggles and rewards, was especially expressive to 
those familiar with the Greek games (Ac 13 25; 
II Ti 471.; Gal 2 2, 57). Vel GOA 

RACHAB, ré’kab. See Rawas. 

RACHAL, ré’kal. See Racat. 

RACHEL, ré’chel (207, rahél), ‘ewe’: The younger 
daughter of Laban, and the cousin and beloved wife 
of Jacob. For her the patriarch served Laban seven 
years, and, as Leah was substituted by craft, he was 
compelled to serve another seven years in order to 
secure her (Gn ch. 29). For a period she was child- 
less, and envious of her sister. She gave her maid 
Bilhah (q.v.) to Jacob as concubine, and adopted her 
two sons, Dan and Naphtali (Gn 380 1-8). Later, 
while still in Mesopotamia, she bore Joseph (Gn 
30 22-25); on the way from Bethel to Ephratah she 
died in giving birth to Benjamin (Gn 35 16-20). When 
Jacob left Laban, she carried her father’s teraphim, 
and concealed the theft with skill (Gn 3114f.). There 
are two traditions as to the location of her grave: 
(1) Between Jerusalem and Bethlehem (Gn 35 19); 
(2) N. of Jerusalem, on the borders of Benjamin 
(IS 102). In Jer 31 15 (cf. Mt 218) Rachel (Rahel 
AV), the tribal mother of the northern tribes, 
mourns for her sons who are carried into captivity. 
In the patriarchal narrative ‘Rachel’ undoubtedly 
has a tribal as well as a personal significance, for 


Raddai 
Rebuke 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


760 





about her are grouped five northern tribes— 

Ephraim and Manasseh (= Joseph), Benjamin, Dan, 

and Naphtali. (For this point, see Tripz, TRIBES.) 
J. A. K, 


RADDAI, ra-dé’ai, rad’é, or rad’a-ai ("T), radday): 
The fifth son of Jesse (I Ch 214). E. E. N. 


RAFT. See Fioat. 
RAGAU, ré’g6. See Rev. 


RAGUEL, roa-giii’el or rag’yu-el. See JerHRO; and 
REUvEL, 2. 

RAHAB, ré‘/hab (37, rahabh; also in the N T 
Rachab, ‘Pay&8), ‘broad’: I. 1. A woman of Jericho 
who received and helped the spies of Joshua (Jos 
21f.,617f.). That a plain woman of Jericho should 
have had the insight requisite for such conduct does 
not appear likely. But, considering the social posi- 
tion occupied by the class to which Rahab belonged, 
this improbability disappears. Women of this class 
came into touch with travelers from abroad, and 
Rahab may have easily learned of the achievements 
and hopes of the new people emerging from the wil- 
derness. If so she was fascinated by the new and 
different life they lived and was ready to cast her lot 
with them. 2. The name Rahab again occurs in the 
genealogy of Jesus as that of the wife of Salmon and 
mother of Boaz (Mt 1 5). It has been debated 
whether this could be the same person as the Rahab 
in Joshua. The spelling of the name in Mt (‘Pay&@) 
is different from that in the LXX. and in He 11 31 
and Ja 2 25 (‘Pa&é), but, per contra, Josephus gives 
it as in Mt. Upon the whole, it seems probable that 
one person is meant. 

I. (277, rahabh), ‘storm,’ ‘arrogancy’ (Job 26 12, 
9 13, ‘proud’ AV; Is 30 7, ‘strength’ AV): A proper 
name used in a literal and in a figurative sense. In 
the literal sense, it denotes a mythological sea- 
monster of the same class as the Dragon (q.v.), 
and is probably connected with the Semitic myth 
of Tidmat, the destroyer of God’s order in the uni- 
verse (Job 26 12; Is 519). In the figurative sense, it 
is a name given to Egypt (Ps 87 4, 89 10; Is 307 RV), 
possibly with some reference to a mythological con- 
ception of some relation between Egypt and the sea- 
monster Rahab (cf. Ezk 29 3 and the New Cent. 
Bible, ad loc.). A. C. Z. 


RAHAM, ré’ham (857, raham): A descendant of 
the Jerahmeelite Caleb (I Ch 2 44). E. E. N. 


RAHEL, ré/hel. See Racuet. 
RAIMENT. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS. 


RAIN. See Patzstine, § 19. 


RAINBOW: The rainbow, as a phenomenon in 
nature, is referred to at the end of the Flood nar- 
rative (Heb. gesheth, ‘bow,’ Gn 9 14). The Baby- 
lonian parallels do not contain this feature, from 
which it may be inferred that it is an Israelitic addi- 
tion of significance. This significance is naturally 
that, because the rainbow accompanies a passing 
shower, the calamity of the Flood may be regarded as 
temporary (cf. Gn 916). The rainbow, however, plays 
an important part in folk-lore generally (cf. Sayce, 
Expos. T. VII, 308). But no distinct traces of this 


are found in Israel. In Ezk (1 28) and Rev (4 3, 101) 
the rainbow (Gr. ters) is emblematic of God’s glory. 
A.C. Z. 

RAISE FROM THE DEAD, TO. See Resur- 
RECTION. 

RAISIN, CAKES OF: The rendering of the Heb. 
‘ashishé ‘anadbhim (‘flagons of wine’ AV). Cakes 
made of pressed grapes, or raisins, were used in the 
worship of heathen gods. The charge brought by 
Hosea against the Israelites that they ‘love cakes of 
raisins’ (Hos 3 1; ef. Jer 7 18, 44 19) is equivalent to 
saying that they worship other deities than J”, or 
that they worship Him after the manner of the 
heathen cultus. See also Foop anp Foop UTENSILS, 
§ 5. E. EK. N. 

RAKEM, ré’kem (5?11, rdgem [in pause]; the 
proper form is regem): a descendant of Machir (I 
Ch 7 16). See also ReKamM. 

RAKKATH, -rak’ath (P14, raggath): A fortified - 
city of Naphtali (Jos 19 35). Perhaps near the site of 
Tiberias (q.v.). 

RAKKON, rak’en (])P'1, raqqon): A city of Dan 
(Jos 19 46). See MnmsJarKon. 

RAM (0°, rdm), ‘exalted’: 1. An ancestor of Da- 
vid (Ru 4 19; Mt 1314., Aram AV, cf. RVmg; but 
in Lk 3 33 Arni RV, Aram AV, Gr. ’Aovel). 2. A 
brother of Jerahmeel (I,Ch 29). 3. The name of 
the family of Elihu (Job 32 2), which may be the 
same as the Aram of Gn 22 21. 

RAM. See SAcrIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 5. 

RAM, BATTERING-RAM. See BESIEGE. 

RAMAH, ré’ma (7, raémah, usually with the 
article), ‘the height’: The name of several towns in 
Palestine. 1. A city of Benjamin, on the frontier 
between the two kingdoms of Judah and Israel (Jos 
18 25; I K 1517 f., etc.). Near it was the palm-tree 
of Deborah (Jg 4 5) and Rachel’s grave (Jer 31 15; 
Mt 218 Rama AV). Map III, F 5. 2. A city in 
Ephraim, also called Ramathaim-zophim (IS 11), 
the home of the prophet Samuel (I S 1 19, 2 1, 7 17, 
etc.). Map III, E 4; identification not certain (cf. 
Driver, Notes on Samuel, pp. 1-4). 3. A town of 
Naphtali (Jos 19 36). Map IV, D6. 4.A town of 
Asher (Jos 19 29). Map IV, C 5. 5. A shorter form 
for Ramoth-gilead (q.v.) (II K 8 28 £.; II Ch 22 
5 f.). 6. R. ‘of the South’ (Jos 19 8 Ramath AY). 
A town of Simeon. Site unknown. EH. E.N. 

RAMATH, ré’moth. See Raman. 

RAMATHAIM-ZOPHIM, ré’’ma-fhé’im zo’fim 
(DIS ON, ramathayim tsdphim, ‘the two Ra- 
mahs’): The birthplace of the prophet Samuel (IS 
11). Probably a late dual form of Ramah (q.v.), as 
the form of the present compound name is ‘inde- 
fensible’ (Dr. HTS). Called ‘Ramathaim’ in I Mae 
11 34 and ‘Arimathea’ in Mt 11 57. E. E. N. 


RAMATHITE, ré’moth-ait (97, ramath7), ‘man 
of Ramah’: The designation of Shimei, David’s chief 
husbandman (I Ch 27 27). 


RAMATH-LEHI, ré’’mofth-li’‘hai. See Lent. 


RAMATH-MIZPEH,ré’’math-miz’pée(13 $97 ND), 
ramath hammitspeh), ‘the height of the watch-tower’: 





761 A NEW 


A place on the border of Gad (Jos 13 26). Probably 
the same as Mizpah 5 (q.v.). E. E. N. 

RAMESES, ram’e-siz or ra-mes’iz. See RAAMSES. 

RAMIAHG, ra-mai’a (791, ramyah), ‘J’ is high’: 
One of the ‘sons of Parosh’ (Ezr 10 25). 

RAMOTH, ré’moth (NPS), ra’moth, and ND, 
radmoth), ‘heights’: I. See Jerpmorn, 7. II. 1. A 
town of Gad in Gilead, also called Ramah (II K 
8 29) and Ramoth-Gilead. It was assigned to Gad, 
and was probably occupied by Gadites early in the 
conquest-period (Dt 4 43; Jos 20 8). According to 
later theory, it was a Levitical city (Jos 21 38; I Ch 
6 80). It was the residence of one of Solomon’s 
prefects (I K 4 13). Later, it was seized by the 
Arameans of Damascus, and its recovery was the 
object of the campaign of Ahab in which he was 
mortally wounded (I K 22 3 f.). Israel had posses- 
sion of it m the days of Jehoram, son of Ahab (II K 
8 28 f., 9 14), and it was here that the conspiracy of 
Jehu was organized (II K 9 1-13). Tho so important 
a place, its site has been much disputed. The identi- 
fication on Map I, G 6 is not now accepted, but no 
proposed site has met with general approval. 2. A 
Levitical city of Issachar (I Ch 673), apparently the 
same as Jarmuth (Jos 21 29), or Remeth (Jos 19 21). 
3. ‘Ramoth of the South’ (IS 30 27). See Ramag, 6 

E. E. N. 

RAMOTH-GILEAD, ré’’moth-gil’l-ad. See Ra- 

MOTH, II, 1. 


RAMPART. See Crry, § 3. 


RAMS’ HORNS. See Music anp Mosicau 
INSTRUMENTS, § 3 (2). 


RAM’S SKIN. See TaBEeRNAcLE, § 3 (2) (end). 


RANGES: This term renders the Heb. words (1) 
s¢dhéroth, ‘rows [of soldiers]’ ‘ranks’ RV (II K 11 8, 
15; II Ch 23 14). (2) ythur, ‘stretch [of country] 
(Job 39 8). (8) kirayim, a grate with ‘rows [of fire- 
pans],’ designed for cooking several kinds of food at 
the same time (Lv 11 35, ‘stewpan’ RVmg.). 


RANKS: The rendering of xeact&, ‘a square plot 
of ground’ covered with grass or vegetables (Mk 
6 40). The crowd was regularly arranged so as to 
give the appearance of a number of small garden 
plots. See also WARFARE, § 6. 


RANSOM: This word renders the following terms: 
(1) kdpher, ‘cover’ (from the P7‘él form, kipper, ‘to 
cover over,’ ‘pacify,’ Ex 30 12; Job 33 24; Ps 49 7, 
etc., and, in RV, Ex 21 30; 1S 12 3). (2) pidhyén, 
‘freedom’ (Is 35 9; Hos 13 14; Ps 69 18; Is 51 11 RV). 
(8) verb ga@’al, ‘to redeem’ (Is 5110 AV; Jer 3111 AV). 
(4) Adceov, d&vtfAuteov (Mt 20 28; I Ti26). In the 
O T the underlying conception is that of release from 
an evil condition, under the control of another. The 
method of release is not clearly presented. But its 
essence is that of propitiating, either by a sacrificial 
gift or by the payment of a sum of money, him who 
has the power to release. If the former, the pro- 
pitiatory gift may be a life, or the substitute for a 
life. In any case, the stress of thought is laid, not on 
the method of ransoming, but on the result, 7.e., the 
release of the ransomed. In the N T the conception 
rises into a place of the highest importance, because 
it expresses the efficacy of Christ’s work of redemp- 


STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Raddai 
Rebuke 


tion from sin. In Mt 20 28, Mk 10 45 Jesus describes 
His own mission as the giving of ‘his life a ransom for 
many.’ But in this connection ‘ransom’ can be 


neither the process of securing release nor the simple 


result of that process—the release itself. How this 
operates is not clearly indicated, and conflicting 
views have been propounded on the subject. See 
Stevens, Theol. of the N T (1899), p. 119; Weiss, 
The Rel. of the N T (1905), pp. 228 ff. See also 
PROPITIATION; and RECONCILIATION AND ATONE- 
MENT. A. C. Z. 

RAPHA, ré’fa (82, rdphd’): The ancestral head 
of a clan of Benjamin (I Ch 8 2). 

RAPHAH, ré’fa. See ReprHatrau. 

RAPHU, ré’fiu (8191, raphi’), ‘healed’: The fa- 
ther of Palti, one of the spies (Nu 13 9); perhaps the 
same as Rapha. 


RAVEN. See Pauesring, § 25. 


RAZOR: This term is the rendering of: (1) ta‘ar 
(Nu 65, 87; Ps 52 3;1Is7 20; Ezk 51), which means also 
the sheath of a sword, and (2) mdérah (Jg 13 5, 1617; 
IS 1 11), which is probably the specific Heb. word 
for ‘razor.’ The earliest razors were of flint, later 
bronze (see Mrrats) and steel came to be used. See 
also SHAVE, SHAVING. Ce Sas 

READ, READING. See Epucarion, §§ 8 ff. 

REAIAH, r-é’ya or ri’’a-ai’a (MEI, r’ayah), “J” 
hath seen’: 1. The ancestor of a clan of Judah (I 
Ch 4 2). 2. A Reubenite (I Ch 5 5, Reaia AV). 3. 


The ancestral head of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 
2 47; Neh 7 50). 


REAP, REAPER, REAPING. See AGRICULTURE, 
§ 6. 

REARWARD (Rereward AV): In I S 29 2 the 
word has no technical significance; it means smply 
the last part of the line to march by. But in other 
places (Nu 10 25; Jos 6 9, 13; Is 52 12, 58 8) the ex- 
pression (from the verb ’dsaph, ‘to gather’) refers to 
those who ‘close up’ the formal line of march. 


EK. E. N. 

REBA, ri’ba (¥3), rebha‘): A petty ‘king’ of 
Midian, slain by Israel (Nu 31 8; Jos 18 21). 

REBEKAH, ri-bek’a (P27, ribhqah, Rebecca, 
Ro 910): The wife of Isaac. R. was the daughter of 
Bethuel, Abraham’s nephew (Gn 22 23), and lived in 
Paddan-aram until her betrothal, the story of which 
(ch. 24) ‘is told with singular picturesqueness and 
grace, and presents an idyllic picture of simple 
Eastern life’ (Driver, Com., ad loc.). The character 
of R., however, as revealed in subsequent chapters, is 
far from attractive. Of her two sons, Esau and 
Jacob (25 21 ff.), she favored the latter (25 28), whom 
she taught to deceive his blind father and assisted in 
his flight to her brother Laban (ch. 27). While 
dwelling in Gerar, Isaac unsuccessfully attempted to 
pass off Rebekah as his sister (26 6 ff.; apparently a 
duplicate of the similar story in ch. 20). Jacob 
speaks of his mother as buried in the cave of Mach- 
pelah (49 31), but the circumstances of her death are 
not mentioned. See also Isaac. L. G. L.—E. C. L. 


REBUKE: This word renders terms derived from 
five Heb. and four Gr. roots: (1) ga‘ar, ‘chide,’ used 


Recah A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Reconciliation 


762 


TT 


of man (Gn 87 10; Ru 2 16; Jer 29 27 RV); of God 
(Ps 95 [6], 68 30 [31], 119 21; Is 17 13; Zee 3 2); ‘check’ 
or ‘restrain by reprimand,’ of God (Ps 106 9; Nah 
I 4; Is 549; Mal 2 3 ‘corrupt AV,’ 3 11); g*arah, n., 
‘chiding,’ used of man (Pr 131, 17 10; Ee 75; Pr 138, 
‘threatening’ RV; Is 30 17, ‘threat’ RV); ‘reproba- 
tion in act’ of God (Ps 76 6 [7], 80 16 [17]; Is 51 20 66 
15); ‘a check’ of God (II § 22 16=Ps 18 15 [i6]; Ps 
104 7; Is 50 2), migh‘ereth (Dt 28 20). (2) herpah 
(Is 25 8 and Jer 15 15, ‘reproach’ RV). Elsewhere 
almost uniformly ‘reproach.’ (3) yakhah in Hiph., 
‘judge’ (Gn 31 42; I Ch 12 17); ‘decide for’ (Is 2 4= 
Mic 4 3); ‘correct’ (Ps 6 1 [2]=38 1 [2]); ‘chide,’ 
‘reprove’ (Pr 97, 8 and Am 5 10, ‘reprove’ RV; Lv 
19 17; Pr 24 25, 28 23); tokhéha@h in sense of ‘correction,’ 
‘punishment’ (II K 19 3=Is 37 3; Hos 5 9; cf. Ps 
1497 pl.); tokhahath, ‘reproof’ (Pr 27 5); ‘correction’ 
(Ps 39 11 [12]; Ezk 5 15, 2517). (4) misadr (Hos 5 2), 
lit. ‘I [God] am a chastisement [‘rebuker’ AV] for 
them.’ (5) ribh (Neh 5 7, ‘contended’ RV). (6) 
duduntos (Ph 2 15, ‘without blemish’ RV). (7) 
éxtmAnocety, ‘chide’ (I Ti 51). (8) 2déyxetv, ‘convict 
of error,’ ‘refute’ (Tit 1 13, 2 15; cf. 1 9); ‘chide’ (I 
Ti 5 20), ‘punish’ (He 125; Rev 319). ‘Reprove’ RV 
in all five passages; #rcy&t¢ (II P 216). (9) émttycy, 
‘chide’ (Mt 16 22; Mk 8 32, 33; Lk 9 55, 17 3, 23 40; 
Il Ti 4 2); ‘rebuke’ in order to restrain (Mt 8 26, 
17 18, 20 31; Mk 1 25, 4 39, 9 25, 10 48, ‘charged’ AV; 
Lk 4 35, 39, 41, 8 24, 9 42, 18 39; Jude ver. 9), in the 
sense of ‘to keep away’ (Mt 19 13; Mk 10 13; Lk 
18 15). ORS ied 

RECAH, ri’ka (799, rékhah, Rechah AV): The 
notice in I Ch 4 12 is obscure. Perhaps ‘Rechatites’ 
should be taken as the meaning. 

RECEIPT OF CUSTOM. See Pustican; and 
Tax, TAXATION. 

RECHAB, ri’kab (29, rékhabh), ‘rider,’ ‘horse- 
man’: 1. Son of Rimmon, a Beerothite. With his 
brother Raanah he murdered Ishbosheth, son of 
Saul (II S 4 2 #.), and was put to death by David. 
2. A descendant of Hammath, the Kenite (I Ch 2 55, 
‘Hemath’ AV), and the father of Jehonadab (II K 
10 15) the contemporary of Jehu. The special dis- 
tinction of Rechab is that he founded a tribe of total 
abstainers called, after himself, Rechabites (Jer 
356). The phrase ‘Hammath, the father of the house 
of Rechab’ (I Ch 2 55) seems to make the real founder 
of the tribe Hammath himself. This, however, is 
probably the result of the long residence of the clan 
at Hammath (the place), and the effort to fix its 
geneaology locally. But ‘Rechab’ means ‘rider [on 
camels],’ which affiliates the clan with an earlier 
nomadic mode of life. The organization of the 
Rechabites was evidently effected by Jehonadab 
upon the basis of zealous worship of J’’, and the com- 
plete prohibition of wine and of a settled city or 
town life. In II K 1015 Jehonadab, evidently in the 
character of a Rechabite, is shown to have joined 
himself to Jehu, when the latter made his attack 
upon Baal-worship and exterminated the house of 
Ahab. The Rechabites came into the fullest view 
among the Israelites through the prophetic word of 
Jeremiah (ch. 35), who used the entrance of a band 
of them into Jerusalem at the time of the siege of the 
city as the occasion for holding up as worthy of 


emulation their loyalty to their founder’s ideal. In 
later times the name ‘Rechabite’ was perpetuated, 
partly by the descendants of these early clansmen, 
and partly by imitators of their practise of absti- 
nence from wine. They survived to N T times (Eus. 
HE, 11 23). In modern times, they are said to exist 
in Syria and Arabia. But the lineal connection of 
these with the Biblical Rechabites is doubtful. 3. 
The father of Malchiah, one of the builders of 
Nehemiah’s wall (Neh 3 14), ‘Son’ here may mean 
‘descendant,’ and if so, the reference is to 2. A.C.Z. 

RECHABITE, rek’a-bait, ri’kab-ait, or rek’ab-ait. 
See RecHas. 

RECHAH, ri’ka. See Rucan. 


RECOMPENSE: This term represents (1) g&mat, 
‘to requite,’ noun g¢mul (II S 19 36; Is 35 4). (2) 
nathan, ‘to render’ (II Ch 6 23, but ‘requiting’ RV; 
and Ezk 7 3, ‘to bring upon’ RV). (8) shubh, ‘to 
restore’ (Nu 57 £., but ‘to make restitution,’ II S— 
22 21 RV). (4) shadlém, ‘to complete’ (and nouns shillam, 
shillim), as if a transaction in which a restitutory 
portion was still pending was not complete (Is 65 6; 
Jer 16 18). (5) t¢mdrdh, ‘exchange’ (Job 15 31). 
(6) &rodtSovat, ‘to give back’ (Ro 12 19), with com- 
pound dytarod(Sovar (Lk 14 14), noun dvtarddoua, 
and (7) dvttutcOfa (He 11 26). The generic idea of 
recompense is that of restoration of an equitable 
status wherever it has been disturbed, whether in 
the relations of men with one another or with God. 
But an ethical, as contrasted with a commercial, 
notion of equity is given in the doctrine that J’ is 
Himself the avenger of the weak, and will see that 
they receive just treatment. In His own conduct, 
He always deals according to just standards (Dt 
32 35; Ro 127). A. C. Z. 


RECONCILIATION AND ATONEMENT: The 
words, ‘reconcile,’ ‘reconciliation’ have almost disap- 
peared from the O T in the RV, being retained only 
in Dn 9 24andI$ 294. Inthe N T ‘reconcile’ occurs 
fourteen times. Twice it is used of men who, mu- 
tually estranged, are to be reconciled (Mt 5 24; 
I Co 7 11). In the former case, the offender deals 
with his offense (cf. IS 29 4). Elsewhere, the recon- 
ciliation concerns the relations of God and man (com- 
pounds of &AAd&acety being used); and in all (except 
Ro 11 15) Christ is directly named as the means of 
reconciliation. In three passages (Ro 5 10; II Co 
5 18-20; Col 1 20-23) there is the same instinctive move- 
ment of thought. In each, God is said to have made > 
a reconciliation in or through Christ which affects 
the race (or even ‘all things’), an act of God which is 
precedent to human personal acts and experience, 
but which is realized or consummated in them. This 
word has come to be used in Christian thought to 
describe the peculiar and unique glory and effect of 
Christ’s person and work in our world. He has — 
established a new relation to God, which is expressed 
under varying phraseology throughout the NT. 
The experience of it made the N T possible. As to 
how Christ produced this immeasurable effect, the 
passages above referred to and many others derive 
it especially from His sacrificial death. ‘Other words 
also are used (see PropiriaTION; and SACRIFICE), 
to describe the means by which God in Christ 
reconciled the world unto Himself. These words are 





763 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Recah 
Reconciliation 





said rightly by Hasting’s Rashdall (The Idea of 
Atonement, p. 126), including also ‘justification’ and 
‘salvation’ to be the aspects or stages of one and the 
same process.’ The English word Atonement (= 
at-one-ment) is fixed apparently in religious and 
theological language, altho it does not occur in the 
RV of the N T and in the AV only at Ro 51. In 
the O T it is often used to translate Heb. képhar (see 
PROPITIATION). The English word simply means 
to make two people ‘at one’ who have been separated. 
In theological discussion it is applied to the means 
by which reconciliation between man and God has 
actually been brought about. The N T asserts that 
the person and work of Christ, especially His sacrifice 
on the Cross (see SACRIFICE), was that means (Mk 10 
45, 14 24; Jn 3141f., 1015; Ac 3 26, 412; Ro 3 21-26, 8 3f.; 
He 9 14; I P 3 18; I Jn 4 10). The new fact—this 
consciousness of reconciliation with the living and 
holy God—undoubtedly implies the forgiveness of 
sins. No other religion has ever offered this relation 
between man and God as something within actual 
reach of all men, not even the O T. It is the sub- 
stance of the Gospel, the essence of Christian expe- 
rience, the life of the Church. It was, as a mere 
matter of history, produced by Jesus Christ; it is 
to-day sustained by faith in His name, and so 
spreads over the world. 

No one doubts that the N T connects this new life 
with the sacrifice of Christ. The problem before the 
theologian is a triple one; (1) How does the N T 
describe this connection between the Cross and the 
forgiveness of sins? (2) What are the principles by 
which theology can explain that connection in the 
light of those descriptions? (8) What authority 
has this whole view over the modern mind and will? 


The historical method has led to the study of this 
subject in its two great stages of realization. First, 
in the light of the consciousness of Jesus Himself. It 
is clear that He looked on His death as an act of His 
own (Mk 10 45) establishing new relations between 
God and man (Mk 14 24; I Co 11 25); and that He 
applied to Himself the experience and influence of 
the Suffering Servant of J’’ described by Isaiah (cf. 
E. F. Scott, The Kingdom of the Messiah (1911), 
Cap. vill; A. G. Hogg, The Redemption of This 
World (1922), pp. 98-101). Second, The experience 
of reconciliation with God as apprehended and 
described by the Apostolic Church in its dependence 
upon Christ and Him as crucified. 


The following classification of passages, not ex- 
haustive, indicates the chief N T methods of describ- 
ing the relation of Christ’s sacrifice to forgiveness. 
Some passages belong to more than one group. 


(a) The general idea that Christ suffered for or in 
behalf of persons: 1 Th 59 f.; Gal 2 20; II Co 5148; 
Ro 5 6-11; I P 3 18; He 29; Jn 3 14-17, 10 15, 12 32 £.; 
I Jn 316. (b) The special idea that His death was 

related in some way to our sins: Ro 4 25, 5 8; I Co 
' 15 3; Gal 1 4, 313; I P 2 24; He 9 28. (c) Sacrificial 
allusions, in which Christ’s death is likened to that 
of the animals sacrificed under O T laws, and gen- 
erally connected directly with sins: Ro 3 24-26, 5 9, 
8 3; II Co 5 21 (ef. Lev 4 21 LXX); Eph 213; I P 1 19; 
He 7 27, 9-10; Jn 1 29; I Jn 17, 2 2.410; Rev 1 5f., 
714. (d) Terms implying purchase or ransom: Mk 





10 45; I Th 110; Ro 3 24; I Co 6 20; Eph17;I Ti25, 
6; Tit 214; He 915; Rev 59. 

For many centuries little attention was given by 
theology to the problems involved here. The crude 
notion, founded on passages under (d), that a pay- 
ment was made to the devil for man’s release was 
never seriously worked out and perished as soon as 
the subject was earnestly considered. In the course 
of discussion, since Anselm (1033-1109) definitely 
opened the problem, two main classes of opinion 
have emerged: (a) Those, called moral or subjective 
theories, which hold that human dread and selfish- 
ness were the only obstacles to reconciliation, and 
that Christ so manifested the righteousness and 
love of God that men’s hearts are won to faith and 
obedience. (b) Those, called objective, or vicarious, 
or expiatory, which maintain that in sin there lay an 


obstacle to God’s offer of mercy, that this obstacle 


was removed by the sacrificial death of the God-man. 
Of course within these two main groups there are 
many varieties of opinions; and of some theories 
there is dispute as to whether they belong more 
properly to (a) or to (6). (For one of the best classi- 
fications of Atonement Theories see Introduction to 
Dr. Simon’s The Redemption of Man; cf. Stevens, 
The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, Pt II.) 


Two extremes in each direction may well be con- 
demned at once. On one side the notion that the 
sufferings freely assumed by Christ and inflicted by 
God form a quantitative equivalent over against 
those due from man as penalty for sin, and that men 
are saved by consenting to that transaction; on the 
other side the notion that Christ’s holy life and 
martyr death—as of other prophets, but more pow- 
erfully and widely—stimulates the ects of re- 
pentance and faith. The former is too shallow in its 
view of the problem of forgiveness for God and the 
latter too shallow in its view of the proulem of 
repentance for man. 


An unhelpful distinction has lately been drawn 
between ethical and forensic theories. The only com- 
plete opposition to ‘ethical’ is ‘mechanical.’ Punish- 
ment, substitution, vindication of righteousness, etc., 
are ethical facts even when expressed in terms of 
forensic procedure. On the other hand ‘ethics’ is in 
danger, if it be maintained that God’s love does not 
reckon with law, that God’s holiness is not involved 
in the forgiveness of sin. 


All truly Christian theories agree in the following 
points: (a) God, the eternal Father in His holy love, 
is the source of salvation, the sender of the Son. 
(b) Christ in His sinless life, His complete self-sacri- 
fice, has revealed God’s holy love. (c) The con- 
templation of Christ in life and death moves the 
human heart to repentance and faith, hope and love. 
But the objective, vicarious theories recognize in 
the Scripture account elements of vital importance 
which must be added to these. The unique emphasis 
on His Cross is due to unique values in His self- 
sacrifice. Hence the following additional points are 
to be noted: (d) The sinless Son of God did actually 
experience the various results of sin in (1) the oppo- 
sition and hatred of men; (2) His deep sorrow over 
human woe; (3) His submission to death; (4) the 
mysterious and awful clouding of the Father’s face, 


Reconciliation 
Regeneration 


both in His various temptations partially (Mt 4 1-11; 
Jn 12 27 #.; Mk 14 32-39), and on the Cross (Mk 15 34). 
(e) This phase of His experience (even His death) 
was not an incident in His calling as the revealer of 
God, but the crowning work to which He had been 
appointed by the Father (Mk 10 45, 14 24, 36; Jn 3 
14-16, 10 17, 18, 27, 15 183; Ro 3 25 £., 5 8, 8 3; II Co 
5 21; Col 1 12-14, 20; He 5 5, 10; [ P 117-21; I Jn 49, 10) 
and the ground of reconciliation on which pardon is 
offered. (f) The necessity for this is found in that 
the holiness of God must be vindicated in the very 
act of offering His mercy. ‘The vindication is no 
mere formality, nor does it consist in setting so 
much offering as equivalent of so much penalty. 
It consists in fulfilling the righteousness which man 
had broken, and in doing so at all costs to God 
Himself in Christ His Son. To be utterly righteous 
among men and for men Christ must die. In a 
world of sin nothing short of that would be complete. 
But to do this was to manifest the supreme holiness 
of God’s will. (g) This necessity existed on man’s 
side also. In every covenant the conscience of each 
side judges for both sides. Man can not accept sin- 
cerely a pardon whose righteousness is not as com- 
pletely assured as its love. That which breaks the 
heart of the penitent is not only the sight of God’s 
love, but of that love in all its stern righteousness—a 
love that sacrifices all not merely for mercy but also 
for righteousness. The death on the Cross is there- 
fore an act of God in which He dealt with the race as 
a whole, with the general and eternal principles of a 
righteous mercy, of a holy love. On that objective 
basis the message, the call comes to each soul. 

On these grounds the various N T forms of de- 
scribing the work of Christ are interpretable without 
prevarication, and an objective atonement is as 
directly applicable and potent to-day as in any 
past generation. 


LiverRATURE: (1) For Scripture material in addition to 
works in Biblical theology, T. J. Crawford, The Doctrine 
of Holy Scripture Respecting the Atonement (1871); R. W. 
Dale, The Atonement (1880); A. Ritschl, Rechifertigung und 
Verséhnung, Vol. II (1870-74); W. P. Du Bose, The 
Soteriology of the N T (1892); A Seeberg, Der Tod Christi, 
etc. (1895); J. Denney, The Death of Christ as Interpreted 
by the N T (1902). (2) For history of discussion, besides 
histories of the Church and of doctrine, A. Ritschl, Recht. 
u. Vers., Vol. I (translated by John S. Black, 1872); Geo. B. 
Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Salvation, Pt. II; J. K. 
Mozley, The Atonement (1916); R. Mackintosh, History of 
the Doctrine of Atonement. (3) For direct discussion: 
J. McLeod Campbell, The Nature of the Atonement, 5th ed. 
(1878); R. C. Moberly, Atonement and Personality; D. W. 
Simon, Reconciliation by Incarnation; J. Scott Lidgett, 
The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement. By various 
writers: The Atonement in Modern Religious , Thought; 
W. L. Walker, The Cross and the Kingdom; J. Denney 
The Atonement and the Modern Mind; The Christian 
Doctrine of Reconciliation (1917); Hastings Rashdall, The 
Idea of Atonement in Christian Theology (1919); W. F. 
Halliday, Reconciliation and Reality (1919); J. Oman, Grace 
and Personality (1919). (4) The larger works on systematic 
theology usually contain a review of (1), (2), as well as 
(3)—see Charles Hodge, Dorner, Kaftan, Gretillat, F. A. 
B. Nitzsch. W. D. M. 


RECORD, RECORDER: In all Oriental coun- 
tries a record was kept of the important events of 
the reign of each king. In Est 61 this is called the 
‘book of the records [zikkdrdén] of the chronicles’ 
(cf. 2 23, 10 2, ‘book of the chronicles,’ lit. ‘book of 
days’; Ezr 4 15, ‘book of the records’ [Aram. do- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


764 


khrén], 6 2 ‘records’ [dikhrén]). Mention is often 
made of the ‘chronicles of the kings’ of Judah, or of 
Israel (I K 14 29, 15 31, etc.). The work of keeping 
these annals was entrusted to one or more officials. 
Many have thought that this was ‘the recorder’ 
(‘chronicler’ RVmg., II S 816, 20 24; 1 K 43; II K 18 
18, 37; I Ch 18 15; II Ch 34 8; Is 36 3, 22), who acted 
as a state-historian. The Heb. word mazkir (from 
zakhar, ‘to remember’) means ‘one who causes to 
remember’ or ‘calls to mind,’ and if not the first, he 
was among the highest court officials (II S 8 16 £.; 
I Ch 18 15; Is 36 3, 22). He is distinguished in almost 
all the passages from the scribe (sdphér), q.v., who 
prepared state papers and had charge of official and 
foreign correspondence; but his position seems to 
have been greater than would be that of a state- 
historian, altho he might have had oversight of the 
making of the annals. He was perhaps the chancellor 
(grand vizier), who called the king’s attention to im- 
portant matters of state, and acted also as counselor. 
In all other passages in AV where ‘record’ occurs the 
meaning is that of ‘witness’ or ‘testimony’ and is so 
expressed in RV. ite R yb 


RED. See Cotors, § 2. 
RED DRAGON. See REvELATION, Boox or, § 2. 


REDEEM, REDEEMER, REDEMPTION. The 
two Heb. terms (with their derivations) which are 
usually recorded by ‘redeem,’ ‘redeemer,’ etc., are 
(1) g@al ‘to act the part of a kinsman’ and (2) 
padhah, ‘to ransom’ (by giving an equivalent). 
Illustrations of (1): are Gn 48 16; Ex 6 6, 15 15; Lv 
25 25 ff.; Ps 69 18, 106 10; Is 43 1, etc.; Job 19 25. 
Illustrations of (2) are: Ex 13 13 #.; Nu 18 15 &., ete. 
In many cases, however, the original meaning has 
become generalized and the distinction between the 
two root-ideas is no longer observed. See, in general, 
RECONCILIATION AND ATONEMENT; FORGIVENESS; 
PropiriaTION; Ransom; S1n; and also Jesus CuRist, 


§ 15 (2) (f). E. E. N. 
RED HEIFER. See Sacrifice AND OFFER- 
INGS, § 5. 


REDNESS OF EYES. See Disrase anp MeEprI- 
CINE, § 7. 

RED SEA (iD 02, yam siph), ‘sea of reeds’ 
(Ex 10 19, 15 4, 22): The name of the great oceanic 
gulf between Egypt and Arabia, stretching 1,350 m. 
from Suez to the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb. Why a 
‘sea of reeds’ should be called a ‘Red Sea’ is diffi- 
cult to understand. For some unknown reason, 
the LXX. and St. Jerome speak of it as the ‘Red 
Sea’—possibly on account of its reddish waters 
and shells, or because of the color of the mountains 
of Sinai and Edom which border upon it. The Greeks 
extended the name to include the Persian Gulf and 
the Indian Ocean. The narrow gulfs on the W. and 
E. sides of the peninsula of Sinai are its most im- 
portant portions for the Biblical student. Across 
the western, or Gulf of Suez, marched the Israelites 
in their exodus from the land of Goshen; while 
from Eloth, or Elath (the Azla of Strabo), on the 
eastern, or Gulf of ‘Akabah (sinus «4lanticus), 
Solomon sent forth his navy to Ophir for gold (I K 
9 26-28). The lack of ‘reeds’ and the presence of 
numerous shells on the shores of the Gulf of Suez 





765 A NEW STANDARD 


lead the present writer to think that the Bitter 
Lakes and Lake JTimsah were at one time a con- 
nected part of the same body of water. G. L. R. 


REED, REED GRASS: The flag, or reed (qdaneh, 
x&zAqwos). Also rush (’aghmén, gdme’), or bulrush 
was known to the inhabitants of Palestine as it 
abounds in the lowlands of the Jordan Valley and 
in Egypt. It is frequently referred to as a symbol of 
instability (II K 18 21; Mt 117, etc.), or of helpless 
weakness (Is 42 3). The reed was used as a measur- 
ing-rod (Ezk 40 3 #.; Rev 111). In Jer 51 32, ’dgham, 
rendered ‘reed,’ should probably be taken in the 
sense of ‘defenses’ or possibly “‘citadels.’? On Gn 41 
2, 18, ‘meadow’ AV, cf. RV, and on Is 197 for ‘paper 
reeds’ AV read ‘meadows’ with the RV. See also 
PALESTINE, § 21 f. K. E. N. 

REELAIAH, ri’’el-é’ya (mon, relayah). See 
RAAMIAH. 

REFINER. See Artizan Lirs, § 10 (b). 


REFUGE, CITIES OF: The designation of six 
Levitical cities where unintentional homicides might 
find asylum from the ‘avenger of blood’ (q.v.) until 
arrangements could be made for an impartial trial, 
and also thereafter, if judged innocent (Dt ch. 19, 
4 41-43; Nu ch. 35; Jos ch. 20 f.). The positions 
of these cities were so chosen that a fugitive could 
always reach some one of them in a day’s flight (not 
over 30 m.). It is probable that the other ‘Levitical 
cities’ also continued to exercise to some degree the 
right of sanctuary. We do not know to what extent 
these regulations were actually put into practise, 
but in the Greek and Roman periods many Hellen- 
istic cities in Palestine enjoyed similar privileges. 

According to the prevailing critical view of the 
formation of the Hexateuch, the cities of refuge were 
first appointed in the days of Josiah (621 B.c.), in 
place of the numerous sanctuaries which from time 
immemorial had been places of asylum, but which 
were now abolished by the drastic reforms of the 
young king (cf. Ex 21 14, 20 24 with II K ch. 28). 
See HB and JE,s.v. Asylum. L.G.L.—E.C. L. 


REGEM, ri’gem (977, reghem): The name of a 
Calebite family (I Ch 2 47). See also the following 
word. ; 

REGEM-MELECH, 1i’’gem-mi'lek (122 02, re- 
ghem melekh), ‘Regem is king’ (?): A person men- 
tioned in Zec 7 2. There is probably some error in 


the present Heb. text, the words in question not 
being original. Cf. ICC, ad. loc. 


- REGENERATION: This word (Gr radtyyevecta) 
is one of several (see Apoprion; ConvERSION; RE- 
PENTANCE) which are used to describe the great 
changes wrought in a man’s thought, feeling, and 
will, in his conscious relations to sin, the world, and 
God, when he enters into fellowship with God 
through faith in Jesus Christ. 

1. In the O T. From its beginnings in Moses, the 
religion of Israel took its seat in the inner life of 
man. But at first this was an indistinct and un- 
developed fact. The steady and ever-growing in- 
sistence upon ‘obedience’ and ‘not sacrifice’ (I § 
15 22; Is 1 11-16; Hos 6 6; Mic 67, 8; Jer 7 22, 23) 
gradually made the fact clear that Jehovah deals 


~ 


Reconciliation 
Regeneration 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
with the heart and conscience. Hence the later 
emphasis upon the necessity for moral renovation, 
which appears in such fulness in the Psalms (e.g., 
15, 19, 32, 51) and in the Prophets, whose supreme 
work was to persuade the people to forsake sin 
and do the will of God. It was in the deeper crises 
belonging to the exilic period, when the individual 
stood forth as never before (Jer 31 29, 30; Ezk ch. 
18), that this change was seen to be itself a work 
of God. The very failure of all warnings under the 
old covenant revealed the need of a new covenant 
whose fulfilment should be indeed the work of man, 
but of a new man, upon whom the grace of God has 
worked a moral transformation (Jer 24 7, 31 33, 34, 
32 39, 40; Ezk 11 19, 20, 36 26, 27). But in the O T 
we have no clear testimony to such a change as an 
experienced fact. Joy in God there is, and a sense 
of the need of moral renewal; but there is no witness 
to any movement in which men had brought these 
two together, under conditions which they could 
apprehend, rest on, and proclaim to others. The 
world waited for the conjunction of these two ap- 
parently antagonistic factors in religious feeling. 
When that took place, the world’s redemption would 
have arrived. 


2. Inthe N T. The N T describes the conditions 
under which it came about that men in whom the 
moral struggle was aroused found peace with God 
and called it a ‘regeneration,’ a ‘being born again.’ 
Ipso facto we have the absolute religion, the religion 
of the Divine sonship. (1) Naturally, we do not 
find much explicit teaching on this topic from the 
lips of Jesus. He, because sinless, had no such 
experience; and, while He was with them, the 
preparative but not the consummate conditions of 
the new life were alone presented to the minds of 
His disciples. Yet His call to repentance (Mk 1 15), 
His declaration that men must ‘become as little 
children’ to enter the Kingdom of heaven (Mt 18 2), 
that sin is seated ‘within,’ in the heart (Mk 7 21), 
that men are ‘sick’ and need a physician (Mk 2 17), 
that they need to ‘become’ sons of God (Mt 5 45, 
yévno0e), His emphasis throughout His teaching 
alike upon the vast gulf which separates goodness 
and badness, faith and unfaith, rebellion and obedi- 
ence, love and hate, lust and self-respect, indicates 
that a mighty change which goes down to the very 
sources of man’s moral consciousness is needed, if he 
is to be saved. The instrument of this change our 
Lord does not describe; but we are made to feel that 
it must be forged and used by God, if the soil is to be 
fitted for the seed. God alone can forgive sin, He 
can effect moral renewals impossible for men (Mk 
10 23-27), the Son of Man is to save the lost (Lk 19 
10), He in the name of the Father seeks and welcomes 
them (Lk ch. 15). In Jn 3 3, 5 the implicit truth 
of the Synoptic Gospels is clearly stated to Nicode- 
mus. (2) When we turn to the story of Acts and to 
the Epistles, we find ourselves in a new atmosphere. 
The followers have become leaders of men, the pupils 
have become teachers.. They are filled with the 
consciousness of oneness with the living and holy 
God; and for the first time in history that conscious- 
ness is the basis of a communal life and a universal 
gospel. The change which has been wrought by the 


Regeneration 
Religious 





power of Christ through the Spirit is described in 
the most absolute terms which language can employ. 
Pauline terms are ‘a new creation’ (Gal 6 15; II Co 
5 17), a change from slavery to sonship (Ro 8 15), 
from a life ‘in the flesh’ or ‘under the law’ to a life 
‘in the Spirit,’ ‘led by the Spirit’ (Gal 5 16-18; Ro 
8 2,9), a life of faith for one who was ‘crucified with 
Christ? (Gal 2 20), a union with Christ in ‘the like- 
ness’ both of His death and His resurrection in 
which ‘our old man was crucified with him’ (Ro 
6 3-6), and a new man has appeared (Eph 2 15, 4 24). 
We ‘were raised together with Christ’ (Col 2 20, 
31 .); those who were dead through trespasses and 
sins have been ‘made alive’ (Eph 2 1-5; II Co 5 14, 
15), ‘once darkness’ they are ‘now light in the Lord’ 
(Eph 5 8; I Th 5 4-7). Enmity has given way to 
peace with God, weakness is replaced by power, 
fear by love. ‘The old things are passed away; be- 
hold, they are become new’ (II Co 517). The same 
enthusiasm, if not the same variety in its expression, 
appears in the other writers. According to Peter, 
they are begotten again unto a living hope (I P 1 3, 
23) as new-born babes (2 2). The contrast between 
the past and the new standing of Jewish Christians 
is brilliantly described (2 5-10). Even the Epistle of 
James, which seems to be least doctrinal, yet founds 
its practical exhortations upon this new conscious- 
ness of the Christian community (11, 18, 21), the in- 
strument of whose production is the ‘inborn word’ 
(Vulg. insitum verbum). In the writings of the 
Apostle John we find ourselves in a realm of sharply 
defined contrasts—life and death, truth and un- 
truth, light and darkness, children of God and chil- 
dren of the devil, righteousness and sin, love and 
hate, belief and unbelief. These are not named in 
relation to the general Christian community, as is 
mainly the case with Peter and James; but, as is 
more usual with Paul, John generally puts emphasis 
upon the individual experience of this change. In 
Jn 3 3-8, the entrance to the Kingdom of God is de- 
scribed as a new birth which is brought about by 
‘water and the Spirit,’ or ‘by the Spirit’ alone. In 
his first Epistle John ascribes this act of ‘begetting’ 
directly to God (I Jn 2 29, 39, 47, etc.). He is much 
concerned with the fact that the righteous man 
proves his new birth by his very righteousness. It is 
not that he is righteous and so becomes a son of 
God. He is righteous, and therefore we know that he 
has been begotten of God (yeyévyytat; cf. the effect 
of the aorist in 51) and continues in that new relation- 
ship (uévete év alt, 2 27, etc.). This act of God is 
not more closely defined. It is conditioned, of course, 
by the person and work of Christ, the only begotten 
(4 7-10). Very strong expressions are used to state 
the fact that this new birth issues in a holy life. 
The begotten of God ‘can not sin’ (89), and it is in 
the keeping of His commandments we know that 
we know Him (2 3). 

3. Summary. The doctrine of a new birth, of a 
fundamental change in man’s conscious life, pervades 
the whole of the N T. Various expressions are used 
for it, and it is often described where no definitive 
term occurs. Certain features underlie the teaching 
of the N T as a whole on this point. (1) The new 
birth is an act of God upon the inner life of the 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


766 





individual. His natural structure, so to speak, is not 
changed. Bvt the whole meaning of his entire 
active self is transformed. Much in this must ever 
remain inexplicable; for here each soul may find its 
ineffable conscious contact with the Divine. But the 
act is realized in varying degrees. Some have to be 
exhorted to realize it and to give its reality scope in 
their active life and conduct. Others may have 
hearts open to its full wonder and power and joy. 
Yet again, it may be in some communal act of con- 
fession that all degrees of attainment unite in using 
the same language, conscious that some fundamental 
relationship, some identical spirit, is possessed by 
all (I Jn 5 18-20; II Co 5 11-20; Ro 8 12-17 [where first 
and second persons are constantly interchanged]; 
IP 23-10). (2) This change is wrought by God not 
magically, upon an impersonal substance, but per- 
sonally—that is, ethically—through and upon the 
conscience, the will, the affections. Hence it is not - 
a good which can be received apart from, or prior to, 
or in addition to, the personal relations in which 
God’s call is heard and the act of obedient faith is 
performed. The new birth is the change in man’s 
personal relations with God which has been wrought 
by God’s redemptive acts and man’s amazed re- 
sponse to these. (3) Hence the new birth is not an 
esoteric experience, confined to the élite of the race or 
the Church. It comes to the simplest and most 
ignorant, who are wise enough to understand the 
offer of mercy and to close with it and live by it. 
(4) The N T does not teach that regeneration re- 
stores us to the position of Adam before the Fall. 
Rather is the contrast definitely drawn between the 
natural life with its limitations and the spiritual, 
whose characteristic is the indwelling of God in our 
personal consciousness, in and for our will. Hence 
it is unsafe and misleading to say with some that in 
the new birth we receive a new personality (cf. I Co 
15 45; Jn 112, 13,36). (5) Itisin the N T associated 
peculiarly with the ordinance of baptism (Ro 6 3, 4; 
Eph 5 26; Tit 35; Jn3 3-5; I P3 21); and naturally, for 
baptism was the open rite by which men entered 
into the fellowship of the Church. And that mo- 
ment was in the early Church often accompanied by 
experiences which were identified as the work of the 
Holy Spirit. But the Spirit might thus ‘fall’ before 
the rite was performed (Ac 10 44, 1115). The sclemn 
values of that sacrament are not removed when we 
insist that the new birth is an act of God, which has 
too often been as evidently bestowed upon human 
souls—as in the experience of Cornelius—apart from 
baptism to allow of our limiting it to the recipients 
of that gracious, communal observance. 


LireRATuRE: For Biblical material, see J. V. Bartlett in 
HBD; Cremer’s Biblico-Theological Lexicon of N T Gr.; 
H. J. Holtzmann’s and G. B. Stevens’ works on The The- 
ology of N T. For doctrinal discussion, see works on 
Systematic Theology and the special discussions by Stephen 
Charnock, The Doctrine of Regeneration (1840); E. H. 
Sears, Regeneration (1843); Austin Phelps, The New Birih 
(1867). Also works on special N T writers, such as Pfleiderer, 
Paulinismus (1873, Eng. transl. 1877); A. B. Bruce, St. 
Paul’s Conception of Christianity (1894). W. D. M. 


REGISTER. See Geneatoey, §1. , 

REHABIAH, ri’ha-bai’a (740), rehabhyah), ‘J’ 
has enlarged’: The ancestral head of a number of 
Levitical families (I Ch 28 17, 24 21, 26 25). 





767 


“A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Regeneration 
Religious 





REHOB, ri‘heb (317), rehobh), ‘width’: I. 1. A city 
of Asher (Jos 19 28, 30, 21 31; Jg 1 31; 1 Ch 675). Site 
unknown. Possibly two places in Asher have this 
name. 2. A city in the extreme north of Israel, 
probably near Dan (Nu 13 21; II § 108), perhaps the 
same as the Beth-rehob of Jg 18 28. See also ARAM, 


§4(7). II. 1. The father of Hadadezer, King of 
Zobah (II S 8 3, 12). 2. A prominent Levite (Neh 
10 11). 


REHOBOAM, ri”ho-bd’am (O9307, rehabh‘am, 
also Roboam, ‘Poo, Mt 17 AV): A son of Solomon 
and Naamah, the Ammonitess (I K 14 21, 31; II Ch 
12 13), and king of Judah (937-920). His ascension 
to the throne was the signal for the expression of the 
unrest that characterized the last days of Solomon’s 
reign. This was largely due to the heavy taxation 
and the forced labor necessitated by the public works 
undertaken and completed under Solomon, but also 
partly by the jealousy of the other tribes against 
Judah. An old line of cleavage (I S chs. 2-4) was 
thus revived, and, while Judah tacitly accepted 
Rehoboam, the other tribes took the occasion of the 
public assembly at Shechem (I K 121; II Ch 101), 
held for the purpose of recognizing him, to demand 
that this should take place only on condition that the 
new king lighten the burdens imposed by his father. 
R. took counsel first with the older leaders, and then 
with the younger, and ultimately followed the ad- 
vice of the latter. This was that he should declare in 
favor of a policy of despotism with corresponding 
contempt of the rights of the people. The result was 
the secession of all but the tribe of Judah under the 
leadership of an Ephraimite, Jeroboam, the son of 
Nebat (I K 12 20; but according to I K 12 21, Benja- 
min joined Judah). The messenger of R. (Adoram) 
was stoned, and the king himself fled to Jerusalem, 
where he began preparations for an effort to regain 
control of the rebellious tribes. Two obstacles, how- 
ever, thwarted him. First, the prophet Shemaiah 
forbade a war by Judah against his brethren; and, 
tho R. was disinclined to heed the prophet’s words, 
the people accepted them as from J’. Secondly, in 
the fifth year of R.’s reign Shishak invaded the land 
and seriously crippled R.’s power. This invasion 
resulted in the stripping of the Temple of all the 
treasure accumulated by Solomon, including the 
golden shields. These R. replaced by brazen shields 
which were kept by special guards and used only 
when the king went to the Temple (I K 14 25-98). 
Rehoboam, like his father, had a numerous harem. 
The latter half of his reign seems to have been com- 
paratively uneventful. Yeh OL / 5 

REHOBOTH, mi-ho’beth (NAM, rekdbhath), ‘open 
spaces’: 1. A well dug by Isaac (Gn 26 22). The name 
survives in the Wdédy Ruhetbeh, near which, 17 m. 
SW. of Beersheba, is an ancient well which Palmer 
identifies with Rehoboth (Desert of the Exodus, ii, 
383). 2. ‘Rehoboth by the River’ (Gn 36 37=I Ch 
148). ‘The river’ is usually the Euphrates, and there 
is a Rahaba on the left bank of this river, not far 
below the junction of the Chaboras; but the context 
demands that this Rehoboth should be in Edom. 
It is probably ‘Pow(«8 of the Onomasticon (145 15), 
a military post in Gebolene (Lagarde, Onomastica 
Sacra, p. 286). L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


_ helped to repair the wall (Neh 3 17). 


REHOBOTH-IR, ni-hd’’beth-er’ (VYNANY, rehd- 
bhoth ‘tr), ‘the city Rehoboth’ (so AV), ‘the streets 
of the city’ AVmg.: A town built by Nimrod in 
Assyria (Gn 10 11). The words are not Assyrian, ' 
however, but Hebrew, and mean ‘the open places of 
the city,’ z.e., probably, the sparsely built suburbs 
of Nineveh. Inscriptions of Sargon and Esarhaddon 
mention the rébit Nind, or ‘open spaces of Nineveh,’ 
as apparently an important suburb on the NE. of. 
the city. LiGihbe—L, Babs 

REHUM, ri’hom (911), rhiim), ‘compassion’: 1., 
One of the leaders of the exiles who returned with 
Zerubbabel (Ezr 2 2; ‘Nehum’ Neh 77). 2. A Per- 
sian official in Samaria who wrote to Artaxerxes, 
charging the Jews, who were rebuilding Jerusalem, 
with rebellion. Empowered by a royal edict he put 
a stop to the work (Ezr 48 #.). 3. A Levite who 
4. A Jewish 
family chief who sealed the covenant (Neh 10 25 
[26]). 5. A Jewish priestly clan which returned with 
Zerubbabel (Neh 12 3; called Harim in 12 15; cf. 
I Ch 24 8; Ezr 2 39 [=Neh 7 42]; Ezr 10 21). 

Ca Sas le 

REI, ri’ai (21, ré%), ‘friend’: A courtier of David, 
who remained loyal when Adonijah attempted to 
become king (I K 18). The text here is uncertain. 

LOS ald 

REINS: An archaic word for the kidneys, used in 
the AV to render the following two Heb. terms: (1) 
haladtsayim (dual only), ‘loins,’ so ARV (Is 11 5). 
(2) kelayoth (pl. only), ‘kidneys,’ as the most sensi- 
tive and vital part of man (Job 16 13; La 3 13), and 
figuratively, as the seat of the emotions and affec- 
tions usually translated ‘heart’ RV (Job 29 27; Ps 
167, 73 21, 139 13; Pr 23 16; Jer 12 2); also used with 
lébh, ‘heart,’ the object of God’s examination of 
character (Ps 7 9 [io], 26 2; Jer 11 20, 17 10, 20 12; 
cf. veped¢ (Rev 2 23, ‘heart’ RV). aL 

REKEM, ri’kem (9?P), reqgem): I. 1. A king of 
Midian, slain by the Israelites (Nu 31 8; Jos 138 21). 
z. An eponymous ancestor of a Calebite family con- 
nected with Hebron (I Ch 2 43 f.). 3. The eponym 
of a clan of Machir in Gilead (I Ch 7 16, Rakem 
KV, from the pausal Heb. form.) II. A Benjamite 
town (Jos 18 27), site unknown. C2807: 


RELEASE. See Suavery, § 3, and Saspatn, § 5. 
RELEASE, YEAR OF. See Sapsartu, § 5. 


RELIGION: Regard for what is believed to be 
deity. The idea of religion in its breadth and com- 
plexity is not anywhere in the O T expressed in a 
single term, but in phrases, such as ‘the fear [service, 
worship] of J’” (Ps 211, 57, 29 2; Pr 17, 14 27; Jos 24 
2 ff.), or of other gods (Dt 419, 29 26). Inthe N T the 
nearest equivalent of the Eng. term is Oonoxelx 
‘religious profession’ (Ac 26 5; Ja 1 26 £.; Col 2 18, 
‘worshipping’ AV and RV). Of other words, oe8é- 
uevot (Ac 13 43, religious AV) is better rendered, 
as in RV, ‘devout,’ while Sectdatuovestépoug (Ac 
17 22, ‘too superstitious’ AV, ‘somewhat super- 
stitious’ RVmg.) is scarcely intended to denote more 
than that single aspect of religion which consists 
in being awed by the belief in the existence of 
supernatural beings (‘fear of demons’). A. C, Z. 


RELIGIOUS. See RE tiacion. 


Remaliah 
Resurrection 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY b 768 


eT ne ES SSIES SEES DES SOUT SSIES SSSI nee eee 


REMALIAH, rem’e-lai’a (372229, remalyahi): 
The father of Pekah, King of Israel (I K 15 25, etc.). 

REMETH, ri-meth (N27, remeth): A city of 
Issachar (Jos 19 21), also called Ramoth (q.v.) and 
Jarmuth. See JARMUTH 


REMISSION. See ForGIvENESsS. 
REMMON, rem’on (1191, rimmon): A name found 
in Jos 197 AV, Rimmon RV. See En-Rimmon. 


REMMON-METHOAR, rem’’men-meth’o-ar. See 
Rrmmovy, II, 2. 


REMNANT (also Residue): The term renders the 
Heb. and Gr. words: (1) ’ahdrith, ‘latter end’ (Ezk 
23 25), (2) serah, ‘rest’ (Ex 26 12 AV), (8) pelétah, 
‘escaped’ (Ezk 14 22), (4) saridh, ‘survivor’ (Is 1 9), 
(5) yathar (vb.), yether, ‘excess’ (Zec 14 2), (6) sh® érith 
(Jer 42 2, etc.), sh’ adr (Is 10 19,16 14, etc.), ‘remainder,’ 
(7) Aeiupa, xat&Actupa (Ro 9 27,115), (8) Aotrédc, 
(Rev 1113). The term has, besides its general, also 
a semi-technical sense. The latter arose during that 
period of Israel’s history when the judgment of J” 
upon the people for national sin was announced by 
the prophets. A misleading impression was apt to 
be produced by their warning words, to the effect 
that punishment meant extermination. This, how- 
ever, was not the prophets’ conviction (cf. the name 
given by Isaiah to his son Shear-jashub, ‘a remnant 
shall return,’ Is 7 3). A portion of the people should 
survive the purging process and constitute the Rem- 
nant [Residue] (Ezr 9 8; Zec 14 2). But being 
rescued from destruction was only the beginning of 
the Remnant’s career. Whereas the judgment of J’”’ 
was to scatter the body of the nation among their 
enemies, the Remnant would be gathered together 
from all such places (Jer 23 3). It would then form 
the nucleus of a new Israel (Is 10. 21, 11 11, etc.), 
grow into large prosperity (Zec 8 12), live in accor- 
dance with J’”’s holy law, become holy (Zeph 3 13), 
and recognize J” as its God (Zec 13 9; Jer 32 39). 
All this, however, was to occur as the result of the 
gracious control of J’’”’s love for His Chosen People 
(‘the zeal of J’’ shall perform it,’ II K 19 31; Is 37 32). 

ALIGHZ: 

REMPHAN, rem’fan. See Semitic RELIGION, 
§ 18 

REND THE GARMENTS. 
Customs, § 1. 


REPENTANCE: The word is the equivalent of 
Heb. and Gr. terms as follows: (1) ndham, ‘penitence’ 
(Hos 13 14). In the majority of instances the verb 
is used to describe in anthropopathic language God’s 
feeling as He views the sin and failure of men to 
realize His will (Gn 6 6). (2) werkvora (Mt 3 8, etc.), 
‘change of mind.’ To repent is to change attitude; 
the test of repentance is the altered conduct (Mt 3 8; 
Lk 3 8). This does not exclude feeling; but feeling 
as the starting-point and motive for the new life in 
the future, not the result of that life which has been 
turned from. Godly sorrow leads to repentance, 
rather than flows from it (II Co 7 10). Repentance 
is the first condition of forgiveness (Ac 5 31). But 
it is impossible to bring this change upon one’s own 
self, and the act is repeatedly said to be stimulated 
by the initiative of God Himself (Ac 11 18; II Ti 


See Mournina 


2 25). The solution of the apparent contradiction 
created by requiring that as a condition in man 
which is to be expected only as a result of Divine 
action is nowhere attempted in the Scriptures. 

A.C. Z. 

REPHAEL, ri’fo-el or ref’a-el (282, repha’él), 
‘God heals’: A doorkeeper of the ice Temple (I 
Ch 26 7). 

REPHAH, ri’fa (19), rephah): A descendant of 
Ephraim (I Ch 7 25). 

REPHAIAH, ref-é’ya or ref’’a-ai’a (1139, repha- 
yah), ‘J’’ heals’: 1. A descendant of David (I Ch 3 
21). 2. A Simeonite chieftain (I Ch 4 42). 3. The 
ancestral head of a clan of Issachar (I Ch 7 2). 4. 
A descendant of Saul (I Ch 9 43, called Raphah in 
8 37). 5. One of those who repaired the wall of Jeru- 
salem (Neh 3 9). 

REPHAIM, ref’a-im (O'S), reph@’im), ‘extinct 


aborigines,’ which meaning Schwally (Leben nach © 4 


dem Tode, p. 64 f.) connects with r¢ph@im, ‘shades,’ 
‘ghosts’; the belief that the early inhabitants were 
giants came perhaps in part (W. R. Smith quoted in 
Driver, JCC. on Dt, p. 40) ‘from the contemplation of 
ancient ruins of great works and supposed gigantic 
tombs’ (the AV renders by ‘giants’ except Gn 14 5, 
15 20): It is the name for a giant aboriginal race of 
Canaan (Gn 15 20; Ja 17 15), of Moab and Ammon 
(Dt 211, here called Emim and in 2 20, Zamzummim); 
also of Bashan (Gn 14 5; Dt 3 11, 13; Jos 12 4, 13 12, 
1715). In other passages (II S 21 16-22; I Ch 20 4, 6, 8) 
we have the rendering ‘sons of the giant’ (Heb. ha- 
raphah, which may be taken as the name of the 
ancestor of the race of giants). See Grants; and 
ZUZIM. Cr sek: 
REPHAIM, VALLEY or VALE OF (8°83) pry, 
‘émeg r¢ph@’im): A broad and fruitful (Is 17 5) valley, 
SW. of Jerusalem, beginning on the SW. of the 
ridge separating it from the Valley of Hinnom (Jos 
158, 1816, valley of giants AV), and extending toward 
Bethlehem (II S 23 13 £.). The Philistines often 
invaded this valley in their contests with David, 
and at one time held Bethlehem, while David was 
in the cave of Adullam (II S 5 18 #., 23 13 £.; I Ch 
11 15, 14 9 #.). He defeated them once at Baal- 
perazim (I Ch 1411) and again at the mulberry-trees 
(bekh@’%m), from which place he pursued them to the 
coast (IIS 5 22f.). Itis modern Bak’a, a moderately 
large valley, or upland plain, SW. of Jerusalem. 
OAS ean 
REPHAN, ri’fan. See Semitic Retiaion, § 18. 
REPHIDIM, ref’i-dim (08°), rephidhim, Ex 
17 1, 8, 19 2; Nu 33 14 f.): According to P, a station 
of the Israelites in the desert before arriving at Sinai. 
The location is unknown. Advocates of the tradi- 
tional identification of Sinai with Jebel Masa in the 
‘Sinaitic’ Peninsula equate Rephidim with Wédy 
Feirdn, which lies at the base of Jebel Serbal, about 
25 m. NW. of the traditional Sinai (Jebel Masa). A 
hill which rises 700 ft. above the N. side of the valley 
is regarded as the eminence from which Moses 
watched the battle (Ex 17 9 #..). Early Christian 
tradition identified Rephidim with Paran (whence 
Feirdn), and the city here was made the seat of a 
bishopric. Numerous ruins of Christian edifices are 


j 
; 
, 
q 





769 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Remaliah 
Resurrection 





found in the oasis. See Palmer, Desert of the Exodus, 
i, 158 ff. L. G. L.—L. B, P. 


REPROACH: This word renders terms derived 
from five Heb. and four Gr. roots: (1) ga@dhaph, ‘to 
blaspheme’ (Nu 15° 30, elsewhere rendered ‘blas- 
pheme’); giddiph (Is 43 28, ‘revilings’ RV; cf. Is 517; 
Zeph 28). (2) hesedh (Pr 14 34), meaning ‘disgrace.’ 
(3) haraph, the most common root, ‘to say sharp 
things against,’ ‘taunt’ (II K 19 4, 221.; Ps 4210, etc.); 
herpah, ‘taunt’ (I S 17 26, 25 39), ‘scorn’ (Neh 4 4 
[3 36], 5 9, etc.), ‘condition of shame’ (Pr 6 33; Gn 
30 23; Is 54 4, etc.), ‘object of reproach’ (Ps 39 8 
[9], etc.; Ezk 5 15, ete.). (4) kdlam, ‘to humiliate’ 
(Ru 2 15; Job 19 3); kelimmah, ‘insult’ (Job 20 3, 
‘putteth to shame’ RV). (5) qalén (Pr 22 10, ‘igno- 
miny’ RV). (6) &tula, ‘dishonor’ (II Co 11 21, ‘by 
way of disparagement’ RV). (7) éverdtterv (=Heb. 
haraph, in LXX.), ‘to revile,’ ‘unjustly reproach’ 
(Lk 6 22; Ro 15 3; 1P414;1 Ti 410 AV); évetdrapdc, 
chiefly LXX. for herpah (Ro 15 3; I Ti 37; He 10 33, 
11 26, 1313). (8) Svetdoc (Lk 1 25), in LXX. usually 
for herpah, three times for kelimmah. (9) dGettetv, to 
insult or ‘treat shamefully’ (Lk 11 45; cf. Mt 22 6, 
etc.); UBerc (II Co 1210, ‘injuries’ RV). C.S. T. 

REPROOF, REPROVE: These words render 
terms derived from one Gr. and three Heb. roots: 
(1) ga‘ar, ‘to scold,’ ‘reproach’ (Jer 29 27 AV, ‘re- 
buke’ RV); g*‘arah (Job 26 11; Pr 17 10 AV, ‘rebuke’ 
RV). (2) yakhah, vb., ‘chide’ (Gn 21 25; Job 6 25, 
etc.; Pr 9 8, etc.), ‘correct’ (Job 13 10), ‘convict of 
error’ (Ps 50 21; Pr 30 6), ‘judge’ (Is 11 3), ‘decide’ 
(Is 11 4 RV); tdkhahath (Ps 38 [14] 15; ‘argument’ 
RVmg.; Hab 2 1, ‘complaints’ RV), usually in the 
sense of ‘chiding’ of God and man (Pr 1 23, 25, etc.), 
‘correction,’ parallel to ‘rod’ (Pr 2915). (8) ydsar, ‘to 
correct’ (Pr97 RV). (4) éréyxetv, in the sense of 
rebuke (Lk 3 19; II Ti 4 2, ‘bring to the proof’ RVmg.) 
‘convict’ (Jn 168 RV; Jn 3 20 RVmg.; Eph 5 11, 13); 
#Aeyxos, ‘convicting [of sin! (II Ti 316). C.S.T. 

REPTILES. See PALEstIne, § 26. 

REREWARD. See REARWARD. 

RESEN, ri’sen (127, resen): A town in Assyria 
between Nineveh (on the Tigris opposite the modern 
Mosul) and Calah (the modern Nimrdad, 20 m. S. of 
Nineveh) on the Tigris, and according to Gn 10 12 
founded by Nimrod. Site not yet found. C.S.T. 

RESERVOIR. The rendering of miqweh (Is 22 11, 
‘ditch’ AV). The reference is probably to an addi- 
tional pool for the water-supply of Jerusalem which 
Hezekiah was endeavoring to make more secure. See 
JERUSALEM, §§ 34, 35. 

RESHEPH,, ri’shef ("1¥, resheph): A descendant 
of Ephraim (I Ch 7 25). 

RESIDUE. See Remnant. 

RESPECT OF PERSONS: This term (except in 
La 4 16) means ‘to show partiality in judgment,’ by 
having regard for the outward circumstances, social 
position, etc., of men and not for the merits of the 
_ease. It renders (1) nasa’ phanim, ‘lift up the face 
[i.e., person)’ of another (Lv 19 15; in RV for ‘ac- 
cept’ AV Job 34 19; Pr 185; Ps 82 2; in Mal 29 for 
‘partial’ AV; cf. also Job 13 8, 10; Dt 10 17; and masso’ 
phanim, II Ch 197). In IIS 1414 RV reads correctly 
‘take away’ (life). (2) Hiph. of nakhar panim, ‘pay 


regard to the face’ (Dt 1 17, 16 19; Pr 24 23, 28 21). 
(3) Various forms, xposwroAnuxtys (Ac 10 34), 
-Anurtety (Ja 29), -Anuglae (Ro 211; Eph 69; Col 3 25; 
Ja 21); and \(with a priv.) -Aqwrtos (I P 117), ‘ac- 
cepter of,’ ‘to accept,’ ‘acceptance of persons’: all 
from nedécwmoyv, ‘face,’ and AayBdverv, ‘to take.’ 
(4) Oaupdterv (Jude ver. 16), ‘having men’s persons in 
admiration’ AV ‘showing respect of persons’ RV. 
OAS Fuad 
REST: When God had finished His work of crea- 
tion (Gn 2 2 f.), He ‘rested’ (shabhath), or, better, 
‘ceased,’ from activity. In the Heb. word there is 
evidently a reference to the ‘Sabbath’ (shabbath), 
q.v. Refreshment is not implied in the word, altho 
in the same connection elsewhere such a rest (Heb. 
ntiah) is spoken of (Ex 23 12; Dt 5 14; ef. Ex 31 17, 
‘rested and was refreshed’). The author of He 
(3 11, 4 4 f.) connects with this rest of God from 
creative activity the promise to Israel of an en- 
trance into His rest (xataxatety, xat&xaucts). This 
‘rest’ (menthah, lit. ‘resting-place’) was to be in the 
land of Canaan (Dt 12 9f.; He 41), but by disobed- 
ience they did not enter into it (Ps 95 11; cf. Dt 
1 34-36; Nu 14 23, 32 10-12). The ‘rest’ of Israel 
depended upon God, into whose ‘rest’ they through 
obedience might enter (cf. Dt 28 65, méndah). It was 
not obtained when they finally entered Canaan with 
Joshua; but was experienced in a measure under 
Solomon (I K 8 56). Altho the physical aspect of 
rest, in finding a resting-place in Canaan, unmo- 
lested by their enemies, is here uppermost, there 
seems to have been the deeper spiritual conception 
of rest, through communion with God (Ps 116 7; 
negatively expressed Is 28 12; the presence of J” 
with His people is implied in Ps 1327, 14). The au- 
thor of He renews the promise of entering into the 
true ‘rest of God’ to those who believe (He 41 f.). 
As to Israel, J’’ promises rest from sorrow and 
trouble (Is 14 3), so to those who die in the Lord 
there will be rest from their labors (Rev 14 13; cf. 
He 410). Christ offered men a ‘rest’ (4vénauatc, Mt 
11 29) which was His, through service to men and 
communion with God. Ci8a i: 


RESTITUTION. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, 
§ 3 (c); and Escuaro.oey, § 40. 


RESTORE, RESTORATION. See CrIME AND 
PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (c); and Escuato.oey, § 40. 


RESURRECTION; 1. The Idea of Resurrection 
in the O T. The restoration of the dead to life is an 
idea which appears fully expressed first in the N T 
(avdotacts, Mt 22 23; e&avdotactc, Ph 311; &yepate 
Mt 27 53), tho belief in resurrection appears in the 
later writings of the O T. The Book of Job, how- 
ever, in which 19 26f., is often taken as implying the 
belief, can not be cited among these. The passage 
referred to is very obscure, and the best interpreta- 
tion excludes the idea of resurrection from it. The 
thought of the Book of Job seems, on the contrary, 
to exclude the expectation of a new life for the dead 
(7 8-10; 1414). Dn 12 2 shows the belief more clearly. 
The circumstances in which this book was published 
called for encouragement to faithfulness and warn- 
ing against apostasy. The persecution of the faith- 
ful and the easy escape of the lukewarm who surren- 
dered their distinctiveness as Israelites presented a 


Resurrection 
Revelation 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


770 





problem which could be solved only on the assump- 
tion of a bodily return of both, in order that the 
apparent injustice displayed by the several lots in 
the present life might be righted by the punishment 
of the one and the reward of the other. Of the resur- 
rection of others than Israelites, however, even Dn 
does not take account; and resurrection, so far as 
expected, rests on the righteousness of God. 

2. In the Intertestamental Period. In the inter- 
testamental period Jewish thought was affected in a 
measure by the philosophy of Plato and the Stoics. 
So far as this is not the case, it is reflected in Sir, 
whose author distinctly denies immortality to man 
(17 30). This must, of course, be understood con- 
sistently with the belief in the current doctrine of 
Sheol (cf. EscuatoLtoey, §§ 30, 31). In Wis, how- 
ever, the traces of Hellenic influence are very clear. 
Immortality (2 23, 31), is not associated with resur- 
rection, but with preexistence, as in the doctrine of 
Plato (Phedo, 70 ff.; Wis 8 20). But the legitimate 
successor. of Dn, both as regards the definite asser- 
tion of resurrection and its basis, scope, and design, 
is II Mac. Here the righteous who suffer unto 
death are to be rewarded in a second life (II Mac 79, 
11, 14, 36, 14 46). It was a teaching, however, which 
met with doubt and denial, and had to be maintained 
in spite of these difficulties. In the apocalyptic 
writings the doctrine appears finally and fully fixed. 
In fact, its scope is extended so as to include all 
men (Eth. Hn. 511), and its object is defined as judg- 
ment for the deeds done in the body (Eth. En. 22). 
In the Test. of the Twelve Patr. (Benj., 10) almost 
the very words of Dn 12 2 are echoed (ef. also the 
later apocalypses; IV Es 7 32, 5 46; Syr. Bar 427, 50 2). 
In the time of Christ the belief was a test of Jewish 
orthodoxy, and universally accepted. This is cer- 
tainly to be gathered from the Mishna (Weber, 
Jd. Theol.* pp. 369, 370). Skepticism on the sub- 
ject did indeed find strong expression in the sect of 
the Sadducees; but the Pharisaic side of the debate 
had the best of the argument, as it appealed to the 
nature of the Messianic Kingdom and its privileges, 
which ought to be enjoyed by all the faithful. 


3. Teaching of Jesus. Jesus, by His teaching, 
miracles, and resurrection, puts the subject in a new 
light, making the N T phase of belief in the resurrec- 
tion a new departure. He takes up all that is of 
spiritual value in the doctrine as developed up to 
His time, and grounds it in the idea of immortality. 
But immortality itself He builds on the relation of 
the faithful to God (Mt 22 23 £.; Mk 1218 £.; Lk 20 27). 
Yet on the questions that concern the outward 
details, such as whether all men shall return to life, 
and what the conditions of that life shall be, Jesus 
gives no information. Nor does He make resurrec- 
tion necessary to a just distribution of rewards and 
punishments. Moreover, the teaching, as reported 
by Mt, does not go beyond postulating immortality 
for those whom God specially favors, whereas Lk 
admits of the possibility of it for all (for all live 
unto him.’) 

4, Jesus’ Miracles of Resurrection. The miracles 
of resurrection performed by Jesus (Mt 9 24 pLky7 11: 
Jn ch. 11) occupy a peculiar position. They are not 
to be classed with His own return from the grave, 


or with the final resurrection of all; their subjects are 
not introduced into a permanent and final state of 
being. But they illumine the subject by showing 
death in a new light. Until they were wrought, it 
was true that no one on earth had ever displayed 
power over death. They revealed such a one. They 
also illustrate the fact that life and death are alike 
ministers of good to those whom God loves. 

5. Resurrection of Jesus. But the greatest flood 
of light comes from the resurrection of Jesus Him- 
self (cf. Jesus Curist, § 18). First, it establishes the 
fact that there is a vitality within the physical life 
of man which, when the outward forces of that life 
appear to be dissipated, can draw them back and 
reconstruct them. Since the resurrection of Jesus 
this may be taken to be a cosmic law of which that 
event was the first historic application (I Co 15 23). 
Secondly, it illustrates the fact that the material 
body of the resurrection must undergo a great — 
change, that it must transcend some of- the limita- 
tions under which the body exists before death. The 
exact quality of the change is not made clear, but 
the facts suggest the existence of a hidden power 
within the personality of man which, if developed, 
might control the bodily organism completely. Jesus 
seems to have had this control. He attenuated His 
body sufficiently to pass through closed doors; He 
made it unrecognizable by very close friends (Lk 
24 29 f.; Jn 20 14, 21 4). On the other hand, He as- 
similated it to conditions of normal earthly life by 
eating and drinking (Lk 24 41 f.). Thirdly, the resur- 
rection of Jesus infused vigor and stability into the 
whole realm of religious experience. It vitalized he 
faith of men in the invisible realities of the spiritual 
world (cf. I Co ch. 15). 

6. Apostolic Teaching: Paul. In the earliest 
Apostolic thought, the resurrection of Jesus, with all 
its implications, came to occupy a place in the very 
center. Paul regards the faith of Christians as 
standing or falling with the reality or unreality of 
this fact (I Co 15 17; ef. also Ac 4 2, 33, 17 18). He 
further takes up the old question of the universality 
of the resurrection, and, with his characteristic 
breadth of thought, perceives that, in order to the 
application of the Gospel to all, judgment and resur- 
rection must be predicted of all men. Hence he pro- 
claims a twofold resurrection—of believers first and 
afterward of all (I Co 15 18; cf. also Rev ch. 20; yet 
this was anticipated in Dn 12 2). But, with equally 
characteristic logic, Paul interweaves the belief in 
the general resurrection with the resurrection of 
Jesus Christ. It is because Christ imparts a new and 
imperishable life that those who belong to Him are 
raised from the dead. If it be said that this makes 
immortality conditional, the answer is that Paul 
does not seem to accept this as a necessary inference 
from his doctrine. All shall be raised for judgment. 
The resurrection of others than believers must then 
be operated in a way which he does not undertake 
to explain. ce Aen 


RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. See Jzsus 
Curist, § 18; and Resurrection, § 5. ; 

REV, ri’u or ri (199, rea), an old deity name (?): 
The son of Peleg in the line of Shem (Gn 1118 #.; 1 
Ch 1 25; Gr. ‘Payad in Lk 3 35, Ragau AV). 





G71 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Resurrection 
Revelation 





REUBEN, rii’ben. See Trin, Tripes, §§ 2-4. 


REVEL, ri’el (2897, re‘a@él): 1. The ancestral 
head of an Edomite clan (Gn 36 4-17; I Ch 1 35 f.). 
2. The father-in-law of Moses (Ex 2 18; Nu 10 29 
[Raguel AV]); but see JerHro and Hopas. 3. The 
‘prince’ of Gad (Nu 2 14; called Deuel in 1 14, etc.). 
4. A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 9 8). 


REUMAH, ri’ma (938), r°amah): The concubine 
of Nahor (Gn 22 24). Perhaps a clan-name. 

REVELATION: 1. Biblical Terms. Broadly, this 
term signifies the communication of knowledge. The 
etymology of the English word suggests the remoy- 
ing of a veil, or covering, from what is hidden, thus 
making its existence and real nature known to the 
observer. This is also the strict sense of the Heb. 
and Gr. words: hannighloth, ‘things revealed,’ Dt 29 
29; &noxnkdAutes (from d&roxaAtatety); yenuatitery, Lk 
2 26. In the O T the verb is used without any specific 
application to spiritual or religious knowledge (ex- 
cept in Am 37). But this is implied in the explana- 
tion of occult matters (dreams, Dn 2 19; cf. also Dt 
29 29and IS 37). Inthe N T the term yenuatttery, 
used only in Lk, indicates an oracular method of 
bringing information. Elsewhere the original con- 
ception of unveiling is maintained (Mt 10 26; Ro 
1 17; Gal 112; Rev 11). But neither the simplicity 
of the terms used nor their persistent uniformity in- 
dicate a simple idea or a uniform usage; they are 
simply outward and verbal coincidences. 

2. Definition. First of all, the term ‘revelation’ is 
applied to the act itself of imparting knowledge (as 
in Gal 1 12), then to the sum of the knowledge thus 
imparted (I Co 14 26); next, to a record or book con- 
taining such knowledge (technically ‘apocalypse,’ 
Rev 11), and finally, to a special method of impart~ 
ing the knowledge as distinguished from other 
methods (Eph 3 3; I Co 146). From the point of 
view of the method of information the term is not 
necessarily tied to any specific connotations. Paul 
uses it to signify the immediate communication to 
his own mind of the truth of the Gospel; but he 
uses it also to denote the moral instructiveness of 
natural or cosmic law (I Ro 1 is ff.) 


3. Methods of Revelation. Revelation, then, in 
the typical sense, may be (1) subconscious, 7.e., he 
who receives it may come to the conviction of the 
truth by a species of intuition, tho he may not feel 
called upon to give an account, either to himself or 
’ to others, of this process. (2) Rational or ratioci- 
native, z.e., by way of reasoning and inference from 
already known truth or observed fact. (3) Scientific, 
i.e., by the interpretation of nature, history, or 
current affairs in the light of God’s existence and 
control of these matters. In all these three cases 
there is nothing to distinguish it from the way all 
other knowledge is attained. But it may be by some 
special or unusual method, such as (4) vision, or 
(5) theophany, or (6) dream, apart from the pro- 
cesses of nature, or by the manifest control and 
direction of those laws on the part of a power 
higher than the known laws. In these cases revela- 
tion may be properly called supernatural, tho 
the definition of this term in such usage should be 
strictly conventional. 


4. Postulates of Revelation. The postulates of 
revelation include, on the one side, the existence of 
God, His personality, and His interest in man, or, 
in other words, the fundamental positions of theism. 
Only a spirit with life, purpose, and love subsisting 
behind and beneath [over] the world can be con- 
ceived as a revealer in the strict sense. But such a 
being is the God posited in every theistic system. 
Consequently, the idea of revelation is an integral 
part of every religion based on this conception of the 
universe (cf. Tiele, Gifford Lectures, I, p. 157; 
Pfleiderer, Philos. of Rel., Eng. transl., III, p. 305; 
Kaftan, Das Wesen d. Religion). On man’s side, the 
main postulate of revelation is the faculty of spiritual 
perception. No matter how real the will to reveal 
Himself may be in God, it can never result in a 
revelation, unless there be in man an organ or faculty 


for apprehending what is communicated. In Biblical 


modes of expression this is best put in the propostion 
that spiritual endowment is a necessary condition 
for recognizing God’s revelation. ‘Spiritual things 
are spiritually discerned’ (I Co 2 14). But the ques- 
tion at once arises whether such endowment is a 
universal gift, more or less latent in human nature, 
and developed in varying degrees in individuals, or 
a special and extraordinary talent, which only a few 
privileged characters in the history of the race have 
received. According to II Ti 3 16 and II P 1 21, the 
Spirit of God was breathed into the authors of the 
O T, and these were borne along by His power. For 
the N T, a typical claim is made by Paul in I Co 
14 37 (“af any man thinks he is a prophet, or spiritual, 
let him take knowledge of the things which I write 
unto you, that they are the commandment of the 
Lord’). This means that to the authors of the Books 
of the Bible is attributed the power, unique either 
in kind or in degree, which enables them to under- 
stand God’s thought as revealed to them. Not only 
the inspired writer, however, who perceives the rev- 
elation of God needs the spiritual faculty, but also 
the common man to whom he transmits it. The 
distinction between the first and the second has been 
put into the technical terms of inspiration and 
spiritual illumination. But the Biblical data are 
not clear enough, either to justify or to refute this 
distinction. The attitude of the revealing person 
to the recipient of revelation may further be con- 
ceived as one of waiting until the latter by his efforts 
apprehends the truth in store for him. The Biblical 
conception, however, is the reverse of this. It pre- 
sents God as initiating the steps that lead to the 
recognition of him by man. ‘The world by wisdom 
knew not God’ (I Co 1 21; cf. also Job 117). Per- 
fect knowledge is a gift of God’s grace. Yet dis- 
covery and revelation are correlatives. The one 
supplements the other. But revelation is God’s ini- 
tiative, and underlies, stimulates, and supplements 
man’s efforts. It is a result of God’s fatherly love. 

5. Revelation and Inspiration. As an action of 
God, working through His Spirit, the communica- 
tion of a revelation to the human mind and His 
guidance of it to the moment of its expression in 
words, either oral or written, has been called in- 
spiration. The fact of such inspiration is unmis- 
takably presented in the Bible, In the O T the 


Revelation 
Revelation of John 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


772 





prophets claim that they are directed by J’’ in the 
delivery of their messages. (See PRopHECY, PRropPH- 
et, §6). But more clearly in the N T, the authorita- 
tive word of God is recognized to have been given 
under Divine guidance, both in its utterance (II 
P 1 21) and in its writing down (II Ti 3 16; cf. also 
Jn 10 35). The Apostle Paul further lays claim to 
authority for his message, and therefore to his be- 
ing directed in its delivery (I Co 2 4, 13; Gal 1 12). 
And in a single instance (II P 3 15) one N T writer 
by implication attributes to another (Paul) Divine 
inspiration of the same kind as that which belonged 
to the O T Scriptures. Just what this Divine 
guidance secured in the delivery of the message the 
Biblical data do not explicitly indicate. Negatively, 
from Paul’s disclaimer of absolutely perfect utter- 
ance (II Co 2 4), his failure of memory regarding 
small details (I Co 1 16), and his admission that his 
judgment on the subject of marriage might be 
wrong, even tho he had the Spirit of God (I Co 
7 40), indicate that he regarded inspiration as a 
means of assuring himself and others of the authority 
of his message, rather than a process by which he 
became infallible in thought and expression. But, 
upon the whole, it may be said that the Biblical 
statements are neither full nor clear enough to 
warrant any definite theory of inspiration. 

6. Occasionalism of Revelation. Another result 
of the dependence of revelation on the power of 
the human mind to apprehend it is the historical 
unfolding of revealed truth in parts and fragments 
(He 111.). Revealed truth has not come as a complete 
system, but as ‘precept upon precept, line upon 
line’ in concrete experiences, calling for specific 
guidance and instruction. This may be called the 
occasionalism of revelation. As need appeared and 
occasions offered, principles were inculcated into 
the minds and hearts of a few chosen men. But 
once received, these principles became a permanent 
possession, to be used whenever similar needs should 
again arise. Accordingly, the more important and 
needful lessons were given first, and again afterward 
in many and repeated forms, naturally with a 
slightly differing aspect with each repetition. The 
less needed, less universal and controlling thoughts 
appear less frequently, but both classes appear in 
concrete forms. 


7. Progress in Revelation. But revelation shows 
also a unity and coherency which make it appro- 
priate to speak of the process as a progressive one. 
The word ‘development’ applied to it is not alto- 
gether a misnomer; and even the term ‘evolution,’ 
properly defined, would describe a real aspect of the 
gradual and cumulative delivery of the truth of 
God. Moreover, not only the volume or fulness of 
truth and the clear enunciation of it are subjects of 
this progressiveness, but also the methods of its 
communication. In the earlier stages there was much 
that was simple and crude. The diviner and sooth- 
sayer found a place among those who were supposed 
to be privileged with special revelations. It is 
difficult to see much difference between visits to 
seers to ascertain the whereabouts of lost property 
(I S 9 3 f.) and visits to oracles (Delphi, Dodona, 
etc.) for similar purposes. To ‘inquire of J’” is to 


seek a revelation, but about matters of ordinary 
and commonplace nature. Even affairs of state 
(I K 22 13) are scarcely of the level of importance 
with the revelation of truth in the Prophetic Age 
and in the N T. Further, in this earlier stage the 
most striking and cruder methods prevail. The 
inner and more refined are rarer. J’’ is consulted 
through ephod, through Urim and Thummim, and 
through dreams (I S 28 6). It is only with Amos, 
Hosea, Isaiah, and Jeremiah that the subconscious 
conviction of ethical truth comes into full play and 
takes a supreme place. 

8. Revelation Through Dreams. Dreams were 
regarded as possible means of revelation in all stages 
of Biblical thought. Even in the N T they are so 
referred to (Mt 1 20, 2 13, 20). On the other hand, it 
must be noted that the Hebrews never went to the 
extreme of exalting oneiromancy (‘dream-divina- 


tion’) into a legitimate feature of religious life. The 


professional ‘dreamer,’ tho known, was not con- 
ceded the position of a chosen medium of Divine 
communication. The artificial stimulation of dreams 
and their superstitious interpretation, as among the 
Arabs, Zulus, and others, were, on the contrary, 
rebuked by the prophets (Dt 13 1 £.; Jer 27 9). 
Dreams were merely possible] vehicles of God’s 
approach to man, and this in one of two ways, 1.e., 
(1) by the appearance of a theophany in a dream 
(as to Jacob at Bethel, Gn 28 12), or (2) by the in- 
dication of His intention with reference to men and 
peoples in significant symbolism (Am 71 #.). In the 
latter case there was need of interpretation, and 
the gift of interpreting was bestowed on favored 
individuals by God Himself (Gn chs. 40, 41; Dn 228). 
Dreaming as a medium of revelation is thus left 
exactly on the same plane with all other psycholog- 
ical processes. It is a condition neither more not less 
favorable for the awakening of spiritual impulses 
and the attaining to a knowledge of Divine things 
than the state of wakefulness. As a rule, while 
reasoning power is not so coherent and normal, the 
suprarational and infrarational activities of soul-life 
are quite keen, and there is no difficulty in conceiv- 
ing that through these the Divine thought may find 
entrance into the humanmind. The ‘new’ psychology 
vindicates this position in its doctrine of the sub- 
liminal self which plays such an important part in 
the life of the soul. (Cf. Morton Prince, The 
Unconscious.) 


9. The Trance. Another medium of revelation in 


the earlier period was the trance (IS 106; II K 3 
15; Ac 10 10, 2217). By trance (ecstasy) is generally 
understood a state of the soul in which the free 
activity of the intellect and the initiative and con- 
trol of the will are temporarily suspended. It is — 
nota peculiarly Biblical idea that in the trance the — 
subject comes into direct touch with, and in fact 
falls under, the immediate control of God. Ecstasy 
is found in the early period, before the prophetic 
method of rational control took the place of it, and 
again in the Apostolic Age, when the emotional 
accompaniments of religious experience were most 
vivid. It was not esteemed as of the highest value — 
by Paul (I Co 14 23, 33), who, tho himself subject — 
to ecstatic experiences (II Co 12 2 #.), yet does not 





773 


indicate that these resulted in the preternatural 
addition to his fund of information regarding the 
spiritual world. 

10. Vision. Vision differs from trance in in- 
cluding or presupposing the indispensable element 
of rational control. Its characteristic is the presenta- 
tion to the eye, either physcially or in imagination, 
of revealed truth in pictorial form. In most cases, 
however, the materials of the pictures were present 
in the seer’s own mind, and whether subjective or 
objective, the vision does not break into the stream 


of the prophet’s psychological movement, but rather 


grows out of it. Consequently, a vision may be 
simply an oracular or inspired conception, which 
the prophet realizes to be due to a Divine influence 
exerted on his own mind (Is 11, 21 2, 221; Mic 11; 
Hab 2 2); or it may be an objective appearance built 
out of the prophet’s mental store and serving as a 
vivid picture, both to himself and to his hearers, of 
the truth to be imparted through him (Is ch. 6; 
Jer 15; Am 7 8); or, finally, it may be a construction 
more or less of his own, projected into objectivity 
for the sake of convenience and adding to the vivid- 
ness of the impression of his message. Ezekiel’s 
visions (ch. 1) are either of this kind or of the type 
just preceding; Daniel’s are certainly of this class. 
It was this vehicle of prophecy that led to the de- 
velopment of Apocalyptics. (See ApocaLYPprTic 
LITERATURE, § 1.) 

11. Direct Revelation. Theophany. A more direct 
contact with God is named in Ex 33 11 and Dt 5 4 as 
a speaking ‘face to face.’ The phrase is apparently 
clear, but it is found on closer examination that what 
it means exactly eludes investigation. It does not 
mean a peculiar and unique prophetic experience; 
for it is predicated of the whole people in the passage 
in Dt. On the other hand, it does not mean merely 
an immediate approach to God and a free and full 
communication with Him, for it is a privilege given 
to His special servant, Moses. Beyond this, the 
general idea of a face-to-face revelation does not 
evince clear characteristics (cf. also Jacob at Peniel, 
Gn 32 30). Finally, theophany is in a sense revela- 
tion. But it does not appear that it ever was a 
source of addition to the knowledge of God and of 
His will. The theophanies (see ANGEL, § 3, and 
Guory, § 4) are manifestations of God’s presence 
for purposes of attestation, rather than revelations 
of His nature. They presuppose a knowledge of Him 
sufficient to serve as a basis of recognition, but do 
not add to its fulness. 


12. Revelation Through Prophets. Prophecy is 
not identified with any particular mode of revela- 
tion. Its characteristic in the earlier stages was 
heightened feeling, often culminating in ecstasy. 
But prophets were also given messages through 
dreams and oftener through visions and subcon- 
ciously formed convictions (cf. PrRopHmcy, PropH- 
ET, in general, and especially §§ 5, 12 f.). The per- 
sistent elements in prophecy are not to be found 
in the form in which the message comes, but in the 
certitude of its reality (Am 37 f.) and the irresistible 
impulse to publish it (Jer 20 9). 

13. Revelation in N T. In the N T revelation is 
known to take place through the Spirit of Prophecy, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Revelation 
Revelation of John 


designated more definitely the Holy Spirit, and 
recognized as the source of all revelation in the 
O T times (Mk 12 36; Ac 116; He 37, 98). But the 
nature of the truth revealed might prevent the 
human agents through which it was given from 
fully grasping the meaning of it (I P 111). In any 
case, however, the prophets appointed to com- 
municate saving truth committed their message to 
writing under the controlling influence of the Holy 
Spirit. See Cuurcu Lirr, § 6. In general, the work 
of the Holy Spirit in the mind is to be recognized 
as a means of revealing the mind of God to indi- 
viduals (Jn 14 26). But there is also direct revelation 
from the Father (Mt 16 17). 

14. Jesus Christ as a Revealer. All other forms 
of the revelation of God’s character, mind, and will 
come to a climax in the life, words, and work of 
Jesus Christ (He 11 £.), who is explicitly declared to 
be ‘the effulgence of his glory, and the very image 
of his substance’ (He 1 3). Jesus Himself claimed to 
possess and impart knowledge regarding God which 
no other person can have attained except through 
Him (Mt 11 25, 27). In the Logos idea of the Fourth 
Gospel (Jn 11 f.) this conception is worked out into 
the doctrine that the eternal rational principle in 
God finds self-expression in the incarnation. Hence 
Jesus can say: ‘He that hath seen me hath seen the 
Father’ (Jn 149). Accordingly, even Paul states 
that the revelation of God’s love is made to himself 
through the vision of Jesus Christ (Gal 112). Christ 
is ‘the mystery of God . . . in whom are all the 
treasures of wisdom and knowledge’ (Col 2 3); but 
He does not remain a mystery permanently; for in 
the incarnation He assumes the form of a human 
person (Col 29), 7.e., becomes the self-manifestation of 
God in life and action (see also Col 1 15, 19; II Co 4 6). 


Literature: Marcus Dods, The Bible, Its Origin and Nature 
(1905), chs. III-V; Sanday, Inspiration (21894); Jalaguier, 
Introd. & la Dogmatique (1897); Kaftan, Dogmatik (1901) 
pp. 34-48; Gwatkin, The Knowledge of God and its Historical 
Development (1906); Skinner, Prophecy and Religion (1922) 
pp. 185 ff. ARG as 


REVELATION OF JOHN, THE: 1. Title. The 
last book of the Bible, entitled in some later MSS. 
The Revelation of St. John the Divine. Strictly speak- 
ing, it was not John who made the revelation, but 
God who gave it to Jesus Christ, and He through 
His messenger to His servant John. This work has 
been known historically as the Apocalypse (‘revela- 
tion’), because cast into the form of a vision, of 
dramatic representation, seen as if by the ‘unveiling’ 
of the eternal world before the eyes of the seer. 

2. Form. The most striking feature of Rev is its 
literary form, that of an apocalypse, which places it 
in a special class of literary works (cf. APOCALYPTIC 
LireratTuRE, § 1). The apocalyptic form serves 
mainly to explain the symbolism and eschatology 
of Rev. Some of this symbolism is directly, or 
indirectly, derived from earlier apocalypses, from 
the books of Daniel and Ezekiel, and even from 
Babylonian sources (so Gunkel and Bousset). But 
whether borrowed from other sources or created by 
the author, these figures are simply the material 
out of which is constructed the vehicle for his 
thought; they are merely the alphabet of his lan- 
guage. 


Revelation of John 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


G74 





3. History of the Book. Rev was known and cer- 
tainly used as early as the middle of the 2d cent. 
Echoes or vague evidences of its existence appear 
still earlier in the Apostolic Fathers (II Clem. 17 7; 
Hermas, Vis. I, 3 2, 41; II, 27, 41; III, 51; IV, 1 10, 
21, 4; Mand. X, 3 2; Ign. Hph. 15 3). Papias is 
reported to have quoted the book in his lost writings 
(cf. Andreas Cesariensis, in Apoc. 34; Sum. 12). 
Justin Martyr distinctly names John as its author 
(Dial. ch. 81, p. 308 B; Eus. HH, IV, 18). After 
Justin, it is frequently ascribed to the Apostle John 
(cf. Charteris, Canonicity, pp. 239-256). On the 
other hand, in consequence of misinterpretations of 
the book, its authority and authorship were ser- 
iously disputed. The Alogi, quite early, ascribed it, 
together with the Fourth Gospel, to Cerinthus. 
Dionysius of Alexandria, a follower of Origen, com- 
paring the language and contents of the Fourth 
Gospel with that of Rev, argued that, while the 
former was Johannine, the latter could not be (Eus. 
HE, VII, 25). There were also those who, like 
Marcion in the 2d cent., did not hesitate to reject 
its authority, without disputing its Johannine au- 
thorship. In the E., the judgment of the Syrian 
Church was pronouncedly and persistently unfavor- 
able. In Alexandria and elsewhere opposition was 
lukewarm but gradually diminished until it disap- 
peared. The Western Church, on the other hand, 
from the beginning accepted Rev into its canon. 
Jerome occupied an anomalous position, accepting 
it, but assigning it to a place among the scripture 
ecclesiastice, t.e., books useful and profitable for 
Christians to read but not of Canonical authority. 
At the time of the Reformation, the attitude of 
Erasmus was similar to that of Jerome. Luther 
wavered, and at last put Rev at the end of the N T, 
with James, Jude, and Hebrews, breaking the con- 
nection in paging between this section and the rest 
of the volume. Zwingli excluded it from the Bible, 
and Calvin wrote no commentary on it. Since the 
beginning of the 19th cent. interest in Rev has cen- 
tered in the questions of its Authorship, Canonicity, 
and Interpretation. 

4. Authorship. The question of the authorship of 
Rev began with the investigation of its relation to 
the Fourth Gospel. The Tiibingen critics took the 
ground that the book, as the product of a Jewish 
tendency, was certainly the work of John the 
Apostle. Schleiermacher and his followers on the 
other hand, assuming that the Fourth Gospel was 
written by the Apostle, regarded Rev, because of its 
differences from the Gospel, as the work of another 
man. From this discussion, implicated as it was in 
presuppositions, saner criticism soon extricated the 
work, endeavoring upon the ground of internal 
characteristics to reach its origin. A form of redac- 
tion theory to account for the facts was proposed 
by Volter (Die Entst. d., Apoc.,2 (1885) and Vischer 
(In 7 U., 1886). This view was still further elabor- 
ated by Spitta (Offenbaning Joh. Untersucht, 1889), 
and by P. Schmidt (Anmerkungen wb. d. Composi- 
tion d. Offenb. Johannis, 1897). Gunkel (Schépf. u. 
Chaos, 1894) and Bousset (Der Antichrist, 1895) 
found the sources in antecedent written and unwrit- 
ten lore, derived from Babylonia. Reduced to this 


form, the question of integration or redaction be- 
comes simply one of the extent of the use of existing 
material by the author, and is consistent with a 
large amount of independence and originality. The 
trend of the most recent discussion is that a certain 
John wrote in his own name instead of using the 
name of an ancient sage, as do the other apocalyp- 
tists of the general period (I. T. Beckwith, The 
Apocalypse of John, 1919; 8. J. Case, The Revela- 
tion of John, 1919; R. H. Charles, in JCC., 1920; 
A. 8. Peake, The Revelation of John, n.d. and Allo, 
Saint Jean, L’ Apocalypse, 1921). Allo identifies 
this John with the son of Zebedee; Beckwith, some- 
what hesitatingly, is inclined to do the same; while 
the other scholars mentioned incline to the view that 
he is a different person. Charles designates him 
‘John the Prophet.’ All that can be affirmed, how- 
ever, is that Rev certainly arose within a Jewish 


Christian setting, its author using apocalyptic sym- © 


bolism and language familiar in Jewish Christendom, 
and perhaps incorporating fragments of apocalyptic 
literature current in his day. He calls himself ‘John,’ 
the ‘servant’ of Jesus Christ (1 1) and as ‘your 
brother and partaker with you in the tribulation,’ 
ete. (19) and as being ‘in the isle called Patmos for 
the word of God and the testimony of Jesus’ (1 9). 
That his own name was John is possible, but not 
necessary to assume. No sufficient reason can be 
shown why he should have departed from the rule 
followed by the apocalyptists that the author of an 
apocalypse should be unidentified, and that it was 
necessary for the reader only to fix his mind on the 
seer of the visions, whom he describes and whose 


experiences he reports. The author was thoroughly: 


familiar with the O T and appreciated the honor and 
preorgatives of the Jews as God’s first chosen people 
(7 1-8, 111-13). He felt himself called to the work of a 
prophet, 7.e., to bring a message to God’s people 
under the special guidance of the Holy Spirit (22 18). 

5. Date. As to the date of Rev recent research 
and discussion point quite precisely to the reign of 
Domitian (94-96)—a return to the earliest tradition. 
Trenzus (175-200) asserted that the Apocalypse ‘was 
seen at Patmos at the end of Domitian’s reign.’ Con- 
flicting traditions, recorded by Tertullian and 
Epiphanius, are less trustworthy. The critical 
grounds for this date are: (1) the allusions to the 
violent persecution of the Church (69, 131, 149), and 


(2) the expectation that Nero was about to return __ 


(1711). This expectation was popularly entertained, 
and served the author as a vehicle for the ideas he 
wished to address to his own audience. The argu- 
ment based on 111 #. (which passage seems to imply 
that the Temple was still standing), for a date before 
the destruction of Jerusalem, is scarcely strong 
enough to counterbalance these considerations, 
especially the fact of the vivid picture of deadly 
opposition on the part of the imperial government 
toward Christianity as such. The passage 111 f. 
may be from one of the sources used by the author, 
and thus may have been written before 70 a.p. 
Under Nero, or at any time before the fall of Jerusa- 
lem, such opposition did not exist. Furthermore, the 
expectation of a New Jerusalem (21 10 f.), to take 
the place of the Holy City destroyed by Titus, before 





: 
e 
4 
’ 


775 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Revelation of John 





the catastrophe of 70 would have been only a pro- 
phetic ideal; but after that date, it became a glowing 
hope intimately associated with the Golden Age 
(analogous to Ezk, chs. 40-48). 


6. Methods of Interpretation. Rev has always 
puzzled the Christian reader, mainly because of its 
unique position as the only extensive apocalyptic 
production in the N T, making it impossible to com- 
pare it easily with other similar works, and master 
its peculiar modes of presentation. Moreover, the 
key to this class of literature was lost quite early. 
From the nature of the case there was a great risk 
involved in disclosing its specific references. An 
apocalyptic book is composed in a language intended 
to reveal, and at the same time to conceal, the 
author’s mind, to make it known to his audience, 
but to keep it secret from others, especially the hos- 
tile powers it pictures and denounces. Its language 
is esoteric. While therefore it makes a definite 
appeal to be understood (13 18, 17 9), the reader, 
belonging to the special audience addressed, is 
supposed to have the key, of which the outsider must 
remain ignorant. 


The methods which have been used in the inter- 
pretation of Rev are usually grouped under three 
heads: the Futurist, the Preterist, and the Contin- 
uous Historical. (1) The Futurist assumes that Rev 
is a predictive description of the events that shall 
immediately precede the end of the world. Just as 
Genesis throws before the eye in grand pictures the 
beginning, so Rev depicts in equally grand, and far 
more impressive, pictures the end of cosmic and 
human development. The one shows the origin of 
the world, especially the beginnings of sin upon the 
earth, the other reveals the end, giving a conception 
of the ultimate victory over sin, and the restoration 
of complete dominion to God, the Creator of all. 
For the author’s own time, and for the intervening 
period, the book could be useful only as a ground of 
assurance, tho a very strong one, that some time 
God would triumph over evil and bring it to its just 
termination. The reader in the meantime must be 
in expectancy, so that when the predictions of the 
book shall begin to be fulfilled he may see their 
meanings, tho he always must have confidence that 
all the reverses of the Church and triumphs of the 
enemy are temporary, and that the cause dear to 
him,is safe in the hands of the Almighty. Chs. 1 
and2 are excepted from this method of interpreta- 
tion, as they seem to be directly addressed to existing 
churches. Able exponents of this view are B. New- 
ton, J. H. Todd, C. Maitland, S. R. Maitland, I. 
Williams, D. Burg, and others. (2) The Preterist 
view is exactly the opposite of the Futurist. It 
assumes that the author’s concern was solely with 
his own times. He speaks to the men of his own 
generation and regarding conditions then existing. 
_ He speaks with the conviction that his own genera- 
tion is the last upon earth. The end is near. Jesus 
is about to come the second time in glory, to es- 
tablish the Kingdom of God according to His 
promise, and what was transpiring was simply the 
preparation for this coming. Consequently, all the 
symbolism of the book is to be explained upon the 
basis of events and personages within the 1st cent. 


Babylon is Imperial Rome; the Beast is the dynasty 
of the Cesars, or some special member of it; the 
False Prophet is the religious hierarchy of Rome. 
The number 666 signifies Nero, and is to be read by 
gematria, (Dp j17] (Nero Cesar). The significance 
of the book thus becomes purely historical, tho for 
the author and his contemporaries it had a present 
value. The most eminent expounders of this view 
are Grotius, Bousset, Calmet, Wettstein, Eichhorn, 
Hug, Herder, Ewald, Liicke, De Wette, Diisterdieck, 
Stuart, Maurice, and Farrar, and with certain re- 
servations more recent commentators, such as 
Scott, Beckwith, Peake, Case, and Charles. (3) The 
continuous historical view avoids the one-sidedness 
of both of the preceding. It assumes that, while the 
apocalyptist’s vision is of the things that must be 
at the end of the world, it necessarily includes the 


interval between his own day and the end. Thus 


the exponents of this theory have attempted to 
identify in the symbolism of Rey historical events of 
cardinal importance, such as the spread of Moham- 
medanism, the growth of the Papacy, the Crusades, 
the Reformation, the discovery of the Western hem- 
isphere, and a thousand others. The chief sup- 
porters of this standpoint are Vitringa, Bengel, Sir 
Isaac Newton, Mede, Faber, E. B. Elliott, Words- 
worth, Hengstenberg, Ebrard, and Alford. These 
three methods have not always been applied ex- 
clusively. Futurists at times admit the use of sym- 
bolical forms referring to the environment of the 
author. Continuous historical interpreters have re- 
cognized the primacy of ideas underlying the events 
portrayed, and have found the fulfilment of the pre- 
dictive imagery not in single events, but in a series of 
recurrent ones having a similar character and im- 
port. Some preterists have finally seen in the de- 
scription of the historical situation of the 1st cent. 
an interest projected into the present and the future. 
But the effort has always been to identify por- 
traitures with events, and thus all three theories 
have been failures. (4) Consequently, since the re- 
discovery of the true nature of apocalyptics a fourth 
method of interpretation has been tried, which may 
be designated the recurrent prophetic method. This 
method assumes that the book was composed 
primarily to meet a present need within its day, 
and was designed to be understood by the men of 
that generation which knew and used apocalyptic 
language. Its allusions are largely to the affairs of 
the author’s time. Some of its forms are ancient, 
traditionally traceable back to the Babylonian 
mythology, some were constructed by the author 
himself de novo, others he found in apocalyptic 
fragments current in his day. But to all he attached 
peculiar meanings according to the demands of his 
own task. The need, however, which the book as a 
whole is designed to meet is a recurrent one. And 
the principles presented in it can be used upon every 
emergence of the same circumstances; so that, while 
the events with which Rev deals are imminent (1 1), 
their interest is permanent. They are samples and 
illustrations of a long series lasting to the end of 
time. The book does not purport to give items of 
historical character and importance, but an account 
at a glance of the whole course of the Church’s ex- 


Revelation of John 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


4 


776 


ae 


perience. The futurist and continuous-historical 
methods fail in that they fasten on external events, 
rather than on the living principles illustrated and 
symbolized by the imagery used. Similarly, the 
preterist errs when it limits the author’s view to the 
events of his environment, and makes him simply a 
painter in highly colored symbols of these facts. 
He was more than that. He was a prophet who 
saw eternal forces at work in the play of affairs 
about him and declared them to be the underlying 
spiritual realities of the whole course of time, 
whether that were to continue for milleniums 
or to come to an abrupt close within a generation. 
The Muratorian Canon, as early as the 2d cent., 
points to the right method of reading Rev. It says: 
‘John, too, in the Apocalypse, altho he writes 
only to seven churches yet addresses all.’ 

7. Contents and Expositions. The book opens with the 
announcement by the author of the method and purpose of his 
revelation (11-4). This is followed by a series of seven messages 
to the seven churches. As an introduction to these, the author 
attaches the usual self-naming and greeting of the typical 
epistle (1 4-8) and adds an account of the circumstances of the 
vision received at Patmos and of the Sender of the messages as 
he was seen in the vision (1 9-2), This is designed to assure the 
reader that the Head of the Church is ever watchful over it, 
ready to protect it, but also to instruct, purify and strengthen it. 
Next come the messages: (1) To Ephesus (21-7); (2) to Smyrna 
(2 8-11); (3) to Pergamum (2 13-17); (4) to Thyatira (2 18-29); (5) 
to Sardis (3 1-6); (6) to Philadelphia (3 7-18); and (7) to Laodicea 
(3 14-22), In these seven messages, sent to as many typical 
churches, the author performs in genuine fashion the function 
of the prophet towards God’s people. He aims to purge each 
congregation of the evil which is hindering its life, to foster the 
good there is in it, and to put it in the best possible condition 
for the struggle in the impending crisis. The seven messages, 
tho addressed to separate communities, have a common in- 
terest for all of them. Underlying them is a sense of their unity 
Each message contains ‘what the spirit saith to the churches.’ 
With the close of the seventh message the book takes a new turn. 
A picture of a heavenly court is presented, with a throne set in 
the midst, and four living creatures and twenty-four elders 
surrounding the throne, and giving glory to Him that was 
seated on it (41-1). This is an impressive symbolization of the 
majesty and power of God, the source of all good, and the 
ground of the Church’s hope; but the chief object of the revela- 
tion of Him as such is that He is about to commit (as He does 
in the immediately following scene) the knowledge of His pur- 
pose (‘book’) to Christ (‘the Lamb’) (5 1-4). The book is sealed 
with seven seals. No man is able to open. or read it until the 
Lamb appears, whereupon doxologies are sung in His praise. 
Upon the opening of the first seal a warrior, riding a white 
horse, appears; the second seal ushers a red horse with its rider; 
the third, a black horse, whose rider predicts famine; the fourth, 
upon a pale horse, representing death, is followed by Hades 
(6 1-8), These four horsemen symbolize the lust for conquest 
with its inevitable consequences of war, famine, and death. As 
the fifth seal is opened, the souls of the saints underneath the 
altar present their complaint (6°). With the breaking of the 
sixth seal, an earthquake takes place, and the great day of 
wrath is ushered in (6 2-17), The fifth and sixth seals deepen the 
impression of the ruin and devastation caused hitherto. From 
this devastation the redeemed are delivered and reserved for 
special privileges (7 1-17). The opening of the seventh seal is 
followed after a half hour of silence (8!!-) by the sounding of 
seven trumpets, divided into four and three. The first four 
signal the occurrence of various forms of destruction upon the 
earth (8 3-13), The fifth trumpet is followed by the plague of 
locusts, declared to be the first wo (9 1-12). These locusts 
represent the agents of God in punishing his enemies. The 
sixth trumpet looses four angels with their destructive armies 
of terrible horsemen, inflicting penalties upon the unbelieving 
heathen world (9 13-21), Then comes the vision of the strong 
angel and the seven thunders, the contents of which the seer is 
forbidden to reveal, followed by the vision of the angel with the 
little book and the two witnesses (10 1-11 18), whose appearance 
closes the second wo (114). The two witnesses here are Moses 
and Elijah who might be expected to return in order to lead 
Israel to the acceptance of Christ. The seventh trumpet is the 


signal for a doxology upon the revelation of the Ark of the 
Covenant in the heavenly temple (11 44%), The vision which 
follows is that of the woman with a child and the Dragon, who 
seeks to devour the child (121-8). This, of course, is a reference 
to the first coming of Christ as the occasion and ground for the 
crisis envisaged in the whole book. It leads to a struggle (a war 
in heaven) whose result is the overthrow of the great Red 
Dragon identified at this point with the Devil and Satan 
(12 7-13 1). In another vision there appears a Beast, coming 
out of the sea (the Roman Empire), followed by another Beast, 
coming out of the earth (13 }“8), probably the heathen religious 
hierarchy. Again the Lamb appears, now upon Mount Zion 
(14 1-4), His appearance is followed by three proclamations 
delivered by special angels (14 §-!2), and three minor visions 
symbolical of the end of all things (14 13-29), t.¢e., the judgment 
and restitution of order under the Messiah. At this point the 
symbolism changes. Seven angels appear with seven golden 
bowls whose contents are plagues, symbolizing the punishment 
of the Roman Empire for accepting emperor-worship as its 
religion. The plagues are sent upon the earth, the sea, the 
rivers, the throne of the Beast, the Euphrates, and the air 
(16 1-21), in other words, upon the whole world as subject to 
Rome. Then follows the mystery of the great and wicked 


Babylon (17 1-18), (Imperial Rome), the woman seated on the © 


scarlet beast, together with her condemnation and destruction 
(18 1-4), So vivid and important is this in the seer’s view that 
he gives seven forms to his declaration of it. Upon the comple- 
tion of his announcement a fourfold hallelujah is sung in heaven 
and other tokens of jubilation are observed (19 1°). Satan is 
bound and cast into the abyss (20 3), and Christ reigns for 1,000 
years. This millennium is the consummation of Messiah’s 
struggle with the world powers, but it is not the end of all things; 
hence upon its close Satan is loosed, only, however, to be over- 
come once more and cast into the lake of fire and brimstone 
together with his associates (201°). All enemies of God are then 
brought to judgment (20 1-5), What now is left is the recon- 
struction of the world according to God’s primal plan. A new 
heaven and a new earth are announced and described (21 1- 
22 5). The book then closes with a threefold conclusion: first, 
the words of the revealer (Christ, 22 6-7); next the seer’s attesta- 
tion (22 8 9%); and finally, an additional confirmation and invi- 
tation (22 10-20), closing with the benediction (22 #4). 

8. Purpose, Dramatic Character and Religious 
Value of Rev. From what has been said thus far it 
is evident that Rev was written for the purpose of 
encouraging the Churches of Asia at a time when 
they were passing through an experience of great 
trial. As the Jewish Church had been threatened 
with destruction in the persecution of Antiochus IV, 
and the Book of Daniel (together with the early 
parts of Enoch) was written to encourage and stay 
the faith of the Jews by the assurance of God’s over- 
ruling providence which would destroy the enemy 
and give the kingdom to the saints (Israel); and as 
later when Rome instead of Syria was looked upon 
as the enemy of God’s people and rule on earth, 
Jewish Apocalyptists assured their fellow-Jews that 
Rome would be destroyed and God’s Kingdom would 
be manifested in the triumph of Judaism (later parts 
of Enoch, the Apocalypses of Baruch and Ezra, etc.); 
and just as in these Jewish Apocalypses the ultimate 
victory of God and His people is not simply a victory 
over a hostile world-power but over Satan and his 
hosts, and thus the transcendent world (heaven and 
hell, angels, demonic powers, etc.) and not only time 
but also eternity are involved; so in Rev the perse- 
cution of the Church by Imperial Rome with all of 
its limitless resources of power and wealth is viewed 
as the work of Satan, whose instrument Rome is, and 
the worship of the Emperor demanded of the Chris- 
tians is viewed as the worship of the ‘beast’ to con- 
form to which would mean that Cesar was greater 
than Christ. In other words, the fundamental prin- 


ciple of the Jewish Apocalyptists is retained in Rev, 





ie ae 


T77 A NEW STANDARD 


but in the place of Judaism we have the Christian 
Church, whose Christ is the Messiah Judaism 
rejected, and in the place of Rome as a wicked 
temporal power hostile to the Jews as a nation or 
people we have Rome as the representative of Satan 
seeking to destroy the Church of Jesus Christ. 

The writer was profoundly convinced that such 
was the tremendous issue at stake. The persecu- 
tions and the martyrdoms (even tho these may not 
have been many) were to him sure indications of 
what was involved. The faltering faith of some, 
and the actual apostasy of others showed him how 
urgent the need was for the Church to understand 
the real nature of the situation. Not merely to 
encourage, but to instruct and lead them to under- 
stand the signs of the times, the issue involved, and 
to realize how glorious the future of the Church was 
to be—such was the purpose of the book. 

In common with the general belief of the Apostolic 
Age the writer supposed that the end of this age was 
imminent. Only a brief interval was to elapse before 
the great judgment (long expected by the Jewish 
Apocalyptists as the chief feature of the Messianic 
Age) on the wicked world should take place, to be 
preceded or ushered in by signs, wonders, and calam- 
ities in the whole universe, seen and unseen, spiritual, 
natural and political. The program as it lay in the 
writer’s mind was in reality a simple one: (1) The 
present distress (evidence of Satan’s activity in at- 
tempting to destroy the Church), and the disasters, 
visitations, calamities, etc., that are to precede the 
time of crisis. (2) The great judgment (on earth) in 
which both transcendental and mundane forces and 
factors are operative. The climax of this will be 
the fall of Rome, the end of the domination of the 
‘beast,’ the ‘false prophet,’ and all agents of Satan 
and their punishment. (3) The conflict in the trans- 
cendental realm between God and Satan; the over- 
throw of Satan and all his forces and their everlast- 
ing punishment in ‘the Abyss.’ (4) The glorious 
future of the Church ‘the Bride of the Lamb.’ 

How to set forth this program in the most con- 
vincing way was evidently a matter of great con- 
cern to the author. He bestowed infinite care on the 
composition of his book with the result that his book 
is not only the masterpiece of apocalyptic literature, 
but one of the most remarkable books of the world’s 
literature. He gave to his work (from ch. 4 on) an 
essentially dramatic form, almost as tho it were 
intended to be acted out on the stage. The author’s 
stage is the universe—the transcendental world and 
its reflex or counterpart, this mundane visible world 
we know. At the center is the Heavenly Throne and 
Court, in whose control are all the forces of the world. 
Heaven, Earth, and Hell are all involved in the ac- 
tion of the drama. The Heavenly Choir, so skil- 
fully introduced from time to time as the action 
proceeds reveals the meaning of movements and 
events as these are seen and interpreted in Heaven, 
tho to earthly view they may be inexplicable. The 
introductory scene (chs. 4 and 5) in which the Lamb 
(Christ crucified and glorified) is alone able to ‘un- 
seal’ the book (of fate or destiny) is set forth most 
skilfully and suggestively. The arrangement of the 
great program in three successive stages—the seven 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Revelation of John 


seals, trumpets, and plagues: in each of which the 
arrangement is such that the first four are quite 
similar, then the succeeding two are closely con- 
nected, while the seventh has a character peculiar 
to itself, and the significant pause in the first two 
series between the sixth and seventh (cf. ch. 7 and 
10 1-11 14) reveal the dramatic skill and art possessed 
by the author. 

The action of the Apocalypse moves forward 
steadily toward the great culmination, the conquest 
and final punishment of the Devil and his agents and 
the Marriage of the Lamb. Only in the last three 
chapters (20-22) does there seem to be a serious 
interference with orderly development. Here it 
would seem that Dr. Charles’ theory of the work of 
an editor, who attempted to add something that 
was really foreign to the author’s plan, is to be 
adopted (cf. Charles in JCC, Rev of St. John, Vol. 
IT,’ p. 153 'f.). 

Only one who was thoroughly at home in apoca- 
lyptic thought and literature could have produced 
such a book. His acquaintance with the O T is 
remarkable. Its language, especially in the form of 
short phrases and single words, is interwoven into 
almost every paragraph if not in every sentence of 
the book. And yet the author never quotes or 
specifically alludes to any other book or author. 
On the other hand while it is reasonable, even neces- 
sary, to suppose that he was familiar with the whole 
field of apocalyptic speculation, yet he very care- 
fully refrains from using the language of such books 
as, é.g., Enoch. 

We can not make use of his program. We know 
that it was not fulfilled and we know also that such a 
program can not be literally fulfilled. His view of 
the physical universe, with which so much of his 
symbolism is connected, is not that with which the 
telescope and mathematics have made us acquainted. 
Imperial Rome passed, indeed, but not in way he 
described. The Lord’s Coming, which was declared 
to be ‘at hand’ (1 3, 7; 22 10, 12, 20), has not yet 
occurred. But we can share his faith that in the old 
dispensation (Israel, Temple, Ark of Covenant, etc.) 
God began that which was brought to completion 
in the new, of which ‘the Lamb slain from the foun- 
dation of the world’ is the central figure. Nowhere 
else in Scriptureis the eternal character of the Church 
of the Crucified Christ, ‘the Lamb in the midst of 
Throne’ who alone can unseal the book of human 
history, so positively and confidently set forth. 
Against such a church no power on earth can in the 
end prevail. We are led by this book to realize that 
behind external and temporal events and crises 
are the operations and conflicts of spiritual and 
age-long principles, good and evil, and we are 
strengthened and comforted by its messages of as- 
surance of the care of God for His own, of the vic- 
tory over Satan, of the Marriage of the Lamb and 
the Church, and of the beauty and glory of the life 
that is to be. He who reads the book sympathetic- 
ally, realizing that its symbolism is only a veil 
behind which great truths and principles may be dis- 
cerned and that its value lies not in its program of 
events but in the truths on which he constructed his 
program will have gained, not the key to the course 


Revenger of Blood 
Righteousness 


of events, but the inspiration and faith and hope that 


will prove his stay and strength in the battle of life. 

LirpratTuReE: Critical works have been referred to in the body 
of the article. See further the Introductions to the New 
Testament by B. Weiss (Eng. transl. 1887), Holtzmann 
(21893), Salmon (71894), Zahn (Eng. transl. $1917). Commen- 
taries: Milligan in Expos. Bible (1889); Simcox in Camb. 
Bible for Students (1898). F. J. A. Hort, The Apocalypse 
(first 3 chs. only) (1908); Ramsay, The Letters to the Seven 
Churches of Asia (1905). I. T. Beckwith, The Apocalypse of 
John (1919); A. S. Peake, The Revelation of John (n.d.); C. 
Anderson Scott, in Cent. Bible; R. H. Charles (In ICC, 1920); 
M. G. Glazebrook, The Apocalypse of St. John (1923); G. 
W. Thorn, Visions of Hope and Fear (1923). 

A. C. Z. (§ 1-7), E. E. N. (§ 8). 

REVENGER OF BLOOD. See Buioop, AveEn- 

GER OF. 


REWARD: This term renders the Heb. and Gr. 
words: (1) ’ahdrith, ‘sequel,’ or that which follows 
what it is given for (Pr 24 14, 20). (2) ‘égebh, ‘heel,’ 
‘footprint,’ hence ‘consequence’ (Ps 19 11). (3) shil- 
lim, shillimah, shalmoénim, ‘completion [of what is 
in itself imperfect] (Mic 7 3; Ps 91 8; Is 1 23). (4) 
’ethnah (Hos 2 12), ’ethndén (Ezk 16 34), both based 
on a doubtful text, and derived probably from the 
same root as mattan, ‘gift? (I K 137). (5) gemil, 
gemilah, ‘just dealing,’ ‘recompense’ (Ps 94 2; IT 
S 19 36). (6) mas’éth, ‘present,’ ‘largess’ (Jer 40 5). 
(7) maskoreth, ‘wages’ (Ru 212). (8) peullah, ‘work’ 
whose equivalent is the reward (Ps 109 20). (9) 
peri, ‘fruit’? (Ps 58 11). (10) sdkhdr, sekher, ‘wages’ 
(Gn 151; Pr 1118). (11) shohadh, ‘bribe’ (Dt 10 17). 
(12) dytarédoctc, ‘restoration’ (Col 3 24). (13) 
p.tcbdc, ‘wages’ (Mt 5 12). A. C. Z. 

REZEPH, ri’zef ($1, retseph): A city named 
with Gozem, Haran, and the ‘children of Eden,’ 
cities conquered by Assyria (II K 19 12=Is 37 12). 
Most probably the Rasappa of the inscriptions 
(‘Pysdga of Ptolemy), the modern Rusdfa, between 
Palmyra and the Euphrates. The inscriptions show 
that it was an important trade-center. C.S. T. 


REZIA, ri-zai’o. 


REZIN, ri’zin (1S), retsin; the original vocaliza- 
tion of the name was, however, probably ratson; cf. 
LXX. and Peshitta, supported by the Assyr. ra-sun- 
na): 1. King of Damascus (735-732 B.c.). With 
Pekah of Israel, he undertook a campaign against 
Ahaz of Judah (II K 16 5;Is 7 1-8), probably because 
A. had refused to join the Syro-Ephraimitic alliance 
against Tiglath-pileser III. The allies planned to 
depose A. and place Rezin himself on the throne of 
Judah, if by ‘son of Tabeel’ (Is 7 6) R. is meant 
(so Winckler, Alttest. Unters. pp. 74 f.: Schrader, 
COT, I, p. 257). The king of Judah, contrary to the 
advice of Isaiah, appealed to Assyria for aid, offer- 
ing rich presents (II K 16 7-9). Tiglath-pileser in 
734-732 carried on a vigorous campaign against the 
rebels in the E. Med. and N. Syrian regions. Rezin 
withdrew into his fortified capital, which, however, 
was easily captured, resulting in the death of the 
king and the reduction of Syria to a province of 
Assyria. 2. The ‘Sons of Rezin’ was the name of 
a family of the Nethinin (Ezr 2 48; Neh 7 50). 

A. C. Z. 


REZON, ri’zan (jiS4, retsin) (I K 11 23): The 
son of Hliada and general under Hadadezer, King 


See Riza. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


778 





of Zobah. There is some question as to the correct 
original spelling and vocalization of the name. It is 
believed by some (Klostermann, Winckler, Alttest. 
Unters. pp. 61 ff.) that the name Hezion (I K 15 18) 
was reduced, first to ‘Hezron,’ and then to ‘Rezon.’ 
But the grounds for this view are not convincing. 
Rezon was the founder of a dynasty in Damascus 
which ruled from 950 (the age of Solomon) to 
732 B.c. To this dynasty belong the Ben-hadads, 
Hazael, and Rezin. A. C. Z. 


RHEGIUM, ri’ji-um (‘PHytov): An old Greek col- 
ony in Italy, at the entrance to the straits of Mes- 
sina, here 6 m. wide. Its important position gave 
it great prosperity, and, notwithstanding the vicis- 
situdes of war, it remained a large city under Greek 
influence during the Empire, until at least the time 
of Pliny, and was a center for the philosophy of 
Pythagoras. Owing to the dangers to navigation 
in those days from the rock Scylla and the whirlpool 
Charybdis, ships were often detained at Rhegium by 
unfavorable winds. Perhaps this was the reason 
why Paul’s vessel, after waiting three days in Syra- 
cuse, spent one day at Rhegium (Ac 28 13). 

R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


RHESA, ri’sa (‘Pyo&): One of the ancestors of 
Jesus (Lk 3 27). 


RHODA, ro’da (‘P48y), ‘rose’: A maid in the house 
of Mary, the mother of John Mark (Ac 12 13 f.). 
Whether she was a servant, or a member of the 
household, or simply one of the company assembled 
at the house is not known. 


RHODES, rédz(‘P630c¢): Anisland about 40 m. long 
by 20 m. wide, with a capital city of the same name, 
lying 12 m. off the SW. coast of Asia Minor. Its har- 
bors and situation gave it great importance as a port 
of call or transshipment on the voyage from Syria or 
Egypt to Rome. Paul touched here on his journey 
from Troas to Cesarea (Ac 211). From 304 to 168 
B.c. it enjoyed much prosperity, of which its beauti- 
ful coins are an index. Under able rulers Rhodes at- 
tained great sea-power, repressing pirates, and reap- 
ing a large trade as the fruit of wise home and foreign 
policy. Its magnificent, if somewhat decadent, sculp- 
ture, illustrated by the colossal statue of the sun-god 
at the harbor entrance—one of the world wonders— 
and its widely known school of rhetoric testify to 
its intellectual brilliance. Tho its commerce was 
ruined in 168 B.c. by the Romans, and later, owing 
to its loyalty to Julius Cesar, further reverses came 
upon it, its fortunes were retrieved so that in N T 


times it had become a large and beautiful city, — 


probably including within its walls many Jewish 
colonists. To this restoration Herod the Great among 
others contributed. Claudius disfranchised it in 44 
A.D., on account of the crucifixion of some Roman 
citizens, but restored its privileges in 56, and under — 
Vespasian it became a part of the province of Asia. 
R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


RIBAI, rai-bé’ai or rai’bé (23"7, ribhay): The 


| father of Ittai (II S 23 29; I Ch 11 31). 


RIBBAND: The rendering of pathil, ‘thread’ or 
‘cord’ (Nu 15 38 AV); RV correctly ‘cord.’ 

RIBLAH, rib/la (1727, ribhiah): 1. A place in 
Hamath, where Pharaoh Necho (608 s.c.) put 





779 A NEW STANDARD 


Jehoahaz of Judah in chains (II K 23 33; ef., how- 
ever, II Ch 36 3), and where Nebuchadrezzar (586 
B.c.) passed judgment on King Zedekiah and put 
out his eyes, etc. (II K 256f., 21£.; Jer 395f., 529f., 
26 f.). It is the modern Ribla, on the right bank of 
the Orontes, in the broad valley between Lebanon 
and Antilebanon. Many read Riblah for Diblah 
in Ezk 6 14.. 2. Ha-ribhlah (with the article). A 
place on the E. border of Canaan, S. of Hazar-enan 
and N. of the sea of Chinnereth (Galilee) (Nu 34 11); 
probably further 8. than 1. Dillmann and others, 
following Wetzstein, suggest harbélah, ‘to Harbel,’ 
and identify it with Harmel (or Hérmiil) 8 m. SW. 
of Riblah, 1. This site does not seem probable. 
Gis: T. 


RICHES. See WEALTH. 


RIDDLE. See Provers; and Wispom, WIsE 
Men, § 2. 


RIDER: As used in the O T this word may signify 
either the rider mounted on his horse or mule, or as 
in Ex 151, 21, one of the riders in the war-chariot. 
See also ARms aND Armor, § 6; and WarrFrarg, § 4. 


RIE, RYE: The AV rendering of kussemeth (Ex 9 
32; Is 28 25). But rye is not known in Palestine, 
and probably we should read ‘spelt,’ as in RV. 


RIGHT: In most instances ‘right’ (in the ethical 
sense) in the O T is the rendering either of ydshdar, 
‘straight,’ ‘even,’ or mishpat, ‘judgment’ (or the 
conduct that is according to a just sentence of judg- 
ment). Other terms occasionally rendered ‘right’ 
are: (1) ’émeth, ‘truth’ (Gn 24 48; Jer 2 21; on Neh 
9 33 cf. RV). (2) kén, root-idea ‘erect,’ ‘upright’ 
(Nu 27 7; Jer 23 10, etc.). (3) nakhoah, ‘straight,’ 
‘exact’ (II S 15 3; Pr 4 25, 24 26; Is 30 10; Am 3 10). 
(4) tsedheq, ts*dhaqah, ‘just,’ ‘right,’ ‘rightous’ (II 8 
19 28; Neh 2 20; Ps 171; Ezk 185 #., 33 14 #f.). (5) 
kadshér, ‘fitting’ (Est 8 5). (6) kin, ‘to be firm,’ 
‘stedfast’ (Job 427 1£.; Ps 51 10; 78 37, etc.). The incor- 
rect rendering of AV in Ru 46, Ps 45 6, and Ec 4 4 
is avoided in RV. In the N T, apart from 8txato¢ 
(ov), ‘just,’ EV uses ‘right’ for e300c, ‘straight,’ 
‘level’ (Ac 8 21, 13 10; II P 215), and 490éc, ‘correctly’ 
(Lk 10 28). See also Riagursousnuss, § 1; and 
Law AND LEGAL PrRAcTIsSB, § 2 (3). EK. E. N. 


RIGHTEOUSNESS: 1. Definition. Of necessity, 
and always the basis of the notion of righteousness is 
conformity to a standard of perfection. The Biblical 
terms (ts’dhdgqadh, Stxarocbyy; ef. tsaddig, BStxatoc) 
present the conception as either a matter of recog- 
nized rule of conduct (Gr. from Sefxvuvat, dixy, ‘cus- 
tom,’ ‘usage’) or a quality of inherent and inalienable 
normality (Heb. from tsédhag, ‘to be right (7.e. 
‘normal,’ ‘according to standard’). 

But righteousness is not absolute perfection. Job 
claims for himself righteousness as a robe (29 14), 
and is called a ‘perfect and upright man, one that 
feareth God, and turneth away from evil’ (11, 8, 2 3). 
Some of the Psalmists similarly call themselves 
‘righteous,’ ‘innocent,’ and ‘pure’ (Ps 7 8, 18 20 ff.). 
Noah, Job, and Daniel are named by Ezekiel as 
possessing righteousness, which would suffice ‘to 
deliver their souls’ (14 14, 20). Such expressions 
could mean either that the righteous men men- 
tioned were sinless or that a righteousness was at- 


Revenger of Blood 
Righteousness: 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
tributed to them consistently with some sins, or 
sinfulness, in character. The first alternative is 
scarcely admissible in view of the fact that David is 
reckoned a man of such righteousness as specially to 
please God and secure for himself God’s sparing 
loving-kindness, and for many unworthy successors 
covenant blessings. He is, moreover, chosen as the 
type of the Messiah, through whom God would save 
His people (I K 11 4, 314; Is 37 35). And yet certain 
crimes are laid to David’s account, without the least 
effort to palliate them or explain their consistency 
to this estimate of his character. Moses himself, 
exalted above all the prophets (Nu 12 6-8; Dt 34 10- 
12) did that in punishment for which he was excluded 
from the Holy Land. 


2. The Absolute Righteousness of God. On the 
other hand, behind all statements imputing right- 
eousness to men, an ideal looms into view by which 
as they are measured they all come short. Job, for 
instance, to whom is most explicitly conceded the 
character of a righteous man, is presently found ac- 
knowledging himself sinful (Job 7 21, 9 20, 13 26). In 
fact, in the judgment of the author of the book, all 
men are under. sin (14 4), The very thought of a 
man being righteous seems to be self-contradictory 
(‘What is man, that he should be clean, and he that 
is born of woman, that he should be righteous?’ 
[Job 15 14; cf. also Ps 130 3, 148 2; I K 8 46]). This 
ideal of righteousness is, like all other perfections, 
given in the character of God. But as the word for 
justice in Heb. is the same as that for righteousness, 
it is not easy to discriminate between the special 
attribute of justice, according to which God deals 
equitably with all His creatures, and righteousness, 
which includes in its scope other perfections, and 
approaches in content the conception of holiness. 
In the preaching of the prophets, however, where 
the necessity of righteousness in man is urged, the 
righteousness of J’’ is also shown to be a controlling 
attribute of His character (Is 41 10); He speaks 
righteousness (Is 45 19, 62 1), and acts it in all the 
relations of life, calling upon His people to have con- 
fidence and hope, as He comes nigh, because He is 
‘the God of righteousness’ (Is 51 5, 7 f.). Conse- 
quently, the key to the prophetic preaching is the 
Psalmist’s dictum, ‘J’’ is righteous; he loveth right- 
eousness’ (Ps 117). God’s righteousness, however, is 
a quality of His which comes into view with the 
nation of His choice. All His dealings are illustra- 
tions of His character. His punishment of Israel 
is righteous, even tho it involves the apparent con- 
tradiction of the triumph over Israel of the heathen 
nations, which are more remote from His Law than 
Israel. These nations are not taken into account in 
those dealings, as they are only instruments in His 
hand for the chastisement and purification of His 
beloved people. Moreover, there always lies in the 
background the certainty of retribution for them 
after they have served this end. 

3. Righteousness as a Religious Ideal. In the 
development of the idea of righteousness, therefore, 
an element of piety makes its appearance. The 
righteous man is contrasted with the unfaithful and 
godless. He is distinguished from the sinner, who 
cares little or nothing for J” (Ps 15, 79). The chief 


Righteousness 
Rissah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


780 





desire and motive of the righteous is to live in ac- 
cordance with the will of J’’, as revealed in His Law. 
At first, this Law was identified with the simple 
requirement of zeal for, and devoted adherence to, 
J’ worship. Of course, such loyalty to God included 
inner intellectual, spiritual, and moral elements. 
But these were held in solution and hardly differ- 
entiated from one another. 

4. Righteousness as an Ethical Attribute. The 
prophets brought into view and laid stress on the 
ethical element. The essence of righteousness is in 
their message’s conformity with the pure moral 
standards given in the character and the will of J”. 
The righteous man, is the man of upright conduct, 
of pure mind and clean hands. In the Assyrian 
period social life was corrupt and the prophets of the 
time condemned it (Hos 10 12); and their message 
was all the more distinctly spoken, because the 
thought of merit in ritual observance was gaining 
ground and overshadowing the real spiritual signif- 
icance of the religion of J’. According to Amos, 
God would not accept sacrifice or worship of any sort 
(‘noise of thy songs,’ 5 23), but required that justice 
should ‘run down as waters, and righteousness as an 
everflowing stream’ (5 24 mg.), and according to 
Hosea (6 6), He ‘desires goodness and not sacrifice, 
and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings.’ 
The most explicit and striking statement, however, 
is the summary of Micah (68): ‘He hath showed thee, 
O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah re- 
quire of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, 
and to walk humbly with thy God.’ This is further 
shown by the contrasted notions of unrighteousness 
which is predominantly moral. Ezekiel places over 
against the righteous man the wicked one (8 16-21); 
but both stand upon individual and personal char- 
acter, without any commutation or artificial ad- 
vantages inuring on account of non-moral considera- 
tions. This conception of righteousness as an ethical 
quality absolutely necessary in the normal relation 
with J’’ abides through to the latest times. It is the 
doctrine of Zeph (2 3) and Jer (9 24, 22 3), of Ezk 
(chs. 18 ff.) and Deutero-Isaiah (58, 2, 60 17), and of 
Hag and Zec. Naturally, great emphasis is placed 
throughout the prophetic teaching upon the collec- 
tive righteousness of the nation as a whole. For, 
after all, in spite of the individualism which appears 
incipient in Jeremiah and more clearly developed 
in Ezekiel, it is the Covenant People as a body that 
concerns J’, and it is sin as.a national sin and 
righteousness as national righteousness that draw 
upon it either His condemnation or His favor. 

5. Legal Righteousness. But the idea of righteous- 
ness has an administrational connotation. Right- 
eousness is the right attitude toward an existing 
norm, which is God’s will; but as this is expressed in 
the constitution of a theocracy, and becomes a legal 
system, righteousness, too, develops a judicial aspect 
This is of extreme importance for the understanding 
of the later developments of the idea. It leads, on 
the one side, to a righteousness which is a forensic 
relation; and, on the other, combined with an in- 
creased emphasis on piety, or the association of 
righteousness with the worship of J’’, it becomes the 
germinal center of ceremonialism, 7.e., the righteous- 
ness which consists mainly in the punctilious ob- 


servance of prescribed formal precepts. As a judicial 
notion, righteousness is sharply distinguished from 
holiness. It is never a question whether holiness is a 
transferable quality. Even when it was looked upon 
as consisting in the main in the observance of laws 
of taboo (cf. Honingss, § 1), it is an individual and 
personal affair [condition or quality]. But that right- 
eousness was viewed as capable of availing for others 
than those who earned its merit is clear from 
Ezekiel’s definite warning against this error (Ezk 
14 14, 20). Itis this aspect of it that gives significance 
to the statement made of Abraham, 7.e., that ‘he 
believed in Jehovah, and he reckoned it to him for 
righteousness’ (Gn 15 6); 2.e., a different thing (faith) 
was viewed as righteousness. This statement illus- 
strates the three phases of the concept found in the 
O T—~.e., (1) The religious aspect, according to 
which he is righteous who relates himself ideally with ~ 
J’’; (2) the ethical aspect, according to which that isa 
righteous act or righteous conduct which conforms 
to the express will of J’’; and (8) the judicial aspect 
according to which that is righteousness which har- 
monizes with the order or Law of J’’; and, there- 
fore, one act may be viewed before the Law as a sub- 
stitute for another, or one person as the representa- 
tive of another. On this ground it is further pos- 
sible to understand the comparison of righteousness 
to a robe (Is 61 10), or a breastplate (Is 5917). In the 
first case, it is a cover and ornament; in the second, 
a weapon of defense. It is not necessary that these 
characteristics of externality and transferability 
should be considered very late growths. Probably 
from the very earliest time righteousness was viewed 
as something that might in a sense be detached from 
one and attached to another person. In the Has- 
monean period a revival of zeal for the Law brought 
into prominence the strict observance of it as the 
distinctive national constitution. Accordingly, he 
was regarded righteous who most strictly adhered to 
the Law. And the Righteous (hdsidhim; see PHart- 
sEES, § 3), from whom the Assideans as a party 
were named, assumed more and more the rdéle of 
the true ideal of the Jew. On the other hand, the 
ethical element in righteousness was felt increasingly 
to be the common property of all mankind, and lost 
its distinctiveness as a characteristic of God’s 
people. This brought its fullest fruit in the Pharisaic 
ideals and teachings. 

6. Jesus and the Pharisaic Ideal. Thus when 
Jesus Christ appeared, the Pharisaic ideal had 
already reduced the notion to a carefully registered 
conformity to scribal interpretations of the Law, 
involving minute details of ritual matters (Lk 11 39f.). 
Such righteousness Jesus declared to be insufficient, 
not offensive or sinful, but utterly inadequate. It 
might even become the occasion of sin, if it led to 
the neglect and omission of the weightier matters 
(Lk 11 42). His own disciples must see that their 
righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees (Mt 5 
20). What they should be Jesus did not leave unde- 
termined. With great clearness and emphasis He 
authoritatively reiterated the prophetic teaching 
that the true righteousness is ethical’ fulfilment of 
God’s ideal. Yet asin the O T so in N T the term 
is often used in a relative sense. Joseph is called 
a righteous man (Mt 1 19); so also is Joseph of Ari- 





781 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Righteousness 
Rissah 





mathza (Lk 23 50), and even Cornelius the Gentile 
(Ac 10 22). Jesus, too, speaks of many righteous 
men, who with the prophets have desired to see the 
things which His disciples saw (Mt 1317). By James 
the term is applied to the moral or virtuous man 
(5 6), also to the religious-minded (5 is). By Peter 
it is used of Jesus (I P 3 18) and of the Christians in 
general (I P 4 16). In He the Pauline idea of faith 
is read into that of righteousness, and the quality 
thus conceived is predicated of Abel (11 4) and, in 
general, of the saints of the O T as a class (12 23). 
But, in spite of non-technical usage, the teaching of 
Jesus presents righteousness predominantly as an 
inner quality. Outward standing and relationship 
are worthy of consideration only when they corre- 
spond with the inner condition. Not only does He 
warn His disciples against the defective idea of the 
Pharisees, but He rebukes the Pharisees themselves 
for transferring the seat of righteousness from the 
inner to the outer life (Mt 23 28). It must become an 
object of the most earnest endeavor and search, like 
food and drink (Mt 56, 10). It must be actuated by 
the desire to please God (Mt 61, alms AY), and it 
must take its rule and ideal from God’s character. 
Therefore it is called ‘his righteousness,’ and stands 
associated with His Kingdom (Mt 6 33). 

7. Paul’s Conception of Righteousness. The final 
stage in the development of the concept within 
Biblical limits was reached when Paul made it the 
kernel of his idea of religion. According to Paul, 
righteousness is the right or moral relation of man to 
God. It is the opposite of sin. But both sin and 
righteousness are also related to law, and while the 
one is the result of failure to comply with the Law, 
the other is secured through absolute conformity to 
it. But conformity must be perfect. In other words 
righteousness is sinlessness. But sinlessness must 
not be understood as primitive innocence maintained 
throughout, else there could be no righteousness for 
any one, for all have sinned. The sinlessness which 
Paul has in mind is freedom from the condemnation 
of sin in the presence of God. Such sinlessness 
(‘guiltlessness’ = ‘righteousness’) is secured by the 
transgressor of law through faith in Jesus Christ, 
who through His life and death works out a right- 
eousness ample enough to cover all transgression. 
It is the result of a process of justification. It is 
rightness with God, who is in this process viewed 
as a judge acquitting or condemning. Those whom 
He acquits, upon whatever ground, are righteous. 
They are acquitted when they secure freedom from 
guilt through appropriation by faith of Christ’s 
righteousness. Accordingly, the righteous man is the 
man of faith (Ro 117). And the peculiar character 
of the righteousness thus achieved is expressed in 
the phrase ‘the righteousnes of faith’ (Ro 10 6). 
This, however, is not a new thing, but only a new 
name; for the true essential righteousness of all 
previous ages (e.g., Abraham’s righteousness) was 
none other than this (Ro 4 13), and that of the 
Gentiles apart from the Law could be none other 
(Ro 10 30). The whole trend of Paul’s thought on 
this subject may be called a sublimation into 
ethical form of the Pharisaic doctrine of righteous- 
ness. 

8. The Righteousness of God. As the central 


kernel in the idea of religion, this is the righteousness 
of God, not as an attribute of God’s character, but as 
the privilege of normal relationship bestowed by 
Him upon the believer in Jesus Christ (Ro 1 17, 3 5, 
21-26). God’s justice as a ruler of the universe and 
judge of men is not ignored by the appropriation of 
this phrase to this usage. It is rather assumed as 
beyond the need of an argument (Ro 9 14; II Th 1 
5 f.; If Ti 48). The righteousness of God, from 
another point of view, is His administrative perfec- 
tion as He deals with men. God is righteous, because 
He ‘clears the innocent and condemns the guilty, en- 
forces His law of equity toward all, and defends the 
weak against the strong, the widow and the orphan 
against the greedy and the extortioner. This in- 
volves more than the function of the modern judge, 
?.€., pronouncing upon the evidence placed before 


him. It includes the task of discovering the evi- 


dence in behalf of the helpless. God’s righteousness 
at this point passes into His grace. With the 
Pauline idea of righteousness the conception has run 
its complete cycle. In the idea of sanctification, 
which is the complement of justification, the Pauline 
thought returns to the ethical notion of the prophets 
and of Jesus Himself. ANCE Z 


RIMMON, rim’en (1197, rimmén), ‘pomegranate’: 
I. The father of Baanah and Rechab, the mur- 
derers of Ishbosheth (II § 42 #.). II. 1. A city of 
Simeon (Jos 15 32, 197 Remmon AV; I Ch 4 32; Zec 
14 10; also called En-rimmon [q.v.] in Neh 11 29, so 
that Ain in Jos 15 32 and I Ch 4 32 is probably but a 
part of the compound name). Map II, D3. 2.A 
Levitical city in Zebulun (I Ch 6 77, Rimmono RV; 
Jos 1913, Remmon-methoar AV). Map lV, C7. 3. 
A rock in Benjamin (Jg 20 45 #.). Map III, F 5. This 
identification is disputed (cf. Burney, Bk. of Judges, 
ad loc. who favors a site nearer Geba). III. The 
Semitic deity Rimmon. See Semitic REtiaion, § 
30. K. E. N. 

RIMMONO, ri-md’no. See Rrmmon. 


RIMMON-PEREZ, rim’en-pi’'rez (V2 1, rim- 
mon perets, Rimmon-parez AV): A station on the 
wilderness journey (Nu 33 19 f.). Site unknown. 


RING. See Dress anpD ORNAMENTS, II, § 1 f. 

RINNAH, rin’a (3), rinndh), ‘shout’: The an- 
cestor of several Calebite clans (I Ch 4 20). 

RIPHATH, rai’fath (N23), riphath): A son of 
Gomer (Gn 10 3; I Ch 16, Diphath RV). See Ern- 
NOGRAPHY AND ErHno.oey, § 13. 


RISE: This term is used to render a number of 
Heb. and Gr. words, but, with two exceptions noted 
below, there is nothing especially significant in this 
usage. (1) The Heb. verb shakham, often rendered 
‘to rise up early,’ means ‘to load on the back [of a 
beast]’ or ‘on the shoulder [of a man]’. As this usage 
had special reference to the lading of beast or man 
preparatory to starting on a journey, and as the 
proper time for such a start was early in the morning, 
shakham came to be the equivalent of ‘to rise up 
early.’ (2) For the use of the word in reference to the 
Resurrection, see RESURRECTION. E. E. N. 


RISSAH, ris’a (197, rissah): A station on the 
wilderness journey (Nu 33 21 f.). Site unknown. 


Rithmah 
Roman Religion 





RITHMAH, rith’ma (79, rithmah), ‘place of 
the juniper’ (?): A station on the wilderness journey 
(Nu 33 18 f.). Site unknown. 


RIVER: The Heb. and Gr. words rendered ‘river’ 
are the following: (1) nahdr, ‘stream’ (Nu 24 6; 
Job 14 11 ‘flood’ AV; Aram. n*har, Ezr 410 ff.). (2) 
y°’ or, ‘watercourse,’ an Egyptian loan-word usually 
applied to the Nile (Gn 411, etc.), or its canals (Is 
7 18), but also to other streams (Dn 12 5 ff.) (8) 
’abhal, ‘canal’ (Dn 8 24.6). (4) yubhal, ‘stream’ 
(Jer 178). (5) ’aphigq, ‘channel,’ ‘stream-bed’ (Ezk 
6 3, 31 12, etc. AV, ‘watercourses’ RV; Song 5 12; Jl 
1 20, 318 AV, ‘water-brooks’ RV). (6) nahal, nahalah, 
‘torrent,’ the equivalent of the Arab. word wady (Lv 
119; Jos121; Ezk 479). (7) pelegh, p*laggah, ‘channel,’ 
‘division’ (Job 29 6; Is 30 25). (8) xotaydc, ‘river’ 
(Mk 15; Rev 8 10, etc.). 

The great rivers known to the Hebrews were the 
Euphrates, the Tigris, the Nile, and the Jordan 
(q.v.). Of the other streams, the more important 
were those within Palestine itself, such as the Shihor 
Libnath (Jos 19 26); the Kishon, which drains the 
Plain of Esdraclon and empties into the Mediter- 
ranean near the foot of Mt. Carmel (Jg 5 21); the 
Kanah (Jos 16 8); the ‘river of Egypt’ (Gn 15 18); 
the Jabbok (Gn 32 22); and the Arnon (Nu 21 13, 
etc.). The importance of rivers was generally ap- 
preciated, but their use for intercommunication or as 
highways of navigation is very rarely alluded to (ef. 
Is 18 2). As boundary-lines, however, they are very 
commonly noted (Gn 15 18; Nu 345; Jos 1 4; Jg 413; 
II K 10 33, etc.). They were also regarded as sources 
of mysterious power, which is probably the reason 
for their association with supernatural visions (Ezk 
11; Dn 10 4; possibly ‘the place of prayer’ in Ac 1613 
represents a trace of such a notion in NT times). 
Finally, the river as a source of life and blessing 
became the symbol of all spiritual good (Ezk 471 f.). 
Consequently, general destruction and ruin were 
fitly portrayed by the pouring of a vial of wrath upon 
the great rivers (Rev 16 4, 12), and the final blessed 
state has also its ‘pure river of water of life’ (Rev 
22 1). Av: GHGs 


RIVER, THE: Where the expression ‘the river’ 
occurs in the O T, without any explanatory state- 
ment in the context, it refers to the River Euphrates, 
the ‘great river’ of SW. Asia (Gn 36 37; Ex 23 31; 
Dt 17; Jos 1 4; IIT S 10 16, etc.). 

RIVER OF EGYPT (0°1¥2 9m}, nahal mitsra- 
yim, ‘brook of Egypt’ RV): A torrent valley or 
wdady, on the S. border of Judah toward the Mediter- 
ranean (Nu 34 5; Jos 15 4, 47; cf. Ezk 47 19, 48 28). 
It was considered the S. border of Solomon’s king- 
dom (I K 8 65=II Ch 7 8), and on the border of 
Egypt (II K 247; Is 27 12; in Am 14, ‘the brook 
of the Arabah’ may be the same). It is identified 
with the Wéddy el-‘Aritsh, which runs N. and NW. 
from the middle of the Sinaitic peninsula, and flows 
into the Mediterranean about 50 m. SW. of Gaza. 
A long and deep watercourse, it is full only after 
heavy rain. It may have received its name from 
its location on the border of Egypt (mitsrayim). 
Others, who claim that Musur (mutsur) of the 
Assyr. inscriptions and mitsrayim of the O T are 
frequently the name of a N. Arabian district, through 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 782 


which this wédy flowed, would derive the name from 
this country. eka. 8. Ls 

RIZIA, riz/i-a (SI¥9, ritsy@, Rezia AV): A de- 
scendant of Asher (I Ch 7 39). 

RIZPAH, riz’pa (2%), ritspah): A daughter of 
Aiah, and a concubine of Saul, whom Abner took to 
himself (II S 37, Lucian’s LXX.) after the death of 
Saul. Ishbosheth, Saul’s son, looked upon this as 
an attempt to seize the royal power, and upbraided 
Abner for his disloyalty, who thereupon deserted 
the cause of the house of Saul and went over to 
David (II S 3 6 #.). Much later, a three years’ 
famine came upon Israel, and was viewed as due to 
the unexpiated sin of Saul in slaying the Gibeonites 
(II S 211-14). David therefore, at the demand of the 
Gibeonites, delivered seven descendants of Saul, 
among them Armoni and Mephibosheth, sons of 


Rizpah, to the Gibeonites to be hanged. Rizpah - 


watched over their bodies, protecting them from 
birds and beasts of prey until falling rain showed 
that God’s anger was appeased. On hearing of the 
mother’s devotion, David had the bones of the 
seven, with those of Saul and Jonathan, interred in 
the family sepulcher of Kish, Saul’sfather. C.S. T. 


ROAD: For ‘road’ in I S 27 10 AV, read, with 
RV, ‘raid.’ See Way for roads in general; also PAL- 
ESTINE, §§ 5-13; and TRapDE AND COMMERCE, § 2. 


ROAST. See Foop anv Foop Urensits, § 10; 
and SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, § 16. 


ROBBERY: In Ph 26 the Gr. éexayydg means, 
not ‘the act of seizing,’ but ‘the thing seized.’ 
N T times the classical distinction between nouns 
in -wos, as active in their signification, and nouns in 
~wa, aS passive had been greatly weakened, as is 
evidenced abundantly in the N T itself (cf. active 
sense in énabyacua, He 1 3; cbvtetuua, Ro 316 [from 
LXX.]; passive sense in Oepray.6c, Mt 9 37; wodrvapde, 
II Co 71) so that the RV rendering ‘a thing to be 
grasped’ is certainly better than the AV ‘robbery,’ 
if by ‘grasped’ be understood the selfish holding of 
a thing already possessed, rather than the ambitious 
reaching after a thing not yet secured, Paul’s idea 
being that in His preexistent state Christ already 
possessed equality with God in His being in the 
existence form of God (év woop 608). On robbery 
as a crime see CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2. 

M. W. J. 

ROBE. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, § 4. 


ROBOAM, ro-b6d’am or reb’o-am (‘Pofokp, Mt 17 
AV). See REHOBOAM. 


ROCK: This word renders in the AV five Heb. 
and two Gr. words. (1) hallémish, ‘flint’ (Job 28 9, 
‘flinty rock’ RV; cf. Dt 8 15, 32 13; Ps 114 8). (2) 
képhim, ‘rocks,’ pl. only, perhaps an Aram. loan- 
word, used as a ‘place of refuge’ (Jer 4 29), and as a 
‘dwelling-place’ (Job 30 6). (8) mé‘dz, ‘a place of 
safety’ (Jg 6 26, ‘stronghold’ RV. Moore, in JCC, 
suggests a natural stronghold, not a fortification). 
(4) sela‘ and (5) tstr seem to be used interchange- 
ably. Both words are used for that which is hard, 
barren, unfruitful, and also for a strong and safe 
place of refuge. gela‘ is the inaccessible and lonely 
home of goats, eagles, and doves (Job 39 1, 28; 
Song 2 14). It is also a symbol of obstinacy (Jer 5 





783 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Rithmah 
Roman Religion 





3), flagrancy (Ezk 24 7, 8), and a figure of a razed 
city (Ezk 26 4, 14). tsar is a symbol of firmness 
(Nah 1 6; Job 14 18, 18 4), of enduring material 
(Job 19 24). Both are used as a figure of God, often 
equivalent to J’’ and Elohim, to designate Him as 
the sure support, defense, and refuge of the godly, 
or as the trusty one (sela‘ only in Ps 18 2 [3]=II 8 
22 2, and Ps 31 3 [4], where it is equivalent to tsir; 
also Ps 42 9 [10], 71 3); tsar is used more often (Dt 
32 4, 15, 18, 30 f.; II S 22 3, 32; Ps 19 14, 27 5, 281, 61 
2 [3], 78 35, 89 26 [27], 92 15 [16], etc.). In Is 319 RV 
sela‘ is possibly a figure of the Assyrian god, as is 
stir for a heathen god (Dt 32 31; Is 44.8 RV). (6) 
xétea, ‘rock,’ ‘ledge,’ as something that is firm and 
enduring (Mt 7 24 £.; Lk 6 48), or unfruitful (Lk 8 
6, 13); as a figure of Christ, from whom springs the 
living water (I Co 10 4); also metaphorically for a 
firm, strong man. (7) texxets téxous (Ac 27 29), to be 
rendered as ‘rocky [rough] ground’ RV. C.S. T. 


ROD: This term renders the following words: 
(1) héter, ‘shoot,’ ‘twig’ (Is 111, ‘shoot’ RV, a fresh 
growth from a tree-stump, the figure of a personal 
Davidic ruler; Pr 14 3 ‘a rod [shoot] of pride,’ or ‘a 
rod [instrument of punishment] for his pride’). (2) 
maggél, ‘rod,’ more often ‘staff’; used by Jacob 
in breeding his flocks (Gn 30 37 ff.); a symbolic rod 
(Jer 111); a symbol of power (Jer 48 17). (3) matteh, 
a ‘staff’ or ‘rod’ of dry wood, and commonly carried 
by the Hebrews, but not always as a support in 
walking. It was used by shepherds (Ex 4 2, 4 ff., 7 
15 #.); for beating out black cummin (Is 28 27); was 
carried by a warrior (I S 14 27, 43; cf. ‘goad’ Jg 3 31; 
IS 13 21); Aaron (Ex 79 ff., 81.) and the Egyptian 
magicians (7 12) had wonder-working rods. In Nu 
17 2 ¢. [i7f.] mention is made of rods taken from the 
tribes; that belonging to Aaron blossomed. It was 
a figure of punishment or power (Ps 110 2; Is 10 26; 
Ezk 19 1 #.). In Ezk 7 10, 11, a green ‘shoot’ is 
probably intended. (4) shébhet, often equivalent to 
(3), a ‘rod’ or ‘staff,’ probably shorter than matteh 
and with one end enlarged, used for smiting (Ex 
21 20; Pr 10 13, 23 13 f., etc.); for threshing cummin 
(Is 28 27); by shepherds (Ps 23 4; Mic 714). Itisa 
figure of chastisement (Pr 13 24, 29 15, etc.), espe- 
cially of Divine chastisement (II S 7 14; Ps 2 9; Is 
10 24, etc.). By metonymy, both (8) and (4) are the 
terms for tribe (q.v.). (5) 6&@80c¢, ‘staff? or ‘walk- 
ing-stick,’ the LXX. rendering of (2), (3), (4), above, 
and has the same variety of meanings in the N T 
(I Co 4 21; He 9 4; Rev 2 27, 111, 12 5, 19 15; cf. Ac 
16 22; II Co 11 25, da@3%erv, where reference is to 
the Roman ‘scourging’ with the rod). GG. etd bs 


RODANIM, red’a-nim. See Dopanim in Ern- 
NOGRAPHY AND Erunooey, § 13. 

ROE, ROEBUCK. See Patxsrine, § 24. 

ROHGAG, ro’ga (737019, ro[w]hgah): An Asherite 
(I Ch 7 34). 

ROGELIM, ra’ji-lim (0°735, raghlim): The home 
of Barzilla, the Gileadite (II S 17 27, 19 31). Site un- 


known. 
ROLL. See Booxs anp Wrirtnes, § 3. 


ROMAMTI-EZER, ro-mam"ti-i’zer (WY. P24, 
romamii ‘ezer): An expression taken by the trans- 
lators as a proper name, but perhaps it should be 


rendered ‘whom [i.e., my God] I exalt, my help,’ 
etc. (I Ch 25 4, 31). See JosHBEKASHAH. 


ROMAN, rod’man: Roman citizinship (civitas), 
confined originally to patricians, was extended in 
full to plebians in 337 B.c. The patricians and 
plebians constituted the aristocratic citizens, while 
a modified citizenship was held by freedmen (e@ra- 
rit), from which slaves and foreigners were ex- 
cluded. The civitas conferred the rights of suffrage, 
of holding office, of appeal to the people (later to the 
emperor) against sentences of magistrates, of con- 
tracting legal marriage, of holding property, and in- 
volved the duties of paying taxes and bearing arms. 
It was indicated externally by the man’s name 
(nomen, prenomen) and the white toga. This right 
was jealously guarded till after the Ist cent. It was 
obtained by birth or by manumission, or was con- 
ferred on men of wealth and position by the assem- 
bly (later by the emperor). In 212 4.p. Caracalla made 
all the free inhabitants of the empire citizens. 
Under the Empire civitas was valued because it 
conferred exemption from shameful punishment (Ac 
22 25), the right of appeal to the emperor (Ac 25 11), 
freedom from direct taxation, the right to hold office, 
and to become a senator. In the provinces every 
Roman citizen was an aristocrat. Roman civitas 
superseded all other citizenship. Paul’s family had 
the Roman civitas (Ac 22 28); hence it was certainly 
wealthy and influential, and had probably settled 
in Tarsus about 175-164 B.c., under Antiochus IV. 
Among the Jews Paul used his Jewish name, Saul, 
but assumed his Roman name at Paphos (Ac 13 9), 
as the Apostle to the Gentiles. His nomen and. 
prenomen are not known. J. RK. S. 8.*—S, A. 


ROMAN RELIGION: The Roman religion was 
that of a prosaic and unimaginative people who 
took very seriously their relations to the super- 
natural (religiosissimi mortales, Sallust), and were 
given to detsidemonia (lit. ‘fear of gods, or demons,’ 
t.e., superstitious), which rendered them meticulous- 
ly scrupulous and rigidly formal in their worship. 
This formalism abetted the power of the priesthood 
and gave a contractual cast to their cult. They com- 
bined a tenacious conservatism with a remarkable 
hospitality for foreign ideas. Their unseen powers 
were indistinctly conceived numina, not det, inde- 
terminate in sex, without individuality or personal 
artistic forms, maintaining no intercourse with each 
other, and, therefore, producing no mythology, 
which was borrowed from Greece. Beside these 
numina there was a tendency to personification or 
deification of abstracts, e.g., Fides, Honos, Libertas, 
Virtus. By its own momentum Roman religion, 
never developed from animism to anthropomorph- 
ism, or from polydezmonism to polytheism. It 
differed from Greek religion also in lacking the 
esthetic appeal and failing to produce a great 
poetry or philosophy; it was an instrument of 
political life such as Greek religion had never 
been in the halcyon days of the polis. It was never 
marked by the local varieties of Greek cults (owing 
to the dominance of Rome); it never manifested 
the native powers of self-development as did Greek 
religion. Unlike the Greeks, the Romans, in their 
darkest hour, deserted their gods, and looked abroad 


Roman Religion 
Romans, Epistle to 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


784 





—to Etruria, Italy, Greece, and the Orient—for 
divine help. Roman religion was not so spiritual 
as that of Greece, and it had no part at the Roman 
deathbed. The primitive religion of the farm and 
the hearth gave way to that of the city-state, and 
this again to the imperial religion of Ceesar-worship. 
The di indigetes (native gods) retreat before the di 
novensides or novensiles (new or foreign gods); the 
ritus Romanus is supplemented by the ritus Greeus. 
Roman animism is displaced by Greek anthropo- 
morphism, save in popular survivals, so that Rome 
first received her gods from Greece, or from the 
Etruseans of Greek culture. The ritual tended to 
increasing elaboration, and under the priestly col- 
leges was evolved a puzzling list of bidding-prayers 
or Indigitamenia. 

1. In the period from the earliest times to the 
founding of the Capitoline temple (509 B.c.) the 
calendar was filled with agricultural festivals and 
rites. Magic was in use, but mostly sympathetic 
nature-magic. The king was the priest, and the 
relations with the nwmina were through state 
officials, so that the jus divinum was indistinguish- 
able from the jus civile, which gave a peculiar char- 
acter to all subsequent Roman relations of church 
and state. The chief of these early numina, or 
divine potencies, were Jupiter, Janus, Mars, Quiri- 
nus, Vesta, Juno, together with the di penates and 
Lares, and vague forms of the forest and fields. 
There was no mythology: temple and statue were 
unnecessary, and the loca sacra were of the simplest 
character, ¢.g., grove or open enclosure. Already 
the Romans, tho imagining no underworld like that 
of the Greeks, evinced that reverence for the dead 
which later became prominent in a cult of di pa- 
rentes or di Manes. Under the Etruscan kings, 
especially the last, innovations commenced in at 
least the founding of the Capitoline temple in which 
the trinity of Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, were 
united in one cult, novel to Roman ideas. This 
temple, the center of Roman political religion, was 
the first step toward giving personality to Roman 
deities, and the first contact with anthropomorphic 
influence whereby the ill-defined numina yielded to 
Di, necessitating new modes of worship. 

2. During the period from 509 s.c. to the Second 
Punic War in 218 B.c., a vast change came about 
inthe Romanreligion. The emotional and sensational 
element increased, making toward individualism, 
while the two great colleges of Pontifices and Augurs 
rose to the highest position of authority, rendering 
the religion more political. Foreign importations 
were rapidly multiplied among the di novensides. 
Epochal, both for Rome and for subsequent Euro- 
pean history, was the introduction, at the beginning 
of this period, of the Sibylline Oracles, under the 
influence of which in the hands of the Decemviri, 
the vitus Grecus, with Greek deities and Greek ritual 
found entry; a temple was dedicated to the Greek 
trinity of Demeter, Dionysus, Persephone, under 
the Latin names of Ceres, Liber, and Libera. Later 
came Artemis as Diana and Aphrodite as Venus. 
Apollo himself was admitted in 431 B.c. In 399 by 
the same authority the first lectisterntwm (enter- 
tainment of deities in images upon couches) was 
held, and these lectisternia together with frequent 


supplicationes (procession with prayers) permitted 
to the people a participation in worship alien to the 
Roman idea of all being performed by the priest. 

3. In the third period (218 B.c. =to the end of the 
Republic) Roman religion became moribund, and 
Rome in despair abandoned her own gods for foreign 
deities. Greek thought produced skepticism among 
the educated classes. Ennius introduced the teach- 
ings of the Greek Euhemerus which represented the 
gods as deified heroes, while Epicureanism, tho it 
denounced superstition, destroyed faith in a provi- 
dence. One form of Greek religious thought, how- 
ever, Stoicism, developed the best type of Roman 
character. On the other hand, the populace, de- 
pressed by the calamities of the Hannibalic struggle 
and terrified by the repeated prodigia, lost faith in 
native deities, gave way to superstitio, and yearned 
for more intimate personal worships. The baneful 
Divinatio of Etruria exercised a more potent spell - 
upon the Roman mind, and it now became cus- 
tomary for all classes to consult the Oriental Chal- 
daei and mathematict. In 205 B.c. the emotionalism 
of Phrygia entered the West, when, on the advice 
of the Sibylline Oracles, the cult of the Great Mother 
(Cybele) was introduced from Pessinus. The door 
was thus opened to individualistic, mystic, and or- 
giastic, Oriental cults which secured a firm hold 
before the close of the Republic. The Bacchie 
(Dionysiac) rites gave rise to such a scandal as to 
call for drastic interference on the part of the 
Senate in 186 B.c., but only by way of supervision, 
not of suppression. M4 also came from Phrygia 
as Bellona. Isis invaded Italy in the 2d cent. 
B.c., and Mithras in Ist cent. B.c. 

4, The imperial period is marked (1) by the re- 
markable religious revival under Augustus—a 
curious recognition that political stability depended 
on a religious basis. He endeavored to appeal to the 
Roman conscience by resuscitating the old forms of 
religion. He restored 82 temples in Rome alone, 
revived obsolete priesthoods, especially the Arval 
Brothers, and endowed new ones. In typically 
Roman fashion the antiquarian revival was dic- 
tated as much by political as by religious motives: 
it sought to utilize the universal spirit of thanks- 
giving by bringing it into association with the 
Julian house and by giving it a prominent religious 
character. Tho too external, inasmuch as it was by 
the will of a single individual, to touch the springs © 
of spiritual life, it had an important bearing by re- 
invigorating paganism for the long struggle, just 
beginning, with Christianity. (2) The imperial cult, 
which was unobtrusively introduced when the mur- 
dured Julius was declared Divus in 42 B.c. The 
deification of dead emperors was destined to issue 
soon in the cult of living emperors, which was from 
the outset usual in the provinces and in Greece. 
Augustus, tho he declined divine honors during his 
lifetime, was deified by the Senate on his death, but 
in the first year of his reign he had appeared in an 
Oriental province as ‘God of God’ in succession to 
the Ptolemies. Tiberius refused similar honors in 
Rome, but encouraged the practise in the provinces. 
Caligula put forth the claim to be treated as a god, 
while Nero was the first living emperor to wear the 
corona radiata, symbolic of descent from the Sun- 





785 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Roman Religion 
Romans, Epistle to 





god. Domitian arrogated for himself during his 
lifetime the title of dominus et deus. Diocletian de- 
manded Oriental prostration. Even Christian em- 
perors, to Valerian I (d. 375), were officially made 
Divi after death. This cult of the emperors dis- 
credited polytheism and degraded the idea of Deity, 
but it contributed to give cohesion to the empire, 
and it furthered the Man-God conception, so im- 
portant in the religion of the Christian centuries. 
(3) Oriental mysticism, sacramentarianism, and that 
conception of religion which became known later as 
Gnosticism, laid increasing hold on the religious 
mind, and with them, theosophy, magic, astralism, 
and demonology. It was under the empire that the 
Oriental religions reached their apogee. Isis secured 
a temple on the Campus Martius in 39 a.p., and 
under Nero her religion became a religio lictta. 
The Dea Syria (Atargatis), the Phyrgian Sabazius, 
and Syrian Baals followed. Hadrian included images 
of Isis and Serapis in his private chapel. In 304 
Mithras was declared Guardian of the empire. In 
311 an edict of toleration was issued for another 
Oriental religion, into the faith of which Constan- 
tine was baptised in 337. 


Roraan religion, tho possessing only a secondary 
interest for Christianity compared with that of 
Greece, has influenced deeply the theology, prac- 
tise, and worship of the West. In addition to supply- 
ing much of the vocabulary of theology, and fur- 
nishing the precedents for canon law, the legal mind 
of Rome gave a contractual significance to such 
doctrines as Justification and Atonement. The cult 
of the dead passed in Western Europe into that of 
the saints and martyrs. The religious festivals of 
the Roman calendar have contributed to our church 
festivals (as Christmas and Easter). Roman orderli- 
ness of ceremonial, scrupulosity of ritual, and 
elaborate symbolism are reflected in some types of 
Christian worship, especially in Southern Europe. 


The practical mind of Rome, which insisted in. 


making all speculation a means to a ‘way of life’ 
has promoted the ideals of duty and the demands 
of morality. The religious sanctities of Roman 
family life, especially connected with birth, pu- 
berty, and marriage, have contributed to such 
sacramental acts as baptism, confirmation, and 
marriage. With the mentality of Latin Christianity 
coincided reverence for law and respect for au- 
thority. In no other religion did church and state 
stand so inseparable, a fact of immense significance 
in Church history. Roman religion was the extreme 
type of institutional religion, a feature most faith- 
fully reproduced in Roman Christianity. Even the 
cult of the emperors proved an inspiration to early 
Christianity to claim as universal a Lordship for 
the Lord Christ as that cult did for the emperor, and 
it accentuated that exclusivism in the Christian 
message which was the historic safeguard of the 
‘new way’ amid the regnant Syncretism. And the 
Stoic ideal, which first awakened the Roman con- 
science and attained its highest ancient form in 
Roman character, has been fruitful in Christian 
ethics. 
Lireratore: G. Wissowa, Religion u. Kultus der Romer, 2d 


ed. (1912); E. Aust, Religion der Rémer (1899); G. Boissier, 
La Religion romaine d’ Auguste aux Antonins, 5th ed., Paris 


(1900); J. Toutain, Les Cultes patens dans l’empire romain 
Paris (1911 f.); W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experi- 
ence of the Roman People (1911); E. Beurlier, Le Culte 
rendu aux empéreurs romains, Paris (1891). §. A. 


ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE: 1. Introductory. 
This epistle belongs to the group of Paul’s uncon- 
tested letters (cf. Cortnrutans, Epp. to THe, § 1), 
standing foremost, not only in this group, but among 
all his writings, as the most systematically doctrinal 
statement which we possess from him. It is this 
characteristic which has made the Epistle in all 
ages of the Church a great field of doctrinal con- 
troversy. 


2. Contents. The letter opens with a rather 
elaborate greeting (1 1-7), followed by a thanks- 
giving for the readers’ faith, in which he refers to his 
desire to visit them (1 8-15), closing with a passage 


which is practically a statement of the Epistle’s 


theme, viz.: that the only righteousness acceptable 
to God, 7.e., the only way of getting right with God, 
is through faith (1 16 £.). 


This theme is then taken up and worked out with great 
elaborateness and a skilful arrangement of argument—cover- 
ing in the process fully one-half of the Epistle (1 138 39). 
It is discussed first, negatively, showing how both Gentile 
and Jew had failed to secure an acceptable righteousness by 
works (1 183 2°), This negative argument is presented (1) 
by a vivid statement of the condition of the Gentile world in 
the Apostle’s day—showing it to be one on which rested the 
judgment of God, and, consequently, one which evidenced 
this world as having failed to secure acceptance with God 
for such religion as it had practised (1 38-2), and (2) by an 
almost equally vivid and a most skilfully presented state- 
ment of the condition of the Jewish world (2 1-3 8), showing 
that the Jew, far from having anything to boast of as to his 
standing before God, compared with that of the Gentile, was 
really under greater condemnation in God’s sight, even in 
his Divinely given religion of the Mosaic Law; since he had 
had, through the revelation of truth which God had granted 
him in that Law, greater opportunity to know the right and 
to do it; whereas he was actually guilty of the same in- 
iquities as the Gentiles around him (2 1-4); so that the Law 
in which he had trusted had put him under the judgment not 
only of God, but even of the lawless heathen world itself 
(2 %-39), Jt is a severe arraignment of his own people. In 
fact, the Apostle is so conscious of its severity that he feels 
called upon to remind his readers that, in spite of all the 
Jews’ abuse of God’s blessings in the covenant with them 
into which He had entered through the Law, these blessings 
were real, and would be ultimately fulfilled on God’s part 
because of this covenant in which they were involved (3 18). 
He then returns to sum up his argument so far, drawing the 
inference which it had rendered irresistible, that the entire 
human race, on the basis of its religion of works, stood guilty 
in God’s sight (3 9-20), 

Having finished with this negative treatment of his theme, 
the Apostle comes now to its positive treatment, which con- 
sists practically in a discussion of the righteousness which 
alone is acceptable to God, 7.e., of the way by which one can 
get right with God through faith (3 2-8 3%), This discussion 
is opened with a statement of the historical fact of the pro- 
vision of such a way through the death of Jesus Christ (3 21-26), 
from which is drawn the necessary conclusion as to the im- 
possibility of any self-gratulation on man’s part in the matter 
of acceptance with God; since faith excludes all that element 
of self-merit on which alone self-gratulation can rest (8 27-80) 
while, at the same time, it does not set aside the Law itself 
(3 %). This last statement is then elaborated into a dis- 
closure of the fact that even Abraham, the head and repre- 
sentative of the covenant of circumcision, was himself justi- 
fied by faith (4 18), before he had received circumcision 
(4 9-12) and independently of the Law (4 13-15), showing what 
had been God’s purpose in such faith on Abraham’s part 
(4 16 ft.), and how that faith had manifested itself in Abra- 
ham’s life (4 1822) with the bearing of his case on the justi- 
fication of the Christian (4 23-5), 

After this statement of the agreement with Scripture of 
the principle of justification by faith, the Apostle proceeds 


Romans, Epistle to 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 786 





to bring this principle to the test of the present life, showing 
its surety against all experience of need, both here and here- 
after (5 1%), through its impartation to us of the vitalizing 
power of the life of Christ (5 19f-). The largeness of this idea 
of the coming to us of the life of Christ leads the Apostle into 
a consideration of Christ’s relation to the life of the race, in 
which he contrasts the results of Christ’s work with the 
effects of Adam’s sin, showing how the former, through its 
element of vitalizing grace, must inevitably overcome and 
supplant all the death which the latter has wrought (5 12-19), 
In fact, where the Mosaic Law, which came into the history 
of the human race between Adam and Christ, intensified 
the death results of Adam’s sin, there the grace of Christ 
intensified its vitalizing power to the destruction and re- 
moval from our life of these results (5 2° f-), This raises 
however, the practical question regarding the Christian’s 
relation to sin in his living. This question is taken up in 
the form of two self-stated objections to the Apostle’s argu- 
ment: (1) The objection that, if grace more abounds where 
sin abounds, the Christian should continue in sin, in order 
that grace may abound (6 1). This is answered from the 
point of view of the impossibility of such a life on the 
Christian’s part, because (a) of the principle involved in his 
death to sin (6 2), and (b) of the ultimate moral end of his 
baptism into the death of Christ (6 #4). (2) The objection 
that, if the Christian is no longer under law but under grace, 
he can afford to indulge in sin (6 5). This is answered from 
the impossibility of such indulgence, because of the mutually 
exclusive laws of service to sin and to righteousness (6 1628), 

From this general consideration of the spiritual and moral 
regults of justification by faith, the Apostle proceeds to one 
of the most interesting portions in his letter, where, after 
an introductory passage illustrating the freedom from the 
claims of the Law which the Christian has secured by the 
death of Christ (7 1), he discloses to the readers, through an 
introspection of his own soul’s life, the spiritual conflict in 
which the Christian must constantly participate while the 
principle of the unregenerate nature (the ‘flesh’ ver. 18) and 
the principle of the regenerate nature (the ‘mind’ ver. 7) 
are at war within him (7 7-3), From this conflict, however, 
the Christian will ultimately be delivered through the vitalizing 
Spirit of Christ (7 *%8 ")—a certainty of outlook which 
obligates him to subject his life to the control of that Spirit, 
and so to realize his relation to God as son and heir of all 
his glory (8 #217). This mention of heirship leads the Apostle 
into an elaborate presentation of what is involved in the 
Divine inheritance for the Christian (8 183%), with which his 
general discussion of the Epistle’s theme is brought to an end. 

The three chs. (9-11) which intervene between this formal 
argument (1 18-8 #9) and the practical conclusions drawn 
from it (12 1-15 13) offer to the student of the Epistle an in- 
teresting problem, viz.: the relation of the contents of these 
chs. to the argument of the Epistle. After an introductory 
statement of an apologetic nature (9 1+), there is given a 
plain affirmation of the liberty which God has exercised in 
His election of the spiritual Israel (9 629), which is followed 
by an equally plain affirmation of the responsibility which 
nevertheless rests upon the unspiritual Israel in its non- 
election (9 %°-10 21), There is then outlined the plan God 
has for the unspiritual Israel, in view of its relation to Him 
as His Covenant People (11 1%), to which is added a closing 
summary review of the situation (11 26-36), This closes the 
doctrinal portion of the Epistle. 

Based upon the truths brought to light in this portion, 
there then follows a practical presentation to the readers of 
the consequent duties of character and life demanded of 
them, covering the fields of (a) duties to God and the 
Church (14 1-15 13), (b) duties to the State (13 1-7), and (c) 
duties to Society (13 844). Upon this follows the general 
conclusion of the Epistle (15 14-16 27)—tho the thought evi- 
dently returns in 16 17-20 to the urgency of the duty needful 
on the readers’ part toward those who are causing faction 
and strife among them. 


3. Integrity. This gives us the contents of the 
Kpistle as it stands before us. It is obvious, how- 
ever, that the study of the Epistle must be deter- 
mined by what constituted its contents when it was 
written. On this point there has been, and is to-day, 
wide difference of opinion. That there is cause for 
this difference can not be denied. (1) The existing 
MSS. give evidence that very early there was con- 


siderable variety in the place assigned the doxology 
of 16 25-27. In some it stands at the close of the 
Epistle, as it does in the accepted text; in some it 
stands between the last verse of ch. 14 and the first 
verse of ch. 15; in some it stands both at the close 
of ch. 14 and at the close of ch. 16; in some it is 
omitted altogether. (2) The fact that the Church 
at Rome had not been founded by Paul, nor even 
visited by him, when he wrote the letter, makes the 
last chapter with its long list of salutations seem 
peculiar and out of keeping with this situation. 


There can be no question that, as far as agreement 
of thought is concerned, the doxology fits better at 
the end of ch. 14 than it does at the end of ch. 16. 
In ch. 14 Paul is speaking of those in the Church 
whose consciences are yet sensitive in the matter 
of eating food and observing days (141 f.). He 
urges both those whose consciences are thus bound 
and those whose consciences are freer in these 
matters to be charitable toward each other in their 
judgments (14 8-12). Especially does he urge those 
who are of free conscience not to put a stumbling- 
block in the others’ way, but, in the spirit of Christ 
Himself, to sacrifice their own pleasure in these 
things for the sake of the weaker brother (14 13- 
23). Upon this train of thought the doxology would 
quite naturally follow with its ascription of praise 
to God, as one ‘that is able to establish them’ 
(16 25); while the thought of the doxology itself 
would be immediately taken up by the thought of 
ch. 15, which in its opening verses is simply a de- 
velopment of this appeal to the spirit of Christian 
self-sacrifice on the part of those who are strong 
in conscience. There is no such connection of 
thought between the doxology and the list of names 
which immediately precedes it in ch. 16. There is 
also no question that ch. 15 closes with a benedic- 
tion such as is found at the end of several of the 
Apostle’s letters (15 33; cf. II Co 13 1; I Th 5 23; 
II Th 3 16; Ph 47; see also Eph 6 23; Gal 6 16), and, 
inasmuch as the doxology at the end of ch. 16 so 
well agrees with a position between chs. 14 and 15, 
the way would be open for a removal of ch. 16, with 
its list of strange names, without disturbing the 
conclusion of the Epistle. In view of this fact, and 
also of the fact that some of the names in ch. 16 seem 
better to agree with a residence in Ephesus and the 
province of Asia than in Rome, it is the almost 
general opinion of scholars that this chapter does 
not belong to this Epistle, but constitutes a brief 
note commending Phoebe (16 1) to the Church at 
Ephesus. 


Apart, however, from the position of the doxology, 
there are reasons which compel us to assign this ch. 
to this Epistle, chief among which are: (1) There are 
no MSS. extant which omit ch. 16; so that, if it was 
not written by Paul himself in this letter to Rome, 
it must have been added to the Epistle before it was 
prepared for general circulation by the church of 
that place, and thus successfully foisted upon the 
Church at large from the very beginning. This is 
most unlikely. (2) Tho Aquila and Priscilla (16 3) 
were in Ephesus not long before Paul wrote the 
Epistle (Ac 18 24-26), it is to be remembered that 
these intimate companions and fellow helpers of 





787 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Romans, Epistle to 





Paul regulated their movements from place to place 
by the missionary plans of the Apostle (cf. Ac 18 2 
with 18 18). Knowing, therefore, Paul’s settled pur- 
pose of proceeding from Ephesus to Rome (Ac 
19 21), they may quite naturally have returned to 
their home city (cf. Ac 18 2) ahead of him—as they 
had practically done at Ephesus (Ac 18 18-21)—ac- 
companied by Epznetus (16 5), who, as ‘the first- 
fruits of Asia unto Christ,’ was more likely to have 
been their convert than Paul’s. In fact, it is in- 
teresting, if not evidencing, that from inscriptions 
and archeological remains practically all the names 
in ch. 16 can be shown to be possible Roman names, 
while those of Prisca, Amplius, Nereus, and Apelles 
are connected definitely with the early history of 
Roman Christianity. There is no such intimate 
relation between these names and Ephesus, or the 
province of Asia, or the history of the Church in this 
region. (3) Paul’s custom is to give more personal 
salutations to the churches he had not founded or 
visited than to those which had been established 
directly by his hand (contrast the closing ch. of Col 
and the closing verses of Phm with the concluding 
portions of I, II Th, I, II Co, and Ph). The fact 
that he was unknown to these churches made it 
almost necessary for him to single out for salutation 
such persons in their membership as he personally 
knew; for so only could he establish between him- 
self and them the points of personal contact which 
would give influence to his message to them, or 
prepare the way for his visiting them. Only in an 
Encyclical letter like Eph would such necessity not 
obtain. 

The fact, therefore, that Paul in this Roman 
letter is writing to a church to which he was a 
_ stranger leads us to expect just the personal saluta- 
tions which we find in ch. 16; while the fact that 
there should be so many there he knew is only 
natural in view of his twelve years of mission work 
in the East and the frequency of communication 
between the eastern shores of the Mediterranean 
and Rome. 

4. Composition of the Church. The city of Rome, 
as other cities, had doubtless received its first knowl- 
edge of the Gospel from Jewish traders and pilgrims 
returned from the Holy Land (cf. Ac 2 10, as in- 
terpreted by 17 21), so that such preaching of the 
new religion as was attempted was first within the 
circle of the synagog. When Paul wrote, however, 
the church was unmistakably Gentile in the great 
majority of its membership (cf. 1 5 f., 11 13, which 
are confirmed by such passages as 1 13-15 and 15 14-16 
—passages that would have no meaning for Jews). 
Doubtless the edict of Claudius (49-50 a.p. [?], Ac 
18 2) expelling the Jews from Rome had given the 
Gentiles a preponderance in the church, which the 
return of the Jews would rather accentuate by 
bringing to issue the inevitable separation between 
the church and its previous Jewish surroundings 
(cf. the apparent ignorance of the Christian com- 
munity on the part of the Jews in Ac 28 22). It was 
to this Gentile element that the church owed such 
organization as it possessed. Indeed, Jewish con- 
verts generally failed to appreciate the need of a 
church organization for their new faith. Their 
conviction that Christianity was to come to the 





world through a reformed Judaism made the existing 
organization of the Jewish Church sufficient to their 
mind; so that, as a matter of fact, in spite of the 
wide distribution of pilgrim converts from Pentecost 
over Paul’s mission-field, the Apostle was compelled 
everywhere he went to organize the church life of 
the new community (cf. Ac 14 23; Tit 15). 

In Rome, however, the organization was evidently 
not such as it would have been had the Apostle 
personally founded the church. In fact, Paul no- 
where in the Epistle speaks of the local church— 
the fully organized éxxAyscta—as he does in I Co 
(1 2), II Co (11), Gal (1 2; cf. I Co 161 and Ac 14 23), 
I Th (11), If Th (1 1), and by implication in Ph 
(11, 4 15). The exhortations of 12 5-8 are phrased 
in an indefinite way (especially vs. 7 and 8, as tho 
the church was without the distinctive officers evi- 


- dent in other localities (cf. Ph 11; Ac 14 23, 20 17); 


while one can not but notice the group character 
of the membership disclosed in the salutations of 
ch. 16 (vs. 3-5, ‘Salute Prisca and Aquila... and 
the church that is in their house’; ver. 14, ‘Salute 
Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, and the 
brethren that are with them’ ; ver. 15, ‘Salute Philo- 
logus and Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, 
and all the saints that are with them’), as tho the 
church in its lack of official organizing had grown 
up through associated groups of converts scattered 
over the city, each under its leaders, who taught 
them in the truth, and instructed them in the 
Christian life (cf. evidences of this same group 
organization in Col 4 15 and Phm ver. 2). 

5. Date and Purpose of Letter. To this com- 
munity of Christians at Rome Paul wrote this letter 
during the three months of his last visit to Corinth 
(Dec., 55-Mar., 56, or more probably 56-57). He 
was then through with his work in the East and was 
about to enter upon the accomplishment of his long- 
desired journey to the imperial city (Ro 15 22-24; 
Ac 19 21; ef. Ro 1 8-15, 15 29, 32). His purpose in send- 
ing this letter in advance, however, was not simply 
to prepare the way for his coming; nor to instruct the 
readers, as strangers to himself and his work, in the 
principles of his Gospel, so that his teaching might 
not seem so unfamiliar to them and be hindered in 
its results. The presence among the leaders of the 
church of those who were not only the spiritual 
fruits of his ministry, but had been workers with him 
in its service (16 2 f., 7, 9, 12), is warrant that these 
principles of his Gospel were already known to them, 
and give enough significance to such statements as 
6 17 and 16 25 to render it likely that these principles 
had been fully accepted by them. 

The situation makes clear that the occasion of 
Paul’s letter was the partizan condition of the 
church. The appeal in 151 to those who were strong 
among the readers to bear the infirmities of the 
weak; the command in 14 1 that those who were 
weak in the faith should be received, but not ‘for 
decision of scruples;’ the reminder in 12 3-5 that, 
tho many, they were yet one body in Christ and 
‘severally members one of another’—these all show 
that this partizanship consisted in the presence of a 
strong party, lording it over the weak, and that the 
strength of this party was not so much in its num- 
bers as in the broadness of its convictions, the free- 


Romans, Epistle to 
Royal City 





dom of its conscience, and the consequent moral ease 
of its life. In other words, this strong party drew its 
followers from the Gentile majority of the church 
and found those whom it oppressed in the Jewish 
minority (cf. the rest of ch. 14 and § 4, aboye, but 
especially 11 17-20). It was animated by a spirit of 
hyper-Gentilism, whose tendency was to overpress 
Paul’s Gospel in the direction of antinomianism (cf. 
the significant prominence given by Paul to objec- 
tions which seem to arise out of his own argument, 
and which would be urged against it in support of 
just such antinomian positions as this party would 
naturally take, 3 5-8, 6 1-14, 6 15-23, 7 7-25), and, con- 
sequently, to ignore both in and out of the Church 
the Jew, with his scruples of conscience (14 1-19) and 
his identification with the past dispensation of the 
Law (11 13-26). There is, indeed, no other way to 
explain the addition of chs. 9-11 to the Epistle’s 
already completed argument, except as they con- 
stitute the Apostle’s reminder to the self-satisfied 
Gentile element in the church that even the un- 
believing Jews were still the Covenant People of God 
and would finally be saved. 

Paul’s purpose in writing the Epistle was, conse- 
quently, to take up his own Gospel and show that it 
was not to be overpressed in the service of an anti- 
nomian living (3 5-8)—that it gave the Gentile ele- 
ment in the church no license against the Law (6 1-23, 
7 7-25) and no liberty against the Jewish Christian 
(11 17-20), that it did not separate these race elements 
in the church, but rather united them (8 9, 28-30)— 
that it did not ignore O T truth (11-3), or the people 
of the O T dispensation (10 1-4, 11 1-5), but gave 
them their rightful place in the church, holding that 
even the unbelieving Jews had a certain future of 
salvation in the plan of God (11 25-32). This motive 
explains the unfavorable review of the Gentile 
world at the beginning of the Epistle (1 18-32), as well 
as the caustic warning to the Gentile Christian in 
chs. 9-11. Such arraignment of the Gentile element 
in the church could easily have been called forth by 
the arrogant position of this hyper-Gentile party, 
and must have had a humbling effect upon its pride. 
The corresponding arraignment of the Jews in ch. 2 
is simply owing to the fact that, through his training 
in the Law, the Jew was always in danger of misun- 
derstanding Paul’s law-free Gospel,and so always, 
when questions of race difference tempted him to self- 
satisfaction in his covenant relations to God, needed 
to have its principles clearly presented to him. This 
motive accounts also for such irenic tone as the 
Epistle contains, e.g., the placing of Jew and Gentile 
together in their relationship to God (1 14, 16, 2 9-12, 
39, 22, 28-30, 1012f., 11 32) and the apologetic attitude 
toward the Jew (9 1-5, 30-33, 10 1-4, 11 1-5, 11 f., 25-28); 
since the Apostle’s effort is to bring the two ele- 
ments together. Finally, it gives reason for such 
didactic tone as is in the Epistle, e.g., the lengthy 
presentation of his Gospel in its bearing upon faith 
and works (chs. 1-4); since the Gentile element was 
in need of careful instruction as to the balance of 
his Gospel, and both elements alike had to be re- 
minded anew of its basis on the one condition of 
faith—the only condition which placed both ele- 
ments equally within the scheme of redemption. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


738 





6. Relation of Letter to Paul’s Work. This Epis- 
tle throws significant light on the development of 
conditions surrounding and affecting Paul’s mission 
labors. It shows not only that the Judaizing propa- 
ganda in the East was not likely to reproduce itself 
fully and completely in Gentile regions (see CorIN- 
THIANS, Epp. To THE, § 12, and notice that Ro 16 
17-20 does not describe the principles of the Judaizing 
party), but that the very success of Paul’s conflict 
with it was likely to produce a reaction to its oppo- 
site extreme in regions which, because of their domi- 
nant gentilism, were likely to be unfriendly to the 
Jewish element in the Church. In the Roman situa- 
tion, consequently, the dualism in the Church comes 
to its first real serious threatening of the solidarity of 
the Christian brotherhood; for this situation showed, 
not so much a natural insistence of the original 
Jewish membership to the maintaining of the Church 
on a Jewish basis (as in Galatia), but rather the 
arousing of the newly admitted Gentile element into 
a spirit of hostility to all the historical origins of 
Christendom, a fatal misunderstanding of all the 
moral claims of Christianity, and an attitude of 
counter-exclusivism to the Jew which, because of its 
free world spirit, threatened more of a real cleavage 
in the Church than did the provincial propaganda of 
the Judaizers. It was a situation the seriousness of 
which is increasingly evident in the Epistles Paul 
wrote from the time of his arrival in Rome (see 
PuHinieprans, Ep. To THE, § 1), and which finds its 
most significant treatment in the theme of his 
Ephesian letter (q.v.). 

Lirerature: Among the Introductions available for English 
readers Jiilicher (Eng. transl. 1904) and Zahn’ (Eng. transl. 
21917) represent respectively the advanced and conservative 
sides. See also Introductions of Bacon (1900); Peake 
(1910); Moffatt (1911). Consult the Comm., particularly 
Sanday and Headlam (ICC., 1895); also B. Weiss (1899). 
Denney (Ezpositor’s Greek Test., 1900); Mackenzie (in 
Westminster N T, 1912); Garvie (in New Century Bible, 
n.d.). 

For questions concerning the integrity of the Ep., the 
composition of the Church, the motive of writing, besides 
Zahn’s Introd. and Sanday’s Comm., see Lightfoot’s Biblical 
Essays (1893) and Presbyterian Quarterly, January, 1893. 

Yor the idea of Justification and Righteousness, see espe- 
cially Westcott, St. Paul and Justification (1913); also, in 
general, Denney, Jesus and the Gospel (1909); Garvie, 
Studies of Paul and His Gospel (1911). 

A particularly fine presentation of the contents of the 


Epistle is given in Liddon’s Explanatory Analysis of Ep. 
to Romans (1893). M. W. J. 


ROME, rdm (‘Péyy). 1. Sketch of the History 
of R. to Constantine. The capital city of Italy, and 
one of the centers of Christianity in the Apostolic 
Age. It is situated on the river Tiber, which was 
navigable in antiquity. It interests all classes of 
students, because it has an unbroken history from 
the mythical date of its founding (753 B.c.) to the 
present day. But prehistoric R. goes back far be- 
yond that date. The first settlement is said to 
have been made by Romulus on the Palatine Hill 
(Roma Quadrata), distinct traces of which have been 
laid bare by excavations. The Quirinal Hill was 
next settled. The Forum, lying between the Pala- 
tine and the Quirinal, formed the political center of 
the city, while the Capitoline Hill was the religious 
center. Other hills were settled in turn. Servius 
Tullius extended the city limits, and enclosed the 





789 A NEW STANDARD 


whole within the Servian walls. Tho the Tarquinian 
kings embellished Rome they were expelled, and a 
republic was formed 509 s.c. Then followed long- 
continued wars with the Etruscans and Veu, but 
Rome was victorious in 396 B.c. The Gauls invaded 
and destroyed it in 390 B.c. The city was hastily 
rebuilt with narrow streets; the houses continued to 
be wretched down to the time of Augustus (31 B.c.- 
14 a.p.). After the destruction of Carthage (146 
B.c.) Rome was greatly enlarged, the streets and 
roads were paved (Via Appia), great buildings and 
tombs were erected, many of which may still be 
identified. Rome was further embellished by 
Augustus, who restored eighty-two temples, re- 
organized the municipal government, and intro- 
duced policemen and firemen. It was burned by 
Nero (64 a.p.), and rebuilt with broad streets. 


Nero’s Golden House enclosed gardens, lakes, and | 


lawns, and covered a vast area. The Flavian emper- 
ors (69-96 a.p.) further beautified the city with tem- 
ples, arches, baths, forums, and mausoleums, The 
population was about 1,500,000 at this time, but 
after the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), there 
followed a century of civil wars and invasions of 
barbarians which reduced the population to 750,000 
in the time of Diocletian (284-805). Along therewith 
went decadence in architecture and art, as the 
buildings of the period still show. From the end of 
the Punic wars (146 B.c.), Rome remained unwalled 
for 400 years. It was rewalled by Aurelian (270-275) 
in order to protect the city against the barbarians. 
This wall is still practically extant. The last great 
buildings were erected by Constantine (Basilica, 
Baths, Arch), the founder of Constantinople, whither 
he transferred the seat of government (330 a.D.). 
Herewith began the decline of Rome. 


2. Christianity in Rome. The catacombs were the 
subterranean cemeteries of the early Roman Chris- 
tians, until the edict of Constantine placed Christian- 
ity on an equal footing with other religions (313 
A.D.). Peter is said to have founded the first church 
in Rome in the house of Pudens. Constantine was 
accredited with the foundation of several churches 
in Rome, among them the Lateran and St. Peter’s, 
tho he was not baptized until 337 a.p. (on his 
death-bed). Constantius, and again Gratian, re- 
moved the altar of Victory, the most venerable sym- 
bol of the pagan empire, from the Senate-house. In 
408 the property of the ancient religions was con- 
fiscated by Honorius. Many pagan temples were 
destroyed by Christian fanatics, tho many were also 
preserved by conversion into Christian churches. 
Many churches were built at this time (five patri- 
archal), and also monasteries. The decay of Rome 
had now set in, caused partly by the lapsing of the 
Campagna into a malarious marsh, and partly by 
the successive incursions of the Vandals and Goths, 
against whom Belisarius fought with varying success. 
Rome was finally incorporated into-the Byzantine 
Empire in 552. The city was preserved from utter 
extinction, because it was the center of Christianity 
and the residence of the Pope, who was now power- 
ful and agressively active. The temporal power of 
the Pope began with the year 727, when Luitprand, 
King of the Lombards, gave the town of Sutri to 


i Romans, Epistle to 
BIBLE DICTIONARY Royal City. 

the Pope. Next the exarchate of Ravenna was given 
to the Pope in 755 by Pepin, the Frankish king, who 
also made the papacy independent of Constanti- 
nople. The crowning of Charlemagne by Pope Leo 
III on Christmas day 800 a.p. marks the beginning 
of the Holy Roman Empire and of the Middle 
Ages. Greece propounded and, in part, solved the 
great problems in the realm of the mind; she gave 
to the world unrivaled treasures of literature, sculp- 
ture, and architecture. Rome’s great legacy to the 
world is law and government. Rome taught us how 
to organize and govern a united state, and trans- 
mitted to us the system of our jurisprudence. R. 
consummated the unification of the world for 
Christianity. R. also proved the great intermediary 
in transmitting the culture, ethics, and philosophy 
of Greece to the West. J.R.S.S.*—S. A. 


ROOF. See Houss, § 6 (d). 


ROOM. See Hovuss, § 6 (c), (g), (h), (i). 


ROOT: This term renders shdresh and 6{€a, and, 
in the Bible, is generally used of persons or people 
under the figure of a tree or vine (Job 14 8, 30 4, used 
lit.; 289 =lowest part, and 36 30=bottom). As roots 
spread out and down into the soil, and are the chan- 
nels of moisture and nourishment, the ideas of firm- 
ness and sustenance are suggested by the term (Am 
29; Hos 9 16, 14 5 [6]; Is 14 30; II K 19 30=Is 37 31, 
5 24; Mal 41 [3 19]; Job 8 17, 18 16, 29 19; Pr 12 3, 12; 
Jer 17 8; Ezk 317; Is 58 2; cf. Mt 3 10, 13 6, 21, and 
lls). It means also ‘stock,’ ‘family,’ from which new 
branches may spring (Is 111, 10; Dn 11 7; Is 14 29; 
ef. Ro 15 12; Rev 5 5, 2216) and ‘source’ or ‘cause’ 
(Dt 29 18 [17]; ef. He 12 15; Job 19 28). Ce Sak 


ROOT OF DAVID: A symbolic designation of 
Jesus Christ, used in the Apocalypse (Rev 5 5, 22 16). 


ROSE. See Patzstine, § 22. 


ROSH, resh (ps5, 70’sh), ‘head’: 1. A ‘son’ of 
Benjamin (Gn 46 21), not in the list of Nu 26 38¢. (cf 
I Ch 81 #.), but necessary to make up the fourteen 
names of Gn 46 22. Some would correct the Heb. 
text by Nu 26 38, and read for ‘Ehi and Rosh, 
Muppim’ (o°5s wx ons), ‘Ahiram and Shupham 
(obw) OM). 2. In Ezk 38 2 f., 391, the RV gives 
‘prince of Rosh’ as the rendering of n‘si’ ré’sh, 
making ‘Rosh’ the name of a people or country like 
Meshech and Tubal, but it has not yet been identi- 
fied. AV renders ‘chief prince.’ Cs Sa hee 


ROUND TIRES LIKE THE MOON: The render- 
ing of the Heb. sahdronim (Is 3 18 AV, ‘crescents’ 
RV). See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, II, § 2. 


ROWER. Sce Sures AND NaviaaTIon, § 2. 


ROYAL CITY: The rendering of ‘ir hammelikhah 
(II S 12 26, but ‘city of waters,’ ‘tr hammayim, in 
ver. 27) taken by Joab in his attack on Rabbah 
(q.v.), or, in full, Rabbath bené ‘Ammon, on the head- 
waters of the Jabbok. It was perhaps the royal 
castle or citadel which guarded the water-supply of 
the city. At the northern point of the triangular 
plateau, on which the city was built, and between 
the two wédys that are here separated only by a 
low neck of land, was a large cistern, hewn out of 
the rocks, which was connected with the castle by 
ah underground passage (Polyb. v. 71). The place 


Ruby 
Sabbath 


captured by Joab was probably near this tank. 
Joab left the capture of the city proper to David. 
Wellhausen would read ‘tr hammayim as in ver. 27. 
Klostermann would read in ver. 27 ‘ayin hammayim, 
‘spring of waters,’ which was within the ‘royal city’ 
captured by Joab. Cheyne suggests for ver. 26 
‘ir milkém, ‘the city of Milcom [the god].’ C. 8. T. 

RUBY. See Stronzs, Prectovs, § 3. 

RUDDER. See SHips anp Naviaation, § 2. 

RUDIMENT. See ELnMeEnt. 


RUE. See PALESTINE, § 22. 


RUFUS, rii’fus (‘Poigoc): 1. The son of Simon, 
who, according to Mk 15 21, bore Jesus’ cross. The 
reference implies that Rufus and his brother Alex- 
ander were known to the readers of Mk. 2. The man 
who, with his mother, is saluted in Ro 1613. The 
fact that R. was a widely current name (cf. Zahn 
N T Inirod., Vol. I, p. 392, and Vol. II, p. 504, N.5) 
makes precarious the identification of 1 and 2. 
According to later traditions, Alexander and Rufus 
accompanied Andrew and Peter on their journeys 
(cf. Lipsius-Bonnet, Apoc. Apostelgesch. II, 117, 5; 
118, 9; 119, 13; Forbes Rebinson, Coptic Apoc. 
Gospel, p. 50). Jervis. 


.RUG: The rendering of the Heb. semikhah (Jg 
4 18, mantle AV). The exact meaning of the Heb. 
word is not known; some sort of coverlet is the tradi- 
tional opinion (cf. Moore, ICC. ad loc.). Burney, 
Book of Judges, p. 92, suggests ‘fly-net.’? E. E. N. 


RUHAMAH, ru-hé’ma (1911), rahadmah), ‘com- 
passionated’: A name to be given to the daughter of 
Hosea’s unfaithful wife (Hos 2 1 [2]) in place of her 
first name, ‘Lo-ruhamah’ (q.v.), ‘uncompassionated.’ 
The new name typified the changed relation of Israel 
to J’ (Hos 1 10 ft. (21 #f.]; cf. Ro 9 25 £.; I P 210). 

Oso 

RULER: In the O T this term is used somewhat 
loosely to render a number of Heb. terms, most of 
which are of general rather than technical signifi- 
eance. (a) The more general terms are: (1) méshél 
(Gn 45 8; Jg 15 11, etc.). (2) nasi’, ‘one lifted up’ 
(Ex 16 22, 22 28, ete.). (3) gatsin, ‘a decider,’ ‘judge’ 
(Is 1 10, 3 6, etc.). (4) sar, a common term for an 
official, frequently used of high officers and even of 
kings, etc. (Gn 47 6; Ex 18 21, etc.; in Ezr 10 14; 
Neh 111; Est 3 12, 89, 9 3, ‘prince’ RV). (5) rédheh, 
ptepl. of radhah (Ps 68 27). (6) rézén, ptepl. of 
rdzan, ‘weighty one’ (Ps 2 2). (7) shiltén and 
shallit (Dn 3 2£.; Ee 105; Dn 2 10, 5 29). (8) ré’sh, 
‘head’ (Dt 1 13; Is 29 10, ‘heads’ RV). (b) More 
specific terms are (1) naghidh, a word indica- 
tive of preeminence, and usually rendered ‘prince’ 
in RV (LS 25 30; ITS 6 21, ete.). (2) sdghan, ‘the 
representative of another,’ a ‘deputy,’ but often 
used loosely (zr 9 2; Neh 2 16, etc.; in Jer 51 23, 28, 
57, ‘deputy’ RV). (3) maghén (Hos 4 18) is figurative; 
the literal meaning of the word is ‘shield. The 
expression ruler of the city (Jg 9 30; II Ch 29 20; ef. 
I K 22 26; II i 101) means probably some one ap- 
pointed to such a position by the king (in Jg 9 30 by | 
Abimelech, the petty tyrant). The ancient Hebrew 
city was governed by ‘elders,’ not by one man. In 
the following cases RV gives ‘ruler’ in place of other 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


790 


renderings of AV: Gn 45 26; Ps 22 28, for méshél; 
Gn 49 10, ‘ruler’s staff’ for m*hdqgéq, ‘lawgiver’ AV. 
(This word must mean a thing, not a person, as it is 
parallel to ‘scepter’ in the preceding line; cf. also 
Pr 25 15; Ec 719; Jer 2 8; Zec 10 4.) E. E. N. 
In the N T ‘ruler’ occurs most frequently as the 
rendering of the following words: (1) &exwy, mean- 
ing a member of the Sanhedrin (Jn 3 1, etc.), or a 
judge or magistrate (Ac 23 5), and dextcuvkywyos, a 
ruler of a synagog (Mk 5 35, etc.; see SyNAGOG). 
(2) hyewdyv, a term of general significance, ‘leader,’ 
‘ruler,’ ‘governor’ (Mk 13 9; Lk 2112). (8) dexret- 
xdtvoc (Jn 2 9). Here the meaning is somewhat 
doubtful—either a chief servant or a guest chosen as 
the chairman of the company. (4) xodttépxat 
(Ac 176, 8). See Crry, Runters or. (5) xocwoxektopes 
(Eph 6 12), signifying rulers of this world (as opposed 
to the Ruler of the universe, ravtoxeétwe). The 
reference is to the spiritual powers of evil, which 
were thought of as having sway over this darkened 


world. S. D.—E. E. N. 
RULERS OF THE CITY. See Rutmr; and Ciry, 
RULERS OF. 


RUMAH, ri’ma (721, riimadh): The home of 
Pedaiah, the maternal grandfather of King Jehoi- 
akim (II K 23 26). Josephus (Ant. X, 5 2) has. 
"AGBounas ("Apoupaés?), which suggests Arumah (Jg 
9 41), the mod. el-Ormeh, not far from Shechem. 
There was another Rumah in Galilee mentioned by 
Josephus (BJ, III, 7 21). C.S5ih 


RUN, RUNNER: In ancient warfare, much de- 
pended on the agility of the individual. Conse- 
quently, those who were swift of foot, like Asahel 
(II S 2 18), were counted most valuable soldiers. 
The officials who rode in chariots were attended by a 
company of runners (II S$ 15 1). Elijah seems to 
have assumed the position of attendant courier to 
Ahab after the event on Mt. Carmel (I K 18 46). 
Certain runners, often employed as couriers, were so 
well known that they could be distinguished at a 
distance by their peculiar manner of running (II S 
18 24-26). In IS 22 17 we should read ‘runners’ in- 
stead of ‘guard,’ and it is likely that Doeg the 
Edomite was the swiftest of this band of runners (IS 
217, corrected text), who were in close attendance on 
Saul. Paul frequently refers to the running in the 
race-course as symbolic of the Christian’s course of 
life, in which he should strive to gain the prize of 
attainments in his own character and of good results 
in the lives of others. HK. E. N. 


RUSH. See Reep. 


RUTH, rath (49, ra&th, contracted from MY, 


ré‘aith), ‘companion’: The heroine of the book dis- 
cussed below. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


RUTH, BOOK OF: An anonymous historical 
romance, which tells how a Moabitess named Ruth 
came to marry Boaz of Bethlehem, thus becoming the 
great-grandmother of David (4 13-22; ef. 1S 22 3 f.), 
and therefore an ancestor of Jesus (cf. Mt 15). The 
chief aim of the book is to show how a Moabite 
woman was cordially welcomed into ancient Israel, 
and became the ancestress of the great King David 
(1 4, 22; 2 2, 6, 10, 22; 45, 10,11). This suggests that the 





791 A NEW STANDARD 


story of this mixed marriage is told as a protest 
against the drastic reforms of Ezra (Ezra chs. 9-10) 
and Nehemiah (Neh 10 30, 13 23 #.). 

The postexilic origin of the book is shown by the 
following facts: (1) Its place in the Heb. Bible 
among the K¢thibhim, or ‘Writings,’ in the third 
collection of the Canon; and not among the ‘Former 
Prophets,’ or early histories, where it was placed by 
the LX X., followed by the Vulg. and EV. (2) The 
dependence of the genealogy in 4 18-22 upon the 
Priestly Code of the Hexateuch (‘these are the gen- 
erations’; Ex 6 23; Nu 1 7, etc.) (3) The clan of 
Salmah (4 20; in v. 21 Salmon) did not come to 


SABACHTHANI, sa-bak’ fhe-nai. 
Exo, LAMA SABACHTHANI. 


SABAOTH, sab’i-efh. See Hosts. 


SABBATH: 1. Name. The weekly rest-day of the 
Hebrews. Its name (shabbath, X&éBGatov, from shd- 
bhath, ‘to break off,’ ‘to desist’ [the derivation from 
shebha‘, ‘seven,’ is illusory] indicates its original 
nature to have been that of a time of cessation from 
work. But comparison with the Assyr. sabaitu 
or Sapattu shows a different and more primitive 
root, whose exact significance is not very clear. 

2. Day of Sacred Rest. In the Biblical accounts of 
the institution of the Sabbath, two grounds are given 
for it in the two versions of the Decalog. The first 
(P) associates it with the creation of the world, and 
the example of the Creator as He completed His 
work in six days and rested on the seventh (Ex 20 
11); the second (Dt) bases the day upon the deliver- 
ance from Egypt (‘therefore Jehovah thy God com- 
manded thee to keep the Sabbath day,’ Dt 5 12 f.). 
In other portions of the legislation characteristic 
differences appear. In JE the notion of refreshment 
and recuperation lies at the foundation of, or at least 
accompanies the Sabbath idea (Ex 2312). But every- 
where the fundamental conception is that of cessa- 
tion from labor, and the slight difference in the 
different codes as to the kind of labor, whether agri- 
cultural or commercial, to be abstained from on the 
Sabbath can not be pressed profitably. And yet, 
mere cessation from labor does not exhaust the idea 
of the Sabbath. It is not to serve solely as a con- 
venience for man. It has a religious significance 
as well. It is a holy day. In the Decalog this 
aspect of it is put into the foreground. It is to be 
hallowed to J’. The pith of the idea is then the con- 
secration of time to God. It stands parallel to the 
consecration of places, the setting up of shrines to 
J’, and the offering up of gifts, sacrifices, or victims 
hallowed by their devotion to Him. 

3. Origin of the Sabbath. This conception of it 
holds true only of the fully developed institution as 
defined in the codes. As to its origin, it has been 
held that the lunar month, with its convenient sub- 
division into four parts by the successive phases of 
the moon, first furnished the seven-day period as the 
unit for the sanctification of time and separation 
from labor. But more recent researches, while still 


See Exot, 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Ruby 
Sabbath 


dwell in the vicinity of Bethlehem until after the 
exile (I Ch 2 11, 51, 54). (4) The phrase with which the 
book opens: ‘And it came to pass in the days when 
the judges judged,’ points to a time long after the 
age of the Judges, when the period had come to be 
regarded as a closed whole. This conception shows 
knowledge of our canonical Book of Judges which 
was composed during the exile. (5) The custom of 
loosing the sandal in connection with the levirate 
marriage is mentioned in 47 as an ancient practise 
that had gone out of use in the author’s time, but 
it was still in existence when Deuteronomy was 
written (c. 650 B.c.; Dt 259), in Be. 


_ showing the lunar period to be at the foundation, do 


not bear out the idea of the original fourfold subdi- 

vision of the month according to the moon’s phases. 

Among the Assyrians it appears that the one day 

positively known to have been called Sa-bat-tu is the 

15th reckoned to be that of the moon at the full. Ac- 

cordingly, Meinhold (Sab. u. Woche im A T, 1905) 

contends that the Sabbath originated with the fes- 

tival of the full moon. But Sa-bat-tu and Sabbath 

are not the same, and the conjecture that the first 

is the older form is not corroborated by outside con- 

siderations. The question then still remains as to 

how the observance of the full moon as a festival day 

was in itself the result of the recurrent seven-day, 

Sabbath. In the reign of Asshurbanipal the 7th 

14th, 19th, 21st, and 28th days of each month were 

designated ‘abstinence days,’ 7.e., days to be avoided 
in the performance of certain transactions. But the 
observance of these days does not seem to have any 
vital connection with the Hebrew Sabbath. The 
data are not sufficient to warrant a final judgment; 
but, upon the whole, it appears probable that the 
Assyrian abstinence days and the Hebrew Sabbath! 
are both derived from some more primitive moon 
period to which religious significance was attached; 

and that the Assyrian usage either maintained it in 
its cruder form or allowed it to fall into a still cruder 

one, whereas the Hebrew characteristically purified, 

spiritualized, and settled it into the Biblical Sab- 

bath, 7.e., an institution expressive of the monotheis- 

tic religious idea and a strong help to the cultivation 

of a pure religious life. On the other hand, a crude 

primitive Sabbath, either among Semitic peoples or 

mankind in general, may be the root and beginning 

of the Biblical institution, even tho its primitive 

object were not that of a day of rest and worship. 


4. The Sabbath in the History of Israel. With the 
elaboration of the ceremonial system in the Penta- 
teuchal code, the Sabbath was also made the subject 
of minute restrictions. Some of these passed out of 
the region of strict religion, and are merely legal and 
disciplinary (Ex 16 23-30, 31 12-17, 35 1-3; Nu 15 32-36). 
To speak more accurately, these are not void of re- 
ligious value, but only indirectly religious, 7.e., as 
they influenced the Israelites toward a steadier and 
more systematic expression of the spiritual life. 
Other provisions, however, are designed to afford a 


Sabbath 
Sacrifice 





more direct and uninterrupted opportunity for the 
cultivation of personal religion. At the same time 
they contain a more humanitarian regard for the 
refreshment and recuperation from the curse and 
fatigue of sustained relentless toil (Lv 23 3f.). The 
contention that the Sabbath is a comparatively late 
development in Hebrew history (Meinhold makes 
it postexilic) is rendered impossible by the uniform- 
ity of the tradition which traces the observance of the 
day as far back as the period of the Exodus (Ex 16 
23 f.). To say nothing of its incorporation in the 
Decalog, it certainly appears in historical records of 
the 9th cent. B.c. (II K 4 23), and is associated with 
the new-moon festival in the preexilic literature (Is 
113; Hos 211; Am 8&5). But it may be mentioned as a 
singular fact that the Sabbath is never alluded to in 
the Psalms (except in the title of the 92d), or in Job 
and Proverbs. It is also ignored in the Deutero- 
nomic legislation after its mention in the Decalog 
(5 12- 15). By Ezekiel it is alluded to as ‘Jehovah’s 
day’ (20 12 £., 22 8, 23 38, 44 24). One of the signs of a 
revival of national life after the Exile was the en- 
forcement of the Sabbath laws by Nehemiah (Neh 
10 31, 13 15 #.). In the Maccabean struggle the ob- 
servance of the Sabbath became the badge of dis- 
tinction between the faithful and the lukewarm. 
From I Mac 2 39-41 (Jos. Ani. XII, 2), it appears that 
the literal obedience to the Law was carried to such 
an extreme as to prove a source of great danger to 
the faithful. These refused even to defend themselves 
against attacks of armed enemies on the Sabbath 
day; and as advantage was taken of the fact by 
the [Syrian officials, Mattathias issued a declara- 
tion to the effect that it was lawful to engage in war- 
fare on the Sabbath, if necessary. 


5. Sabbaths. The use of the word in the plural 
arose in the later period and points to the inclusion 
of several other days besides the weekly, or seventh, 
day. How early this was done does not clearly ap- 
pear. The first day of the lunar period was observed 
as a Sabbath (cf. New Moon). The first and last 
days of the Feast of Tabernacles, the Day of Atone- 
ment, and the first and last days of the Passover 
were Sabbaths. The seventh year (Lv 25 1-7; ef. 
SABBATICAL YEAR) and the Year of Jubilee, or Year 
of Release, which closed a period of seven Sab- 
batical years, were also regarded in their entirety as 
Sabbaths. See also on §§ 1-5 Fasrs anp Frasts, § 6. 


6. Jesus on the Sabbath. In the hands of the 
Rabbis, the few laws of the O T on the subject 
became the nucleus of an elaborate system covering 
two large divisions of the Talmud (Shabbat and 
Erubin). Yet it was conceded that to do good, even 
when it required hard work, was lawful. The bur- 
densomeness of these prescriptions furnishes the 
occasion for the apparently new departure of Jesus 
and His.insistence that it should be a means of all 
sorts of good to men, and that it fulfilled its purpose 
only as it was made such a means of good. ‘The 
Sabbath was made for man’ (Mk 2 27). Consistently 
with this notion, the custom of meeting in synagogs 
for the purpose of hearing the Law and the Prophets 
read and expounded was followed by Him and His 
disciples (Mk 1 21; Lk 4 16 f., 13 10 £.), thus giving 
rise to services of worship on the Sabbath Day in 


4 NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


T92 





the Christian Church (Ac 13 14, 15 21, 17 2). On the 
other hand, the overburdening of the day with 
countless restrictions He denounced as contrary to 
the intention of the institution. 

7. The Christian Sabbath. When Christianity 
was established as a distinct faith, its adherents, fol- 
lowing the example of Jesus, observed the Sabbath 
with the evident intention of using it as a means of 
spiritual edification. At the same time, the custom 
arose among them of meeting on the first day of the 
week in commemoration of the Master’s resurrection 
(Ac 207; I Co 16 2). This was called the Lord’s Day 
(Rev 110). Fora time, the two days were observed 
together, but for very distinct and different reasons. 
They were not rival or antagonistic to each other, 
neither was the Lord’s Day substituted for the 
Sabbath. And yet it was inevitable, as Christianity 
became more and more clearly differentiated from 
Judaism, that two days so nearly alike in purpose 
should be unified and assimilated. This took place | 
in the early years of the 4th cent. of the Christian 
era when the ideal Sabbath of Jesus was identified 
with the Lord’s Day, and the Jewish Sabbath fell 
into disuse, and the conviction grew that it had been 
abrogated. For theories as to the Heb. Sabbath see 
Driver’s Genesis (Westminster Com.) and Exodus 
(Camb. Bible), and Skinner’s Genesis (JCC). Also 
cf. Hessey, Sunday, Its Origin and Present Obliga- 
tion (1889). A. C. Z. 


SABBATH DAY’S JOURNEY. See Wxiauts anp 
Mrasurgs, § 2. 


SABBATICAL YEAR. In the old legislation in E 
a sabbatic significance was attached to every seventh 
year (cf. Ex 21 2-7, 23 10). This is confirmed and ex- 
panded in the code of Dt (cf. Dt 15 1-6, 12-18), and 
still further emphasized in the legislation of P 
(cf. Liv 25 1-7, 18-22, 26 34, 43). The Jubilee-year—the 
year after each cycle of 7 Sabbatic years—was a 
further extension and application of the same prin- 
ciple (cf. Lv 25 8-17, 23 f.). There is no instance of the 
actual observance of either the Sabbatical or the 
Jubilee year in the O T, tho Jer 34 6 ff. is evidence 
that the law of release of servants was known. The 
Sabbatic year was more strictly observed in the 
Greek and Roman periods as is evident from allu- 
sions to it in Josephus (Ané. III 12 3, XIII 81, XIV 
10 4-6, XV 1 2; cf. also T Mac 653). See also Fasts 
AND Frasts, § 6. EH. E. N. 

SABEANS, sa-bi’anz (82Y, shebha’, Job 1 15; 
O’S3Y, shebha’im ‘men of Sheba,’ J138 RV; N29, 
sbha@’, Is 45 14; O'S2D, sebha@’im, Ezk 23 42, Qrré, 
‘drunkards’ RV): The last of these Heb. words is a 
reading introduced by the Massoretes and no part of 
the primitive text, which reads as rendered by the 
RV. As to the other two terms, their resemblance in 
sound has occasioned some confusion in the sources 
and consequent division of opinion concerning their 
exact meaning. It seems probable, however, that 
the etymological difficulty of identifying s*bha’ with 
shbha@’, tho not amounting to an impossibility, is 
very great and that the solution of the problem must 
be sought in connecting Seba (s*bha’) with the son 
of Cush (Gn 107; I Ch 1 9) and locating the country 
and people in Africa in the neighborhood of Ethiopia. 





793 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sabbath 
Sacrifice 





Sheba (sh*bha@’), on the other hand, is called in Gn 
10 28, ‘the son of Joktan’ and in Gn 25 3, ‘the son of 
Jokshan.’ These two designations are manifestly 
slightly variant ways of describing the same rela- 
tionship. Sheba was accordingly a Semitic people 
and more particularly belonged to the Keturah 
group of Arabian tribes It was located in 8. Arabia 
and is to be identified with the Sabeans of that 
territory, who have left abundant traces of a unique 
civilization and a great empire (see Glaser, Skizze 
der Geschichte und Geographie Arabiens, 1890). In 
the O T Sheba and the Sabeans are known as a 
nation of merchants. Their ‘caravans’ (Job 6 19) 
brought gold, precious stones, and spices from their 
own country and other merchandise secured from 
more distant lands (e.g., India and Africa, Ezk 
27 22 ff.; Ps 7210). It seems further that they dealt 
in slaves also (J13 8). The glory of the Sabean Em- 
pire was still impressive when the Queen of Sheba 
(q.v.) made a visit of state to the court of Solomon 
in Jerusalem (I K 10 1-13). See also Aras; and 
ETHNOGRAPHY AND Ernnowoey, §§ 11,138. A.C. Z. 


SABTA, sab’ta, SABTAH, sab’ta (920, sabhia’ 
and M30, sabhiah): A son of Cush (I Ch1 9; Gn 
10 7). See EraHnoGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. 


SABTECA, sab’ti-ka (82920, sabhtkha’, Sab- 
techa AV): A son of Cush (Gn 107). See Eruno- 
GRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, § 13. 


SACAR, sé’kar (19, sdkhar): 1. A Hararite, the 
father of Ahiam, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 35 
=Sharar the Ararite, IT S 23 33). 2. A son of Obed- 


edom and the eponymous ancestor of a family of 
doorkeepers (I Ch 26 4). LO Ah ed by 


SACK: A bag made from a coarse fabric of goat’s 
or camel’s hair, and used for transporting grain and 
other goods. The word occurs especially in the ac- 
count of the visit of Joseph’s brothers to Egyrt. 
In the J narrative ’amtahath is used and nowhere else 
in the O T (Gn 42 27b, 28, 43 12, 18, 21, 23, 441, 2, 8, 
11, 12). E uses saq (Gn 42 25, 27a, 35; cf. Lv 11 32; 
Jos 9 4), and kelt occurs in Gn 42 25 as parallel to sag. 

C. 8. T. 

SACKBUT. See Music anp Musicau Instru- 
MENTS, § 3 (5). 

SACKCLOTH. See Mourninec anp Mourn- 
InG Customs, § 1. 


SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS: 1. Usage of 
Terms. The term ‘sacrifice’ is used in EV with ex- 
treme latitude It denotes everything brought to the 
altars of God. Its synonyms offering and oblation, 
tho also used with a measure of elasticity, have more 
specific meanings. The first is practically limited to 
the designation of the gifts of flour-cakes, or other 
bloodless offerings (minhdah, ‘gift,’ ‘tribute’; teramdah, 
lifted up,’ ‘contribution’; gorbén, ‘means of ap- 
proach’; xeocpoeé, 3He0v). The second, so far as it 
is not a strict equivalent of the first, passes outside 
the limits of ritual usage, and is applied to gifts of all 
descriptions (cf. Nu 7 3, etc.; Ex 35 22, 24, etc.). Of 
the O T terms: (1) zebhah, ‘slaughter,’ is the one used 
in the vast majority of instances, both as a verb and 
as a noun; but as all eating of flesh was primitively 
sacrificial, ‘slaughter’ was the equivalent of ‘sacri- 


fice.’ Other words used are (2) minhdh, ‘gift’ (‘obla- 
tion’ in I K 18 29, 36 RV; Ezr 94f. RV; Ps 141 2 RV- 
mg.); (3) hagh (Ex 23 18; Ps 118 27; Is 291, ‘feasts’ 
RV); (4) ’ishsheh, ‘fire-offering’ (Nu 28 2-24, 29 6, 13; 
Jos 13 14; cf. § 7, below); (5) ‘ash, ‘to make [sacri- 
fice]’) (Liv 23 19; II K 17 32). The N T usage is limited 
to the single term 6dety, ‘to kill,’ and its derivative 
Quote, ‘slaughter,’ z.e., for sacrifice. 

2. Definition In general, sacrifice is an offering 
made to God with the design of expressing, securing, 
or promoting friendly or normal relations with Him. 
It is based on the fundamental assumption that the 
worshiper and God are capable of holding personal 
relations, which may become closer and more inti- 
mate, or else hostile and more strained, which may, 
in fact, be broken by failure on the part of the wor- 


shiper to conform to God’s will. 


3. Sacrifice in Ethnic Religions. Outside of the 
Bible, sacrifice is found to be a universal element of 
worship. Within the circle of nations around Israel, 
there are from the beginning abundant traces of 
special forms and prescriptions on the subject. The 
relation of these to the system which prevailed in 
Israel may be variously viewed as that of dependence 
of one upon the other, or dependence of both upon 
common earlier forms. If the first of these views be 
assumed as true, the heathen sacrifices are: (1) 
either degradations of Israelite practise, or remnants 
of a primitive revelation which became obscured, or 
(2) conversely, Israel derived its system from the 
heathen. The first of these two possibilities is based 
upon precarious foundations, and for the second 
there is no evidence. If, however, both Israelite and 
non-Israelite sacrificial practise go back to more 
primitive forms, the essential idea of it might be: 
(1) the pure expression of homage; but this could be 
true only where a very high degree of appreciation 
of God’s character as a righteous ruler prevailed, 
and such is not the case among primitive peoples; 
or it might be (2) a propitiatory gift; but if so, it is 
very difficult to understand in what sense some 
features of sacrifice, such as the pouring of blood 
on or around the altar, could be considered a desir- 
able gift by the deity; or (8) sacrifice might be a 
means of expiation, in which case its chief feature is 
the death of the victim representing the death or 
punishment of the worshiper. The worshiper in 
such a case recognizes in the act his own sinfulness 
and the justice of God’s wrath (cf. S. Ives Curtiss, 
Primitive Relig. Tradition To-day, 1902). This view, 
however, does not account for the many forms of 
sacrifice in which the sacrificial materials are taken 
from the vegetable kingdom. (4) But sacrifice may 
be a recognition, either plain or sacramental, of the 
household or tribal unity of the worshiper and his 
God. In its symbolical or sacramental form, this 
view assumes the development of a mystical senti- 
ment, too elaborate to be natural among primitive 
races. In its direct and plain form it assumes the 
presence and participation of the god in a common 
meal. That such presence was firmly believed in by 
primitive races has been proved by W. Robertson 
Smith (Religion of the Semites, 21894, p. 269 f.) and 
Wellhausen (Skizz. u. Vorb., 21897). The root, then, 
of sacrificial practise from which Hebrew and 


Sacrifice 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


G94 





heathen forms issued is the table-bond between the 
worshiper and his god. In the notion of such a bond 
all the other ideas, expiatory, propitiatory, and 
tributary, are germinally present. But the typical 
table-communion significance of sacrifice appears 
nowhere in its purity in the O T. It belongs to a 
stage antecedent to that pictured in the Mosaic 
codes. How clearly it was present in the conscious- 
ness of the Israelite of the later period, it is impos- 
sible to say. There is no doubt, however, that 
in human relationships a common meal was con- 
ceived of as cementing alliances and constituting a 
bond and a pledge of common friendship; and, in the 
covenant sacrifice on Sinai (Ex 24 5 ff.), as well as in 
the Passover festival (Ex 123 f.), there is an un- 
mistakable occurrence of the same idea (cf. Ps 50 5). 


4. Kinds of Sacrifice. In the Mosaic legislation, 
sacrifices are broadly distinguished as of two kinds, 
according to the class of products offered, 7.e., the 
vegetable and the animal (bloodless and bloody). 
To these may be added a third, consisting of liquid 
offerings (‘drink-offerings’), and a fourth, whose 
virtue lies in the still subtler element of fragrance 
(‘incense-offering’). In their fully developed form, 
these sacrifices are best given in P, representing the 
practise in any case of the second Temple. 

5. Animal Sacrifices: Selection of Victims. The 
selection of victims for animal sacrifices was not left 
to individual predilection, but determined by some 
very definite principles. (1) Animal victims must 
be of the clean class; and in this class choice was 
limited to cattle (bullock, ox, cow, heifer, goat, kid, 
ram, lamb, calf), and certain birds (pigeon and tur- 
tle-dove). (2) They must be perfect or without 
blemish (Dt 15 21, 17 1; Lv 22 19-25). This qualifica- 
tion excludes specifically the blind, the broken, the 
maimed, the ulcerous, the scurvied, the scabbed, the 
bruised, the crushed, and the castrated. All these 
defects are defined as blemishes. (3) As to age in 
general, no victim could be accepted before the lapse 
of seven days from its birth (Lv 22 27). The first- 
born were all to be redeemed under a year of age 
(Ex 13 15). The passover lamb, the victims in the 
burnt-offering, sin-offering, peace-offering, must be 
more than one year old (Ex 12 5; Lv 9 3, 12 6; Nu 
6 12, 14, 7 15, 23, 15 27). (4) In the case of the red 
heifer, whose ashes were to be used in mixing the 
water of purification, she must have done no work 
nor borne any yoke (Nu 191-10; Dt 213 f.). (5) All 
victims must be the lawful property of the offerer 
(II S 24 24). 


6. Classes of Animal Sacrifices: Burnt Offering. 
As to purpose and meaning, animal sacrifices are 
distinguished as burnt-offering, sin-offering, peace- 
offering, and guilt-offering. The burnt-offering 
(‘olah, Lv 6 8 £.; Ex 29 38-42; Nu 28 3 £., etc.) was the 
most general of all sacrifices. It certainly antedates 
all the others, and was more generally practised by 
Semitic peoples. The victims of this sacrifice were 
to be taken from the herd or flock, in exceptional 
cases from among the birds. If from the herd or 
flock, the animal must be a male. The ritual involved 
the laying on of the hands of the offerer, the killing of 
the victim at the door of the sanctuary to the north 
of the altar, the flaying and cutting of the body, the 


washing of the entrails and legs, the sprinkling of 
the blood, and the burning of the whole victim on 
the altar. It was the sacrifice that accompanied the 
morning and evening worship of the people as a 
rule, and characterized special occasions of great 
importance. Its significance, adoration, is expressive 
of a normal or ideal relationship to God. 


7. Fire-Offering. The special class of burnt-offer- 
ings offered daily was called ‘the continual burnt- 
offering’ (tamidh, Nu 28 6), because it was repeated 
morning and evening. ‘This, however, was also 
known as ‘an offering made by fire’ (ishsheh, Nu 
28 6 ff., ‘sacrifice by fire’ AV). But either this 
variety differed from the ordinary burnt-offering 
(‘olah) in being partly consumed by the priest, or else 
the name is more broadly used of sacrifices any por- 
tion of which was burned on the altar. 

8. Sin-Offering. The sin-offering (hail@’th, Lv 
41ff., 814) was expiatory in its character, and the vic- 
tim was different according to to the person or per- 
sons in whose behalf it was offered. (a) For a ruler 
the victim was a he-goat. (b) For an ordinary person 
it was a she-goat, a ewe lamb, a turtle-dove, or a 
young pigeon, or even a meal-offering. (c) For a 
priest or a Levite at the time of installation (Nu 8 8) 
and (d) for the whole congregation it was a bullock 
and a he-goat. (e) On the Day of Atonement, for 
the high priest a bullock was offered, and for the 
people two he-goats. The ritual of the sin-offering 
included the laying on of hands, the confession of the 
offense, the killing of the victim by the offerer, or, in 
the case of the congregation, by the representatives 
of the congregation, the sprinkling of the blood 
before the veil, the smearing of it on the horns of the 
altar, and the pouring of the remainder at the base of 
the altar, and the disposition of the body. This latter 
was divided into three parts: one, consisting of the 
fat, defined as ‘J’”’s portion,’ was burned on the altar; 
a second, consisting of the skin and entrails, was 
burned without the camp; and the third, consisting 
of the remaining flesh of the victim, was the priests’ 
portion, and appropriated by them, unless the sacri- 
fice was in their behalf, in which case it was burned 
without the camp. The design of the sin-offering was 
the ‘covering’ or removal of minor sins (sins of ignor- 
ance, Lv ch. 4; Nu ch. 15, ‘in error’ RV). 

9. The Guilt-Offering. The guilt-offering (tres- 
pass-offering AV) (ashadm, Lv 5, 7 1-10) was like the 
sin-offering in general meaning and nature. Its 
occasion was more specifically an unwitting trans- 
gression of the ordinances of God in respect of holy 
things or of the rights of property (Lv 61 #.). The 
sacrifice consisted of the offering of a ram, supple- 
mented by the addition of a fine, or pecuniary com- 
pensation, in the case of damage done to one’s 
neighbor. The amount of reparation was computed 
according to the loss in value sustained by the in- 
jured party, plus 20 per cent. (one-fifth) for the 
priest. 

10. The Peace-Offering. The peace-offering 
(shelem or zebhah sh‘lamim, Lv 3, 7 11 f.) expressed 
general friendly relation with God, and not merely 
the celebration of the restoration of a broken peace, 
as the name might be superficially interpreted. There 
are three varieties of it described. (a) The thank- 





795 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sacrifice 





offering, (b) the vow-offering, (c) the free-will 
offering. In all these, however, God is recognized 
as the bestower of blessing. In the first, the blessing 
is a thing of the past. The sacrifice simply signifies 
its acceptance. In the second, it is looked upon as 
still in the future and greatly desired by the wor- 
shiper, who makes his offering as an expression of 
loyalty and a condition for the bestowment of the 
blessing. In the third, the function of the offering 
was auxiliary to the prayer, rather than a condition 
for the reception of the blessing. Victims for the 
peace-offering were selected, either from the herd 
or the flock, and might be male or female, but in 
either case without blemish. The animal victim was 
to be accompanied by an oblation of a meal-offering 
with oil. Inthe variety known as the thank-offering 
the ritual included, as in the burnt-offering, the lay- 
ing on of hands, killing the victim, and sprinkling the 
blood; but in the disposition of the sacrificial material 
it differed. The body of the victim was in this case 
divided into three portions. The first was J’’’s por- 
tion, and consisted of the fat which covered the 
inward parts, the tail entire, the two kidneys, and 
the ‘caul upon the liver.’ All these were burned upon 
the altar. The blood which was sprinkled around 
the altar was also a part of J’’s portion. The second 
portion was the priests’. It consisted of the right 
shoulder and breast of the victim as a ‘wave~’ and a 
‘heave-offering’ respectively (cf. § 11, below). The 
third part was the worshiper’s portion, and con- 
sisted of all that was left of the victim. If the sacri- 
fice was a thank-offering, all these parts must be used 
on the day of the sacrifice; if a free-will or vow-offer- 
ing, they must be used on the second day. Any 
portion of them remaining until the third day would 
render a sacrifice invalid, which was then called an 
‘abomination.’ Hence, if the victim could not all 
be consumed at the sacrificial banquet, what was 
left of it must be burned ‘without the camp.’ 


11. Wave-and Heave-Offerings. Theterms‘wave- 
offering’ and ‘heave-offering’ are applied to the 
priests’ portion, and denote a peculiar ceremony 
consisting in the holding of the right shoulder of the 
victim horizontally and moving it forward toward 
the altar and backward away from the altar, in order 
to signify that the part was J’”’s, but was given back 
to the priests by Him. Similarly, the term ‘heave- 
offering’ signifies the moving of the breast of the 
animal upward and then downward, in token of pre- 
senting it to God as His and receiving it again as a 
gift from Him. 


12. Vegetable-Offerings. The Meal-Offering. Of 
vegetable-offerings, there were chiefly two, the ‘meal- 
offering’ and ‘showbread.’ Of the meal-offering 
(minhah, meat-offering AV, Lv ch. 2, etc.), it has 
been contended that this was never an independent 
sacrifice, but always an accompaniment and adjunct 
of an animal, or bloody, sacrifice. But this view can 
be maintained only upon a priori grounds. Three 
varieties of the meal-offering are described: The first 
consists in the offering of a simple unbaked fine 
flour; the second, of baked cakes or loaves; and the 
third, of parched ears of corn. In the first form, oil 
was mixed with the flour and salt, and frankincense 
put upon it (Lv 2 15). The ritual of the offering 


included the presentation of the materials before J’’, 
the burning of a handful upon the altar with frankin- 
cense, and the eating of the remainder by the priests, 
never by the worshiper; therefore, when the wor- 
shiper was a priest, no part of it could be eaten, but 
all must be burned. The cakes of the meal-offering 
must be made without leaven, for leayen, as the em- 
blem of fermentation, was unholy. Honey was 
excluded from sacrifices for a similar reason. Altho 
the meal-offering might be presented as a complete 
sacrifice under stress of necessity (because of the 
poverty of the worshiper), usually it was an adjunct 
of a peace- or burnt-offering, neither of which was 
complete without it (Nu chs. 15, 28, 29). A special 
variety of the meal-offering was the oblation pre- 
scribed for cases in which a husband, suspicious of 
infidelity on the part of his wife (jealous), brought 
her to the priest with ‘the tenth of an ephah of barley- 
meal.’ A handful of this was then burned upon the 
altar, while, through an elaborate ritual including the 
use of the water of jealousy (water of bitterness RV), 
the woman was given an opportunity of swearing 
to her innocence and presumably proving it (Nu 
5 14-31). 

13. The Showbread. The two ways of naming 
the showbread (‘in Ex 25 30, 35 13, 39 36, lehem panim, 
‘bread of faces,’ ‘presence bread’ RVmg.; also called 
ma‘arekheth, ‘pile bread,’ or ‘bread of arrangement,’ 
Ly 245 #.; II Ch 2 4; and lehem hattaémidh, ‘continual 
bread,’ Nu 47) are quite different in their implica- 
tion; the first has reference to the fact of its being 
brought into the presence of J’’, the second to the 
manner of its exhibition before Him (so as to indi- 
cate its significance). These two modes of naming 
are perpetuated in the LXX. and the Vulgate. The 
showbread consisted of twelve loaves of unleavened 
bread, each one made of one-fifth of an ephah of fine 
flour. They were laid upon a table (see TEMPLE, § 15) 
in the Holy Place, one upon another, in two columns 
(six in each). They were allowed to remain there for 
a whole week, at the end of which period they were 
removed and eaten by the priest upon holy ground, 
1.e., within the precincts of the sanctuary. For other 
persons than priests to eat of the loaves of the show- 
bread. was regarded sacrilegious (I S 21 4 f.; Mt 12 4), 
for they were ‘holy’ (hallowed hread’ AV). The 
offering of the showbread does not appear to have 
been an exclusively Israelitic one, tho the citation of 
the Greek and Roman lectisternia as parallels is 
scarcely admissible. The O T itself furnishes traces 
of the practise of making the bread to be used in 
idolatrous worship for the Queen of Heaven (Jer 
7 18), and the Babylonian inscriptions speak of 
loaves of sweet, or unleavened, bread presented upon 
altars or tables set before the gods. These loaves 
numbered at times as many as three times twelve 
(Zimmern, Beitr. z. Kenntn. d. Bab. Rel. 1901). 
This number was probably astronomical in its origin 
and significance. Its relation to the Israelitic num- 
ber of loaves is obscure. If the twelve loaves of the 
showbread were at one time connected with the 
three times twelve loaves of the Babylonian bread- 
offering, the connection was certainly broken before 
the formation of the Code, where the number twelve 
is made to represent the twelve tribes of Israel (Lv 


Sacrifice 


A NHW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


796 





24 8). The significance of such offerings among the 
non-Israelitic peoples is no doubt to be found in the 
thought that the gods were participants at the tables 
set before them. In Israel, by a characteristic 
purification and spiritualization, the showbread was 
made to mean the recognition of God’s being the 
source and origin of the nourishment that sustains 
and strengthens the worshiper. In history, the first 
mention of the showbread is in connection with 
David’s experience at Nob. At this place there was a 
sanctuary of J’’, and David and his young men were 
allowed to satisfy their hunger with the hallowed 
bread upon condition that they were ceremonially 
clean (IS 216). After this, the showbread is referred 
to again in connection with the construction of the 
Temple of Solomon, in which a special table overlaid 
with gold (‘of gold’) was provided for it (I K 7 48). 
In the second Temple a provision was made for the 
maintenance of the showbread, together with other 
sacrifices, through a tax levied for that end (Neh 
10 33). The table of showbread is said to have been 
carried away from the Temple by Antiochus Epi- 
phanes (I Mac 1 22) when he entered Jerusalem and 
stripped the Holy Place of its treasures. It was 
replaced with a new one by Judas Maccabeus 
(I Mac 4 49). With the destruction of Herod’s Tem- 
ple by Titus, it was taken along with other things 
as a trophy to Rome, and its image appears on the 
Arch of Titus in the representation of the triumphal 
procession. 


14, Libations or Drink-Offerings. Drink-ofifer- 
ings (nesekh) appear in the ritual as accompaniments 
of the burnt-offerings, never as independent sacri- 
fices. The chief substance to be used was wine (Ex 
29 40 f.; Nu 28 7). Mention is also made of the 
broth of the boiled or seethed flesh (Jg 6 19 £.; Is 65 4). 
No ritual is specified in the legislation, but, from 
Sir 50 15, it appears that the offering was poured at 
the base of the altar. According to the Talmud 
(Suk. 49, 51), drink-offerings were made on the oc- 
casion of the Feast of Tabernacles. But this offering 
consisted of water, and the time for it was the morn- 
ing of each of the seven days of the feast and, more 
precisely, the hour of the burnt-offering. From this 
it appears that it was meant to be a counterpart of 
the libation of wine. A unique water-libation is 
named in I § 7 6; but neither its particular signifi- 
cance nor its place in the ritual system is given. 


15. Savor-Offerings. Of offerings of fragrance or 
odor, incense is the most striking. Some have sup- 
posed that the requirement of fresh showbread every 
week was meant, at least partly, as a savor-offering, 
since when the bread became stale and lost its 
fragrance its value as an offering was gone, and fresh 
loaves must be substituted. But this is fanciful. As 
to the use of incense, there is no doubt that it has 
played a large part in forms of worship in general. 
In Biblical usage, however, a distinction is made 
between incense and frankincense (q*tdreth and 
lebhénah). The first of these is more strictly sacri- 
ficial smoke, and does not necessarily represent the 
fragrance of any particular substance. The second 
is primarily the smoke made by the burning of the 
incense gum, then the gum itself. It is probable that 
in the earlier period the burning of incense was 


unknown in the service of J’’, that it was even against 
the law which required that J’’ should be honored 
only with the products of His own chosen land, and 
that from other lands He would accept, not their 
products, but their money. At all events, in the 
historical books there is no clear case of the offering 
of incense in the worship of J’’; the prophets rather 
discourage and rebuke it as useless or as associated 
with idolatry (II Ch 34 25; Jer 6 20, 48 35). But in 
the legislation as completed in P, incense finds a 
clear and prominent place. The substance itself, so 
called in this Code, is a mixture of several odori- 
ferous vegetable products (opobalsamum, onycha, 
galbanum, and pure frankincense) in equal portions, 
together with some salt. Only when thus mixed could 
frankincense be used in sacrifice. Incense, however, 
was used also as a perfume in luxurious living (Song 
3 6, 4 6,14), and was regarded as a sign of wealth and 
self-indulgence (Mt 211; Rev 1813). See OINTMENTS 
AND PrerRFuMBsS, § 2. In the sacrificial system it was 
burned upon a special altar, called the Altar of In- 
cense, which was situated just before the Most Holy 
Place (cf. TABERNACLE, § 3; and TuMmptisz, § 23). 
On the Day of Atonement the high priest took a 
censer with burning incense into the Most Holy 
Place (Lv 16 12 f.). Thesymbolical significance of 
the fragrance of incense, as far as defined, was that 
of prayer (Ps 141 2; Rev 8 3f.). In N T times 
mention is made of incense in Lk 1 10. 


16. Sacrificial Acts. Sacrificial acts were either 
(1) primary or (2) mediate. The primary carried 
the notion of the sacrifice itself; the mediate were 
necessary means for the completion of the primary. 
The mediate acts included the washing (Ly 1 9) of 
certain portions of the sacrificial victim, the flaying 
of the animals (the burnt-offering, Lv 1 6), the dip- 
ping of his finger by the priest in the blood, for the 
purpose of sprinkling (Lv 4 6), and the various ways 
of preparing the flesh of the victim, in order that it 
might be eaten (roasting of the passover lamb, Ex 
12 8; seething, boiling RV, of the consecration lamb 
in the service of the consecration of the priests, 
Ex 29 31).1 Soaking with oil (fried, Lv, 7 12 AV) of 
the wheaten cakes of flour in the meal-offering was 
also one of the mediate sacrificial acts. The killing 
of the victim in all animal sacrifices has long been 
held to be a primary sacrificial act. There is no evi- 
dence, however, to show that it was at first, or during 
the O T period, regarded as anything more than a 
means of securing the blood, which was considered 
to be the life of the animal (cf. BLoop). If this view — 
of it be correct, it must be classified with the mediate 
sacrificial acts. Of the primary sacrificial acts, the 
most important are the laying on of hands (some- 
times with confession of sin, Lv 16 21), by which the 
worshiper symbolically signified his union with the 
victim, or his appropriation of it as a part of him- 
self (Liv 3 2, 8, 4 4), the sprinkling of the blood upon 
the altar and on the mercy-seat, in the case of the 
great sacrifice of the Day of Atonement (q.v.), or 
the pouring of it at the base of the altar, in token of 





1 Evidently this was also done in other connections, as 
appears from the violations of the law by the sons of Eli 
(I S 238), It was forbidden to seethe the kid in its mother’s 
milk (Ex 23 19=34 26; Dt 14 21), + 





797 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sacrifice 





the offering of the life of the victim and of the atone- 
ment or expiation of sin thereby (Lv 3 2, 16 14), the 
smearing of the blood on the horns of the altar, and 
the pouring of the remainder at its base were likewise 
signs of expiation (Lv 418). The act of burning was 
sometimes, as in the case of the incense-offering, a 
mere means toward an end, 7.e., it was designed to 
secure the odor, which was the real sacrifice; but in 
the case of the sacrifices strictly so called, it was 
probably the very act in which the connection of the 
sacrificed animal with God was symbolized. 


17. Offerings and Oblations. Apart from the 
strict technical sense of the word offering (or obla- 
tion) as it occurs in the expressions, burnt-offering, 
peace-offering, etc., and the still more specific sense 
in heave-offering (trimdh), and wave-offering 
(tenaiphah), and meal-offering (minhdh), there are 
two special senses in which the term is used. (1) The 
fire-offering (ishsheh, ‘offering made by fire,’ Ex 
29 41) signified a sacrifice, or portion of a sacrifice, 
whether animal or vegetable, consigned to the fire 
from the altar (Lv 19 #.; Dt 181; Jos 13 14; I S 2 28) 
to be consumed as a whole. Tho the act coalesces 
with the chief feature of the burnt-offering (‘dlah), 
the name is broader, and is applied to other sacrifices 
than the burnt-offering. (2) Corban, or offering in 
the narrower sense (gorbdn, ‘that which is brought 
near,’ ‘oblation’ RV, except in Ezk 20 28). The term 
is distinctive of Ezk and P, tho in the former it is 
used only twice (Ezk 20 28, 40 43). Its meaning is 
general. It is used either of sacrifices, in the stricter 
sense of the word, or of pure gifts (Lv 2 12; Nu 7 12, 
19, etc.) and in Neh 10 34, 13 31 with ‘wood’ of the 
‘wood-offering.’ By N T times, ‘corban’ had crys- 
tallized into a simple equivalent of sacrificial gifts. 

18. Non-Sacrificial Offerings: Gifts. Offerings 
which were not strictly sacrificial (gifts) were oc- 
casional, and not prescribed by the Law. The term 
gift, however, is, in the EVV, used with great latitude 
to denote also sacrificial gifts. Especially is this the 
case in the N T, where that which is brought to the 
altar is called déeov (‘gift,’ Mt 5 23f., 2318f.), but the 
term was also applied to contributions of money 
(Lk 211). In He especially, ‘gift? and ‘sacrifice’ 
are correlative and complementary terms. Together 
they constitute the offerings of the priest in the sanc- 
tuary (51,8 3f.,99). Exceptionally, things dedi- 
cated to the service of the sanctuary, but not offered 
as sacrifice, are further called gifts (I Ch 26 26; I K 
7 51, 15 15, etc.; Nu 7 84f. RVmg.). A wood-offering 
is further mentioned by Neh (10 34, 18 31), consisting 
of wood ‘to burn upon the altar of Jehovah,’ but 
tho this is said to be ‘as it is written in the Law,’ 
nothing more is known of such an offering. 

19. First-Fruits: Firstlings. In the O T the word 
‘gift? means simply a contribution to the equipment 
or support of the sanctuary. The most notable of 
this non-sacrificial type of gifts are the ‘first-fruits’ 
or ‘firstlings.’? The distinction between these two is 
simply that of the sphere from which they are drawn 
as vegetable or animal (field and garden on the one 
side, and flock or herd on the other). The law of first- 
fruits is given in successive forms, growing in fulness, 
in Ex 23 16, 34 22; Dt 18 4, fleece; Lv 23 10-14; Nu 
18 12-18. It may be reasonably questioned whether 


first-fruits and firstlings were dedicated to God, first 
as a tax, or as a sacrifice. Frazer (Golden Bough, 
II, pp. 68-90, and 373, 384) cites examples of both 
ideas. In any case, the offering was supposed to 
legalize the use of the remainder of the crop or brood 
by the owner, and its practical effect was the utiliza- 
tion of the offering as a tax, since such first-fruits 
and firstlings went for the support of the priesthood. 


20. Sacrifice in the N T. Attitude of Jesus. The 
birth of Jesus Christ was signalized by the offering 
of the customary sacrifice of purification (Lk 2 22). 
But in His life and ministry, He placed the sacrificial 
system as a whole in a very subordinate position. As 
a topic of direct teaching, in fact, He completely 
ignored it. He alludes to it only in order to illustrate 
some principle of deeper and inner importance (Mt 
5 23), or to rebuke the tendency to attach to its 
external acts and forms the significance rightly 
belonging to spiritual principles, especially the 
dominant affection of love to God (Mt 9 13, 12 7). 
As it was possible for the individual Israelite to go 
through life without being obliged to offer sacrifice 
for himself, even tho loyal to the O T, it is not easy 
to draw inferences from the silence of Jesus on the 
subject. As far as known, He never offered sacrifice. 
To what extent His conduct should be interpreted as 
a formal rupture with the sacrificial system, and how 
far, if at all, He regarded it of use, can not possibly 
be ascertained. It is certain, however, that by shift- 
ing the center of thought and practise from the 
outward to the inner sphere, Jesus effectively intro- 
duced a new view of religion, which was inevitably 
destined to result in the abrogation of the old system. 
His disciples evidently so understood his mind. 


21. Practise of the Apostolic Age. In the develop- 
ment of N T thought upon the basis of the life and 
teaching of Jesus, sacrifice gradually receded into the 
background. The teaching and practise of the 
Apostles laid less and less stress upon it, and the sys- 
tem was evidently allowed to fall into disuse, and 
finally to disappear entirely. The only case on 
record in the N T of the offering of sacrifice by early 
Christians is that of Paul in fulfilment of his Nazirite 
vow (Ac 21 26). 

22. The Work of Jesus Christ. This result was 
completely justified when it was realized that all the 
ideas embodied and expressed in the sacrificial sys- 
tem had found their perfect fulfilment in the life, 
work, and death of the Master Himself. In He the 
position is clearly reached that every cardinal 
thought of the ancient ritual, and many subordinate 
ones, had been brought to their full expression and, 
therefore, superseded by the person of Jesus. (See 
Hesrews, Ep. to). Jesus Himself did not use the 
language of the ritual in laying before His disciples 
the meaning of His own work, and especially of His 
death. His expression with reference to giving His 
life ‘a ransom for many’ (Mk 10 45) is open to debate, 
but in all probability it is not drawn from the sacri- 
ficial system. The nearest approach made by Him 
to identifying His death with an O T sacrifice, as 
regards significance, is that contained in the words 
of the institution of the Lord’s Supper (q.v.). But 
the Apostolic interpretation, in both the Pauline 
and Johannine forms, very clearly works out the 


Sacrilege 
Salt 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


798 


ne 


meaning of the Gospel along the lines of sacrificial 


symbolism. 

Lrreraturne: Arch. Scott, Sacrifice, in Prophecy and Ful- 
filment (1894); W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites (21894); 
A. B. Davidson, The Theology of the O T (1904), pp. 306- 
356; Nowack, Heb. Archdologie (1894), Il, pp. 203-259; 
Sir J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, Pt. VI a 


SACRILEGE: The expression ‘commit sacrilege’ 
occurs in Ro 2 22 AV as the rendering of tepocuAcity, 
‘rob temples’ RV. The reference is not to withhold- 
ing temple dues and offerings. Paul insinuates that, 
notwithstanding his professed abhorrence to idols, 
the Jew might be guilty of robbing heathen temples, 
perhaps simply through receiving property stolen 
from them. He was himself exonerated from this 
charge at Ephesus (Ac 19 37). For the O T prohibi- 
tion, see Dt 7 25 f., and cf. Jos. Ant. IV, 8 10. 

Ss. D.—M. W. J. 


SADDLE: This is the rendering of merkabh, ‘rid- | 


ing-place’ (Lv 15 9, ‘carriage’ RVmg.). The verb 
hdbhash, ‘bind on,’ is used of equipping a beast 
(always an ass) for riding (Gn 22 3; Nu 22 21; Jg 
19 10; II S 161, 17 23, 19 26 [27]; I K 2 40, 13 18, 23, 27; 
II K 4 24). The ass was ridden without a saddle, or 
with a saddle-cloth. When carrying heavy burdens 
a thick cushion was laid on the back to relieve the 
pressure. For the camel’s saddle (Gn 31 34 RV, 
‘furniture’ AV) see Furnirure. See also plate of 
ARTICLES OF TRAVEL, Fig. 11. Girt Hat 


SADDUCEES, sad’yu-siz, THE (Xaddouxetor): 1. 


Name and Tenets. A section of the Jewish people 
who, in N T times, were possessed of the high-priest- 
hood, and in general represented the non-scribal 
tendency in Judaism. Their name is derived either 
from Zadok, the typical high priest, or from tsad- 
digim, righteous ones. According to Josephus (Ant. 
XVIII, 1 3: BJ, II, 814), who was not in sympathy 
with their position, they held only to Mosaism, as 
distinct from the ‘oral law’ developed by the Phari- 
sees. They were also believers in free will, and dis- 
believers in immortality, or, at least, in the resur- 
rection. According to Ac 23 8, they did not believe 
either in resurrection or in angels and spirits. 

2. Party Character. The Sadducees were not, 
strictly speaking, a party, but were a group of 
wealthy aristocrats who, in a measure, represented 
that phase of development in the Jewish state that 
the Maccabean revolt had checked. For a consider- 
able period prior to the revolt under Antiochus 
Epiphanes there had been a decided tendency 
among the Jews toward Hellenistic culture. In this 
movement the high priests had been leaders. It 
would hardly be fair to say that they had planned 
the destruction of the worship of Jehovah; but they 
were certainly opposed to the current tendency 
represented by the Chasidim toward the develop- 
ment of the Jewish cult and the rejection of Greek 
culture (see PHarisnEs, § 3). (From the beginning 
of the revolt against the Syrians until the time of 
John Hyrcanus this Hellenistic party suffered 
severely at the hands of the enthusiasts for Judaism, 
and were plainly of the party of the opposition. Yet 
they came again into the possession of the high- 
priesthood when John Hyrcanus transferred his sym- 
pathy from the Pharisees to them. From that time, 


almost without exception, until the destruction of 
Jerusalem the high priests were from their group. 
Their relation with the Hasmonean house made the 
Sadducees objects of Herod’s peculiar suspicion, and 
among the first acts of his reign was the execution of 
a number of Sadducees who were members of the 
Sanhedrin. Under the Romans, however, the Sad- 
ducees regained their power, and became in large 


measure the party favorable to the government. — 


The Sadducees were not popular with the people, 
and apparently found it necessary at times to adopt 
the Pharisaic policy, in order to win popular favor. 
The revolt of 66 a.p. seems to have been directed 
against them, as well as against the Romans, and a 
number of them, including the high priest Ananias, 
were massacred. The importance of the priesthood 
was greatly diminished by the destruction of the 
Temple, and the Sadducees as a party lost prestige 
and influence. Individual Sadducees, however, con- 


tinued to appear in the discussions of the Talmud, © 


and almost invariably as opponents of what the 
Rabbis regarded as the true interpretation. In the 
rabbinical development of Judaism, however, the 
Sadducees had really no place. These references 
were hardly more than the utilization of the names 
of. ancient enemies for the purposes of debate. 

The investigations of Rud. Leszynsky, Die Sad- 
duzder (1912) coupled with the recent discovery of a 
fragment of ‘Zadokite’ (Sadducean) work of a date 
near the beginning of the Christian Era (cf. R. H. 
Charles, Fragments of a Zadokite work (1912), have 
served to put the Sadducees in a more favorable light 
than has hitherto been accorded them on the basis 
of our extant sources which are almost exclusively 
Pharisaic and therefore strongly ex parte in spirit. 


LITERATURE: Wellhausen, Die Phariséer und Sadducder 
(1874); Cohen, Wes Pharisiens (1877); Schiirer Geschichte 
des Jiidischen Volkes im Zeitalier Jesu Ch., 3d-4th ed. (Eng. 
transl. fr. 2d ed., 1886); Cornill, History of the People of 
Israel (1898), HDB (vol. iii, 1900), and EB (vol. iv, 1903); 
G. Hélscher, Sadduzdismus (1906); Lauterbach, in Studies 


in Jewish Literature (1913); G. F. Moore in Harv. Theol. Rev. - 


(Oct. 1924) pp. 351 fi. S. M.—E. E. N. 


SADOC, sé’dek (Xadax): One of the ancestors of 
Jesus in the list in Mt (1 14). 


SAFFRON: An aromatic herb, a species of Crocus, 
called in Heb. karkém. It was, apparently, culti- 
vated in the gardens of Palestine (Song 4 14). See 
OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, § 3; and PALESTINE, 
§ 238. 

SAIL. See Sures AND NAVIGATION, § 2. 

SAINTS: In the O T this term is the rendering 
of two Heb. terms: (1) hasidh, primarily, ‘good,’ 
‘compassionate.’ The term came to be used in the 
sense of ‘godly’ or ‘pious,’ 7.e., full of love and 


loyalty to God. It is used almost exclusively in Pss 
(IS 29 AV; II Ch 6 41; Ps 30 4, 31 23, 37 28, etc.). 


(2) Derivatives of gddhash, ‘to be holy,’ and hence 7 


‘the holy one(s).’ Outside of Dn the sense of the 
expression is general, usually referring to those (in 
Israel, of course) who are faithful to J’. In Dt 33 2 
AV the heavenly array of holy ones appears to be 


meant, if the ordinary text is correct, But it is — 


probable that we should read ‘And he came from 


Meribah-Kadesh.’ In Dn (7 18 ff.) the term refers to 


Israel as the head of the Kingdom of God on earth, 





Jezmaza lil-md, leather water-bottle. 
Khurj el-jemel, camel saddle-bag. 
Matarat lil-md, leather water-bottle. 
Ihzan, girth. 

Lijam, bridle. 


3 
a 
: 
. 

: 
* 

= 
* 


* 

> 
> 
a 
> 
* 
= 


ARTICLES USED IN TRAVEL 


10. 
ub 


Rasiyet, head ornament for horse. 
Khurg, saddle-bag. 

Rasiyet, head ornament. 

Shubdn, breast ornament for horse. 
Kéd, fetter for ho 

Serj, saddle. 


2. Hammale, ass’s pack-saddle. 
13. Ferdet kemah, feed-bag. 
14, Meshtil, pannier for water-bottles, 
15. Hammale, camel’s pack-saddle. 
16. Kd‘ade and tabak, stand and tray 


(From the Suvia Davison Paton Collection in Hartford Theological Seminary.) 








799 





with the emphasis probably on the loyal portion of 
Israel. EK. E. N. 
In the N T ‘the saints’ is the rendering of ot &ytot, 
‘the holy.’ Objectively, it means those who are 
Objects of God’s holy, redeeming love, His chosen 
and peculiar people, who are dedicated to and belong 
exclusively to Him (Ro 17; I Co 1 2; Eph 1 4, 18; 
Col 3 12). Subjectively, it means those who are 
separated from all defilement and pollution (Eph 
1 4; Col 1 22), and are partakers of God’s own holi- 
ness (Eph 5 3; Col 1 10-12; I P 115; Rev 19 8). ay 
Ss. D.—M. W. J. 


\ SALA, sé’la, SALAH, sé’la. See Suenan. 


' SALAMIS, sal’a-mis (XeAeuls): A town on the 
SE. coast of Cyprus. 
cians, and belonged successively to the Assyrians, 
Egyptians, and Persians. It became Greek in the 
6th cent., and was the capital of Cyprus under 
Evagoras (410-3748.c.). It fell to Ptolemy in 323 B.c., 
and became Roman in 58:B.c. It was evangelized by 
Paul and Barnabas (Ac 13 5), with what success is 
unknown. J.R.S. 8.*—J. M. T. 

SALATHIEL, sa-lé’thi-el (XaA«6enX): An ancestor 

of Jesus (Mt 112; Lk 3 27). See SHEALTIEL. 

SALCAH, sal’ka, SALCHAH. See Satecan. 

SALECAH, sal’1-ka (71772, salkhah, Salcah, Sal- 
chah AV): A city on the extreme NE. een ae of 
the kingdom of Bashan (Dt 3 10; Jos 12 5, 13 11; I 
Ch 511). The modern name is Salhad. See Map of 
Ancient Semitic World. 

SALEM, sé’/lem (oy, shalém): The city of which 
Melchizedek was king (Gn 1418; He 71£.). Eusebius 
mentions a tradition, according to which Abram and 
Melchizedek met on Mt. Gerizim. Salim, a village 
E. of Nablus, is the basis of this view. Jerome 
identified it with Salumnias, 8 m. §. of Scythopolis. 
Josephus and other Jewish writers generally (Ps 76 2) 
have regarded it as a synonym of Jerusalem. Since 
Uru-salim was discovered to be the ancient name 
of Jerusalem in the Amarna letters, Salem has very 
generally been identified with that city (see Jerusa- 
LEM, § 19; and MEeLCHIZEDER). J. A. K. 


SALIM, sé’lim (XaAefy.): A place referred to in 
Jn 3 23 as near Ainon, where John the Baptist was 
baptizing. Its site has never been determined; it 
certainly lay W. of the Jordan. Eusebius and Jerome 
located it 8 m. S. of Secythopolis (cf. Sanem). Robin- 
son identified it with Salim, E. of Ndblus; others 
have advocated a location in Wddy Suleim; others 
near ‘Ain Karim. See Ainon. J. A. K. 


SALLAI, sal’1-ai C9, sallay): 1. One of those 
chosen to dwell in Jerusalem (Neh 11 8). 2. The 
name of a priestly family (Neh 12 20; called Sallu 
in ver. 7). 

SALLU, sal’a (379 ,salliz): 1. The head of a Benja- 
mite family (I Ch 97; Neh 117). 2. See Satay, 2. 


SALMA, sal’mo (8?2¥, salma’, 72%, salman), 
and SALMON (112?¥, salmon): Ns individual (or 
family) of Calebites who are represented as having 
founded Bethlehem (I Ch 2 51, 54) and from whom 
David was descended (Ru 4 20 f.; I Ch 211). Called 


Zadrpov in Mt 14f. (Garé in Lk 3 32). 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


It was founded by the Pheni- | 


Sacrilege | 
Salt 





SALMAI, sal’mai or mé cee, salmay, Shalmai 


AV): The ancestral head of a family of Nethinim 
(Neh 7 48° 


SALMON, sal’mon, SALMA, sal’moa cin, sal« 
mon): The father of Boaz, hasband of Ruth, and 
grandfather of Jesse, father of David (Ru ‘4 21; 
=Salmah Heb. in 4 20;=Salma@’, I Ch 2 11; a So 
ov, Mt 1 4,53 =Dard&, Lk 3 32). Th is stated (Mt 15) 
that Rahab was his wife. If the Salma (Heb. Salma, 
I Ch 2 51, 54) is the same person, then he was the 
‘father,’ 7@.e., founder, of Bethlehem. See also 
SALMA. LOS FP b 


SALMONE, sal-md’m (LaAyu.dyyn): The NE. prom- 
ontory of the E. end of Crete. Luke alone gives the 
name Salmone (Ac 277). Samonion, sometimes Sal- 
monion, appears in Strabo; Samoniun, in Ptolemy, 


-Pomponius, Mela, and Pliny; Salmonis in Apollo- 


nius of Rhodes and Dionysius Periegetes; Salmonia 

in an inscription. It is identified with the modern 

Cape Sidero, or Cape Plaka, seven miles further S. 
J. R. 8S. S.Az—J. M. T. 


SALOME, sa-16’m1 (Zarwyun, fr. Heb. shalim, 
‘peace’): 1. The grandniece of Herod Antipas (men- 
tioned by name only in Jos. Ant. XVIII, 5 4. See 
Herropias), whose dancing before Herod led him to 
promise to grant any request she might make (Mk 
6 17-22 and ||s). 2. One of the women present at the 
cross and tomb of Jesus (Mk 15 40, 161), and proba- 
bly to be identified with the mother of the sons of 
Zebedee in Mt 27 56. She has also been identified 
with the unnamed sister of Mary, the mother of — 
Jesus, in Jn 19 25, making the sons of Zebedee Jesus’ 
cousins (Zahn, Forschungen, VI, 338-341). But this 
identification is not certain. See Mary. J. M. T. 


SALT: The word for salt, melah (Gr. &X¢, Zag), is 
common to all Semitic languages This shows how 
general was its use in antiquity. The Hebrews 
secured salt by evaporating the waters of the Dead 
Sea (with which process there is probably some con- 
nection in the obscure reference to Salt-pits in 
Zeph 29), or more readily from the Khashin Usdum, 
a cliff of rock salt, extending for 7 m. along the SW. 
shore of the Dead Sea (cf. ‘the pillar of salt,’ Gn 
19 26; also Ezk 47 11, see PatmsTiInE, § 12, and Lor’s 
Wire). S. was used in seasoning food (cf. Job 6 6) 
and therefore in large quantities (Ezr 6 9, 7 22) in 
the sacrifices (vegetable, Lv 2 13; with animal sacri- 
fices also, Ezk 43 24; cf. Mk 9 49 mg.). The rights of 
protection and friendship were connected with eating 
together, and as salt was used in the food, we find 
the expression ‘covenant of salt,’ z.e., ‘an eternal 
covenant’ (Nu 18 19; II Ch 18 5; Ly 2 13; the fact 
that salt is a preservative may also add to the mean- 
ing). A salty land (Jer 17 6, m*léhah) is a barren or 
desert land (Dt 29 23 [22]; Job 39 6; Ps 107 34), there- 
fore ‘to sow a city with salt’ (Jg 9 45; cf. Zeph 2 9) 
meant to doom it to perpetual desolation. Accord- 
ing to II K 2 20f., salt made impure water sweet. 
It was a custom to rub new-born babes with salt 
(Ezk 16 4). In the N T the preservative and season- 
ing qualities of salt are used figuratively (Mt 5 13; 
Mk 9 50; Lk 14 34; Col 4 6; cf. also the ref. to salt as a 
purifier, Mk 9 49). See also Foon, §4. C.S. T. 


Salt, City of 
Salvation 





SALT, CITY OF. See Crry or Satr. 
SALT SEA. See Dnap Sra. 


SALT, VALLEY OF (N2Q°8'2 or M2QT N's, g2’- 
melah, gé@’-hammelah): This was a place where im- 
portant victories were won from the Edomites (II 
S 8 13; read ‘Edom’ for ‘Aram’ [Syrians]) by Israel 
under David (II S 813; I Ch 18 12; Ps 60 title [2]) and 
under Amaziah (II K 147; II Ch 25 11). It was 
between Jerusalem and Edom, and has been identi- 
fied by some with Wddy el-Milh I. of Beer-sheba, 
where are found remains of the City of Salt and good 
springs; by others, with the plain just 8. of the Dead 
Sea, in the lower part of Hl Ghor. Ge Re Be 


SALT-PITS. See Sarr. 
SALTWORT. See Patestinn, § 22. 


SALU, sé’lu (#179, sala’): The father of Zimri 
(Nu 25 14). 


SALUTE, SALUTATION: These words in EV 
are translations of barakh, ‘bless’ (cf. 1S 18 10 mg.), 
sha’al leshaldém, ‘to ask concerning one’s welfare’ 
(II K 1015; ef. Jg 1815), and dondCecbar (domacyés), 
which includes both greetings and embraces. In He 
1113 ARV, and often in AV, dox&{ecbar is translated 
greet. See especially the unnecessary and confusing 
alternations of ‘greet’ and ‘salute’ in Ro 16 3-9. 
In Ac 201, ARV reads ‘took leave.’ Biblical salu- 
tations consisted of acts as well as words (see also 
Kiss and Kner). Verbal greetings were epistolary 
(Ezr 4 11, 7 12; Ac 15 23, 23 26; Rev 1 4; and see also 
EPiIsTtLE) or conversational. The latter included 
inquiries (II S 20 9) and benedictions (Gn 43 29; 
Ps 129 8), which sometimes shaded into encouraging 
assurances (Jg 6 23; I Ch 12 18; Dn 1019). The word 
shadlém, as used in O T salutations (e.g., 1S 117, 25 6; 
Dn 10 i1), means, not ‘peace’ (q.v.) as opposed to 
war, but general well-being, including health, 
security, and prosperity (cf. Gn 43 27; Ex 18 7). 
This form of salutation (whence the Anglicized 
‘salaam’) is still common in Palestine, but is used 
only between ‘brethren’ of the same religion (cf. 
Mt 5 47: II Jn 10). In N T times yaipe hail (Mt 
26 49; Mk 15 18; Lk 1 28) took the place of ‘peace’ 
as the ordinary greeting (cf., however, Lk 10 5; Jn 
20 19), and Aéyety yaloety was equivalent to ‘greet’ 
(II Jn 10f.). The salutation to royalty was ‘Long 
live the king!’ (IS 10 24; I K 1 30; II K 11 12) or, in 
the Persian form, ‘O King, live forever!’ (Dn 2 4; 
cf. Neh 2 3). The manifold and reiterated saluta- 
tions of modern Palestine are irksome to one en- 
gaged in pressing business (cf. II K 4 29; Lk 10 4), 
but are not necessarily more insincere than our curt 
English phrases. Every situation in life (e.g., return- 
ing from a journey, dining, shaving, wearing new 
clothes) has its own formulas, in which the saluta- 
tion and reply differ sufficiently to indicate the 
speakers (cf. Ru 2 4). Besides these set greetings, 
extempore expressions of great beauty are prompted 
by the tact and courtesy which are so characteristic 
of even illiterate Syrians and Arabs. 

Literature: In JE (art. Salute) some characteristic salu- 
; tations of modern Jews are given. Baedeker’s Palestine 


and Syria, p. cix, contains a number of Syrian salutations. 
See also Mackie in HDB, s.v. L. G. L.—E. C. L 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


800 





_ SALVATION: 1. Usage of Terms. The words 
‘save,’ ‘Savior,’ ‘salvation,’ represent in the EVV of 
the O T mainly derivatives from the root yasha‘, ‘to 
deliver’ (cf., however, Gn 12 12: ‘they will save thee 
alive,’ from hiyyah [P7‘él] ‘to keep alive’; also Ex 117; 
Jg 21 14, etc.; IL S 19 5, mdlat, ‘to save’; IIS 199, 
natsal, ‘to snatch away,’ and Job 2 6, shamar, ‘to 
keep’ ‘to preserve’). In the N T the same words 
represent derivatives from catety (cwtnet«). In all 
cases, the idea is that of deliverance from present 
or impending evil. Salvation is thus, in its most 
general sense, either deliverance from distress or 
preservation from danger. But this generic idea is 
narrowed in the N T to the notion of the deliverance 
from the penalty, power, and pollution of sin, and 
this by a special way of which Jesus Christ was the 
revealer and guide (He 12 2). 


2. Historic Development of the Idea. In the O T, 
when the term ‘salvation’ is used without qualifica- - 
tion, it has a special meaning, viz., that of deliver- 
ance from national calamity or peril. The safe cross- 
ing of the Red Sea and the destruction of the pur- 
suing host are called ‘salvation’ (Ex 14 13, 15 2). 
Deliverance from foreign oppression wrought 
through the hands of ‘Judges’ is salvation. Othniel 
and Ehud are ‘saviors’ (Jg 3 9, 15). The exploit of 
Jonathan and his armor-bearer at Michmash is a 
‘vreat salvation’ (I S 14 45), as are also the frequent 
deliverances of the Israelites from the hands of the 
Philistines. At the same time, not only extrication 
from distress or help and victory in warfare, but 
also the maintenance of security and the continua- 
tion of prosperity are included in the conception. 
This usage appears quite frequently in the Psalms 
(67 2); the favor of J” is thus made synonymous with 
salvation (cf. also Ps 9116). These ideas are gathered 
up and combined into one in the Messianic escha- 
tological notion which makes salvation summarily 
the expectation of a Golden Age for Israel in the 
future. The notion appears simultaneously, and 
runs parallel, with the Messianic hope (Is 52 10, 561, 
62 11). It persists down to N T times, and is easily 
recognized as the thought of Simeon (Lk 2 30). But 
the Messianic Age is dominated by an ethical prip- 
ciple. It is reserved for a regenerated and morally 
purified people, whose character conforms to the 
Law of God. Furthermore, at the end of the O © 
period and during the intertestamental age, there 
arose & growing consciousness of individual partici- 
pation in God’s favor; and this was naturally drawn 
into the general idea of salvation, which, by the 
infusion into it of ethical content and individualistic 
application, was reconstituted in its technical sense 
above defined. 


3. The O T System as a Plan of Salvation. Mean- 
time, another development in the O T had prepared 
the way for thus approaching the subject from a 
different view-point. Communion with J’ came to 
be regarded as the highest good (swmmum bonum). 
To enjoy His favor and live in perfect accord with 
His desire came to be the passion of the faithful 
Israelite. But the Israelite saw himself constantly 
thwarted in his effort to reach this highest good. He 
perceived also that sin was not necessarily perma- 
nent—that God out of His grace could restore him 





801 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Salt, City of 
Salvation 





to His favor, and would do so upon certain definite 
conditions. This was not all expressed in the verb ‘to 
save,’ or the noun ‘salvation,’ but was embodied in 
the ethical and sacrificial system of the O T, and in 
the ultimate analysis that system was a means of 
salvation. 


4. Postulates of the Biblical Doctrine. The postu- 
lates of the Biblical doctrine of salvation are: an 
idea of the highest good (swmmum bonum), conscious 
failure to attain it, the conviction that this failure is 
not final, but may be overcome by the help of Divine 
power, and that there is a way of enlisting that 
power toward this end. The correlation of these 
principles, with proportionate emphasis upon each, 
is a distinctive feature of the Biblical conception. No 
other race than the Hebrews succeeded in making a 
perfect synthesis of them. Among the Greeks and 
Romans, the idea of a highest good existed, but the 
consciousness of failure to attain it (the sense of sin) 
did not exist in sufficient strength. Among the 
Persians, while an evil principle was recognized as 
working in the world, it was considered eternal and 
independent, and the hope of overcoming it (salva- 
tion) was accordingly vague, if, indeed, it existed at 
all. 

5. Teaching of Jesus on Salvation. But even 
among the Hebrews, the proper balance of thought 
was not always maintained. In the Pharisaic creed, 
for instance, the belief prevailed that the ravages of 
sin could not, in all cases, be arrested and counter- 
acted. When Jesus declared that He came ‘to seek 
and to save that which was lost’ (Lk 19 10), and 
chose the degraded and apparently hopeless as sub- 
jects for His regenerative efforts, His motives were 
called into question and His character was suspected. 
But He definitely assumed and asserted the prin- 
ciples underlying salvation, 7.e., the possibility of 
reform, and the necessity of self-sacrifice in order to 
accomplish it. At the same time, the soteriology of 
Jesus raises the question, (1) Whom did He mean 
by the ‘lost’? and (2) How did He purpose to save 
them? In answer to the first, Jesus’ own conduct 
shows that He deemed ‘lost’ those who lived careless 
and godless lives; for it was because He associated 
with such that He was challenged. In the Parables 
of the Lost He distinctly characterizes those of this 
class as cut off from touch or communion with God 
(the coin from its owner, the sheep from the shep- 
herd—and from the rest of the flock, and the son from 
his father—and from his home, Lk 15 14 f.). This 
involves loss in a double sense, the owner or father 
in each case loses something, but also what is lost is 
in another sense the loser, illustrated more particu- 
larly by the cases of the lost sheep and the lost son, 
where not only the owner is deprived of his property, 
but the lost is by the same act plunged into misery 
and despair, and must be rescued for his own sake. 
But this rupture with God is precisely what is else- 
where called sin. 


6. Salvation by the Revelation of God. The 
answer to the question how Jesus purposes to save 
the lost is more complex. It is given partly in Jesus’ 
attempt by social touch to lift the degraded. When 
He entered the house of Zacchzus (Lk 19 9), He de- 
clared that ‘salvation had come’ into it. In the cir- 


cumstances, His own entrance into the house was in 
itself salvation (the means of salvation); for it meant 
the revelation of the true nature of God and the 
attraction of its inmates to God by the mere holding 
before them of God’s fatherly love. Zacchexus was 
saved when he responded to this revelation just as 
the woman ‘who was a sinner’ was saved when she 
turned from her sin to God (Lk 7 50). 


7. Salvation; Entrance into the Kingdom of God. 
But Jesus’ conception of salvation is not exhausted 
in His mere coming. It has a positive, aggressive 
side, which, as given by the Synoptists, consists in 
the acceptance of the Kingdom of God and participa- 
tion in its benefits. He who enters the Kingdom 
begins a life of loyal obedience to the fatherly reign. 
He does it, however, not without cost to himself. 
He must humble or deny himself, and become as a 


little child (Mk 10 15); he must risk his all, sell all he 


has in order to invest it in the purchase of this pearl 
or treasure-field (Mt 13 44, 46); he must leave all and 
follow Jesus, and, if necessary, hate father and 
mother, etc. (Lk 14 26). a 


8. Salvation: Realization of Sonship. Again, sal- 
vation is the complete reproduction of the image of 
God in the believer, because he realizes his true rela- 
tion to God as his own father (Mt 5 45, 48). This 
realization brings the spirit of the Father into the 
heart (Mt 10 20), emancipates from the bondage of 
human authority (Mt 23 9), transforms the char- 
acter, rendering men merciful and kind (Mk 11 25; 
Lk 6 36), creates childlike trust (Lk 12 30) and, in 
general, admits to all the privileges of the Father’s 
house that had been forfeited by sin (Lk 15 22). 

9. Salvation: Forgiveness of Sin. In all its fore- 
going phases, salvation appears in the light of a 
change in the human subject of it. It has another 
side, which may be called Godward. It is also a 
change of the attitude of God toward the changed 
man. ‘This side is present in Jesus’ preaching of 
forgiveness (q.v.). In forgiveness, sin disappears as 
a consideration in the relation with God. But in 
order to secure its removal, it is necessary to comply 
with the two conditions of forgiveness, 1.e., repent- 
ance and faith. Such compliance is conversion (Mk 
4 12), or return to God. 

10. Jesus, the Mediator of Salvation. Jesus’ own 
work in salvation consists in revealing to the sinner 
God’s love, his own possibilities, and the promise of 
forgiveness of sin upon condition of repentance and 
faith. How much more is involved in it is not clearly 
set forth in His own words. In one of His much- 
disputed utterances He characterizes His death as 
the giving of His life ‘a ransom for many’ (Mk 10 45); 
and in the Last Supper He speaks of His blood as 
‘shed for many for the remission of sins’ (Mt 26 28). 
In neither of these passages, however, is there any 
undoubted reference to the efficacy of His death in 
changing the attitude of God toward the sinner as a 
condition of salvation. Rather, both may be regarded 
as expressions of God’s propitious attitude awaiting 
to be availed of by man. 

11. Salvation: Eternal Life. On the other hand, 
in the Johannine representation of the teaching of 
Jesus there is a constant reference to the primary 
significance and object of His life and ministry under 


Salvation 
Samaria 





the quite different form of an impartation of life 
(Jn 1010). This life, from the fact of the drawing of 
its force from the eternal sphere, of its affiliation with 
the eternal sphere, and of its issuing in final adop- 
tion into the eternal sphere, is called eternal life 
(5 24, 10 28, 6 40). But eternal life is the gift of Christ, 
through the spiritual process of the knowledge of, 
and fellowship with, Himself; it is the result of faith 
(3 15 £., 36, 6 47). It is, indeed, the very knowledge of 
God brought into view by Jesus (17 2 f.). 

12. Teaching of Jesus: Summary. The concep- 
tion of salvation found in the teaching of Jesus is 
thus fourfold. It involves: (1) Rescue from sin as a 
present evil since the lost are found and brought out 
of their misery and destitution; (2) the preservation 
of all the good that is found in the sinful, and the 
use of what was morally indifferent in building up 
the life of those now saved; (3) a positive blessing 
for the present, since the saved are put into the 
normal relation with God, and, therefore, have a 
new and large source of happiness in this life; and 
(4) inheritance of an abundant reward in the life to 
come (Mt 19 29). 

13. Apostolic Teaching: General. By the Apos- 
tolic teachers and the N T writers, the doctrine of 
salvation was developed into an explanation, on the 
one side, of what God did for man through Jesus, 
and on the other, as to what He does in man through 
the Holy Spirit. The work of God for man was 
presented as revelation, instruction, inspiration, 
and atonement. Revelation and inspiration are 
mediated through the life of Jesus. Atonement is 
made through His death, whether this be viewed as 
a thing in itself or as the means for the complete 
offering up of His life in a sacrifice. What God does 
in man through the Holy Spirit is again either an act 
of transformation or a process of gradual conforma- 
tion to ideals. 

14. Jesus the Messiah: the Savior. Salvation is 
the work of Jesus Christ for man. At the very 
beginning of the Apostolic Age, Jesus was presented 
to the Jews as the Messiah and the only Savior from 
sin. Whether the annunciation narrative be one of 
the earliest or one of the latest productions in he 
Gospel story, it contains the belief of the days im- 
mediately following the Crucifixion and Resurrec- 
tion. It proclaims Jesus as the One ‘who shall save 
his people from their sins’ (Mt 1 21). The sum and 
substance of the preaching of the first disciples could 
not have been other than it is represented in the 
first chapters of Acts, viz., that the Jesus whom the 
Jews had caused to be crucified was the Messiah 
predicted by the prophets; but that as the Messiah 
He was a spiritual Savior, and the only one through 
whom salvation from sin could be secured (Ac 2 38, 
3 19, 4 12). 

15. Pauline Conception of Jesus as Revealer. But 
it is in the hands of Paul that this side of the doctrine 
was shaped into its fullest and final form. Paul 
recognizes in the work of Jesus an element of spiritual 
illumination. The Gospel, which ‘is the power of 
salvation unto every one that believeth,’ is first the 
revelation of God’s righteousness and His wrath 
against sin (Ro 1171f.). But itis also the expression 
of God’s love for man and naturally comes to its 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


802 


fullest form in God’s dealings with those who accept 


Christ as their Savior (Ro 5 8; Gal 614). There are, 


however, two ways of viewing the revelation of 
God’s love in Christ, 7.e.: (1) either that God reveals 
His love, and thus redeems men, or (2) that He 
redeems men through Christ, and so reveals His 
love. Both of these are true and are included in 
Paul’s teaching, but they present different aspects of 
the subject. Christ reveals God not only as a father 
who may be approached in the filial spirit (Ro 8 15), 
but also as a perfect pattern to which the child should 
conform (Ph 2 5f.). 


16. Atonement and Salvation. But Paul lays the 
greatest stress on Christ’s work for man through 
His death. This is the aspect of it which is com- 
monly termed atonement. It may be well to observe 
that as atonement, Christ’s work for man may be 
viewed as in his behalf or as in his stead. There can 
be no doubt whatever that, so far as Christ’s death - 
secures a reconciliation of man to God and is a bend- 
ing of the human will Godward, Paul clearly sees it 
to be an effect of Christ’s death on the cross. Every 
occurrence of the word ‘reconciled’ in the Epistles 
has reference to man’s reconciliation to God, not 
God’s to man (Ro 5 10; IT Co 5 18-20). Christ’s life 
and death so present God to man as to win gratitude 
and love in response to God’s love. The result 
secured is, accordingly, without the possibility of 
contradiction, a work in behalf of man. It inures to 
the benefit of man. The question remains simply 
whether the doctrine of the Apostle further includes 
an element or part that may be looked at as an 
indispensable condition for the securing of God’s 
good pleasure toward man, or, in other words, 
whether Christ’s life or death changes the attitude 
of God toward the sinner from an unpropitious to a 
propitious one. This is not a question that can be 
answered with a confident categorical affirmative or 
negative. That Paul places great emphasis on the 
Crucifixion of Christ is very clear (I Co 117; Col 2 14). 
In Gal 3 13 he seems to make the very form of cruci- 
fixion, as a mode of death, pivotal in the interpreta- 
tion of Christ’s saving work. It is because He died 
on the cross and incurred the curse pronounced on 
that mode of death (Dt 21 23) that He was able to 
take Himself and those who are joined to Him 
beyond the reach of the Law and thus set them free. 
But, in general, it is not crucifixion as a mode of 
death, but the fact that Christ’s death was con- 
summated on the cross that gives the expression 
‘the cross’ its meaning. And in this sense ‘the cross’ 
is certainly central in Paul’s view of salvation. 


17. Analysis of Paul’s Doctrine. In the last analy- 
sis, Paul’s view of Christ’s death will be found to be 
clothed in terms of three different spheres of life, the 
forensic, the sacrificial, and the purely personal or 
mystical. Each representation, according to the 
nature of the sphere from which its materials are 
drawn, if carried by logical processes to the extreme 
limits of its application, would come into irrecon- 
cilable conflict with either and both of the other two. 
At least, great confusion is certain to, arise from 
limiting Paul’s thought to one of the representations. 
Neither is it safe to take one and carry it to its legiti- 
mate consequences, ignoring or interpreting away 





803 


those portions of the others which do not completely 
coalesce with a doctrine constructed out of the first. 
The fact is that its richness and complexity forbid 
its being completely cast into a simple mold derived 
from a single department of life. 


18. Forensic Atonement. The forensic formula- 
tion of the atonement puts the subject in the lan- 
guage of law. Sinners are offenders against God 
(transgressors of law). By the terms of the Law, 
they are subject to condemnation and penalty. The 
cross of Jesus represents God’s plan whereby He, 
being just and remaining just, even as a judge, can 
still absolve the sinner of the guilt and penalty of his 
sin. The cross accomplishes this, because Christ the 
innocent suffers for the guilty. The requirements of 
the Law are satisfied, and those who have faith are 
united to Christ and acquitted (II Co 5 21; Gal 3 13; 
Col 2 14). The ethical principles underlying this 
formula are the least clear of any of the portraitures 
of Christ’s work in Paul’s teaching; and for this 
reason the formula should not be made either the 
exclusive or the primary basis of Paul’s doctrine of 
the atonement. 


19. Sacrificial Atonement. The sacrificial formu- 
lation is drawn from the Levitical system. It looks 
upon sin as a stain, and, therefore, as an absolute 
bar to communion with the Holy God. To remove 
it a sacrifice is necessary. The special sacrifice that 
would appear most appropriate in the circumstances 
could not be the burnt-offering, whose significance is 
the expression of adoration and praise, nor the peace- 
offering in any of its varieties (thank-offering, free- 
will offering, vow-offering); but the sin- or guilt- 
offering. Yet the victim of the sin-offering is a goat, 
whereas in Paul’s mind Christ’s sacrifice is that of 
the Passover lamb (I Co 57). But there is no mani- 
fest intention by Paul to be precise in the use of 
ritual terminology. Consequently, it must be in- 
ferred that his main purpose was to indicate the ef- 
ficacy of Christ’s death in removing the stain and 
offense of sin, and that sacrifice as a means toward 
this end is looked at as a composite affair comprising 
some general underlying principles. It is not one of 
the definite offerings of the ritual that represents 
Christ’s death, but the ideas signified by them alto- 
gether. Further, in the sacrificial representation of 
Christ’s death, it is left undecided whether the arti- 
cle of death in itself is what atones, or the life which 
is surrendered in death. This question was not 
present in the Apostle’s mind, and if an answer to 
it must be secured, it will be through reversion to 
the O T thought of sacrifice and the meaning of the 
death of the victim in it. 

20. Mystical Atonement. The third, personal, or 
mystical representation of the atonement in Paul’s 
theology proceeds upon the assumption that sin is a 
principle of corruption in the heart ending in the 
death of the sinner. Salvation, accordingly, is a 
deliverance of the sinner from the power of this evil. 
In Christ’s death and victory over death all those 
who are united to Him by faith die; and in His 
Resurrection, by force of the same union they over- 
come death, and are no more liable to its power. 
Accordingly, salvation consists in being personally 
ingrafted into Christ, and becoming a sharer in all 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


nn se se 


Salvation 
Samaria 


the experiences of the dominant member of the 
whole, viz., the Head. On §§ 16-20 see also Recon- 
CILIATION AND ATONEMENT. 

21. The Johannine Doctrine. The Johannine 
notion of salvation and that in the Epistle to the 
Hebrews are different from Paul’s only in leaving 
out of account the forensic representation, and giving 
attention to the sacrificial (He exclusively and Jn 
subordinately) and to the mystical (Jn predomi- 
nantly and He incidentally or by inference). Jn 
specifies Jesus as the Lamb of God that taketh away 
the sin of the world. In Rev the figure of the Lamb 
is in constant use as an emblem of the sacrificial 
nature of His work, but in all cases the significance of 
the language and the underlying principles are the 
same as those in the thought of Paul. 

22. Subjective Salvation. The work of God in 


_man through the Holy Spirit: Subjective salvation— 


by which name this part of the subject is commonly 
known—includes a doctrine of the change which 
brings the sinner from his darkness and ignorance 
and deadness to the knowledge of, and a new life in, 
Christ (cf. REGENERATION), a doctrine of his new 
relation to God (cf. JusriricaTIon), and a doctrine 
of his gradual growth in the character which God 
desires to develop and complete, assimilating them 
to His own holiness (cf. SANCTIFICATION). 
LireERATURE: Candlish, The Christian Salvation (1889); Stevens, 
The Christian Doctrine of Salvaiton (1905); Titius, Die Neu- 
tesiamentliche Lehre von der Seligkett (1895-1900); cf. also 
Cremer, Bibl.-Theol. Lexicon, s.v owmGety, ete and O T 
Theologies by Davidson, Pierpenbring, and Oehler, and 
N T Theologies by Weiss, Beyschlag, etc.; W. F. Halliday, 


Reconciliation and Reality; J. Oman, Grace and Personality 
(both 1919). A.C. Z. 


SAMARIA,  sa-mé’ri-a (172, shdmerdn, perhaps 
from shdmar, ‘to watch,’ hence meaning something 
like ‘outlook’; but, according to I K 16 24, derived 
from the individual for clan] Shemer, from whom 
Omri purchased the site; in the N T Laucéeera): The 
capital of the Northern Kingdom, from its building 
by Omri, c. 880 B.c. (I K 16 24), to its capture by the 
Assyrians in 722 (II K chs. 17, 18). 

During the succeeding centuries Samaria was 
often captured and demolished, only to be built 
again; and its mixed population was made still more 
heterogeneous through the addition of foreign colo- 
nies settled there by various conquerors. The 
city again became a royal residence, however, in 
the time of Herod the Great, who enlarged its forti- 
fications, embellished it with many beautiful struc- 
tures, and renamed it Sebaste, after the Emperor 
Augustus (Gr. ZeGact6¢). During the early centuries 
of our era the city was gradually surpassed in pros- 
perity by Neapolis (see SHecHEM); but it early 
became an episcopal see, which was reestablished 
by the Crusaders, and a Greek bishop, resident in 
Jerusalem, still takes his title from Sebaste. 

S. lay 6 m. NW. from Shechem, and occupied a 
commanding position on the summit of a round, 
isolated hill, 300 ft. high (1,542 ft. above the sea), 
which is separated from the surrounding heights by 
rich wheat-fields and olive orchards. Westward a 
break in the encircling mountains allows a magnifi- 
cent outlook to the Mediterranean, 23 m. away. 
Map III, F 3. ‘It would be hard to find, in all 


sate A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 804 





7h, 7 

wilh, 

Wh, he Mh, 

; Hy, oui rr) % 
yw ' Syl, S itty 


Ve! ¥ ie 


5 = ly, 
FP Sy lettres. csves is quer Wp 
X foun Eres, wie Hee sng . Vi, YW 


hy, A\l a 


So 
= 
= 
Zw 
Z 
V 


N77) 
> Ue 
. Mp, ui 


S\N, \ 
AN\, QO \\ 
Ws a 


f. 
vt 
3 


al 
THAW os 


I QOvg My wey, * ) i 
i Pt nine S 


\S we 
wy enw crmennnett HALT 
\’ Mt N,,, . ‘ 
y 


“Aw 


; 


‘a 
yyy 


“ty, 
™, " 


Fe, 
"ee 
o 
7 


LOU ewe » panpnnnna nse Tre reetp yy, 


4 
% 


putlittess val 
ae 


G 


) 
Ra 


%, 
“ny 


\ 
Minny Me 
Mw yen 


4 
Te 


! My, 


wut! yi 
y 


’ \ 
Y) 
SS 
> 


Whitten till 


Ey, ln, 


= 
CUAL eL tyne 


S ss 
s aA 
s Ay y® enn 
SS oo be ee "a 
amen esees Ba nand 
TTT > i Af 2 Village; 
Columns we 


ETAL AMA 


x 


= w 
= \ 
> y wns 
cement pee 
« 
y 
“yyy 


AI 


Me 


\ 


wy, 


"mye 
MY of “TE 
sy Ht ye" : 
“iy, UNMIS 


ws 


Pe sigs ‘ 
nw Wh, %y Wn1y6 


1, 4 awe 
f . s Mp yy yan UDI tHe ye” ASY\\S 


(Uy 
TR 
a ates ; 


Sey yy, tM Y} 
Z Wy! 4 
ow MG, Wy, 


» $= Summit of Hill on which Omri 
Purchased Area ~ a” Le ae built his City 


Excavated The Modern Village is on the right, 
eg Roman Wall ed on the Lower Levels of the Hill 





Sire of SAMARIA 


Reproduced by permission of the publishers from Harvard Excavations at Samaria, 1908-1909. 
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 


were found, written 
in ink with a reed 
pen, containing the 
business accounts of 
the palace. These 
add considerably to 
our knowledge of 
ancient Hebrew epi- 
graphy. On the later 
political subdivision 
of Palestine called 
Samaria see PALEs- 
TINE, § 35. 


Palestine, a situation 
of equal strength, fer- 
tility, and beauty 
combined’ (Robin- 
son). 

Modern Sebastiyeh, 
however, is a squalid 
and fanatical Moslem 
village, whose paths 
and fields are clut- 
tered with a multi- 
tude of fallen col- 
umns. The most 
important ancient 
edifice is the half- 
ruined crusading 
church of St. John, 
long since converted 
into a mosque. Sev- 
eral score of columns 
of the famous colon- 


oS 


——— 
SSS 


~S 


WA 


~ 








LireERATURE: Thompson, 
Land and Book, 11, pp. 
109-122 (1881); G. A. 
Smith, HGHL, pp. 345- 
350 (1894); Robinson, 
BRP, II, pp. 302-311 
(1841-42); Baedeker- 
Socin, Pal. and Syria, 
pp.221 ff.;G.A. Reisner, 
Harvard Excavations at 





‘ a . 
nade ae stree y of Samaria. Ruins of old Roman Senate-house and Colonnades. _ Samaria (1924), 2 vols. 
pa are still in (Probably built by Herod the Great). L.G.L.—L.B.P. 
place. 


During the years 1908-10 the site of Samaria was SAMARITAN, so-mar‘i-tan (pl. O29, shdm. 
excavated by G. A. Reisner for Harvard University. | rdnim, only in II K 17 29; Dapapefeyns, In 49; Ac 8 
Near the surface the temple built by Herod was | 25); An inhabitant of Samaria or adjacent territory. 
discovered, and at a lower level the palace of Omri | The term came into use only after the population 
and Ahab. In the latter many interesting ostraca | of this region had developed a unique religious and 





805 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Samaria 
Samson 





social character. The origin of the type is given in 
II K 17 24. Sargon, after deporting most of the popu- 
lation of Israel (722 B.c.), sent a colony of non- 
Israelites to live in the town of Samaria. These 
intermarried with the few Israelites left, and were 
joined by another group in the reign of Esarhaddon 
(675, Ezr 4 2), or Asshurbanipal (Asnapper, Osnap- 
par RV, Ezr 410) in 650 B.c. The Israelitic element, 
however, proved the strongest in influence and was 
possibly the strongest in number. At all events, the 


i 















it 
QW 


S 








Hil 





Ma iniyy, 
liye 
| “ny, 
Mligyy, 







S 
> 
> 


4 





if] lig 


setee U 


RV re 
os 


Pass, 


a 


veee 
ote’ 
at? 8% 


o>. 
= Oras"! x 
SSS eNerete 
SSS Ce 
SUSY 
- Sosy 


memmin Showing Walls of Palace 
of Omri, etc. 


FH Showing Walls and 


at tig 


s' 
ttt Temple Foundations of 4 
{aga 


HTH Hellenistic and Roman py 
periods 










DETAIL 
OF THE SUMMIT 











ANCIENT SAMARIA (Summit of the Hill). 
Reproduced by permission of the publishers from Har- 


vard Excavations at Samaria, 1908-1909. Harvard 


University Press, Cambridge, Mass. 


religion of the mixed race was a modified form of J’”” 
worship, tho many from among the non-Israelites re- 
verted to their idolatry (II K 17 29 £.). Upon the 
return of the exiles under Zerubbabel, the Samari- 
tans wished to help in the rebuilding of the Temple 
at Jerusalem (Ezr 41f.). But their offer was rejected, 
and the breach between them and the Jews thus be- 
came permanent. In the first part of the reign of 
Artaxerxes I (465-424 8.c.) they obtained permission 
to destroy the walls of Jerusalem just being con- 
structed (by Ezra?). Proceeding to Jerusalem they 
compelled the builders to cease building (Ezr 47-23) 
and burned the gates (Neh 13). When Nehemiah 
later (444 B.c.) undertook the fortification of the city 
the Samaritans put every obstacle in the way of 
his success, but in vain (Neh chs. 4 and 6). 
Samaritanism as a religious system was perfected 


, 





by the adoption of the Pentateuch as the sole sacred 
book and the erection of a temple on Mount Gerizim 
near Shechem (Jos. Ant. XI, 7 2, 8 2), which was 
sanctioned by Darius Codomannus and finished in 
331 B.c. To justify the choice of Mount Gerizim 
for this purpose the text of Dt 27 4 was changed from 
‘Ebal’ to ‘Gerizim.’ The sect was later reenforced 
by the accessicn of converted Jews under Antiochus 
Epiphanes, when, by denying their affinity with the 
Jewish religion, the Samaritans were exempted from 
persecution. Their temple was destroyed by John 
Hyrcanus in 128 s.c. At the time of Jesus, hatred 
between Jews and Samaritans had become so acute 
that travel between Jerusalem and Galilee took a 
circuitous route east of the Jordan (Jn 4 9, 8 48; 
Jos. Ant. XX, 61 #f.). The Samaritans survive to the 
present day as a small community, deriving their 
name not from Samaria but from shdm*rim, ‘keepers 
[of the true law]’. In addition to limiting the Canon 
to the Pentateuch, they teach that the Messiah is 
not greater than Moses, that He will live 110 years, 
and that He will come 6,000 years from the Creation 
and lead all men to the true faith. (Cf. J. A. Mont- 
gomery, The Samaritans.) AS Giz, 

SAMGAR-NEBO, sam’’gar-ni’bo (332320, sam- 
gar-n°bha): A chief army officer of Nebuchadrezzar 
(Jer 39 3), but the text is corrupt and perhaps to be 
emended from ver. 13. ete ih be 

SAMLAH, sma’la (799¥, samlah): A king of 
Edom, fifth in the list given in Gn 36 31 ff. His 
home was at Masrekah (site unknown) (Gn 36 36; 
I Ch 1 47 £.). 

SAMOS, sé’mos (Xéuoc): An island in the Aégean 
Sea, opposite the bay of Ephesus, where Paul 
touched on his voyage from Assos to Patara (Ac 
20 15) on his way to Jerusalem. Its earliest in- 
habitants were driven out by Epidaurian Greeks. 
It was famous in the 7th cent. for architecture, 
sculpture (bronze-casting), and ship-building. It 
carried on an extensive maritime commerce under 
Polycrates (532-522 B.c.), and experienced varying 
commercial and political fortunes under Persians, 
Athenians, and the Ptolemies. In 84 B.c. it was 
annexed to the province of Asia, andin 17 B.c. made 
a civitas libera by Augustus. J.R.S.S.*—S. A. 

SAMOTHRACE, sam’o-fhrés (Zapo8e¢xn, incor- 
rectly Samothracia AV), possibly ‘height of Thrace,’ 
or ‘Thracian Samos’: An island in the Aigean, off 
the coast of Thrace, to which Paul came on his 
voyage from Troas to Neapolis (Ac 16 11). Its his- 
tory is unimportant. It engaged with the Athenians 
in their campaign against the Persians and assisted 
in the victory at Salamis (480 B.c.). Afterward, it 
became tributary to Athens. It was famous for its 
pre-Greek Mysteries of the Cabiri, in which there 
existed a confessional system. J.R.S.S.*—S. A. 

SAMOTHRACIA, sam’o-fhré’shi-o. See SaMo- 
THRACE. 

SAMSON, sam’son (11¥2¥, shimshon), not de- 
rived from shemesh, ‘sun,’ as a diminutive, ‘little 
sun’: The name of a Danite hero, represented as 
one of the ‘judges’ of Israel (Jg chs. 13-16). The 
name ‘Samson’ may, however, have some connec- 
tion with the sun-worship prevalent in the locality 


Samson 


Samuel, Books of A NEW STANDARD 





to which S. belonged. The city of Beth-shemesh, 
‘house of the sun,’ for example, was not far from his 
native town. The equivalent of the name has also 
been found in Assyrian and Arabic. 

The Samson stories are unique. Nothing like 
them is found elsewhere in the O T. Unlike De- 
borah, Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, etc., who all 
accomplished some great result for Israel, Samson 
is actuated by personal motives rather than by 
love of country or of God, has little sympathy from 
his countrymen, and comes to his end without 
having achieved any permanent success. Nothing 
in the stories indicates that he ever assumed to be 
a ‘judge.’ 

The stories of S. relate (1) to the remarkable cir- 
cumstances connected with his birth (ch. 13), (2) to 
his marriage to the Philistine woman of Timnah (ch. 
14), (3) to his troubles with the Philistines growing 
out of this marriage (ch. 15), and (4) to his experi- 
ences with Delilah, which led to the loss of his 
strength, capture by the Philistines, imprisonment, 
and later his self-inflicted death (ch. 16). 

It is only in the first and last of these stories that 
the religious element shows itself. In the first, 8. 
is a nazir (Nazirite, q.v.) from his birth, 7.e., ‘sepa- 
rated’ or ‘dedicated’ to a work, which is described in 
13 5 thus: ‘He shall begin to save Israel out of the 
hand of the Philistines.’ Such was the interpretation 
that was put upon the career of S. in later times, 
tho there is little to support this in the stories them- 
selves. 

To attempt to decide the question of how much 
historical truth the Samson stories contain would be 
futile. They are fine examples of ancient Israelitic 
folk-lore. It is perfectly evident that the deeds of 


such a one as we may reasonably suppose S. to have | 


been would be favorite topics for the local story- 
tellers, and the temptation to embellish the original 
forms of the stories with entertaining details would, 
doubtless, be very strong. The kernel of the stories 
must belong to the ‘Judges’ period. Whether his- 
torical (as regards S. himself) or not, they are first- 
class historical evidence for much that relates to the 
social and political conditions on the western border 
of Israel in the 11th and 10th cents. B.c. 

Evidences of mythical elements in the Samson 
stories are too numerous and significant to be dis- 
regarded, and the view that to the actual historical 
basis in the stories there have been added materials 
originally belonging to the solar mythology so 
widespread in the ancient world is probably to be 
accepted as true. Cf. for a fair, balanced dis- 
cussion Burney, Com. on Judges (1918), pp. 391- 
408. HEN: 


SAMUEL, sam’yu-el (Pain, shemvél), ‘name of 
God’ (ef. Driver, Notes on the Heb. Text of Samuel, p. 
13 f.): The great leader of Israel in the time just pre- 
ceding the kingdom period. The story of 8. in I§ 
is made up from two main threads of narrative (see 
Davi, § 2, and Samugt, Books or, § 3 f.). In one 
of these, S. is set forth as he was thought of by the 
idealizing admiration of later centuries, which, while 
making use of old traditions, reread and interpreted 
them in accordance with the views of a later age. 
According to this view, S. was from the first a chosen 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


806 


instrument, to whom even as a child God made 
known His purpose concerning Eli. When he had 
grown to manhood he assumed the leadership of all 
Israel, thought of as acting as a unit through tri- 
bal representatives at great public assemblies. He 
brought about a religious reform, then conquered the 
Philistines and thus freed Israel from her enemies. 
In the era of peace that followed he was the supreme 
judge of the land. In his old age he appointed his 
sons judges, but the people were dissatisfied and de- 
manded a king as a judge. S. was much displeased, 
but at the command of J’’ proceeded to select a king, 
tho still warning the people of the fatal character 
of such a choice on their part. Saul was chosen, but 
soon proved that 8S. was correct in his gloomy fore- 
bodings. When Saul failed to execute fully the 
Divine commission to exterminate the Amalekites, 


S. in great anger declared that he had forfeited his 


right to be king. Soon after, S. privately anointed 
David and once, in the troublous times that fol- 
lowed, protected David from Saul. At his death he 
was greatly mourned by all Israel and buried in 
Ramah. The last notice in this narrative concerning 
S. is that peculiar story in I S 28 3 ff. where S., called 
from his rest in Sheol, once more pronounces upon 
the unhappy Saul the message of doom. 


The other narrative (9 1-10 16) is simpler in char- 
acter, and appears to have been written at a much 
earlier period when the traditions regarding S were 
fresher and more accurate. In this narrative, the 
beginning of which has apparently been lost (IS 
7 15-17 may belong to this beginning), S. appears as a 
local seer of considerable influence in the territory 
near his home, Ramah. He felt how unfortunate the 
condition of Israel was without a leader against the 
enemy, the Philistines, and was waiting from J” to 
show him the right man to select and commission 
for this work. One day Saul of Benjamin appeared, 
searching for his father’s asses and anxious to ask 
the seer where they might be found. S. (in the double 
capacity of seer and priest which was perfectly nor- 
mal in ancient times) was just about to preside over 
a sacrifice (and sacrificial feast to which about 
thirty influential persons had been invited) at the 
‘high place’ of Ramah. S. at once discerned in Saul 
the Divinely sent man and, after honoring him at 
the feast, entertained him at his home overnight, and 
on dismissing him in the morning anointed him with 
oil to be J’”s prince or ‘leader’ over His inheritance. 
Giving Saul knowledge of certain ‘signs’ that would 
befall him on his way home, he told him to await 
the ‘occasion’ that would call him forth into public 
service. 


In the light of this older account the later one must 
be judged. In some respects, especially in its repre- 
sentation of 8S. as judge of ‘all Israel from Dan to 
Beer-sheba’ (3 20, 7 3, 10 17 ff), its view that S. was 
opposed to the popular demand for a king (8 6 #..), 
its idea that S. made a complete conquest of the 
Philistines (7 13 f.), and that he took the prominent 
part assigned him in public affairs after Saul be- 
came king, this latter account is in conflict with the 
older account of 9 1-10 16. But there is no reason to 
discount altogether all that the later account tells us 
of §., and it is likely that the traditions concerning 





807 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Samson 
Samuel, Books of 





his childhood, early life at Shiloh, prominence in 
Ephraim, and general influence for good have a basis 
in actual facts. He was doubtless the one man who, 
more than any other, by his loyalty to J’ and ardent 
patriotism, stirred, the people of central Israel to 
desire to shake off the Philistine yoke and assert 
their independence. He thus paved the way for 
Saul and David. E. E. N. 


SAMUEL, BOOKS OF: 1. Name. The two 
Books of Samuel in the EVV formed in the original 
Heb. canon but one book, called, according to 
Origen, ‘Samuel’ being the third of the so called 
‘Earlier Prophets.’ In the LXX. this was divided 
into two books, as was done also with the following 
Book of Kings, and the four resulting books were 
called Ist, 2d, 3d, and 4th ‘Book(s) of the King- 
doms.’ This division was not adopted into Heb. 
Bibles until the age of printing, the second edition 
of Bomberg’s Heb. Bible being the first to make 
use of it, tho it had long been current in the Latin 
Bible. 


2. General Character and Contents. Like most 
of the other historical books in the O T, I and II 
S should be characterized as compilations of his- 
torical material of most varied character rather 
than as histories in the ordinary sense of that term. 
Early and late sources have been made use of, in 
many cases placed side by side, or interwoven, in 
spite of their different and often conflicting points of 
view and contents. And to the sources so used have 
been added glosses and insertions, each in its way rep- 
resenting the view of some later editor who sought 
thereby either to harmonize differences between the 
sources or to make some part of the material a more 
adequate expression of his own conception of the 
nature of the past history. 

The result is that we have a book which, while it 
seems at first sight to give in an orderly way the 
history of the period from Samuel to Solomon, 
proves on close analysis to be one of the most diffi- 
cult and complicated books in the O T. 

The general analysis of I and IT § is quite simple. 
The book is subdivided into three main divisions: 
(a) chs. 1-15. Samuel and Saul, or the Origin of the 
Monarchy (in which ch. 15 is of the nature of an 
appendix to chs. 1-14). (b) IS ch. 16-II S ch. 8. 
David the successor of Saul as king of all Israel. (c) 
II S chs. 9-24. The reign of David, king in Jeru- 
salem (in which chs. 21-24 form an appendix of 
miscellaneous material). It will be noticed that IS 
ch. 14 and ITS chs. 8 and 20 each end in a summary 
statement, indicating that these passages once 
formed closing paragraphs of independent narra- 
tives. 


3. Analysis and Criticism of I S chs. 1-15. The 
first division (I S chs. 1-15) may be analyzed as 
follows: 

I. The Career of Samuel as Prophet and Judge, chs. 1-7. 

1. The child Samuel at the sanctuary, 1 1-2 1, 
(1) Parentage and birth of S., 1 1-23, 
(2) S. given to the Lord by his mother, 1 24-28, 
(3) Hannah’s psalm of thanksgiving, 2 1-11, 
2. The Divine judgment on Eli’s house, 2 12-3 18, 
(1) The wickedness of Eli’s sons, 2 12-26, 
a. Their sin in regard to the offerings, 2 12-17, 
b. Samuel visited yearly by his mother, 2 18-21, 
c. Eli rebukes his sons in vain, 2 22-26, 


(2) Judgment on Eli’s house pronounced by a ‘man 
of God,’ 2 27-36, 

(3) Revelation to S. of the doom on Eli’s house, 3 1-18, 

3. S. becomes known to all Israel as a prophet of J’ in 
Shiloh (3 19-4 18), 
4. Israel defeated by the Philistines, 4 1>-7 2. 

(1) The defeat at Aphek. The Ark captured. Eli’s 
sons slain. Death of Eli and of Phinehas’ wife, 
4 la-22, 

(2) The Ark in the hands of the Philistines. It is 
returned to the Israelites and kept at Kiriath- 
jearim, 5 1-7 2, 

5. S. the leader of Israel, 7 3-17, 

(1) The religious reform, 7 3 f- 

(2) S. conquers the Philistines, 7 5-14, 

(3) S. the judge of Israel, 7 15-17. 

II. The Origin of the Monarchy. Saul made king, chs. 8-12. 
1. The people demand a king. S. is displeased and 
warns them, but J” directs him to proceed, ch. 8. 
2. The meeting between S. and Saul, 9 1-10 16 (see below). 
3. Saul chosen king by lot at the assembly at Mizpah, 
10 17-27, 
4. Saul rescues Jabesh-gilead from the Ammonites, 
NAL 1-13, 
The kingdom renewed at Gilgal, 11 \ ¢- 
6. Samuel’s farewell address, ch. 12. 
III. Saul’s Reign and Rejection by God, chs. 13-15. 
1. The great victory of Saul over the Philistines, 13 1- 
14 46, 
(1) Saul and Jonathan smite the Philistine garrison 
at Geba, 13 1-4, 
(2) The Philistines invade Israel in force, 13 5-7, 
(3) Saul rebuked for violating his appointment with 
Samuel, 13 7b-15a, 
(4) The Philistines overrun the land, 13 15b-23, 
(5) Saul’s first great victory over the Philistines, 
14 1-46, 
2. Saul’s other wars and victories, 14 47 f- 
3. Saul’s family, 14 49-51, 
4. Continuous war with the Philistines, 14 52. 

5. Saul commissioned by S. to exterminate Amalek; 
he disobeys and is rejected by God, ch. 15. i 

A careful examination of the foregoing analysis 
will show that there are at least two parallel threads 
of narrative running through it, which not only differ 
from each other, but presuppose altogether different 
sets of circumstances. In addition, there are nu- 
merous minor episodes attached to these or inter- 
woven with them which seriously disturb the orderly 
progress of the narrative. 

In chs. 1-7 the main theme, as the book now 
stands, is doubless the career of Samuel. This is 
given in the following passages: (a) The parentage 
and dedication to J’ (1 1-28). On the text difficulty 
in ver. 28 see HANNAH. (b) The yearly visits of 
Samuel’s mother to Shiloh to see S. (2 18-21). (ce) 
The revelation to the child S. of the doom of Eli’s 
house (3 1-18). (d) S. becomes recognized by all 
Israel as a prophet (3 19-4 1). (e) S. assumes the 
leadership of Israel, brings about a religious reform, 
and conquers the Philistines (7 3-14). (f) S. the 
judge (7 15-17). Attached to this main thread, per- 
haps as later insertions, are (1) the Song, or Psalm, 
of Hannah, a late composition (2 1-10) belonging to 
the kingdom period (ef. ver. 10); (2) the passages 
dealing with the wickedness of Eli’s sons (2 12-17 
and 22-26, one of which was probably originally con- 
nected directly with 3 1-18); (3) the message of the 
‘man of God’ to Eli (2 27-36, a passage that is really 
concerned with the claims of two rival priestly 
families, and belongs naturally to a later time; see 
Priestuoop, § 5 f.); (4) the long section regarding 
the defeat of Israel and the capture of the Ark (4 
1b-7 2, in which there is no reference whatever to 
Samuel). All this material has been so well inter- 


Samuel, Books of 
Sanctuary 


A NEW STANDARD 
woven with the main thread (dealing specifically 
with 8.) that no serious discrepancy is observed. 

In the next main section (chs. 8-12) uniformity is 
not so well secured. The biographical passages that 
carry forward the story of those in chs. 1-7 and 
from the same view-point are: (1) The dissatisfac- 
tion of the people at the sons of S. as judges (8 1-3). 
(2) Their demand for a king ‘to judge us like all the 
nations’ (8 4-6). (3) 8S. protests in vain against this 
plan, but is directed by J”’ to give His disloyal people 
a king (8 7-22) (4) At an appointed meeting at 
Mizpah Saul is chosen king (10 17-25). (5) Later, S. 
delivers a farewell address (ch. 12, which, however, 
belongs logically with 10 25). 

But in the midst of these passages there are two 
long sections, intimately related, which are of en- 
tirely different character: (1) In 9 1-10 16 Saul, the 
Benjamite, a young man, hunting for his father’s 
asses, comes into the neighborhood of Ramah, the 
home of 8. Saul apparently knows nothing of S., 
who is called by the old term ‘seer’ (cf. 9 9), but 
Saul’s servant knows of him and advises Saul to 
ask §. as to the whereabouts of the asses. It is a 
sacrifice-day in Ramah, and Saul meets S. just as 
the latter is about to preside at the sacrifice (9 11- 
14). §. at once discerns in Saul the wished-for 
‘prince’ who was to ‘save my people out of the hand 
of the Philistines’ (9 16; contrast 8 5), greets him 
heartily, gives him the place of honor at the 
sacrificial meal, and entertains him overnight (9 
15-25). The next morning §S. dismisses Saul after 
intimating to him what is in store for him, and 
tells him to ‘do as occasion shall serve thee’ (9 26- 
10 8, in which 10 8 is a gloss to make the whole 
harmonize with 18 8-152). Saul returns home and 
tells no one what has happened (10 9-16). (2) The 
‘occasion’ S. referred to comes soon in the summons 
from Jabesh-gilead (111 f.), and the resulting victory 
at once brings Saul into public notice and leads to his 
being chosen king. In these sections the kingdom 
is viewed as a blessing, 8. is warmly in favor of it, 
the function of the king is mainly military, and the 
great national need is deliverance from the Philis- 
tines. The passages 10 25-27 and 11 12-15 are com- 
posite in character, and their analysis is not easy. 

The next section (chs. 13-15) is also not all of the 
same character. Ch. 13 f. deals with Saul’s wars, 
especially with his great initial victory over the 
Philistines, and ch. 15 with his final rejection by 
S. In the midst of the narrative of Saul’s struggle 
with the Philistines in ch. 13 we find a story of S.’s 
denunciation of Saul (13 7b-15a, with which possibly 
parts of vs. 4-6 are to be connected). In this inter- 
polation the scene is at Gilgal, while in the main 
narrative it is near Geba and Michmash (138 2 f., 
16 ff.). Ch. 15, tho similar in its point of view to 
13 7b-15a, is a piece by itself. 

Tho result of the foregoing analysis of IS 1-15 can 
be stated as follows: The compiler (of the Books of 
Samuel) used as one of his sources for the story of the 
origin of the monarchy and the reign of Saul a very 
old account (cf. 99) in which, after telling how the 
Philistines had gained control of Israel (ch. 4), Saul 
was set forth as the savior of his country, who broke 
the power of the enemy and led Israel to victory on 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


808 


all sides. Saul was the Divine choice through 8., was 
mightily endowed by ‘the spirit of J’” (9 1-10 16), 
triumphed first over the Ammonites (11 1-11), then 
broke the power of the Philistines (13 1-6, 16-14 46), 
then conquered other peoples (14 47 f.), the narra- 
tive concluding with a formal notice of Saul’s family 
(14 49-51, which may be a later addition). In this old 
narrative the attitude toward the kingdom-idea and 
toward Saul is altogether friendly. See Kina. 
Parallel with this is another and probably much 
later account, which, however, made use of some 
old material. This account gives much space to 
S.’s biography; it emphasizes the virtues of S., the 
perfection of his administration, even falling into 
serious historical error in 7 13 f., and, viewing the 
kingdom with disfavor, points out how the kingdom 
in the person of its first king fulfilled 8.’s gloomy 
forebodings. The point of view here is the ‘Deu- 


teronomic,’ and the general character of certain © 


long passages such as chs. 12 and 15 is distinctly 
‘Deuteronomie.’ 


4. Analysis of I S ch. 16-II S ch. 24. For the 
analysis of the remainder of the material in I and 
II S the reader is referred to the article Davn, § 2, 
where it is given in full and where also its historical 
character is discussed. Here it is necessary only to 
point out that while with 16 14 a new source begins 
(called narrative A in art. Davin), the connection 
between this source and the preceding story found 
in ch. 4, in 91-10 16, 11 1-11, and in ch. 18 f. (except 
13 7b-i5a) is very close. Both are written in the same 
spirit, and the second might even be considered the 
continuation of the first. Likewise, it will be noted 
that the narrative called B in art. Davin is but a 
continuation of the sections in I$ 11-1613 dealing 
with the biography of S., the mistake of choosing a 
king, and the conflict between S. and Saul, or the 
‘Deuteronomic’ sections. . 

It is quite possible, as a number of scholars now 
claim, that the older strands of narrative in I and 
II S are closely related to, if not identical with, the 
J and E material of the Hexateuch (q.v.). This 
involves no essential alteration of the position taken 
above in which the essential facts only (on which 
any theory must be based) are presented. 


5. Authorship, Date, and Historical Value of I 
and II S. Since the books are compilations from 
older documents, little can be said concerning their 
authorship. The main documents used, viz., the 
old history of Saul (I S ch. 4, 9 1-10 16, 11 1-11, 13 
1-7a, 15b-14, end) and of David (narrative A) and the 
history of David’s reign in Jerusalem (Da?) were of 
quite early date (10th or 9th cent. B.c.), as was 
also much of the miscellaneous material in II S chs 
20-24 (see Davin, § 2 (4)). To this material a high 
historical value must be assigned throughout. On 
the other hand, the ‘Deuteronomic’ passages, tho 
embodying some older material, are as a rule of late 
date (7th cent. or after) and are written with a dis- 
tinctively didactic or ‘pragmatic’ purpose. The past 
history is viewed in the light of the writer’s present, 
and all persons and events judged accordingly. S. 
and David are idealized, the kingdom was funda- 
mentally a great error (in spite of David; ef. 1S 
8 10-18), and in Saul are seen the type and fate of 





| 
: 
: 


809 A NEW STANDARD 


the king who chooses his own will against that of J’. 
To these passages only a moderate degree of histor- 
ical value can be assigned. The kernal of historical 
truth they contain must be carefully distinguished 
from the interpretations or additions of the writer 
himself. 

The first draft of I and II S was made probably 
before the Exile. But certain passages, e.g., IS 2 
27-36, may be postexilic. At all events, it is probable 
that the books did not assume their present form 
until after the Exile. 


LirgerRATuRE: Works on O T Introduction, especially Driver, 
LOT, and Cornill, Einleitung (51905, Eng. transl. 1907); 
Stenning in HDB, s.v.; Moore in EB, art. Historical Litera- 
ture; H. P. Smith, JCC (1899); Budde, in Hand-Commentar 
(1902); A. R. S. Kennedy in New Cent. Bible es 


SANBALLAT, san-bal‘at (02232,  sanbhallat, 
Assyr. Sin-uballit, ‘the god Sin has given life’): A 
Horonite, possibly a native of Beth-horon, tho 
Josephus says he was a ‘a Cuthean by birth’ 
(Ant. XI, 7 2). He was a Samaritan of considerable 
influence, and unsuccessfully plotted to defeat 
Nehemiah’s plans for rebuilding the walls of Jeru- 
salem (4 1ff.). He then invited this Jewish governor 
to a conference at Ono, that he might treacherously 
slay him (6 1-4), but shrewdness kept Nehemiah 
busy at work in Jerusalem. Neither were threats of 
any use in his plottings (6 5-14). A grandson of the 
high priest Jaddua had become Sanballat’s son-in- 
law (138 28). Josephus (Ant. XI, 7 2) tells us, tho 
he entirely mistakes the date, that his name was 
Manasseh, and that he, when given the alternative 
either of forsaking his wife Nicaso and remaining 
in Jerusalem or of accompanying her to Shechem 
and becoming high priest of a new temple to be 
built by his father-in-law on Gerizim; chose the 
latter, and thus established the community of 
Samaritans, who adopted as their Scriptures the 
Pentateuch. Sayce attributes Josephus’ statements 
to an apocryphal story of the Samaritan temple. 

1 Mé P. 


SANCTIFY, SANCTIFICATION: 1. 
Sense. To make, declare, or regard ‘holy.’ The 
Heb. and Gr. terms (qdadhash, ‘to be separate,’ and 
its derivatives, and ayt&tety, ‘to hallow’) are rendered 
in the EVV by ‘hallow,’ ‘consecrate,’ ‘sanctify.’ 
But these represent in general a progressive move- 
ment from the outward to the inner and ethical. 

2. To ‘Hallow.’ In the first instance, to sanctify 
is to regard or declare holy by separating from com- 
mon usage to the service of God. The Sabbath day 
was thus separated (‘hallowed,’ Ex 20 11); so also 
were the vessels of the sanctuary (Ex 409). Solo- 
mon hallowed the inner court of the Temple (II 
Ch 77). In the N T this sense survives in the first 
petition of the Lord’s Prayer (Mt 69). To hallow 
God’s name is neither to make it holy nor to conse- 
crate it, but simply to recognize and declare it such. 

3. To ‘Consecrate.’ With the rise of the ritual the 
idea of sanctification takes on the sense of conse- 
cration. By special symbolical action that which is 
separated from common use and dedicated to re- 
ligious purposes is given a new, tho conventional 
character. To turn it into any other use after such 
consecration is to defraud God and thereby commit 


General | 


Samuel, Books of 


a grievous offense. The priesthood acquired this 
ceremonial holiness by consecration. But the tech- 
nical term employed to express this conception (Ex 
28 41, 29 9) is to ‘fill their hands,’ viz., make them 
competent for service by placing within their hands 
the gift which as priests they are to bring to the altar 
of J’’. A place or house of God was in the same way 
consecrated, the special technical term used being 
‘dedicate’ (hdnakh, I K 8 63; éyxatvitetv, He 9 18). 

4. To ‘Sanctify.’ It is only in the N T that the 
third, and highest, sense of the verb sanctify (sanc- 
tification) appears, and here, clearly and plainly, first 
in the usage of Paul. To sanctify is to make inwardly 
whole. And the work is the function of the Spirit of 
God. In the Gospels, no mention is made of inward 
sanctification. In the utterances of Jesus, to sanctify 
is to consecrate. It is the Temple which sanctifies the 
gold, and the altar which sanctifies the gift (Mt 
23 17, 19; cf. also usage in Jn 10 36 and 17 17, 19). Paul, 
however, distinctly passes to the ethical sense. He 
sets it as the goal of God’s wish for the disciples 
of Christ that they should be completely sanctified 
(I Th 4 3); and he evidently includes in his thought 
the control and direction of the body in purity by 
the spirit, the putting off of sin, and the putting on 
of holiness. 

The agent of sanctification 1s the Holy Spirit 
(Ro 15 16). His indwelling, working from within 
outward, constitutes the essence of sanctification, 
which is, therefore, not a garment to be put on, 
but a spiritual principle; so that, even when one 
portion of the manhood is affected by it, it passes 
into and suffuses the whole. ‘If the root be holy, 
so are the branches’ (Ro 11 16). ‘ Sanctification is, 
then, neither a simple act nor a process which must 
be completed before it can be strictly called by that 
name. It is complete at the outset, and yet it is a 
process which admits of growth and increasingly 
nearer approximation to its ideal completion. How 
this apparent anomaly of thought arises is explained 
by the fact that the conception has had its static 
stage in its earlier form. In the O T it was the act 
of consecration that made the person or object holy. 
When the dynamic stage in the development of the 
conception came, it was understood as conformity 
to God’s character, rather than separation to His 
service. Whenever, therefore, the thought reverts 
to the static aspect of the conception, sanctification 
appears as an already complete thing. Hence be- 
lievers are holy. They are saints (Ro 1213; Il Co 11; 
Eph 1 1, etc.), but whenever the idea points to the 
growing or dynamic side of the notion, sanctifica- 
tion is progressive (a work of God’s Spirit inwardly, 
changing the sinner into increasingly perfect con- 


; formity to God’s whole image). This does not super- 


sede in the N T writings the earlier sense of ‘conse- 
eration’ and ‘hallowing’ (cf. He 13 12; I P 3 15), but 
expands and completes the notion. A. C. Z. 


SANCTUARY: This is the rendering of the two 
Heb. terms gédhesh and miqdash, both from gadhash, 
‘to be holy,’ and thus signifying ‘holy place.’ In the 
N T &ytov (He 8 2, 91 f., 13 11 AV) is so rendered, 
meaning the ‘holy place’ of the Tabernacle or Tem- 
ple except in 8 2, where the word is plural and the 
sense general (see RVmg.). Tho the term ‘sanctuary,’ 


Sandal 
Satan 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


810 





as it occurs in the EV, refers almost exclusively to 
the Tabernacle or Temple, it will be convenient here 
to discuss briefly certain conceptions expressed by 
such a term as migqddsh, ‘holy place.’ 

In primitive times the term ‘holy’ (see HoLinzss, 
§ 1) was applied in a very general way to many 
objects as well as persons. A holy character was 
assigned to springs, trees, heights, etc. (see Hicu 
Puace), as these were thought to be especially 
favorite haunts of deities (see Semitic REtiaion, 
§ 7). Israel, tho nominally worshiping J’ alone, 
easily came to think of Him as likely to be found in 
or near such ‘holy places,’ many of which had earlier 
been seats of the worship of Canaanite deities. 
Wherever He had specially manifested Himself or 
‘recorded’ His name (Ex 20 24) was a ‘holy place.’ 

When to such places were attached an altar, 
sacred stone pillar, sacred tree or wooden pillar 
(‘grove’ RV; see Semitic Retiaion, §§ 11, 29), and 
some symbol of deity, the golden calves, for example, 
at Bethel and Dan (cf. also Jg 17 5, 31), they took 
on special significance. If in addition such a sanc- 
tuary had a priesthood, it had all the furnishings for 
a fully equipped ‘holy place.’ The old narrative 
in Jg ch. 17 f. is very valuable, as showing how such 
a sanctuary could be established in early days in 
Israel. A sanctuary was also a place of asylum, the 
horns of the altar in particular being considered 
inviolable (cf. I K 2 28 #.). The sanctuaries of an- 
cient Israel were numerous (cf. Am 79). Some 
places like Shiloh, Bethel, Gilgal, Beer-sheba, etc., 
were great centers of worship, with numerous priests, 
and a highly developed cultus. On Bethel cf. Am 7 10 
ff. (in ver.13 for ‘chapel’ AV read ‘sanctuary’ with 
RV). See also Tempiy; and TaBeRNaActg, § 1. 

EK. HE. N. 


SANDAL. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 7. 

SAND-LIZARD. See Patustinp, § 26. 

SANHEDRIN. See Councit. 

SANSANNAH, son-san’a (12222, sansannah): A 
city in the south of Judah (Jos 15 31) = Hazar-susah, 


a town of Simeon (Jos 19 5; Hazar-susim in I Ch 
4 31). Site not surely identified. CUBS i 


SAPH, saf ((]?, saph): A son of ‘the giant,’ slain 
by David’s hero Sibbecai (II S 21 18; Sippai in I 
Ch 20 4). 

SAPHIR. See SHapuHir. 


SAPPHIRA, saf-ai’ra (Sergeton, an Aram. word 
meaning ‘beautiful’): The wife of Ananias (Ac 51 f..). 
See ANANIAS. 

SAPPHIRE. See Sronus, Precious, § 2 (5). 

SARAH, sé’ra, the later form of SARAT (77, 
sarah, °, sdray), ‘princess’ according to the tradi- 
tional interpretation which, however, is questionable 
(cf. ICC, ad loc.): 1. The wife of Abraham (Gn 11 29), 
and his father’s daughter (20 12). She accompanied 
A. from Ur of the Chaldees to Haran (11 31) and 
Canaan (12 5). Because of a famine, they went 
down to Egypt, where S., as sister of A., was taken 
into Pharaoh’s house. On finding out that she 
was Abraham’s wife, Pharaoh rebuked him and sent 
them on their way (1210-20, J). A similar adventure 
in connection with Abimelech (20 1-18, E) is probably 


a variation of the same story (cf. also 26 6-11). 
According to 17 17, S. was sixty-five years old when 
she went down into Egypt, an age which would 
seem to tell against the probability of the ex- 
perience in the court of Pharaoh. The ages evi- 
dently belong to another document, P. Being 
childless (11 30) Sarai gave Hagar, her handmaid, to 
Abraham as a concubine. Afterward, she dealt 
hardly with Hagar, so that the latter fled from the 
house, but later returned (ch. 16). In ch. 17 (P) a 
son is promised to Abraham of Sarai, whose name 
hereafter is to be Sarah (17 15 f.). Another account 
of the promise is given in J (189 ff.). The birth of 
Isaac is related in 21 1-7. Moved by jealousy be- 
cause of Ishmael’s attitude in the house, 8. compelled 
Hagar and Ishmael to leave. S. died in Kiriath-arba 
(Hebron) when 127 years old (23 1 £., P), and was 
buried in the cave of the field of Machpelah before 
Mamre (23 19; cf. 25 10, 49 31, P). In Is 51 2S. is © 
called the ‘mother’ of the true Israel. In the N T she 
is mentioned as the mother of ‘the children of the 
promise’ (Ro 9 9; cf. 4 i9), and as an example of a 
good wife (I P 36). Her faith is referred to in He 
11 11. Some scholars explain S. as being originally 
the name of a tribe or clan. 2. See Smraun. 
O78 hd 

SARAPH, sé’raf ("17¥, sdraph): A descendant of 
Judah (I Ch 4 22). The reference to a dominion over 
Moab is obscure. It probably refers to some post- 
exilic event. 

SARDINE. See Sronzs, Precrous, § 2 (1). 

SARDIS, sGr’dis (2kpdets): One of the seven 
churches mentioned in Rev (8 1 #.). It was the 
capital of the Lydian kingdom down to the fall of 


| Croesus (546 B.c.), then the residence of the Persian 


satrap. It was situated in a fertile plain at the 
northern slope of Tmolus. The beginnings of S. lie 
beyond the limits of known history. The Acropolis 
rose on three sides almost perpendicularly to a 


| height of 1,500 ft. above the plain. It was taken 


first by the Cimmerians, then by the Persians under 
Cyrus from Croesus, under whom S. had reached 
the zenith of her prosperity. With ordinary watch- 
fulness the Acropolis was impregnable, but in over- 
confidence its weak point was left unguarded and 
it was taken by stealth twice: by Cyrus, 549 B.c., 
and by Antiochus the Great in 218 B.c. (Cf. ‘Be 
thou watchful. . . . I will come as a thief, and thou 
shalt not know what hour,’ Rev 3 2) 8S. was devoted 
to the mysteries of Cybele (cf. ‘who have not soiled 
their garments,’ Rev 3 4). The importance of 8. 
was due to its strategic position commanding the 
great eastern trade-route, aided by its fertile plains 
and manufactures (woolen stuffs, rugs, gold orna- 
ments). This combination made Sardis rich, tho 
the ancients ascribed'her wealth to the gold washed. 
down by the Pactolus river: This was merely alle- 
gory, because S. was the first city to coin money; 
trade brought the gold to it, and its people were the 
earliest shopkeepers. Even to a late period Lydian 
sutlers accompanied, and enriched themselves ‘on, 
every army (the so called ‘Lydian market’). 8. be- 
came the first gold-market, to which the Spartans 
sent for gold wherewith to gild the Amyclean 
Apollo. §. was destroyed by earthquake in 17 a.p. 





811 


When the road-system came to radiate from Con- 
stantinople, 8. began to decline, being overshadowed 
by Philadelphia and Magnesia. Imposing ruins 
remain. Excavations have produced rich finds. 
J. R.S. S.*—S. A. 
SARDITE, sar’dait. See Szrep. 


SARDIUS, sir’di-us (the same as Sardine). See 
Sronss, Prectovs, § 2 (1). 

SARDONYX. Sex Sronzes, Precious, § 3 (13). 

SAREPTA, sa-rep’ta. See ZAREPHATH. 

SARGON (II), sar’gon (J2, sargin=Assyr. 
sharganu, sharu-kénu, ‘the king is faithful’): The 
king of Assyria from 722 to 705 B.c. He usurped the 
throne, and established the last great Assyrian 
dynasty. The first recorded event in his annals is 
the fall of Samaria, 722 B.c., which Shalmaneser (V) 
had begun to invest in 724 B.c. (II K 17 1-6), tho the 
records in Kings alone (cf. 17 3-6 and 189 f.) are not 
entirely clear. In 720 Sargon settled, among others, 
captive Hamathites in the cities of Samaria, and in 
717 captured Carchemish, the great Hittite capital 
(q.v.). In 715 he brought more colonists to Samaria, 
received so called tribute from the king of Egypt, 
and conquered Judah. About 711 Sargon sent his 
tartan (q.v.)—~.e., general (Is 20 1)—against Ashdod 
to break up the coalition that had been formed by 
the embassy of Merodach-baladan (Is ch. 39) from 
Chaldea. In 710 he threw his forces against Baby- 
lon, captured it, and proclaimed himself king thereof. 
His first residence was at Ashur, his second at Calah 
(Kalhu), his third at Nineveh, and his fourth and 
last, in his great palace at Khorsabad, 10 m. N. of 
Nineveh. He met his death mysteriously in a cam- 
paign in 705 B.c., against the Kullumites on the East 
border of Assyria. He made several advances in 
military equipment that increased the effectiveness 
of the Assyrian army. Sennacherib, his son, became 
his successor on the throne of Assyria. I. M. P. 

SARID, sé’rid (177, saridh, but perhaps origi- 
nally Shadudh; cf. the Syriac vers.): A town of Zeb- 
ulun (Jos 19 10, 12). Map IV, C 8. 

SARON, sé’ren. See SHARON. 

SARSECHIM, sar-si’/kim (0°20, sarsekhim): 
One of the princes of Nebuchadrezzar who assembled 
in council at the fall of Jerusalem (Jer 39 3). Various 
attempts have been made to read this otherwise than 
as in the Hebrew, but such attempts rather assume 
that the lists of verses 3 and 13 should be one and tho 


same. We prefer for the present to retain the He- 
brew reading. I-M. P. 
SARUCH, sé’rok (Zceoby, Lk 3.35 AV). See Serua. 
SASHES. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS, I, § 6. 
SATAN, sé’tan (]0¥, with the art., hassdtan), 
‘the adversary’. 1. Name. In general, one who 
places himself in another’s way and thus opposes 
him. In this sense, the Heb. word occurs in Nu 22 22, 
32; I K 11 25 (EVV ‘adversary’); also in Ps 109 6 
(RV, ‘Satan’ AV), but with a rather more specialized 
application as an accuser at law. As the proper name 
of one superhuman being it first occurs in Zec 3 1, 
where the article (‘the Satan’) indicates its applica- 
tion to a definite person. Thus it becomes a proper 
noun, and is used with increasing frequency (I Ch 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sandal 
Satan 


211; Job 16f., etc.; in the N T Xara, Lataves, Mt 
410; Jn 18 27; Ac 5 3; I Co 55; Rev 29, etc.). The 
form 8&GoA0g (devil) primarily designates Satan as 
calumniator (see the general use of the word in I Ti 
3 6; 11 Ti 2 26; 1 P58), xathywo, ‘accuser’ simply as an 
enemy (Rev 12 10). Other names are significant of 
some special phase of his character and activity, 
suca as ‘the tempter’ (6 retodGwv, Mt 4 3; I Th 3 5), 
‘the pernicious one’ (6 royynedés, ‘the wicked one,’ Mt 
13 19; Eph 6 16; also the evil one, Mt 6 13; but ‘evil’ 
AV). Names are also given him from the associa- 
tion of his personality with some extra-Biblical 
conception of the origin and administration of evil, 
such as Beelzebub, Beliar (q.v.) (II Co 6 15), the 
‘prince (¢exwv) of the demons’ (Mk 3 22 and |{s), of 
this world (Jn 12 31), of the powers of the air (Eph 
2 2), ‘the serpent’ (II Co11 3), and ‘the old serpent’ 
(Rev 129). 


2. Distinguished from Demons and Heathen 
Parallels. The full Biblical idea of Satan includes 
the notion of a superhuman personality, possessed of 
surpassing wisdom and malice, who accuses men of 
evil, tempts them to its performance, and becomes 
the instrument of their punishment for sin. Satan is, 
therefore, distinguished from demons, not simply by 
being greater and more powerful than they, even to 
the extent of ruling over them as a body, but by a 
special character and functions. In the N T the 
name ‘devil’ is never given to demons. The doctrine 
of Satan has its parallels in the mythologies of the 
heathen nations, such as Loki in Scandinavia, 
Ahriman in Persia, and Momus (the critic of gods 
and men) in Greece. But no figure in any mythology 
is exactly like the Biblical Satan. The others are 
either too playful and trivial or, as in the case of 
Ahriman, too independent of God’s control to com- 
pare with him. 


3. Development of the Conception. Historically, 
the conception of Satan emerges slowly. An intima- 
tion of the existence of a demon, or evil genius of the 
world, was to be found in the preexilic narrative of 
the fall of man (Gn ch. 3), in which the serpent (sug- 
gestive of the Babylonian Tidmat, the destroyer of 
the works of the gods) appears as the tempter of 
man to disobey God’s will. Evil spirits (‘evil spirits 
from J’”) are not unknown in the earlier days. They 
do men harm by their misleading influence and sug- 
gestion (Jg 9 23; IS 16 14; I K 22 22). But all these 
are subordinate to God and do His bidding. In 
Zec 31 Satan stands in a semi-independent attitude 
toward God, but is in the end subject to Him, and 
must have His permission to accomplish his design. 
Toward God’s people he is not sympathetic; he is 
not satisfied with the misfortunes that have befallen 
Jerusalem, and for this J’ shows His anger against 
him. In Job he appears submissive to God’s power 
and authority; but underlying this attitude he enter- 
tains a lurking desire to do harm to God’s righteous 
servants. The apparent incongruity of a person with 
such a frame of mind consorting with the other ‘sons 
of God’ in the courts of heaven, giving an account of 
himself to, and speaking on familiar terms with, God, 
disappears when the narrative is seen to be con- 
structed, not as a picture of realities, but as a vehicle 
of moral teaching, and it does present Satan in the 


Satan 
Scorn 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


812 





role of the accuser. In I Ch 211, on the other hand, 
the principal object of his appearance is to tempt. 
That here, too, his work is viewed as under the 
control of God is evident from the preexilic account 
of the same affair (II S$ 241), according to which God 
Himself puts David to the test. 


4. Satan in the Apocrypha. In the intertesta- 
mental period the conception of Satan was modified 
in the direction of widening the breach between him 
and God. This was no doubt due to the influence of 
Persian dualism. The existence of such influence is 
clearly shown in the figure of Asmodzus (the 
Zeschma-Deva of the Bundahesh, To 3 8, 17). In 
Eth. En. a hierarchy of Satans comes into view, 
different from, and yet confused with, the fallen 
angels (67). But apart from this, no new addition is 
made to the conception. 


5. Satan in the N T. In the N T there are signs of 
a process of synthesis, in which thelmalignant figures 
of Beelzebub, Apollyon, Beliar, and the old serpent 
(the great dragon) are fused into one. At the very 
threshold, Satan exercises his function as a tempter 
of Jesus (Mt 41). Later, the enemies of Jesus accuse 
Him of performing His miracles by the aid of the 
arch-enemy (Mk 3 23). Satan aims to nullify every 
good work (Mk 415); his fall is looked forward to as a 
complete triumph of God (Lk 10 18; Rev 20 2, 7); he 
is the instigator of falsehood (Ac 5 3; Rev 129), and of 
murder (Jn 13 27); but he is also the instrument of 
punishment for such as violate righteousness (I Co 
55;1Ti1 20). He is consistent and persistent in his 
efforts to draw men away from God into destruction 
(I P58; Eph611). He succeeds in securing many in 
his toils, who are then called his children (Ac 13 10; 
Jn 8 44), or his synagog (Rev 2 9), or blended in his 
personality (Jn 6 70; Mk 8 33). He is recognized as 
in control over a kingdom of evil spirits, situate in 
the circumambient atmosphere, and being in direct 
contact with, and influence over, human lives (Eph 
2 2, ‘the prince of the powers of the air’, 6 12). See 
also Demon, DEMonoLoey, § 4. A. C. Z. 


SATCHEL. See Bac; and Dress AnD ORNA- 
MENTS, IT, § 2. 

SATRAPS, sé’traps (DIP TIYON, 'dhashdarpenim, 
from the Persian khshtrapavan, ‘protectors of the 
realm,’ which the Greeks rendered into é&ateérys;, 
cateéxns): Governors of provinces under the Persian 
rule (Ezr 8 36; Est 3 12, 89, 9 3, lieutenants AV, and, 
in the Aram. form, Dn: 3 2, 3, 27, 67, princes AV). The 
office was next to that of the king himself, and the 
powers attached to it were limited only by the mon- 
arch’s authority. The division of the empire into 
provinces governed by satraps was made by Darius 
Hystaspes (520-486 B.c.) and is frequently referred to 
by the Greek historians (Xenoph. Cyrop. VII, 4 2; 
VIII, 6 3; Herod. I, 192). A. C. Z. 

SATYR, sat’ar: The rendering of the Heb. sd@‘tr, 
‘hairy,’ ‘wild goat,’ in Is 13 21, 3414, both AV. The 
RV renders literally ‘wild goat,’ but it is probable 
that the reference is actually to goatlike demons, 
popularly supposed to inhabit the desert. See also 
Demon, Demono.oey, $1. E. E. N. 


SAUL, sol (718Y, sha’al), ‘asked [of J”]: 1. The 
son of Kish, a man of Benjamin, and the first king of 


Israel. The story of S. lies before us in I § in two 
types of narrative. 
probably more reliable than the other, is contained 
(1) in chs. 9-14 (mainly in 9 1-10 16, 11 1-11, 13 1-7a, 
15b-ch. 14) and (2) as a part of the story of David 
(see Davin, § 2 (1)). The other type of narrative, 
quite late and written from the point of view of the 
religious reformers of the 7th cent., is contained (1) 
mainly in I § 10 8, 17-24, 11 14 f., 13 7b-15a, 15 1-34, 
and (2) in the narrative called B in art. Davmn, § 2 
(2) (q.v.). See also SamuEL, Books or, § 3. 


The S. presented to us in the first of these sources 
is a brave, patriotic man, of fine physical presence, 
able, energetic, and generally successful in war, and 
in his better moods a man of some personal magne- 
tism. But the older sources reveal also certain 
mental traits which can probably be best interpreted 


as belonging to a man with a strong tendency to 


melancholia, which at times verged on epilepsy (10 
10), at other times on violent insanity, rendering 
him peculiarly liable to feelings of jealousy. In the 
later source those actions of 8. which were due mainly 
to these faults of his disposition are singled out and 
overemphasized (due to the writer’s exclusively re- 
ligious point of view) and thus made the basis of the 
unfavorable judgment pronounced on him. The 
writer of this later material lived in an age (after 
the evil and religiously disastrous reign of Manasseh) 
when it was natural for one who had Israel’s highest 
welfare at heart to look back over the history of the 
kingdom and consider that as a whole it had been 
productive of evil rather than good. S. was used as 
the example illustrating this theory, and thus served 
the didactic rather than strictly historical purpose 
of the writer. In view of these considerations, it is 
safer to follow the older sources almost exclusively 
in our estimate of S.’s personality and work. 


S. came to the throne probably some time near 
1030 s.c. It was a time when central Israel was 
under the overlordship of the powerful Philistine 
confederacy. Garrisons of these foreigners were 
stationed here and there over the land. The work 
of Samuel the ‘seer’ of Ramah, had led to a strong 
desire to throw off the Philistine yoke, but no suit- 
able leader appeared. At last, Samuel discerned in 
S. the man for the times and summoned him to the 
task (9 1-10 16). S. was at this time a man in the 
prime of life with several sons, the eldest of whom, 
Jonathan, was one of the choicest spirits known to 
Israel’s tradition. The appeal of the people of 
Jabesh-gilead roused S. to action and revealed him as 
a leader with the requisite courage and ability, and 
he was made king (ch. 11). Soon after this, the 
struggle with the Philistines began in earnest. Jona- 
than attacked and slew the garrison in Geba near 
S.’s home (18 3). The Philistines retaliated by an 
invasion in force (13 5f., 16 #.). But Jonathan threw 
the garrison of Michmash into panic (14 1-15), and, 
thus encouraged, the Israelites attacked the Philis- 
tines with vigor and succeeded in driving them out 
of the country with great slaughter (14.16 ff.). From 
this account the section 13 7b-15a is to be excluded. 
Its scene is laid in Gilgal, far away from Geba and 
Michmash. It belongs to the later strand of nare 
rative to which 10 8 is also to be assigned. 


One of these, much older and — 





813 





Throughout the rest of S.’s reign the highland of 
central Israel was practically free from Philistine 
invasion, altho there was constant war on the border, 
the ‘Shephelah’ region, between the two peoples. 
S.’s rashness and fickleness and other elements of 
weakness in his character are revealed in such inci- 
dents as we read of in 14 18 f. and especially in 14 24- 
30, 43 ff. 

It was in the latter half of his reign, probably after 
he had achieved considerable military success (14 
47 {.), that his malady, a morose melancholia, de- 
veloped to such an extent that means were sought 
to charm it away by music (16 14 #.). Thus David 
was brought into contact with S., and the latter made 
him one of his close companions and gave him high 
rank in his little band of officers. But David’s popu- 
larity aroused S.’s jealousy, and at last S. planned 
to killhim. For the period between the more violent 
outbreak of S.’s malady and his death, five years is 
sufficient to meet the demands of the narrative. In 
those years 8.’s administration of affairs became 
constantly more inefficient, and at last the Philistines 
saw their opportunity to strike a heavy and, as it 
proved, effective blow. At Gilboa S. lost his life in 
battle with these foes against whom he had previ- 
ously been uniformly successful. The best testi- 
mony to his military ability is perhaps to be found 
in David’s lament (II § 1 22 f.). 

The reign of S. accomplished much for Israel. It 
awoke the nation to a consciousness of its effi- 
ciency under capable leadership. It brought about 
a closer union between the tribes. In particular, 
Judah, which had been rather isolated from the rest 
of Israel from the Conquest, once more began to 
take part in the affairs common to the nation as a 
whole. §S. was also zealous, in his way, for the 
national religion (14 19, 31 ff.; cf. II S 21 2). At his 
death Israel had no desire to return to their former 
loose confederacy. In these respects, 8S. paved the 
way for his abler successor David. 

But S. was not an organizer. He was little more 
than a successful military chieftain. He had no 
palace, no system of government, no capital city 
(cf. 22 6). In such matters as these he was far in- 
ferior to David, the real founder of the monarchy. 

2. One of the kings of Edom (Gn 36 37 f. AV, 
Shaul RV). 3. The Hebrew name of Paul (Ac 7 58); 
see PAUL. E. E. N. 


SAVIOR. See Jesus Curist, § 15 (e). 

SAVOR. See SacriFiceE AND OrrERINGs, § 15: 

SAW. See Arrizan Lire, § 6. 

SAYING. See Proverss: and Wispom, WISE 
Men, § 2. 

SCAB. See DiskAsE AnD MepiIcInp, 4 (1), (3). 

SCALES. See Diszase AND MepicIng, § 7; and 
Weriacuts AND Mrasurss, § 4 (d). 

SCALL. See Disuase AND MeEpicing, 4 (3:. 

SCAPEGOAT. See AZAzEL. 

SCARLET. See Cotors, § 2; Dress anp OrNa- 
MENTS, § 5. 


SCEPTER: This term renders: (1) The Heb. 
shébhet, ‘rod’ (Gn 49 10; Nu 24 17; Ps 125 3, ‘rod’ 
AV). (2) sharbhit, which is probably an Aramaized 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Satan 
Scorn 


form of (1) (Est 4 11, 52, 8 4). (8) m*hdgéq, ‘law- 
giver’ (Nu 21 18;{Ps 60 7, ‘lawgiver’ AV); and 
(4) the Gr. 64@30¢ (He 18). The scepter was used 
as an emblem of royalty among ancient peoples, 
e.g., the Egyptians (Zec 10 11) and the Persians 
(Est 4 11, ete.). It is described by Rawlinson 
(Anc. Mon.? II, 340) as ‘a plain rod about 5 ft. 
in length ornamented with a ball or apple at its 
upper end, and at its lower tapering nearly to a 
point.’ It was probably an adaptation either of the 
shepherd’s staff or the warrior’s spear, and sym- 
bolized the authority vested in him who bore it. 
A similar use is to be seen in the mace or club of 
northern peoples. Among the Israelites, its use as 
royal insignia appears at least as early as preexilic 
days (Gn 49 10; Nu 24 17; Am 1 5, 8); but, more ap- 
propriately, it is in connection with the Persian 
court of Xerxes (Ahasuerus) that references to the 
scepter and its symbolism of authority occur. 
LU on Bs. 


SCEVA, si’va (Xxevz). The Jewish father of 
seven exorcists, whom Paul encountered at Ephesus 
(Ac1914). Thereare variations in the MSS. D has 
a somewhat longer text. S. is described as an 
éextepe¥s (in D simply tepeds) which may mean no 
more than that he was a member of a high priestly 
family (see Schiirer, GJ V4, II, 276). The writer 
of Ac is fond of describing incidents of this character 
and of bringing out the superiority of Christianity 
in such scenes and contests. For example: Simon 
Magus, Ac 8 18 f.; Elymas, Ac 13 8 £.; the Pythoness, 
Ac 1616. See Maaic anp Divination, §9. J.M.T. 


SCHOOL: The ‘school’ (cyoAH) of Tyrannus (Ac 
19 9) was probably the lecture-room of a rhetorician, 
or philosopher, of that name. Some ancient texts 
add, after Tyrannus, ‘from the fifth to the tenth 
hour,’ z.e., from 11 a.m. to 4 p.m., generally used as a 
rest period. See Tyrannus and cf. Ramsay, St. Paul 
the Traveller (1896), p. 270 f. See also Epucation, 
8§ 7 ff. K. E. N. 


SCHOOLMASTER. See Epucation, § 9 


SCIENCE: The rendering of maddd@‘, ‘understand- 
ing,’ ‘insight’? (Dn 1 4), and of yvéotc, ‘knowledge’ 
(I Ti 6 20 AV). In the latter passage the speculative 
systems of those who falsely claimed to possess a 
higher esoteric form of knowledge are intended. 


S. D.—M. W. Ak 
SCOFF, SCOFFER. See Scorn. 


SCORN, SCORNER: These terms represent the 
Heb. words: (1) la‘ag, ‘derision’—for barbarous 
habits of language (stammering) (II K 19 21; Is 37 
22); (2) mishaq, ‘pure laughter’ (Hab 1 10; cf. IT Ch 
30 10); (3) lits, latsdn, ‘perversion,’ ‘distortion,’ more 
particularly of the despising of sacred things; hence a 
scorner (Ps 11, ‘scornful AV, scoffers RV) is one who 
sins by his contemptuous attitude toward J’ (Pr 
1 22, ‘scoffers’ RV [29 8]; the term is a favorite one in 
Pr); (4) bazah, ‘to despise’ (Est 3 6); (5) galas, ‘to 
scoff,’ ‘to mock’ (Ezk 16 31). The central element in 
the conception is that of contempt which, however, 
subordinately rouses mirth. The object of scorn is 
always looked at as on a lower level of intelligence or 
power. Ae aes 


Scorpion 
Seal 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


$14 





SCORPION. See Patestine, § 26; also Crimes 
AND PUNISHMENTS, § 3 (b). 


SCOURGE, SCOURGING: The Heb. words so 
rendered are: (1) shdt, ‘scourge,’ ‘whip,’ for chasti- 
sing (cf. ‘whip’ I K 12 11, 14=II Ch 10 u1, 14); used 
in a figure of J’ chastising the nations (Is 10 26, 
28 15 [ Kethibh], 18) by pestilence (Job 9 23); a figure 
of the ‘lashing’ of the tongue (Job 5 21). (2) shdétét, 
figuratively of the Canaanites as a source of trouble 
to Israel (Jos 23 13). (3) shayit (Is 28 15) should be 
shot. (4) biqgdreth (Lv 19 20) should be as RVmg., 
‘there shall be inquisition’ =judicial trial. (5) 
ugottE (LXX. for shdt), ‘scourge,’ and pacttyody, 
waotitety, ‘to scourge. The Jews made use of a 
doubled strap of cowhide, with which the bared back 
and breast were beaten (cf. Mt 10 17, 23 34). The 
Roman scourge (flagellum, Gr. geayéAAtov) was 
made of cords or leather thongs, attached to a handle. 
The cords were often knotted or had metal rings 
attached to them (cf. Ac 22 24f.; Jn 191, ete.). The 
first vb. is used (He 12 6) metaphorically of God’s 
training of men by afflictions. (6) goeayéAAtoy, 
geayeArody, the Roman flagellum; see preceding. 
Jesus made one of small cords (Jn 215). C.S. T. 


SCREECH-OWL. See PavestTine § 25; and 
NiGut-MOonNsTER. 


SCREEN. See TABERNACLE, § 8 (1). 


SCRIBE, SCRIBES: In the O T the term rendered 
‘scribe’ has a generic sense as the equivalent of 
‘secretary’ (sdphér, ‘writer’ [sdphar, Aram., Ezr 4 8 
etc.|, Est 3 12; Is 36 3; and perhaps ‘annalist’ in such 
passages as II § 8 17, etc.), but it is also used as a 
designation of a man particularly acquainted with 
the Law (Ezr 7 6; Neh 12 26; 1 Ch 255). Inthe N T 
the term yeayueteds (but almost always in the pl., 
yeaupatets) means a learned person whose special 
field of study was the Law (Mt 2 4). Scribes in the 
latter sense figure in the O T uniformly as members 
of the priesthood. Simon the righteous was the last 
high priest who, according to the tradition, com- 
bined in his person the characters of the learned man 
and of the head of a school. After his days, side by 
side with the priesthood, appeared a class of men 
without hereditary or other connection, but drawn 
from among all the people, who because of their 


devotion to and intimate acquaintance with the Law — 





SEALS ON JAR Hanpues Founp 1n PALESTINE. 


were at once given the title of scribes. Naturally, 
there was from the beginning a close relationship 
between these and the Pharisees. In the N T this 
intimacy appears in the frequent conjunction of the 
two names (Mk 2 16; Lk 5 30; Ac 239). But ‘scribes 
of the Pharisees’ may also be interpreted as a phrase 
implying that there were scribes drawn from the 
ranks of the Sadducees, a conclusion which is further 
borne out by the fact that the Sadducees as a sect 
were strenuous defenders of the written Law, and 
must have busied themselves in the study and expo- 
sition of it. Territorially, the scribes were limited 
to no particular section of Judaism. The synagog of 
the Dispersion afforded an opportunity for the use 
of their learning as well as those of Palestine. Their 
chief occupation was the explication and casuistic 
application of the Law by way of oral discussion. 
The name ‘lawyer’ (vowodt3écxaA0c), tho presenting 
a shade of difference in meaning, was almost indis- 
criminately applied to the scribes (Lk 5 17; Ac 5 34, 
‘doctors of the law’; andI Ti 17, ‘teacher of the law’), 
as was also the title of ‘rabbi’ (q.v.). The scribes’ 
familiarity with the Law led to their being given 
places in the judicial courts of later Judaism. In 
the Sanhedrin, for instance, besides the ‘chief priests,’ 
scribes also had seats (Mk 14 43, 151; Lk 22 66, 23 10; 
Ac 45). For such services, however, they received 
no remuneration. Consequently, they were obliged 
to earn their living in other ways in case they were 
not possessed of private means (Taylor, Sayings of 
the Jewish Fathers, p. 68). Thescribes are rightly held 
responsible for the interpretations of the Law known 
under the general name of ‘tradition’ (q.v.). (See 
also Epucation, § 8; and Law anp LEGAL Prac- 
TISE, § 2 (3). AVvOPZ: 
SCRIP. See WALLET. 


SCRIPTURE, SCRIPTURES: The term ‘Scrip- 
ture’ occurs but once in the O T (Dn 10 21, ‘writing’ - 
RV), where it refers to the Divine predetermination 
of all events, apparently viewed as written out in a 
book (cf. Driver in Camb. Bible, ad loc.). In the 


N T these terms render yeaoh or yeagat (‘writing,’ 
‘writings’), except in II Ti 3 15, where the Gr. is 
teed yekuuarta, ‘sacred writings,’ and always refer to 
the O T, viewed by both Jews and the early Church 
as holy and inspired. See Brsue; and Otp Trsra- 
MENT CANON. 


BK. BLN. 








815 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Scorpion 
Seal 





SCROLL. See Booxs anp Writtne, § 3. 
SCURVY. Sce Diskasm anp Mepicine, § 4 (1). 


SCYTHIAN, sifh’1-on (2xd0ys): The Scythians 
were nomads who inhabited the regions N. of the 
Black Sea and the Caspian.and thence made their 
way into inner Asia. They were a people noted for 
their fierceness, cruelty, and injustice. Josephus 
says of them (Cont. Ap. II, 37) ‘that they take 
pleasure in killing men, and differ little from brute 
beasts.’ So proverbial was their character that their 
name was quite the equivalent of what we mean by 
the word ‘barbarian.’ It is with this sense, and not 
probably with any definite historical reference, that 
the term is used in Col 3 11 (cf. Gal 3 28). 

J.S. R.—J. M. T. 


SEA (8}, yam, Gr.@kXaccx):' This term is used in all 
its common meanings. Hence, (1) a large body of 
water, or the whole mass of waters in the universe 
taken collectively (Gn 1 10, 22 17; Ps 8 8). The sea 
in this sense is the inexhaustible source of all things. 
Monsters of evil are symbolically represented as 
issuing from it (Dn ch. 7; Rev chs. 12, 13, 17). (2) 
special seas, of which the Mediterranean, called the 
Great Sea, the Sea of Joppa, the Sea of the Philis- 
tines (Nu 346; Ezr 3 7; Ex 23 31), the ‘hinder’ sea 
(Dt 11 24, 342), or the ‘western’ sea (Jl 2 20), is the 
most familiar. But other seas are known, such as the 
Red Sea (also ‘the Egyptian sea,’ Is 11 15), the Dead 
Sea (‘the Salt Sea,’ Nu 34 3; ‘the east sea,’ Ezk 47 18; 
‘the sea of the Arabah,’ Dt 3 17; ‘sea of the plain’ 
AV), and the Sea of Galilee (‘Gennesaret,’ Nu 34 
11; Jos 12 3; and in the Gospels, Mt 4 15; Mk 1 16; 
Jn 61). (3) Occasionally, rivers are called seas, 
é.g., the Nile (Is 18 2, 195; Nu 33 8). But whenever 


! i i} nN 


7 


Ff ti Hin | I} li 
Met \ hh ne i 
4 Cd { I) IM Mm 
\ Wid NY LL 
‘ j I i tee a \G 
Ty se 
\\ PAA. Ny 
AN i / Ev 
\ ih iF 





the term ‘sea’ is used without qualifying clause, 
adjective, or other determinative, in the context, it 
designates the Mediterranean (Nu 33 8; Jos 24 6; 
II Ch 20 2). In Apocalyptic symbolism the sea ap- 
pears as in close relation to the powers of evil, per- 
haps a late development of the old Semitic (or 
Sumerian?) myth of the dragon of the deep, 
Tiamat, the enemy of light and of the (good) Gods. 
So in Dn 7 3 the four beasts come up from the sea 
(cf. Rev 13 1) and in the New World to come ‘the 
sea shall be no more’ (Rev 21 1). Ay Cr, 


SEA, BRAZEN OR MOLTEN. See Tremp te, § 13. 


SEA OF GLASS. An expression used in Rv 4 6 
and 15 2 to describe ‘the brilliant splendor of the 
great throne-room’ of Heaven (Beckwith, Com. on 
Rev., ad loc.). The origin of the figure is to be 


sought in the ancient notion of a vast sea in the 


heavens (cf. Gn 1 7; also Slav. En. 3 3; Eth. En. 
54 8). Compare also the conception in Ex 24 10. 
EK. E. N. 


SEAH, si’a. See Wricutrs AND Mrasurgs, § 3. 


SEAL: An instrument generally employed in 
antiquity for purposes of identification (Neh 101 f.; 
Rev 7 5), validation (I K 21 8; Est 3 12; Jer 32 10-12; 
etc.), and safe-keeping (Dn 6 17; Mt 27 66; Rev 5 1). 
Manufactured articles were often stamped with the 
manufacturer’s (or proprietor’s) seal, e.g., the seals 
on jar handles found during the past ten years in 
great numbers in Palestine; see PEFQ. The seal 
usually consisted of clay or a metal of some sort, or 
was in the form of a signet-ring (8axtbAtoc). Since 
both the Heb. words for seal (hdtham, tabba‘ath; 
with tabba‘ath cf. timbw’tu of the Tell el-Amarna 


Seats on Jar Hanpites Founp 1n PALESTINE. 


Sealskin 
Semitic Religion 





letters) are foreign words, the 
practise of sealing among the 
Hebrews was derived probably 
from Egypt, where, as attested 
by papyri, seals were in use from 
very early times. See illustra- 
tions of seals under ALPHABET, 
also ofmanufacturers’ or owners’ 
seals stamped on pottery on pre- 
ceding page. In the N T ogpayte 
and the verb oppayfGety are used 
frequently in a figurative sense 
to denote the Divine assurance, 
approval (II Ti 2 19; Jn 3 33), or promise (II Co 1 22; 
Eph 1 13, 4 30). Of these ideas Christian baptism 
later came to be the outward sign or seal (cf. IT 
Clem. VII, 6), just as circumcision was so viewed 
in the old dispensation (Ro 4 11). See also S1ener. 
Jativis’ 1. 
SEALSKIN: The word renders the Heb. tahash 
(Ex 25 5, etc.; Ezk 16 10, badger AV), whose mean- 
ing is uncertain. Of the many suggestions proposed 
by scholars, the most probable seem to be (1) that 
it refers to the dugong, an animal something like 
the dolphin, common in the Red Sea and Indian 
Ocean, the skin of which is used for leather; or, (2) 
that the word is really the Egyptn. ths, ‘leather.’ 
This also appears to be a suitable explanation. 
K. BE. N. 





Seal of Nethaniah, 
Son of Obadiah. 
wetsy a wean 
=to nathanyahu 
ben ‘ebhedhyaht. 


SEA-MEW. Sce PALesting, § 25. 

SEA-MONSTER: The rendering in some instances 
of the Heb. tannin, an Aram. word, which is used 
in the O T of: (1) Large sea-animals, such as whales, 
etc. (Gn 1 21; cf. AV and RV); (2) serpents (no 
specific variety being intended—Ex 7 9 #f.; Dt 32 13; 
Neh 2 13; Ps 91 13, all AV); and (3) the mythological 
serpent, or dragon (Job 7 12; Ps 74 13, 148 7; Is 513; 

‘Jer 51 34; La 4 3). In the same sense the word is 

applied figuratively to Egypt (Is 27 1; Ezk 29 3, 
32 2). On all the above-named references cf. RV 
with AV. See also Dracon. E. E. N. 

SEASONS. See Timp, § 4; Patestinn, §§ 17-20. 

SEATS, CHIEF. See Synacoag, § 3. 

SEBA, si’ba. See ErHNoGRAPHY AND ETHNOL- 
oay, §§ 11 and 13; and SaBuans. 

SEBAM, si’bam (02%, stbham, Shebam AV): A 
city of Moab (Nu 32 3), the same as Sibmah (q.v.). 

SEBAT, si’bat. See SHmsBart. 

SECACAH, si-ké’ka or sek’a-ka (1990, sekhakhah): 
A city of Judah (Jos 15 61). Site unknown. 

SECHU, si’kiti. See Secu. 

SECOND COMING; SECOND DEATH. See 
EscuaTouocy, §§ 34-36, and 48 f. 

SECOND SABBATH AFTER THE FIRST, 
THE: This expression is found only in Lk 61 AV 
(Gr. deuteporpdty): RV omits, following the best 
ancient MSS. It is most probably the result of the 
textual corruption of a marginal gloss which passed 
into the body of the text (cf. Meyer, Com. 7. l.). 
If genuine, there are no means of attaching any 
definite sense to the word. AVOLZ: 

SECRET, SECRETS: In most cases the occur- 
rences of this word in the Bible demand no explana- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


816 





tion. Even where it is used of God the meaning is 
generally sufficiently evident. Im a few cases the 
original terms present some peculiarities. (1) In 
Job 15 11 the expression laf means ‘gently’ or ‘in 
gentleness’ (cf. the same word in II § 18 5) asin RV. 
(2) The term sédh at times means ‘assembly’ or 
‘council’ as well as ‘secret’ (so Gn 49 6; Job 15 8, 
etc.). In Am 37 the use of this word is very sig- 
nificant as revealing the prophetic consciousness. 
(3) In Jg 13 18 the Heb. pelt means ‘wonderful’ 
(so RV). HK. E. N. 

SECT. See Heresy. 

SECU, SECHU, si’kiti (>, sékha): A place where 
Saul stopped on his way from Gibeah to Ramah (IS 
19 22). H. P. Smith, J CC, ad loc. following the 
LXX. (B) and others, reads ‘to the cistern of the 


threshing-floor [for ‘great’] which is on the height’ 
(sh¢phi for sékhi). ORY. Fad by 


SECUNDUS, si-koun’dus (Zéxouvdoc): One of the © 
representatives of the contributing churches who 
accompanied Paul to Jerusalem when he took the 
collection to the church there (Ac 20 4; ef. II Co 8 23). 
With Aristarchus he seems to have represented the 
church in Thessalonica. The name is found in CIGr. 
II, No. 1927, a Thessalonian inscription. J. M. T. 


SEED. See Famity anp Famity Law, § 1; 
and AGRICULTURE, § 5. 


SEED-TIME. See Time, § 4; Acricuururg, § 5. 
SEER. See Propet, § 1. 


SEETHE, sifh: This term is an accurate render- 
ing of the Heb. bashal, ‘to boil’ (see Foop anp Foop 
Urensits, § 10; and Sacririce AND OFFERINGS, 
§ 16). But in Job 41 20 and Jer 1 13 (‘boiling’ RV) 
the Heb. is ndphah, ‘to blow,’ and refers primarily 
to the fire (as ‘blown,’ 7.e., blazing) and then to the 
caldron as over a hot fire. E. E. N. 

SEGUB, si’gub (2.Y, seghiibh): 1. The father of 
Jair (I Ch 2 21 f£.). See Jarr. 2. The son of Hiel 
(I K 16 34). The original meaning of the notice 
here may have been that S. was sacrificed in con- 
nection with the ceremony of setting up the gates of 
Jericho. See also HIEL. 


SEIR, si’ir (VYY, str), ‘hairy’: I. The tradi- 
tional ancestor of the Horites (q.v.) in Edom (Gn 
36 20 £.; I Ch 1 38), but probably nothing more than 
the name of their country (Mt. Seir). II. 1. Seir is 
often used for the whole of Edom (Gn 36 30; Nu 
24 18; Is 21 11, etc.), but more definitely for that part 
known as Mt. Seir, 7.e., the mountain region that 
extends from near the S. end of the Dead Sea almost 
to the Gulf of-‘Akabah, E. of the depression known 
as the Arabah (q.v.). See Epom. 2. The name of a 
mountain on the N. border of Judah (Jos 15 10). 
Map II, E 1. E. E. N. 


SEIRAH, si-ai’ra (T7YY, seGrah, Seirath AV): 
A town, apparently in the hill-country of Ephraim, 
where Ehud rallied the Israelites to fight against 
Moab (Jg 3 26 ff.). Site unknown. 

SELA, si’le, SELAH, si’la (y20, sela‘), ‘rock’; 
more specifically ‘crag’ or ‘cliff’; cf. 18 14 4: L 
In only three passages do the EVV regard this term 


fae hh eo See ome SI eee 
he Sle jsilig pcan oa. 

“hy. B.. - ° ae ow * 

‘¥ te yt. e 
a a “ 


See 


ac 

ah ka . 
C ser * ee 
4 6 wie .-: 


ane 


ae 


x 


Noes 


we) 


te 3a 
Kt 


2 
be 


yer 











oOF qormusaiyy 


wor 











09s gt Opt - 08 0 


S3TIW 40 31V90S 
Cd 


é 











Pd : 
‘07a ‘auysayng ‘dhby ‘viucjiqoug : 
$3 “at <= sit whe uid i fo sdpw qorveds aas s,iDjap 40g 
S311W 40 Z1vOS *(4ayzoun fq 1240) 


paonjdsip uazfo) auo 2uaiun huaapveq 


Cc AY 02 QULDU AY? it inde? ‘clan adfy o0nf-favayy 
GQTHOM OLLINGS NS gaat no 
3. dP N HIONYV Pa (‘Og Aanjuso y291) 


; a — Samm puidug unizdhby fo 71uT 








PN, 





YOowdvo 4 





O DdouL 





WO DIT ey 
‘ Boureq-ysopey 





snoseumE”] , 


1 


. 4 
s 4 
: 1}}]e 
sity B 


o- 
e 
Vv 
s 
@ 
AS) 
6 


6 


| 
! 
Oo} 
| 
J 
t 
| 
| 


cy 


ae) 
= 
% 
6) 





ky 


een eee % &N 

















817 


as a proper name (Is"16 1, 42 11; IL K 14 7; in the 
last instance AV incorrectly adds a final ‘h’ to the 
name). Other passages, such as Ob ver. 3; Jer 49 
16; II Ch 25 12; Jg 1 36, in which it is barely possible 
to treat sela‘ as a proper name, are all doubtful. 
Even Is 161 and 42 11 are indefinite and indecisive. 
S. is commonly, and as the writer thinks justly, 
identified with Petra, the famous rock-capital of the 
Nabatzans, or early Arabs, since the Heb. and Gr. 
names both signify ‘rock’, and the place is so marvel- 
ously fortified by nature as probably to have early 
attracted the attention of the ancient Edomites. It 
does not follow, however, that Petra was the capital 
of the Edomites as early as the time of Moses, for 
Bozrah more probably then held first place (Wetz- 
stein has even suggested that Sela is another name 
for Bozrah; cf. Del. Jes. 696 ff.); still less probably 
is Petra to be identified, -as Stanley supposed, with 
Kadesh-barnea. Petra is situated on Mt. Seir, N. 
of the watershed in the Arabah, and about midway 
between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of ‘Akabah. 
Strabo (xvi) describes it ‘as a city situated in a 
valley, decorated with gardens and fountains, but 
bounded on all sides by rocks.’ The valley in which 
it lies is known to the Arabs as Wddy Masa. A 
large irregular trapezoidal area, over half a mile 
square, bounded by high and richly colored sand- 
stone rocks, in which are elaborately carved dwell- 
ings, temples, and tombs, marks the site of Petra. 
Its appearance is that of a vast necropolis. Nu- 
merous sanctuaries also, or ‘high places,’ have been 
found in the near vicinity; in short, no other place 
in all the region of Mt. Seir so perfectly satisfies 
what is stated in the history of the Edomites. That 
the aborigines of Edom were Horites (q.v.), or cave- 
dwellers (Dt 2 12), harmonizes exactly with the con- 
ditions as found in Petra; that David put garrisons 
throughout all Edom (II §S 8 13, 14); that Amaziah 
took 8. by war and called the name thereof Jokteel 
(IL K 147); and that toward the end of the 4th cent. 
B.c. the Nabatzans made Petra their capital and 
richly embellished it, making it a place of refuge and 
the center of a rich caravan trade until about 200 
A.D., when it succumbed before its rival Palmyra 
—all this agrees, so far as we know, with the con- 
ditions as they most probably existed in Petra. 
Since the rise of Islam, Petra has lain in ruins, a 
fulfilment of the predictions in the O T (Ezk 35 7; 
Is 34 5-17; Jer 49 7-22; Ob vs. 1-9). See Libbey and 
Hoskins, The Jordan Valley and Petra, 1905. II. 
For ‘selah’ as used in the Psalms, see Psaums, § 5. 
G.Lak. 
SELA-HAMMAHLEKOTH, si”la-ham-m@'li-ke fh 
(nip2naT yo0, sela‘ hammahlegéth), popularly from 
halag, ‘divide,’ ‘rock of divisions,’ as signifying the 
place where Saul and Divid or their forces parted 
from each other; Gesenius and others, ‘rock of 
escapes’; Oxf. Heb. Lex., ‘rock of smoothness,’ from 
halaq, ‘to be smooth’: A rocky mountain or cliff on 
which Saul pursued David in the wilderness of 
Maon (I S 23 28). Conder locates it in the Wddy 
Malaki, between Carmel and Maon in the 8. of 
Judah. CiSat, 


SELED, si’led (720, seledh): A descendant of 
Jerahmeel (I Ch 2 30). 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sealskin 
Semitic Religion 


SELEUCIA, si-liti’shi-a or si-hii’si-a (LeAeuxla): 
The strongly fortified seaport of Antioch (cf. Ac 13 
4), situated N. of the mouth of the Orontes. It was 
founded by Seleucus I on the outskirts of Mt. Pieria. 
Its harbor was good and in a naturally strong posi- 
tion. §. played a great réle in the wars between 
Egypt and Syria (cf. I Mac 11 8 f£.). The Syrian 
tetrapolis consisted of Antioch, Apamea, Laodicea, 
and Seleucia (cf. Bevan, The House of Seleucus, 
Vol. I, p. 208 f.). J.R.S. S.*—J. M. T. 

SELL. See Trapz anp Commerce, § 3. 

SELLER OF PURPLE. See Lypra. 


SEM (27.): The Gr. form of the O T Shem (q.v.) 
(Lk 3 36 AV). 


SEMACHIAH, sem’’a-kai’a (377999, semakhyaha), 
‘J’ sustains’: A descendant of Obed-edom (I Ch 


26 7). 


SEMEIN, si-mi’in (Lewectv, Semei AV): One of 
the ancestors of Jesus (Lk 3 26). 


SEMITIC RELIGION 
I. GenERAL SurvEY oF Semitic Reticiovus Ipzras. 


1. Semitic Religion. In the strict sense of the 
word there was no such thing as Semitic Religion. 
There were Semitic peoples, Semitic languages, and 
Semitic religions; but there was no Semitic lan- 
guage, no Semitic people, no Semitic religion. Any 
attempt to select institutions, beliefs, or customs 
that were common to all the Semitic religions and 
to organize these into a so called ‘Semitic religion’ 
would result in a kind of thing that never had any 
historical existence or reality. We might as well 
speak of the European language. There were cer- 
tain things found in most of the Semitic religions; 
but they were present in different proportions in 
each, and associated or amalgamated with different 
elements in each; so that each was strikingly dif- 
erent from every other one. It is an open question, 
whether or not, if the Semitic religions were care- 
fully compared one with another, the differences 
between them would be greater than the simi- 
larities. ‘Semitic religion’ is therefore an abstract 
term used for convenience and representative of the 
various religions characteristic of the various 
Semitic peoples. In that sense only is it used here. 

2. Semites and Their Neighbors. The Semitic 
peoples occupied the territory represented by the 
great Arabian peninsula and pushing back between 
the eastern end of the Mediterranean and the 
table-lands of Persia to the Taurus Mountains in 
the North. In this territory there lived in Bible 
times a group of peoples speaking Semitic languages 
and more or less closely related by blood. These 
peoples were the Arabs, Babylonians, Assyrians, 
Arameans or Syrians, Phenicians, Moabites, Am- 
monites, Edomites, Canaanites (or Amorites), and 
Hebrews (or Jews). They were in constant contact 
one with another and developed a common typeof 
civilization. No people was able to live in isolation 
or desired to do so. Each influenced all the rest 
and was in turn influenced by them all. Not only 
so, but other peoples like the Hittites, Egyptians, 
the natives of Cyprus and the Augean Islands, the 
Persians, and finally the Greeks also profoundly 


Semitic Religion A NEW STANDARD 


influenced Semitic life in general and Hebrew life in 
particular. The striking thing about the Hebrews 
was their readiness to borrow ideas and customs, 
as well as the more concrete products of civiliza- 
tion, from whatsoever people came into association 
with them. Hebrew civilization and religion were 
to a considerable degree the result of an eclectic 
process. The remarkable thing is that the Hebrew 
exercised such a fine discrimination in what he took 
and what he rejected. These Semitic peoples each 
developed a characteristic religion of its own. No 
attempt can be made here to sketch these religions 
even in outline. All that can be done is to point 
out some of the ideas and customs common to the 
Hebrews and one or more of the other Semitic groups 
and to note the references to the religions of these 
related Semitic groups in the Old Testament. 


3. Official and Private Forms of Religion. The 
‘contemporary’ religions spoken of in the Bible fall 
into two kinds, viz., the private and the official 
types of religion. That is to say, there were certain 
objects of devotion, sometimes mere crude super- 
stitions, and sometimes of a less material character, 
which were not officially recognized by the heads 
of the community, whether civil or religious. The 
distinction was from one point of view virtually that 
between an individual, occasional, and voluntary 
religious service on the one hand, and a public, 
regular, and prescribed cult on the other. Of grosser 
instances in the former class we see little in the 
Bible, even in the O T. But an example, brought 
before us almost casually, such as the vision of 
primitive beast-worship in Ezk 8 6, 12 (cf. Is 66 3, 
17), is a sudden revelation of habits native to the soil 
of Canaan and doubtless perpetuated from earliest 
days alongside of the more formal rites of prescrip- 
tive or established religion, such as Baal-worship 
with its concomitants. 


4. Family Cults. Another and a less debasing 
form of non-official worship was the domestic or 
family type, based mainly upon primitive ancestor- 
worship (cf. §9 (4d) and Teraphim, below). The 
principal occasions of collective worship, apart from 
the gatherings at the public, local, or national shrines, 
were the family or clan celebrations which, like all 
feasts, were of a religious character (cf. I S 20 29). 

5. The Part Played by Religion. Of peculiar 
significance is the part played by religion among the 
Semites and among the Israelites in particular. (1) 
To the ancient Semites religion was an essential part 
of every-day thought, feeling, and experience. It 
was not separable from any of the duties, or occupa- 
tions, or sentiments of life, or even from the contem- 
plation of external objects. The fundamental reason 
of this distinction between them and us moderns 


was that to them divinity was inherent and active 


everywhere and in everything. The conception of 
secondary or intermediary causes was to them un- 
known. (2) Relations with the deity accordingly 
comprehended all obligations, and there was no 
distinction or practical division between religion and 
morality. 

6. The God, the People, and the Land. Equally 
important were the conceptions of the relations 
between the god, his people, and his land: (1) The 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


ccc OLE GL CC LLL OLE LLL LOLOL LOLA LANL LE A LAL LLL ALLL ALLL ALA LD I LE 


818 





god of the clan (an enlarged family group), who 
was supposed to be associated with each member 
by ultimate kinship, became the god of the several 
social and political communities into which the clan 
gradually developed—the tribe, the city, the state, 
or the nation. (2) Only less close than this relation 
between the tribal or national god and his people 
was that between the god and his land. Each pro- 
ductive region had its own native lord or Baal (§ 9 
(b)). From it he was inseparable and inalienable. 
Yet he might become defunct even in his native seat. 
If the land became a desert or was deserted, his 
function ceased ipso facto. If his people were re- 
placed or overcome, and absorbed by a more powers 
ful people, he himself also collapsed. (8) It was 
almost inconceivable that a god could change his 
seat. Memorable were the exceptions in the case 
of the God of Israel. When the Hebrews occupied 
Canaan and long afterward, they were divided in 
their allegiance and devotion between the local 
Baals and their own J”. Yet He did actually make 
Canaan His home instead of Mt. Sinai. Again, it 
was thought impossible that J’ could be worshiped 
by any of His people in exile. To ‘serve other gods’ 
(I S 26 19) was equivalent to being banished from 
the land of Israel. Yet the exiles in Babylonia 
were taught that J’’ not only could be worshiped 
far away from Jerusalem, but that the whole 
universe was His dwelling-place. (4) The deity was 
specially and preferably active where the pre- 
scribed rites of his worship were most duly and 
assiduously performed. But J” was always powerful 
and beneficent wherever He was worshiped in spirit 
and truth. 


7. Ultimate Origin of the Semitic Religions. 
What, in brief, were the origin and history of the 
Semitic religions? All Semitic religions seem to 
have been alike in their ultimate beliefs and motives. 
The immense differences between them are due to 
the differentiations of environment and_ historical 
vicissitude. The primary and germinal conception 
was that the whole world of earth, water, air, and 
sky was animated, every part or feature of it being 
the abode of life in one form or another. Evidences 
of life, its modes of manifestation, and by conse- 
quence its types and varieties, were presented every- 
where. Its principal tokens were movement, appear- 
ance and disappearance, sound and growth. Every 
real cause being divine (cf. § 5, above), when the 
immediate occasion of any notable change in man or 
outward nature was not obvious, a divinity of some 
kind was assumed to be actively concerned. The 
heavenly bodies, day or night, the wind ‘that bloweth 
where it listeth,’ the smiling or raging sea, the ever- 
flowing river, the leaping mountain-brook, and the 
gushing fountain were all invested with the attri- 
butes of deity. All forms of fresh or sweet water, 
water having quickening or reviving power, were 
revered as divine. Trees, which grew and put forth 
leaves and yielded fruit from the sap within them 
and the moisture at their roots, were the abodes of 
a divinity. Rocks, from which echoeg+and other 
mysterious sounds were heard, from which living 
water sprang or within whose recesses it was stored, 
were equally animated by a deity. 





819 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Semitic Religion 





8. Classification of the Divinities. How are we 
to classify the various deities? They were either 
beneficent and kindly, or malevolent and unfriendly, 
or else either the one or the other, according to their 
uncertain or variable relations with their worshipers. 
Most of the divinites whose cults were well estab- 
lished were of the last-named order. There were 
individual gods of the heavens, such as the deities of 
the sun, the moon, and the seven planets; gods of 
the air, such as Rammian (Rimmon) or Hadad, the 
god of storms and thunder, and manifold individual 
gods and demons of the earth and sea and the regions 
below. In the highly organized pantheon of Baby- 
lonia there was one supreme god of the heavens, Anu; 
one supreme god of the waters, Ea; one supreme god 
of the earth or mankind, Bel. There were also 
among the Semites unclassified gods of inhabited or 
productive lands, and gods (or demons) of the desert, 
gods of the highlands and gods of the lowlands (I 
K 28 23, 28). There were, moreover, gods proper, 
who were akin to men, and demons like the Arabian 
jinn, who were the kindred of animals, usually hos- 
tile to mankind. Demonized animals also, such as 
serpents and satyrs, were held in superstitious re- 
gard. There were deified men, such as the greatest of 
kings, and family ancestors in the realm of the 
shades. There were bands or communities of gods 
larger or smaller, such as the host of heaven of the 
Hebrews, or the Jgigi, the heaven-gods of the Baby- 
lonians; the Babylonian Annunaki, the gods ofthe 
earth and underworld. There were distinctive gods 
of tribes or peoples or nations, such as Yahweh 
(Jehovah) of Israel (in the popular view), Chemosh 
of Moab, the Syrian Baal, the Assyrian Asshur; and 
gods of individual cities, such as Melkart, the Baal 
of Tyre, Bel of Nippur, Marduk of Babylon, and 
Nebo of Borsippa. Each of the highest gods, espe- 
cially the celestial hada train of divine satellites or 
ministers. Thus as Yahweh had his angels or mes- 
sengers (also called ‘sons of God’ or ‘Divine’) against 
whom may be set the devil and his angels (Mt 25 
41), so in the Babylonian pantheon the Jgigi and 
Annunaki (see above) were marshaled under Anu 
and Ea respectively. Finally, there were goddesses 
and she-demons as well as gods and demons, and 


certain of these were assigned as consorts or mates: 


to male divinities. 


9. Development of the Several Cults. How did 
the several deities and their various kinds and orders 
come to be instituted? The answer to this question 
may be stated as follows: (a) General Conditions. 
The fundamental principles and motives are clear 
enough. The mysterious life which existed every- 
where was thought of as superhuman and as having 
power over men, and the gods were necessarily de- 
vised according to the needs of men as well as after 
their likeness. Now the basis and condition of hu- 
man existence is society; that is, concretely, the 
social or political unit. Hence each community, from 
the family group to the nation, had its own well- 
defined habitat, and its own god or gods; while men 
living in hordes had known only the demons of the 
wilderness. Confining ourselves to normal Semitic 
settied life, we see how natural it was that each 
community, united in one on the primary basis of 


_ Independence. 


blood-relationship, should have had its own tribal 
or national deity, the god himself as being the 
father of his people. 

(b) Growth of Baal-, Stone-, and Tree-Worship. 
More special conceptions promoted a various de- 
velopment. The territory of each settlement was 
as well defined and self-contained as the community 
itself which was nourished and maintained from the 
hidden life of the soil. Of that life the god of the 
land was the guardian and communicator. He was 
its Baal (‘owner and lord’), and of its varied bounty 
he gave freely to his people (Hos 25). The relation 
was perpetuated under conditions akin to those of 
political vassalage: for homage and tribute there 
were worship and sacrifice. In Canaan, where social 
amalgamation and political federation were difficult 
and rare, the local Baals retained their separate 
In Babylonia, where consolidation 
began very early among the Semitic communities, 
most of the Baals or Bels were absorbed in the Bel 
of the central city Nippur. In Babylonia, moreoever, 
and in the daughter-state Assyria, the many social, 
political, and cultural changes and the frequent 
annexation of outside states led to the installation of 
a crowded pantheon. Perhaps older still than tne 
Baal cults in Palestine were stone- and tree-worship. 
So it came to pass that in the regular shrines on the 
high places at length there stood beside the altar 
of the Baal conventional memorials of these im- 
memorial cults (see below, under ASHERAH, PILLAR, 
and TEREBINTH). 


(c) Astral-Worship. The heavenly bodies were 
naturally much looked up to among a people whose 
ancestors had so great need of the moon and stars 
in their wilderness homes. In Palestine and Syria, 
however, their cult was not very greatly developed 
after the permanent settlements had been estab- 
lished. But at an even earlier date, the cultivation 
in Babylonia of astrology and of its daughter-science 
astronomy developed astral-worship to a degree else- 
where unknown in ancient or modern times. There, 
as it would seem, it was the chief promoter of a 
theory of the universe which reigned over the whole 
civilized world till the Copernican era. The sun was 
far less an object of adoration among the Semites, 
taken as a whole, than the moon, the god par ez- 
cellence of nomads. 


(d) Ancestor Worship. To the worship of an- 
cestors, in the broad sense of the phrase, must be 
assigned a great influence in the development of Se- 
mitic religion in its early stages, tho much of its 
sentiment was transferred to kindred and more im- 
posing objects of reverence. These, for example, 
were the tribal and national gods who were figured 
as the fathers of their people, the eponyms of the 
several races that were held to be more or less super- 
human, such as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; re- 
nowned early patriarchs, such as Enoch and Noah; 
and the founders of memorable empires or dynasties, 
such as Sargon of Akkad or David of Jerusalem. 
Indications of primitive ancestor-worship are to be 
found in the sacredness of places hallowed by their 
residence, such as Bethel, Hebron, and Shechem; in 
funeral rites, which are largely tributes to departed 
spirits and are sometimes accompanied with actual 


Semitic Religion 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


offerings, and in the survival of casual expressions 
such as the term ‘god’ applied to the ghost of the 
dead Samuel (I S 28 13). 

10. The conflict Between J’’ and the Baalim. 
The land of Canaan where the Hebrews developed 
their characteristic social, political and religious in- 
stitutions was already occupied upon their arrival 








Bo) 
SEEN Uae er 
é SAM PITINL a % i 
ee ENN AMA Aik as 
INN Ne Yj ie 
‘RS i Ki me 
NCAR ROAL MN 





Baal Hamman of Carthage. 


by an old people and an ancient civilization. The 
Hebrews were a relatively untutored people at that 
time. They had been living the life of nomads and 
were therefore practically unacquainted with the 
arts and crafts characteristic of civilized life. These 
things they had to learn. The only available teachers 
were the representatives of that old civilization who 
continued to live along side of and among the He- 
brews. But religion was a part of that civilization 
and inseparably involved in it. Consequently, as 
the Hebrews became ‘civilized’ they ran the con- 
stant danger of losing their own native religion and 
becoming absorbed in the religion of the subject 
people. It was because of their keen realization of 
the imminence of this danger that the prophets 
waged constant warfare upon the practises of the re- 
ligion of Canaan. They appear almost as opponents 
of the progress of civilization, because of their great 
fear of its accompanying danger, viz., Israel’s defec- 
tion to the Baalism of Canaan. The struggle between 
Jehovah and the Baalim continued for centuries, 
beginning with the first entry of the Israelites into 
Canaan and lasting till J’ triumphed in the Deuter- 
onomic reform, carried through by King Josiah in 
621 B.c. 

Baalism was primarily a farmers’ religion. The 
Baalim were the gods of the land. They were thought 
of as the husbands of the soil. The growth and ripen- 
ing of the crops and fruits were under their control. 
Without them the farmer could do nothing. The 
grower of small grain, the cultivator of the vine and 
every kind of fruit tree, the shepherd of sheep and 
herder of cattle, all alike looked to the Baal for the 
fertilization of the crops, the fruits, and the sheep 
and oxen. When the Hebrew learned agriculture 
from his Canaanite predecessor, he learned as a 


part of it the rites and offerings characteristic of 
Baalism. How long it required for the Hebrews to 
learn to think of J’ as the giver of all these good 
gifts may be seen not only from the conflict between 
Elijah and the priests of Baal, but also from the 
preaching of Hosea, the prophet of the 8th cent. 
B.c., who urged his people to give J’”’ credit for the 
gifts of the soil, and not to give such praise to the 
Baalim (Hos ch. 2). 

The prevalence of Baal-worship among the He- 
brews is abundantly attested by the large number of 
names compounded with Baal in the Old Testament, 
e.g., Ish-baal, Meribbaal, Jerub-baal, Baal-berith, 
Baal-zebub, Baal-Hermon, Baal-Peor, Baalah, Baal- 
yada (Beeliada, I Ch 14 7), Baal-zaphon, Baalyah 
(Bealiah, I Ch. 12 5). Not only so, but an examina- 
tion of the names found on the ostraca found at 
Samaria, and belonging to the times of Omri, Ahab, 
and Jeroboam II, shows a large proportion of them 
to be compounded with the name Baal. It is more 
and more clear that the prophets saved the Hebrews 
from being permanently captivated by the worship 
of the Baalim. 

The name Baal primarily meant ‘owner’ or ‘master 
of.’ Then it came to be the common term for hus- 
band,’ since the Hebrew husband was literally the 





*peonsyrtir | 
& 7 agony ea 





eS Ser 79ST 
SAG a Smiae dee 


Sreix From LityspZum, ‘Sicriy. 
The Phenician inscription reads as follows, transliterated 


into square Hebrew characters: WX ]ON bya 1nd 
byaytn ]2 monvy7 72 byark 1a San WT 
.ND72? -NOp yow 3 


Eng. translation: To the lord Baal Hamon which Hanno 
son of Adonbaal son of Ger Ashtart son of Adonbaal 
has vowed because he heard his voice. May he bless! 


owner and master of his wife. The Baal was thought 
of in religion as the god of a locality. There were as 
many Baals as there were local sanctuaries dedicated 
to their worship. Even as late as the time of the 
exile, we hear Jeremiah saying, ‘Thou hast as many 





821 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Semitic Religion 





gods as cities, O Israel.’ The appeal of Baalism to 
the simple-minded Hebrews was very powerful. 
They were represented to them as the authors and 
givers of life, both animal and vegetable at least, if 
not also human. J” had not been thought of by 
them as a God of agriculture and it was therefore 
easy to take on the new gods for the new sphere 
of operations. The appeal of Baalism was sensuous 
and materialistic and so correspondingly powerful. 
The Baalim were associated with the everyday busi- 
ness of life. They were indispensable to it. J’’ was 
in danger of being left unthought of except on special 
occasions, such as battles and storms. The close 
association of Ashtoreth (q.v.) with the Baalim 
made the temptation to Israel more seductive. The 
local Baalim coalesced or combined as localities 
combined. Hence some Baals were relatively greater 
than others. For example, the Baal of Tyre attained 
the dignity of a proper or personal name, vz., 
Melkart of Tyre. In North Syria, the title Baal was 
applied to the god of the heavens, viz., Baal- 
shamem. But Baalism never achieved a unified 
monotheism. The local Baals were all very much 
alike; yet they for the most part persistently main- 
tained their individuality. 


II. Seeciric Semitic Derries anp Couurus 
PRACTISES. 


11. Asherah. The Heb. ’dshérah (pl. ’dshérim) is 
translated grove in AV after the LXX. and Vulg. 
In RY it is given untranslated, under the assump- 
tion that it was a proper name. It is now known to 
have been the name of a 
Canaanite goddess. A god- 
dess by this name was wor- 
shiped in Canaan and the 
West-land generally before 
the rise of Hebrew litera- 
ture. This deity was a fe- 
male companion of the 
Baalim with whom she is 
always associated (Jg 3 7; 
I K 15 13, 18 19; II K 21 7, 
2564, 1711 On 15716, 19 3, 
24 18, 33 3). The word ’dshé- | 
rah is also used to denote a sacred pole or post which, 
along with a stone pillar (see PILLAR, below), stood 
beside the altar of the Baals on the high places or 
local shrines (see § 9 
(b), above, and Ipot- 
aTRY, below). That it 
was of wood and of 
considerable size we 
learn from Jg 6 25, 26. 
The natural explana- 
tion of its use is that 
it was a surviving em- 
blem of the old tree- 
; worship. It is of 
course, not impossible that a tree-stem might be 
used both as a symbol of life (cf. § 7, above) and a 
representation of a life-giving goddess, and this 
is all the more plausible because, in fact, the old 
goddess Asherah was, like Ashtoreth, a type of 
abounding fertility. Possibly, the two names were 





A Goddess Emerging from 
for growing out of] a 
Sacred Tree. 





Person Worshiping Before 
the Sacred Tree. 


remotely of the same origin. In later Jewish times 
there was frequent confusion of Asherah with Ash- 
toreth, and this may have been due to a traditional 
combination of the two divinities and even to their 
ultimate early Semitic identity. 

12. Ashima. Ashima has long been known as a 
deity of the people of Hamath, on the Orontes, who 
had been deported to the province of Samaria by 
King Sargon of As- 
syria (II K 17 30). In 
recent years the dis- 
covery of the Assu. 
papyri has revealed a 
name of a _ goddess 
worshiped by the 
Jews in Egypt which 
seems to be the same 
Ashima. This also 
makes it probable that the worship of Ashima is 
referred to in Am 8 14, (‘sin’ RV.). 

13. Ashtaroth. The word ‘Ashtaroth’ is the 
plural form of the following Ashtoreth. It was used 
(as in Babylonian) by synecdoche for goddesses in 
general (Jg 213, 106; 1S 7 3, 4, 1210). By a sort of 
metonymy it was also used in the sense of ‘off- 
spring’ in the phrase, ‘the increase of the flock’ 
(Dt 7 13, 28 4, 18, 51). It occurs also as a place-name. 

14. Ashtoreth. Ashtarte. (1) The Name and 
Its Equivalents. This is the name of the principal 
Semitic goddess as it is given in the Hebrew text. 
The correct form is really ’ashtGreth or ’ashtart, as it 
appears in Phenician, the vowels in ’ashtdreth 
having been made by late editors to conform to 
those of bdsheth (‘shameful thing’), their epithet for 
Baal (see Baal, § 10, aboye). The Greek equivalent 


iat 





Representation of a Sacred Tree. 











iN 


- 





Coin from Byblus, with the T 
of Astarte. 


is, accordingly, Astarte. The Babylonian /shiar, 
tho feminine, is without the feminine ending; it is 
the stem Ashtar, modified according to a phonetic 
rule. The 8. Arabian equivalent, Athtar, was a god; 
but the N. Arabian and Aramaic Atar was probably 
a goddess. 

(2) Seats of the Cult in the West-land. The cult 
of Ashtoreth, or Ishtar, was most widely spread 
among the Canaanites and the Babylonians, that is, 
among the most highly civilized of the more ancient 
Semites. She was, above all, the goddess of fertility; 
hence among the nomadic Arabs and the semi- 


Semitic Religion 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


822 





nomadic Arameans, who had little productive land, 
her worship was not so zealously promoted. She 
was noted as the goddess of the Phenicians * ‘Sido- 
nians,’ I K 11 5, 33; [1 K 23 13), and many inscrip- 
tions indicate her influence both in the Mediterra- 
nean coast-land and among the Syrian colonies. The 
Philistines had adopted her worship and maintained 
her temple at Ascalon. E. of the Jordan the place- 
names Ashtaroth and Beeshterah (q.v.) were me- 
morials of her worship, and Ashtar-Chemosh was 
the dual national god of Moab in the time of King 
Mesha (9th cent. B.c.). 


(3) Babylonian Origin of the Cult. But neither 
the name nor the worship of Ashtoreth-Ishtar 
originated in the West-land. As we shall see, the 
worship of the goddess assumed various forms, some 
of them having only her name in common; and it 
, was in Babylonia that the 
beginning of the cult must 
have been made. Only the 
more popular forms were 
current in the West. It is 
vain to look to any definite 
locality as the place of 
origin. The name Ishtar 
(Ashtiar) is Semitic, tho the 
primary meaning is uncer- 
tain. A non-Semitic god- 
dess (Nand), with attri- 
butes similar to those of 
Ashtar, was worshiped at 
Erech (q.v.) in 8S. Baby- 
lonia, and there her cult 
was absorbed by that of 
Ishtar after the Semites 
came into possession. 

(4) Primary Motive of the 
Cult. Like the worship of 
all the favorite divinities, 
that of Ashtoreth-Ishtar 
was partly terrestrial and 
partly celestial in its es- 
sential grounds and motives. From the terrestrial 
side it made a strong appeal to the sympathy, uni- 
versal in the ancient world, with the mysterious 
processes of life and reproduction in all forms and 
types of animal and vegetable life, which could be 
accounted for only by the assumption of a world- 
wide formative and impulsive power, that is, an 
omnipotent divinity. It was equally natural that 
instead of one productive deity a male and a 
female should be thought of or devised. In the 
West-land the baal of each cultivated region (see 
Baal, § 10, above) was the native god of fertility 
everywhere, and through the very early predomi- 
nant influence of Babylonia in the West, Ashtoreth 
was adopted as his feminine consort; for in Baby- 
lonia the same potent motive had already raised 
Ishtar to the dignity of the mother or procreatress 
of mankind and indeed of all living things, just as 
Venus, her European counterpart ((6), below), is fig- 
ured in the opening of the great poem of Lucretius. 

(5) Grossness and Seductiveness of the Wor- 


ship. Upon this principle rests the whole fabric of 
the worship of Ashtoreth along with the practical 





Clay Figure of Astarte. 


deification of the sexual passion among the ancient 
Semites. And it is from this point of view that the 
Biblical attitude toward the cult has to be regarded. 
Wherever it prevailed, sexual indulgence was en- 
couraged under the patronage of the great goddess 
and especially at her shrines, associated as they were 
with those of the Baals. Since such sentiments and 
practises were fatal to a pure religion and morality, 
the prophets and reformers denounced them and en- 
couraged their extirpation (II K 23 13; ef. I K 11 5, 
33). An indication of their persistence is given in 
Ezk 8 14 (see Tammuz, below). 


(6) Celestial Side of Ishtar-worship. In Baby- 
lonia the celestial side of Ishtar-worship was greatly 
promoted by the cultivation of astronomy and 
astrology. Ishtar was the beautiful planet Venus, 
who, as leader of the starry hosts, was actually dei- 
fied as a goddess of battle by the warlike Assyrians. 
But it was as the queen or empress of heaven that 
she was especially adored; and this aspect of her. 
character gave to the purer 
forms of her worship in 
Babylonia a dignity and 
depth as well as a moral 
and sentimental value else- 
where unknown in Asia, 
and paralleled only among 
the nobler types of Greek 
and Roman writers. The 
name of the Hellenic 
Aphrodite and the essen- 
tials of her cult, as well as 
that of the Roman Venus, 
were an importation from 
Babylonia by way of the 
Phenicians and Arameans. 

(7) The Queen of Heav- 
en. The Queen of Heaven WeKaG © 
(Jer 718, etc.) was not the QL, 
moon-god, but the Baby- pots 
lonian Ishtar, or Venus. 
The moon-god Sin (see 
Sun, Moon, and Stars, below) was a male deity, 
and his worship among the Semites was older than 
even that of Ishtar, who is therefore figured as the 
daughter of Sin. The worship of this goddess was 
popular among the Hebrew women in Jeremiah’s 
day and seems to have dated back to an earlier era 
in Israel (cf. Jer 44 17 f.). 


15. Bel. Bel was one of the great Babylonian 
gods. In Jer 50 2 he appears in association with 
Marduk (see § 24), and in Is 461 along with Nabu 
(see § 27), two other Babylonian gods. He was 
the center of the old Babylonian triad, Anu, Bel, 
and Ea, and continued as an outstanding figure in 
the Assyrian and Babylonian pantheon down to 
the end. 

16. Calves, Golden. Calves and Calf-worship. 
Calf-images figured prominently in Israel, and are 
best known to us because of their use as images or 
symbols of J’’ by Jeroboam I at Bethel and Dan 
(I K 12 28 f£.). They were denounced ‘later by the 
prophets (Am 8 14; Hos 8 4 ff.) as well as by historical 
writers (II K 10 29; II Ch 1114 f.). This was one of 
the higher forms of religion known among the Se- 






Clay Figure of Astarte 
with a Dove. 





823 A NEW STANDARD 


mites, in which a divinity is objectivized by an 
expressive symbol or a combination of symbols in 
an image made in the likeness of an animal (see 
Idol, § 24, below). It was not Israelitic in its gen- 
eral conception, nor was the specific form charac- 
teristic of the Hebrews. It was not properly repre- 
sentative of a calf, but of a full-grown bull, and was 
intended to represent strength (cf. Nu 23 22, 24 8) 
and endurance as well as service to mankind, and 
was at the same time a type of the reproductive 
principle which the Semites regarded as one of the 
supreme gifts of their chief divinities (cf. Ashtoreth, 
§ 14, above). It was really appropriate to an agricul- 
tural people, and was borrowed by the Hebrews from 
their Canaanitic neighbors in Palestine. It was a 
common type of worship, not only among the 
Canaanites, but also in Syria and Phenicia, if not 
throughout the Semitic area. While the animal 
image was merely a symbol of the god, it tended 
always to become itself the object of adoration to 
its votaries, and was prohibited, at least implicitly, 
even in the earliest legislative code (Ex 20 23, 34 17). 
Its worship was the specific offense of Northern 
Israel, after the schism. In Judah, which was not 
so much exposed to purely Canaanitic influence, it 
seems not to have taken root. The images were 


normally molten, but since the precious metals were | 


preferred, they were necessarily smaller than life- 
size, hence the calf instead of the bull. For local or 
private use they were of carved wood overlaid with 
gold. Possibly the calf of Samaria was of this order 
(Hos 8 6). 

The golden calf of Aaron (Ex ch. 32) seems to have 
had no historical antecedents or consequents, and 
the narrative was probably intended as a sort of 
parabolic object-lesson for later conditions. There is 
no foundation for the once popular view that this 
form of worship had been learned by the Israelites 
in Egypt. In that country the god was a living 
animal. The form of the ox in the cherubic figure 
(Ezk 15 f., etc.) has in the main a different motive 
from that of the golden calf, and is more akin to the 
Assyrian man-bull colossi (see also CHERUBIM.) 

17. Chemosh. Chemosh was the name of the chief 
god or Baal of Moab (Nu 21 29; I K 117, 33; IK 3 
27, 23 13; Jer 487, 13, 46). In Jg 11 24 he is erroneously 
called the god of Ammon (see Milcom, § 26, below). 
As a consequence of political friendship, he was 
apparently more than once installed in Jerusalem 
(I K 11 33; II K 23 13). On the Moabite Stone he 
appears, associated with a female consort, as Ashtar- 
Chemosh. 


18. Chiun. Chiun was a deity which we find 
mentioned in Am 5 2 AV _ (‘the shrine of’ 
RV). The name should probably be read Katwan, 
which was the name of the planet Saturn. The 
Babylonian has the original form Kaimdn, of which 
Kaiwén is a later pronunciation, also current in 
Arabic. The LXX. here, and also Ac 7 43, have 
Raiphan (Rephan RV, Remphan AV), which stands 
for Katphan (from Kaiwan) 

19. Cuttings in the Flesh. In Dt 141 it is said: 
‘Ye shall not cut yourselves ... for the dead.’ In 
Lv 19 27, 28, 21 5 (Holiness Code) the same pro- 
hibition is made with the same sanction: ‘For thou 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Semitic Religion 


art a holy people to Jehovah thy God,’ and the 
same association with the dead, Lv 19 28, includes 
also tattooing, but does not connect it with the 
dead. With these passages must be considered I K 
18 28, where it is said that the priests of the Tyrian 
Baal cut themselves while propitiating their god 
‘after their custom.’ From these texts it is apparent 
that incisions or punctures of the flesh were made in 
honor either of heathen deities or of one’s dead. 
Abundant parallels to both of these usages are found 
in ancient and modern times. It is reasonable to 
suppose that the mutilations and marks in question 
were made from similar motives in each class of 
cases. A careful collation and comparison of rele- 
vant cases make it probable that the leading motives 
were (1) sacrificial communion with the god or with 
a departed ancestor, (2) propitiation and honoring 
of one or the other. These two motives were, of 
course, originally distinct so far as the ceremony 
was concerned, but after it became a regularly re- 
curring ritual, obligatory on a special occasion, the 
impulse to its performance was naturally more 
obscure and complex. Cutting oneself in cere- 
monies of mourning (Jer 16 9) was probably an 
expression of grief as well as of the enduring bond 
of blood-brotherhood; but it must have been en- 
couraged by the custom of making offerings to 
deceased ancestors. All such practises were put 
under the ban in Israel by the later legislation 
as being inconsistent with entire {devotion and 
consecration to J’. In the ceremony of tattooing, the 
name of a deity was perhaps marked on the hand 
or arm (cf. Is 44 5). See also Buriat anp BURIAL 
Customs, § 7, and Mournina anp Movurnina 
Customs, § 3 f. 


20. Dagon. Dagon was a god worshiped at Gaza 
and Ashdod (Jg 16 21 f.; IS 51.) and probably in 
all SW. Palestine. His name having resemblance to 
the words for fish (dég) and grain (ddgdn), he has 
been regarded by many as essentially a fish-god 
and by others as the god of agriculture. As his 
worship was not continued after the age of the 
Maccabees (I Mac 10 82 ff., 11 4), and no record of 
the ritual is extant, the question can not be definitely 
answered. There was a Babylonian and Assyrian 
deity Dagan, of which not much is known, except 
that he was very ancient and of a high rank among 
the gods. Probably, he was identical with our 
Dagon, and possibly, he was of Amorite (Canaanite) 
origin and adopted by the Babylonians. Dagan, or 
Dagon, occurs as one of the elements in very ancient 
names of persons and places in Babylonia and Pales- 
tine; and as these existed in Palestine before the 
Philistine invasion, Dagon was clearly an old 
Canaanitic divinity. The hints given in IS 5 4 in 
connection with the overthrow of Dagon do not 
favor the notion that his image resembled a fish. 

21. Destiny and Fortune. Destiny was a deity 
to which mixed wine was offered (Is 65 11; Heb. 
meni, ‘destiny’ RV, ‘number’ AV), along with Gad, 
the god of Fortune. (See Gad, below.) 

22. Gad. Gad was the name of the god of fortune 
from which the tribal name was probably derived 
(Gn 30 11). In Is 65 11 propitiatory offerings are 
spoken of as presented to him and to Destiny, in- 


Semitic Religion 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


$24 


CD 


stead of to J’, on Mt. Zion. Of the special shrines 
or rites we know nothing; but the name is found as 
that of a deity in Phenician, Aramaic, Arabic, and 
Assyrian. 

23. Images and Image-Worship. Images and 
Image-worship. There were two chief kinds of 
worship. The best known, image-worship, is the 
second main phase, which is sometimes called 
‘iconic’? as opposed to the (normally earlier and 
ruder) ‘aniconic.’ Everywhere there was a series of 
slowly evolving types of worship, in which there 
was no man-made likeness of the sacred object. 
This phase had several stages, the principal being the 
following: 1. The cult of the deities or demons in 
their resorts or permanent abodes, which thus be- 
came sacred. Such, for example, were sacred moun- 
tains, streams, and groves. 2. A similar consecra- 
tion of a single definite object, such as a rock, a 
fountain, or a tree. 3. An artificial grouping of 
typical objects in which the deity might reside, as 
in the various forms of rude stone sanctuaries. 4. 
The shaping of a single typical object into a con- 
ventional adjunct of worship. Such were the ‘pillar’ 
(see below) and the ‘Asherah’ (see above). 

This last-named stage or type may often have 
served as a transition link in the evolution of the 
second main phase, that of image-worship, which, 
however, in some of.its forms doubtless also de- 
veloped separately. The Hebrew name for ‘image’ 
(tselem) is not confined to figures of gods, but its 
application is always clear from the context. The 
word usually rendered ‘idol’ in EV (‘dsabh) prob- 
ably means something ‘shaped’ by art. Special 
kinds and forms of images were the ‘graven image’ 
(pesel), of wood or stone, and the ‘molten image’ 
(massékhah). There were many other names, some 
of them contemptuous in their application, tho often 
expressed in EV by the general term ‘idols.’ Of 
this class are ‘no-gods’ (’élil), ‘abomination’ (shiq- 
guts), ‘dung-god’ (? gillil). All such opprobrious 
epithets were applied to actual images, since material 
likenesses of forbidden objects were most obnoxious 
to the party of reform. 

Such images were naturally made either in a hu- 
man or in an animal likeness. Perhaps, most of 
those current in Israel (see, e.g., Is 2 20, 30 22) be- 
fore the proscription by Josiah (II K ch. 23), and 
more or less till the Exile, were in human form. 
These, however, were intended to be not exact, but 
typical representations like the sculptured deities 
of Greece and Rome. The human shape, as dis- 
tinguished from the animal, was natural, and per- 
haps mostly inevitable, where the motive was to 
give expression to the conception of the character 
of invisible deities by visible and tangible features. 
Whether or not J’’ was ever represented in human 
form is another question. He was certainly thought 
of in highly anthropomorphic terms (see Gop, § 2), 
and His worshipers constantly spoke of going to 
worship as ‘going to see the face of J’’.’ But His 
supposed salient qualities were commonly set forth 
symbolically in animal form in imitation of heathen 
cults (cf. Calves, Golden, § 16, above). The pre- 
vailing anthropomorphic tendency was_ possibly 
helped by ancestor-worship (see Teraphim, § 36, 


below). On the other hand, the visible, gleaming 
heavenly bodies were not worshiped by images and 
were rarely represented by symbols (see Sun, Moon, 
and Stars, § 32, below). 

24. Merodach (Bab. Marduk). Marduk was the 
patron deity of the city of Babylon, named along 
with Bel in Jer 50 2, and probably identical with the 
‘Bel’ of Is 46 1 (see Bel, § 15, above). He was in 
many points the analog of Jupiter, both as god and 
planet, and played a great réle in the Babylonian 
mythology and art as the successful champion of the 
gods, the powers of light, against the demons, the 
powers of darkness, and thus practically as the 
supposed savior of the world. His name is incor- 
porated in that of the Babylonian King Merodach- 
baladan, which means ‘Merodach has given a son.’ 


25. Milcom. Milcom was the name of the god or 
Baal of the Ammonites (I K 11 5, 33; II K 23 13). 
In I K 117 read ‘Milcom’ for ‘Molech,’ and in Jg 
11 24 ‘Milcom’ for ‘Chemosh.’ In Jer 49 1, 3, ‘Mal- 
cam’ should be similarly corrected. The name is the 
word for king (malk, milk; cf. Motzcn, below) with 
an obscure formative ending. 


26. Molech, Moloch, Melech. (1) The Goa and 
His Worship. Molech (‘Moloch’ only in Ac 7 43) is 
the current Hebrew form of the name of a god of 
one of the forbidden Israelitic cults. The word 
should be written Melech (melekh, ‘king’), of which 
Milcom (see § 25, above) gives the stem. The form 
was changed so as to suggest, by the pronunciation, 
the word bdsheth, the opprobrious nickname of a 
Baal (see § 10, above). It is always used with the 
article = ‘the king’ (in I K 117 read ‘Milcom’) and is 
so actually read in Is 30 33, 579. This Melech was 
the deity to whom children, preferably the first-born, 
were sometimes offered by fire in the later days of 
Israel. His name is usually not mentioned in con- 
nection with the words ‘offer by fire’ (or simply 
‘offer’), but it is always to be understood. The fre- 
quently used phrase pass through the fire should be 
read: ‘offer or dedicate by fire,’ literally, ‘make to 
pass over or ‘transfer,’ that is, from the possession 
of the offerer to the god. This is shown by Ex 13 12 
where the deity referred to is J’’ Himself, and there 
is no mention of fire. The translation ‘make to pass,’ 
followed by ‘through’ instead of ‘by,’ is a wrong 
application of the literal meaning of the Heb., and 
the correct sense of ‘offer’ was not derived from the 
cult of Melech. The practise is attributed to King 
Ahaz (II K 16 3), to Manasseh (21 6), and to the 
Northern Israelites (17 17), but with doubtful cor- 


‘rectness (cf. Sun, Moon, and Stars, § 32, below), 


and to kings or people of Judah generally (Jer 19 5, 
32 35; cf. Ezk 16 21, 20 31, 23 37). It was prohibited 
(Dt 18 10; Lv 18 21, 20 2 f.) and checked for a time 
by Josiah (II K 23 10) by the dismantling of Topheth, 
where the rites had been performed (cf. Is 30 33). 
The exact character of these rites is not known. It 
is certain, however, that the offering by fire was 
literal and personal, not symbolical and representa- 
tive, tho it is probable that the victims were pre- 
viously slain (cf. Ps 106 37 f.). ; 

(2) Origin and Nature of the Cult. The chief 
questions of importance concern the original source 
of the cult of Melech and its relation to the 





825 A NEW STANDARD 


worship of Jehovah. Satisfactory answers are not 
easily obtained. ‘King’ or ‘the king’ seems to be 
a common epithet of various Semitic divinites, and 
Milcom (see § 25, above) is the actual name of the 
chief god of the Ammonites. Hence ‘the Melech’ 
has been thought by many to be the designation of a 
specific deity, either of Babylonian (Assyrian) or 
Canaanitic origin. This supposition probably fol- 
lows the right track. It is significant that human 
sacrifices were prominent in Phenician (notably 
Carthaginian) religion, and were offered in the city 
of Tyre to its Baal or chief god Melkart (‘king of 
the city’), whose name specializes ‘the Melech,’ and 
in Moab as well (II K 3 27). Possibly there was a 
recrudescence of old Canaanite tendencies in Israel 
(cf. Dt 12 31) in the desperate times of national 
disaster, stimulated by the example of neighboring 
peoples. But human sacrifice seems to date in Israel 
from the earliest times (cf. the story of Abraham 
and Isaac which is a protest against it, and the 
laws regarding the offering of the first-born in the 
oldest codes), and it persisted down to the verge 
of the Exile. The cult was heathenish in the eyes 
of the prophetic party. But the people at large seem 
to have regarded the Melech as a manifestation of 
J’’, somewhat as the golden calves were regarded in 
Northern Israel. 
The disclaimer 
of Jer 7 31, and 
the pathetic sug- 
gestion of Mic 
6 7, seem to jus- 
tify such an in- 
ference (cf. Ezk 
20 25 f.). 

27. Nebo. 
Nebo (Bab. 
Nabi, the ‘de- 
clarer’ or ‘proph- 
et’--Heb. n4a- 
bh?’?) is named 
with Bél in Is 
461. He was the 
patron deity of 
Borsippa, the 
sister-city of 
Babylon, and was the god of writing, literature, 
and science, and, consequently, the most pro- 
foundly reverenced of the Babylonian deities. Mt. 
‘Nebo’ is a witness to the long predominance of 
Babylonian culture and religion in the West-land 
up to the 17th cent. B.c. 


28. Nergal, Nibhaz, Nisroch. Nergal was the 
patron deity of the Babylonian city of Cutha, whose 
exiles worshiped him in Samaria (II K 17 30). He 
was the analog, in great part, of the god and planet 
Mars, and presided over war, hunting, pestilence, 
and the underworld. Nibhaz was a god of the 
Avvites (q.v.) in Samaria. The name has not been 
found elsewhere. Nisroch was the god in whose 
temple in Nineveh Sennacherib was murdered (II K 
19 37; Is 37 38). The name has not been identified. 
The most plausible explanation is that is has been 
miswritten for Marduk (see § 24, above, and cf. 
KAT, p. 85). 


Pillars ee from Cyprus. 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Semitic Religion 

29. Pillars. (1) Religious Usage in Hebrew. The 
word ‘pillar’ is used in EV to describe several objects 
of a more or less pillarlike form, such as the pillar 
of a temple (Jg 16 25 ff.), a grave-stone (II S 18 18; 
Gn 35 20), a pillar of cloud and of fire (Ex 13 21 £.), 
of smoke (Jg 20 40), of salt (Gn 19 26), a boundary- 
stone (Gn 31 45). As indicating an object of worship 
or reverence, it translates the Heb. matstsébhah, 
which RVmg. usually renders ‘obelisk.’ The same 
Hebrew word is also used for two of the senses of 
‘pillar’ cited above, namely, gravestone and boun- 
dary-stone. These, however, had religious associa- 
tions, the one having relation to a departed spirit, 
the other being erected under the sanction of the 
deity (cf. Dt 2717). ‘Pillar’ in this article is, accord- 
ingly, the equiv- 
alent of this He- 
brew term or its 


















bef ln oa ANON eG synonyms. 
(ip sect SINT (2) Pillars and 
Aw Beth-els. The 
4 pillar is the chief 
ANG example of Ca- 


naanitic stone- 
worship, whose 
origin and ten- 
dencies have 
been already 
indicated in a 
general way 
(§§ 7, 9, and 23, 
above). It 
means in the 
original ‘a thing 
set upright,’ and 
was in the first 
instance nothing 
more than an 
oblong, un- 
shaped _ stone 
firmly fixed in 
a vertical posi- 
tion. Before it 
was erected it 
had been prob- 
ably in most 
cases a béth’él (‘abode of divinity’), and already an 
object of worship or oracular consultation. Such a 
development of the cult and its motive is indicated 
in the narrative of Gn 28 11-22. These ‘beth-els’ were 
frequent in Phenicia and elsewhere under the same 
name, and may sometimes have been aerolites. 
The fact that the stones in the Ark of the Covenant, 
inscribed with the “Ten Words,’ were a part of the 
holy oracle in the Temple points to an adaptation 
of the primitive conception to the worship of J”, 
parallel to the later spiritualization of the traditional 
story of Beth-el. 


(3) Pillars as an Institution. Such pillars were 
made parts of permanent shrines, partly as a sym- 
bolical form of the old stone-worship, and partly 
as affording a natural lodging-place for the local 
numen or Baal. Then the stone was shaped into 
conventional forms, usually into that of an obelisk, 
if we may judge from Phenician examples. In the 





4 


Semitic Religion 





consecration of such a pillar oil was poured upon the 
top (Gn 28 18, 31 13), perhaps as the equivalent of 
sacrificial fat. We thus find them introduced into 
the religious service of Israel, where they were main- 
tained throughout the preprophetic period (see Ex 
24 4; Jos 24 26 f.; A 96,18 712; Hos 3 4). Essen- 
tially the 
same, tho 
more elabo- 
rate, were 
the two braz- 
en pillars (of 
Pheniciande- 
sign) in the ! 
Temple of 
Solomon(I K 
715 4.). As 
assimilating 
the worship 
of Israel to | 
other relig- ‘# 
ions, and as ~ 
out of har- 
mony with the spiritual character of Jehovah, the 
pillars and other adjuncts of the popular cults 
were proscribed under prophetic influence. 

(4) ‘Sun-Images.? The word hammdnim (only 
in the pl.), ‘images’ AV, ‘sun-images’ AVmg. and 
RV (Ly 26 30; Is 17 8, 27 9; II Ch 14 5, 34 4,7), were 
probably a, variety of the ‘pillar’ above described; 
but their exact character and form are uncertain. 
They were cultus-objects in Phenicia, Syria and in 
the Baalism of Canaan. They also were to be 
broken up or hewn into pieces. 

30. Rimmon. 
chief god of 
Damascus(II 
K 518). This 
word isfound 
also in the 
mame Tab | 
name Tab- 
rimmon (I K 
15 18). Itis 
the same 
wordas Ram- 
man, an epi | 
thet a 
‘the thunder- 
er,’ that was 
applied to 
Adad the god 
of the air, of 
rain, of thun- 


PALES: 


NEE SS 


ee WO 


f my 


| 











i, 


a 
i | 


ae Caan thane itl =n 
realli fae i 
ike eel en li i ih 


Sfx 
4 ieee 
\\" 
H Y 
td U 
f 
Boe Fill, 





j= 











































































= Bla 
Sn a ey 
SSF Ss DL 
aes z 
Pg =——— eT — 2 
& —— = i = 
5 a— 
=e? = 























A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





The § Sun-God Ghanleek eesehp Through the asters Gate of Heaven. 


Rimmon was the name of the 


ia aR i ‘ 
(hh Hl 
| i tt 


i na NI 


$26 





31. Serpent-Worship. Using the expression ‘ser- 
pent-worship’ in its widest application, we find two 
main kinds of regard for the serpent, one for actual 
and the other for mythological animals. (1) The 
quick, elusive motions of the snake, its fondness for 
out-of-the-way lurking-places, its ubiquity, and its 
power to 
* Strike and 

fox instantly 
Veerics kill, have 
“4 given it ev- 
# erywhere an 
we've uncanny and 

.-<aG44 often ademo- 
ieee Dlac charac- 
‘ter. In the 
Biblealso itis 
once viewed 
as an instru- 
ment of J” 
zat (Am9 3). The 
episode of 
the brazen 
serpent is based not upon the belief of the healing 
power of the serpent, for this belief was rare in Pales- 
tine, and was perhaps confined to those living in 
sacred springs (cf. the ‘dragon’s well’ in Neh 2 13), 
but upon the widespread notion that looking upon 
the image of a noxious creature was curative. (2) 
The chief mythological conception of the serpent, 
which played a great réle in the whole of the ancient 
world and was most elaborately developed in Baby- 
lonia, is well illustrated in both the O T and N T. 
The principal source of the myth is the personifica- 
tion of the raging, destructive sea, the source of 
storm-clouds 




































IN a Tah with their — 
| AEE thunder and 
Pelee AU ee a i serpentine 








i" 


bees: cA RN} 
ia 
er it any | # lightning, 
oy Ss << 2p Siig and the ulti- 
a | ery ay | ; mate, 
: le ces ni sac rer 
| or ne, 
see§5, above) 
of eclipses — 
and all other — 
celestial ob- 
scurations. 
The resul- 
tant figure — 
was the Bab- — 
ylonian Tia- © 
mat (Heb. 


























































































































































































































































der andlight- ee il | ichom, the 
ning. The St ee ro a Hired coer te — = i oe ‘deep,’ Gn 1 
name Hadad gS pee es J a SS eke 2), the origi- 
(Adad), oc- 3 SS Patt Seine santas mH nal of the 


curs in sev- 
eral Biblical 
proper names as Ben-hadad, Bildad, Hadadezer, 
Hadarezer and Hadad-rimmon. The name and cult 
of Adad or Rimmon were widespread in the West- 
land very early. Hadad was in general the more 
widely used name, tho the Bible uses the popular 
epithet Rimmon (Rammén). 







A Repent of the Sun-God Shamash. 









dragon and 
of leviathan — 
or the sea-serpent. Here only the principal relevant 

O T passages can be cited, which naturally occur in 

the poetical literature: Ps 7412-18, 89 10*12, 519£.; Job 
7 12, 913, 26 12 f.; Is 271. The essentials’of the myth — 
were that Tiamat, the chief of the demoniac powers 
of disorder and confusion, rose with kindred mon- — 





Cause — 





A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Semitic Religion 


aa SS Sessa essessssusvastewenagsnnmessennenee? 


sters against the gods (her own offspring), the 
powers of light and order, and was routed and slain 
by Marduk (see § 24, above), their champion, who 
after her destruction established the permanent 
order of the universe, setting in the heavens the 
loyal powers of light and order, to regulate the times 
and seasons, and to guard his supremacy (cf. Gn 
ch. 1; and see CosMocony). A combination of this 
role of the dragon with the traditional conception of 
the enmity of the serpent toward the human race is 
the literary tho not the religious basis of Gn ch. 3 
and of the Biblical career of the personified ser- 
pent, the chosen emblem and most fitting symbol 
of the power of evil. 

32. Sun, Moon, and Stars. The Worship of the 
Heavenly Bodies. (1) Sun, Moon, and ‘Host of 
Heaven.’ In distinction from the sun and moon, 
the stars are often called the host of heaven. The 





of the adjuncts being the horses and chariots of the 
sun (II K 23 11), which were driven in sacred pro- 
cessions to represent the sun’s course through the 
heavens. After the first captivity of Judah there 
were men in Jerusalem who still prostrated them- 
selves before the rising sun (Ezk 8 16). 

(3) Early Sun- and Moon-Worship. Traces of very 
ancient sun-worship are found in the place-name 
Beth-shemesh (abode of the sun) and in the epical 
personal name Samson (Shimshén), and of moon- 
worship in the name Jericho (‘moon-city’). In re- 
mote Hebrew antiquity the moon played a very 
important part. Sin, the moon-god, the patron of 
wanderers and emigrants, was the chief god of Ur 
of the Chaldees, of Haran in N. Mesopotamia, of the 
Wilderness of Sin, and of Mt. Sinai, to the S. of 
Palestine. These places marked the limits of the 


wanderings of Abraham and his earliest descendants. 


=< 


eae, 


xe 
= 


Ate 


REPRESENTATION OF A PROCESSION OF THE Gops IN BAaBYLONIA. 
The Sun, Moon, and Five Planets Carried on the Backs of (Idealized) Animals, cf. Is 46 !. 


term ‘host’ means a well-ordered army, each soldier ' 
having his place, name, or number (Is 40 26, 45 12; | 
Ps 147 4; Neh 9 6), and maintaining his relative | 


position while perpetually in motion. The stars 
as twinkling and moving were thought, like the sun 
and moon, to be animated by spirits and were, there- 
fore, divine. Their comparative spirituality was 
promoted by the fact that they had a living radiance 
of their own and required no image or idol for their 
worship (see § 23, above), nor were they represented 
by symbols in Palestine as they were in Assyria and 
Babylonia. Generally speaking, astral-worship had 
little vogue in the West as compared with the East 
(cf. § 9 (c), above), and it was not till the supremacy 
of Assyria, followed by the Chaldean era, that it 
had much influence in Israel. The stars there 
formed as a whole a sort of community or class by 
themselves, corresponding in the main to the Igigi 
or ‘heaven-gods’ of the Babylonians (cf. § 8, above). 

(2) Astral Cults in Israel. Northern Israel is 
vaguely said in I K 17 16 to have ‘worshiped all the 
host of heaven.’ II K 23 12 suggests in its reference 
to the altars on the roof of the Temple as fitted up 
by Ahaz that this king had officially introduced 
astral-worship into Judah, with its combination of 
observatory and chapel after the old Babylonian 
fashion. Later kings further developed the cult, one 





(4) The Zodiac and Planets. In the great com- 
munity of the host of heaven the signs of the zodiac 
were the objects of special adoration and consulta- 
tion (cf. the Lat. considero and contemplor). In 
the Babylonian religion and science they held a con- 
trolling place. They were worshiped under Ma- 
nasseh by the name mazzaléth (II K 23 5, ‘planets’ 
AV, Bab. ‘stations,’ 2.e., of the sun in his yearly 
course, the ‘Mazzaroth’ of Job 38 32). For ancient 
Babylonian representations of these see Jeremias, Das 
Alie Testament (1904), p.9. For the planet-gods 
named in the O T see above under Ashtoreth, Mero- 
dach, Nebo, and Nergal. In Babylonia the images 
of these divinities were frequently carried about in 
religious processions (cf. the taunting reference to 
this in Is 461 £., and the accompanying illustration). 

(5) How the Bible regards the Heavenly Bodies. 
All astral-worship was forbidden in the prophetic 
legislation (Dt 4 19, etc.); and its various adjuncts, 
along with those of the Baal-worship of the high 
places, were destroyed by Josiah (II K ch. 28). 
This does not imply, however, that the popular 
belief in the animation of the heavenly bodies ceased 
to be shared. 

33. Tamarisk. Tamarisk is the correct rendering 
of the Heb. ’éshel (‘grove’ or ‘tree’ AV). It is a large 
tree-like shrub, its branches covered with fine scales 


Semitic Religion 


Separate A NEW STANDARD 





for leaves. It was viewed as a sacred tree, marking 
a shrine (Gn 21 33), a burial-place (I § 31 13), and 
also a place of council (I § 22 6). 

34. Tammuz. Among the improper rites practised 
in the Temple at Jerusalem as seen by Ezekiel (ch. 
8) was the vision of ‘women weeping for Tammuz’ 
(ver. 14). Tammuz was a Babylonian god (originally 
non-Semitic) of vegetation. He was thus closely 
allied with Ishtar (Ashtoreth; cf. § 14, above), the 
goddess of fertility (sometimes figured as her hus- 
band, sometimes as her son), and is thus practically 
the god of productiveness. After the passing of the 
summer solstice, vegetation begins to decay, and 
Tammuz retires to the underworld. Thither he is 
followed by Ishtar, who would bring him back to 
the world which he has left loveless and desolate. 
This is the theme of a famous Babylonian poem 
usually known as the ‘Descent of Ishtar’ (to the 
underworld). The fourth Babylonian month was 
hence called Tammuz (July), and the sixth (Elul) 
was known as that of ‘the mission of Ishtar’ (Sep- 
tember). The weeping for Tammuz was a lamenta- 
tion by women throughout the north-Semitic world, 
and the myth of Tammuz and Ishtar was carried 
to Greece and Rome under the guise of Adonis (= 
’ddhoni, ‘my lord’) and Aphrodite, or Venus. 

35. Tartak. Tartak was a god of the Avvites in 
postexilic Samaria (II K 17 31). He has not yet been 
identified. 


36. Teraphim. The word ‘teraphim’ is so tran- 
scribed from the Hebrew in RV regularly, as also 
sometimes in AV. The word denotes a species of 
household god or image, mostly with a plural sense 
corresponding to the Heb. form, but in I §S 19 13, 16 
used of a single image. The teraphim are by many 
thought to have been images of the family ancestors 
(ef. § 9 (d), above). They play a part in the story of 
Jacob and his Aramean wives, Rachel having stolen 
away the teraphim of her father, Laban, before her 
flight to Canaan (Gn 31 19 ff.), and the Danites took 
those of Micah with them to their northern settle- 
ment (Jg 17 5, 18 17 f.). They would thus seem to 
have had at least some tribal significance. They are 
condemned in I § 15 23. But they appear to have 
been used as a matter of course in the time of 
David (I S 19 13, 16), and Hos 3 4 speaks of them as 
inseparable from the offices of religion. They were, 
perhaps, not entirely proscribed till the time of 
Josiah (II K 23 24). The fact that, like the ephod 
(q.v.), they were consulted in divination (II K 23 
24; Ezk 21 21; Zec 10 2), and their prevailing domestic 
or private cultivation (§ 3, above) may account 
largely for their comparative immunity. 


37. Terebinth. The terebinth was, apparently, 
the chief sacred tree of the early Hebrews and other 
Semitic peoples. According to prevailing recent 
opinion, it answers to the Heb. ’él, ’élad, and ’élén, 
while oak, by which these Heb. words are always 
rendered by AV and RV, except in Is 6 13 (‘teil-tree’ 
AV) and Hos 4 13 (‘elm’ AV), would correspond to 
’alloén. It has been plausibly maintained, however, 
that these distinctions do not exist, and that the 
O T uses them all in the sense of ‘sacred tree.’ In 
any case it is clear that most of the sacred trees 
were terebinths and not oaks, The two trees are 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


828 


quite distinct botanically, but the former is less 
common and lives to a greater age. It has a thick 
trunk, long branches, and abundant foliage (II S 
18 9), and is deciduous (cf. Is 1 30). There is no 
reason why the oak should not have been (like the 
tamarisk; cf. § 33, above) sacred in certain cases. 
Hither tree gives ample shade and shelter, and 
would make a good gathering-place, but the tere- 
binth being rarer, and perhaps more striking in 
appearance, would be a better landmark; cf. ‘the 
valley of Elah,’ possibly named from some imposing 
specimen. 

Sacred trees were in vogue up to the days of the 
kingdom. The living spirit within them (cf. § 7, 
above), communicated the will of the deity, as did 
the ‘terebinth of Moreh’ (=‘teacher’ or ‘director,’ 
Gn 12 6; Dt 11 30); the ‘terebinth of soothsayers’ 
(Jg 9 37; cf. RVmg.), especially when the wind 
whispered in the branches (II S 5 24). 
suggestive instances see Gn 35 4; Jos 24 26; I K 
13 14. The later prophetic movement aimed to 
abolish all forms and customs of tree-worship, 
especially on account of the licentious practises 
which it promoted. See Is 1 29, 57 5; Hos 4 13; Ezk 
6 13 (cf. also Asherah, § 11, above). 

LiTERATURE: The best general treatises are: Baethgen, 
Beitrdge zur semitischen Religionsgeschichte (1888), the great 
uncompleted work of W. R. Smith, Religion of the Semites 
(1st ed., 1889; 2d ed., 1894), and M. J. Lagrange, Hiudes 
sur les religions Semitiques (2d ed. 1905). The works 
on ancient religion which are perhaps most valuable for the 
study of Semitic religions are: Tiele, Geschiedenis van den 
Godesdienst en de Oudheit, 2 vols. (1896, Ger. transl., 1896- 
1903); De la Saussaye, Lehrbuch der Religionsgeschichte 
(4th ed., 2 vols., 1925). Of treatises on the early religion 
of the Hebrews, the Arabs, and the Babylonians, the fol- 
lowing are very helpful: Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, 
vol. i (1887), pp. 358-518; Wellhausen, Reste arabischen 
Heidenthums (1st ed., 1887; 2d ed., 1897); Jastrow, Religion 
of Babylonia and Assyria (1st ed., 1898; 2d ed. in German, 
much enlarged (1912); Schrader, Keilinschriften und das 
Alte Testament (3d ed., 1903), Part II, by H. Zimmern; 
R. W. Rogers, The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria (1908); 
Geo. F. Moore, History of Religions, vol. I (1913), pp. 201- 
242; Morris Jastrow, Aspects of Religious Belief and Practice 


in Babylonia and Assyria (1911); P. Dhorme, La religion — 


Babylonienne (1910). Many books and monographs on 
O T religion or theology also contain useful suggestions. A 
knowledge of the elements of anthropology is essential ag a 
general preparation. 

On Ashtoreth cf. Barton, Ashtoreth and Her Influence 
in the Old Testament, in JBL, vol. x (1891), and The 


Semitic Ishtar-Cult in Hebratea, X ,(1893-04). Zinman Ee 


KAT? (see Index under ‘Ishtar’); Driver in HDB, and 
Moore in EB, s.v. On Baal and Ishtar consult the articles 
on ‘Baal’ in DB, EB, and JE, and especially Paton in 
ERE (with full bibliography). On Images the best brief 
treatment is by Moore, arts. Idol and Idolatry in HB. On 


Pillars see especially the exhaustive article ‘Massebah’ by — 


Moore in EB. On Sun, Moon and Stars, for a good brief 
treatment, see article Nature-Worship in EB, §§ 5 and 6. 


J. F. McC.—J. M. P. 8. 


SENAAH, si-né’a or sen’s-a (829, s¢nd@’ah): A 
city inhabited by a colony of returned exiles (Ezr — 
2 35; Neh 7 38), called Hassenaah (Neh 8 3). Its site © 


is unknown, but was probably near Jericho. 
SENATE. See Councin, § 1. 


SENEH, si’m (720, 
two ‘rocky crags’ (lit. ‘tooth of the cliff?) in the 
pass at Michmash (I § 14 4). The exact location is 
uncertain. See also Boznz. 


For other. 


seneh), ‘thorn’: One of the 


















a a 


829 A NEW STANDARD 


SENIR, si/nir (12%, senir): The Amorite name of 
Hermon (Dt 3 9), but distinguished from Hermon 
(I Ch 5 23; Song 4 8). It is also called Sion (Dt 4 
48), and Sirion (Dt 3 9; Ps 29 6). It was probably 
the northern part of the Antilebanon, which was 
called Jebel Sanir by Arab geographers. In I Ch 
5 23 it is mentioned as one of the boundaries of 
Manasseh, FE. of the Jordan, and was noted for its 
fir-trees (Ezk 27 5). Go S822. 

SENNACHERIB, sen-nak’i-rib (2’°7022, san- 
héribh); Assyr. Sin-ahé-erba, ‘the god Sin increase 
brothers’): The king of Assyria, 705-681 B.c. His 
accession dates from the death of his father, Sargon 
II, 705. A change of rulers was a conventional 
signal for rebellion among the subjects of the empire.. 
The first campaign of S. was made against the re- 
calcitrant Chaldean Merodach-baladan (q.v.), who 
had once more seized the throne of Babylon. On 
the approach of the Assyrian army, he fled for his 
life, and §. put Bel-ibni on the throne. After 
chastising the Kosseans and the people of Ellipi, 
he turned his attention to his rebellious subjects in 
the western provinces. Hezekiah, King of Judah, 
the cities of Ashkelon and Ekron of Philistia, to- 
gether with most of those on the E. coast of the 
Mediterranean, had likewise seceded from their 
master, the king of Assyria. §S. in 701 directed his 
first blows against the cities of the Phenician coast. 
All were plundered except Tyre, whose king, Elulus, 
fled to the island of Cyprus, and Ethbaal was made 
king of local Phenicia. The apparently invincible 
Assyrian hosts pushed down the coast toward 
Egypt. Neighboring peoples hastened to assure S. 
of their submission by sending him tribute. Among 
these names we find Ammon, Moab, Edom, and 
the Philistine city Ashdod. The first coast cities to 
feel the effect of his campaign were Joppa, Beth- 
dagon, and Ashkelon, which soon fell. When S. 
reached Lachish, Hezekiah of Judah (according to 
II K 18 14-16) acknowledged his rebellion and sought 
to pay reparations. These were set at 300 talents 
of silver and 30 talents of gold. This was paid, it 
appears, at once. Instead of satisfying the Assyrian 
king, it seems to have aroused his cupidity, and he 
sent an embassy to demand the surrender of Heze- 
kiah’s capital. Probably, simultaneously, tho the 
chronological order of events is uncertain, an army 
raided the country and fortresses of Judea, cap- 
turing forty-six of its strongholds and 200,150 of 
its population. The city of Lachish fell in face of 
the battering-rams of the Assyrian army before the 
embassy returned from Jerusalem. Libnah was the 
next object of their attack (according to II K 19 8). 
While Ekron was being besieged, S. heard of the 
oncoming of Hezekiah’s Egyptian ally, Tirhakah 
the Ethiopian, with a great army. Apparently, he 
at once despatched another embassy to demand 
the surrender of Jerusalem, and raised the siege of 
Ekron. He seems to have mustered all his troops 
to meet the approaching Egyptian army. The two 
armies met at Eltekeh (Assyrian, Al-ta-ku-u), a 
city located, according to the Pal. Expl. Fund, on 
the SW. edge of Judah. S. claims to have been vic- 
torious, tho he abandoned any advantage which a 
decided victory would have given him to invade 


Semitic Religion 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Separate 


Egypt. The city of Ekron was again besieged, and 
its king, Padi, who had been imprisoned in Jeru- 
salem, was restored to his throne. The close of this 
campaign of S. is veiled in obscurity. What he did 
after the capture of Ekron, and the punishment of 
its rebels, and the restoration of its dethroned king 
is still a mystery. In his annals, S. locates at this 
point his punishment of Hezekiah, his raiding of 
the country of Judah, and his disposition of the 
territory and cities of Judah. This order of events 
looks like a screen to cover up something which he 
does not wish to mention; for the payment of tribute 
by Hezekiah, which II Kings (18 14) places at the 
very beginning of the campaign, 8.’s own annals 
claim to have been made after the campaign and at 
Nineveh. The annals of 8. read as follows regarding 
Hezekiah: ‘As for Hezekiah himself, like a bird in a 
cage, in Jerusalem, his royal city, I shut him up. I 
threw up forts against him, and whoever would 
come out of the gate of the city I turned back.’ 
Following this, we have a long list of tribute that 
S. claims was delivered at Nineveh, accompanied 
by a special ambassador, whose function was to 
render homage to his majesty. It is at least signifi- 
cant that we have no specific information that S. 
ever made another campaign to the West, tho he 
ruled over Assyria twenty years thereafter. 

During those last twenty years, 8.’s attention 
was confined to Babylonia, Elam, and Nineveh. 
His administration of Babylonia carried with it a 
partial chastisement of the Elamites, a defeat of the 
Chaldeans, and a revengeful and devastating de- 
struction of the city of Babylon (in 689). During 
the last eight years of peace he built for himself at 
Nineveh, on the site of the modern mound Kuyun- 
zik, a great palace, 1,500 ft. long by 700 ft. wide, 
amply supplied with gorgeous halls, courts, and 
rooms of state. At the modern mound Nebi- Yunus 
he restored another palace. Nineveh itself he re- 
beautified, made its aqueducts more serviceable, 
its walls more impregnable, and its position as 
capital of the empire more glorious (see NINEVEH). 
But his long reign was not marked by the exercise 
of large generosity, or humane treatment of his 
subjects. His inhumanity on numerous occasions 
yielded its full fruition in his own murder, probably 
at the entrance of the temple of Ninurta in Nineveh; 
but the O T says by his two sons Adrammelech and 
Sharezer (II K 19 37), neither of whose names has 
been identified in the inscriptions, or in the four 
references to S.’s murder found therein. The Baby- 
lonian Chronicle mentions only one assassin. With- 
in five months thereafter Esarhaddon was seated on 
the throne as his father’s successor. Bd Wad oe’ 

SENSUAL: The rendering of uytxéc, ‘belonging 
to the animal life’ (wux4), possessed alike by man and 
brute. It signifies the condition of being under the 
influence of the passions and appetites, and not of 
the Spirit of God (Ja 3 15; Jude ver. 19). 

S. D.—M. W. J. 

SENUAH, si-niti’a. See HasseNvAH. 


SEORIM, si-d’rim (O°1Y¥, se‘drim): The ances- 
tral head of the fourth course of priests (I Ch 24 8). 


SEPARATE, SEPARATION: Where these terms 
are used in a technical significance they have refer- 


| Separate Place 
Sermon on the Mount 





ence to religious ideas, either of ceremonial purity, 
which required the ‘separation’ of the ceremonially 
unclean, or of complete dedication, or ‘separation,’ 
to the service of Jehovah. Such ideas found expres- 
sion mainly in the laws concerning purification 
(q.v.), the Nazirites (q.v.), and in the regulations 
concerning the priesthood (q.v.). E. E. N. 
SEPARATE PLACE. See Tremptp, § 20. 
SEPHAR, si’far (129, s*phar): A place given (Gn 
10 30) as a boundary of the territory of the Joktan- 
ites. It is usually identified with Zafar, either the 
capital of the Himyarites in SW. Arabia or a port- 
city in the eastern part of Hadramaut. [C.S. T. 
SEPHARAD, sef’a-rad (712 D, s¢pharadh, or TIED, 
s¢pharédh): The residence of exiles from Jerusalem 
(Ob 20, if the text is not corrupt, as Wellhausen, 
Nowack, and others claim). Formerly identified 
with Saparda in SW. Media; now by many with 
Sparda (=Sardis?) in Asia Minor; the Cparda of the 
Persian cuneiform (cf. Winckler, KAT,° 301). 
C.S. T. 
SEPHARVAIM, sef’Gr-vé'im (87722, sephar- 
wayim): A city from which colonists were deported 
to Samaria by the king of Assyria (II K 17 24, 31). 
It was probably the Babylonian Sippara, between 
the Tigris and the Euphrates, as two other Baby- 
lonian cities, Babylon and Cuthah, are mentioned. 
Avva and Hamath, two Syrian cities, are probably 
insertions from II K 1913. <A city of the same name, 
which was conquered by the Assyrians (II K 18 34= 
Is 36 19; II K 19 13=Is 37 13), would be too near 
Samaria. This latter is probably a Syrian city, 
Shabarain, between Hamath and Damascus, as it is 
mentioned with other cities of N. Syria. C. 8. T. 


SEPHARVITE, si’far-vait: An inhabitant of Se- 
pharvaim (q.v.) in Babylonia (II K 17 31). 


SEPTUAGINT, sep’tiu-a-jint. See VERSIONS OF 
THE O T. 

SEPULCHER. See Burtau anpD Buriat Cus- 
TOMS, § 5. 

SEPULCHER OF DAVID. See JmrusateM, § 24. 

SERAH, si’ra (MW, serah): A ‘daughter’ (prob- 
ably a clan) of Asher (Gn 46 17; Nu 26 46, Sarah AV; 
I Ch 7 30). 

SERAIAH, si-ré’ya (BIT 7%, seriyah{a] [Jer 36 26]), 
‘J’’ persisteth’: 1. A scribe (‘secretary’ RVmg.) of 
David (II S 8 17; cf. 20 25, ‘Sheva’; I K 4 3, ‘Shisha’; 
I Ch 18 16, ‘Shavsha’). 2. A chief priest in the time 
of Zedekiah. He was taken before the king of 
Babylon at Riblah and put to death (I K 25 18= 
Jer 52 24; I Ch 6 14 [5 40]; probably an ancestor, but 
not the father of Ezra [Ezr 71]). 3. A son of Tan- 
humeth the Netophathite, and captain of one of 
the bands which had not been taken by Nebuchad- 
rezzar (Jer 40 8). He came with other captains and 
their men to Gedaliah, who had been appointed 
governor of Judea, and was advised to submit (II K 
25 23=Jer 40 8). 4. A brother of Baruch and an 
officer of Zedekiah. He accompanied the king to 
Babylon in the fourth year of his reign and carried 
Jeremiah’s prophecy against Babylon (Jer 51 59, 61); 
possibly the same as the preceding. 5. A son of 
Kenaz (I Ch 413,14). 6. A Simeonite (I Ch 4 35). 7. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


830 





A priest who returned with Zerubbabel to Jerusalem 
(Ezr 2 2; Neh 121,12). 8. One who sealed the cove- 
nant (Neh 10 2 [3]). 9. A priest (Neh 1111), perhaps 
the same as 6. 10. An officer of King Jehoiakim, 
ordered by him to take Baruch and Jeremiah (Jer 
36 26). eS ad Ge 
SERAPHIM, ser’a-fim (OD ¥, seraphim, only in 
pl.): Angelic, six-winged forms, represented (Is 6 2) 
as ministering with worship (Is 6 3) and other service 
(ver. 5) in the presence of J’. Their figure has been 
connected with the serpent-like beings of Oriental 
mythology (Assyr. Sarrapu [the god Nergal, accord- 
ing to Del. Worterb.], and Egyptian Serref [guardian 
griffins}]). It has also been derived from the serpen- 
tine movement of lightning (‘flying serpents,’ Is 
14 29; burning or fiery serpent (Is 30 6). But in 
Isaiah’s inaugural vision they can be nothing else 
than symbolical human figures expressing the idea 


of ardent devotion to God. In Eth. En. 61 10 they © 


appear with the cherubim and ophanim as guardians 
of the throne of God. A. C. Z. 

SERED, si’red (172, seredh): The Rs, head 
of a clan of Zebulum (Gn 46 14), the Seredites (Nu 26 
26, Sardite AV). 


SERGIUS PAULUS, siir’ji-us pe’lus. See PauLus, 
SERGIUS. 

SERJEANT (6a8305x0¢, the Gr. equivalent of the 
Roman lictor): Two lictors attended each pretor 
(ctpatnyés, ‘magistrate,’ Ac 16 22, 35). After the 
time of Alexander the Great the cteatny4¢ was the 
chief civil magistrate, while the leader of the troops 
was the jyexewy. In times of peace the lictors cleared 
the street before the pretor and enabled him to 
execute his sentences. As to the pretor, Luke 
hesitates between the Greek and Latin appellations, 
using the common Gr. term &exovtes in Ac 16 19, 
(‘rTulers’ EVV), and cteatnyot, the Gr. equivalent of 
the Lat. pretores, in Ac 16 20, 22, 35, 38 (‘pretors’ 
RVmg., ‘magistrates’ EVV). In both cases the pre- 
tors are meant. J. R.S. 8.48. A 


SERMON ON THE MOUNT: 1. Introductory. 
The name ‘Sermon on the Mount’ has been given 
to Mt 5 1-7 29, at least since the date of the com- 
mentary by St. Augustine (394), entitled De ser- 
mone domini in monte (Eng. Transl. in Nicene and 
Post- Nicene Fathers). The name presupposes that 
the chapters are a report of a single discourse spoken 
at a definite place, which since the 13th cent. has 
been commonly identified as the double-peaked 
‘horns of Hattin’ (Karn Hattin), a hill 60 ft. high, 
two hours west of Tiberias. In fact, however, ‘the 
mountain’ (Mt 51) denotes the high plateau-country 
of Galilee, in distinction from the lowland on the 
shore of the lake (Mk 3 13, 6 46; Mt 14 23, 15 29, 
Lk 6 12; Jn 6 3, 15; ef. Gn 1917, 19, 30, 31 23, 25). To the 
Sermon on the ‘Mount’ in Mt corresponds the dis- 
course reported in Lk 6 20-7 1, which is represented 
as spoken ‘on a level place’ (6 17) in the hill-country 
(6 12). The erroneous rendering of the AV ‘in the 
plain’ (6 17) has caused the discourse in Lk to be 
often termed ‘the Sermon on the Plain. * 

Modern study of the contents of the two discourses 
in the light of current views of the Synoptic problem 
leads to the conclusion that the sermon in Mt is, at 


———— 





831 





any rate in large measure, a compilation of sayings 
of Jesus, preserved not in their original connection, 
but gradually collected and massed in the present 
elaborate composition. As evidence for this should 
be studied: (1) The many parallels in Lk scattered 
in wholly different connections; (2) the internal 
analysis of the discourse itself (e.g. ef. Mt 5 21-26, 6 
5-15, 7 1-12); (3) the analogy of such a collection as 
Mt 10 5-42 (cf. Lk 9 2-6=Mk 6 8-13; Lk 10 3-12; and 
other parallels in Lk) or Mt 23 1-39 (cf. Lk 11 37-52, 
13 34-35, 20 45-47 = Mk 12 38-40). Similar considera- 
tions with regard to the sermon in Lk are probably 
sufficient to justify the same conclusion there. 

A satisfactory answer to the many questions of 
literary and historical criticism raised in trying to 
understand the meaning, structure, and probable 
origin of the Sermon on the Mount would go far to 
solve the great and complicated problem of the his- 
tory of the Synoptic tradition of our Lord’s sayings 
before its codification in our Gospels. See GospPEt, 
GosPELs; and Synoptic ProsteM. The view under- 
lying the present article will be found stated below 
(§ 6). 

2. Position in Mt. In Mt the sayings of Jesus 
which were not remembered as part of some conver- 
sation are chiefly presented in a series of long dis- 
courses relating to well-defined topics. Thus: 

Chs. 5-7. (Sermon on the Mount.) The life of a disciple. 

Ch, 10 542, Precepts to disciples for mission work. 

Ch. 11 2-19, Sayings about John the Baptist. 

Ch. 13 142, Seven parables on growth and the Kingdom. 

Ch. 18. Principles dnd precepts for community life. 


Ch. 23. Polemic against scribes and Pharisees. 
Chs. 24-25. Apocalyptic discourse and parables. 


Note how Mt has expressly called attention to this , 


arrangement by his uniform concluding formula, 
7 28 (cf. Lk 71), 111, 13 53, 191, 261. See Marruew, 
GOSPEL OF. 


The place of each of these discourses in the order ! 


of Mt’s Gospel is partly determined by Mt’s own 
plan for treating successive topics, partly by the 
occurrence of something in Mk (on whose sequence 
Mt was largely dependent) to which the additional 
material of Mt could be attached (thus cf. in con- 
tents and position Mt 13 1-53 and Mk 4 1-34; Mt 18 
1-35 and Mk 9 33-50; Mt 23 1-39 and Mk 12 38-40; 
Mt 24 1-51, 25 1-46 and Mk 13 1-37). 
The Sermon on the Mount probably owes its 
position as the first of these long discourses to the 
fundamental significance of its topic. It is a general 
summary of what this evangelist understands to 
have been Jesus’ teaching about the disciple’s rela- 
tion to duty and to God. 


3. Position in Lk. In Lk, unlike Mt, the sayings 
of Jesus are not systematically arranged in large 
masses. Only the beginnings of the working of this 
tendency can be traced (e.g. Lk 12 13-34, 54-59, 14 1-24, 
15 1-32); so far as possible (7.e., nearly everywhere 
excepting in 6 20-8 3 and 9 51-18 14) Lk follows the 
sequence in which Mk had arranged his material. 

In the present case the author of Lk for some 
reason, like Mt, associated the sermon with the 
throngs attendant upon the Galilean preaching and 
accordingly introduces it (6 20-49) at the point where 
in following Mk he found these mentioned 
(Mk 37, 8,13). Asa further, and not unfitting, con- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





Separate Place 
Sermon on the Mount 





sequence the Sermon in Lk thus became closely con- 
nected with the choice of the Twelve. 


4. Contents of the Sermon in Mt. The general 
theme is ‘The Life of a Disciple.’ It is treated with 
reference to many aspects, both moral and religious, 
so that the titles often given, such as ‘The New 
Torah,’ “The Righteousness of the Kingdom,’ “The 
Relation of Jesus’ Teaching to the Teaching and 
Practise of the Pharisees,’ are too specific and nar- 
row. 

I. The Beatitudes, 5 3-12, all in the same form 
(cf. Ps 11, 411, 65 4—a formula of congratulation, 
not of blessing) fall into three groups, each having 
its specific character essentially different from that of 
the others: 

(a) i-iv (vs. 3-6), paradoxical beatitudes, explain- 
ing who are most likely to respond to Jesus’ call to 
discipleship, viz., the people of the humble ranks of 
life, the lower classes,—‘the poor in spirit’ (7.e., those 
whose spirit is that of the ‘poor’), ‘the sad,’ ‘the 
lowly’ (EV ‘meek’), ‘they that hunger and thirst 
in respect of righteousness’ (7.e., those who, being 
in a famine of righteousness, have none to boast of). 
The phrases all describe the same class of per- 
sons in various ways (cf. Lk 18 9-14, the Pharisee 
and the publican). 

(b) v-vii (vs. 7-9), emphasizing three traits of 
character which the disciple must foster—merciful- 
ness, purity of heart (7.e., freedom from evil pur- 
poses), peaceableness. 

(c) viii, ix (vs. 10-12), comfort for the disciple’s 
hardships. 

II. Salt and Light, 5 13-16; the duties of the dis- 
ciples to the world, viz. to season and to illuminate. 

III. The Righteousness of the True Disciple, 
5 17-6 18. 

A. The rigor of Jesus’ requirements (5 17-20). 

" Mt 5 17-19 ig held by many to be a Jewish Christian ad- 
dition, not a genuine utterance of Jesus. But cf. Mt 23 2-3, 
In fact, the excision even of 5 18 is required neither by Mk 
7 18-19 nor by any other utterance of Jesus. He taught that 
some of the positive requirements of the Law had no intrinsic 
moral significance, but did not in consequence of that find it 
necessary to break with the Law of his people. The con- 
trasts of Mt 5 21-48 are not criticisms of the Law of Moses, 


but intensified applications of its underlying principles; cf. 
Mk 10 5. 


B. (5 21-48) Jesus’ ideals of moral conduct in their 
contrast with the necessarily lax requirements of 
public law and legal administration. 

1. Anger, vs. 21-26. 

(a) Not merely murder but anger wrong, vs. 21-22. 

(b) Reconciliation to brother man more im- 
portant than formal worship of God, vs. 23, 24. 

(c) Prudence dictates concessions, vs. 25, 26. 

2. Licentious passion, vs. 27-30. 

(a) Not merely adultery but lustful desire wrong, 
VS. 27, 28. 

(b) Any deprivation whatever is better than to 
commit sin, vs. 29, 30. 

3. Divorce, vs. 31, 32. 

All divorce, except for fornication, is wrong. 

4. Oaths and truthfulness, vs. 33-37. 

(a) Not merely false swearing wrong, but the dis- 
ciple must be so truthful as to need no oath, vs. 33, 
34a, 37. 

(b) All oaths equally binding, vs. 34b-36. 


Sermon on the Mount 
Servant of Jehovah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


832 





5. Revenge, vs. 38-42. 

(a) Not merely excessive revenge such as was for- 
bidden by the Law, but any indulgence of revengeful 
impulse wrong; illustrated by cases of (1) personal 
violence, (2) oppression by legal process, (38) impress- 
ment to service, VS 38-41. 

Do not resent such injury; but rather yield more 
than the injurer demands. 

(b) Kindred precept on generous giving, ver. 42. 

6. Universal range of good-will, vs. 43-48. 

The disciple must not merely love his friends, as 
the heathen do, but his enemies, with the perfect 
inclusiveness of God. 

C. Jesus’ ideals of religious practise, in their con- 
trast with prevalent abuses, 6 1-18. 

‘Righteousness,’ used in 5 2° in the sense of right conduct 
generally, has in 6 1 the narrower sense of pious exercises. 


Almsgiving, prayer, and fasting were the three chief pious 
habits of the Pharisees. 


1. General principle: pious exercise must be free 
from ostentation, ver. 1. This is illustrated by 

2. Almsgiving, vs. 2-4. No almsgiving for show 
before men. 

3. Prayer, vs. 5-15. 

(a) No prayer for show before men, vs. 5, 6. 

(b) Prayers to be made with rational intelligence 
and with brevity, vs. 7, 8. 

(c) A model prayer, vs. 9-13. 

(d) God’s forgiveness conditioned by ours, vs. 14, 
15. 

4. Fasting, vs. 16-18. 

No fasting for show before men. 

IV. The True Disciple’s Complete Devotion to 
God, 6 19-34. 

A. Single-hearted devotion to God’s service the 
true aim of life, vs. 19-24. 

(a) Heavenly treasure alone permanent, vs. 19-21 

(b) Parable of the inner light, vs. 22, 23. 

As in the case of the eye, which is the lamp of the body 
through which light enters, so the center of illumination of 
the soul (viz. the ‘heart,’ with its thoughts and purposes) 
must be a clear medium for God’s light, or else the soul is in 
darkness. 


(c) Only one master possible, ver. 24. 

B. Single-hearted trust in God’s fatherly care a 
duty; to be concerned about food and raiment is to 
fail in devotion to God and God’s Kingdom, vs. 25-34. 

V. The Disciple’s Attitude toward Men and 
toward God, 7 1-12. 

_ A. Toward. men; precepts against self-righteous 
arrogance, vs. 1-6. 

(a) Against arrogant censoriousness, vs. 1, 2. 

{b) Against looking at others’ faults, ver. 3. 

(c) Against officiously attempting to improve 
others, vs. 4, 5. 

(d) Ironical warning against officiousness, ver. 6. 


This is sometimes taken as a direct precept against wasteful 
effort. 


B. Toward God; prayer, vs. 7-11. 

C. The Golden Rule as comprising the sum total 
of right conduct, ver. 12. 

VI. The Necessity of Moral Effort, Good Con- 
duct, and Obedience to Jesus’ Words, vs. 13-27. 

A. The two ways, vs. 13, 14. 

B. Fruits the only test, vs. 15-20. 

C. Not profession but practise will secure entrance 
into the Kingdom, vs. 21-23. 


D. Concluding parable; not hearing Jesus’ words 
but doing them brings security, vs. 24-27. 


5. Contents of the Sermon in Lk. The shorter 
sermon of Lk may be analyzed as follows: 

I. The Beatitudes and Woes, 6 20-26. 

A. Comfort for the poor, the hungry, the sad, the 
persecuted, in their (temporary) wretchedness, vs. 
20-23. 

B. Warning to the prosperous, since their pros- 
perity is only temporary, vs. 24-26 (cf. Lk 12 15-21). 

II. The Characteristics of the Disciple’s Attitude, 
6 27-38. 

A. Universal range of the disciple’s love, vs. 27, 28. 

B. The disciple’s character manifested in submis- 
sion to personal violence and robbery, and in gen- 
erous giving, vs. 29, 30. 

C. The Golden Rule, ver. 31. 

D. Universal range of love and beneficence, vs. 
32-35. 

E. The disciple must be merciful, avoid censori-’ 
ousness, show a forgiving spirit, and act generously, 
VS. 36-38. 

III. Good Character and Conduct Requisite, 6 
39-49. 

A. For the disciple who would guide and improve 
others, vs. 39-42. 

B. Because source and product correspond, vs. 
43-45, 

C. Concluding parable; not hearing Jesus’ words 
but doing them brings security, vs. 46-49. 


6. Comparison of the Two Forms. A comparison 
of the contents of the two forms of the Sermon on 
the Mount shows the same general theme, and many 
of the same precepts arranged in the same general 
order. The resemblances between Mt 5 u1, 12 and 
Lk 6 22, 23 point clearly to a common source, prob- 
ably written. Of the material in Lk only 6 24-26, 27b, 
28a, 38a, 39-40, 45 are not found, exactly or for sub- 
stance, in the sermon in Mt. 

There are, however, marked differences. Mt is 
much more systematic than Lk, and follows a more 
definite unifying idea in the several paragraphs and 
in the whole. The setting of some of the precepts 
gives them a very different bearing in the two ser- 
mons (cf. Mt 56 with Lk6 21a; Mt 5 39 with Lk 629). 
Mt is mainly occupied with the manifold contrast 
of Jesus and the Pharisees, and is full of Palestinian 
allusions and local color; while with Lk the kernel 
of the whole is the general principle of universal love, 
the precepts are put in such form as to be generally 
applicable, and the conditions presupposed are — 
rather those of the Christian world at large than of 
Palestine. In both Mt and Lk the traces of editorial 
work can be detected; each form corresponds closely 
with the general character of the Gospel in which it 
stands. Especially noteworthy is the fact that — 
much of the material of the elaborate composition 
in Mt is found scattered in disconnected sections of 
Lk, chiefly in chs. 11 and 12. For these facts in 
detail reference must be had to a harmony of the 
Gospels. 

On the whole, assuming, as is usually done, that 
Lk is independent of Mt, the facts seem best ac- — 
counted for by supposing a written source contain- 
ing a sermon shorter than that in Mt, but longer 








833 





than that in Lk. The form in Mt would then give a 
better idea than that in Lk of the source; but has 
been much elaborated and expanded by the addi- 
tion of cognate material. Such an original collection, 
must have contained at least the following parts: 


Four beatitudes, Mt 5 3, 4, 6, 11, 12; Lk 6 20-23. 
Prohibition of revenge, Mt 5 38-42; Lk 6 29, 30. 
Universal love, Mt 5 43-48; Lk 6 27, 28, 32-36. 
Against self-righteous arrogance, Mt 7 1-5; Lk 6 
37-42. 
Golden Rule, Mt 7 12; Lk 6 31. 
Requirement of moral effort, fruits, obedience, 
Mt 7 16-27; Lk 6 43-49. 
What other parts it would have contained of what is 
now Mt 5 21-48 is difficult to say. 

The characteristics of the sermon in Mt, as al- 
ready briefly indicated, give good grounds for believ- 
ing it to represent, in the main, more accurately than 
does that in Lk, the original forms of the sayings 
which it contains. The greater ‘spirituality’ some- 
times claimed for the form in Lk, from which greater 
originality is inferred, is in reality only the more 
general and less pungent quality of the sayings in 
Lk, due to the interest of the latter evangelist in mak- 
ing them intelligible and readily applicable to his 
Gentile readers. 

Whether this original sermon was a real connected 
discourse spoken by our Savior and remembered by 
the disciples, or whether it was itself only a primitive 
collection of sayings preserved without the circum- 
- stances of their original utterance, is an unsettled 
question. Various considerations, such as the anal- 
ogy of the later tendencies to compilation seen in 
Mt and Lk, the occasional and conversational char- 
acter of Jesus’ mode of teaching as portrayed in Mk, 
the relation of the main topics by which the sayings 
are grouped to the problems of life and apologetics 
in the second Christian generation, the uniqueness 
of this discourse in the Gospels—would lead the 
present writer to suppose that the earliest and 
briefest form of the sermon that we can recover was 
itself a compilation. 

7. Outside Parallels. Many parallels to the pre- 
cepts of the Sermon on the Mount have been found 
in Jewish writings (mostly later, but not necessarily 
dependent on the utterances of Jesus), and in Greek 
and Roman moralists, especially Epictetus and 
Seneca. Many of these will be found quoted in the 
Commentaries, esp. Broadus on Mt, and for the 
Jewish side, with great fulness and accuracy, H. L. 
Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zwm Neuen 
Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch, vol. i, 1924. 
See also Lightfoot, ‘St. Paul and Seneca’ in Com. on 
Philippians. This would be expected in these highly 
developed systems of morals, and does not detract 
from the true and unique significance of the moral 
teaching of Jesus Christ, which lay not in its novelty, 
but in its singular purity and inwardness, in its solid 
basis of noble theism, and in its consequent power. 


LITERATURE: Commentaries on Mt and Lk., esp. Broadus on 
Mt (1887); Lives of Christ, esp. Keim (Eng. transl. 1876- 
81) and B. Weiss (Eng. transl. 1883, 1884); works on N T 
Theology; A. Tholuck, Exposition of Christ’s Sermon on 
the Mount (Eng. transl. 1834); B. W. Bacon, The Sermon 
on the Mount (1902); P. Fiebig, Jesu Bergpredigt: Rabbinische 
Texte zum Verstdndnis der Bergpredigt, (1924). The most im- 
portant critical discussions are by C. W. Votaw in HDB, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sermon on the Mount 
Servant of Jehovah 





extra vol.; Moffatt in EB; Heinrici, Die Bergpredigt (1900, 
1905). Useful homiletical treatments are: W. B. Carpenter 
(Bp. of Ripon), The Great Charter of Christ (1895); C. Gore 
The Sermon on the Mount (1896). See also Ecce Homo, 
and (for its suggestiveness only) Tolstoy, My Religion. 

Je Thaaky 


SERPENT: In addition to the Biblical references 
to serpents which must be taken in their literal sense, 
there areothers which must be understood differently. 
(1) The serpent in the Paradise story (Gn 31 f.). 
This story is now generally interpreted as a symbolic 
rather than literal representation of the fall of man. 
The serpent serves in the story as the representative 
of that which opposes God and good. There was 
probably some basis in current legendary or mythical 
ideas for such symbolism. In the ancient Baby- 
lonian epic of Creation (see Cosmocony, § 4) the 
negative aspect of the cosmos—.e., chaos, the watery 
abyss, darkness, evil, etc.—is symbolized as a great 
dragon or serpent. As yet, however, no exact 
parallel to the serpent of the Paradise story has been 
found in Babylonian literature, altho parallels to 
other elements of the story are numerous. In later 
Judaism and in the N T the serpent of Gn ch. 3 was 
viewed as the agent of the Devil (cf. Wis. 2 24; Jn 
8 44; Rev 129 ff., etc.). Cf. Skinner on Gn 31 in ICC. 
(2) In a few passages (Job 26 13; Is 27 1) there seems 
to be a direct reference to the mythological serpent 
or dragon, in order to show the supremacy of J’ over 
all things (see LeviarHan). Perhaps in Am 9 3, a 
similar reference is made (cf. Gunkel, Schépfung und 
Chaos, pp. 29 ff.). See also Dragon; Nenusuran; 
PALESTINE, § 26; Satan, § 1; and Semrric REti- 
GIon, § 31. K. E. N. 

SERUG, si’rug (17Y, seriigh): The ‘son of Reu (Gn 
11 20 #., called Saruch in AV of Lk 3 35 Gr. Lepody). 
Probably connected with the district Sarug, men- 
tioned in the Assyrian records. 


SERVANT. See SLAVERY. 


SERVANT OF JEHOVAH (Servant of the Lord 
AV): In the second part of the Book of Isaiah (chs. 
40-55) we find a frequent use of the expression ‘ser- 
vant of J.’ The passages are 41 8-10, 42 1-4, 6f.,19f., 
43 10, 44 1-4, 21-23, 45 4, 491-6, 50 4-9, 52 13-53 12, those 
in heavy-faced type being considered the four most 
important ones. Closely connected with some of 
these passages are their contexts, e.g., 49 7-10 is in 
the nature of a reply to 49 1-6, but in this reply the 
word ‘servant’ is not used. 

In 41 8-10 Israel is addressed as the ‘Servant of J’’,’ 
as ‘chosen’ by Him, and not rejected, and is en- 
couraged by the recommendation not to fear, for J” 
will uphold him by His righteousness. In the next 
passage (42 1-4) the Servant is described (1) as the 
one in whom J” delights, (2) as endued with the 
spirit of J’, and (3) as appointed to a great work, in- 
volving not only Israel itself, but the nations, a work 
of judgment, of instruction and enlightenment. The 
work is to be done in a quiet, gentle spirit. In this 
the Servant is not exactly identical with Israel, for he 
has a work to do for Israel. In 42 19 #. and 43 8-10, 
it is Israel as a whole, rather than idealized, that 
seems to be mainly in the prophet’s mind, tho in 43 10 
there is some idealization. The same is true of 
44 1-4, 21-23 and 45 4. But in 49 1-6 the idealization is 
again prominent. Here the Servant is the speaker, 


Servant of Jehovah 
Shalmaneser 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


834 


LL LLL TSAR A Sn sehen ise ss russes theneianedibandenesmenenaretsansesenenscencei 


confessing the failure of his past work, at the same 
time conscious of his high mission as a prophet, to 
restore Jacob to J” and to be a light to the nations. 
In 50 4-9, the Servant is again the speaker, repre- 
senting himself as taught by J”, especially in con- 
nection with the severe discipline of suffering, in 
order that he might teachothers. In these sufferings 
the Servant is sustained by his faith in J”, and is 
confident that J’’ will vindicate him. In 52 13-53 13 
the idealization reaches its climax. The passage may 
be analyzed as follows: (1) The Servant’s astonishing 
exaltation (52 13-15). Tho he had been considered 
marred, disfigured, and despised, now even kings 
were startled at his exaltation. (2) Next the Ser- 
vant’s historic past is set forth as involving some- 
thing wonderful. His early growth was unobserved 
and lowly, he was despised, rejected, subjected to 
sufferings, which nevertheless were vicarious—for 
‘us,’ and these sufferings were crowned with death 
and burial with the wicked, tho he was innocent 
(53 1-9). (3) But in all this a great Divine purpose 
was being fulfilled, and after all the Servant is ‘to see 
his seed,’ ‘prolong his days,’ and ‘shall be satisfied.’ 
Many through him will be made righteous, and vic- 
tory will crown his career (53 10-12). 


The true interpretation of these remarkable pas- | 


sages (which, one must remember, are poetry, and 
are to be interpreted as poetry, not prose) is to be 
found in the view that while the prophet derived ele- 
ments of his delineation from the experience of 
Israel, there is an idealization here which neither 
Israel as a whole nor any part or individual of Israel 
known to the prophet ever completely realized. The 
prophet is setting forth principles—principles of the 
Divine method in realizing the supreme Divine pur- 


pose among men. Israel was, in part, an illustration | 


of these principles. But there was more to them than 
Israel had been able to grasp or express. One figure 
alone in all history has fully met the ideal sketched 
by the prophet here. Yet it is neither necessary nor 
possible to hold that the prophet foresaw His actual 
career, His life, His cross, and His resurrection. The 
prophet grasped certain of those great essential ele- 
ments which, just because they are necessarily true, 
must have been realized in Him who came to fulfil 
all righteousness. Chief among these is the principle 
of vicarious suffering as the only means whereby 
transgression may be atoned for, but there are others 
of almost equal importance. For theories and di- 
cussions the reader may consult Skinner in Camb. 
Bible, ad loc.; G. A. Smith in Expos. Bible, ad loc., 
and Davidson in his O T' Prophecy, chs. xxi-xxiv. 
HK. E. N. 
SERVICE (77)3Y, ‘dbhédhah): Commonly desig- 
nates all manner of work done for another (Gn 30 26; 
Ex 1 14). But in the O T the word developed a 
specific meaning in connection with the ritual; so 
that the term signifies work done in the course of 
offering worship in the sanctuary of J’’ (Ex 3016; Nu 
4 4, etc.; cf. also He 91, 6,9). Naturally, it was first 
applied to the labors of the Levites employed to take 
care of the vessels and furniture of the sanctuary; 
afterward, to the higher work of the priesthood in 
the performance of official duties at the altar. From 
this to the more spiritual sense of worship without 





ritual the transition was easy. This last sense is 
represented in Paul’s exhortation to present the 
body as a living sacrifice, ‘a reasonable service’ (Ro 
121, ‘spiritual service’ RV and RVmg. Gr.). In the 
more general sense of plain ministration to a need, 
the word occurs but rarely (Ps 104.14, ‘labor’ RVmg.), 
which is illustrated by Paul’s use of it to designate 
help in the form of money (Ro 151, 31 AV; II Co 912, 
118 AV). A. C. Z. 
SET BATTLE IN ARRAY. See Warrarg, § 4. 
SETH, SHETH (NY, shéth, Gr. 546): 1. A son of 
Adam. In Gn 4 25f. (J) he is the third son and the 
name is derived from shdath in sense ‘he hath ap- 
pointed [me another seed].’ In Gn 5 3 ft. (P; ef. Lk 
3 38) he is the first son of Adam, and ancestor of the 
so called Sethite line. See Cain, §1. 2. A name for 
the Moabites (Nu 24 17 AV), but probably not a 
proper name. 
gests s°éth, ‘pride,’ RV and others, shé’th, ‘tumult.’ 
C.58. T. 
SETHOR, si’thér (NQ, sethiar): One of the spies 
(Nu 13 13). 
SETTINGS. See Oucues; and Prizsruoop, 9 (b). 
SETTLE. See Tumpte, § 20. 


SEVEN, THE. See Cuurcu Lire anpORGANI- 
ZATION, § 3. 


SEVEN, SEVENTY. See Numpers, SIGNIFICANT 
AND SYMBOLIC, § 7. 


se CHURCHES. See Revenation, Boox 
oF, § 7. 


SEVEN STARS: The AV rendering of the term 
kimGh, Pleiades RV (Am 5:8). See AsTRONOMY, § 5. 


SEVENEH, si-ven’a (219, sewénéh, Syene AV 
and RVmg.): A town on the E. bank of the Nile, just 
above the first cataract and opposite the island of 
Elephantine. Its position at a point where the river 
is difficult to navigate, on account of rocks and swift 
currents, made S. an admirable site for a fortress and 
at the same time a boundary landmark. But for the 
earlier part of the history of Egypt, Elephantine, on 
account of its still stronger situation, occupied this 
place of frontier fortress. In Ezk (29 10, 30 6) the 
reading is doubtful, but the marginal rendering 
‘from Migdol to Syene’ of AV and RV is the most 
satisfactory. If we are to read tower (Heb. mighddl), 
the fortified castle of the town is probably intended. 
The modern town is called Assuan (Aswan). Re- 
cently (1900 and later) a number of Aramaic papyri 
belonging to the Persian period have been discovered 
at Elephantine, showing that there was at that time 
(500-400 B.c.), a flourishing colony of Jews at this 
place, having their own temple to J” and in cor- 
respondence with their brethren in Palestine. See 
also ARAMAIC LAaNnauaagE, § 3. A. C, Z. 


SHAALABBIN, ghé’’a-lab’in (22%, sha‘dlabbin), 
and SHAALBIM, sha-al’bim (0°22, sha‘albhim): 
A town assigned to Dan (Jos 19 42), long retained by 
the Canaanites (Jg 1 35), but held by Israel in 
Solomon’s day (I K 49). It was on the southern 
slope of the hills of Ephraim. Conder identifies it 
with Selbit (Jerome’s Selebi), 2 m. N. of Emmaus 
( Amwdés), map III, D 5. Eusebius and Jerome 


Gray, ICC, ad loc., with others, sug- - 





835 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Servant of Jehovah 
Shalmaneser 





identify it with Salaba, near Samaria. Possibly the 
Shaalbonite (II S 23 32; I Ch 11 33) was from this 
town. Gidaks 

SHAALBONITE. See SHaauansin. E. E.N. 

SHAALIM, shé’e-lim, THE LAND OF (738 
oy Y, ’erets sha‘dlim), shalim AV: A district which 
Saul passed through when seeking his father’s asses 
(IS 9 4). It was evidently not far from the N. 
boundary of Benjamin. Some find here a textual 
error for ‘Shaalbim’; others connect it with ‘the land 
of Shual’ (IS 13 17), which lay N. of Michmash. 

GaSe: 

SHAAPH, shé’af or -af ("1YY, sha‘aph): 1. A de- 
scendant of the Jerahmeelite Caleb (I Ch 2 47). 2. 
Another of the same family (I Ch 2 49). 

SHAARAIM, SHARAIM, shé’a-ré/im (22190, 
sha‘drayim): 1. A town in the lowland of Judah (Jos 
15 36), near the Philistine territory in the Wddy es- 
Sant (IS 17 52, where Wellhausen reads ‘in the gate- 
ways’ of Ekron; cf. RVmg.). Conder identifies it 
with Khirbet Sa‘%treh, W. of Beit ‘Atéb. 2. A townin 
Simeon (I Ch 4 31=Shilhim, Jos 15 32; and Sharuhen, 
19 6) between Gaza and Beersheba. Map II, C3. 

Orsi. 

SHAASHGAZ, shé-agh’gaz (Y99, sha‘ashgaz): 
The chamberlain to whom Esther was entrusted 
(Est 2 14). 

SHABBETHAI, shab’1-thai, -thé, or sha-beth’ 
a-di (DRY, shabbethay), ‘born on the Sabbath’ (?): A 
Levite, prominent in the days of Ezra (Ezr 10 15; 
Neh 8 7, 11 16). 

SHACHIA, sha-kai’a or shak’i-a (7290, shakhe- 
yah): A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 8 10). 

SHADOW OF DEATH: This term is the literal 
rendering of the Heb. tsalmdweth. RVmg and most 
moderns render ‘deep darkness,’ from a different 
pointing of Heb. (tsalmuth or -méth). It means 
‘darkness’ (Am 5 8; Job 3 5, etc.), is descriptive of 
Sheol (Job 10 21 f., 38 17), and a figure of danger and 
distress (Jer 2 6, 13 16; Is 9 2 [1]; Ps 44 19 [20], 107 10, 
14, 23 4; Briggs, continuing the figure of vs. 1-3, here 
suggests ‘gloomy [dark] ravine [valley]’). C.S. T. 

SHADRACH, shé’drak (771%, shadhrakh, per- 
haps the Babyl. Sudur-Aku, ‘command of Aku’): 
The Babylonian name given to Hananiah, one of 
Daniel’s Jewish companions (Dn 17, 2 49, etc.). With 
Meshach and Abednego he was cast into the fiery 
furnace because he would not worship the golden 
image set up by Nebuchadrezzar. Caset. 


SHAFT. See Arms AND Armor, § 1. 

SHAGEE, shé’gi (§2¥, shaghé’, Shage AV): The 
father of Jonathan, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 
11 34). See also HAaRraRire. 

SHAHARAIM, shé”ho-ré’im (82208, shahdra- 
yim), ‘double dawn’ (?): The father of several Ben- 
jamite families (I Ch 88). The text here is corrupt 
(see ICC, ad loc.). 

SHAHAZUMAH, shé”ho-zii/ma ()1¥0¥, shahé- 
tsfimah), or SHAHAZIMAH, Ssho-haz’i-ma: ()°$0¥ 
shahdtstmah) asin AV: A town of Issachar (Jos 19 22). 
Site unknown. E. E. N. 


SHALEM, shé’lem (02%, shalém, ‘peace’): A city 
near Shechem (Gn 33 18 AV), but probably RV ‘in 
peace’ correctly represents the original text 
(b¢shélim). 

SHALIM, shé’lim. See SHAALIM. 

SHALISHA, sho-lai’sha or ghal’1-Sha (702%, sha- 
lishah): The ‘land of Shalisha’ appears to have been 
N. or NW. of the ‘hill-country of Ephraim’ (18 9 4), 
perhaps near Baal-Shalisha (q.v.). 

SHALLECHETH, shal’li-kefh, GATE OF. See 
TEMPLE, § 6. 

SHALLUM, shal’um (019¥, shallam), ‘recom- 
pensed’ (?): 1. The ancestral head of a clan (a) of 
Simeon (I Ch 4 25), (b) of Naphtali (I Ch 7 13, called 
Shillem, Gn 46 24), the Shillemites (Nu 26 49), and 
(c) of a Jerahmeelite family (I Ch 2 40, 41), 2. The 
murderer of Zechariah, King of Judah, slain by 
Menahem (q.v.), after a reign of one month (II K 
15 10 #.). 3. The father of Jehizkiah (II Ch 28 12). 
4. The uncle of Jeremiah (Jer 327). 5. The father 
of Hilkiah the priest (I Ch 6 12 f.; Ezr 7 2). 6. The 
husband of Huldah (II K 22 14). 7. A son of King 
Josiah (I Ch 3 15; Jer 22 11), also called Jehoahaz 
(q.v.) (II K 23 30-34). 8. The father of Maaseiah 
(Jer 35 4). 9. The ancestral head of a family of 
porters (Ezr 2 42=Neh 7 45; cf. I Ch 9 17, 19, 31), 
probably the same as Shelemiah (I Ch 26 14), 
Meshelemiah (I Ch 9 21, 261), and Meshullam (Neh 
12 25). 10. A porter (Ezr 10 24). 11. One of the 
‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 42). 12. The son of Hallohesh, 
and one of those who helped on the wall of Jerusalem 
(Neh 3 12). 13. (Also spelled Shallun). The son of 
Colhozeh, and ruler of the district of Mizpah, who 
repaired the fountain-gate of the wall of Jerusalem 
(Neh 3 15). E. E. N. 


SHALLUN. See SHativy, 13. 

SHALMAI, shal’mai, -mé, or shal’mo-ai. 
SALMAI. 

SHALMAN, shal’mon (pew, shalm&n): The name 
of the destroyer of Beth-arbel (Hos 10 14), which is 
commonly held to be a shorter form of ‘Shalmaneser,’ 
the name of several kings of Assyria. Wellhausen, 
ad loc., identifies him with Shalmaneser IT, and con- 
siders the passage a later insertion. Schrader (COT 
II, 188 ff.) identifies him with a Moabite king, Sala- 
manu, mentioned in the great triumphal inscription 
of Tiglath-pileser III, in which case he would have 
been a contemporary of Hosea. CASade 


SHALMANESER, shal’’man-i’zar (198322, shal- 
man eser; Assyr., Shulmanu-asharidu, ‘The god Shul- 
man is chief’): Of the five Assyrian kings of this 
name, the third and fifth are mentioned in the O T. 
Shalmaneser ITT ruled 859-825 B.c. He came directly 
into contact with Ahab and his allies at the battle 
of Karkar in 854 B.c., and collected tribute of Jehu 
in 842 B.c. The latter event was commemorated by 
extensive bas-reliefs on the so called Black Obelisk 
discovered by Layard at Nimrud in 1845. Shal- 
maneser V (727-722 3B.c.) succeeded the great Tig- 
lath-pileser III (II K 17 3, 189). This king, of 
whom we have no known inscriptions, showed great 
activity, according to Josephus (Ant. IX, 14, 2), in 
campaigning against Phenician and Palestinian 


See 


Shama 
fase Senn Laue el MOIR SAA OSL IR EO CON CO ka AAR 


cities. Hoshea, the last ruler of the Northern King- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


836 


tion in proper names TT PC HaS Uiy Tok Sedat ee ee) Gicts cI eet eee crete erga oo Ii'S 11 a= 


dom, at first paid him tribute under his oath to Jerubbaal, Jg 6 32; Ishbosheth, II S 2 8, 10 =Eshbaal, 


Tiglath-pileser III, but ultimately formed an al- 
liance with So, the King of Egypt, and refused pay- 
ment. This defiance brought on war, Hoshea was 
taken captive, and Samaria besieged three years 
(II K 17 3-5). Some time during this siege Shal- 
maneser dropped out of sight, and Sargon II as- 
sumed the throne and concluded the long siege by 
capturing the city in Dec., 722 B.c. I. M. P. 


SHAMA, shé’ma (¥¥, shdma‘), ‘he hears’: One 
of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 44). 


SHAMARIAH, sham’-rai’a. See SHEMARIAH, 2. 


SHAMBLES: The Eng. word ‘shambles’ (from 
the Lat. scamellum, a ‘stool,’ or ‘bench’) meant origi- 
nally the butchers’ stalls, or benches, on which meat 
was laid for sale. The Gr. w&xeAXov used in I Co 10 
25 is really the Lat. word macellum, a ‘meat or pro- 
vision market.’ HK. E. N. 


SHAME: This term renders (1) bdésh, ‘put to 
shame,’ and derivatives. (2) haraph, ‘reproach, ; 
‘shame,’ and derivatives. (3) kalam, ‘humiliate,’ 
and derivatives. (4) qdlén, ‘ignominy.’ (5) ‘erwah 
‘nakedness, ‘pudenda’ (rendered ‘shame’ only in Is 
20 4). (6) hdsadh, ‘be reproached’ (Pr 25 10). (7) 
haphér, ‘to be abashed, ’ ‘ashamed’ (Pr 13 5; Ps 71 24, 
83 17 (18); Is 54 4). (8) shimtsah, ‘whispering’ (Ex 
32 25, ‘derision’ RV). (9) pievode: ‘dishonorable’ 
(I Co 11 6, 14 35; Eph 5 12); atexbvy, the ‘sense of 
shame’ (Lk 14 9), ‘ ignominy,’ visited on one (He 12 2) 
which should arise from guilt (Ph 3 19), ‘a thing to 
be ashamed of’ (Rev 318; Jude ver. 13); xatatoxbvety, 
‘to dishonor,’ ‘put to charie? (I Co 11 22). (10) a&etpla, 
‘dishonor’ (I Co 11 14). (11) evtpémety. ‘to arouse 
sense of shame’ (I Co 4 14), évtpoxm, ‘shame’ (I Co 
65, 15 34). (12) mapadetypartitery, ‘to expose to pub- 
lic ‘disgrace’ (Heb 6 6). 

The term ‘shame’ is used for the subjective feeling, 
either for oneself or for another, expressed by 
‘ashamed,’ ‘put to shame,’ etc.; and also for the 
objective cause. The feeling of shame may be 
awakened by sins of various kinds and degrees (Ezk 
16 27, 54; Pr 10 5, 29 15, 13 5; Jer 2 26; Pr 11 2; [Co 
4 14; IT Co 4 2, etc.): by unconventionalities I Co 
11 6, 14 35; Eph 5 12); by exposure of the body (II 
6 20; Is 20 4; Mic 1 0); fig. Rev 3 18, 16 15; also, where 
‘shame’ stands for the parts uncovered, Is 47 3; Jer 
13 26; Nah 3 5); by reproach, insult, contumely, or 
actual maltreatment of the person at the hands of 
another (Jg 187; Is 50 6; He 12 2; 1 S 20 34; Ps 697 
[8]; ILS 13 13; Mk 12 4; I Th 22; He 66, etc.); by the 
disgrace or act of another closely related to the 
individual (Pr 12 4, 105, 29 15); by betrayal, disaster, 
disappointment (Jer 2 36; Is 20 5; Ps 83 16 [17], ‘con- 
fusion’ RV; Jl 1 11, ‘confounded’ RV: Ps 119 116). It 
is especially as a punishment of individuals or na- 
tions by God for sin that shame comes, and the 
righteous desire to be avenged by having the ungodly 
be made ashamed (Ezk 16 52; Is 22 18; Ps 132 18, etc.). 
In Hos 9 10; Jer 3 24, 11 13, basheth, ‘shameful ‘thing’ 
RV, has evidently been substituted for the deity 
name ba‘al, (which in earlier times was often used 
even of J ” [cf. Hos 2 16]). Cf. the similar substitu- 


I Ch 8 23, 9 39); see BAAL, and these names. 
Orbe l. 
SHAMED, shé’med. See SHEMED. 


SHAMER. shé’mer. See SHEMER. 


SHAMGAR, sham’gar (722¥, shamgar): The son 
: Anath, and the first of the six minor judges Jg 

3 31) Who: smote 600 Philistines and delivered Israel. 
In Jg 5 6 no mention is made of such a deliverance, 
and here the foes are the Canaanites ‘The name S. 
is foreign, perhaps Hittite or Philistine, and Anath 
is the name of a Canaanite goddess. His deed is 
analogous to that of Samson (Jg 1515) and Shammah 
(II S 23 11 £.). Jg 3 31 seems to be a late insertion, 
as 41 follows 3 30, and many think that Shamgar 
was put in, in order not to have Abimelech counted 
among the twelve judges. Cis. a 


SHAMHUTH, sham’hoth (Ni09¥, shamhiith): An 
Izrahite, one of David’s captains (I Ch 27 8); prob- 
ably the same as Shammah (II S 23 25) and Sham- 
moth (I Ch 11 27). 


SHAMIR, shé’mor (VY, shdmir): I. A Levite 
of the sons of Micah (I Ch 24 24; shamiir (Kethibh). 
II. 1. A town in the hill-country ot Judah (Jos 15 48). 
It is identified with Khirbet Sémara, SW. of Hebron, 
a ruin with walls, caves, graves, and cisterns. 2. A 
town of Issachar in the hill-country of Ephraim and 
the home of Tola (Jg 101 f.); probably in the NE. 
near the Plain of Jezreel. (Ghyy-= 4d bs 


SHAMMA, sham’ma (89¥, shammda’): A descend- 
ant of Asher (I Ch 7 37). 


SHAMMAH, sham’a (19%, shammdah): 1. A son 
of Reuel, the son of Esau, aa an Edomite chief re 
36 13, 17; I Ch 1 37). 2. The third son of Jesse (IS 
16 9), and father of Jonadab, the friend of Ammon 
(II S 138 3, 32, Shimeah, shime‘ah) and of Jonathan, 
who slew a giant (iI S 21 21, Shimei, shime, (Qera 
shimé‘a’; I Ch 20 7; ef. 2 13, Shimea, Shimma AV, 
ehemt'a). He followed Saul to battle (ESAz 13). 
3. The son of Agee the Hararite, one of David’s 
three chief heroes (II S 23 11), and father of Jona- 
than, one of David’s thirty (II S 23 32 £., read Jona- 
than, son of Shammah; cf. I Ch 11 34, ‘J., son of 
Shagee’). 4. A Harodite, one of David's thirty (II 
S 23 25; the same as ‘Shammoth the Harorite,’ I Ch 
11 27, and ‘Shamhuth the Izrahite,’ I Ch 27 8, the 
captain of the fifth monthly course under Solomon). 

C.8.c¥. 

SHAMMAI, sham’oe-ai or sham’é ("2Y, shammay, 
contracted form of ‘Shemaiah’): 1. The ancestor of 
a Jerahmeelite family (I Ch 2 98, 32). 2. The ancestor 
of a Calebite family near Maon (I Ch2 44f.). 3. A 
descendant of Caleb, son of Jephunneh (I Ch 4 17). 


SHAMMOTH, sham’efh. See SHAMHUTH. 


SHAMMDA, sha-miti’a, (219¥%, ‘shammia'), 
‘heard’: 1. One of the spies (Nu 13 4). 2. A son of 
David (II S514 Shammuah AV;I Ch 14 4; called 
Shimea in 3 5). 3. The head of a course of priests 
(Neh 1218). 4. A Levite (Neh 11 17); see also SuHE- 
MAIAH. 





837 A NEW STANDARD 


SHAMSHERAI, sham’shi-rai, -ré, or sham’’shi- 
ré‘ai ("1W2Y, shamsheray): A descendant of Benja- 
min (I Ch 8 26). 

SHAPHAM, shé’fam (92Y, shaphdm): A Gadite 
clan (I Ch 5 12). 

SHAPHAN, shé’fan (]?¥, shdphdn): 1. A son 
of Azaliah, a scribe of Josiah’s time. It was Shaphan 
who received the Book of the Law from the hands 
of the high priest Hilkiah (II K 22 8 f.) and con- 
veyed it to the king. Afterward, he was sent to 
Huldah the prophetess, to consult her regarding 
some of the contents of the book. 2. The father 
of Ahikam (Jer 26 24, 29 34) possibly, but not prob- 
ably, the same as 1. 3. The father of Gemariah 
(Jer 36 10) and Jaazaniah (Ezk 8 11), probably the 
same asl. 4. The father of Elasah (Jer 29 3), 
probably the same as 2. EK. E. N. 

SHAPHAT, ¢hé'fat (02Y, shdphdt), ‘He has 
judged’: 1. One of the spies (Nu 13 5). 2. A Gadite 
clan (I Ch 5 12). 3. One of David’s herdsmen (I Ch 
27 29). 4. The father of Elisha the prophet (I K 
19, 16, etc.). 5. A late descendant of David (I Ch 
SRPEDE 

SHAPHER, shé’fir. See SHmrmr. 

SHAPHIR, shé’fir or shaf'ir (VY, shdphir, 
Saphir AV): A town of Judah (Mic 111). Map II, 
C 1. 


SHARAI, sha-ré’ai, shé’ré, or shar’a-ai (WY, 
sharay): One of the ‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 40). 


SHARAIM, sho-ré’1m or shar’s-im. See SHaa- 
RAIM. 


SHARAR, ghé’rar (1%, shdradr): The father of 


Ahiam, one of David’s heroes (II S 23 33), called 
Sacar in I Ch 11 35. 

SHARE. See PiLow. 

SHAREZER, sho-ri/zar (T¥81W, sar’etser): 1. 
One of the sons of Sennacherib (II K 19 37=Is 37 
38). The Assyrian form of the name may have been 
shar-utsur, ‘protect the prince.’ With Adrammelech 
(Assyr. Adar-malku), his brother, he slew his father 
while he was worshiping in the house of his god 
Nisroch (Akkad. Nusku), tho neither name has 
been identified in the cuneiform records of the 
event. The Babylonian Chronicle and the records 
of Nabonidus agree that Sennacherib was slain by 
one of his sons, but no name is given, tho the place 
was probably at the entrance of the temple of 
Ninurta (see SENNACHERIB). 2. A contemporary of 
Zechariah the prophet (Zee 7 2, Sherezer AV) who 
was sent from Bethel to Jerusalem to inquire of the 
priests whether the returned exiles should still per- 
sist in observing the fasts which were instituted in 
commemoration of the dates of the disasters that 
had befallen Jerusalem and the Jewish people about 
588-586 B.c. Tani ks. 

SHARON, shiar’on (]i1¥, sharén), probably from 
a root meaning ‘plain’ or ‘level country’: 1. The 
undulating plain extending from Joppa and Ramleh 
northward along the Mediterranean coast to Mt. 
Carmel; about 50 m. long and varying from 6 to 12 
m. in breadth. Map III, C 4, D1, 2, 3. It is un- 
usually fertile (Is 65 10; Song 21). The oak still 


Shama 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Shavsha 


flourishes in the northern portion as probably in the 
days of Isaiah (35 2); the southern portion is richly 
cultivated. In early spring the luxuriant grass and 
richly colored flowers render this plain the garden of 
Palestine. Unfortunately, the sand-dunes along the 
sea are persistently encroaching upon it. Shitrai 
the Sharonite (I Ch 27 29) was over David’s herds 
that fed in Sharon. It is once mentioned in the N T 
(Ac 9 35, Saron AV). See also PauEstTINnE, § 11. 
2. A region E. of the Jordan (I Ch 5 16), which, 
however, is better identified with the elevated 
plateau or table-land in Gilead between the Arnon 
and Heshbon (cf. Dt 3 10). G. L. R. 


SHARONITE, shar’en-ait. See SHaron. 

SHARUHEN, sha-ri’hen (JT, shdrihen): An 
ancient city in 8. Palestine whither the Hyksos fled 
when expelled from Egypt. Counted as a city of 
Simeon (Jos 19 6), the same as Shilhim (15 32) and 
Shaaraim (I Ch 4 31). See SHAARAIM. 


SHASHAI, shé’shai, -sh@ or shagh’a-ai (VU 


~T) 


shdshay): One of the ‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 40). 

SHASHAK, shé’shak (PYY, shdshag): A descend- 
ant of Benjamin (I Ch 8 14, 25). 

SHAUL, shé’vl or shél (any, sh@’il), ‘asked for’; 
cf. Saul: 1. The ancestral head of a Simeonite clan 
of mixed blood (Gn 46 10; Ex 6 15, etc.), the Shaul- 
ites (Nu 2613). 2. A king of Edom, from ‘Rehoboth 
by the River’ (Gn 36 37 f., Saul AV; I Ch 1 481.). 
perhaps of Aramean origin. 3. A descendant of 
Levi (I Ch 6 24, called Joel in ver. 36). See also Saut. 


SHAVE, SHAVING: This is the translation of 
(1) gazaz (only Job 1 20), usually ‘shear.’ (2) gdlah, 
‘shave,’ for which Evpay is used in LXX. and N T. 
(3) The AV rendering of a phrase (Nu 8 7) which is 
given more literally in RV, ‘cause a razor to pass 
over.’ Shaving was a means of purification from 
plague (Lv 138 33), leprosy (Lv 148 £.), defilement (Nu 
69,87). A captive female slave was to shave her 
head before her marriage, as a sign that her forlorn 
condition was at an end (Dt 21 12). An Arabian 
widow terminates her period of mourning by a simi- 
lar act. The shaving of the head and beard as a sign 
of mourning (Dt 141; Jer 41 5) was forbidden the 
priests (Lv 21 5; Ezk 44 20). When the vow of a 
Nazirite was fulfilled, he shaved his head (Nu 6 18; 
Ac 21 24). InJII§ 10 4=I Ch 19 4 the shaving of the 
beard was to put the men to shame. Cf. Harr; 
Razor. Ce Suck. 

SHAVEH, shé’ve (MY, shdwéh), ‘level’: A ‘vale’ 
(t.e., a broad open valley) where the king of Sodom 
met Abram returning from the rescue of Lot (Gn 


14 17). It was probably the place near Jerusalem 
called the ‘King’s Dale’ (q.v. and cf. II § 18 18). 


SHAVEH - KIRIATHIAM, -kir’1-a-€hé’1m (710 
DIN IP), shdwéh girydthayim), ‘the level [place] of 
Kiriathaim’: The locality where Chedorlaomer 
smote the Emim (Gn 14 5). Probably the same as 
Kiriathaim. Map II, I 2. 

SHAVSHA, shav’sho (SY), shawshd’): A person 
mentioned in the list of David’s chief officials (I Ch 
18 16) as scribe, or secretary. He was the officer 
entrusted with all the state papers. The name is 


Shawl 
Shekinah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


838 





Aramaic, and it is quite probable that foreign corre- 
spondence necessitated the employment of an alien. 
In I K 43 Solomon’s scribes, Elihoreph and Ahijah, 
are called sons of Shishai, who is to be identified 
with Shavsha (the Old Latin version reads ‘Shav- 
sha’). In the two lists of David’s officials in ILS 
Seraiah is the scribe in 8 17, and Sheva in 20 25. 
These are scribal errors for ‘Shavsha.’ J. A. K. 

SHAWL. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 6. 

SHEAF. See AGRICULTURE, § 5. 

SHEAL, shi’al (DED, sh’ al): One of ‘the sons of 
Bani’ (Ezr 10 29). 

SHEALTIEL, she-al’ti-el (P8098, sh°’alti’él), ‘I 
have asked God’: A son of the captive King Jeconiah, 
and the father of Zerubbabel, according to Ezr 3 2, 
8, 5 2; Neh 121; Hag 11, 12, 14, 2 2, 23. But I Ch 3 18 
says that Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, brother 
of S., and good grounds have been urged for the 
correctness of the text of Ch (see Kittel, Hand- 
Kom. z. A T, ad loc.; and Curtis in ICC). In the 
LXX. and the N T (AV)S. takes the form Salathiel 
(Mt 1 12; Lk 3 27). E. E. N. 

SHEAR. See Nomapic AND Pasrorat Lirs, § 7. 

SHEARIAH, ghi’s-rai’a (72779Y, she‘aryah): A 
descendant of Saul (I Ch 8 38, 9 44). 

SHEARING-HOUSE. See Nomapic snp Pas- 
TORAL Lire, § 7. 

SHEAR-JASHUB, Sshi’er-jash’ub or -jé’shub 
(AW? NY, shear yashubh), ‘a remnant shall return’: 
A son of Isaiah (Is 7 3; cf. 8 18, 10 20 f.). 


SHEATH. See Arms anp ARMoR, § 2. 


SHEBA, shi’ba (YAY, shebha‘): I. 1. The ances- 
tral head of a Gadite family (I Ch 5 13). 2. A 
Benjamite who led a revolt against David soon 
after Absalom’s death. The motive was, doubtless, 
jealousy on the part of the Benjamites (Saul’s tribe) 
of David’s success in quelling Absalom’s rebellion, 
which they had hoped would end in dethroning 
David’s dynasty. S. was unsuccessful and, besieged 
at Abel in N. Israel, he met his fate at the hands of 
the inhabitants (II S 20 1-22). II. 1. A region in 
Arabia; see ETHNOGRAPHY AND ErHno.oey, §§ 11, 
13; and SaBEAN. 2. A town in Simeon, according to 
Jos 19 2, but this is probably a textual error for 
Shema (Jos 15 26; the same as Jeshua [q.v.] Neh 
11 26). K. E. N. 


SHEBAH, shi’ba. See SHrpau. 

SHEBAM, shi’bam. See SEBAmM. 

SHEBANIAH, sheb”a-nai/a (37222Y, shebhan- 
yaha, and 33%, shebhanyah), ‘J’ has brought me 
back’: 1. A Temple musician (I Ch 15 24). 2. A 
Levite who assisted Ezra (Neh 9 4 f.; possibly also 
10 12). 3. Another Levite (Neh 10 10; but many 
MSS. read here Shechaniah). 4. A priest (Neh 10 4, 
12 14, called Shechaniah in ver. 3). 

SHEBARIM, ¢heb’a-rim (O°72¥,  shebharim), 
‘broken [pieces]: Possibly ‘the quarries’ rather than 
a place-name; exact site unknown (Jos 7 5). 


SHEBAT, shi’bat (02%, shebhat, Sebat AV): The 
eleventh month of the Jewish year. See Timp, § 3. 


SHEBER, ¢hi/bar (12%, shebher): A son of the 
Jerahmeelite Caleb (I Ch 2 48). 

SHEBNA, sheb’na (833%, shebhna’), SHEBNAH, 
Sheb’na (WAY, shebhnah) (II K 18 18, 26): The stew- 
ard of King Hezekiah’s house, and, apparently, a 
foreigner and man of wealth (Is 22 15-18). He looked 
upon himself, however, as permanently identified 
with Judah, since he had a magnificent mausoleum 
built for himself. The prophet Isaiah rebuked him, 
and predicted that he should not rest in this sepul- 
cher. His retirement from office took place in 701, 
when Eliakim was given his place. But, in a pas- 
sage of subsequent date (Is 36 3, 11, 22, 37 2), he is 
spoken of as ‘secretary,’ which may mean either ~ 
that the office of scribe was a degradation from 
that of steward, or that the dating of the passage is 
based upon an error. A.C. Z. 


SHEBUEL, shi-bit’el or sheb’yu-el (Dyiawy she= . | 


bhwél): 1. The ancestor of a family of Gershonite 
Levites (I Ch 23 16, 26 24, Shubael in 24 20). 2. The 
ancestor of a family of singers (I Ch 25 4° Shubael 
in ver. 20). 

SHECANIAH, SHECHANIAH, shek” a-nai’a 
(D723 shekhanyah[a)), J’ hath taken up His 
abode’: 1. The head of a family descended from 
David (I Ch 3 21 £.; Ezr 8 3, 5). 2. A priest to whom 
the tenth lot fell (I Ch 24 11=Shebaniah, Neh 10 4, 
12 14), the representative of a priestly family which 
returned with Zerubbabel (Neh 12 3). 3. The son of 
Jehiel. He confessed the sin of having a foreign 
wife (Ezr 10 2). 4. The keeper of the east gate and 
father of a wallbuilder (Neh 3 29). 5. The father-in- 
law of Tobiah (Neh 6 18). 6. A priest in charge of 
apportioning the free-will offerings for the priests 
(II Ch 31 15). C.S8. T. 

SHECHEM, shi’kem (93%, shekhem), ‘the neck 
and shoulders,’ or ‘the back’: I. An important city 
in the hill-country of Ephraim, situated in the nar- 
row valley (100 yds. wide) between Mounts Ebal and 
Gerizim, on the great highway between Judea and 
Galilee (Jos. Ant. IV, 8 44). Map III, F 3. Accord- 
ing to Eusebius (Onom.), the city owed its name to 
Shechem, ‘the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince 
of the land’ (Gn 34 2, 33 18, 19). More probably the 
name, which means ‘shoulder’ or ‘back,’ was as- 
signed to this place because it lay on the watershed 
between the Mediterranean and the Jordan Valley. 
Jerome (Hp. Pan. xvi) identified it with the modern 
Nablus, the same as the Flavia Neapolis of Ves- 
pasian. Josephus (BJ, IV, 8 1) knew it by the 
ancient name Mabortha or Mabartha, signifying 
‘pass’ or ‘crossing.’ §S. is frequently mentioned in 
the O T. Abram, on entering Canaan, built an 
altar there (Gn 12 6, 7). When Jacob returned from 
Paddan-aram ‘he bought the parcel of ground, 
where he had spread his tent,’ and erected an altar 
(33 18-20). Jacob gave to Joseph ‘one portion,’ 
literally, ‘one sh¢khem’ (Gn 48 21, 22). From the 
heights of Ebal and Gerizim the laws of Dt were 
promulgated (Dt 27 12-14; Jos 8 33-35). By the in- 
habitants of S., Abimelech, the son of Gideon, was 
made king; and when they rebelled against him he 
captured their city and sowed its site with salt (Jg 
ch. 9). At 8S. the northern tribes revolted against 





839 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Shawl 
Shekinah 





Rehoboam (I K ch. 12), and Jeroboam the son of 
Nebat ‘built,’ 2.e., added something to the city’s 
walls or fortifications (I K 12 25). 
was made the capital of N. Israel in Omri’s time, 
S. naturally declined in political importance. Two 
centuries later it became the chief city of the Samari- 
tans (Sir 50 26; Jos. Ant. XI, 8 6). In Nehemiah’s 
time these built a temple on Mt. Gerizim which was 
destroyed by John Hyrcanus (129 B.c.). To-day 
the remnant of the Samaritans—‘the smallest re- 
ligious sect in the world,’ numbering not more than 
140 souls—resides in §. and continues to worship 
on Mt. Gerizim. 


s-™% 
’ 


H rs 1 
“eatting, Sores or mines “3 


> 
a 
nS “i 





Shechem and Its Environs. 


S. is the center of hallowed associations. About 
13 m. E. from the city on the main road to Jerusalem 
is Jacob’s well (Bir Yakéb), at which Jesus met the 
woman of Samaria (Jn 45 #.). Less than 3 m. N. 
of Jacob’s well is the traditional tomb of Joseph 
(Kabr Yustf). About midway between these and 
the city is the village of Balldta, the name of which 
seems to preserve the Aramaic word for oak (ballat) 
and perhaps also gives a hint as to the location of 
the ‘oaks of Moreh,’ under which Jacob buried the 
idols of his household (Gn 12 6, 35 4; Jos 24 26; 
Jg 96). The site of S. was excavated by the Germans 
in 1913-14. On the basis of Ac 7 16, a tradition grew 
up in the early Church that Jacob’s twelve sons were 
buried at S., but Josephus says they were buried 
at Hebron (Ant. II 8 2). The present population of 


When Samaria 


Nablus is approximately 25,000. Its altitude above 
sea-level is 1,870 ft. Copious fountains supply it 
with good water. G. L.-R. 


II. 1. The son of Hamor, a Canaanite prince,’ who 
because of his treatment of Dinah, daughter of 
Jacob, was attacked by her brothers Simeon and 
Levi, and with the men of Shechem (the town) put 
to death (Gn 33 18-34 31). This story symbolically 
(Shechem, the individual =the town, etc.) portrays 
some ancient struggle or struggles between Israelite 
tribes and the Canaanite city, rather than as between 
individuals. Its exact interpretation is beset by 
apparently insuperable difficulties (cf. Skinner in 
ICC, Gn, p. 421 f.). 2. The eponymous name of a 
clan or family of Manasseh, the Shechemites (Nu 
26 31; Jos 17 2). 3. A son of Shemidah (I Ch 7 19). 

K. E. N. 
- SHECHEMITE, shi’kem-ait. See SHecuem, II, 2. 

SHEDEUR, shed’1-vr (MINTY, shedh@’ar): ‘Shad- 
dai is light’: A chief of Reuben 
(Nu 1 5, 2 10, etc.). 

SHEEP, SHEPHERD. See 
Foop AND Foop UTENSILS, 
§ 10; Patestinn, § 24; and 
NoMADIC AND PasToRAL LIFE, 
§§ 4 ff. 

SHEEP - COTE, SHEEP- 
FOLD. See Nomapic AND 
PasToRAL Lirn, §§ 4 ff. 

SHEEP-GATE. See JrErvu- 
SALEM, § 38. 

SHEERAH, shi/i-ra (778%, 
sheérah, Sherah AV): An 
Ephraimite clan inhabiting 
Beth-horon (both Upper and 
Lower) and Uzzen-sheerah 
(I Ch 7 24). The location of Types of Shepherds’ 

f Crooks. 
Uzzen-sheerah is unknown. 


SHEET: (1) The pl. ‘sheets’ is the AV rendering 
of the Heb. s*dhinimin Jg 1412f., correctly rendered 
‘linen garment’ in RV. See Dress AND ORNa- 
MENTS, § 2. (2) The rendering of the Gr. 686vy, 
‘linen,’ or, ‘fine linen’ (Ac 1011, 115). In postclassical 
Gr. 686vn was used of sails and sail-cloth, and this 
is probably its signification here. E. EL N. 


SHEHARIAH, ghi’ha-rai’a (7770Y, sheharyah), 
‘J’’ is the dawn’: A descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 
8 26). 

SHEKEL. See Monry. 


SHEKEL OF THE SANCTUARY. See Monsey, 
§ 3; and WreIcuts anpD Mgasurgss, § 4. 


SHEKINAH, shi-kai’na, shi-, shek’e-na, or she- 
kai’/na: A late Jewish term denoting the idea of God’s 
abiding presence among His people through His 
glory. It is derived from a root, shkn, meaning ‘to 
dwell,’ and may be translated ‘that which abides.’ 
From this comes the word mishkan, one of the terms 
used for the Tabernacle. The Biblical antecedents of 
the conception begin with God’s revealing His pres- 
ence through the symbol of light (as in the burning 
bush, q.v.). In the account of the approach of 
Moses to Him on Mount Sinai a thick cloud is pic 
tured as resting on the top of the mountain, an 





Shekinah 
ites eek RATA I iS aL NRA AOLMY OB) 


within it the glory of J’ in the form of a devouring 
flame (Ex 24 16-18). And in the finished Tabernacle 
the presence of God was signified by day through a 
cloud, which by night was either seen to go up or 
was supplanted by fire (Ex 40 34, 38). But in the 
intertestamental period, first, the name ‘Shekinah’ 
is fixed, and, secondly, its meaning is changed from 
that of a symbol of the Divine presence to that of an 
aspect of divinity embodied and made visible to the 
physical eye. A distinction, moreover, is drawn be- 
tween the Shekinah and the glory. The glory is the 
visible form of the Shekinah; and, conversely, the 
Shekinah is the substance of the glor y. Thus in the 
Targums, all the instances where J’’ is reported as 
moving from one place to another are rendered by the 
substitution of the word ‘Shekinah’ for the Divine 
name. Likewise, where God is said to dwell at any 
place, in the Heb. text the Targums render ‘cause 
His Shekinah to dwell’ (cf. Gn 28 16; Ex 25 8; I K 
8 12; Zec 8 3). The motive for resorting to the crea- 
fon of such an intermediate being between the 
Godhead and His glory was undoubtedly the growth 
of the idea of transcendence, which tended to exalt 
God as far as possible by removing Him from the 
possibility of immediate touch with coarse matter 
and sinful man. This tendency was brought to its 
fullest development by Philo, who attributed to God 
an absolutely abstract being and an eternal, un- 
changeable substance (cf. Drummond, Philo, i 
23-30). 

In the N T, neither the doctrine nor tne name ap- 
pears. But the influence of the Jewish view may be 
seen in the different concepts given to the term 
‘glory.’ The glory is, for instance, enumerated by 
Paul along with the covenant, the Law, the ritual, 
and the promises as constituting the privileges of the 
Jews, which scarcely leaves room for doubting that 
by the term ‘glory’ the Shekinah is meant (cf. also 
He 1 3, 95). Traces of the same conception are to be 
found in Ro 6 4;1 P 414 and Ja21. See also Giory. 

A. C. Z. 


SHELAGH, shi’la: 1. (72, shélah). A son of Judah 
(Gn 38 5 ff., etc.), the ancestor of the Shelanites 
(Nu 26 20). 2. (M2W, shelah). A son of Arpachshad 
(Gn 10 24, 11 12-15, Salah AV; I Ch 1 18, 24; Lk 3 35, 
Sala AV, Co Bey 


SHELEMIAH, shel’’1-mai’d (DIT 2Y, shelem- 
yah[{a]): 1. A Levite doorkeeper of the Tabernacle 
(I Ch 26 14). 2, 3. Two of the ‘sons of Bani’ who had 
foreign wives (Ear 10 39, 41). 4. The father of 
Hananiah, a repairer of the wall (Neh 8 30). 5. A 
priest, appointed a treasurer by Nehemiah (Neh 
13 13) =3 or 4 (?). 6. A son of Cushi (Jer 36 14), 
probably of Egyptian origin. 7. A son of Abdeel, 
commanded by Jehoiakim to take Baruch and Jere- 
miah (Jer 36 26). 8. The father of Jehucal (Jer 
37 3, 381). 9. The father of Irijah (Jer 37 13). 

Crowe, 


SHELEPH, shi’lef. See EranoGraPpHy AND 


ETHNOLOGY, $13. 


SHELESH, shi’lésh (V2, shélesh): A descendant 
of Asher (I Ch 7 35). 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


840 


SHELOMI, shi-ld’mai or shel’o-mai oid fe the oy Gg” tin ths Pet ur oacdatee |. SEEREOMI ICRI e ee nRnaMeby Clie sht= 
lomz): The father of Ahihud, prince of Asher (Nu 
34 27). 

SHELOMITH, shi-lo’mith or shel’o-mith (17729, 
shelémith), ‘peacefulness’ (?): 1. The mother of the 
Israelite who blasphemed the name of J’” (Lv 24 11.) 
2. A Levite (I Ch 23 9, Shelomoth RV). 3. The 
head of a Levite family (I Ch 28 18, Shelomoth in 
24 22), 4. A descendant of 3 (I Ch 26 25-28, Shelo- 
moth RV). 5. A son of Rehoboam (II Ch 11 20). 

6. The ancestor of a postexilic family (Ezr 810). 7.A 
Spar of Zerubbabel (I Ch 3 19). 


SHELOMOTH, she-l6’meth or shel’o-mefth. See 
SHELOMITH, 2, 3, 4. 

SHELUMIEL, Shi-lity’ mi-el (dan ow, shilaimv él), 
‘God is conciliated’ (?): A chief of Simeon (Nu 1 6, 
2 12, etc.). 


SHEM, shem (9, shém, in Lk 3 36 AV Sem, Gr, - 


xv): The eldest son of Noah (Gn 5 32, etc.). See 
ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, §§ 2, 5, 8-11. 

SHEMA, shi’ma (Y2¥, shdma‘), ‘he has heard’ 
(abbreviated from SINGIN Feng I. 1. A Jerahmeelite 
clan (I Ch 2 43 f.). 2. A Reubenite (I Ch58). 3.A 
Benjamite clan (I Ch 813). 4. One of Ezra’s assis- 
tants (Neh 8 4). II. A city of Judah (Jos 15 26), or 
Simeon, perhaps the Sheba of 19 2. See Jusuua, II. 

SHEMAAH, ghi-mé’a or shem’a-a (1Y92Y, shema- 
‘Gh): The fhe of Ahiezer and Joash, two of David’s 
warriors (I Ch 12 3). 

SHEMAIAH, shi-mé’ya (BITYOY, shema‘yah[a)), 
7’ hath Hee 1. A prophet who counseled Reho- 


boam not to war against Israel (I K 12 22=II Ch — 


11 2). He also brought Rehoboam and his people 
to repentance, when Shishak attacked Jerusalem 
(II Ch 125, 7). He is said to have written histories 
of his time aul Ch 1215). 2. The father of Uriah the 
prophet (Jer 26 20). 3. The Nehelamite, a false 
prophet, deported to Babylon, who answered Jere- 
miah’s letter to the Babylonian exiles with a com- 
plaint concerning him to the priest Zephaniah. 
Jeremiah prophesied that for this he would die in 
exile (Jer 29 24-32). 4. The father of Delaiah (Jer 
36 12). 5. A son of Shecaniah and the father of 
Hattush (I Ch 3 22). 6. The head of a Simeonite 
family (I Ch 4 37). 7. The head of a Reubenite 
family (I Ch 54). 8. A Levite (I Ch 914; Neh 1115). 
9. A Levite (I Ch 916 =Shammua, Neh 11 17). 10.A 
Kohathite chief (I Ch 15 8, 11). 11. A Levite, the 
son of Nathaneel, who recorded the allotment of 
priestly offices in the time of David (I Ch 246). 12. 
A son of Obed-edom (I Ch 26 4, 6,7). 13. A Levite 
sent by Jehoshaphat to teach the Law i in the cities of 
Judah (II Ch 17 8). 14. A son of Jeduthun, who 
helped to cleanse the Temple in the days of Hezekiah 
(I Ch 29 14). 15. A Levite in charge of the dis- 
tribution of the free-will offerings in the cities of the 
priests (II Ch 3115). 16. A chief Levite under Josiah 
(II Ch 359). 17. A son of Adonikam who returned 
with Ezra (Ezr 813). 18. One sent by Ezra to Iddo 
to ask for ministers for the house of God (Ezr 8 16) 
19. A man with a foreign wife (Ezr 10 31). 20. A 
builder of the wall (Neh 3 29). 21. One who tried to 
intimidate Nehemiah (Neh 6 10 ff.). 22. A priest 


| 
| 
: 





— 


841 


who returned with Zerubbabel (Neh 12 6, 18, 35) and 
sealed the covenant (Neh 10 8). 23. A prince of 
Judah who took part in the dedication of the wall 
(Neh 12 34). 24. A priest who also assisted in the 
service of dedication (Neh 12 36). 25. A priest who 
gave thanks at the dedication of the wall (Neh 12 42). 
26. A priest with a foreign wife (Ezr 10 21). C.S.T. 

SHEMARIAH, shem”oe-rai’a (37272Y,  shemar- 
yahi), ‘J’ guards’: 1. One of David’s warriors (I Ch 
125). 2. A son of Rehoboam (II Ch 11 19, Shame- 
riah AV). 3. One of ‘the sons of Harim’ (Ezr 10 32). 
4. One of ‘the sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 41). 

SHEMEBER, shem-i’ber or shem’‘i-ber (TA8>Y, 
shem’ébher): The king of Zeboim (Gn 14 2), con- 
quered by Chedorlaomer (vs. 9 ff.). 

SHEMED, shi'med (7/¥, shemedh, Shamed AV; 
many Heb. MSS. read ‘Shemer’): A Benjamite clan 
inhabiting Ono and Lod (I Ch 8 12). 

SHEMER, shi’mer (1¥, shemer): 1. The ances- 
tral head of an Asherite clan (I Ch 7 34, in ver. 32 
called Shomer). 2. The owner of the hill which 
Omri purchased for his capital, Samaria (I K 16 24). 
3. A Levite (I Ch 6 46). 1 and 3 are given as Shamer 
in AV. See also SHEMED. 

SHEMIDA, shi-mai’da (YT, shemidha‘): The 
ancestral head of a Gileadite clan, the Shemidaites, 
counted as of Manassite descent (Nu 26 32; Jos 17 2; 
I Ch 7 19, Shemidah AY). 


SHEMINITH, shem’1-nifh. See Music anp Mv- 


SICAL INSTRUMENTS, § 3 (4); and Psaus, § 3. 

SHEMIRAMOTH, shi-mir’a-mdth (NO VRY, she- 
miramoth): 1. A Levite musician (I Ch 15 18, 20, 16 
5). 2. A Levite teacher (II Ch 17 8). 

SHEMUEL, shi-miii'el or shem’yii-el (7812%, she- 
mi’él), ‘name of God’ (see SAMUEL): 1. The ‘prince’ 
of Simeon (Nu 34 20). 2. The ancestral head of a 
clan of Issachar (I Ch 7 2). OnICh633 AV, see 
SAMUEL (the prophet). 

SHEN, shen (]¥, shén), ‘tooth’: Samuel is said to 
have set up a stone between Mizpah and ‘the Shen’ 
(I S 712). The LXX. indicates that the original 
reading was ‘Jeshanah,’ a place mentioned in II 
Ch 1319. See also EBENEZER. EK. E. N. 

SHENAZZAR, shin-az’zdr (1¥8JY, shen’atstsar): 
A son of Jeconiah, the captive king of Judah (I Ch 
3 18). The name is probably of Babylonian origin 
(perhaps Sin-usur or Sin-shar-usur). The identifi- 
cation with Sheshbazzar (Eizr 1 8, 11) is possible, but 
not certzin. Me RN 

SHENIR, shi’nor. See Senir. 

SHEOL, shi’6l. See BurtaL anp Buriat Cus- 
Toms, § 3; and EscHatroLoey, §§ 18-21, 38. 

SHEPHAM, shi’fom (02, shephdm): A place on 
the N. border of Canaan (Nu 3411). Site unknown. 

SHEPHATIAH, shef’a-tai’a (1202, shephatyah), 
‘J’ has judged’: 1. A son of David by Abital (IIS 
3 4; I Ch 3 3). 2. A Haruphite, one of David’s 
warriors (I Ch 12 5). 3. The ruler of the tribe of 
Simeon (I Ch 27 16). 4. A son of Jehoshaphat (II 
Ch 21 2). 5. A noble who opposed Jeremiah (Jer 
881). 6. The ancestral head of a postexilic family 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Shekinah 
Sheshbazzar 


(Ezr 2 4, 8 8; Neh 7 9), and 7 of a family of ‘Solo- 
mon’s servants’ (Ezr 2 57; Neh 7 59). 8. The head 
of a Benjamite family (I Ch 98). 9. The ancestor 
of a Judahite family (Neh 11 4). 

SHEPHER, shi’fur (12¥, shepher, Shapher AV), 
‘beautiful’: A mountain (Nu 33 23f.). Site unknown. 

SHEPHERD. See Nomapic AND PasToRAL 
Lire, §§ 4 ff. 

SHEPHI, shi’fai, SHEPHO, shi’fo (DY, shephi 
[Gn], 12%, shephd [Ch]): A Horite clan (Gn 36 23; 
I Ch 1 40). 

SHEPHUPHAM, Shi-fii’/fom (O39, shepha- 
phim), and SHEPHUPHAN, Shi-fiti’fon (]P15Y, 
sh¢phiphdn): The ancestral head of the Shupha- 
mites (Nu 26 39), a clan of Benjamin (Nu 26 39, 
Shupham AV; I Ch 8 5). Cf. Gn 46 21 and see 
Muprim. 

SHERAH, shi’ra. See SHEERAH. 

SHERD. See PotsHErp. 

SHEREBIAH, gher’1-bai’a (73¥, shérébhyah): 
A prominent Levite in the days of Ezra (Ezr 8 18, 24, 
where ‘priests’ should be corrected to ‘Levites;’ 
Neh 87, 94 f., 1012, 12.8, 24). 

SHERESH, shi’resh (YY, sheresh): The ancestral 
head of a Manassite clan (I Ch 7 16). 

SHEREZER, shi-ri’zour. See SHAREZER. 


SHERIFF: The rendering of the obscure term 
NINDN, tiphtayé’ (Dn 3 2, 3), the meaning of which is 
uncertain. 

SHESHACH, shi’shak (YY, shéshakh): A name 
for Babylon (Jer 25 26, 51 41, where it is parallel to 
Babylon), a form of Babel obtained by means of 
the so called Athbash, whereby the last letter of the 
alphabet is used for the first, the next last for the 
second, etc. 8 Ste be 

SHESHAI, shi’shai or -Shé (YY, shéshay): One 
of several Canaanite clans or families, reputed to 
have been descended from ‘Anak,’ and of gigantic 
stature, who occupied Hebron. They were con- 
quered by the Calebites (Nu 13 22; Jos 15 14; Jg 110). 

EK. E. N. 

SHESHAN, Shi’shon (1¥¥, shéshan): A Jerah- 
meelite who, having no sons (vy. 34, apparently in 
conflict with v. 31) gave his daughter in marriage to 
an Egyptian, Jarha (I Ch 2 31 ff.). It is likely that 
clan-relations are reflected in these statements. 

SHESHBAZZAR, Shesh-baz/er (1¥3Y¥, shésh- 
batstsar): The personage with whom Cyrus at 
Babylon entrusted the sacred vessels of the former 
Temple in Jerusalem, when the Jews first returned 
from the Exile in 537-536 B.c. (Ezr 1 8, 11). He is 
also credited with having laid the foundations of the 
house of God in Jerusalem (Ezr 5 14, 16). The signifi- 
cance of his name and the identity of his person are 
much disputed. In Akkadian we find such names as 
Shesh-ba-tuk, Shesh-ki-lu-la, accounting for the first 
element of the name. He is also identified with 
Shenazzar of I Ch 3 18, which would make him an 
uncle of Zerubbabel. Still another theory would 
wholly identify him with Zerubbabel, making the 
word ‘Sheshbazzar’ a cryptogram, such as ‘Leb- 


Sheth 
Shinar 





kamai’ for ‘Babylon’ (Jer 51 1), and other instances 
in later times. LOMA. 

SHETH, Sheth (NY, shéth): A term rendered as a 
proper noun in Nu 2417 AV. In RV, on the basis 
of a comparison with Jer 48 45, it is rendered ‘tu- 
mult.’ Some would read NNY, ‘pride.’ E. E. N. 

SHETHAR, ghi’fher (19Y, shéthar): One of the 
seven princes mentioned in Est 114. See PRinczs, 
THE SEVEN. ! 

SHETHAR-BOZENAI, -boz’‘i-nai (213 10%, she- 
thar bhéz*nay): One of the opponents of the re- 
turned exiles who tried to prevent the rebuilding 
of the Temple (Ezr 5 3, 6, 6 6,13). “The real name 
was probably Shethar (as Est 114), and bhdz*nay is 
the unknown or corrupted title of his office’ (so 
Batten in ICC, ad loc.). BK. EK. N. 

SHEVA, shi’va (8%, shew’): 1. A Calebite clan 
(or individual?). inhabiting Machbena and Gibea 
(1 Ch 2 49). 2. David’s scribe (II S 20 25). See 
SHAVSHA. 

SHEWBREAD. See SacriFicE AND OFFERINGS, 
§ 138. 

SHIBAH, shai’ba (TYAY, shibh‘Gh [for YAY, She- 
bah AV), ‘swearing’; but perhaps the original read- 
ing was YAY, sibh‘ah, ‘abundance’ (see Skinner in 
ICC, ad loc.): The name of the well near Beer- 
sheba (Gn 26 33). 

SHIBBOLETH, shib’o-leth (N23¥, shibboleth), 
‘stream’: The test word of the Gileadites for the 
defeated Ephraimites at the Jordan (Jg 12 6), since 
the latter could say only sibbdleth, wherein s (2) 
represents a different order of sibilants from sh (¥). 
Parallels are found in the Sicilian Vespers, March, 
1282, and the Flemish revolt, May, 1302, when the 
inability of Frenchmen to pronounce foreign phrases 
was the signal for their slaughter. 

A. S. C.*—O. R. S. 

SHIBMAH, shib’ma. See Sipmaun. 

SHICRON, shik’ren or Sshai’kren. 
KERON. 

SHIELD. See Arms anp Armor, § 7. 

SHIGGAION, shi-gé’yen, SHIGIONOTH, shig’’- 
1-0’neth or shi-gai’o-nefh. See Psaums, § 38. 

SHIHON, shai’hen. See SuHiIon. 

SHIHOR, shai/hér. See NIxz. 

SHIHOR-LIBNATH, sghai”hér-lib’nath (TTY 
nj2?, shithor libhnath): A river on the border of 
Asher, possibly the Nahr ez-Zerkd 8. of Mt. Carmel 
and just N. of Cxsarea (Jos 19 26). OP S420: 

SHIKKERON, ghik’1-ren (])79¥, shikkaron, Shic- 
ron AV), ‘drunkenness’: A town on the NW. border 
of Judah (Jos 15 11). Site unknown. 

SHILHI, shil’hai (°M9¥, shilht): The father of 
Azubah, the mother of Jehoshaphat (I K 22 42). 

SHILHIM, shil/him (0°N2¥, shilhim): A city in 
the SW. of Judah (Jos 15 32), called Sharuhen (19 6) 
and Shaaraim (I Ch 4 31). Site unknown. 

SHILLEM, shil’em, SHILLEMITE, shil’em-ait. 
See SHALLUM. 

SHILLING. 


See SHIK- 


See Money, § 9. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


842 





SHILOAH, shi-l6’a. See Jerusatem, § 13. 


SHILOH, ghai’ls (77¥, shiloh): I. A place of 
considerable importance in Israelitic history. Its 
location is explicitly given (Jg 21 19) as being ‘on the 
north of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that 
goeth up from Bethel to Shechem,’ and it has been 
identified with the modern Seilin. Map III, F 4. 
With Tabernacle and Ark, Joshua moved his head- 
quarters from Gilgal to Shiloh (Jos 18 1ff.); it was 
here that the Benjamites secured wives by carrying 
off the virgins at a vintage festival (Jg 21 16 f.). 
Under Eli and Samuel it figures prominently as a 
sanctuary, but the old Tabernacle seems to have 
given place to a permanent structure, called a tem- 
ple (hékhal) in IS 19. It was probably destroyed by 
the Philistines at the time of the capture of the Ark 
(I S ch. 4; cf. Jer 26 6-9). Jeremiah predicts that 
the Temple at Jerusalem will meet a similar fate 
(Jer 26 6,9). The city was rebuilt at a later period ~ 
(Jer 41 5). In the 4th cent. Jerome refers to it as 
lying in ruins. Shilonite is applied to Ahijah the 
prophet as a dweller of Shiloh (I K 11 29, 14 2) and 
to a Judahite family (Neh 11 5; Shiloni AV is an 
error). Excavations at Shiloh in 1922 by the 
Danish Society seem to indicate that the site was 
not occupied until the conquest of Canaan by Israel 
and appear to confirm the O T statements as to its 
destruction (cf. Bul. ASOR, Feb., 1923). 

II. ‘Shiloh’ occurs in the phrase ‘until Shiloh 
come,’ an enigmatical clause in Gn 49 10, which has 
taxed the ingenuity of interpreters in all ages. The 
context runs: “The scepter shall not depart from 
Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, 
until Shiloh come; and unto him shall the obedi- 
ence of the peoples be.’ This passage clearly 
assigns a position of preeminence to the tribe of 
Judah, and attributes to it a sovereignty over the 
nations, but the phrase ‘until Shiloh come’ does not 
convey an explicit idea to the reader. The following 


| are the chief explanations suggested: (a) ‘Shiloh’ 


is taken as a personal name of the Messiah—‘the 
Peaceful or the Peace-bringer.? Etymologically, 
these renderings are indefensible; historically, this — 
interpretation is late, first occurring in a Talmudic 
tractate (Sanh. 98b), and the first version to incorpo- 


| rate it is that of Sebastian Miinster, 1534. Further, 


the history of Messianic prophecy runs counter to 
this view, for the figure of a personal Messiah for the 
first time flashes across the mind of Isaiah. This 
exegesis has been universally discarded by modern 
scholars. Here may be mentioned the view which 
has been propounded recently by the modern 
eschatological school (Gunkel, Gressmann). They 
regard this passage as a proof-text for a preproph- 
etic eschatology which looked forward to the advent 
of a great ruler, the founder of a world empire. With 
his coming Judah would relinquish his supremacy 
among the tribes. This view fails to explain how 
Judah’s abdication would be a climax of blessing. 
(b) The readings of the ancient versions which 
point to the Hebrew word shelloh (short for ’dsher 
ld, ‘that which is to or for him’). The LXX. reads 
‘until there come that which for he who] is his}; 
the Syriac and some MSS. of the LXX. ‘till he come 
whose it [7.e., scepter] is’ (cf. RVmg.). Consequently, 





843 





we have a prophecy of the Davidic dynasty as 

sovereign in Israel and conqueror of the nations. 

These renderings are not strictly grammatical as 

the text now stands. (c) Till he—.e., Judah—come 

to Shiloh (cf. RVmg.). This is an exact translation 
of the original, and has been adopted by some of 
the greatest modern exegetes. The meaning is that 
after the Conquest Judah will come to Shiloh, the 

- capital of the tribes, and abdicate his position of 

leader which he has held during the wanderings 

and the Conquest. It is taken to refer to an assembly 
of Israel (Jos 18 1-10). The objection to this view 
is that Judah is not known to have occupied such 

a position in that period. It is possible to determine 

only the general significance of the phrase; it is a 

Messianic prophecy in the broad sense, promising 

preeminence to Judah in Israel and the obedience 

of the nations. 

Literature: Briggs, Messianic Prophecy (1886); Driver, 
Book of Genesis, pp. 410-415; Knudson, The Religious 
Teaching of O T, p. 374 (1918); Orelli, O T Prophecy of 
the Consummation of God’s Kingdom (1889); Skinner, 
Genesis (ICC), pp. 521 ff. (1910); Schultz, O T Theology 
(Eng. transl.), vol. ii, pp. 337 ff. SAVIN: 
SHILONI, shai-lo’nai, SHILONITE, Shai’lo-nait 

oe Shi-lo’nait. See Suitog, I. 
SHILSHAH, shil’sha (7Y9v, 

scendant of Asher (I Ch 7 37). 
SHIMEA, shim‘1-2, SHIMEAH, shim’‘-a: 1. 

(ARDY, aon’ ah). A Benjamite (I Ch 8 32), called 

Shimeam in 9 38. 2. (7¥9¥Y, shim‘ah). A brother of 

David (II S 13 3, 32, 21 21 Shimei RV; I Ch 2 13 

Shimma AV, 207), elsewhere called Shammah (IS 

169, etc.). 3. (NY¥RY, shim‘a’). (a) A son of David 

(I Ch 3 5; called Shammua [hJinJI§$ 514). (b) A 

Merarite Levite (I Ch 6 30). (c) A Kohathite 

Levite (I Ch 6 39). 

SHIMEAM, shim’1-am. See Suimna, 1. 
SHIMEATH, ghim‘i-ath (NYY, shim‘ath): An 
Ammonitess, the mother of Jozachar (or of Zabad, 


according to II Ch 24 26), one of the conspirators 
against Joash, King of Judah (II K 12 21) 


SHIMEATHITES, shim’1-ath-aits. A family of 
Scribes, of Kenite descent through ‘Hammath, the 
father of the house of Rechab’ (I Ch 2 55). This 
passage is obscure and its real significance is un- 
certain (see Curtis in ICC, ad loc.). EK. E. N. 


SHIMEI, ghim’1-ai (YY, shime%, also Shimi, 
Ex 6 17 AV): 1. The second son of Gershon (Ex 6 17; 
Nu 3 18, etc.). The Shimeites (Zec 12 13; also 
Shimites, Nu 3 21 AV) are named after him; but 
they were neither a large nor a very coherent body. 
2. A son of Gera, of the house of Saul (II S 16 5 #.), 
a typical malcontent of the tribe of Benjamin during 
the reign of David. 3. A son of Ela and officer under 
Solomon (I K 418). During the last days of David, 
when Adonijah rebelled, he remained faithful to 
David (I K 18). 4. A Ramathite (I Ch 27 27). 5.A 
brother of David (also called Shimeah, II § 21 21). 
6. A brother of Zerubbabel (I Ch 319). 7. A grand- 
son of Simeon (I Ch 4 26). 8. A son of Joel, a 
Reubenite (I Ch 5 4). 9. The ancestral head of one 
of the main subdivisions of the Merarite Levites (I 
Ch 6 29). 10. A son of Jahath, also a Levite, an- 


shilshah): A de- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sheth 
Shinar 





cestor of Asaph (I Ch 6 42, 2517). 11. A Benjamite 
chief (I Ch 8 21, Shimhi AV, and Shema RVmg.). 
12. An assistant superintendent of the treasury un- 
der Hezekiah (II Ch 3112). 13. A Levite of the sons 
of Heman (II Ch 29 14.) 14. A Levite who married 
a foreign wife (Ezr 10 23). 15. One of the ‘sons of 
Hashum’ (Ezr 10 33). 16. One of the ‘sons of 
Bani’ (Ezr 10 38). 17. A Benjamite, ancestor of 
Mordecai (Est 25). 18. See Shimeah 2. 
AL COIL. 

SHIMEON, shim’1-en (iY, shime‘dn): One of 
‘the sons of Harim’ (Ezr 10 31). 

SHIMHI, shim’hai. See SHimMeEt. 


SHIMI, shim’ai or shai’mai, SHIMITE, shim/a1v. 
See SHIMEI. 

SHIMMA, Sshim/a. See SHAMMAH. 

SHIMON, sghai’men (]10’Y, shimén): The head 
of a Judahite family (I Ch 4 20). 

SHIMRATH, shim’roth (17%, 
descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 8 21). 

SHIMRI, ghim’rai ("12¥, shimrz): 1. A Simeonite 
(I Ch 4 37). 2. The father of Jediael, one of David’s 
heroes (I Ch 11 45). 3. A chief of the Merarites and 
head of a family of doorkeepers (I Ch 26 10). 4 
Levite who helped cleanse the Temple in the reign 
of Hezekiah (II Ch 29 13). Oxford 

SHIMRITH, shim’rifh (1°12, shimrith): A Mo- 
abitess (II Ch 24 26); see SHoMER. 

SHIMRON, shim’ran (]11)¥, shimrodn): I. The 
fourth son of Issachar (Gn 46 13; Nu 26 24; I Ch 71), 
and ancestor of the Shimronites (Nu 26 24). II. A 
royal city of the Canaanites (Jos 111). It joined 
the confederacy formed by Jabin, King of Hazor, to 
withstand the advance of the Israelites into the 
region later called Galilee. Its site is a matter of 
conjecture. All that is certain is that it lay in the 
territory later assigned to the tribe of Zebulun, and 
probably in the northern portion of the same (19 15). 
Neubauer, following the Talmud, identifies it with 
the modern Seminieh, 5 m. W. of Nazareth. It has 
an artificial hill with remains of a fortified city. It is 
also identified with es-Semeiriyeh, near Acre. Cf. 
the following article. Cesar, 


SHIMRON-MERON, -mi’ren (17) ])19¥, shim- 
ron-m¢ron, Kethibh; sh-mer’dn, Q*rt)’ A Canaanite 
town W. of the Jordan, conquered by Joshua (Jos 
12 20). It is possible that the names of two towns 


are intended, but it may be the fuller name for 
‘Shimron’ (q.v.). LOTS pan be 


SHIMSHAI, shim’shai, -shé, or -sha-ci (V9, 
shimshay): A Persian official (designated as ‘the 
scribe’) in Syria who with others made complaint to 
Artaxerxes I regarding the rebuilding of the walls 
(not the Temple) of Jerusalem by the Jews, prob- 
ably after Ezra’s arrival and, therefore, c. 450 B.c. 
(Ezr 4 8 ff.) 

SHINAB, ghai’‘nab (ASW, shin’abh): 
Admah (Gn 14 2). 

SHINAR, shai/nar (YW, shin‘ar): This term 
seems originally to have stood for the district of 
Babylon (Gn 11 2,9, 141, 9). Later, it was extended 


shimrath): A 


King of 


Shion 


Shiza A NEW STANDARD 





to include the whole of Babylonia (Gn 10 10; Is 11 
11; Zec 511; Dn 1 2). It has been identified by many 
with Sumer, the ancient name of 8. Babylonia; but 
against this view is the fact that Babylon lay in 
Accad, or N. Babylonia. Others have proposed to 
identify the name with Egypt. Sangar, the Shanhar 
of the Tell el-Amarna letters. See AccaD; and BaBy- 
LONIA, §§ 8, 10, 13. J. F. McC.—L. B. P. 

SHION, ghai’on (Ji8'Y, shi’dn, Shihon AV): A 
city of Issachar (Jos 19 19). Map IV, D 7. 

SHIPHI, shai’fai or shif’ai (¥)Y, shiph‘t): A 
Simeonite (I Ch 4 37). 

SHIPHMITE, shif’mait (22¥, shiphmt): Zabdi 
is called ‘the Shiphmite’ (I Ch 27 27), 7.e., a na- 
tive of Shephem, of Shiphmoth. 

SHIPHRAH, ‘shif’ra (772%, shiphrah): One of 
the two Hebrew midwives mentioned in Ex 1 15. 

SHIPHTAN, shif’ton (182¥, shiphtan): The fa- 
ther of Kemuel, ‘prince’ of Ephraim (Nu 34 24) 

SHIPMASTER, SHIPMEN. See Suips anp 
NavIGATION, § 2. 


SHIPS AND NAVIGATION: 1. Historical. As 
long as the Israelite tribes were limited to the high- 
land of Palestine, they concerned themselves little 
with ships and navigation. The oldest notices (Jg 
517; Gn 49 13) speak only of the smaller tribes Asher 
and Zebulun as having their abode on the coast of 
the sea, and indicate nothing as to their participation 
in navigation. On the other hand, the charge brought 
against Dan in Jg 5 17 is to be understood in the 
sense that the people of this tribe were engaged in 
the service of the Phenician shipowners instead of 
partaking in the holy war in the name of J’. It was 
only when David and Solomon needed the help of 
the Phenicians in their building operations that 
navigation came to have some importance for Israel. 
For the messengers who passed back and forth be- 
tween Tyre and Jerusalem, for the carpenters and 
stone-masons who were sent by Hiram to Jerusalem, 
for the workmen who were sent by Solomon to 
Lebanon, as well as for his contributions of wheat 
and oil to Hiram (II § 5 11; I K 5 1-12, 9 11, 14), 
during the favorable season of the year, the journey 
by sea was more convenient than by land. The 
Chronicler (II Ch 2 2-15; Ez 3 7) supposed that the 
timbers procured from Hiram were brought in rafts 
to Joppa and thence overland to Jerusalem, but 
since the older source (I K 5 9 £.) leaves the choice 
of the port to Solomon, and since this monarch, ac- 
cording to Jg 1 27 f., Jos 17 11, had something to do 
with the well-known harbor Dor, S. of Carmel, it is 
very probable that the trade between him and the 
Phenicians made use of this harbor. The second 
port which was in possession of Solomon and his 
successors (until 845, and, later, until 735) was Elath 
(Eloth, q.v.), on the Red Sea. From this place 
Solomon not only made claim to his share of the 
commerce with Arabia, but from here also he once 
undertook to send an expedition to the gold coast 
of Ophir. The harbor of Dor served him for the 
undertakings which he carried on in common with 
the Phenicians on the Mediterranean. The destin- 
nation of the latter voyages was Tarshish (Lat. 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


844 


Tartessus), that is, the region, famed for its natural 
resources of silver and gold, of the city Tartessos 
at the mouth of the Guadalquivir in southern Spain. 
The two undertakings should be distinguished. It is 
only to the voyage to Tarshish that the three year 
period refers (I K 10 22; II Ch 9 21). In later times 
the harbor of Dor belonged to the Northern King- 
dom, two of whose tribes, Zebulun and Issachar, 
were famed (Dt 33 18 f.) in that they enjoyed the 
treasures of the sea. Consequently, navigation was 
not altogether unknown to both parts of Israel be- 
fore the Exile, and that the case was not otherwise 
with the Jews after the Exile is evidenced in many 
places in the later literature (Jon 1 3 #., where the 
prophet is mentioned as paying a regular fare; Ps 
107 23-32; Pr 31 14; Ee 111; Is 33 21-23). About 145 
B.c. Simon the Hasmonean made Joppa a harbor 
for Judea (I Mac 14 5). The Roman edicts (Jos. 
Ant. XIV, 10) contain many references to the over- 
sea connections of the Jews, and Hyrcanus accused 
his brother Aristobulus before Pompey of being 
guilty of piracy (Ant. XIV, 3 2). In the times of 
Jesus there were many fishing-boats (cAotkere) on 
the Sea of Gennesaret, Josephus making mention of 
330 small boats which he had assembled at Tariches 
(BJ; T2188): 

2. Terminology. The most common word for ship 
in the O T is ’6ni (nomen collectivum), rendered navy 
(‘navy of ships’ RV) in I K 9 26 £., etc., and galley 
in Is 33 21. For a single ship the term is ’éniyyah 
(nomen unitatis). These terms are used as well for 
the little reed or papyrus boats common on the Nile, 
made of bundles of reeds woven together, similar to 
mere floats (Job 9 26; cf. Is 18 2; Pliny, HN, 13 
21 f.; Erman, Aegypten, p. 635 f.), as for the large 
merchant-ships which sailed the open sea (Pr 31 
14; Ezk 27 9; Ps 107 23). The expression ships of 
Tarshish meant originally such ships as made 
voyages to Tarshish (see above, § 1) (I K 10 22; 
II Ch 9 21, 20 35 f.). Then it was used in a wider 
sense for large seagoing ships in general (Is 2 16; 
I K 22 49; Ps 48 8). The word tst, according to 
Spiegelberg (ZDMG, 53, 638), came over into the - 
Canaanite speech from the Egyptian about the 
time of the New Empire. In Nu 24 24, Dn 11 30, 
Is 33 21 (‘gallant ship’ EV) it means war-ships.. In 
Kzk 30 9 it is used of the swift-sailing Nile boats. 
The word s*phinah is found only in Jon 1 5 (here i in 
conjunction with innermost parts) 


Of the different parts of a merchant ship the fol- 
lowing find mention in Ezk 27 1-9a, 25-36: the ‘double 
planks’ (lihdthayim), i.e., the outer and inner 
planks (or boards AV), made of cypress from Mt 
Senir (Hermon); the calkers are mentioned; the 
mast (téren), made of the cedar of Lebanon; the oars: 
(mishshot, ver. 6; mashot, ver. 29), of the oaks of 
Bashan; the deck (geresh, benches EV, possibly 
only a roofing or pavilion for the rear deck), 
of pine (t’ashshir) from the coasts (isles) of 
Kitteeans; and the sail (miphras), of costly 
Egyptian material (shésh, byssus), adorned with 
‘broidered work,’ as was fitting for the wealth of 
Tyre. This decorated sail served also as an ensign 
(nés) for the ship, as, e.g., in the battle of Actium 
the ship of Antony and that of Cleopatra each car- 


















845 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Shion 
Shiza 





ried a purple sail, indicative of its rank as the 
admiral’s ship. Of flags or pennants there is no evi- 
dence on the representations of Phenician ships 
found on the monuments (cf. Layard, Monuments 
of Nineveh, 1853, Plate 71). For protection against 
the rays of the sun, over the after-deck an awning of 
blue or purple material was stretched (ver. 7, 
mikhseh). The shipmen (so I K 9 27) or mariners 
were called in general mallah (Ezk 27 9, 27, 29, cf. 
the Babylonian malahu); the steersmen, shdtim 
(rowers RV), vs. 8, 26; while the term hdbh‘lim 
(pilots EV) originally designated the sailors who 
had to do with the tackling (hebhel, cxevh, both as 
a sing. noun [Ac 27 19], and as the pl. of oxedos). 
The shipmaster (Jon 1 6) was both the owner 
and - sailing-master. 


In the time to which the account of Paul’s voyage 
to Rome belongs (Ac ch. 27 f.) there were sailing- 
ships of considerable size, which carried, in addition 
to the large mainmast, also a foremast at the bow. 
We find no mention of a third mast, that is, mizzen- 
mast. Ships were distinguished as carrying a single 
sail, two sails, or three sails, that is, according as the 
ship had only the original large sail or also a sail 
on the foremast (ketéswyv, foresail Ac 27 40, 
mainsail AV), or, along with these, also the three-cor- 
nered supparum of the Romans above the mainsail. 
The sails with their accompanying yards, etc., are 
all comprehended under the term gear (oxeGoc, Ac 
27 17). On the stern (xebuvy), alongside of the flag- 
staff which carried the pennant, probably stood 
images of deity (Wis 14 1). The bowhead was 
shaped so as to represent the sign of the ship 
(xaekonwov, Ac 28 11), which in the case of the ship 
used by Paul, consisted in the image of the Dioscuri 
(twin brothers) Castor and Pollux. The rudders 
(c& mnd&Xt«) hung by straps or ropes from the after- 
part of the ship. There the steersman (xuGeovqtnes, 
master, Ac 27 11; cUO0dvwy, governor AV, Ja 3 4) sat 
and held the rudder or helm with his right hand, 
consequently the distinction was made between the 
starboard (the steering-board) and the larboard (the 
‘empty’ board). When the steering-oar was not 
used, as, for example, when the ship was in harbor 
or at times in a storm, it was made fast either on 
the side of the ship or on deck (Ac 27 40). For 
holding the ship at anchor originally large stones 
were used, but in Roman times small anchors, of 
which usually several were carried on board (Ac 
27 29f.). The seams of the ship were calked, if the 
rendering calkers (Ezk 27 9, 27) is correct. But 
the term probably means only ‘ship’s carpenter.’ It 
was customary, when necessary, to sound the depth 
of the water by means of a lead or other weight 
attached to a line (Ac 27 28) 


3. Navigation as a Science. On the basis of 
records of observations, navigators’ coast- and 
sailing-charts (pertplus, stadiasmus) were con- 
structed. Through long experience sailors learned to 
estimate correctly distances and the speed of a 
ship, but when on the open sea they were able to 
ascertain their direction and the place where they 
were only by means of the stars, consequently only 
with a clear sky (Ac 27 20). Asa result, navigation 
was carried on, as a rule, only from spring to fall 


(cf. the mention of the ‘fast’ in Ac 27 9, by which 
is meant the fasts connected with the great Day of 
Atonement in the fall, Lv 16 29, 23 26 £.). Sailors 
were acquainted with and made use of the currents, 
é.g., Paul’s ship which worked northward from 
Sidon with a contrary W. wind, in order to be car- 
ried westward by the coast stream which flows 
through the sea near Cilicia and Pamphylia N. of 
Cyprus (Ac 27 4 £.). As in Ezk 27 26 the E. wind is 
mentioned as destructive of the large ships upon the 
open sea, so in Ac 2714 it is the eveaxtAwy (‘Eura- 
quilo’), the ENE. wind, that proved dangerous to 
the ship of Paul. By the expression ‘they used 
helps undergirding the ship’ (Ac 27 17), we are to 
understand either, with Breusing, that strong cables 
were placed around the ship lengthwise fromstem 
to stern above the water-line; or, with Balmer, that 
the cables were placed under the keel amidships 
and thus encircled the vessel. Another way of 
girding the ship was, according to T. A. Késter, used 
by the Egyptians. 


LiTERATURE: See illustrations of ancient ships in Erman, 
Aegypten und aegyptisches Leben im Altertum (1885); Layard, 
Monuments of Nineveh, Plate 71 (1848, 1853); Cecil Toor, 
Ancient Ships (1894); T. A. Koster, Das antike Seewesen 
(1923); on Ac ch. 27 f. cf. Béckh, Urkunden tiber das See- 
wesen des attischen Staats (1840); J. Smith, Voyage and 
Shipwreck of St. Paul (1866); A. Breusing, Die Nautik der 
Alien (1886); A Balmer, Die Romfahrt des Apostels Paulus 
und die Seefahriskunde im rim. Kaiserzeitalier (1905). H. G. 


SHISHA, shaisha. See SHAVSHA. 


SHISHAK, shai’shak (PW'Y, shishaq): The Mas- 
soretic spelling for ‘Sheshonk’ I, the founder of 
the 22d Egyptian dynasty, who, after having be- 
friended Jeroboam (I K 11 40), invaded Palestine, 
c. 926 B.c. He not only sacked Jerusalem (I K 
14 25; II Ch 12 2-9), but ravaged both the Northern 
and Southern Kingdoms. Sheshonk later built 
the great court of the Karnak temple (at Thebes), 
upon whose walls 156 Palestinian towns are repre- 
sented as paying him tribute. See Breasted, Hist. 
Egypt (1905), pp. 527-531. See also Eaypr, § 10; 
PHARAOH (6). L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


SHITRAI, shit-ré’ai -ré, shit/rai, or -ra-ai (719, 
shitray, but ’2¥, shirtay, should probably be read): 
One of David’s overseers (I Ch 27 39). 


SHITTAH, shit’a, SHITTAH-TREE and -WOOD. 
The Acacia (the tree and the wood from it). See 
PALESTINE, § 21. 

SHITTIM, shit’im (0°8Y, shittim), ‘acacias’: The 
camping place of the Israelites before they crossed 
the Jordan (Nu 25 1; Jos 21, 31; Mi65). The 
identification, Map II, H 5 is probably right. . 

SHITTIM, VALE OF (2°8¥7 9m nahal hash- 
shittim), ‘torrent-valley [or ravine] of the acacias’ 
(Jl 3 18): Some dry, thirsty valley where acacias (a 
desert plant) were known to flourish is meant, pos- 
sibly the Kidron (cf. Ezk 47 8 ff.), and not, probably, 
the old camping-ground of Israel E. of the Jordan 
(Nu 25 1, etc.). See Driver in Camb. Bible, ad loc. 

EK. E. N. 

SHITTIM-WOOD. See Surrran. 

SHIZA, ghai’za (SPY, shizd’): The father of 
Adina, a Reubenite chieftain (I Ch 11 42) 


Shoa 
Signet 





SHOA, gho’a (YW, shda‘): The name of a people, 
probably the Sutd of the Assyrian inscriptions (Ezk 
23 23), E. of the Tigris. 

SHOBAB, sho’/bab (321%, shdbhabh), ‘rebellious’: 
1. A son of David (II 8 514; 1 Ch 35, 144). 2. A 
Calebite family or clan (I Ch 2 is). 

SHOBACH, sho’bak (421%, shdbhakh): A captain 
of Hadadezer, King of Zobah. He led the Syrian 
forces against David, and was slain with many others 
at Helam, E. of the Jordan (II 8 10 16, 18; cf. 1 Ch 
19 16, 18, where he is called Shophach). C.S. T 

SHOBAI, sho-bé’ai, shd’bé, or shd’ba-ai (AY, 
shdbhay): The ancestor of a family of porters (Hzr 
2 42; Neh 7 45). 

SHOBAL, gho’bel (?35¥, shabhal): 1. The ances- 
tral head of a clan of Horites (Gn 36 20-23), spoken 
of also as a clan-chief (ver. 29). 2. A Calebite clan 
inhabiting Kiriath-jearim (I Ch 2 50, 52). 3. The 
ancestral head of a clan of Judah (I Ch 41 f£.). 
Probably 2 and 3 refer to the same person or clan. 

SHOBEK, sho’bek (P21¥, shdbhéq): One who 
signed the covenant in the time of Nehemiah (Neh 
10 24). 

SHOBI, ¢sho’bai (AY, shdbhi): A son of Nahash, 
an Ammonite king of Rabbah. With Machir and 
Barzillai he brought furnishings and food to David, 
who had fled from Absalom to Mahanaim (II 8 
17 27 £.). Rabbah had been taken by David (II S 
12 29 £.), and it is possible that he had made Shobi 
viceroy of Ammon (so H. P. Smith, ad loc.). S. A. 
Cook (AJSL, xvi, p. 164 f.) reads ‘Nahash... 
brought,’ omitting ‘Shobi, the son of,’ and places 
II S 17 27 before chs. 10-12. Ry sigs! 

SHOCO, SCHOCHO, sho’ko, SHOCHOH, sho- 
kd. See Soco. 

SHOE. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 7. 

SHOHAM, gho’ham (57%, shoham), ‘beryl’ (?); 
ef. Gn 212, Heb. and see Stonzs, Precious, § 2 (11): 
The ancestral head of a family of Merarite Levites 
(I Ch 24 27). 

SHOMER, sho/mer (12¥ and: 121%, shomér), 
‘keeper’ (?): 1. The head of an Asherite family or 
clan (I Ch 7 32, called Shemer [Shamer AY] in ver. 
34). 2. The father of one of the conspirators against 
King Joash (II K 12 21); in II Ch. 24 26 it is the 
mother, called Shimrith, and designated a Moabitess, 


who is mentioned, perhaps to show the evil results of | 


intermarriage with foreign women. 
SHOPHACH, shoéfak. See SHopacu. 
SHOPHAN, sho’fen. See ATROTH-SHOPHAN. 
SHOSHANNIM, sho-shan’1im, SHOSHANNIM- 

EDUTH, -‘iduth. See Music, § 6. 

: airy See Tempe, § 16; and TaBERNACLE, 


SHOWBREAD. See SacriFicr AND OFFERINGS, | 


§ 13. 


SHRINES: The rendering of the Gr. vaot, ‘tem- 
ples’ in Ac 19 24. Miniature reproductions of the 
facade of the Artemisium or Temple of Diana, 
usually of terra-cotta, but also of marble and of 
silver, representing Artemis seated in the pronaos 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 



















































846 


holding her symbols (tympanum, phiale) in her 
hands and with a lion (lions) beside her. The more 
artistic ‘temples’ omitted the symbols, and depicted 
the goddess caressing a lion which climbs to her 
knee or lies in herlap. Such ‘temples’ (see Athenische 
Mititheilungen, II, Plate III, p. 49) were dedicated 
by pilgrims in the temple, or taken home and placed 
on the graves of beloved dead. J. R.S.S.*—S. A. 

SHROUD: The word horesh, rendered ‘shroud’ 
(Ezk 31 3 AV), means ‘forest’ (cf. RV), but the 
text here is uncertain. 

SHUA, sht’a, SHUAH, shii’a, SHUHITE, sht’- 
hait: 1. (YW, shia‘). A Canaanite (clan?) whose 
‘daughter’ Judah took for a wife (Gn 38 2, 12; I Ch 
23). 2. (SY, sha‘a@’). An Asherite clan (I Ch 7 32). 
3. (MY, shiiah). A ‘son’ of Keturah, 7.e., an Arabian 
tribe (Gn 25 2; I Ch 1 32; see also Job 2 11, 81, etc.). 
See also ErHNOGRAPHY AND ETHNOLOGY, $18. 4. 
See SHuRAH. 

SHUAL, ghi’al (YW, sha‘al), ‘fox’: I. A de- 
scendant of Asher (I Ch 7 36). II. The ‘land of 
Shual’ (I § 18 17) was a district N. of Michmash in 
the direction of Ophrah. See Map III, F 4. 

SHUBAEL, shi’ba-el. See SHEBUEL. 

SHUHAH, shi’/ha (771, shahah, Shueh AV): A 
name in the genealogy of Judah (I Ch 411). 

SHUHAM, shi’ham, SHUHAMITE, shii’hem-ait. 
See HusHim. 

SHUHITE, shi’hait. See SHuaw and Brupap. 

SHULAMITE, ghilem-ait (MP2, shilammith, — 
‘native of Shulem,’ by which, perhaps, Shunem ~ 


(q.v.) is meant: Apparently the Shunammite women ~ 
(Song 6 13) were noted for their beauty (cf. I K 1 3). 

SHUMATHITES, shi’mofth-aits (NY, shi- 
matht): One of the leading families of Kiriath- 
jearim (I Ch 2 53). 

SHUNAMMITE, shit’nom-ait (MPRY, shanam- — 
mith), ‘a woman of Shunem’: 1. Abishag, David’s — 
nurse (I K 1 3, etc.). 2. A woman of wealth, who — 
showed great kindness to Elisha. The narrative 
(II K 4 8-37) throws light on many details of social — 
life in ancient Israel. Some time after the events 
there narrated the woman left Israel during a fam- — 
ine, and in her absence her property was seized by — 
others. Upon her return, the king ordered it all — 
restored to her, being influenced thereto mainly by — 
the fact of her former friendly relations with Elisha — 
(II K 8 1-8). HK. E. N. @ 

SHUNEM, shti’nem (92%, shainém): A town as- 
signed to Issachar (Jos 19 18), and the place where — 
the Philistines encamped before their victory over — 
Saul in Mount Gilboa (I S 28 4). The modern name ~ 
of the place is Silem (the interchange of n and lt 
being not uncommon), which is situated on the SW. — 
slope of Jebel Dahi (Little Hermon), about 5 m. S. of - 
Tabor and 3 m. N. of Jezreel. Map IV, C8. The view ~ 
from the gardens above the village is extensive. 
The Shulamite, the heroine of the Song of Songs — 
(6 13), probably came from Shunem; indeed, she ~ 
may have been identical with Abishag mentioned in 
I K 13 f. Probably, at this same Shunem also 
Elisha found his kindly hostess the ‘great woman’ 


847 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Shoa 
Signet 





of II K 4 8, tho her home has been located by 
Eusebius and Jerome (Onom. 295, 86; 153, 18) 
‘within the border of Sebaste in the region of 
Acrabattine’—.e., in Samaria. Galas at 


SHUNI, shi’nai, SHUNITE, shi’/nait (2, shi- 
ni): The ancestral head of the Shunites (Nu 26 15), 
a clan of Gad (Gn 46 16). 


SHUPHAM, shi’fam, SHUPHAMITE, shti’fam- 
ait. See SHEPHUPHAM. 


SHUPPIM, shop’pim. See Muprrm. 


SHOR, shir or shir (3, shir), ‘wall’: A desert 
district on the NE. border of Egypt (1S 157, 27 8), 
where the angel found Hagar (Gn 167). Abraham 
dwelt between 8. and Kadesh (Gn 20 1), and con- 
tiguous to S. was the territory occupied by the 
Ishmaelites (25 18), into which the Israelites entered 


after crossing the Red Sea (Ex 15 22). It received | 


its name very probably from the wall across the 
isthmus, which in very early times was constructed 
by the Egyptians as a defense against their Asiatic 
foes. Ge Tak. 

SHUSHAN, shii’shan (#1, shiishan): The an- 
cient capital of Elam (later Susiana), the Susa of 
the Greek historians (cf. Add. to Est. 11 3). Its con- 
venient and central location gave it an advantage 
in the race for the first place among the cities E. of 
. Babylonia. As early as the 23d cent. B.c. it is 
referred to as already in existence (‘the old city’). 
The old Susa was practically destroyed by Asshur- 
banipal (c. 645 8.c.). It was restored and made a 
royal residence by Darius I of Persia (522-484) 
who made it one of the three royal residences 
of the Persian monarchs (Xenoph. Cyrop. VIII, 6 22; 
Herod. III, 30, 65, 70), the others being Persepolis 
and Ecbatana (cf. Ezr 6 2). The palace of S. is 
mentioned in Dn 82. The story of Esther, placed as 
it is in the days of Xerxes (‘Ahasuerus,’ 486-465), is 
also enacted in this palace (Est 1 2-7). Alexander 
the Great made a triumphal entry into S. (Arrian, 
Exp. Alex. III, 16), but under his successors the 
city dwindled away and fell into ruin. The site was 
excavated by Loftus (Chaldea and Susiana, 1857). 
Cf. also Dieulafoy, La Perse, la Chaldée et la Susiane 
(1887); L’ Acropole de Suse (1890); Billerbeck, Susa 
(1893). The Shushanchites (Ezr 49, Susanchites 
AV) were colonists from Shushan, transported by 
Asshurbanipal (‘Osnappar’) to Samaria. A. C. Z. 

SHUSHANCHITE, shu-ghan’kait (S!2WW, shi- 
shankhdyé |[Aram.], Susanchite AV): Colonists in 
Syria whose original home was Shushan (q.v.) 
(Ezr 4 9b-10a, a later gloss, the original text con- 
taining only vs. 7-92 and 10b.) E. E. N. 

SHUSHAN-EDUTH, shi’’shon-i’duth. See Mv- 
sic, § 6. 

SHUTHELAH, shu-thila or shi’th-la (M2000, 
shithelah): 1. Ancestral head of the Shuthelaites 
(Shuthalhites AV), aclan of Ephraim (Nu 26 35 £.; 
I Ch 7 20). 2. An Ephraimite family (I Ch 7 21). 

SHUTTLE. See Artizan Lirs, § 12. 

SIA, sai’e, SIAHA, sai’a-ha (SYD, s7‘dha@’ [Ezr], 
8Y°D, st‘a’ [Neh]): The ancestral head of a family of 
Nethinim (Ezr 2 44; Neh 7 47). 


SIBBECAI, SIBBECHAI, sib’1-ké’ai or -ké (230, 
sibbekhay): One of David’s heroes, a Hushathite, 
who slew a giant (II 8 21 18; I Ch 11 29, 20 4) andan 
officer in his army (I Ch 27 11). He is wrongly 
called Mebunnai (corrupt text for ‘of the sons of’) 
in ITS 23 27. See Husuan. 

SIBBOLETH, sib’o-lefh. See SHrBBOLETH. 

SIBMAH, sib’ma (793, sibhmah): A city of 
Moab, assigned to Reuben (Nu 32 3 [here called 
Sebam, Shebam AV], 33 [Shibmah AV]; Jos 13 19); 
it was famous for its vintage (Is 16 8,9; Jer 48 32). 
The site on Map II, J 1 may be too far north. 

SIBRAIM, sib-ré’um or sib’raam (87730, sibh- 
rayim): A city on the (ideal) NE. border of Israel 
(Ezk 47 16). Site unknown. 

SICHEM, sai’‘kem. See SHECHEM. 


SICK, SICKNESS. See Diszaszk anp MEptI- 
CINE. 

SICKLE. See AGricuLruRB, § 6. 

SIDDIM, sid’im (O°1¥, siddim), VALE OF: A 
placed mentioned only in Gn 14 3-10, where it is said 
to have been full of bitumen pits (ver. 10) and 
apparently is identified with the Dead Sea (ver. 3). 
The reference, however, may be only to the southern 
part of the sea, below the peninsula el-Lisdn, where 
the water is very shallow (less than 11 ft. deep, as 
against 1,310 ft. in the northern basin). It is 
possible that this end of the Dead Sea may have 
been dry land in the time of Chedorlaomer and 
Abram, or at least a salt marsh, like the present es- 
Sebkha just to the south. See Dmap Sra and Pat- 
ESTINE, § 12 (b), and cf. the illuminating excursus in 
Driver’s Genesis, pp. 168-173. L.G.L.—L.B.P. 


SIDES: The rendering of the pl. of the Heb. 
yarkah (Jon 1 5 AV). The RV rendering ‘inner- 
most parts’ is much more accurate. 


SIDON, sai’den. See ETHNOGRAPHY AND ETH- 
NOLOGY, § 13; and Z1pon. 

SIEGE, SIEGE-WORKS. See BzsiInce. 

SIEVE. The correct rendering of 1929, k¢bharah 
in Am 99. See illustration in Plate of Agricultural 
Instruments (No. 7). Néaphah in Is 30 28 is more 
general in meaning and may signify one of several 
winnowing implements (root-idea ‘to shake’). See 
AGRICULTURE, § 7. 


SIGN. See WonpeErR; and SuHips anp NaAviGca- 
TION, § 2. 

SIGNET: In antiquity, when the art of writing 
was confined to professional scribes, the signet per- 
formed the important function of authenticating all 
documents whether public or private. Archeolo- 
gists have recovered numerous specimens of those 
used in Babylonia and Egypt; some of these signets 
have been referred to as early a date as 4500 B.c. 
The Egyptian signet was in the form of a scarab, 
while the Babylonians preferred the cylindrical 
shape. The first mention in the O T is in the story 
of Judah and Tamar, where it serves as a pledge (Gn 
38 18, 25[J]). The Hebrew signet was either oval or 
conical in shape; sometimes the stone was set in a 
ring, at other times worn around the neck on a cord, 
as is the case with the modern Arab. Some had a 


Sihon 
Simon 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


848 


er seamrsea a: yumncenene ne REUIDEIEITINGISSARTSODAI SE SOURIS SUSE GRETHESESUSERSRSTSPSL WETIiGE, Sak AL aan TE SE STS SSS SS GST 


simple inscription of the owner’s name, others were 
ornately decorated. In the excavations at Gezer 
many specimens of scarabs have been recovered, and 
some rude Canaanitish seals, as well as jar handles 
stamped with Hebrew seals. The materials were 
various—amethyst, crystal, steatite, glass, paste, etc. 
See also Seat, and for illustration, Dress anp 
OrnaMENTS, IT, § 1. JASE: 
SIHON, sai’hen (]10, JD, sthon): A king of the 
Amorite kingdom between the Arnon and the Jab- 
bok (Nu 21 21; Dt 1 4, 2 26 £., etc.); also called king 
of Heshbon, his capital city (Dt 2 30; Nu 21 26, etc.). 
‘Sihon’ is used as parallel to ‘Heshbon’ (Nu 21 28; 
Jer 48 45). He refused to let the Israelites pass 
through his kingdom, and as a result was slain at 
Jahaz, and Israel took possession of his territory 
(Nu 21 21 #.). In Nu 21 26 it is said that S. con- 
quered his kingdom from Moab, and an old poem 
is quoted in the following vs. (27-30) as commem- 
orating this conquest. This passage, however, 
probably refers to a conquest of Moab by Israel 
at a later date. OAT eM be 


SIHOR, sai’/hér. See Nizez. 


SILAS, sai’leas, SILVANUS, sil-vé’nus (2tiac, 
XtAouev6c): A companion and friend of Paul. The 
original name was probably Silas, a word of Semitic, 
not Greek, origin (cf. CISem. II, No. 101, shilz; also, 
in Palmyrene inscriptions, sh’ild). Only this form 
of the name is found in Ac (15 22 ff., 1619 f.,174£., 
18 5). But there is little doubt as to the identity of 
Silas with the Silvanus of Paul’s Epistles, since the 
two play almost exactly the same réle in the second 
missionary journey (cf. Ac 174 f., 185 with I Th11 
and II Co 119). If, as seems to be the case, Silas is 
included in the ‘we’ (us) of Ac 16 37 f. he was a Roman 
citizen, and Silvanus, like Paulus, may have been 
an adopted name. He seems to have been one of the 
leading men (jyobyevos, Ac 15 22) in the Jerusalem 
church, which accounts for his having been sent with 
Judas Barsabbas as a messenger to the churches in 
Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia (Ac 15 23-28). It may 


have been Silas’ familiarity with the details of the | 


history of the Palestinian church that led Paul to 
take Silas with him on the second missionary journey 
(Ac 15 40). Silas possessed prophetic gifts (cf. Ac 
15 34 [according to D], 32, 17 15 [according to D)). 
Whether the Silvanus ‘through whom’ the author of 
I P wrote (I P 5 12) is to be identified with the com- 
panion of Paul depends upon conclusions as to the 
date and authorship of this Epistle (see Prermr, First 
EPISTLE OF). ARB Ceol bs 


SILK: (1) The Heb. meshi (Ezk 16 10, 13) means 
‘silk’ according to rabbinic tradition, otherwise its 
exact meaning is unknown. In any case, it must 
have been cloth of fine texture. (2) On Pr 31 22, 
see FinE Linen. (3) In the N T ceetxdy (Rev 18 12) 
is the classic word for silk (from Xo, the people of 
India who first supplied the West with silk). See 
also DrEss AND ORNAMENTS, § 5. E. E. N. 


SILLA, sil’a (x20, silla@’): A place near Jerusalem 
(II K 12 20). Site unknown. 


SILOAH, s1-l6’a, or sil’o-a, SILOAM, SILOAM, 
POOL OF. See JERuSALEM, § 13. 


SILOAM, s1-l6’em or sil’o-am, INSCRIPTION: 
An inscription in the old Heb. script (discovered in 
1880) recording the completion of the underground 
conduit from Gihon to the Pool of Siloam. It is 
incised into the E. wall of the tunnel about 25 ft. 
from its exit at the Pool of Siloam. It is generally 
held that it dates from the reign of Hezekiah (cf. 
II Ch 32 4, 30). For a transcription of this inscrip- 
tion see ALPHABET and for the translation see 
JERUSALEM, § 34. E. E. N. 

SILVANUS. See Sivas. 

SILVER. See Merats, § 2, and Monry. 

SILVERLING. See Monpy, $1. 

SIMEON, sim’‘1-on; in the O T ]i¥2Y (shime‘dn), 
‘heard’; in the N T Xtu.cv (also Symeon, Dupedy, in RV 
of Lk 3 30; Ac 131, 1514): 1. The O T Patriarch and 
the tribe named after him (Gn 29 33, etc.). See TRIBE, 
Tripss, §§ 2-4. 2. One of the ancestors of Jesus (Lk 
3 30). 
also the name of the Apostle Peter (Ac 15 14; II P 
11insome MSS). 4. Aspiritually minded man who, 
according to the infancy narrative (Lk 2 22-39), was 
supernaturally illumined, and thus empowered to 
recognize in the child Jesus the expected Redeemer 
of Israel. His conception of the true work of the 
Messiah was clearly molded by the picture of the 
servant of J” in Is 42 7 and 52 12-53 13. This he 
embodies in the poetic address known in liturgical 
lore as the Nunc Dimittis, and in the supplementary 
words to Mary (ver. 34). S. was one of the ‘Pious,’ 
who were ‘looking for the consolation of Israel.’ 
They almost constituted a party at this time, tho 
unlike the Zealots, they were without political aims 
and, submissive to the will of Jehovah (and they 
were spoken of frequently as ‘the meek,’ ‘the hum- 
ble’), they waited for His salvation. This devout 
element had persisted in Israel from the time of the 
earlier prophets (Am 2 6), altho it finds recognition 
especially in the Psalms and later prophets (Ps 22 26, 
35 10, 68 10; Is 41 17), where the ‘poor’—~7.e., the godly 
poor—tho grievously oppressed by a cruel aristoc- 
racy or a foreign enemy and forming only a small 
minority, represent the ideal Israel, and hope for 
speedy deliverance by Jehovah. See also MEEK. 
5. An aggressive member of the first Christian com- 
munity, mentioned among the prophets and teachers 
(Ac 13 1), who bore also the surname ‘Niger.’ He is 
numbered by Epiphanius (1:337) among the seventy- 
two disciples. R.A. F.(§ 4)—A. C. Z. (§§ 1-3, 5) 


SIMON (Xtuwy): 1. Simon Peter, see Perzr. 2. 
Simon the Cananzan, one of the Twelve, see Can- 
ANZAN. 3. One of Jesus’ brethren (Mt 13 55=Mk 
63). 4. A leper in Bethany (Mk 143). 5. A Cyre- 
nian, who was compelled to bear Jesus’ cross (Mk 
15 21 and |/s). 6. A Pharisee in whose house Jesus 
was anointed by a woman (Lk736¢f.). 7. Simon 
Iscariot the father of Judas, the betrayer of Jesus 
(Jn 6 71, 13 26). 8. A tannerat Joppa with whom 
Peter lodged (Ac 9 43, etc.). 9. A sorcerer of 
Samaria; see Simon Maaus. 


SIMON, sai’mon or -men [MAGUS], mé’gus 
(Xtuwr[Mdyoc]): An important figure in' the heretical 
history of the early Church. In the earliest sources 
(Ac and Justin Martyr) he is called simply Simon; 


3. An alternate form of ‘Simon, which was 





849 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sihon 
Simon 





‘Magus’ is a later addition used to distinguish, this 
Simon from others having the same name (¢.g., 
Simon Peter). 

1. In the N T. The earliest reference to S. is 
found in Ac 8 9-24. Here he is mentioned incident- 
ally,! the passage being merely an episode in connec- 
tion with the story of the spread of the gospel in 
Samaria. The essential points in the description of 
S. in Ac are (1) the strong influence which he exerted 
upon the Samaritans,? and (2) his practise of magic 
(uayedwy, ver. 9). Opinion concerning him (ostensi- 
bly Samaritan opinion) is crystallized in the phrase, 
This man is that power of God which is called 
great.’ ‘Power of God’ is hardly to be understood in 
a Gnostic sense, as by the Church Fathers (see § 2, 
below), as if it implied a claim to divinity on the part 
of S.; it gives rather the impression made by his 
words, 7.e., they are such as seem to be wrought by 
the power of God. This is the usage elsewhere in the 
N T (cf. Mt 13 54; Mk 65; Jn passim). The phrase 
that follows, ‘which is called Great,’ may be one of 
those explanations of which Luke is fond (cf. Ac 1 
19, 911, 101, 27 14), or it may be an attempted trans- 
lation, or even a transliteration (so Klostermann, 
Probleme im A posteltezte, pp. 15 ff.), of an Aramaic 
(or Samaritan) word, possibly one of S.’s esoteric 
names’ (cf. ver. 9, Aéywv elvat tiv éeutdy wéyav, and 
see Bar-JEsus). While the passage in Ac is too 
episodical to enable us to draw conclusions as to the 
nature of the teaching of S., the connection of the 
same with the profession and practise of magic is 
beyond question, if indeed this be not the reason for 
its introduction by the writer.4 

2. In the Church Fathers. Overmuch dependence 
is not to be placed upon the statements of Justin 
Martyr (Apol. I, 26, 56; Dial. 120). (1) His purpose 
is rhetorical (cf. Apol. I, 26). (2) In one particular 
at least Justin is known to be in error. The statue 
in the Tiber to which he refers in A pol. I, 26, was not 
one dedicated to Simon Magus by imperial decree, 
but probably one dedicated by a private individual 
to the Sabine god, Semo Sancus. It is likely that 
Justin’s mention of a Roman visit by Simon was sug- 
gested by the statue, and is without basis in fact. 
On the other hand, it must be admitted that Justin’s 
account contains statements about the Samaritan 
Simon which there is no good reason to question, 





1¥For this reason Schmiedel (EB, art. Simon Magus) is 
wrong when he makes the writer’s failure to complete the 
history of Simon an argument against the genuineness of the 
passage in Ac. 

2 It will be noted that the term used is €0voc, not m6Ats 
(ver. 1), as if the influence of 8. were more than local. For 
the presence of Samaritan magic in Egypt, compare the 
alleged letter of Hadrian to Servianus (Vopiscus, Vita Sat- 
urnini, ch. 8). 

3 The use of this term in magical formulas is evidenced. 
An interesting parallel to Ac 8 9%, cited by Deissmann, Bible 
Studies, p. 336 (2d Eng. ed.), is found in Pap. Par. Bibl. nat. 1, 
1275 f. (Wessely, I, 76), where the following is found in what 
seems to be a love incantation: émtxaAoduat oe tiy werylo- 
syy dSévauty thy év TH odpav® (v. Ll. thy év tH Kextw) ord 
xuptou Qed tetayévyy. 

4 Luke shows a tendency to bring the gospel and its repre- 
sentatives into victorious conflict with magicians and their 
arts, notably in the case of Sceva (q.v.) in Ac 19 ™ (cf. Ram- 
say, St. Paul, p. 271 f.). Elsewhere also he shows himself 


familiar with the technical language of magic (cf. mve0Ua | 


xbOwva, Ac 16 16; meplepya, Ac 19 1), 


especially in view of Justin’s own Samaritan origin. 
Thus, Gitta (Justin, [ttréy), the name of the native 
village of S., Helene, the name of his wife, and 
Menander, one of his followers, suggest actual tradi- 
tion. (3) Justin’s representation of the teaching of S. 
is hardly consistent with the statements of Ac. He 
represents S. as worshiped as the ‘first God’ (6 
me@tosg Gedo, Apol. I, 26) and described as ‘God 
above every principality and authority and power’ 
(Dial. 120). These are clearly Gnostic terms, not 
the language of magic like that of Ac. The use of 
the former by Justin is natural in view of the fact 
that he himself wrote a treatise against all heresies 
(Apol. I, 26). While his account is based upon 
actual traditions, it is undoubtedly colored by his 
own antiheretical tendencies. 


Irenzus’ notice of S. (Adver. Her. I, 23) is very 
little more than an expansion in the light of 2d-cent. 
Gnosticism of Justin’s account, which is apparently 
quoted (dictur) in connection with the supposed 
statue in honor of 8. In Irenzus, S.’s wife, Helene, 
becomes the Gnostic %vvotz, the eon dwelling in 
humanity. S. is no longer represented as claiming 
to be merely the supreme God, ‘who descends in 
Samaria as the Father,’ but also the delivering eon, 
who ‘descends among the Jews as the Son.’ He is 
represented as the founder of a sect called Simonians, 
who are charged with practise of magic and immoral- 
ity. Hegesippus (Hus. HE, IV, 22 4), Tertullian 
(De Anima, 34 1), Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 
VII, 17), Origen (Contra Celsum, V, 62), Eusebius 
(HE, II, 13 14), add practically nothing new, but 
Hippolytus (Refut. V, 14) gives what purport to be 
quotations from a work by S. concerning ‘the Great 
Revelation.’ A complete Gnostic system is ascribed 
to him, which Hippolytus declares to have been the 
starting-point of the system of Valentinus. From 
these passages it is clear, (1) that there existed in the 
2d cent. a sect calling themselves Simonians, and 
(2) that the origin of this sect was traced back, not 
only by writers on heresy, but by the sect itself to one 
S., and (3) that remnants of this sect seem to have 
survived to Origen’s time, altho at this date it had 
practically disappeared (Contra Celsum, I, 57). For 
the possible relation of this S. to the S. of Ac 8 9-24, 
see below, § 4. 


3. In Gnostic and Ebionitic Literature. A some- 
what different representation of S. meets us in the 
so called Gnostic Acts and the Ebionitic literature of 
the 3d and 4th cents. In the Acta Petri cum Simone 
we have a fanciful representation of a contest be- 
tween Peter and S. before the Emperor Nero, but 
this takes place after Paul’s departure from Rome. 
In the Acts of Peter and of Paul, Paul appears as the 
companion of Peter. There is nothing in these Acts 
to indicate opposition between Peter and Paul 
(against Schmiedel in HB, art. Simon Magus, who 
makes S. and Paul identical). On the other hand, 
in the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, Paulin- 
ism is clearly attacked under the guise of a contest 
between Peter and 8. (cf. Letter of James, prefixed to 
the Homilies, ch. 2; Recog. I, 70). But there are 
other passages (cf. especially the history of S. given 
in Recog. VII-X VIII) which can not be explained 
as concealed references to Paul. The most natural 


Simple 
Sin 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


850 





explanation is that the attack on Paulinism, while 
real, is incidental to the main object of the work, viz., 
a romantic description of its hero Peter (against 
Baur, Trib. Zeitschr. 1831, p. 116 f.; Lipsius, Die 
apok. Apostelgesch. 1883; Schmiedel, loc. cit.). 


4. Critical Conclusions. There is no sufficient reason for 
doubting the historical character of S. On the other hand, 
it may well be questioned whether his relation to 2d-cent. 
Gnosticism is that claimed by Hippolytus and Irenzus (see 
Gnosticism). S. was confessedly a Samaritan, but all that 
we know of Samaritan religious conceptions from the his- 
torians and later liturgies (cf. Cowley, Samaritan Conceptions 
of the Messiah, Expositor March, 1895, pp. 161-174) is remote 
from the teachings of 2d-cent. Gnosticism. The Messiah in 
Samaritan conception was simply the ‘revealer’ (Jn 4 ») or 
‘restorer,’ ia’ebh, not the ‘great God’ (Justin, Apol. I, 26), 
or ‘standing one’ (Clement of Alex., Strom. II, 11; Hippolytus, 
Refut. VI, 4). Neither are the patristic representations of S. 
as the founder of Gnosticism self-consistent. While all sorts 
of Gnostic teachings are attributed to him, it is noteworthy 
that in all the representations of the sect of Simonians only 
their practise of magical arts and rites are spoken of (cf. 
Justin, Apol. I, 26; Ireneus, Adv. Her, I, 23; Hippolytus, 
Refut. VI, 15; Celsus, quoted by Origen, Contra Cel. I, 62). 
It is not an infrequent occurrence for those writing against 
heresy, and even for heretical sects themselves, arbitrarily to 
connect their teachings with well-known personalities. A case 
in point is that of Nicolaus in Ac 6 5, who, without sufficient 
reason, is made the founder of the sect of Nicolaitans (Rev 
2 6, 15; cf. Irenzeus, Adv. Her. I, 26; Hippolytus, Refut. VII, 


1, 24); notably also Cerinthus, whose original propaganda had | 


little or nothing todo with Gnosticism. In the same way, the 


name of the Samaritan S. might have been easily associated with | 
a heretical Gnosticsect, particularlyifa sect known as Simonians | 


actually existed in the 2d cent. Or it is even possible that a 


purely magical sect, such as might have arisen from the con- | 
ditions suggested in Ac ch. 8, afterward developed along | 
But at the time of Ac ch. 8 this development | 


Gnostic lines. 
had certainly not yet begun. 


Literature: In addition to works already mentioned, con- 


sult Lipsius, Apok. Apostelgesch. (1887); for a more con- | 


servative view, Headlam, art. Simon Magus in HDB. 
See also Harnack, Dogmengesch. I (81894), p. 231 f.; cf. also 


F. J. Foakes-Jackson, Studies in the Life of the Early Church 


(1924), p. 62 f. A BOA bi 


SIMPLE, SIMPLICITY: In the O T this term 


‘simple’ is used, mainly in Pr, as the rendering of 
petht, which expresses the idea of being easily led, 
persuaded and usually to wrong-doing, and which is 
almost a technical term in the Wisdom literature. In 
one passage ‘simplicity’ renders the Heb. tém, ‘com- 
pleteness,’ ‘integrity,’ 7.e., with no knowledge of 
Absalom’s plan (11S 1511). Inthe N T &xaxos, ‘not 
bad,’ is rendered ‘simple’ (Ro 16 18 AV, ‘innocent’ 
RV), and in the succeeding verse (Ro 1619) the word 
so rendered is &xéoatoc, ‘unmixed.’ ‘Simplicity’ (Ro 
12 8 [AV;] II Co 1 12 [AV], 11 3) is the rendering of 
&xré6tys, ‘singleness’ or ‘sincerity’ (cf. Eph 6 5, 3 22, 
where the same Gr. word is used). E. E. N. 


SIN! 1. Usage of Terms. The O T terms rendered 
‘sin’ are hatta’th, hatta’ah, hata@’Gh, hét’, ‘missing the 
mark’; ‘dw6n, lit. ‘crooked’ (contrasted with ydashar, 
‘straight’ as in Eng.; or as wrong [from ‘wrung’], con- 
trasted with right), hence iniquity; pesha‘, ‘diso- 
bedience,’ ‘rebellion’; resha‘, ‘wickedness.’ The N T 
words are g&uaoeti« (aucéotnua), ‘error’ (lit. ‘missing 
the mark’), xap&Gactc, ‘passing over,’ ‘stepping 
aside’ (across) a normal line (or path); xaeéxtwuc, 
‘falling aside’ (hence both these last convey almost 
exactly the idea of transgression); xxeaxon, ‘diso- 
bedience’; d&oéGerx, ‘impiety’; &dtxfa, ‘injustice,’ ‘un- 
righteousness’; égefAnua, ‘debt’ (cf. also dvowla, 
‘lawlessness,’ Jn 3 4). 





2. General Nature of Sin. The kernel of the con- 
ception as given by the etymology of these terms is 
that of deviation from a line given or standard. If 
the standard be viewed as a goal to be reached, sin 
consists in missing it; if it be a norm authoritatively 
set (a law) with a command to conform to it, sin is 
disobedience. If it be an ideal perceived by the moral 
sense, sin is a failure. In any case it is what ought 
not to be. And whether looked at as missing the 
mark, departing from the line, or disobeying a com- 
mand, its main feature is that it offends God. 

3. National Sin: Development of the Conception. 
In the O T the idea of sin emerges in the conscious- 
ness of God’s Chosen People as early as the revela- 
tion of God Himself, and the revelation of His will. 
But inasmuch as the covenant of J’’ was from the 
beginning with the people as a whole, the first con- 
ception on the subject is associated with the cor- 
porate or national consciousness. It is the people 
that sin. And the sinfulness of the people is largely 
that of their kings or leaders in the conduct of public 
affairs. But even personal offenses on the part of a 
prominent man do not remain matters between him- 
self and God, but are shared in by the community 
at large; they are an abomination, bringing down the 
anger of God on the whole body. But if the essence 
of sin is offense against J’, it follows that the 
gravest particular sin is preeminently the prevalence 
among the people of the spirit of departure from J”, 
z.e., the tendency to offer worship to idols. But as 
J’’ is the Righteous One, the prophets associate with 
this fact practises alien and offensive to the character 
of Jehovah (common vices, such as disregard for 
life, purity, property). Hosea views sin as the es- 
trangement of the heart of Israel from its God; 
Isaiah, as insensibility to the holiness and majesty 
of J’. All the prophets regard it as moral disease 
and corruption in some part or aspect of communal 
life. This social or corporate consciousness of sin is 
embodied in the sacrificial ritual which provides for 
the removal and expiation of guilt contracted by the 
people as a whole (Lv 413 f.; ef. also the ritual of the 
great Day of Atonement, Ly 1615 £.). The collapse 
of the national organization with the Exile brought 
the individual into the foreground, and sin was seen 
to be rooted in the individual (Ezk 337 f., ‘The soul 
that sinneth, it shall die’). At the same time, the 
whole effect of the preaching of the prophets had em- 
phasized the ethical side of religion and revealed the 
identity of transgression of religious ceremonial law 
with transgression of moral law, and thus completed 
the idea of sin as moral evil in the eyes of God. But 
this was always an ideal; for as ceremonial purity 
became more and more a goal to be aimed at for 
itself, sin also came to be viewed as violation of 
ceremonial prescription. In the N T age, those who 
lived in disregard of ceremonial prescription were 
called sinners, and separated into a class clearly dis- 
tinguishable, on a par with publicans (Mt 910; 
Mk 215). From this point of view the Gentiles were 
all sinners (Gal 215). It was only by the teaching of 
Jesus that the further growth of this tendency was 
arrested, and the conception was 1éstored to its 
purely ethical place, where it is afterward uniformly 
held by the Apostles and other N T writers. 





$51 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Simple 
Sin 





4. Sin Offense Against God. Thus in its fullest 
and clearest Biblical conception sin is moral evil as 
an offense against God. The conception includes 
lower views of it, such as emphasize the element of 
folly in sin, and such as make it a source of distressing 
results, or of the deprivation of the rights of other 
men; but except as incidentally introduced, all these 
are subordinated to the main idea that the evil of sin 
consists in its displeasing God. In the earliest legis- 
lation [the Book of the Covenant] oppression and 
wrong are brought under the head of sin (Ex 22 23). 
The wickedness of man grieves God, and calls out 
for judgment and punishment at His hands (Gn 
6 5-7, 410). In the hearts of upright men like Abra- 
ham and Joseph (Gn 22 11, 39 9) it is the fear of dis- 
pleasing God that serves as the motive of avoiding 
sin, and not regard for consequences, or the bare 
fact that sinful conduct was viewed by custom as 
improper. The preaching of the prophets derived 
the impetus and vehemence which characterized it 
from the conviction that God was opposed to sin. 
Conversely, penitence is not sorrow for sin per se, 
but arises from a recognition of God’s right to judge 
and avenge evil. This is predominantly the trend 
of thought in the Psalms (50, 51, 130, 148; ‘Against 
thee, thee only have I sinned,’ 51 4). 


5. Sin: Voluntary Violation of Law. in harmony 
with this view, sin is regarded as a voluntary de- 
parture from God or disobedience of His law. It is 
not an eternal, indestructible principle, inherent in 
the nature of things (as in Zoroastrianism) and en- 
tangling its human victim in its meshes. Nor does 
it grow by an innate necessity out of the nature of 
matter, or of life, or of individuality, as in the Hindu 
Vedanta or the Platonic philosophy. It is a choice 
of free will of man, a violation of the law of God. The 
law which is violated is not physical, working apart 
from the conscious acceptance of it by the creature. 
It must be presented to the moral nature and must 
secure the surrender of the will to it. Its operation, 
however, does not depend upon its acceptance or 
non-acceptance, but simply upon its recognition. 
The willing adoption of the law by the conscience is 
obligatory. Once recognized, it can not fail to op- 
erate. Conformity to it is moral good; transgression 
of it is sin and brings all sin’s consequences. Where 
there is no knowledge of God’s will, there is error but 
no guilt (Ro 513; Jn 15 22, 24)—or at least guilt exists 
only as far as this ignorance is wilful (Lk 12 14 f.). 
Accordingly, the more clearly the moral creature 
knows the will of God and the wrong of standing in 
opposition to it, the greater is his guilt (Mt 11 21, 
12 41 f.). Hence the greatest sin is that against the 
Holy Spirit, because it is sin against the greatest 
amount of light. 

6. Sin as an Indwelling Principle. But tho sin 
is a creature of the will at its inception and at each of 
its repetitions, it is not limited to mere action. It 
is a principle or power governing the life from within 
(Ro 7 13-25). Inclinations and dispositions that lead 
men to sinful actions are grouped together under the 
general name of sin and condemned as such (Jer 
13 25; Is 48 4-8; Jn 5 42-44; IT P 214; Mt 12 34, 36). 
This is the difference between sin and sins. The 
former term applies to the principle or power within, 


the latter to the act in which it is manifested. And 
as these are centered in one predominant quality, 
that of disregard for the will of God and preference 
of self, sin is identified with lawlessness (I Jn 3 4, 
the nearest approach that the Bible has to a defini- 
tion of sin). 


7. The Essence of Sin. But if the essence of sin is 
disregard (lack of love or fear) of God, it follows that 
sinful acts are the result of self-love (self-preference, 
Is 53 6), and the source and seat of all sin is in self- 
will. As bodily appetites furnish the most common 
and easily discerned impulse toward the choice of 
what one wishes as opposed to what God prescribes, 
the flesh is viewed as the seat of sin. This concep- 
tion, however, is scarcely present in the O T, where 
the flesh appears merely as a synonym of weakness 
(Gn 6 3; Ps 78 38), calling forth pity. In the Apoc- 
rypha the notion of the inherence of sin in the 
physical nature begins to assert itself (Sir 23 6; Wis 
12 10; IV Mae 7 18; ef. Slavonic Enoch, 30 16), and 
grows into the rabbinical doctrine of an evil heart 
(yetser hdra‘) and the Pauline idea of the flesh as the 
seat and instrument of sinful tendency (see FLESH). 
Whether sin be a negative or positive reality is not a 
question that emerges distinctly in the province of 
Biblical thought. 


8. Guilt and Punishment: Death. The attitude 
of the sinful man in view of God’s law is represented 
in the term ‘guilt’ (q.v.), and the just and natural 
treatment of guilt is condemnation by the moral 
sense of every personal being, and punishment by 
the just and sovereign Ruler of all creation. Ac- 
cordingly the converse proposition that suffering is 
due to sin and may be regarded as its penalty in 
every instance found wide acceptance (Jn 9 2). 
The theme of the Book of Job is, in fact, the solution 
of the problem presented by this assumed relation- 
ship between sin and suffering. Guilt both as 
blameworthiness and as punishableness is assumed 
and implied in every case of censure of sinful actions 
and inclinations, and in every threat of righteous in- 
dignation and vengeance in behalf of the offended 
law. The great and ultimate penalty of sin is death 
(Ro 6 23, 512). But death assumes and carries with 
it the displeasure (wrath and curse) of God. As the 
penalty of sin, however, death is not simply the dis- 
solution of the physical tie between body and soul. 
There are intimations that even in the sinless con- 
dition the human frame was to be no exception to the 
law that every living organism must ultimately be 
dissolved. When death is called the penalty of sin, 
it is viewed as already affected by the existence of sin 
in the world. It has a sting which it derives from 
sin (I Co 15 56). Apart from sin death has no penal 
significance. 


9. Origin of Sin: The Fall. The origin of sin in 
the world is traced to the first man. The account of 
the temptation and sin of Adam and Eve in the 
Garden of Eden (Gn ch. 3), tho not alluded to again 
in the O T, was naturally interpreted as involving 
the corruption and fall of the whole human race 
(Wis 2 24; Ro 512f.;1 Co 15 22). In the hands of the 
Apostle Paul, it received a careful elaboration, 
because it filled a special and logically legitimate 
place in his sytem of thought. The correspondence 


Sin A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 852 


Siron 





of the Fall to the redemptive work of Jesus Christ in 
respect to the extent of the influence of each, to the 
number affected by each, to the place and relation 
of the mediator of each to the rest of mankind, and 
the consequences of each, were such that he must 
needs show them in their fulness of meaning and thus 
exalt Christ as a revelation of God’s wisdom, power, 
and grace. The Paradise narrative itself betrays a 
certain consciousness of the important place the 
affair occupied in the mind of Israel. The figure of 
the serpent suggests the monster Tdmat of Assyrian 
mythology, the great opponent of the gods and un- 
doer of their work. This conception is so much like 
that of Satan in the subsequent history as portrayed 
both in the O T and in the N T that the reading of a 
satanic influence into the action of the serpent by the 
earlier Christian theology is not as unhistorical and 
unscientific as it was once supposed to be. This 
account of the Fall has thus all the appearance of 
aiming to show how sin entered into the world of 
mankind. It does not explain the emergence of sin 
in the universe asa whole. That must have been the 
work, not of a tempter, but of an original creator of 
an evil propensity. The account represents evil as 
already existing outside the earthly world and mak- 
ing its entrance there. The passage, however, could 
never have been taken in the strictest literal sense. 
The essential element in it is not that the body of a 
snake was possessed for a time by an evil spirit, and 
spoke without the use of vocal organs, or that the 
first man and woman partook of the fruit of a mys- 
terious tree, but that in some way, either crude and 
vague, or explicit and consciously present to the 
moral sense, the first human beings received the sug- 
gestion of a departure from the known good (the 
will of God), and that they yielded and made this 
suggestion the law of their action. Of the extra- 
Biblical accounts of primitive man the great ma- 
jority are void of interest and significance both from 
the historical and from the religious point of view. 
Some contain portraitures of a state of primeval 
innocence, or golden age of prosperity and peace, 
followed by deterioration and decline (cf. Baring- 
Gould, Legends of O T Characters, 1:26-39). But the 
closest parallel, as on all kindred subjects, is the 
Assyro-Babylonian legend, which, however, is so im- 
perfectly preserved that its decipherment and trans- 
lation are matters of dispute among specialists. It 
therefore yields very little light on the subject (cf. 
Davis, Genesis and Semitic Tradition, p. 65; Bosca- 
wen, Bab. and Oriental Records, IV, 251; Sayce, 
Anc. Mon. pp. 65, 104). In general, its relation to 
Gn ch. 3 is the same as that of all similar Babylonian 
parallels to the O T on other subjects. In all these 
the Hebrew is a purified and spiritualized form, 
either derived from or cognate with the Mesopo- 
tamian, and made the vehicle of some great truths of 
revelation. 

10. Transmission of Sin. That all sin in the world 
is an outgrowth of the Fall is assumed in those pas- 
sages which refer to the matter. 
first sin is compared to a grain of evil seed sown in the 
heart of Adam, and its subsequent course is called 
‘much wickedness that it hath brought forth to this 
time.’ (Cf. Sir 25 24: ‘From a woman was the 
beginning of sin, and because of her we all die.’) But 


In IV Es 4 30 the: 


it is only the Apostle Paul who most emphatically 
and explicitly asserts this connection. Two separate 
questions are involved in the subject, viz.: (1) Is the 
guilt of Adam’s first sin shared by all his posterity? 
and, (2) in what manner is sin transmitted and dif- 
fused through the generations of the human race? 
The first of these questions must be answered by a 
definite affirmative. The second has been the sub- 
ject of an extended controversy. (1) From very 
early times there have been those who have held that 
Paul’s language implies the real existence of all men 
in the first man, and their participation in that first 
act by which he fell from his primitive sinlessness. 
Upon this ground they have based the development 
of sin in each individual descendant of Adam. But 
the language of Paul does not easily bear the con- 
struction necessary to deduce from it this doctrine. 
The translation ‘in whom’ (Ro 5 12, AVmg.) ‘all 
sinned,’ which seems to support it, has been elimi- 


nated from the discussion as a misunderstanding 


(cf. AV and RV text). Inherently, too, this explana- 
tion meets with the objection that no one is con- 
scious of having been in Adam and of having sinned 
with him; and apart from such consciousness the 
imputation of guilt seems ethically irrelevant. (2) A 
rival view is that which accounts for the effect of the 
Fall on subsequent mankind by the doctrines of re- 
presentation and federal headship. When Adam fell, 
it was not as an individual, but as a representative of 
the race. Hence, because he was the appointed head 
of all his posterity, those represented by him are 
accounted sinful, given sinful natures, and allowed 
to develop sinful lives. It is deemed a fatal objection 
to this explanation that the idea of representation is 
precisely the point that does not appear in Paul’s 
discussion of the subject. It is certainly in harmony 
with the Pharisaic juridical thought that the action 
of a representative head is binding on those repre- 
sented in all legal matters, but the Apostle nowhere 
applies the principle to the sphere of religious life. (3) 
The third view on the subject calls into the service 
the principle of heredity, assuming that as all men 
inherit from their ancestors natures with tendencies 
and dispositions, so the race has inherited from 
Adam a nature inclined toward sin. Under temp- 
tation this inclination is developed into actual trans- 
gression in every case. This is little different from 
the realistic transmission theory and is too dependent 
on modern scientific knowledge regarding the law of 
heredity to be historically identifiable with Paul’s 
underlying idea as to how sin passes from Adam to 
his posterity. In the present stage of the investiga- 
tion it seems as tho Paul had not cared to trace the 
nature of the connection between Adam and the race, 
but was content to assert and use the existence of 
such connection in explaining the nature and extent 
of redemption through Christ. The nearest approach 
to his thought is through the study of the analogy 
between Adam and Christ. As he uses the mystical 
union with the Redeemer to explain the efficacy 
of the redemptive work, so he may be assuming a 
mystical union with Adam accomplished by the 
surrender of the individual will to sin as the ground 
of the sinner’s participation in Adam’s sin. 

11. Forgiveness. But clear and prominent as the 
doctrine of sin is throughout the whole range of 





ee a 


i 
é 
7 
é 
‘ 
¥ 
} 
{ 
oS 
, 


853 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Sin 


Siron 





Biblical teaching, its presentation is neither an end 
in itself nor a means toward gratifying a philo- 
sophic interest in the nature and constitution of 
man. It is given only in order that a hatred for 
moral evil may be aroused, that the love of God in 
providing means for its removal may be appreciated, 
and that these means may be effectually used to se- 
cure its forgiveness. See also FORGIVENESS. 
LireraTuRE: Miller, The Christian Doctrine of Sin (1877); 
Candlish, The Doctrine of Sin (1893); Thackeray, St. Paul 
and Contemporary Jewish Thought; Clemen, Lehre von 
der Stinde (on the O T doctrine only) (1897); Tennant, 
The Origin and Propagation of Sin (1901-02), and the 
Biblical Theologies of Oehler, Schultz, Beyschlag, Stevens, 
and Feine. AEC Te 
SIN?2, sin (72, sin); perhaps=Egypt. ’mt, ‘clay’ 
(ef. ‘Pelusium,’ from «mnAéc, ‘mud’): The name of an 
Egyptian fortress (Ezk 30 15, 16), usually identified 
with Pelusium, a stronghold on the NE. border, 
surrounded by marshes. It was an important 
battle-ground for several centuries, as it was the key 
to Egypt for armies coming along the coast from the 
north. To-day it lies about a mile from the sea, and 
the whole region is a waste of sand and marshes. 
Cornill and Toy read 110, 2.e., s¢wan =Syene (q.v.). 
CPSs. 
SIN, WILDERNESS OF (72 12°13, midhbar-sin): 
According to Ex 16 1, this wilderness lay between 
Elim and Sinai; but according to Ex 171, there was 
one station between it and Sinai. In Nu 33 1, 12, 
one encampment on the Red Sea between Elim and 
the wilderness of S. and three stations between the 
wilderness and Sinai are mentioned. CEset, 
SINAI, sai’nai, sai’ni-ai, or sai/né (20, stnay) 
The mountain on which the Law was given, also 
called Horeb (in Ex 31, 17 6, 336; Dt 16, 410. ‘Sinai’ 
in Ex 19 11, 34 4 and in Ex 161, 2416; Lv 251). From 
very early times it seems to have been regarded as a 
sacred mountain, perhaps as dedicated to the Baby- 
lonian moon-god Sin. S. is usually identified with 
@ conspicuous group of mountains in the center 
of the peninsula embraced between the gulfs of 
Akabah and Suez; more specifically with the peaks 
known to the Arabs as Rds Sufsdéfeh (‘Speak of the 
willow,’ where Moses cut his rod) and, Jebel Musa 
(‘“Mt. of Moses,’ where he is supposed to have 
received the Ten Commandments). These peaks are 
over 6,000 ft. high. At the base of Rds Sufsafeh, a 
broad plain extends toward the NW., known as er- 
Rahah, where the Israelites may easily have en- 
camped. In a valley called Wddy ed-Deir, on the 
NE. of the same mountain, stands the famous con- 
vent of St. Catharine. There are two other valleys 
in the same vicinity, both of which are comparatively 
fertile and well-watered. Along the base of the 
group, on the side of the plain er-Rahah, runs a 
natural mound or barrier, suggesting the ‘bounds’ 
mentioned in Ex 19 23. The rocks of this region are 
steep and jagged and richly colored. They are com- 
posed of granite, porphyry, diorite, and gneiss. A 
path of stone steps leads up from the convent to the 
summit. Holy places marked by crosses cover the 
mountain. Near the top of Jebel Musa stands a 
chapel dedicated to Elijah (I K 19 8). 
The tradition identifying this location with Sinai 
is as old as Justinian (527-565), who built here a 


Christian church in honor of the Virgin. But the 
most ancient tradition, that of Eusebius, points to 
Jebel Serbal, 6,750 ft. in height and difficult to climb, 
situated one short day’ s journey NW. of Jebel Musa. 
On its N. side there is the small but well-watered 
and luxuriant oasis of Wddy Feiran, usually thought 
to be Rephidim (Ex 17 8). But there is scarcely 
space in the vicinity for any considerable camp. 
Tischendorf, Robinson, Ritter, Laborde, Palmer, and 
Stanley, therefore, rightly reject this identification 
in favor of the first. Other views of Sinai are: that 
of Sayce and G. F. Moore, and many other modern 
scholars who follow Beke (1874) in advocating a 
location in Arabia (cf. Jg 55; Dt 33 2); and that of 
Winckler and Cheyne, who insist that the name 
‘Sinai’ is a mere cosmological conception. Both 
views are highly improbable. Petrie and Currelly 
explored the Peninsula somewhat thoroughly in 
1905-06. 


Lirrrature: H. S. Palmer, The Desert of the Exodus (1871); 
Ordnance Survey of the Peninsula of Sinai (1869-72); Hull, 
Mt. Seir, Sinai and Western Palestine (1908); Robinson, 
Biblical Researches I (1841); R. F. Burton, The Gold Mines 
of Midian (1878); Petrie, Researches in Sinai (1906); Kittel, 
GVI (61922), vol. i, p. 343 ff. Gite: 


SING, SINGERS, SINGING MEN, etc. See Mv- 
SIC AND MusIcAL INSTRUMENTS, § 4. 

SINIM, sai’nim (Q°70, sinim): The ‘land of 
Sinim,’ perhaps better ‘of the Sinites,’ is mentioned 
(Is 49 12) as one of the countries from which the 
exiles are to return. From the context, it apparently 
lay to the S. or E. of Palestine, and at a great dis- 
tance. The LXX. translates ‘Persians.’ Of coun- 
tries to the S., Sin Pelusium), the wilderness of Sin, 
and Syene (s*wéntm) are suggested. Gesenius, among 
others, claims that China is here mentioned, but 
Dillmann and Duhm contend that this name was 
first known after the 3d cent. B.c., and was written 
by the Arabs and Syrians tstn. Others mention the 
tribe ‘Sina’ at the foot of the Hindu-Kush. It has 
also been identified with ‘Sinite’ (Gn 10 17), a tribe 
of N. Phenicia. Gr Sad. 

SINITE, sai’nait or sin’ait ('2°?, sinz): The inhabi- 
tants of a city or district, probably Sin (Gn 10 17; 
I Ch 1 15), to be identified with the Stannu of the 
Assyrian inscriptions, and located near Arka (see 


ARKITE), about 80 m. N. of Sidon. E. E. N. 
SINNER. See Sin, § 3. 
SIN-OFFERING. See SAcRIFICE AND OFFERINGS, 
§ 8. 


SION, sai’an: On the use of this term in Dt 4 48, 
see Sentr. For other occurrences, see JERUSALEM, 
§ 16. 

SIPHMOTH, sif’meth (NiD2Y, siphmath): A city 
in the S. of Judah (I S 30 28). Site unknown. 

SIPPAI, sip-pé’ai or sip’pé. See Sapu. 

SIRACH, sai’rak, SON OF, or WISDOM OF. See 
ECCLESIASTICUS. 

SIRAH, sai’ra (7997, hasstrah, with the article), 
WELL OF: The cistern of Sirah was the place not 
far from Hebron whence Joab’s messengers recalled 
Abner (II S 3 28). The identification on Map II, 
E 2 is probable, but not certain. HE. E. N. 


SIRON, sir’1-an. See SENIR. 


Sisamai 
Slavery 





SISAMAI, sis’a-mai, -mé, or si-sam’a-ai. See 


SISMAI. 

SISERA, sis’a-ra (819"D, stsera’, prob. of Hittite 
origin): 1. A Canaanite chieftain who assumed the 
post of general of Jabin’s hosts (Jg 4 2 f.) in the war 
against Deborah and Barak. It appears, however, 
that Sisera was an independent king of superior 
standing to that of Jabin (Jg 5 28, 30; 18 129). Jabin, 
king of Hazor was overthrown by Joshua (Jos 
11 1-9), consequently there seems to be some con- 
fusion in the account in Jg; Sisera, a later opponent 
of Israel being connected by error with Jabin of an 
earlier date. 2. The family name of a class of 
Nethinim in the postexilic period (Ezr 2 53; Neh 7 55). 

A. C. Z. 


SISMAI, sis’mai (290, sts¢emay, Sisamai AV): A 
descendant of Jerahmeel (I Ch 2 40). 

SISTER. See, in general, Fammuy AND FAMILY 
Law, especially §§ 3, 5, 6, and 8. 

SITH: An old English word meaning ‘since’ (Ezk 
356 AV). 

SITHRI, sifh’rai (192, sithri, Zithri AV), ‘my 
protection’ (?): The ancestor of a family of Levites 
(Ex 6 22). 

SITNAH, sit’na (720¥, sitnah), ‘hostility’: One 
of the wells of Jacob (Gn 26 21), probably in the 
Wady Shutnet about 20 m. SW. of Beer-sheba. 


SIVAN, sai’van or siv’an: The third month of the 
Jewish year. See Timp, § 3. 


SIX HUNDRED AND SIXTY-SIX. See Num- 
BERS, SIGNIFICANT AND SYMBOLIC, § 9. 


SKULL, THE PLACE OF A. See JERUSALEM, 
§ 45. 


SLAUGHTER, VALLEY OF. See Topueru. 


SLAVERY: 1. General Place in Ancient Heb. 
Society. The basis of primitive Heb. society was the 
family or clan (see FAMILY AND Famity Law, § 2.). 
In their nomadic state, before the conquest of 
Canaan, the Heb. family consisted of the father, 
wife or wives, sons and daughters, and servants. 
Such servants were, in those early times, probably 
captives in war or their descendants, or persons 
acquired by purchase from other tribes or their 
descendants. As primitive Semitic warfare was 
often characterized by the ‘devotion’ to death of the 
living spoil, it is likely that such captives were more 
often women and children than men, since the latter 
would be more likely to be put to death. When 
Israel came into possession of Canaan, the main 
change, as regards slavery, was that in the more com- 
plex conditions of life after the Conquest there was a 
greater likelihood of Israelites themselves coming 
into such unfortunate circumstances as to be com- 
pelled to sell themselves, or to be sold by process of 
law, as servants or slaves to another, a condition 
which, we may well believe, was rather rare in the 
nomadic stage. 

Servants or slaves formed a large element of the 
‘working classes’ in ancient Israel. The Heb. house- 
holder and his sons constituted something of an 
aristocracy. It is likely that every well-appointed 
estate (like that of Boaz, for example, cf. Ru 2) had 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


$54 


numerous male and female slaves by whom the 
greater portion of the harder work was done. And 
when town and city life became more developed, all 
the more substantial families had their servants who 
were slaves, not ‘hired servants.’ Altho the last- 
named class became more numerous in the later 
kingdom-period, it never assumed the proportions 
of the slave-class. ‘The ‘stranger’ and ‘sojourner’ 
were not slaves (see GENTILES), and could possess 
property and own slaves, even Hebrew slaves, just 
as the Israelites themselves. It is probable that the 
great majority of slaves of foreign blood in Israel, 
at least until the 8th cent., were descendants of the 
conquered Canaanites (cf. Jg 1 28, 33, 35; I K 9 20 ff.). 
Later, Phenician slave-dealers found a ready market 
in Israel (cf. Am 1 6, 9). 

2. Terminology. The three most distinctive terms 
for servants in Heb. are: (1) ‘ebhedh (from the root 
say, with the primary significance of ‘to work’ or. 
‘to do’), the most generic term, expressive of various 
kinds of subjection (e.g., nation to nation, subject to 
a monarch, an inferior toward a superior, and of man 
to God). The ‘ebhedh was thus one who ‘worked’ for 
another. The term is variously rendered ‘servant,’ 
man servant, bondman, and bond-servant in EV. 
(2) ’4méh, used for a female servant, rendered hand- 
maid, maid, or maid servant. (8) shiphhah, also a 
female servant and rendered handmaid or maid, 
sometimes woman servant or maiden. Each of these 
three terms implies a state of actual servitude or 
bondage. It is otherwise with na‘ar (fem. na‘drah), 
often rendered ‘servant,’ which properly means only 
a ‘young person,’ but is frequently used as a synonym 
for ‘ebhedh or ’Gmdah. The sdakhir, hired servant, 
i.e., one who served for wages (sékhGr or maskéreth), 
was not a slave. The pileghesh, ‘concubine, ’was, 
doubtless, generally a slave, but the term itself 
connotes rather a phase of ancient marriage condi- 
tions than anything in reference to slavery. The 
word ‘slave’ occurs in RV only in Dt 21 14, 247 and 
Jer 2 14 (see § 3, b, below), and in the AV only in 
Rev ch. 18 (for the Gr. owywata, ‘bodies’). For 
freedom in Ac 22 23 the RV has more correctly 
‘citizenship’ (q.v.). 

3. Legislation Regarding Slavery. The status of 
the slave or servant class in ancient Israel can be 
presented most suggestively, possibly, by examining 
the legislation in the codes on the subject, and also 
noting the supplementary evidence of the customs 
revealed incidentally in various narratives. Such 
legislation as is preserved in the codes relates more 
particularly to servants who are Hebrews and only 
incidentally to those of foreign blood. The condi- 
tion of the latter was less fortunate than was that 
of the former. 

a. In the old code in Ex chs. 21-28, the term of 
service for a Heb. slave (‘ebhedh) is limited to six 
years (21 2 #.). We must suppose that a servant of 
foreign blood was a slave for life. At the end of six 
years the Heb. servant could go out free (hophshi 
hinném). If he was married when he entered the 
service, his wife (and children also, without doubt) 
went out with him. If, however, during his term of 
service he had been given a wife by the master, she 
remained the property of the master. But the sery- 
ant then had the option of continuing to live with his 





855 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sisamai 
Slavery 





wife and children as a life-slave. As the seal to this, 
he was brought ‘before God’ (i.e., the local sanctuary 
or the household altar), and there at the door his 
ear was pierced with an awl (21 2-6). The condi- 
tion of the Heb. woman who had been sold (by her 
father) to be an ’G@mdéah was carefully guarded. It 
was understood that a woman thus sold became a 
wife of the master. If she did not please him, she 
was not to be summarily dismissed, but guaranteed 
certain rights. She could be redeemed by her family. 
Above all, she could not be sold to an alien. If given 
as an ’Gmdh to the master’s son, she was to be 
honored as a daughter. So long as she stayed under 
the master’s roof she was to be treated justly. Ifnot, 
she had the right to go out free, with no stain at- 
tached to her name. In general, the female slave 
was the master’s concubine. 

Heb. law and custom, unlike Roman, did not give 
the master unlimited power of life and death over 
his slaves. In case a master beat his servant (male 
or female) and the servant died under 
his hand, the master was to be pun- 
ished. But if a day or two passed 
before death 
ensued, the 
loss of the 
servant was 
counted a 
sufficient hja—> Wk bani) 
penalty (21 7 Ss Xe by) bY WEES 
20f.).If a mas- 1 
ter caused i 
the loss of a 
servant’s eye 
or tooth, the 
servant there 
by gained |e} a-7 Ete 
his liberty |e-Ah Qiu fie No BBA ERE" 
free of cost |Wir7 ¥:9 
(21, 26 ¢.). If 
a servant 
was gored 
(to death) by 
a neighbor’s 
ox, the owner of the ox had to pay the master 30 
shekels of silver (about $18), which was, therefore, 
the average price of a slave at the time (21 32). 

Some additional information regarding the status 
of servants in early O T times can be gleaned in- 
cidentally from the O T narratives. Eliezer, the 
servant of Abraham, of foreign blood, but born in 
Abraham’s household, was trusted implicitly by his 
master and it was Abraham’s intention to make him 
his heir in case he had no son by Sarah (Gn 15 2-4). 
Jacob, in relation to Laban, was hardly an ‘ebhedh 
in the ordinary sense, since he was not sold to Laban. 
but put himself voluntarily under Laban’s control 
and for stipulated wages. Yet the three terms of 
service, seven years for each of the two wives and 
six years for the cattle, bear a close resemblance to 
_the six-year term of the law in Ex 21 2. And Jacob’s 
case may be taken as an illustration of stipulated 
terms of service for wives or property, during which 
time the servant was completely under the control 
of the master. Further examples of friendly or 
intimate relations between masters and slaves may 













My 


== 
ESS 
Ss ZA 








- TE 
eAinanit 











ootte gum eo, 

a Ca 

baer ELS oii 
Si —_ 








MAURY = raha aaa 
UDEV AL Eyn 


H Jah i aie . 
1 


sd aah te . - 
BP CLIN) Liana anare BOG) 
PL ' et 


Transportation of a Colossal Bull by Assyrian Slave-labor. 


be found inIS 96f., 2514f.;I1TS 91., 16 1 f.; 
I Ch 2 34 ¢. 

How a Hebrew might become a servant of a fellow 
Hebrew is well illustrated in II K 41 £., where we see 
that after the death of an insolvent debtor his sons 
could be taken by the creditor for the debt. Such 
cold-hearted tho formally legal proceedings the 
prophets severely denounced (cf. Am 2 6, 8 6). See 
also Ex 22 3. 

In speaking of female servants the old narratives 
do not distinguish sharply between the ’G@mah and 
the shiphhah. Hagar, Zilpah, and Biihah, the maids 
of Sarah, Leah, and Rachel, are designated some- 
times by one term, sometimes by the other. While 
shiphhah, from its etymology, probably originally 
designated the concubinal relation in which the 
female servant stood to the master, the two terms 













eventually came to be used as synonyms. The 
Sm attempt of 

2) y Whitehouse 

bare! in HDB, IV, 

p. 466, to 


show a dis- 
tinetion 
made by Ab- 
igail in her 
address to 
David (I 8 
25 23 ff.) must 
be declared 
unsuccessful, 
in view of 
ver. 27. From 
such state- 
ments as we 
read in| Gn 
16 6, 21 10, 
etc., it may 
be inferred 
that in many 
cases the 
handmaid 
was the ex- 
clusive prop- 
erty of the master’s wife, and it was her authority 
rather than his to which she was subject. 

b. The later codes (D, HC, and P) show strongly 
the presence of two tendencies: (a) To distinguish 
more sharply between the Hebrew servant and the 
alien in favor of the former (the view in Lv 25 39 ff. 
is that no Hebrew should be the slave of his fellow- 
Hebrew, or ‘brother’), and (2) to introduce a 
more humane spirit into the whole. In Dt 15 12 #. 
the older law is supplemented by the provision that 
at the expiration of his term of service the servant 
is to be furnished liberally with a supply of the 
necessaries of life. While the Decalog puts the 
servant on a level with the free man in his right to 
the Sabbath rest, D adds the provision that the 
servant is to share and enjoy sacrificial festivities as 
well as his free master (Dt 1611). Itis probable that 
from very early times the servant of foreign descent 
was considered as having renounced his allegiance 
to the god of his fathers and as subject to J’, altho 
it must have been necessary for him to be circum- 
cised in order to be entitled to partake fully in the 





7A E . y 
i a. 







sé r 
Ae ~S 
VME EIT 

Vf 2c eae rig mee 

tte e Ke! AR, A 


MWisiee eat 

‘ eR ‘ AM 
SDB \ SR 4 
lig” a Fey SSM " 









Slavery 
Sodom 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


856 





religious observances (cf. the later law in P, Ex 
12 44). Other notes of the humanitarian tendency 
of D are its prescription that runaway slaves are not 
to be returned to their master (23 15 £.), the provision 
for the considerate and kindly treatment of the 
female captive (21 10 ff.), especially in case she does 
not please her master (ver. 14, where instead of ‘deal 
with her as a slave’ we should read ‘deal with 
her brutally’ or ‘in an overbearing, unfeeling man- 
ner’), and the merciful enactment regarding the 
wages of the ‘hired servant’ (24 14; cf. Lv 19 13 
[HC]). The Holiness Code also touched the case 
of the ‘hired servant’ in prohibiting him to eat of 
‘holy things’ (Lv 22 10). In this case the sakhir is 
presumed to be a foreigner, but a priest’s ‘purchased 
servant’ can eat of the priest’s food (Lv 22 11), 
presumably, after having been circumcised. In the 
case of the seduction of a female slave (a shiphah) 
already betrothed to a man, but not yet ‘redeemed’ 
(z.e., the marriage-price not yet paid), this code pre- 
scribes that the case is to be investigated, the man 
fined, and compelled to bring his guilt-offering to the 
sanctuary. 

The postexilic code of P sought to enforce its 
conception of the (theoretically) holy status of every 
Israelite by the provision that the poor Hebrew who 
had to sell himself to a fellow Hebrew was not to be 
counted an ‘ebhedh (which term P would thus restrict 
to foreigners), but as a sdkhir (‘hired servant’) or 
tdshabh (‘sojourner’; see GENTILES). His term of 
service was to end with the year of Jubilee, when he 
and his family were to return to the ancestral estate 
(Ly 25 39-46, probably a late insertion in HC). 
Evidently, it had been found impossible to enforce 
the old law of a six-year term of service (cf. Jer 
34 8-22 for an instance of the flagrant abuse of this 
law). The same conception of the fundamental dis- 
tinction between the Israelite and the alien under- 
lies the further provision in P that if a Hebrew be- 
came the servant of a ‘stranger, or sojourner,’ he was 
to be redeemed by some member of his family (Lv 
25 47-55). The necessity of such legal protection for 
the poorer Israelites, if the ideal character of the 
community was to be conserved, is evident from 
Neh 55 #., where Nehemiah found himself obliged to 
intervene on their behalf by authority, persuasion, 
and personal example, to save a large element of the 
community from being reduced to the condition of 
serfs (bondage). 

4. Slavery in the N T. The tendency of all later 
Jewish legislation and rabbinical teaching was in 
the direction of greater humanity toward the ser- 
vant-class. In this respect Jewish law compares 
most favorably with the Greco-Roman law, the 
severity of which in regard to slaves the Jews them- 
selves had many sad opportunities to experience. 
Perhaps, it was just such experiences that influenced 
them in their own more merciful legislation. The 
Essenes (q.v.) repudiated slavery altogether. 

While such terms as So0A0¢, Stkxovos, xatc, San- 
eétns, olxétys etc., all rendered ‘servant,’ appear 
frequently in the N T, there is nothing specially 
distinctive in them, at least in the Gospels, except 
in Jn 15 15, where Jesus tells His disciples that they 
are His ‘friends’ rather than ‘servants.’ The prodi- 
gal asked his father that he might become a ptcblos 


(‘hired servant’), perhaps as expressive of a less 
intimate relationship than xaig or 300A0¢. Paul 
often uses 300A0¢ in the religious sense of himself 
(and Christians in general) as the ‘servant of’ 
(owned by, controlled by) the Lord Jesus Christ. 

Slavery was the great blot upon the Greco- 
Roman civilization. The number of slaves was 
immense,—in Italy, e.g., far outnumbering the free 
inhabitants. While many slaves were highly edu- 
cated and entrusted with important duties, they 
were still slaves and, in general, absolutely under the 
control of their master, in the eyes of the law his 
property, not persons. See HRE., Vol. XI., pp. 
612-618 and 621-630. 

The relative importance of the slave-class in the 
Greco-Roman world of Paul’s day is seen in the 
classification into two great classes, bond and free 
(I Co 12 13, etc.). Regarding slavery as an institu- 
tion, Apostolic teaching had nothing to say theoretic- 
ally. Practically, the Epistles of Paul and Peter 
counsel servants to be content with their position, to 
obey their masters, and also counsel masters to be 
considerate of their servants (I Co 7 21 £.; Eph 6 5; 
Col 3 22, 4:1; I Ti 614;) Tit 2'9; .L\P)2 138). .in thie 
Epistle to Philemon Paul deals with the case of the 
runaway slave Onesimus not by discussing slavery 
per se, or from the point of view of Roman law, but 
by seeking to influence Philemon to make the com- 
mon brotherhood in Christ of both himself and his 
converted slave Onesimus the determining factor in 
his treatment of the restored slave. 

LiTpRATURE: The works on Heb. Archdologie by Nowack 
(1894) and Benzinger (21907); Benzinger in EB, s.v.; White- 
house in HDB, s.v.; A. Bertholet, Kuliurgeschichte Israels 
(1919), pp. 119-121. HK. E. N. 
SLIME: Bitumen or asphalt, not ordinary clay, is 

what is meant by the Heb. hémar (probably from 

hamar, ‘to boil’) in Gn 11 3, 1410; Ex 23. It was much 
used in the ancient world for just such purposes as 
are mentioned in Gn 11 3 and Ex 2 3. The old 

bitumen pits at Hit on the Euphrates are still a 

source of supply to the boat-builders of that region. 


The cement of bitumen furnished a protection to the 4 
unburned bricks which rendered them much more — 


indestructible. It abounds in some of the wddys 
near the Dead Sea, which was called the Asphalt 
Lake by the ancients, and the pits whence it was — 
dug for commercial purposes were probably at one — 
time quite numerous (Gn 14 10). EK. E. N. 


SLING. See Arms AnD Armor, § 4. 


SLUICE: A very doubtful rendering (Is 1910 AV) — 
of a Heb. word sekher usually meaning ‘reward.’ 


RV translates, ‘they that work for hire’ (‘they that — 
make dams’ RVmg.). 
suited by the rendering in AV. 


SMITH. See Arrizan Lirs, § 10. 


A. Coa 


SMYRNA, smGr’no (Xy.beva): A city, founded1100 — | 


B.c. by Aolie Greeks at the NE. corner of the Bay — 
of Smyrna. It was seized by the Ionic Greeks of © 
Colophon before 688, when it joined the Ionian — 
League. The acropolis of this S. (so called Tan- 
talis), with the adjacent tomb of Tantalus, lies across — 
the bay N. of modern S. It early attained to wealth — 
and prominence, because it was situated in the path © 
of commerce, and was the outlet for trade between — 


But the context is better 





857 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Slavery 
Sodom 





Lydia and the West. Coveted by Gyges and des- 
stroyed by Alyattes about 600 B.c., it remained a 
mere village until the capture of Sardes by Alex- 
ander, who in a dream was exhorted by the Nemeses 
(deities of 8.) to rebuild Smyrna. Alexander se- 
lected the present site, and his plans (involving 
paved streets crossing at right angles) were carried 
out by Antigonus and, later, by Lysimachus. (Cf. 
indirect ref. in Rev 2 8: ‘was dead and [yet] lived.’) 
S. soon became (and has remained) one of the most 
important commercial cities of Asia, famous for its 
wealth, temples, buildings, schools of medicine and 
science. It had a fine, safe harbor, on the site of 
which the bazaars of the city now stand; for during 
the siege of S. by Timur (1402) the harbor was 
partially filled in for siege purposes, so that the 
modern quay is about 100 yards beyond the an- 
cient shore-line. S. was a faithful ally (cf. Rev. 2 
10: ‘ faithful unto death’) of Rome during the 
Mithridatic wars. In the Provencia Asia S. was the 
seat of a conventus. Its claim to the titles of ‘Metrop- 
olis’ and ‘First City of Asia’ was dispured by 
Ephesus and Pergamum. S. was styled Neokoros 
(‘Temple-Sweeper’ or ‘Warden’) because of its ‘tem- 
ple (built 26 a.p.) to Tiberius and Julia (hence the 
‘tribulation’ Rev 2 9 arising from the attitude of 
the Christians to the imperial cult), and was per- 
mitted by the Romans, from Augustus to Gallienus, 
to coin its own money, tho the first coins of S. are 
those of Lysimachus. The early evangelization of 
S. was due to the presence there of a Jewish colony. 
Polycarp (the first bishop of S. was burned (155- 
156 a.D.) with eleven Philadelphians, near the sta- 
dium, where his tomb is still shown. Smyrna’s 
trade was destroyed by the discovery of America 
and the Cape route to India, but revived gradually 
from the 16th cent. onward. The city is now a 
shipping-center for the interior and the adjacent 
islands. J.R.S. S.*—S. A. 


SNAIL. See Pauestrine, § 26. 


SNARE. For the literal meaning see HuNTING: 
The various terms rendered ‘snare’ are frequently 
used in a figurative sense especially of evil or evil- 
minded persons, as putting temptation to sin, etc., 
in the way of the good (e.g., Ex 23 23; I S 18 21; 
Pr 7 23, etc.), and of death which is represented as 
laying its snare or net and thereby getting its hold 
on a man (e.g., II S 22 6. So the ‘snare of the devil’ 
is spoken of in I Ti 37; II Ti 2 26). K. BH. N. 


SNOW: The most striking thing about snow to the 
Oriental is its white color. Consequently, snow is 
the standard of comparison for whiteness, as in lep- 
rosy (Ex 46; Nu 12 10), and in cleanness (Mt 28 3; 
ef. Ps 517), and, therefore, figuratively, of purity 
or innocence (La 47; Is 1 18). See also PALESTINE, 
§ 19. A. C. Z. 


SNUFFER, SNUFF-DISH. See Tremptp, § 16, 
and TABERNACLE, § 3 (3). ; 

SO, sd (Nip, $0’): A so called ‘king of Egypt’ to 
whom Hoshea of Israel ‘had sent messengers’ (II 
K 17 4), and thus furnished ground to Hoshea’s 
overlord, Shalmanezer of Assyria, for the suspicion 
that a conspiracy was being planned. In the list of 
Egyptian Pharaohs no name appears capable of 


being identified with So. Shabakah (Shabataka) 
the Ethiopian of the 25th dynasty belongs to a later 
date. Moreover, Shabakah and So can not be 
etymologically connected. Accordingly, Winckler’s 
argument identifying So with Sib’a, tartan (i.e., 
general or viceroy) of Pir’u, King of Musri in N. 
Arabia, has been widely accepted (cf. Mittheil. d. 
vorderasiat. Gesellschaft, 1898, 5). Kittel (SVJ, 
41921) thinks So was one Egyptian Official the Sib’u 
of Sargon’s inscriptions, who was in command of 
Egyptian troops assisting the petty kings of Pales- 
tine against Assyria and who is called king in II K 
17 4 by mistake A. C. Z. 


SOAKED. See Sacriricr AND Orrerinas, § 16. 


SOAP (Sope AV): Soap is a compound of fatty 
acids with either potash or soda, which was not 
known in ancient Palestine tho the materials were 
present and much soap is made in that country 
now. ‘The substance used by the fullers (bérith, 
Jer 2 22; Mal 3 2) was apparently a cleansing prepara- 
tion of vegetable alkali, made from the ashes of 
certain plants which are abundant in Palestine, 
notably the saltwort (Job 30 4, Salsola kali; see 
PALESTINE, § 22). In Jer 2 22 this vegetable alkali 
is differentiated from the mineral alkali (see Nirer). 

L. G. L.—E. C. L. 

SOCKET. See TABERNACLE, § 3 (1) and (2). 

SOCO, sd’ko, SOCOH, s6’k6 (jpiv, sdkhd, and 
m>iw, sdkhdh; spelled variously in AV _ Socho, 
Sochoh, Shoco, Shocho, Shochoh; the ARV, fol- 
lowing the Heb., has Socoh, except in I Ch 4 18; II 
Ch 11 7, 28 18): 1. A city in the lowland of Judah 
(Jos 15 33318 171), now Khirbet Suweikeh, a ruined 
village in a commanding position on the S. side of 
the Wddy es-Sunt (Valley of Elah; cf. IS 171 £.), 2 
m. NW. of Adullam. Map II, D1. 2. A city in the 
hill-country of Judah (Jos 15 48), also now Khirbet 
Suweikeh, a large ruin on a low hill 10 m. SW. of 
Hebron, near Eshtemoa and Zanoah (cf. I Ch 4 
17f.). Map II, D3. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


SOD, SODDEN: The past participle of ‘seethe,’ 
‘to boil.’ In all instances the ARV reads ‘boiled.’ 


SODA. See Nirer. 
SODERING. See SoLpERING. 


SODI, sd’dai ("T10, sddhz): The father of Gaddiel, 
one of the spies (Nu 18 10). 


SODOM, sed’am, SODOMA, sed’o-ma (879, 
sedhom, X68o0ua): A city mentioned, with Gomorrah, 
Admah, Zeboim, ‘cities of the plain,’ which were 
destroyed by ‘fire from Jehovah out of heaven’ 
(Gn 19 24). It was a royal city (Gn 14 2). Lot dwelt 
in it after he had chosen the Plain of the Jordan (Gn 
13 11 #.). It was destroyed because of its wicked- 
ness, described in Gn ch. 19 (cf. Gn 18 13, 18 20). 
These cities are mentioned with Zoar (q.v.), which 
is usually located SE. of the Dead Sea. The four 
cities were in a plain, which was shaken by an earth- 
quake. This caused a sinking of the earth and an 
eruption of gases and petroleum, which ignited and 
burned the cities, that were then covered by the 
waters of the Dead Sea. The old plain is the mod- 
ern es-Sebkha, a morass 8. of the Dead Sea. Sir G. 
Grove, Tristram, Conder, and others locate the cities 


Sodom, Vine of 
Solomon 





at the N. end of the Dead Sea, and uphold their view 
by Biblical passages. The cities were visible from 
Bethel (Gn 13 3, 10), from Mt. Nebo (Dt 34 3, Zoar), 
and lay to the N. of the Amalekites (Gn 147). In the 
O T and N T Sodom is often used as a warning ex- 
ample of sin and Divine punishment (Dt 29 23; Is 19, 
39; Jer 50 40; Hzk 16 46; Mt 10 15; Ro 9 29, and 
often). See also PALESTINE, § 12 (c). CaS Bid be 


’ SODOM, VINE OF: A vine whose juices and 
fruits were corrupt like the people of Sodom (Dt 
32 32). It is a figure of the moral corruptness of 
Israel’s enemies (so Dillmann, Driver, et al). <Ac- 
cording to others, it is a figure of Israel’s corruptness, 
the cause of all her disasters. GaSe: 


SODOMITE, sed’am-ait. See Crimes AND Pun- 
ISHMENTS, § 2 (c). 

SOFT RAIMENT. See, in general, Dress AND 
ORNAMENTS, §§ 2, 5. 

SOJOURNERS. See GENTILES. 

SOLDERING (Sodering AY). 
Lire, § 10 (b). 

SOLDIER. See, in general, ARMS AND ARMOR 
and WARFARE. 

SOLOMON, sol’o-man (197%, shelomah, Gr. Dodo- 
udyv), ‘peaceful,’ ‘pacific’: 1. Sources. The son of 
David by Bath-sheba (II S 12 24); also named by 
the prophet Nathan, Jedidiah (ver. 25), ‘beloved of 
J’’” He succeeded his father upon the throne, and 
was the last king of the united nation. The Biblical 
account of the reign of S. is found in I K chs. 1-11 
II Ch chs. 1-9; cf. Sir 47 12-22. Josephus (Ant. 
VIII, 1-8) adds nothing reliable, but, in harmony 
with later tradition, makes S. play the réle of 
sorcerer. 

2. Accession. S. came to the throne about 971 
B.c. (see CHRONOLOGY OF THE O T, table). Little of 
his youth is known, but it is probable that his educa- 
tion was in the hands of Nathan the prophet. He 
began his reign as a mere youth (I K 3 7)—according 
to Josephus at the age of fifteen, but two passages 
(I K 11 42, 14 21) imply that he was probably not 
quite twenty. Bath-sheba persuaded David to 
appoint her son his successor. Thus the rights of 
Adonijah (q.v.), the heir apparent after the death 
of Amnon and Absalom, were set aside. The 
accession of 8. to the throne was hastened by the 
conspiracy of Adonijah, who was supported by 
Abiathar, the priest, and Joab, the veteran com- 
mander. Bath-sheba, supported by Nathan, Zadok, 
and Benaiah, gained the support of the aged mon- 
arch. At David’s command, S. rode to Gihon on the 
royal mule, escorted by the king’s body-guard, and 
was there anointed by Nathan. The conspirators, 
assembled at En-rogel in the vicinity of Jerusalem, 
hurriedly dispersed (I K 1 5-53). Their connection 
with this movement involved Joab and Abiathar in 
disaster (I K 2 26-34). Shimei, David’s old enemy, 
also lost his life through his disobedience (I K 2 
36-46; cf. ITS 165 f.). 

3. Extent and Organization of His Kingdom. S. 
inherited a kingdom which had been conquered by 
the military genius of his father. It stretched from 
Tiphsah (Thapsacus) on the Euphrates to Gaza 
(I K 4 24); two of its outposts were Tamar (usually 


See ARTIZAN 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


858 


identified with Tadmor), in the Syrian desert, and 
Ezion-geber, at the head of the Red Sea. His task 
was to weld this empire into a unity. As far as Israel 
was concerned, he accomplished this by blotting out 
the ancient tribal lines in his division of the land, and 
by redistricting the territory into twelve prefectures 
for the purposes of taxation (IK 474.). With the in- 
stitution of these administrative units many ancient 
tribal rights were swept away, and the vicious Ori- 
ental system of forced work, the levy, was intro- 
duced. We read of 30,000 at work in Lebanon, in — 
monthly relays of 10,000; 70,000 who bore burdens, — 
80,000 hewers, and 3,300 overseers (I K 5 13-18). A i 
very large part of these laborers was taken from the — 
Canaanitish elements of the population (I K 9 20 f.). 
The list of the king’s cabinet officers (I K 4 1-6) 
indicates considerable organization. Jehoshaphat, 
son of Ahilud, was vizier, or chancellor (Heb. maz- 
kir); Ehhoreph and Ahijah had charge of the state 
papers and correspondence (Heb. séph‘rim); Aza- 
riah was at the head of the twelve prefectures, and 
hence chancellor of the exchequer. Zabud was called 
the ‘king’s friend,’ a designation of unknown signifi- 
cance, but also mentioned in the Amarna letters 
(104). Adoniram had the unpopular office of super- 
visor of the inhabitants who had been reduced to 
forced labor. S., altho traditionally portrayed asa — 
man of peace, had a large standing army. Besides 
organizing a cavalry force of 12,000, he equipped 
1,400 chariots (I K 10 26) to supply which he 
established royal stables, with 4,000 stalls (the — 
40,000 of I K 4 26 is an error; cf. IT Ch 9 25). Making © 
a rough estimate on the basis of the cavalry, we 
conclude that Israel’s fighting strength was 300,000 — 
men, when all branches of arms are considered. 
The national defense was further provided for by — 
the fortification of Jerusalem, and other cities (I K — 
9 15 ff.) (cf. JERUSALEM, § 31). In the North, Hazor 
and Megiddo were strongly garrisoned in order to 
prevent any uprising on the part of the Canaanites, 
while Beth-horon, Baalath, and Gezer on the W., — 
frowned down upon.the Philistines. Tamar, located — 
either in the wilderness of Judea or to the SE. of — 
the Dead Sea on the route to Ezion-geber, was 
established as an outpost for the protection of cara- — 
vans (I K 9 18, but Heb. margin and II Ch 8 4 — 
read Tadmor). The wisdom of this policy soon be- ~ 
came evident. Rebellion broke out in Edom, and, — 
altho Hadad is said to have ascended the throne, — 
he was kept in check (I K 11 14-22). The narrative — 
(I K 11 23-25) implies continual warfare between ~ 
Israel and Rezon of Damascus. Jeroboam sowed 
the seeds of rebellion and civil war, which bore bitter — 
fruit for the successor of S. (I K 11 26 #.). This 
conspirator found an asylum with Sheshonk I of © 
Egypt. In all this 8. changed the conception of the 
kingdom from that of an ideal, theocratic realm, 
where the ruler represented J’’, to that of an Oriental — 
world-power, in which the monarch practised ag- 
grandizement and oppression for his own selfish ends. 

4. His Buildings. As a builder on a magnificent — 
scale, S. was a true Oriental monarch. His fame in © 
this respect is usually associated with the building — 
of the Temple. This sanctuary, however, was only 
a part of a pile of royal buildings erected on Mt, 


a ee 























































859 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sodom, Vine of 
Solomon 





Zion. The Temple was located on the northern and 
highest eminence (Jer 26 10). Situated on the south- 
ern end of the hill was the House of the Forest of 
Lebanon, which was probably an assembly-hall for 
the elders and nobility of Israel. Next to this edifice, 
on its northern side, stood the Porch of Pillars, 
which led directly to the Throne Porch, or Hall, of 
Judgment (7 7). Beyond the Throne Porch and 
nearest to the Temple stood his house, the royal 
residence, and the harem (I K 7 8). The entire 
group of structures, Temple included, was sur- 
rounded by a court. (For a detailed description of 
these buildings see JERUSALEM, §§ 25-30, and 
TEMPLE, §§ 3-17.) 


Outside of Jerusalem S. laid out gardens and vine- 
yards (Ec 2 4-6), and he must have provided a system 
of water-works, altho nothing definite is said of this 
in the O T. To carry out such a building program 
required a large force of workmen and a well-filled 
treasury. This last was secured, partly by an 
oppressive system of taxation, and partly by the 
development of commerce. Forced labor furnished 
the workmen and artizans. 


5. Foreign Policy and Commerce. 8S. was a diplo- 
mat rather than a soldier, and succeeded in forming 
several alliances with advantage to himself. Prob- 
ably, at the very opening of his reign he made a 
treaty with Pharaoh (Pusukamne or Pasebchaun, 
of the 21st dynasty). It was ratified by the mar- 
riage of 8. to the daughter of the Egyptian monarch, 
who captured Gezer (q.v.), and gave it as a dowry 
to his daughter. The ulterior purpose of this league 
was to foster close commercial relations between 
the two nations, and upon 8. devolved the task of 
keeping open the caravan route to Mesopotamia 
(I K 31, 78, 10 26 #.). Another confederate of S. 
was Hiram of Tyre (I K 9 10 f., 26 #.). The latter 
found it to his interest to secure the friendship of 
the new power, through whose territory ran the 
caravan routes to Arabia and Egypt. Phenicia 
furnished both the material and the skilled workmen 
for the many building enterprises of the Israelitish 
monarch (I K 5 9-12). In return S. paid an annual 
tribute (I K 5 11) and ceded twenty cities in Galilee 
I K 9 un #f.). The visit of the queen of Sheba 
was due to commercial and political reasons. The 
aggressive commercial policy of 8. aroused anxiety 
in the Sabean kingdom. The Ophir commercial 
fleet (I K 9 28) might be the precursor of vessels of 
war. It was to settle such questions, as well as to 
satisfy herself as to the wisdom and glory of S., that 
the Arabian queen visited Jerusalem (I K 10 1-10). 
These alliances were the basis of his wealth and com- 
merce. His possession of Gezer, Dor, and Megiddo 
(Jg 1 27b; Jos 17 11; I K 4.11) gave him command of 
the caravan route from Egypt to the East, and 
enabled him to levy toll on caravans. Hiram’s 
sailors manned the ships of the fleet which sailed 
from Ezion-geber, bringing gold and other products 
-from Ophir on the E. coast of the Persian Gulf (I K 
9 26 #., 10 11 £.). S. was also interested with Hiram 
in the Phenician voyages to Tarshish (10 22). In 
addition to what flowed through the ordinary chan- 
nels of industry, taxes, and tribute, his commercial 
enterprises are said to have brought 8. 666 talents 


of gold annually. However, the phrase ‘in one 
year’ (10 14) can scarcely mean annually, but must 
refer to the most prosperous year of his reign. The 
Biblical writer describes the wealth of S. in hyper- 
bolical language (10 27). The income derived from 
trade was supplemented by oppressive taxation (I 
KK 4 22 ff.), to support his pomp and splendor. 


6. Personal Life and Character. 8S. was a true 
Oriental in his love of splendor. The poet recalls 
the magnificence of his palanquin and his escort 
(Song 3 6-11). His harem was large; the figures of 
Song 6 8 (60 queens, 80 concubines) refer to the in- 
mates of the harem at one time, while those of I K 
11 3 (700 wives and 300 concubines) cover his entire 
reign. Political reasons prompted many unions 
with foreign princesses, which led him to the tolera- 
tion of strange cults. This laxity is condemned in 
the O T (I K 11 1-8), and later the Rabbis looked 
upon these marriages as the beginning of disaster 
for Israel (cf. Sir 47 19 #.). 

In the O T ‘wisdom’ is a technical term, signifying 
a knowledge of the principles and laws according to 
which God governs nature and the lives of men. S. 
is looked upon as supremely gifted with such wisdom 
(Lk 11 31). He received this in answer to his prayer 
at the opening of his reign (I K 37 #.; cf. Sir 47 13 f.). 
His wisdom manifested itself in a shrewd adminis- 
tration of justice (I K 3 16 #.) and in his knowledge 
of plants and animals (I K 4 32 £.). Of the men 
with whom he is compared in his possession of this 
gift we know nothing (I K 4 30 f.). He is the hero 
of the Song of Songs, is impersonated in Ecclesiastes, 
and is, without doubt, the author of many of the 
Proverbs contained in the canonical book of that 
name (I K 4 32). He probably laid the foundation 
for that side of Hebrew literary activity which 
flowered in the books of the Wisdom literature. 
Tradition ascribes Pss 72 and 127 to him. The 
apocryphal Book of Wisdom (7 17-21) attributes en- 
cyclopedic knowledge to S., representing him as well 
versed is cosmology, demonology, astronomy, zool- 
ogy, anthropology, botany, etc. The author of this 
work makes him philosophize after the manner of 
the Alexandrian schools, and puts into his mouth 
expressions which show an acquaintance with the 
Platonic and Stoic systems (8 20, 9 15, etc.). The 
so called Psalter of Solomon is really a collection of 
Pharisee psalms. Later generations looked upon S. 
as a man of fervid piety, for his prayer at the dedica- 
tion of the Temple (I K ch. 8), in the Deuteronomic 
version as we possess it, is ‘one of the grandest de- 
votional utterances to be found in prechristian 
devotional literature.’ His practical religion was 
not lived upon the lofty plane of this prayer. AI- 
tho he never formally forsook the worship of 
Jehovah, the national God, he tolerated and took 
part in the worship of foreign deities. He was cer- 
tainly not an absolute theoretical monotheist, after 
the manner of the later prophets, and, while with- 
out the serious faults of his father, David, he never- 
theless lacked also the latter’s intense devotion to 
Israel’s God. 


7. Solomon in Later Legend. The Solomon le- 
gends form a vast subject, which can be only 
touched upon. Josephus (Ant. VIII, 2 5) 


Solomon 
Song of Songs 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


860 





attributes to him the power of expelling demons, 
makes him the author of incantations for alleviating 
distempers and diseases, and derives from him the 
method of exorcism as it was practised in the days 
of the historian. According to rabbinical tradition, 
he had power over the demons by means of a 
talismanic ring, upon which the name of God was 
inscribed, and it was the theft of this ring which 
enabled Asmodeus, the chief of the demons, to 
usurp the throne of S. The relation of Israel’s great 
monarch to Asmodeus has been a favorite theme 
with both Jewish and Mohammedan writers. By a 
misinterpretation of I K 4 33 the Rabbis ascribed 
to him full knowledge of the speech of birds and 
beasts. (See JH.) S. appears in the Koran in suras 
21, 27, 28, 34, 37, 38. The story of S., Queen 
Bilqis, and the Hoopoe (sura 27) is really borrowed 
from the Targum of Esther (1 2). See Hughes, 
Dict. of Islam. The fame of Israel’s great monarch 
has been spread far and wide through Oriental lands 
in the literature which Islam has produced. 
LireRATURE: Ewald, History of Israel (1869-86); Stanley, 
History of the Jewish Church (1865-76), vol. ii; Kent, History 
of the Hebrew People (1896), vol. i; Kittel, History of the 
Hebrews (1888, 1892); McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the 
Monuments (1894), p. 205 ff.; Ottley, A Short History of the 
Hebrews (1901); H. P. Smith, O T History (1903); Wade, 
O T History (1903); Foakes-Jackson, Biblical History of 
the Hebrews (1921). A fine treatment of Solomon’s buildings 
is to be found in Stade’s Geschichte d. Volkes Israel (1886) 
vol. i, 311. TAG ISS 
SOLOMON, CURTAINS OF (Song 1 5). See 


ETHNOGRAPHY AND HrHNoLoey, § 13 (Shalem). 
SOLOMON’S PORCH. See Tremp ts, § 27. 


SOLOMON’S SERVANTS (‘abhedhé shelimoh): 
Among those who returned with Zerubbabel are 
mentioned the children of ‘Solomon’s servants’ 
(Ezr 2 55, 58; Neh 7 57, 60), who afterward dwelt in 
the cities of Judah (Neh 11 3). They are mentioned 
with the Nethinim (q.v.) in all these passages, and 
are probably to be included with them, tho not 
named in Neh 3 26, 31, 10 28 [29]. The Nethinim 
were ‘those given’ to the service of the Temple, and 
are traced back to Solomon (I K 9 20, 21; cf. Jos 
9 23), if not to David (Ezr 8 20). Solomon levied 
bond-servants (I K 9 20 f.) from the old inhabitants 
of Canaan, and probably gave some of them to the 
lower service of the Temple, as ‘Nethinim.’ Their 
descendants seem to have formed a separate class, 
and to have maintained their identity until after the 
Exile. CaS eel: 


SON. See, in general, Epucation; also FamiIny 
AND Famity Law, §§ 5, 6, 8, and GennaLoey, § 3. 


SON OF DAVID. See Jesus Curist, § 15 (d). 


SON OF GOD, SON OF MAN. See Jzsus 
Curist, § 15 (b), (c). 

SONG OF SONGS, (O'V017Y, shir hash- 
shirim), (‘Song of Songs,’ Song of Solomon AV): 
The full title reads: ‘Song of Songs, which is Solo- 
mon’s.’ The common title Canticles is from the 
Vulg. Canticum Canticorum. 

1. Name and Place in the Canon. ‘Song of Songs’ 
is a superlative expression signifying the best or 
greatest of songs (cf. ‘holy of holies,’ ‘vanity of 
vanities’). The second half of the Heb. title clearly 
points to Solomon as the supposed author. 


In the Heb. Canon the book belongs to the third 
division (the ‘Writings’ or Hagiographa); and is the 
first of the five Megilloth or ‘Rolls’ (Song, Ru, La, 
Ee, Est) which were read publicly at the great 
annual feasts, Song being assigned to the eighth 
day of the Passover. 

At the Council of Jamnia (90 a.p.) Rabbi Akiba 
made high claims for the book, saying that ‘no one 
in Israel ever doubted that the Song of Songs defiled 
the hands [7.e., is canonical], for the whole world is 
not worth the day on which the Song was given.’ 
At this time the book had apparently already been 
placed among the sacred writings, and it may have 
been considered canonical before the beginning of our 
eral; but the very extravagance of the language used 
by its admirers seems to indicate that for a long while 
there was dispute as to its canonicity, and it is a 
singular fact that the Song is never referred to in the 
other O T Books, the O T Apocrypha, the N T, 
Philo, or J osephus. The admission of the work into 
the Canon was based upon two assumptions: (1) its 
Solomonic authorship, and (2) the existence of a 
veiled religious meaning, which could be brought 
to light through an allegorical interpretation. We 
shall see later, however, that both of these assump- 
tions were groundless. 

2. Interpretation. At first glance, the Song is 
simply a poem concerning affection between the 
sexes, sometimes rather too frank in expression for 
our Western ears, but culminating in a matchless 
panegyric upon true love, which atones for any 
previous coarseness. The work gives a vague im- 
pression of unity, altho its structure seems rather 
confused. It is clear that more than one person 
speaks, but it is difficult for the English reader to 
disentangle the various utterances, or to discover a 
coherent plan running through the book. 

To a somewhat less extent?, the same confusion 
appears in the Heb. 

Those who maintain the unity of the book differ 
as to the number of speakers introduced. The 
traditional view among both Jews and Christians 
(supported in modern times by Keil and Delitzsch) 
was that there are but two principal characters, 
Solomon and a Shulammite maiden (6 13), and that 
the poem is made up of mutual expressions of love 
and admiration.’ 

Widely differing hypotheses have been put forth 
concerning the meaning of the poem. All the 
theories worthy of serious discussion, however, may 
be considered as variations of one or another of the 
three now to be presented. 


| 
| 

















iThe Talmud mistakenly ascribes the introduction of the 
Song into the Canon to Hezekiah’s college of scribes (cf. — 
bead 4 


2 The fact that in Heb. the pronouns usually indicate the 
gender removes a good deal of the uncertainty which is in- 
evitable in our translations. Even in the Eng., however, a 
clue may be found by remembering that ‘my love’ (e.g., 
1 9, 15, ete.; not, however, ‘my love’ in 1 7, 3 5, 8 4) always 
refers to the woman, while ‘my beloved’ (e.g., 1 13 4, 16) 
indicates the man. The mention of the ‘daughters of Jeru- — 
salem’ (1 5, 2 7, etc.) is also suggestive. 


3 The analysis of the poem according to this scheme, as 
well as that which follows, will be found in Driver’s LOT. 
The Modern Reader’s Bible (part entitled ‘Biblical Idylls’) 
arranges the complete text very attractively in accordance 
with the traditional view. 


861 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Solomon 
Song of Songs 


Neer rere e Ss sss sss ssi ste tl ihn stent 


(1) The Allegorical Theory. As has been said al- 
ready, the introduction of the Song into the Canon 
was based upon an allegorical interpretation. Such 
an exposition presupposed the traditional view of 
the structure of the work. The bride was the Jewish 
people, the bridegroom, Solomon, was God, and the 
progress of the poem embraced the entire history of 
Israel from the Exodus to the coming of the Messiah. 

The allegorical interpretation was taken over by 
the early Christians, except that for Jehovah and 
Israel they substituted Christ and His Church. With 
slight modifications, this view was accepted prac- 
tically exclusively until the end of the 18th cent., 
and is indicated in the chapter-headings of the 
Authorized Version. The book has always been a 
favorite among those of a mystic turn of mind,‘ and 
the allegorizing has often been carried out in elabo- 
tate, not to say offensive, detail. It need hardly be 
said that the poem itself does not contain a single 
indication that there is any such cryptic meaning. 

The self-indulgent autocrat with a harem of 
‘threescore queens, and fourscore concubines, and 
virgins without number’ (6 8; cf. I K 11 3) would 
have been a poor type of God. 

There is no justification for the efforts, still not 
infrequently made, to combine the literal and the 
allegorical interpretations, even to the extent of 
admitting that the love here described may be typi- 
eal of a higher love. Of course it may! So may any 
record of human affection (e.g., ‘Sonnets from the 
Portuguese’) be cited to make more vivid our con- 
ception of the depth of love which His people ought 
to bear to God. But the Song of Songs does not 
mean this; and when both O T and N T abound in 
unmistakable and sometimes elaborate comparisons 
between Divine and human love (e.g., Is 54 4 #.; 
Jer 2 2, 31; Ezk ch. 16; Hos chs. 1-3; Mt 9 15; II Co 
11 2; Eph 5 31 £.; Rev 21 2), it seems unnecessarily 
confusing to search for further types in this poem. 
It is significant that when the Bridegroom of the 
Church at length appeared, neither He nor His 
disciples ever found it necessary to apply to the 
Christ the words of the Song of Songs. 

Isolated protests were raised against the alle- 
gorical method from early times. Theodore of 
Mopsuestia (860-429 a.p.) contended for a literal 
interpretation of the book, with the result that his 
commentary was condemned by the Second Council 
of Constantinople (553 a.p.). Ibn Ezra and Joseph 
Kimhi, in the 12th cent., mention literal interpreters 
in their day. Castellio in 1544, declared that the 
Song was an expression of Solomon’s love for the 
maiden Shulammith, but these voices were lost in 
the universal chorus of approval, Jewish and 
Christian, of the traditional conception. 

(2) The Dramatic Theory. The Protestant 
Reformation, with its rejection of allegory, and its 
insistence upon the grammatico-historical interpre- 
tation of Scripture, led inevitably to a literal inter- 
pretation of the Song; and the earliest efforts in this 
direction assumed that it was a drama of the familiar 
Greek type. First suggested by Wachter in 1722, 
this was developed by Jacobi in 1771, and was given 
currency by Ewald. According to Ewald, there are 


4 Bernard of Clairvaux preached eighty sermons on the 
first two chapters. 


three chief characters, viz., Solomon, the Shulam- 
mite, and her shepherd lover; and from various hints 
we can reconstruct a background of incidents which 
will explain the utterances of this dramatic or semie 
dramatic poem. 

The story, briefly, is this: A beautiful country girl 
from Shulam (7.e., Shunem, 5 m. N. of Jezreel) was 
surprized by the king on one of his journeys to the 
north (6 11 £.), was brought to Jerusalem and placed 
in the royal palace (1 4b, 5), where, as the poem 
opens, the ladies of the harem (‘daughters of Jeru- 
salem’) are singing the praises of Solomon. The 
king himself makes great efforts to win the affection 
of the Shulammite (1 9, etc.); but she remains 
faithful to the memory of her shepherd lover (1 7, 
etc.), who at last appears, and is allowed by the 
magnaminous monarch to return to his mountain 
home with his bride (8 5 #.).5 

According to this conception of the book, it con- 
tains a clear and helpful ethical teaching. It is a 
glorification of true love, which, in spite of all the 
imagined seductions of a rich and sensuous Oriental 
court, remains faithful to its plighted troth, and 
repels every tempting allurement like a virgin for- 
tress guarded by walls and towers (8 10). Not Solo- 
mon in all his glory could banish from the heart of 
the exiled country maiden the image of her absent 
lover. The Shepherd wooer who found his heart’s 
desire resting beneath the apple-tree inspired in the 
maiden the sweet love lines (8 6 f.) which are both 
the text and the climax of the poem. 


‘Set me as a seal upon they heart, 

As a seal upon thine arm: 

For love is strong as death; 

Jealousy is cruel as Sheol: 

The flashes thereof are flashes of fire, 

A very flame of Jehovah. 

Many waters can not quench love, 

Neither can floods drown it: 

If a man would give all the substance 
of his house for love, 

He would utterly be contemned.’ 

This theory was given wide popularity by Renan 
(1860), and has received the support of critics of the 
first rank, such as Dillmann, Bruston, Martineau, 
Driver, and Andrew Harper in the Cambridge Bible 
(1902); but it does not remove the difficulties of the 
book. The drama is elsewhere unknown in Hebrew 
literature, or in Semitic literature; and, granted that 
the Song is dramatic, we must suppose that it was 
intended to be read or sung rather than acted. Fur- 
thermore, in the Song there are none of the usual 
indications concerning the dramatis persone, scenes, 
etc., so that a great deal must be read between the 
lines. Those who hold this view of the structure of 
the poem are not always in agreement as to the 
assignment of the various speeches, and it is often 
necessary to interrupt the dialog with supposed 
musings, dreams, and apostrophes to the absent 
which seem awkward and far-fetched. In particular, 
there is a difference of opinion as to whether, in 
passages such as 4 7-15, the shepherd lover actually 
appears upon the scene, or is only imagined to speak 
by his distracted sweetheart. These difficulties 
have led more recent critics to abandon the dramatic 





5 Ewald’s first treatment of the Song appeared in 1826, 
and his last in the Dichter des Alten Bundes, in 1867. 


Song of Songs 
| Spies 





theory, and to adopt a new theory which is more in 
accord with Oriental life and Oriental literature. 
(3) The Folk-Song Theory. This view was first 
clearly formulated by Budde’, who based his argu- 
ments largely upon descriptions of modern Syrian 
marriage customs first published in 1873 by J. G. 
Wetzstein,? then Prussian consul at Damascus. 
According to this theory, the book contains a num- 
ber of poems (Budde distinguishes twenty-three) 
sung during the week following a wedding, when the 
bride and groom presided over elaborate ceremonies 
and were honored as ‘king’ (Solomon) and ‘queen’ 
(Shulammith, ef. I K, 1 3 #.; 217 #.). These particu- 


lar songs may have been written down by an in-— 
terested spectator or, more probably, formed the | 


repertoire of some professional musician. 


This theory has received additional support by the | 


publication of G. Dalman’s Paldstinischer Diwan 
(1901), which gives six modern Syrian wedding songs 
closely similar to the Song of Songs. Similar material 
is gathered by H. H. Spoer, AJSL, xxii, 1906, pp. 
292-301; and by E. Littmann, Neuarabische Volks- 
poesie, 1902. Old Arabian parallels are given by 
C. J. Lyall, Translations of Ancient Arabic Poetry; 
Old Egyptian parallel, by W. M. Miiller, Die 
Liebespoesie der alten Aegypter. See L. B. Paton, 
‘Love (Semitic and Egyptian),’ in ERE, viii, pp. 
180-183. For Bab. parallels, see T. J. Meek in JBL, 
xliii, 1924, pp. 245-252. 

3. Authorship and Date. As to authorship, place 
of composition, and date, the one thing upon which 
all modern scholars are agreed is that Solomon could 
not possibly have written the Song which now 
bears hisname. The statement of the title is of little 
value, as this is plainly by a later writer (the rela- 
tive, ’dsher, ‘which,’ of 11 is never used in the body 
of the book). According to the dramatic theory of 
the Song mentioned above, the great king could 
never have composed a poem which sets him in so 
unfavorable a light. But the denial of Solomonic 
authorship does not depend upon any particular 
theory concerning the interpretation of the work. 
The coupling of Tirzah (cf. I K 15 21) with Jerusalem 
(6 4) points to a time later than the division of the 
kingdom of Solomon. Above all, the diction ‘ex- 
hibits several peculiarities, especially in the uniform 
use of the relative she for ’dsher, and in the recur- 
rence of many words found never or rarely besides in 
Biblical Hebrew, but common in Aramaic, which 
show either that it must be a late work (postexilic), 
or, if early, that it belongs to North Israel, where 
there is reason to suppose that the language spoken 
differed dialectically from that of Judah’ (see Driver, 
LOT, p. 448 f., for a list of such words). 

The latter alternative is preferred by Driver him- 
self, largely because of the freshness of the recollec- 
tions of Solomon and his court and the general 
purity and vigor of the style, which seem to indicate 


6 The New World (1894), p. 56 ff., and Kurzer Hand- Com- 
mentar (1898). Budde’s view has been adopted substan- 
tially by Siegfried, Hand-Kommentar (1898) and by Cheyne, 
EB, s.v. ‘‘Canticles’’; also by Stade, Gesch. Isr., ii, 197 n; 
Kautzsch, Abriss, 210 f.; Jastrow, The Song of Songs (1921); 
and Bewer, Lit. of the O T. (1922), p. 391 ff. 


7 “Mie Syrische Dreschtafel,” in Zeitschrift fiir Ethnologie; 
partly republished in Delitzsch’s Comm. on Canticles (Eng 
transl. 1877). 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 
































862 


a comparatively early date. The prevailing ten- 
dency of recent critics, however, is to place the poem 
in the Greek period (3d cent. B.c.). The evidence 
of the local coloring is not conclusive. The majority 
of the allusions seem to refer to N. Palestine (tho 
this also is disputed); but there is no reason why a - 
Judean should not have been familiar with this part 
of the country. In addition to the works mentioned 
already in the article, see P. Haupt, The Book of 
Canticles, 1902; Biblische Liebeslieder, 1907; W. 
Stark, Die Schriften des A. T. in Auswahl, 1912; 
A. Dussaud, Cantique des Cantiques, 1920; M. Jas- 
trow, The Song of Songs, 1921. L.G.L.—L.B.P. 


SONG OF THREE CHILDREN. See Danret, 
ADDITIONS TO, § 1. P 

SONGS OF DEGREES. See Psauns, § 4. 

SONS OF GOD (O'7?NT722, bend ha-’élohim): 
A designation of supernatural, godlike beings, angels _ 
(q.v.). ‘Sons of? means ‘belonging to the class of.’ 
In Gn 6 2-4 they are represented as existing before the 
Flood, and from their union with women sprang the 
‘mighty men of old.’ Some interpret this passage 
by making ‘the sons of God’ men of the: pious 
descendants of Seth, and ‘the daughters of men,’ 
the wicked descendants of Cain; but this is impos- 
sible. Similar beings are mentioned in Job 1 6, 21, 
38 7; Ps 29 1, 89 6 [7], where bené ha’ élohim or ’élim is 
used. CC, pa% 

SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING. See Maaic 
AND Divination, §§ 1-3. 

SOP: The rendering of buwytoy, ‘a morsel of food’ 
(Jn 13 26-30). It was (and still is) the custom in the 
East to eat broth or other liquid foods by dipping — 
bread in them. See also Mnuats, § 2. 

SOPATER, sd’pa-ter or sep’a-tar (Léxateoc): A 
Beroean, one of Paul’s companions on his last jour- 
ney to Jerusalem (Ac 20 4). Possibly the same as 
Sosipater (Ro 16 21); if so, he was of Jewish birth 
(‘kinsman’ is to be taken, probably, in the racial, 
not family, sense). 

SOPE. See Soap. . 

SOPHERETH, s0-fi’reth’ or sefi-refh (N90, 
sOphereth), ‘scribe’ [fem.]: The ancestral head of a _ 
family of ‘Solomon’s servants’ (Neh 7 57). In Ezr2 — 
55 used with the article (Hassophereth). 

SORCERER, SORCERY. See Maaic anp Div- 
INATION, §§ 1-3. , 

SORE. See Diszasz anp Mepicing, § 4 (5). 

SOREK, s0’rek (PTY, sdréq), THE VALLEY OF: — 
The mod. Wddy Surér, the natural highway from — 
Philistia to Jerusalem and the route of the modern 
railway. MapII,C1,D1. The wddy begins to the 
NW. of Jerusalem and reaches the sea as the Nahr 
Rabin (‘Reuben river’), 9 m. below Jaffa. Altho — 
mentioned by name only in Jg 16 4, this valley was 
doubtless also the scene of the battles of I S chs. 
4-7. The ‘camp of Dan’ (Jg 13 25 mg.) lay on the 
N. slope of the valley, opposite Beth-shemesh. See 
G. A. Smith, HG HL, pp. 218-226. 

L. G. L.+E. E. N. 

SOSIPATER, so-sip’a-tar (wolxeteos): Men- — 
tioned in the postscript (see Quarrus) of Ro ch. — 
16 (vs. 21-23), with Lucius and Jason, who are de- — 


863 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Song of Songs 
Spies 





scribed as kinsmen—i.e., fellow countrymen—of the 
writer (cf. Ro 93). It is possible that this Sosipater 
is to be identified with the Bercean Sopater men- 
tioned in Ac 20 4. The name occurs in C/Gr., II, 
No. 1927. A Pap iad 2 


SOSTHENES, sos’thi-niz (Lwofévys): The head 
of the Jewish synagog in Corinth at the time of Paul’s 
arrest in that city (Ac 18 12 ff.), and probably the 
successor of Crispus, after the conversion of the 
latter (Ac 18 8). When Gallio refused to listen to 
the charges against Paul, ‘all’ (the Jews, apparently: 
SAB omit ot “EAAnves ‘Greeks’ AV in ver.17) turned 
upon 8. and maltreated him, evidently because of his 
weak prosecution of their case. If this S. is the same 
person as the one mentioned in I Co 11, he subse- 
quently became a Christian. Later tradition makes 
the S. of the latter passage one of the Seventy (Eus. 
fa ine ES Wie OB Js Mate 


SOTAI, sd’tai, sd’té, or sd’ta-ai (WD, BID, sdtay): 
The ancestral head of one of the families of ‘Solo- 
mon’s servants’ (Ezr 2 55; Neh 7 57). 


SOUL. See Man, Docrrinze or, § 6. 
SOUND, TO. See Suies anp Navigation, § 2. 
SOUTH, (as a point of the compass). See Easr. 


SOUTH, THE: To the S. of Judah lay the region 
known by the Heb. name 233, neghebh (i.e., ‘dry’ or 
‘waste’), rendered in AV by ‘south’ (as tho a mere 
point of the compass), in RV by ‘the South’ (as a 
proper noun), except in those cases in which it is 
used solely for a point of the compass. The exact 
boundaries of this region can not be given. It was 
thought to begin in the Calebite possessions near 
Debir (cf. 1S 3014). It extended to Kadesh-barnea, 
about 60 m. SSW. of Debir, with a breadth of about 
40 m., Map II, 5. It included such places as Arad, 
Beer-sheba, Rehoboth, Sibnah, Kadesh-barnea, and 
probably others, the exact location of which can not 
now be recovered. Its designation neghebh, ‘dry,’ was 
only comparative. It had fewer springs and was less 
fruitful than Judah, but was not a desert like much 
of the region farther S., e.g., the wilderness of Sin. 
It was the home of many tribes, Amalekites, Jerah- 
meelites, Calebites, etc., some of whom became in- 
corporated into Judah, while others, more hostile, 
were later driven out or exterminated. This whole 
district was considered a part of the land of Israel, 
and was assigned to the tribes of Judah and Simeon. 
The Simeonites were incorporated later into Judah, 
but the memory of their original possession is re- 
flected in such passages as Jos 19 1-9. See also Pat- 
ESTINE, §§ 6 and 15, and cf. Cheyne in EB, art. 
Negeb, with map. Cf. also HGHL, chs. II and 
XIII. EK. E. N. 

SOW, SOWER. See, in general, AGRIcULTURE, 
§ 5. 

SPAIN (xaviz): S. is mentioned in the Bible 
only in Ro 15 24, 28, but is identified usually with 
the Tarshish of the O T, whose rich mines attracted 
the Phenicians. The N. and W. portions of this 
wealthy peninsula were not subjugated by the Ro- 
mans until the time of Augustus, but the rest en- 
joyed an abundant trade with Rome by sea and by 
good roads. ‘Roman civilization pervaded S. earlier 


and more powerfully than any other province’ 
(Mommsen). A native Latinity, represented by the 
Senecas, Lucan, Martial, and Quintilian, gave S. a 
high place in the literature of the Ist cent. It was 
popularly regarded as the western limit of the world 
(cf. I Clement, v, 7; éxt cd tépua tho Sbcews). For 
Paul’s visit see Timoruy, Episrixs To. 
R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


SPAN. See Wricuts anp Mxasurss, § 2. 
SPARROW. Srp PAtestIne, § 25. 


SPARTA, spGr’ta (Zrékern), also called Lacede- 
mon: The capital of Lacedsmonia or Laconia, 
peopled at first by the Leleges, Minyz, Phenicians, 
then in turn by Aolians, Achzans, and the Dorians, 
who held sway in historical times. Two kings of the 
old native royal families (Agidz and Eurypontide) 
exercised conjointly the supreme authority in war 
and religion. Associated with them were five 
Ephors and a Gerousia of twenty-eight men above 
sixty years of age. The state was a democratic 
monarchy; matters of great moment were decided 
by the town meeting. S.’s conservative constitution 
was based on the laws of Lycurgus (circa 820 B.c). 
The people formed three classes: sovereign Dorians 
(few in number), the subject Achwans (Periecoi), 
and the serfs (Helots). The mode of life was simple; 
the youth belonged to the state, not to the family, 
and were drilled in the use of arms from infancy. 
S. came to be regarded as the leader of Greece in war. 
Thebes (Epaminondas) was the first to break S.’s 
power (362 B.c.), which was finally crushed by 
Antigonus Doson (of Macedonia) and Philopcemen 
(an Achewan general) at Sellasia (221 B.c.). S. 
became prominent again for a time under the tyrant 
Nabis (died 192 B.c.). It is difficult to see any his- 
torical importance in the message of Jonathan to 
the Spartans (c. 146 B.c.; cf. I Mac 12) seeking their 
friendship on the strange plea of kinship. I Mac 
12 7, 20-23 implies that Areus I, of Sparta (309-265 
B.c.), had shown great friendship for the Jews in the 
days of Onias I (c. 323-300 B.c.). But little is known 
of the reasons and circumstances of these relations 
between Judea and Sparta. See Ontras. 

J.R.S. S.*—S. A. 


SPEAR. See Arms AND Armor, § I. 
SPEAR-MAN. See Wanrrare, § 4. 
SPECKLED BIRD. See Pauesrine, § 25. 
SPELT. See PALEsTINE, § 22; and Rix. 


SPICES, SPICERY. See Foop anp Foop UTEn- 
sits, § 4; and OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES. 


SPIDER. See PaLEstIne, § 26. 


SPIES: The practise of using spies to obtain de- 
sired information (‘spy out’ or ‘search’) as to an 
enemy’s land, condition, or plans must have been 
widely current in the ancient East. References to 
it in the O T are fairly numerous (Gn 42 9 f.; Nu 
13 1#., 21 32; Jos 21.3; Jz 123, 18 2; 15 26.4; ICS 
10 3). Of these the most noted instances are those 
of the twelve spies whom Moses sent from Kadesh 
to examine the land of Canaan (Nu ch. 13 and Dt 
1 22 #.) and the two whom Joshua sent to ascertain 
the condition of Jericho (Jos 21 #.). In the first 
instance, the narrative in Nu ch. 13 appears to be 


Spikenard 
Stone 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


864 





composite, a fusion of two distinct accounts. In 
one (P), twelve men are selected by Moses at the 
command of J’’ and sent from the wilderness of 
Paran to go through the entire length of Canaan, 
even to its extreme N. boundary. They were gone 
forty days and returned with an evil report which 
greatly discouraged the people (Nu 13 1-17a, 21, 26a, 
32a). According to the other account (JE), it was 
the people at Kadesh who requested that spies be 
sent. Moses agreed, selected twelve men, and sent 
them into ‘the South’ (q.v.) and into the ‘hill- 
country’ as far as the Valley of Eschol (near Hebron) 
to examine the land very carefully and bring back 
specimens of its fruit. This was done, but the ma- 
jority of the spies were so terrified by the gigantic 
inhabitants and the strong cities that they discour- 
aged the people from attempting the conquest (Nu 
13 17b-20, 22-24, 26b-31, 33, and Dt 1 22-33). It also 
seems likely that in JE’s account Joshua was not 
thought of as one of the spies, since Caleb alone is 
mentioned (Nu 13 30; Dt 1 36; cf. Nu 14 24). In P’s 
account Joshua is named in the list (Nu 138). There 
can be no doubt that the tradition as found in JE 
is the more trustworthy. A tentative analysis of 
this into its original elements (J and E) is possible 
(Nu 13 17b, 18a,c, 19, 22, 27, 28, 30c=J; 17f., 18b , 20, 29, 
33 =), but the differences here are not great. 

The account of Joshua’s spies (Jos ch. 2) is also 
composite. In one strand emphasis is laid upon the 
fact that Rahab’s house was on the city wall so that 
she could let the spies down through a window 
which was to be designated by a scarlet thread in 
order that she could be rescued when the city was 
captured (see especially vs. 12, 14, 15, 17-21, and the 
sequel in 6 21, 25). In the other strand, the location 
of Rahab’s house is not given, and in the sequel, 
while the wall has fallen flat (6 20), the spies go into 
the city to rescue Rahab (6 22 f.). E. E. N. 

SPIKENARD. See OINTMENTS AND PERFUMES, 
§ 2; and Narp. 

SPIN, SPINDLE. See Arrizan Lirs, § 11. 

SPIRIT. See Gop, passim; and Man, Doctrine 
oF, § 6. 

SPIRIT, HOLY. See Hoty Sprrir. 

SPIRIT OF DIVINATION. See Magic snp 
DrvinaTIon, § 3. 

SPIRITUAL BODY. See Bopy. 

SPIRITUAL GIFTS. See Cuurcu Lirs, §§ 5, 6. 

SPOIL. See Warrarge, § 5. 

SPONGE: Sponges are found in abundance in the 
Mediterranean. Their use in Palestine in the time 
of Christ is attested by the Gospels, which record 
the manner in which a drug designed to lessen pain 
was administered to Jesus (Mt 27 48; Mk 15 36; Jn 
19 29). J. M. T. 

SPOON. See Trempte, § 16; and TasrrRNacte, 
§ 3 (3). 

SPOUSE: The translation of the Heb. term kal- 
lah (Song 4 8-12, 51; Hos 413 f., all AV), which is more 
accurately rendered in RV by ‘bride.’ 

SPRING: The geological formation of Palestine 
and the climate with its long dry season give an 
exceptional value and importance to springs, es- 


pecially to those that are perennial (see PALESTINE, 
§§ 14-16, 19f.). It was due to this that springs were 
venerated with sincere reverence and often thought — 
of (especially in very early times) as abodes of deity 
(see Semitic Retiaion, § 7), a mode of thought that 
persisted down to comparatively late times. Names 
of places located near springs were often compound, 
the first syllable, En (‘ayn), meaning ‘spring.’ 
EH. E. N. 
SPRINKLE. See Sacririce AND OFFERINGS, § 16. 
SPY. See Spriss. 


STACHYS, sté’kis (Xté&yuc¢): A Christian at Rome, 
one of Paul’s beloved friends (Ro 16 9). 


STACTE, stak’ti or -té. See OINTMENTS AND 
PERFUMES, § 2 (1). 


STAFF: This term renders the following Heb. and 
Gr. words: (1) badh, ‘bar of wood.’ Such bars were 
used in the building of the sanctuary (Ex 25 13 f£.;. 
Nu46f.;1K 87). (2) héts, ‘Gs, ‘etsdh, ‘tree,’ ‘wood’; 
but, more particularly, the shaft of a spear (IS 177; 
IIS 2119). (8) mét, métah, ‘pole,’ which two persons 
might use in carrying a load on their shoulders 
(Nu 13 23; I Ch 15 15). (4) matteh, ‘rod,’ ‘cane,’ 
carried about as a badge of dignity or personal con- 
venience (Gn 38 25); also figuratively (Ezk 4 16, 5 16). 
(5) magqgél, the same as (4) (Gn 3210). (6) mish‘eneth, 
mash‘énah, ‘stay,’ ‘support’ (Jg 6 21; Ex 21 19; Is 
31). (7) pelekh, ‘a distaff’—to lean upon (II S 3 29). 
(8) shébhet, ‘cane,’ ‘reed’ (II S 23 21). (9) Edroyv, 
‘bludgeon,’ used in attack or defense (Mt 26 47). 
(10) 6&@80c, ‘cane,’ the same as (4) (Mt 10 10). 

AL Cad: 

STAIRS. See Houss, § 6 (g). 


STAIRS OF THE CITY OF DAVID. See Jzerv- 
SALEM, § 38. 


STANDARD. See BANNER. 


STAR. See Astronomy, §§ 3-6, 8 f.; and Semitic 
RELIGION, § 32. 

STAR-GAZER. See Astronomy, § 9. 

STATUTE. See Law anp Lecat Practise, § 1 
(2). 

STEAL, STEALING. See Crimes anp PUNISH- 
MENTS, § 2 (a). 

STEEL: The rendering of n*hishah, ‘bronze’ (adj.), 
and n*hdsheth, ‘bronze’ (noun), in II S 22 35; Job 
20 24; Ps 18 34, and Jer 15 12, all AV, for which RV 
has ‘of brass.’ See Merats, § 3. 


STEERSMAN. See Suiprs anp Naviaation, § 2. 


STEPHANAS, stef’a-nas (“tepavas): One of the 
first converts in Achaia, whom, together with his 
family, Paul baptized (I Co 1 16, 1615). With Acha- 
icus and Fortunatus, he seems to have come to 
Ephesus with messages from the Corinthian church, 
probably also with the letter to which our I Co is a 
reply. These messengers were probably also the 
bearers of the latter Epistle. Zs We 


STEPHEN, sti’ven (Xtépavoc, ‘crown’): One of 
‘the seven’ prominent disciples in the early Church 
who were chosen to see to the distribution of food, 
etc., to the needy members of the community (Ac _ 
65f.). His Gr. name indicates probably that he was 
a Hellenistic Jew. He was noted for his faith and 





865 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Spikenard 
Stone 





spiritual gifts (Ac 6 5, 8). His activity in the new 
cause brought him into conflict with the zealous 
Hellenistic Jews of Jerusalem, who, angered by his 
eloquent presentation of the new faith, at last 
brought him to trial before the Sanhedrin, on the 
formal charge of blasphemy. In spite of his char- 
acter, his defense of his faith in Christ was not 
heeded. He was rudely interrupted, condemned to 
death, and stoned, Saul of Tarsus consenting to the 
act and holding the garments of the chief witnesses 
against Stephen (Ac 6 11-8 1, 22 20). 

Stephen was not only the first Christian martyr, 
but he was also the first of the early primitive Apos- 
tolic Church to perceive the logical consequences of 
Jesus’ teaching, viz., that the existing Jewish cultus, 
with its traditions and its Temple, was of a tem- 
porary character, and that with the recognition of 
Jesus as the Messiah a new era had dawned in which 
these things were of secondary value. We have only 
a fragment of his speech preserved, but this, with 
the charge that was formulated against him, shows 
the general drift of his thought. He thus anticipated 
Paul in asserting the larger, more universal scope of 
Christianity. It was a remarkable fact that Saul of 
Tarsus, who held the garments of Stephen’s execu- 
tioners, was destined to become the chief exponent 
of the principles for which Stephen died. E. E. N. 


STERN. See Suips anp Navigation, § 2. 


STEWARD, STEWARDSHIP: In the O T 
‘steward’ is not the rendering of a simple Heb. term 
(except in I Ch 28 1 AV, where the Heb. is sar, 
‘prince’ or ‘ruler’). In Gn 43 16, 19, 44 4, the Heb. 
means ‘one who is over the house.’ In Gn 15 2, ‘stew- 
ard’ AV, the literal rendering is ‘son of the posses- 
sion of my house,’ 7.e., ‘possessor of my house’; cf. 
RY. But the text here is suspicious. In Dn 1 11, 16 
the Heb. word meltsar (Melzar AV) is probably the 
title of the officer who had charge of Daniel. The 
RV renders ‘steward,’ but this is little more than a 
guess. In the N T éxttporos is a general term for a 
caretaker and is well rendered ‘steward’ in Mt 20 8; 
Lk 83. But in Gal 4 2 (‘steward’ RV), ‘guardian’ or 
‘governor’ (AV) is equally preferable. The other 
N T terms olxovéwoc, oifxovouta, ofxovorety (all 
derived from otxfa, ‘house,’ and véuetv, ‘to manage’) 
are well rendered by ‘steward,’ ‘stewardship,’ the 
plain reference being to the management of a large 
property by an overseer. Paul (I Co 41£.; Tit 17) 
and Peter (I P 4 10) use the term otxovéoc figura- 
tively of the Christian ministry. K. E. N. 

STOCK, STOCKS. The rendering of (1) terms 
indicating the stem or stock of a tree which, as con- 
nected with the root, has life in it, eg., geza‘ (Job 
14 8; Is 40 24); ‘éger (Lv 25 47). (2) yévoc, ‘race,’ 
‘racial stock’ (Ac 13 26; Ph 3 5). (8) mahpekheth 
(Jer 20 2 £.), sadh (Job 13 27, 33 11), tstndg (Jer 29 26), 
‘eékhes (Pr 7 22, ‘fetters’ RV) and &bAo0v ‘wood’ (Ac 
16 24), all instruments of punishment. See Crimzs 
AND PUNISHMENT, § 3 (b). (4) ‘és, ‘tree’ and bil, 
the result of a tree’s growth, 7.e., wood—both mean- 
ing the wooden image used in idolatrous worship 
(Jer 2 27, 3}9, 108; Hos 4 12; Is 4419). See Semitic 
Re icion, § 11. 

STOICS, st6/iks (ot Xtwx0f): One of the philo- 
sophic schools of Greece (Ac 17 18, ‘Stoicks’ AV). 


The Stoics were so called because Zeno (331-264 
B.c.), the founder of Stoicism, lectured in the Xtod 
rotxtAy (‘colonnade decorated with paintings’); the 
literary founder was Chrysippus (280-207). Zeno 
started with the Cynicism of Crates, on which he 
constructed a system that went far beyond the 
limits of Cynicism. Zeno established the logical 
criterion and laid the ethical basis of Stoicism, while 
Cleanthes developed its pantheism. The founders of 
electic Rom. Stoicism were Panaetius, who made 
Stoicism a ‘way of life,’ and Posidonius, who gave to 
it the enthusiasm of a religion. The moral teachings 
of Stoicism were austere, and their practical, cosmo- 
politan character deeply influenced men of the 
period. Stoics postulated the ideal wise man, who is 
guided by reason, regulates his emotions or passions 
in accordance with the assent given by the mind to 
its perceptions, is unmoved by joy or grief, and sub- 
mits uncomplainingly to necessity. He alone attains 
to virtue, the chief end of man, and brings his actions 
into harmony with nature and the universal reason 
inherent in nature, that is, he subordinates the hu- 
man to the Divine will. Action (business and pol- 
itics) is a necessity for man. Virtue insures happi- 
ness, but happiness is not the chief end of man; tho 
without passion, the wise man is not without feeling. 
He is not indulgent, but just to himself and others. 
He alone is free, a king and lord, the peer of Zeus 
himself. The world arose from fire; so did mind, 
which is an attenuated corporeity, and into fire 
they resolve themselves again by effluxion. The 
universal reason that moves all things acts in accord- 
ance with fixed laws. This working formative force 
in the universe is God, whose existence is proved by 
the dispensations of providence, divination, and the 
allegorical interpretation of popular beliefs. Stoi- 
cism was taught by Seneca, and lived by Epictetus 
and Marcus Aurelius. After the Antonine days it 
came into the general movement of religious Syncre- 
tism. In epistemology the Stoics were empirics. 
Stoicism was the ally of Christianity in its ‘enthu- 
siasm of humanity,’ its message of the divine kinship 
of man, its furtherance of personality by the empha- 
sis on will and duty, and in its beneficent influence 
on Roman jurisprudence. J. R. 5S. 5.*—S. A. 


STOMACHER, stum’ak-ar: The rendering of the 
Heb. pethighil (Is 3 24 AV, ‘robe’ RV). The exact 
meaning of the Heb. word is unknown. See Dress 
AND ORNAMENTS, § 6. 


STONE: The Heb. and Aram. ’ebhen and Gr. 
{80¢ are the common words thus translated. In 
addition, tstir (Job 22 24), ‘rock,’ ts*rdr (II S 17 13), 
‘pebble,’ and $7goc, ‘a small worn stone,’ are trans- 
lated ‘stone’ in RV. In the following passages the 
AV rendering ‘stone’ is changed in RV: sela‘, ‘rock’ 
i.e., ‘cliff? (Ps 137 9, 141 6); pahadh, ‘thigh’ (Job 40 
17); heres, ‘potsherd’ (Job 41 30); xéteoc, ‘Peter’ 
(Jn 1 42). The natural stones served as a pillow 
(Gn 28 11, 18); as a sacred pillar (matstsébhah; see 
Pinuar) (Gn 28 18, 22, 35 14, etc.); as a memorial 
(Jos 4 3 f.); as a witness (Gn 31 45 £.; Jos 24 26 f.); as 
a seat (Ex 17 12); as a well-covering (Gn 29 2 £., 
g ff.); or, heaped up, as a covering for dead bodies 
(Jos 7 26, 8 29; cf. 10 18, 27; IZ S 18 17); and also for 
sealing tombs (Mt 27 60, 28 2; Jn 11 38 £.). The Law 


Stone ‘i 
Strange Fire’ 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


866 





was inscribed on stones (Dt 27 2 #.; Jos 8 32). Un- 
hewn stones were used for altars (Jos 8 31; Ex 20 25; 
Dt 2752.; cf. Jg 95, 18, and IS 1433;1K 18 318.;18 
6 14 ff., also as the resting-place of the Ark; cf. ver. 18 
RV). Stones on the land were thought to injure it 
(IL K 319, 25; cf. ‘stony ground,’ Mk 4 16, etc.), were 
dangerous to the traveler on foot (Is 62 10; Ps 9112= 
Mt 46; cf. the figurative use of ‘stone of stumbling,’ 
Is 814; 1 P 28). Ore is called ‘stone’ (Dt 8 9; Job 
28 2). For ‘stone’ (Is 3411 AV), RV has ‘plummet.’ 
Small stones were used as weapons (Ex 21 1g; Nu 
35 17, 23); they were hurled by engines (II Ch 26 15) 
or by slings (Jg 20 16; 1S 17 40 #.; I Ch 12 2 &.; Job 
41 28). Stones were thrown as an expression of 
hatred (II S 16 6; cf. Jn 8 59, 10 31), where the use of 
stones as a punishment for certain crimes is perhaps 
also intended, as often in the O T and N T. Cf. the 
verbs sdgal, rdgham, MOdCetv, xavaAOdtev (Lk 20 6), 
AOoBorety, ‘to stone.’ Death by stoning was the 
punishment, among other things, for idolatry (Dt 
13 10, 17 5; cf. Lv. 20 2); for possession of familiar 
spirits (Lv 20 27); for cursing (Lv 24 23); for un- 
chastity of certain forms (Dt 22 21, 24; cf. Jn 8 7); 
Naboth was stoned (I K 21 13); also a hated task- 
master (I K 12 18); as a material, stone was used for 
vessels (Ex 7 19), tables (Ezk 40 42), tablets (Ex 
24 12, etc.; Dt 4 13, etc.; I K 89), idols (Dt 4 28, 
etc.). Stones served for pavements (II K 16 17, etc.) 
and walls (Pr 24 31); great and costly hewn stones 
were used in buildings (I K 5 17 £.,67, etc.), as foun- 
dations (Is 28 16), as walls (Lv 14 40 f.); for the cap- 
stone (Zec 47; cf. 39), the corner-stone (Job 38 6); 
the term is a figure of honor (Jer 51 26; cf. Is 28 16) 
and of the Messiah (Ps 118 22; Mt 21 42). Stones 
were set up as topographical marks (Jos 15 6, 18 17; 
I S 712, ‘Eben-ezer,’ ’ebhen ha‘azer; IS 2019; I K 
19). Precious stones (q.v.) were largely used in the 
Temple (II Ch 3 6, etc.). Hailstones are mentioned 
(Jos 10 11). Characteristics of a stone occur in 
similitudes—heaviness (sinking) (Ex 15 5; ef. Neh 
9 11; Jer 51 63), immobility (Ex 15 16), strength (Job 
6 12), firmness (Job 41 24), commonness (I K 10 27; 
II Ch 1 15, 9 27, etc.), dumbness (Hab 2 19; cf. Lk 
19 40). In metaphors—men become stones (are 
petrified) through fear (I S 25 37; Ex 15 16); are hard 
of heart (Ezk 11 19, 36 26). Crsrts 


STONES, PRECIOUS: 1. General Character of 
Allusions to Precious Stones in the Bible. The 
collective expression ‘precious stones’ (Heb. and Gr. 
in the sing., ’ebhen y’qGrah, Xt80¢ thutoc, II.S 12 30; 
Ezk 28 13; Rev 21 19, etc.) is used in the Bible in a 
non-technical and practical rather than in a precise 
and accurate sense. Variant expressions are ‘pleas- 
ant stones,’ Is 5412 AV; ‘stones to be set,’ I Ch 29 2; 
Ex 25 7; ‘glistering stones,’ I Ch 29 2 AV; ‘stones 
for inlaid work,’ I Ch 29 2 RV. These all designate 
roughly defined groups of minerals (exclusive of the 
simple metals) which on the ground of real or 
imaginary qualities had come to be regarded as 
extremely valuable. Gems seem to have been 
chiefly imported rather than indigenous to Palestine 
(I K 10 11; Ezk 27 22; cf. I K 10 2, 10). The art of 
engraving stones for signet-rings was known from 
the earliest times (Ex 28 11; cf. Gn 38 18; I K 21 8). 
Jewels were also inset in crowns (IIS 12 30) and 


were types of beauty, rareness, and costliness (Job 
28 16 f.; Pr 17 8); but the statement that Solomon 
garnished the Temple with ‘precious stones’ (II Ch 
3 6) which had been gathered for that purpose by 
David (I Ch 29 2, 8) shows that the Jews did not 
make our modern distinction between rare gems 
and ornamental stones, such as onyx and agate. 
The term jewels in the EVV does not represent 
strictly gems or precious stones, but designates any 
articles, either manufactured or as found in nature, 
which may serve as ornaments or ornamental uten- 
sils. The Heb. words which it renders are kelt (Gn 
24 53; Ex 11 2; Nu 381 50), hdli, helyah (Song 7 1; 
Hos 2 13), nezem, ‘nose-ring’ (Is 3 21; tho nezem 
is oftener an ear-ring, cf. Ex 32 2; ef. Dress anpD 
OrnAMEnts, IT, § 1), and s*ghullah (Mal 3 17; cf. 
PECULIAR PEOPLE). 


The most important Biblical references to precious 
stones are in the following passages: Ex 28 17-20= 
39 10-13 (the high priest’s breastplate), Job 28 16-19 
(the value of wisdom), Ezk 28 13 (the covering of the 
king of Tyre), Rev. 21 11, 18-21 (the new Jerusalem). 

2. The Stones of the Breast-plate. On the breast- 
plate of the high priest there were twelve stones 
each having the name of one of the twelve tribes 
engraved upon it. In the description of the covering 
of the king of Tyre the Heb. text contains only nine 
gems, but in the LXX. the number and names are 
precisely the same as in Ex. 


The identification of the stones of the high priest’s 
breastplate is a problem of great difficulty. In 
modern times stones are classified according to 
chemical composition and method of crystallization, 
while in ancient times they were classified merely 
by general appearance. Some of the ancient names 
indicate color, but a red stone might be any one of 
four or five gems. Such stones as the diamond, ruby, 
sapphire, and topaz must be excluded at once be- 
cause they were too hard to be engraved by any 
methods known to the ancients, even if the stones 
themselves had been familiar, which is doubtful in 
some cases. 

The Greek as well as the English translations 
often render the same Heb. word by several different 
equivalents. Jos. gives the list twice (Ant. III 7 5; 
BJ V, 5 7), but his lists do not agree with each 
other nor with the LXX. It is quite possible that the 
stones may have been different from time to time, 
because of the destruction of the breastplate in some 
of the many captures of Jerusalem. Several of the — 
identifications proposed below are hardly more than 
guesses. 

The twelve stones were: 

(1) ’ddhem, the ‘red’ stone (Ex 28 17; Ezk 28 13), 
sardius; ‘ruby’ EVmg. Probably the carnelian; the 


ancient sard included both the sard and carnelian ~ 


of the present day. The same as N T ‘sardius’ (Rev 
21 20) or sardine stone (Rev 43 AV). (2) pitedhah 
(Ex 28 17; Job 28 19; Ezk 28 13) =tord&teov (Rev 21 
20), topaz. Probably modern chrysolite, commonly 
called peridot. (3) b@regeth, the ‘flashing’ stone (Ex 
28 17; Ezk 28 13), carbuncle; ‘emerald’ RVmg. The 
same stone as N T op&eaydoc, emerald (Rev 21 19; © 
cf. 4 3). Presumably rock-crystal, tho emerald — 
is not impossible. (4) néphekh (Ex 28 18; zk 27 16, 





867 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Stone 
Strange Fire 





28 13), emerald; ‘chrysoprase’ AVmg. in Ezk 28 13; 
‘carbuncle’ (a clear red garnet) RVmg., which is 
doubtless correct. (5) sappir (Ex 28 18; Ezk 28 13; Is 
64 11; La 47, etc.) =N T c&ngeteoc, sapphire. The 
modern sapphire, however, was unknown in ancient 
times, so this stone must be the lapis lazuli (Rev 21 
19 RVmg.). (6) yahdlém, the ‘hard’ stone (Ex 28 18; 
Ezk 28 13), diamond, which is out of the question 
(see above). RVmg. renders by ‘sardonyx.’ Per- 
haps by this the onyx is meant. (7) leshem (Ex 
28 19), ligure AV; jacinth RV; ‘amber’ RVmg. 
Possibly the yellow jacinth, tho the identification 
is very doubtful. (8) sh*bho (Ex 28 19), agate, seems 
correct. (9) ’ahlamdh (Ex 28 19)=dyé0uctos (Rev 
21 20). Without doubt the modern amethyst. (10) 
tarshish (Ezk 28 13), beryl; ‘chrysolite’ AVmg.; 
‘chalcedony’ RVmg. (Ex 28 20), ‘topaz’ (Song 5 14), 
‘stone of Tarshish’ (Ezk 109). Some golden-yellow 
stone, perhaps the same as the ‘chrysolite’ of Rev 
21 20. (11) shdham (Gn 2 12; Ex 28 9, 20; Job 28 16; 
Ezk 28 13, etc.), onyx; ‘beryl’ RVmg., probably 
malachite. As Prof. J. L. Myres suggests, this is 
opaque enough to account for the translation ‘onyx,’ 
and green enough to account for the translation 
‘beryl.’ Beryl is also mentioned in Rev 21 20. (12) 
yashepheh (Ex 28 20; Ezk 2813). The EVV are surely 
right in identifying this with the N T taome (Rev 
4 3, 21 11, 18, 19), the modern jasper. 

The arrangement of the stones on the breastplate 
was probably as indicated in the following diagram: 


3 2 1 
Rock-Crystal? Chrysolite Carnelian 
(transparent) (yellow) (red) 


| $e 


6* 
Onyx? 
(black and white) 


Lapis Lazuli 
(blue) 


9 
Amethyst 
(purple) 


Jacinth? 
(yellow) 


12* TY 10 
Jasper Malachite Tarshish stone 
(green?) (green) (yellow) 


* Nos 6 and 12 are interchanged in the LXX. 


3. Other Precious Stones. The following precious 
stones are mentioned in the O T in addition to those 
which are upon the breastplate: (1) bedhélah (Gn 212; 
Nu 117); may be a gem (? pearl), but more probably 
is bdellium (so EV), a fragrant, resinous gum. (2) 
ra’ moth (Job 28 18; Ezk 27 16); may be some kind of 
coral. (3) p*ninim (Pr 315, 811, etc.), rubies; RVmg. 
has ‘corals’ (La 47), ‘red coral or pearls’ (Job 28 18). 
Probably the red coral, which was highly prized by 
the ancients. (4) shémir, diamond (Jer 17 1), and 
adamant (Ezk 3 9; Zec 7 12), was a hard cutting- 
stone, probably the modern emery. (5) gabhish 
(Job 28 18), pearl AV; crystal RV. Probably the 
rock-crystal. (6) kadhkddh, the ‘sparkling’ stone 





(Is 54 12; Ezk 27 16), agate AV; ‘chrysoprase’ 
AVmg.; ruby RV; the identification is doubtful. 
(7) zekhikhith (Job 28 17), crystal AV, is probably 
glass (RV), which was rare and precious in ancient 
times. 

Besides those already mentioned (see above, § 2, 
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12), the following gems are 
named in the N T: (8) yeucéxpacog (Rev 21 20), 
chrysoprase RV; chrysoprasus AV, an apple-green 
chalcedony. (9) yaAxnddv (Rev 21 19), chalcedony, 
was a green stone from the copper-mines near 
Chalcedon, probably dioptase (emerald copper). (10) 
waoyaoltns (Mt 7 6; I Ti 29; Rev 17 4, etc.) is, of 
course, the pearl. (11) xoedotadrocg (Rev 4 6, 22 1; 
cf. 21 11), crystal, z.e., rock-crystal. (12) SdxtvOoc 
(Rev 21 20; cf. 9 17), jacinth AV and RV (hyacinth 
in 9 17); ‘sapphire’ RVmg. is doubtless correct. (13) 
capdéwE (Rev 21 20) is rightly rendered sardonyx 
(red and white onyx). 

4. The Stones of the New Jerusalem. In Rev 21 
the names of the twelves tribes are to be written 
upon the gates of the city, while the names of the 
twelve apostles are written upon the twelve precious 
stones which form the foundation of the wall. 
Charles (ICC, Revelation, II, 164-170) has an in- 
genious theory to account for the order of the stones 
which is much different from that in the O T. 
Express statements of Philo and Josephus show that 
the connection of each of the twelve precious stones 
in the text with one of the signs of the Zodiac was 
well-known to the Jews. Placing the stones in the 
order suggested by ver. 13 we find that we have 
exactly the reverse order of the path of the sun 
thru the signs. This is done, Charles thinks, for the 
purpose of deliberately disconnecting the Holy City 
from the idea of the city of the gods as held among 
many ancient nations. 

LITERATURE: C. W. King, Ant. Gems (1866); EB, art. Stones, 

Precious (very complete); Swete, Comm. on the Apoc- 

alypse; JE, art. Gems; Standard Dictionary, large colored 


illustration of the breastplate, s.v. Gem; Int. St. Bib. Ency., 
art. Stones, Precious; H. Brit., articles on the more important 


precious stones. C. Z.—L. G. L.—E. C. L 
STONE-SQUARER. See GEBAL. 


STONING. See Crimes AND PUNISHMENTS, §§ 
2 (ce), 3 (a). 


STOOL: (1) The rendering of ’obhnayim in Ex 116. 
The word means literally ‘potter’s wheel’ (cf. Jer 
18 3) and was applied, because of similarity of form, 
to a kind of stool, used in midwifery as a support 
to a woman at childbirth (‘birth-stool’? RV). See 
DisEAsE AND Mepicing, § 8. (2) kissé’, 2.e., a seat 
of some sort (II K 4 10, ‘seat’ RV). The word is 
commonly used for ‘throne.’ E. E. N. 


STORE-CITIES. See Piruom. 
STOREHOUSES. See Acricuurure, § 7. 
STORIES. See Cosmogony, § 3. 
STORK. Sce Patzsrine, § 25. 


STRANGE FIRE, GOD, etc. Two Heb. words 
zar and nékhar, both having the same fundamental 
meaning of ‘strange’ or ‘foreign’ were frequently 
used to designate religious customs or deities that 
were not allowed in the worship of J’. Thus ‘strange 
fire’ (Lv 101; Nu 3 41, 26 61) was the burning of 


Strangers 
Sweat, Bloody: 





incense that was not fee aveording tothe | The RV hab ‘baseaee itis thgeebewelan ca) He to the 
Law, or was in some other way contrary to the Law 
(cf. Ex 309). And a ‘strange god’ was a deity other 
than J’’ who alone was to be worshiped in Israel. 

HK. E. N. 

STRANGERS AND SOJOURNERS. See Gen- 
TILES. 

STRANGE WIFE, STRANGE WOMAN. See 
GENTILES. 

STRANGLED (THINGS): In the letter sent by 
the Apostolic Council to the Gentile Christians, the 
latter were recommended, according to the text 
usually followed, to ‘abstain from things sacrificed 
to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled 
and from fornication; from which if ye keep your- 
selves, it shall be well with you’ (Ac 15 29). But some 
ancient witnesses omit ‘strangled’ in ver. 20, which 
has led some scholars, e.g., Harnack, to hold that 
‘strangled’ was not in the original ‘etter; cf. vs. 
20, 25.  ‘Strangled’ things (xyxrt&) were animals 
put to death without shedding their blood. To eat 
such animals was intensely repugnant to Jewish 
feeling (cf. Lv 17 13; Dt 12 16, 23; which illustrate 
the general attitude, tho they do not specifically 
treat of ‘strangled’ things). The Jewish Christians 
of Jerusalem felt that in regard to such things 
Gentile Christians ought to conform to the standards 
of Judaism, evidently thinking of them as moral 
rather than ceremonial requirements. KE. E. N. 


STRAW: The rendering of the Heb. tebhen, which 
means the stalks of the grain in their broken or 
‘chopped’ state after threshing (see AGRICULTURE, 
§ 7). This finely broken straw was used both as 
fodder (Gn 24 25, 32; Jg 19 19, etc.) and in the manu- 
facture of brick (Ex 57 ff.). E. E. N. 


STREET. See Crry, § 4. 


STRENGTH OF ISRAEL: A designation of J”, 
Israel’s God, in I S§ 15 29. The Heb. word nétsah, 
rendered ‘strength, ’ means ‘brilliancy’ or ‘fame,’ 
and probably ‘glory’ would be a better rendering 
than ‘strength.’ E. E. N. 


STRIPES. See Crimes anp PunisHMEnTs, § 3 
(b). 

STRONG, STRONG MAN. See May, (5), (6). 

STRONGHOLD. See Crry, § 4. 


STUBBLE: The rendering of the Heb. gash (from 
a root meaning ‘dry’), designating the dry stems of 
grass, or grain, that remain in the field after har- 
vesting (cf. Ex 15 7), quick to burn (Is 5 24), and 
easily blown about by the wind (Job 21 18). The 
word is frequently used as a symbol of that which is 
light, unstable, and passes quickly away (Is 33 u, 
40 24, etc.). EH. BE. N. 


STUD: This word occurs only once (nquddath, 
Song 1 11), in the pl., as the name of an ornament 
consisting of small silver points, sprinkled over a 
gold surface, which in this case is either in the form 
of a ball or of a plait (RV). AVGAZ: 

STUFF: This term is the AV rendering of keli 
(twelve times), m*la’khah (only Ex 36 7, lit. “work’), 
and oxeioc (only Lk 17 31, ‘goods’ RV: ef. Mt 
12 29; Mk 8 27) in the sense of ’goods,’ after house- 
hold furniture and utensils (Gn 31 37; Neh 13 8, etc.). 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


a 


The RV has ‘baggage’ a S 10 22, 25 13, 30 24) for 
impedimenta of an army or a company of travelers. 
Ai be 


STUMBLE, STUMBLING-BLOCK: Life, in its 
moral or religious aspects, being often likened to a 
walk, or progress in a way or path, the terms ‘stum- 
bling’ and ‘stumbling-block’ are often used figura- 
tively of practises or conceptions that are detrimen- 
tal to religion and morals. Such O T expressions as 
are found in the Prophets (Is 8 14, 28 7, 57 14; Jer 
6 21, 18 15) are frequently applied in the NT, both 
by Jesus (Mt 5 29; Mk 9 42, 14 27, etc.) and by Paul 
(Ro 1413, 21; I ae 89f.),ina Peneral sense, and also 
with special reference to the difficulty the Jews found 
in believing on Jesus as the Messiah (Ro 9 32; I Co 
1 23; Pee EEN. 

SUAH, sii’a (910, siah): A descendant of Asher 
(I Ch 7 i 

SUBTLE, SUBTILE: This term renders, in the 


AV (1) hakham, ‘ wise’; the context of II § 13 3 gives 
it an evil meaning. (2) mirmah, ‘guile’ as RV (Gn 





27 35). (8) nadkhal (in Hithpa‘ él), ‘deal knavishly’ 
Ps 105 5. (4) ndtsar, ‘secretive,’ ‘wily’ as RV (Pr 7 
10). (5) ‘dg*bhah, Hea H eres: (II K 1019). (6) 


‘arom, to be ‘crafty’ (IS 23 22). In Prin a good sense 
ishiewdal (7) ‘Grim, ‘crafty’ (Gn 3 1); with a good 
meaning in Pr. (8) ‘ormah, ‘prudence’ as RV (Pr 
1 4, 85, 12), a true knowledge of the principles of life. 
Algo in a bad sense (Ex 2114; Jos 9 4). (9) 36A0c, 
from a vb. meaning ‘catch with a bait’ or ‘line’ 
(Mt 26 4; Ac 13 10, ‘guile’ RV). (10) xavoveyta, 
penta as RV (II Co 11 3), in LXX. for ‘ormah 
in a good sense. Cro. 


SUBURBS: A term (tr. of Heb. mighradsh) meaning 
properly open or common land (for pasturage, etc. ) 
adjoining a city. It is used exclusively in the later 
portions of the O T (P in the Hex., and Ezk and 
I and II Ch) of the Levitical cities or of Jerusalem 
(and the Temple, once, Ezk 45 2). See also PARBAR. 

K. E. N. 

SUCATHITES, sv’koeth-aits (O°N2W, sakhathim, 
Suchathites AV): One of three families of eoribeat 
(i.e., persons learned in the Law, etc.) who lived at 
Jabesh in Judah (locality unknown) and who reck- 
oned their descent from the Rechabites (I Ch 2 55). 


The statement implies postexilic conditions. 
E. E. Bis 


SUCCOTH, suk’efh (130, sukkdth), ‘booths’: 

A place near the Jabbok, at aiiee Jacob on his re- 
turn from Paddan-aram ‘built booths for his cattle 
(Gn 33 17). By some it is identified with Tell Deir — 
’Alla, 1 m. N. of the Zerka, or Jabbok (Map IITI,!H — 
3); by others it is located somewhere on the S. aide of 
the same stream. According to Jos 13 27, it was with- 
in the territory of Sihon, King of Heshbon; according 
to Jg 8 4#., Gideon, in pursuing the kings of Midian, 
crossed over the J ordan and came to Succoth. 
it were the foundries of Solomon (I K 7 46; II Ch 
417). E. Robinson proposed as a possible site *Ain 
es-Sakttt, a place 9. m. S. of Bethshan, on the W. 
side of the Jordan, but this is very improbable. — 
Driver locates it ‘on the route between Penuel and 

Shechem,’ on the east of the Jordan near the ford 
ed-Damiyeh, 2, The camping-place at which 


Near — 





869 


Israelites first halted after starting from Egypt (Ex 
12 37; Nu 33 5), probably to be located near the 
modern Ramses, in Wddy Tumildt, in the NE. por- 
tion of the Delta. Tho the name is good Hebrew, 
Naville and Brugsch derive it from Thuku, or 
Thuket, a district in ancient Goshen. See map under 
ISRAEL, § 3 (2). G. L. R. 
SUCCOTH-BENOTH, svk’eth-bi’nefh (nid0 
13, sukkoth bendth): The name of an idol intro- 
duced into Samaria by the Babylonians (II K 17 30). 
It may be either a corruption of zarpanit, the con- 
sort of Marduk, the tutelary deity of Babylon (so 
Rawlinson and Schrader), or it may be the Hebraized 
form of the Assyr. sakkut binati, the ‘supreme judge 
of the universe’ (so F. Delitzsch). Amos probably 
alludes to the same deity in the phrase ‘the taber- 
nacle [sikkath] of your king’ (5 26), which was an 
image carried in procession. G. L. R. 
SUCCOURER. See PH@BE. 
SUCHATHITES, si’koth-aits. See Sucarsirss. 


SUITS OF APPAREL: The rendering of the Heb. 
mahalatsoth in Is 3 22 AV (‘festival robes’ RV). 
Garments of costly material are probably meant. 
The same word is rendered ‘rich apparel’ in Zee 3 4. 

SUKKIIM, sok’1-im (0°90, sukkiyyim): A people 
who, with the Lubim and Ethiopians, accompanied 
Shishak, King of Egypt, against King Rehoboam 
(II Ch 12 3). The LXX. has ‘Troglodytes.’ Wiede- 
mann suggests the inhabitants of the land of Succoth 
(Ex 12 37) in Egypt (Thuku), near Pithom. 

CrBxT. 


SUMMER. See Patxsring, §§ 17-20; and Timez, 
§ 4. 

SUN. See Asrronomy, § 2; and Semitic Re- 
LIGION, § 32. 


SUN AND SUN-WORSHIP. See Semitic RzE- 
LIGION, § 32. 


SUN, HORSES OF. See Semrric ReEiaion, § 
Se (2): 

SUN-IMAGES. See Semiric REtIGIon, § 29 (4). 

SUN, SMITING BY. See Disrase anp MEpI- 
CINE, § 5.' 

SUNRISING: A part of the phrase ‘toward the 
sunrising,’ which correctly renders mizrah shemesh 
(Nu 21 11, etc.; without shemesh ‘sun’ Nu 34 15). 
It means ‘the East.’ ep cL. 


SUPERFLUOUS PARTS. See Diskasz anpD 
MepicinB, § 5. 


SUPERSCRIPTION: In the N T éxtyeapq is used 
(1) of the inscription on a coin designating the au- 
thority under whom it was minted (Mk 12 16 and 
Is). (2) Of the designation of the crime for which 
a criminal was crucified. This was written in brief 
form on a board and nailed to the cross above the 
head of the sufferer, after being suspended from his 
neck or carried before him on the way to the execu- 
tion. Mt calls it the aitfa (accusation, 27 37), while 
John (19 19 ff.) designates it as a titAos, title. Mk 
and Lk use éxtyeaey (‘superscription,’ Mk 15 26; 
Lk 23 38). The wording of the accusation is not re- 
ported in exactly the same terms by the different 
evangelists. John tells us that it was in three lan- 


A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 





Strangers 
Sweat, Bloody 


guages (since Palestine had such a mixed popula- 
tion). Common to all the Gospels are the words 
‘King of the Jews,’ which expressed the actual 
charge. Possibly, the wording varied slightly in 
each of the three languages. E. E.N. 

SUPH, stf (hip, swph): A name which, with oth- 
ers, aims to define the place where Moses delivered 
his farewell (Dt 11). The names are all somewhat 
puzzling, and no satisfactory explanation is at hand. 
Some would identify Suph with Suphah (Nu 21 14); 
but as the site of this is also unknown the difficulty 
remains. The AV in both instances reads ‘Red 
Sea’ (Heb. yam stiph), but the omission of yam, 
‘sea of,’ makes this rendering certainly wrong. 

EK. E.N. 

SUPHAH, siti’fa (1910, stiphah, Red Sea AV): A 
locality celebrated in a fragment of ancient song 
(Nu 21 14). It was somewhere among the upper 
valleys of the Arnon, but its exact site is unknown. 
See also Supu. 

SUPPER. See Mnats, § 1. 

SUPPER, LORD’S. See Lorp’s Supper. 


SUR, stir or sdr (GATE). A gate of the Temple 
or possibly of the palace mentioned only in II K 
11 6 (called ‘gate of the foundation’ in II Ch 23 5). 
It is not known to what gate the statement refers. 
See JERUSALEM, § 38. K. E.N. 

SURETY. See PLEDGE. 


SURFEITING: The term xpexkAn, rendered ‘sur- 
feiting’ (Lk 21 34), means literally the headache 
and nausea following a debauch, from which it came 
to be used sometimes to signify the intemperate rev- 
elings themselves. S. D.—M. W. J. 

SURNAME. See Name. 

SUSA, su’sa. See SHUSHAN. 

SUSANCHITE, su-san’kait. See SHusHANCHITER. 


SUSANNA, su-zan’a (Zouckwa; from the Heb. 
shdshannah, ‘lily’): 1. One of the women who be- 
friended Jesus (Lk 8 3). 2. A character from which 
an apocryphal document is named. See DanrEt, 
APOCRYPHAL ADDITIONS TO, § 2. 

SUSI, sii’sai (1D, sist): The father of Gaddi, a 
Manassite (Nu 18 11). 


SWADDLE, SWADDLING-BAND: These words 
render in the AV: (1) téphah, ‘dandle’ (cf. La 2 22 
RV), lit. ‘to carry on the palms of the hands,’ denom- 
inative from tephah, ‘handbreadth.’ (2) hathal (in 
Hoph.), ‘enwrap,’ ‘swaddle,’ used (Ezk 16 4) of Jeru- 
salem under the figure of an infant. (3) hdthullah, 
‘swaddling-band,’ used (Job 38 9) figuratively of 
dark clouds enveloping the sea. (4) oxapyavoiy, 
‘wrap in swaddling-bands’ (Lk 27, 12). The infant 
was placed diagonally on a square piece of cloth, the 
ends of which were turned over the body, the feet, 
and under the head, and fastened by bands tied 
around the child thus wrapped up. Graal 


SWALLOW, See Patustine, § 25. 
SWAN. See PateEsrinn, § 25. 
SWEAR. See OarTu. 


SWEAT, BLOODY: The expression occurs in Lk 
22 44, a passage whose right in the text is very much 


Sweet Cane 
Synagog 





disputed. Whether it is intended to denote the 
actual exudation of blood with water in the perspira- 
tion is also a question. If this is not the meaning, 
the drops of sweat alluded to somehow must have 
resembled blood. The occurrence of the escape of 
blood with perspiration is attested by historical in- 
stances (cf. Plummer, ICC, ad loc.). A. C. Z. 


SWEET CANE: The rendering, in Jer 6 20, of 
ganeh hattdbh (‘good’), ganeh being a general term 
for reed, cane, and at times meaning ‘calumus’ as 
here (and Ex 30 23; Is 43 24; Ezk 27 19; Song 4 14). 
See also OINTMENTS AND PerFumES, § 1; and 
PALESTINE, § 22. E. E. N. 


SWEET INCENSE, ODOR. See OINTMENTS 
AND PeRFuMES, § 2; and SacRIFICE AND OFFER- 
Inas, § 15. 

SWIFT BEASTS, SWIFT STEEDS: These words 
render in the AV: (1) kirkarath (Is 66 20, ‘drome- 
daries’ RV), (2) rekhesh (Mic 1 13), ‘steed.’ The 
term rekhesh was probably used of a special breed of 
horses in the service of kings because of their swift- 
ness. RV reads ‘swift steed’ (I K 4 28 [5 8], ‘drome- 
daries’ AV; Est 8 10, 14, ‘mules’ AV). See also 
PALESTINE, § 24. COL. 


SWINE: The Heb. term hdzir refers to the un- 
domesticated wild boar of Palestine, which was used 
by the Canaanites and Syrians both for food and 
sacrifice. The Israelites were specially forbidden to 
eat swine’s flesh (Lv 11 7, etc.), and came to look 
with abhorrence on such a practise. Both the flesh 
and blood of swine were thought to be exceptionally 
repulsive to J’ (Is 65 4, 66 3, 17). Tho loyal Jews 
would have nothing to do with swine, they were 
acquainted with their habits, which served to give 
point to popular proverbs (Pr 11 22; Mt 76). See 
also PALESTINE, § 24. E. E.N. 


SWORD. See ARMs AND Armor, § 2. 


SYCAMINE, sik’a-min, SYCAMORE. See Foop 
AND Foop UTEnsILs, § 5; and PALESTINE, § 21. 

SYCHAR, sai’kdr (Suyéo, Jn 4 5): A village in 
Samaria identified by its nearness to the well of 
Jacob. A tradition, based probably on Gn 33 19 and 
48 22, represents the patriarch as giving the site of 
it to his son Joseph. S. was the residence of the 
Samaritan woman with whom Jesus engaged in the 
conversation recorded in Jn ch. 4. In spite of some 
difficulty in identifying the modern site (cf. G. A. 
Smith, HGHL, pp. 367 ff.), there is practical 
unanimity in finding the equivalent of the name 
‘Sychar’ in El-Askar, a village, with a spring and 
some ancient rock-hewn tombs, about 5 m. N. of 
Jacob’s well. See art. SaecHmemM for a map of 
the region. A.C. Z. 


SYCHEM, sai’kem. See SHECHEM. 

SYCOMORE. See SycaMINE, SYCAMORE. 

SYENE, sai-i’ni or -n1 (or SEVENEH), TOWER 
OF. See SEVENEH 

SYMEON, sim‘1-an. See Simeon. 

SYNAGOG, THE (ouveywy%, ‘an assembling to- 
gether,’ used frequently in the LXX. for the con- 
gregation [qahdl] or the assembly [‘€dhah] of Israel; 
in later times, the equivalent of the Heb. béth hak- 
kenéseth, ‘the house of assembly’). 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


870 





1. Origin. The local organization common in later 
Israel, for the purposes of worship, education, and 
for the supervision of the social and civil life of the 
community. That an institution of such importance 
in the history of Judaism as the synagog should be 
invested by Jewish tradition with great age is not 
surprizing. The fact is, however, that we are quite 
in the dark as to its beginnings. These beginnings 
were, doubtless, in the time of the Captivity, when 
the loss of the Temple worship and the conditions of 
exile emphasized the need of worship and instruction. 
The return of the exiles, with their desire deepened 
by suffering, to keep the Law and be faithful to their 
God, opened the way for the development of syna- 
gogal services alongside of the Temple cultus. As 
there is no mention of the synagog in the O T 
Apocrypha, we are without means of tracing its de- 
velopment. This development, however, must have 
been steady and substantial, for in the times of the 
N T we find the synagog widely established and 
exercising a weighty influence in Jewish life. 


2. Constitution. In considering this phase of the 
subject, we must distinguish, as Schiirer indicates, 
between towns in which there was a mixed popula- 
tion of Jews and Gentiles and those which were 
wholly Jewish. In the former an independent 
organization for religious matters would be neces- 
sary, if the Jews were not greatly in the majority. 
In a town made up entirely of Jews—certainly in a 
small town—the civil and religious authorities 
would be identical, 7.e., 
the elders of the town 
would be also the elders 
of the synagog. We can 
not be sure that in large 
towns, where there were 
several synagogal com- 
munities, there was a 
separate body of elders 
for each community, ex- 
cept, perhaps, where 


‘ 
sf 
C} i 


Be Re Ia ET EEF PES | 
3 <4 ¢ a: : 


(OCCT 0404S 08 8 OS SUS SCHOO =, M 


synagogs for different ZZ) 
nationalities existed, as @ 
in Jerusalem. From g@ Yi 


early times it seems to 
have been a requirement 
that a synagog should 
not be erected in a town 
where there were not ten 
men of leisure to look after its affairs. A syna- 
gog thus constituted was under the government of 
the elders, who had the right to discipline and punish 
offending members. The methods of punishment 
were scourging and excommunication. In addition 
to the elders, who had general supervision over the 
affairs of the synagogal community the following 
officials were immediately connected with the syna- 
gog: (1) The ruler of the synagog (éextouvéywyos), 
whose duty it was to look after the external order 
in public worship, to select teachers or readers, to 
examine the discourses of public speakers, and, 
in general, to see that the service was conducted in 
accord with ancestral usage. He had also the super- 
vision of the synagog building. The office was not 
identical with that of ‘elder’ (xpecBbtepoc), or ‘ruler’ 


60 ft. 


Synagog at Kefr Bir‘im in 
Galilee (Ground-Plan). 


a 


si 


ee oe ee 


i 
' 








871 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Sweet Cane 
Synagog 





(exwyv), nor with that of ‘president of the Gerousia’ 
(yeeoustkexns), tho one person could fill two offices, 
e.g., that of ‘ruler’ and ‘ruler of the synagog,’ at the 


A hea) 


Ate 
, 122 fy 
4 ise 





Oe en Ee ZEfp “LA, 
—A Vu 


in understanding the arrangement of the service 
(see below) to get before us the general construction 
of the synagog and its furnishings. The size and 


“yg 
9 4 pee Tie < A, 
PX Ey ZB 


Ruins OF A GALILEAN SYNAGOG OF THE 2D OR 3D Cent. A.D. (at Kerr Bir‘t). 
(After Sanday’s ‘‘Sites of the Gospels.’’) 


same time. As ruler of the synagog, his duties were 
confined entirely to the synagog, 7.e., he had no 
part in the general direction of the affairs of the 
Each synagog had one cextcuveywyoc. 


community. 
(2) The hazzén or ‘attendant’ (ixneéty¢, 
minister AV, Lk 4 20). It was incumbent 


upon him to bring forth the sacred rolls of 
Scripture for reading, and to replace them 
He executed the 


in the ark, or sacred chest. 
punishment 
of scourging, 
and instruct- 
ed the chil- 
dren in read- 
ing. (3) The 
receiver of 
alms. As it 
was in the 
synagog that 
the collection 
of alms took 
place, these 
men were 
appointed to 
receive and 
distributethe 
same. They 
Christian community. 


3. The Synagog Building. It will help to clearness 





correspond to the deacons of the 


A 
%, 
Hin 


an \ 
SARS 


Front Elevation of a Synagog at Kefr Bir‘im in Galilee. 
2d or 3d Cent. A.D. 


costliness of a synagog would depend, of course, 
upon the wealth of the Jewish population. 
of the synagogs of the ancient world, as e.g., those 
in Antioch and Alexandria, were among the finest 


Some 


structures in the city. The ruins of a 
costly building are found at Tell Hum 
(Capernaum? ) in Palestine. The building 
was generally rectangular in form, and, 
if of the finer order, divided in the interior 
by three or 
even five 
rows of col- 
umns. ~ In 
Palestine, 
the syna- 
gogs lie N. 
and §., with 
the front on 
the S. The 
Synagog at 
Irbid had its 
door on the 
EK. ‘In gen- 
eral, the style 
was influ- 
enced by 


. 


lm 
Mik 


(Partially restored.) 


the Greco-Roman, altho it shows very characteristic 


differences from it. In particular, it was marked by 


a wealth of overladen ornamentation’ (Schiirer, 


Synagog 
Synoptic Problem 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


872 





HJP, Il, ii, pp. 52-89). In the small places the 
building would be very plain and on some central 
site. Whatever might have been the size or character 
of the structure itself, the following furnishings 
would be found in all synagogs: (1) The chest, or 
ark, for the rolls of the Law and other sacred books, 
which were kept in linen cloths and in a case. The 
ark was placed in a shut-off part of the synagog, in 
front of which hung a curtain. (2) The reading- 
platform (Gj) stood near the center, and upon it 
was the lectern” (4vaAoyetov). (8) Seats were ar- 
ranged in the remaining space for the congregation, 
men and women sitting apart. The chief seats of 
the synagog were in front of the ark, facing the 
people, and were reserved for those who were held 
in the highest honor. (4) Lamps and trumpets 
completed the outfit of the synagog. ‘The latter 
were for use in the service on feast-days. 


4. The Order of Service. For the order of service 
the Mishna is our authority, but there is little doubt 
that the order which it gives was in all its principal 
parts that of the time of Christ. Of these there 
were five: (1) The recitation of the Sh¢ma, (2) prayer, 
(3) the reading of the Law, (4) the reading of the 
Prophets, (5) the benediction. The Sh¢ma, so called 
from the opening word (‘Hear [O Israel]’), consisted 
of Dt 6 4-9, 11 13-21; Nu 15 37-41, two introductory 
benedictions, and three closing benedictions. Refer- 
ence to these O T passages will show that the purpose 
of this part of the service, which was recited by the 
people, was to bring before the minds of the wor- 
shipers the sacredness of the Law. In the prayer, 
which was offered by one chosen for this act by the 
ruler of the synagog, the people silently joined, say- 
ing ‘Amen’ at its close. The petitioner himself stood 
in front of the ark. Certain fixed forms of prayer 
were probably in use in Christ’s time. The Sh*méneh 
‘Esréh is one of the finest examples of these. It did 
not attain its full form until after the destruction of 
Jerusalem, but in its earlier form was used in Christ’s 
day. This prayer may be found in Edersheim’s 
Life and Time of Jesus, I, p. 440. Next in order 
after the prayers came the Scripture lessons. As 
the synagog was primarily for instruction, this part 
of the service was of the most importance. The 
hazzan took the roll of the Law from its place and 
handed it to him who was to begin the reading. On 
Sabbath-days at least seven persons were called upon 
by the rules of the synagog to read, successively, 
parts of the Law. Each had to read at least three 
verses, and they must be read, not repeated from 
memory. Any member of the congregation might 
be invited to read, even minors, but if priests and 
Levites were present, they were invited first. The 
reader was accustomed to stand (Lk 4 16). A bene- 
diction was pronounced before and after each per- 
son’s reading. Following the lesson from the Law 
came a lesson from the Prophets (the Haphtarah). 
The older historical books were included under the 
Prophets. Only one person was called upon for this 
duty. No regular order of lessons, as in the case of 
reading from the Law, seems here to have been fol- 
lowed at first. Sections were chosen rather to illus- 
trate or enforce the lesson from the Law. Jesus in 
this way made choice of His own selection (Lk 4 16). 


Since many were not familiar with the original lan- 
guage of the Scriptures, it was necessary to translate 
them, as the reading went on, into the vernacular 
Aramaic. In the case of the Law, one verse was read 
at a time and then translated; of the Prophets, three 
verses were taken at a time (see TaRGuM). A sermon 
or lecture followed the reading of the Scriptures, and 
this could be given by any one competent so to do. 
The preacher sat during his discourse (Lk 416). The 
whole service concluded by a blessing pronounced by 
a priest, if one were present, otherwise it was changed 
into the form of a prayer. The order above de- 
scribed is that of the principal morning service. In 
the afternoon and on week-day services the reading 
from the Prophets was omitted, and only three 
members took part in the reading of the Law. 

5. Value and Importance of the Synagog. From 
the time of its establisment the synagog has been of 
great importance to Judaism. It has, perhaps more 
than any other institution, given life and character 
to the Jewish faith. Within its sacred precincts the 
people came face to face not only with the Law, 
but with all that teaching which in interpreting the 
Law made Judaism what it was in Christ’s day. 
It was the point of contact between the people 
and their religious teachers. There was but one 
Temple, while synagogs were all over the land. The 
people went to them with earnest purpose, listened 
with reverent attention, and there learned not only 
the requirements of the Law, but the hopes of the 
nation as both were interpreted to them. So the 
Jews have done ever since. The synagog is the 
vital center of Judaism (cf. Schiirer, HJ P; Oesterly 
and Box, The Religion and Worship of the Synagogue, 
1907; Pedagogics of the Talmud and that of Modern 
Times, 1924; F. H. Swift, Hducation in Ancient 
Israel to 70 A.D., 1919). J.S. R.—W. G. J. 


SYNAGOG OF THE LIBERTINES (Ac@eocivor, 
from Lat. libertini, ‘freedmen’): The name of 
worshipers in one of the two synagogs in 
Jerusalem whose members disputed with Stephen 
(Ac 69)). They were evidently Jews who had been 
taken captive in Pompey’s war and had been 
liberated afterward by their masters, enjoying thus 
the privileges of Roman citizenship (cf. Philo, Legat. 
ad Caium, 23). They worshiped in this synagog, 
along with Jews from Cyrene and Alexandria (ttyés 
THY EX THS cuvaywyis ths Acyouevns AtBeotivwy, xat 
Kvenvatwy xat ?AXA|eExvd eéwy), either as visitors to the 
city or as a community statedly resident in the place. 
In either case, they are likely to have united with 
their fellow worshipers in the erection of thebuilding 
for their common use. The reading Ar@uottywy, 
advocated by Blass (Philology of the Gospels, pp. 
49 #.), which would make them Jews of Libya and 
the synagog a house of worship in general of African 
Jews, has considerable support. In 1914 there was 
discovered at Jerusalem a large limestone block 
inscribed with an inscription in Greek reading, in 
part, as follows: ‘Theodotus .. . built this Synagog 
for the reading of the Law... and also this hostel 
for the need of those who coming from the out- 
side...’ The inscription being in Greek indicates 
the Hellenistic-Jewish character of the group who 
used this synagog. The date of the inscription must 





873 


be near the Ist cent. a.p. Altogether, it throws an 
interesting side-light on Ac 69. M. W. J. 


SYNOPTIC PROBLEM, THE: 1. The Problem 
Stated. The Synoptic Problem is the question as 
to the sources and particularly the literary inter- 
relation of the first three (Synoptic) Gospels (see 
GosrEL, GospEeis, § 3)—in other words, the ques- 
tion as to what were the sources from which these 
Gospels drew their material and to what extent the 
material of any one of them was influenced by that 
of the others. 

2. The History of the Criticism. The first sugges- 
tion of any interrelation among these Gospels was 
made as long ago as the time of Augustine (354-430 
A.D.), who held naively that the second and third 
Evangelists wrote their Gospels with a knowledge 
of their Canonical predecessors, but, not remember- 
ing the Gospel events with equal accuracy, each 
wrote differently, Mt being the primary Gospel, 
Mk the abbreviator of Mt, and Lk the compiler of 
Mt and Mk. He gave no proof of his theory, offering 
it not as the result of any investigation, but rather 
as a natural explanation of their order in the Canon 
and the apparent difference in the length and 
external makeup of their respective contents. 

In fact, the Fathers of that time were more con- 
cerned with the differences between the Gospels, 
which they sought to harmonize, than with their 
agreements, which they took as a matter of course. 

This general attitude continued down through the 
Revival of Learning into the Reformation Church 
The first to propound any real theory of their literary 
interrelation was Le Clere (1719), who suggested 
the possibility of a common source for the three 
Gospels—not a single source for all, but several 
sources in common. This indefinite theory was given 
a definite shape toward the close of that century by 
two scholars, Lessing (1785), who held that the 
source was a definite Aramaic Gospel, and Eichhorn 
(1794), who also claimed that it was a definite 
Gospel, but Greek. 

Between these two dates—in 1789-90—appeared 
a new statement of Augustine’s view by Griesbach, 
to the effect that Mk was the epitome of both Mt 
and Lk. 

The single source theory of Lessing and Eichhorn 
proved stimulating to scholarship. It was com- 
bined in various ways with Griesbach’s idea, the 
most noteworthy of these combinations being that 
suggested with individual differences by Paulus, 
Schleiermacher and Lachmann, that this original 
source was an aggregate of documents representing 
in diversfied forms the common floating narrative 
(like Lk’s 8:nyfoetc). These gradually were con- 
solidated into larger documents (like Mt’s Aédyta), 
and finally found their ultimate form in our Canon- 
ical Gospels, one of which, however, represented 
them more nearly, the others in a secondary way. 

In the meanwhile another idea had been hinted 
at by Von Herder (1797) and Eckermann (1806), 
which was definitely formulated in 1818 by Gieseler, 
to the. effect that our Synoptic Gospels were de- 
rived not from any preexisting document, or docu- 
ments, but from the common base of oral tradition. 
This tradition represented the common apostolic 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Synagog 
syaopee Problem 


preaching, which, by being constantly repeated, 
came to be stereotyped and fixed, and, so, easily 
transferred to writing, each evangelist reproducing 
it in a form modified by the purpose with which he 
was writing and by his own individuality of style 
and thought. 

This gave a new .aea .o scuolarship, which was 
quick to utilize it in combination with various 
phases of the written document idea. It was not, 
however, until twenty years had passed that there 
was propounded the theory which has guided all 
subsequent constructive work in this field. This 
was the idea advanced in 1838 by Weisse, that 
Papias’ testimony regarding Mk! referred to our 
second Canonical Gospel, which was thus the earliest 
of our Synoptics and, together with this precanonical 
document, or documents, suggested by others, 
formed the sources for the other two Gospels. 


3. Resultant Theories. From this historical re- 
view we see that the critical study of these Gospels 
has grouped itself into three main theories: (1) The 
Successive Dependence Theory (Augustine and 
Griesbach), viz., that the Evangelists made use of 
one or more of the Gospels already written, so that 
one of our Gospels is the first and original Gospel, 
the second using the first, and the third 
one or both of its predecessors. This is the 
oldest view, and has been worked out into every 
possible order of sequence and character of use. 
(2) The Documentary Theory (Le Clerc, Lessing, 
Eichhorn and Weisse), viz., that all three Evan- 
gelists to some extent made use of a preexisting 
written source, or sources. This represents the 
first critical approach of scholarship to the prob- 
lem, and has expressed itself in many forms, 
according to the view held as to the character of the 
original document, or documents, and also accord- 
ing to the way the documentary idea has been com- 
bined with the successive dependence and the oral 
ideas. (3) The Oral Theory (Gieseler), viz., that all 
three Evangelists made use of the common oral 
tradition, which had become fixed by use. This 
theory, while more or less of a reaction from the 
documentary view, has in its many forms not 
hesitated at times to allow documents to enter in 
along with its oral material, or the Gospels to use 
each other in combination with oral tradition. Its 
main modification, however, has been in the direc- 
tion of assuming various recensions of the common 
tradition in connection with the differently located 
and organized catechetical Schools, which recensions 
are held to have been used to various degrees and 
in varied combinations by the canonical Gospels. 

To come to any decision among these general 
theories scholarship has realized that there must be 
a clear apprehension of just what is the problem 





1 Papias’ statement is as follows: ‘‘Mark, having become 
the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, tho not 
indeed in orderly arrangement, whatsoever he remembered of 
the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard 
the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he fol- 
lowed Peter, who adopted his teaching to the need [of his 
hearers], but with no intention of giving a compilation of the 
Lord’s discourses; so that Mark committed no error when he 
thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was 
careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he 
had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.” 


Synoptic Problem 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


874 





which these Gospels present. This problem, simply 
stated, is: There are in these Gospels striking re- 
semblances and striking differences. What theory 
as to their origin will account for both? The sig- 
nificant character of these resemblances and differ- 
ences is seen in the fact that the resemblances do not 
lie in the fact that all three Gospels have the same 
general outline, filled in with the same general in- 
cidents, but that these same general incidents are 
placed before us in what is generally the same order 
even where that order is unchronological (e.g., the 
record of John’s imprisonment, which is given by 
Mt, 14 3-5 and Mk, 6 17-20 in connection with Jesus’ 
third preaching tour; whereas it really occurred in 
connection with Jesus’ first coming into Galilee, 
Mt 4 12; Mk 114), and in what are to a large extent 
identical words, even where the words are paren- 
thetic to the narrative (e.g., Jesus’ remarks to the 
palsied man, Mt 9 6; Mk 210; Lk 5 24). In the same 
way the differences do not lie in the fact that not al- 
ways are the same words, phrases, and forms of 
narrative used, which is what naturally would be 
expected, but that they extend to entire events (e.g., 
the inclusion of the Nativity Story by Mt, 1 18- 
2 23, and Lk, 1 5-2 39, and its omission by Mk; the 
inclusion of the Period of Retirement by Mt, 15 21- 
16 12, and Mk, 7 24-8 26, and its omission by Lk), 
and to whole portions of the narrative (e.g., the 
inclusion by Lk of the ten chapters, 9 51-19 28, re- 
cording what is known as the Perean Ministry, 
which, with the exception of a few verses, is not 
paralleled by either Mt or Mk); and to the order of 
definite incidents (e.g., the rejection at Nazareth, 
which is placed by Lk 4 16-30 at the beginning of the 
Galilean Ministry, while by Mt 13 54-58, and Mk 
6 1-62, it is placed at its close; the Sermon on the 


Mount, which is given by Mt 51-7 29, early in Jesus’ | 


Galilean work, but by Lk 6 20-49 much later). 


If, however, this is the problem, then two of the | 


above theories have specific difficulties to face. The 
Successive Dependence Theory might possibly be 
able to account for the resemblances, on the ground 
that the Gospels copied their predecessors; but it 
would be impossible, on such a basis, to account for 
the differences. Suppose it be assumed that Mk is 
the last of the three Gospels, and is the shortest 
because he has condensed the narratives of the 
other two, how account for the fact that where the 
three relate incidents in common, his record is 
generally fuller than theirs? Does this not pre- 
suppose that he had outside information not pos- 
sessed by them? Or, suppose it be assumed that 
Mk is the first of the three, and is shortest because 
the others have enlarged upon his record, does this 
not admit that they have introduced material not 
possessed by him? In either case the theory, as a 
theory, falls to the ground. On the other hand, the 
Oral Theory might perhaps,account for the differ- 
ences, on the basis of the varying character of the 
oral tradition and its varying handling by the 
Evangelists; but it could not account for the strange 
and striking resemblances which these narratives 
disclose. Moreover, however true it is that oral 
tradition preceded the written Gospels and must 
have given way to them only relatively late and after 





it had become fixed at many points, yet, if oral 
tradition was the only source of the written Gospels, 
it is not only impossible to account for the minute 
agreements among the Gospels, but it is quite hope- 
less to understand how it comes that these agree- 
ments are so largely, continuously, and persistently 
present in the discourse material common to Mt 
and Lk (e.g., cf. Mt 3 7-10 and Lk 3 7-9; Mt 4 3-1 
and Lk 4 3-12; Mt 6 25-33 and Lk 12 22-31; Mt 7 1-11 
and Lk 6 37-39, 41 f., 11 9-13; Mt 8 8-10 and Lk 7 6-9; 
Mt 8 19-21 and Lk 9 57-59; Mt 11 4-27 and Lk 7 22-35, 
10 13-15, 21 f.; Mt 12 39-45 and Lk 11 24-26; Mt 23 
37-39 and Lk 13 34 £.; Mt 24 45-50 and Lk 12 42-46), 
and that a large portion of these discourse identities 
are concentrated by Lk in a certain part of his 
narrative, but by Mt are broken up and portions 
distributed among other discourses throughout his 
narrative. Oral tradition could not have existed in 
two forms, a narrative and a discourse form, nor 


could it have presented the discourse form in two 


such different characters. Further, it is very puzzling 


to understand why, on this oral theory, Mt and Lk — 


should be quite independent of each other in their 
narratives before Mk’s narrative begins, and as 
soon as Mk’s narrative closes again become inde- 
pendent. The oral tradition should have covered all 
the narrative and not only a part of it. Equally 
confusing is it that so much of the narrative of the 
Jerusalem Ministry given in the Fourth Gospel 
should have been absent from the record of these 
three Gospels. It must have formed part of the 
oral tradition, especially as this Ministry gathered 
so closely around the Passion, where the emphasis 
of the apostolic preaching was placed. Finally, itis 
hard to understand how these minute resemblances, 
whether among all the Gospels, or between Mt and 
Lk, exist in the Greek, while the oral tradition must 
have formed itself in Aramaic. If recourse is made 
to the theory of different recensions of the tradition 
to account for these differences, it is clear that in 
proportion as such recensions might explain the 
differences, they fail to account for the minute 
resemblances that remain. 

In view of the failure of these two theories to 
meet the problem, the propounding of a Documen- 
tary Theory has been almost a critical necessity, 
since such a theory alone promises to account for 
both the resemblances and the differences. 

This theory has assumed three specific forms: (1) 
The Single Document Theory—that at the basis of 
these Gospels there was an original Gospel in written 
form from which each Evangelist drew his material 
in his own individual way. The prevailing idea has 
been that this Gospel was in the Aramaic language 
(Lessing and others), tho it has been held that it 
was Hebrew (Resch), and also that it was Greek 
(Eichhorn and others). As to this theory there is 
the difficulty, as far as its Aramaic or Hebrew 
character is concerned, of working out any convin- 
cing proof that either of these languages lay in 
written form behind our Synoptics as we have them.® 

2 But see Torrey’s claim of an Aramaic Gospel of Mk, pre- 
ceding our Greek Mk and an Aramaic Gospel of Mt preceding 
our Greek Mt, both of which Aramaic Gospels were used by 


Lk in combination with our Greek Gospels of Mk and Mt 
(Studies in the History of Religion, 1912). 





- 
=o 


e 


St psaeate ami Se 


= 


875 


‘A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Synoptic Problem 





In addition to this is the fact that even in its Greek 
form the differences between the Gosepls are so far 
untouched that it has had to be assumed that this 
original Gospel went through several recensions, a 
separate one lying at the base of each of our Gospels. 
This, however, meets the same disaster as does the 
similar assumption in the case of the Oral Theory. 

(2) The Multiple Document Theory—that at the 
basis of our Gospels was a general collection of 
fragmentary documents giving portions of the life 
of Jesus, or of his words, from individual combina- 
tions of which documents the Evangelists wrote 
their Gospels as we have them. While we can under- 
stand how such fragmentary documents might arise 
and how, being fragmentary, they might have dis- 
appeared, the agreements between our Gospels are 
too minute and sustained to have come from such 
accidental combinations of fragmentary sources. 
Nor does this seem to be the process followed by Lk 
as given in his prolog (1 1-4). He did not combine 
these fragmentary and apparently imperfect narra- 
tives to form his Gospel; he rather corrected and 
supplemented them by recourse to other and pre- 
sumably oral testimony.’ 

(3) The Two Document Theory—that there were 
at the basis of our Gospels two documents, one con- 
taining a narrative of the events of Jesus’ life, the 
other containing a collection of Jesus’ teachings. 
This is a theory which has arisen largely from the 
necessities of the case, neither of the other document 
theories accounting in any satisfactory way for the 
factors in the problem, the Single Document Theory 
not being broad enough for the differences between 
the Gospels, and the Multiple Document Theory 
being too broad for the agreements. The starting 
ground for this theory was given by Weisse, as noted 
above, § 3, in his claim that Papias’ statement 
regarding Mk referred to our present second Gospel. 
Inasmuch, however, as Mk covered the distinct- 
ively narrative material of the Synoptic record, it 
remained to discover a possible document which 
would cover the discourse material, and the hint 
at that was given in Papias’ further statement re- 
garding the writing of Mt, which was: ‘So then 
Matthew compiled the oracles (Acyfa, ‘words,’ ‘say- 
ings’) in the Hebrew language, and every one inter- 
preted them as he was able.’ It became clear to 
scholarship that the statements of this early witness 
marked the way to a rational solution of the prob- 
lem, since if it could be shown that Mk’s narrative 
was used by the other two Gospels and that, outside 
of Mk’s narrative, there was used a distinct element 
of discourse material, it would seem that these two 
documents referred to by Papias might prove to be 
the sources from which the Synoptic record, with 
its peculiar characteristics of agreement and differ- 
ences, was derived. 

4. Facts Disclosed. When we come to study the 
Synoptic record there are certain facts which at 
once emerge. (1) It is seen that practically all of 


3 But see Cadbury’s contention that Lk’s claim is not that 
his knowledge came from any research of sources, but from his 
own contemporary if not eye-witness knowledge of the 
facts, whether that knowledge was dependable or not being 
@ question to be decided by a study of his two writings— 
Gospel and Acts (Expositor, 1922, pp. 401-420). 


Mk’s record is reproduced in the narrative of Mt 
and Lk (about two-thirds of it in both of them and 
the remaining one-third in one or the other of them). 
In other words, practically all the incidents he 
narrates and practically all the sayings and teach- 
ings he records are found in one or the other of his 
two companion Gospels. This is not the fact with 
either Mt or Lk. (2) It is seen that Mk’s order of 
narrative controls the order of Mt and Lk. That is 
to say, they follow Mk’s order in their narratives, 
and where either departs from it Mk’s order is 
supported by the other. In no case do they support 
each other in disagreeing with Mark. Neither Mt’s 
order nor Lk’s is followed that way by the other two. 
(3) It is seen that Mk’s language forms the back- 
ground of the language of the other two. That is 
to say, where Mk’s language is not reproduced by 
Mt or Lk, the reasons for the deviations are clear. 
No such reasons can be discovered if either Mt’s 
language or Lk’s is assumed as the standard. (4) 
It is seen that the discourse material is almost wholly 
confined to Mt and Lk. There is only one real dis- 
course contained in Mk, and that is the discourse 
about the ‘last things’ given in his 13th chapter, at 
the close of Jesus’ Jerusalem Ministry, the pe- 
culiarities of which and the reason for whose repro- 
duction by Mk are stated in the article on that 
Gospel, § 1 (1), note 4. (5) When this discourse 
material of Mt and Lk is studied, however, we notice 
that the discourses and sayings have more or less 
narrative setting from which they proceed, and 
where they are parallel they are significantly iden- 
tical in construction and wording of sentence and 
phrase. It is peculiar, however, that the larger part 
of this common discourse material has been segre- 
gated by Lk in the ten chapters which give the record 
of the Perean Ministry (9 51-19 28), while Mt has 
taken from it portions which he has distributed 
through the discourses he has embodied in his narra- 
tive of the Galilean and Jerusalem Ministries. It is 
further peculiar that the smaller portion of this 
common discourse material has been placed by both 
Mt and Lk in their respective records of the 
Ministry of the Baptist and the Galilean Ministry 
of Jesus, and, tho differently located in these por- 
tions (with the exception of the Preaching of the 
Baptist (Mt 37-10, 12 and Lk 37-9, 17) and the Tempta- 
tion of Jesus (Mt 4 3-11 and Lk 4 3-13), is arranged 
by both Evangelists in the same general sequence of 
events. Still further, it is peculiar that this smaller 
portion of the common discourse material seems to 
be of different character from the larger portion. Its 
narrative element is much more graphic and its 
literary style is of a finer quality. (6) It is seen that 
Mt has a very considerable amount of discourse 
material apart from Mk and Lk, and peculiar to 
himself, consisting largely of long discourses (e.g., 
the Sermon on the Mount and the Parables), and 
also of shorter sayings, which latter he has dis- 
tributed through his narrative. (7) It is seen finally 
that Lk has a large amount of discourse material 
apart from Mt and Mk and peculiar to himself, 
consisting mainly of the ten chapters referred to 
above which give his record of the Perean Ministry 
and which (with the exception of 18 15-43) does not 


Synoptic Problem 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


876 





appear in Mk at all, but certain portions of which 
appear distributed through Mt’s discourses. 


5. Conclusions. What are the conclusions to be 
drawn from this study of the Synoptic Record? 
(1) It would seem that in a distinct and definite way 
Mk’s Gospel lay at the base of Mt’s and Lk’s. They 
may have had copies of his Gospel before them when 
they wrote, and more or less mechanically incor- 
porated it in their writing, or they may have been 
fully familiar with it and reproduced it from mem- 
ory. In either case they recognized it as the narra- 
tive of Jesus’ ministry current in and accepted by 
the Church, and as such made it the base on which 
they built their own individual Gospels. (2) The 
discourse material peculiar to Mt may have come 
from the Logia writing ascribed by Papias to this 
Apostle, and, being thus the distinctively apostolic 
element in that Gospel, may have given to it the 
Apostle’s name. If this is so, then it would be ap- 
parent that the First Gospel was not in its entire 
material the product of Mt but that the discourses 
for which Mt was responsible were combined by 
some other hand with Mk’s narrative, to form the 
Gospel as we have it. If Mt himself had written 
the Gospel which we have under his name, he would 
not have been dependent on Mk’s narrative of the 
events, but would have known them as one who 
himself had participated in them and would have 
narrated them from his own first hand knowledge 
of them. That the First Gospel is a compilation by 
another hand than Mt’s is confirmed by the peculiar 
topical arrangement of its material, showing the 
work of one who knew neither discourses nor events 
at first hand, but having these two sources—one 
of them of direct Apostolic origin—combined them 
in his own way to give to his readers a fuller record 
of the Gospel Ministry than Mk afforded, and one 
more suited to his purpose of presenting to them 
Jesus as the Messiah of the Covenant People. (8) 
That the discourse material peculiar to Lk may 
have come from this same Logia writing of Mt is of 
course possible, and is still a matter of debate, but 
the fact that Lk states in his prolog that he was 
acquainted with many fragmentary narratives of 
Gospel history which, while not in themselves suit- 
able for the purpose of a full and complete narrative 
of that history and needing confirmation from other 
sources as to their value, prepares us for the possi- 
bility that some of them were used by him in his 
writing. This possibility is raised to more than a 
probability by the fact, above noted, that the smaller 
portion of the discourse material which he has in 
common with Mt has a place and a character of its 
own in his record of the Baptist’s Preaching and the 
Galilean Ministry of Jesus. If, however, it is more 
than probable that he has used one of these frag- 
mentary documents in his record of this portion of 
the Gospel history, it is clear not only that the com- 
piler of Mt also had access to it, for its material is 
common to them both, but also that Lk has used it 
in a different way from the way in which the Com- 
piler of Mt used it. The Mt. Compiler has taken 
portions from it and distributed them among the 
other discourses of his Gospel, after the manner of 
his arrangement of his material; Lk on the other 


hand has inserted it as a whole. This would give the 
reason why Lk has placed the Rejection at Nazareth 
(4 16-30) so out of place. It evidently had that place 
in the document he used and he has left it un- 
disturbed. (4) It would seem that this same reason- 
ing would apply to the larger portion of the discourse 
material common to Mt and Lk, so that this also 
would represent one of Lk’s fragmentary narrative 
documents which he has inserted entire in these ten 
chapters of his Gospel, but from which the Mt 
Compiler has taken portions and distributed them 
topically among his other discourses. Again this 
would show why Lk has placed in these ten chapters 
certain things that occurred earlier in Jesus’ min- 
istry (e.g., 10 13-22, 11 17-32), and some later (e.g., 
11 39-41, 47-51, 17 23 f., 26 f., 34 f.). This is where they 
stood in the document, and Lk has inserted the 
document as it stood. It is seen, therefore, that in 
this smaller Galilean document and in the larger 
Perean document, while both the Mt compiler and 
Lk had alike access to the documents as such, the 
different ways in which they used them resulted in 
Mt and Lk having only a portion of these docu- 
ments in common in their Gospels, the larger part of 
them being reproduced only by Lk.‘ 

6. Summary. If we gather up these conclusions, 
we would seem to be justified in the following state- 
ment of the sources and interrelations of the Syn- 
optic Gospels. 


I. The Source behind Mk was the Gospel dis- 
courses of Peter. These he reproduced, as Papias 
states, not giving them an ordered arrangement 
(c&Ets)—as the compiler of Mt has arranged his 
Gospel in its alternate groupings of discourses and 
miracles (see MarrHew, GospE. or, § 1 (a)), or as 
Lk has arranged his Gospel in its fullness and its 
rhetorical dressing of material (see Luxn, GosPEL 
or, § 1 (c))—but reproducing them in their simple 
and unadorned narration of the incidents and events 
of Jesus’ Ministry. This would be the natural 
characteristic of the Apostolic preaching and is what 
Mk has faithfully reproduced 


II. The Sources behind Mt (as compiled) were 
(1) The Gospel of Mk substantially as we possess, 
it to-day. (2) The special discourse source spoken 
of by Papias (formerly designated as A but now 
generally known as Q, and showing itself probably 
in the following passages of his Gospel: 3 14 f.; 5 4 
7-10, 18a, 14, 16 f., 19-24, 27 f., 31, 33-30a, 41, 43; 6 1-7, 10b, 
13b, 16-18, 34; 7 6, 12b, 15, 22; 9 13a; 10 5 £., 8b, 23, 25b, 
36, 41; 11 28-30; 12 5-7, 11, 12a, 34; 13 14 f., 24-30, 35-53; 


- 


15 12-14, 23 f.; 16 17-19; 17 24-27; 18 4, 10, 14, 16-20, 23-34; © 


19 10-12, 28; 20 1-15; 21 14-16, 28-32, 43; 22 1-14; 23 2, 3, 
5, 7b-10, 15-22, 24, 28, 32; 24 10-12, 30a; 25 1-lla, 13, 14-46 
26 52 f. (8) The Perean Document (P), showing 
itself in excerpts distributed through the record of 
the Galilean and Jerusalem Ministries (e.g., 6 9-13, 
19-33; 7 7-11; 8 19-22; 10 26-39; 13 33). (4) The Galilean 
Document (G), showing itself in excerpts distributed 
through the narrative of the Baptist’s Preaching 
4 For discussion of the Perean section see Wickes, the 
Sources of Luke’s Perean Section, in Historicul and Linguistic 


Studies in Literature Related to N T., Second Series, vol. ii, 
part 2, 1912. For the theory of a Proto-Lukan gospel, see 


Streeter, The Hibbert Journal (Oct., 1921) and The Four Gos- — 


pels (1925). 





877 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Synoptic Problem 





and the Galilean Ministry of Jesus (e.g., 3 7-10, 12; 
4 3-10; 5 3-12; 7 1-5, 24-27; 8 5-10; 11 2-11, 16-19; 12 33-35). 

III. The Sources Behind Lk were (1) The Gospel 
of Mk, substantially as we possess it to-day. (2) 
The Perean Document, showing itself in 9 57-18 14 
(18 15-43 being paralleled by Mk); 19 1-28. (3) The 
Galilean Document (G), disclosing itself most likely 
in two sections:(a) 3 7-15, 17 f.; 4 2b-13; (b) 4 16-30, 
42-44 (if not 31-41); 5 1-11; 6 20-49; 7 1-50. 

These constitute the Major Sources. The Minor 
Sources might be indicated as 

I. Behind Mk, ch. 18, as an individual apocalypse 
current in the church, apart from the Apostolic 
preaching. 

II. Behind Mt, his nativity and infancy narra- 
tive; certain portions of the Passion narrative; and 
other minor narratives peculiar to Mt, not included 
in the discourse material which he has taken from Q. 

III. Behind Lk, his nativity and infancy narra- 
tive; certain portions of the Passion narrative; and 
other minor narratives peculiar to Lk, not included 
in the narrative material of P and G.é 

It will be seen from the foregoing that a full con- 
sideration of the facts disclosed in the Synoptic 
record point to a documentary theory which posits 
more than two documents behind the Synoptics. 


7. Versions of Mark. There is one further fact 
that should be considered because of its relation to 
theories advanced as to the primary character of the 
Gospel of Mk. When we compare Mk with Mt and 
Lk we find there is a large section of Mk (7 24-8 26) 
which is substantially reproduced by Mt, but wholly 
omitted by Lk. It is the section which narrates 
Jesus’ retirement to the regions of Tyre and Sidon, 
which apparently continued for some time and ended 
in the confession of the Disciples at Czsarea- 
Philippi as to the Messiahship of Jesus. How is 
Lk’s omission of this Markan section to be accounted 
for? 

Two theories have been advanced not only for 
this particular omission, but for all the above noted 
differences in material between Mk on the one side 
and Mt and Lk on the other. The first is that Mt 
and Lk had access to a Markan writing which 
preceded our present canonical Mk, viz., the writing 
by Mark to which Papias refers and which is 
assumed to have been an unordered and discon- 
nected reproduction of Peter’s discourses. This 
writing, it is claimed, possessed much more material 
than our present Gospel—material which Mt and 
Lk have incorporated into their records, but which 
has been omited from our Canonical Mk Ce. g., 
Weisse, Schenkel, Reville). Apart, however, 
from the difficulty of understanding how, as a 


mere literary process, Mk failed statedly to repro- | 


duce from his earlier writing so much significant 
material that Mt and Lk have statedly retained, 
it is almost impossible to account not only for the 
strange way in which this extra material differs 


5 For discussion of Lk’s Passion Narrative, see Perry, The 
Sources of Luke’s Passion Narrative, in Histwrical and Lin- 
guistic Studies in Literature Related to the N T, Second Series, 
vol. iv, part 1, 1920. He holds there is a distinct source (J), 
which gives to the closing chapters of Lk’s Gospel (19-24) a 
character that shows they were derived from material apart 
from his main source of Mk’s narrative, 


from the material of Mk’s Canonical Gospel, but 

for the strange way in which it differs within itself. 

Could two such different writings have come 

from the same pen? And then to come back to this 

large section of Mk which Lk has omitted. Did 

Lk omit it because it did not exist in this earlier 

writing? Then how came Mt to include it? If it be 

said that Mt and Lk had access to both Markan 
writings, Mt including it from the second writing 
and Lk omitting it because it was not in the first, 
then, not only where did Mk get this section if it 
was not in his original writing, but what was it that 
determined Lk after all to omit it when he had the 

chance to insert it as Mt did? 

The second theory is that Mt and Lk had recourse 
to separate and distinct copies of our Canonical Mk, 
one of which contained the material Mt has re- 
produced, the other that which Lk has reproduced 
(e.g., Stanton. Holdsworth). While this might 
account for the different treatment of this and other 
Markan sections given by Mt and Lk, how can it 
account, as above noted, for the striking difference 
which the general material of Mt and Lk presents 
when compared with the general material of Mk? 
While one writer might conceivably write two dif- 
ferent accounts of the same events, how could 
separate copies of the same account differ among 
themselves so strangely as Mt and Lk differ in their 
Gospels from Mk? 

Without going into the controversy which gathers 
around these theories, it will be enough to say that 
the general consensus of modern scholarship is 
against an original Markan writing behind our 
Canonical Mk, as also against the existence of 
different copies of our Canonical Mk. As to the 
omission by Lk of this large section of Mk, it is 
best explained by the fact that it was not a ministry 
of Jesus in this Gentile region, but a period of 
retirement from all ministry, in order that he might 
prepare his disciples for the fatal ending of his 
work, which was now so clearly evident to him, and 
for the carrying of it on after his death by bringing 
them to realize and accept the spiritual character of 
his Messiahship. Had it been a Gentile Mission, it 
would be confessedly difficult to explain Lk’s omis- 
sion of it from his narrative. As it was not such a 
mission, it is easy to see how Lk was not attracted 
to it. As to the other and more general divergences 
from Mk on the part of Mt and Lk, they are not 
only better explained, they are in fact explained at 
all only on the assumption that there were 
documents in common and also peculiar to them- 
selves, wholly separate and distinct from any writing 
of Mark’s. 

LiteRATURE: Besides the larger Introductions of Jilicher 
(German liberal), Eng. transl. (1904), Zahn (German con- 
servative), Eng. transl., 2d ed. (1917), and Moffatt (English 
liberal) (1911), and the smaller ones of Bacon (1900) and 
Peake (1909), one should consult such special treatments 
of the problem as are found in the following: Robinson, 
The Study of the Gospels (1902); Carpenter, The First Three 
Gospels (1904); Burton, Principles of Literary Criticism 
and the Synoptic Problem (1904); Burkitt, The Gospel 
History and its Transmission (1906), The Earliest Sources 
of the Gospels (1910); Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus (1908); 
Bacon, The Beginnings of the Gospel Story (1909); Stanton, 


The Gospels as Historical Documents, Part II (1909); 
Buckley, Introduction to the Synoptic Problem (1911); 


Syntyche 
Tabernacle 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


878 


a 


Holdsworth, Gospel Origins (1913); Jackson, The Present 
State of the Synoptic Problem, in Cambridge Biblical Essays 
(1909); Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem, edited by 
Sanday (1911); Jones, The New Testament in the Twentieth 
Century, Book II, ch. 1 (1914); Patton, ‘‘Sources of the 
Synoptic Gospels,” in Univ. of Michigan Studies, Humanistic 
Series, vol. v (1915); Wade, N T History (1922), pp. 148-173; 
Streeter, The Four Gospels (1925). M. W. J. 
SYNTYCHE, sin’ti-ki (Zuvtéy%y): One of Paul’s 
- fellow workers in Philippi, mentioned in Ph 4 2, to- 
gether with Euodia, with whom she seems to have 
had some disagreement. See also Evopta. 

J. M. T. 


SYRACUSE, sir’a-kitis (Luednovcat): The most 
important city of Sicily, situated on the E. coast of 
the island. It had been one of the most famous and 
magnificent colonies of Greece, but, along with the 
rest of Sicily, it suffered greatly in the civil wars of 
the Republic. Even in Paul’s time it retained much 
of its splendor, Caligula having restored many of its 
temples; but it never recovered its importance, 
tho the emperors gave it local self-government. 
Paul, as a prisoner under Roman guard, arrived here 
from Melita, probably toward the end of February, 
and waited for three days to get across to Rhegium 
in Italy (Ac 28 12). There is no record of any work 
done by the Apostle in the city. 

R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


SYRIA, sir’l-2, SYRIAN, sir’l-on: The name 
‘Syria’ (which does not occur in the Heb. O T, 
where ’A ram, or ’Arammi [ad]. ], rendered ‘Syrian’ in 
Dt 26 5; II K 18 26, etc., is always used) seems to 
have been derived from the old name Suri of the 
Assyrian inscriptions, which denoted a district on 


TAANACH, té-a-nak (7325, ta‘dndkh, also ta‘- 
nakh): A Canaanite town which formed part of the 
line of fortresses guarding the S. border of the Plain 
of Esdraelon (Jos 12 21, 17 11 f., 21 25, Tanach AV; 
Jg519;7 K 412;T Ch 729). Map III, Fl. Excava- 
tions, conducted for the Austrian Government by 
Dr. Sellin in 1902-04, at T. have resulted in most 
interesting discoveries, including cuneiform tablets, 
images of Astarte, an Amorite rock-hewn altar, a 
whole street of sacred columns, jar-burials of new- 
born infants, evidences of human sacrifices in con- 
nection with the building of houses, and other proofs 
of an exceedingly ancient history and of the practises 
common to the Canaanite religion. See E. Sellin, 
Tell Ta‘annek, 1904. L. G. L.—L. B. P. 

TAANATH-SHILOH, té’’a-nafh-shail6 (A285 
n>y, ta’dnath-shiloh): A place on the NE. border of 
Ephraim (Jos 16 6). It was identified by Eusebius 
and Jerome with Thena, 10 m. E. of Nablus (She- 
chem). It is probably the modern Ta‘na, 7 m. SE. 
of Nablus, with old cisterns and rock-tombs. Map 
IlI,G3. G. A. Smith suggests that it was a fortress 
guarding the upper end of the Wddy el-Ifjim. 

CLsar: 

TABBAOTH, tab’a-o th (MYA2Y, tabba‘ath), ‘signet- 
rings’: The ancestral head of one of the families of 
the Nethinim (Ezr 2 43; Neh 7 4s). 


the upper Euphrates. It came to be used by the 
Greek writers (from Herodotus down), and at last 
entirely supplanted the more correct ’Ardm, Ara- 
mean. Syria included the territory bounded by 
the Taurus Mountains,, the Euphrates and the 
Syrian Desert, the Arabian Desert and the Mediter- 
ranean. All this territory was settled more or less 
thoroughly by people of Aramean stock. His- 
torically, Syria does not show a steady progressive 
development toward unification. It was always a 
group of related, but not united, petty kingdoms or 
tribes. Consequently, its history is a part of the 
history of the Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, 
Roman, and Mohammedan empires successively. 
Not once was there in this vast region a united 
effort toward independent self-government. See 
ALEXANDER; ANTIOCH; ANTIOCHUS; ARAM §§ l and 4 
(2); Assyria; Baspyton; Damascus; MAccaBEES; 
Persia; and Rome. HK. E. N. 


SYRIAN (‘Syriack? AV) LANGUAGE. See 
ARAM, §§ 1 and 4 (2); and ARAMatc LANGUAGE. 


SYROPHENICIAN, sai’’ro-fi-nish’an (Zvpogorvl- 
xtoox): It is not clear that this designation is used 
with any attempt at precision (cf. Mk 7 26). If pre- 
cision is not aimed at, the term is simply synonymous 
with Phenician (cf. Mt 15 22, ‘a woman of Canaan’ 
AV, ‘Canaanitish’ RV); otherwise, the distinction 
which later appears between Syria Magna and Syria 
Phenice must have already existed and found its 
way into popular usage. A. C. Z. 


SYRTIS, sir’tis (quicksands AV). See Mept- 
TERRANEAN SEA. 


TABBATH, tab’ath (30, tabbdth): A place some- 
where in the Jordan Valley, about midway between 
the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea (Jg 7 22). The 
exact site is unknown. 


TABEEL, té’bi-el (782%, tabh’él, Tabeal AV), ‘God 
is good’: 1. A person of doubtful identification in the 
days of Ahaz. It was the plan of Pekah and Rezin to 
overthrow Ahaz and place ‘the son of Tabeel’ on the 
throne of Judah (Is 75 f.). Winckler (KAT, p. 
135) is confident that ‘the son of Tabeel’ was none 
other than Rezin himself. The name is identical — 
with Tabrimmon (‘Rimmon is good,’ I K 15 18), 


Rimmon being the name of a deity. In the Heb. — 


text it is so pointed as to be pronounced Tabeal— 
z.e., ‘good for nothing,’ but this may be due simply 
to the pause. 2. A Persian official west of the 
Euphrates (Ezr 4 7). K. E. N. 


TABER: This verb (only Nah 2 7 [8s] AV) means 
‘to play on a taber [tabor],’ a tambourine-like in- 
strument without the jingles. It renders the Pd‘é 
participle of taphaph, to ‘drum,’ ‘beat’ (cf. Ps 68 25, 
‘playing with timbrels’). In Nah 2 7, RV reads 
‘beating upon their breasts [hearts],’? an act of 
mourning. Stade, following the LXX., reads 
m*tsaphts*photh, Pilpal ptepl. of tsaphaph, “ewitter= 
ing.’ Crear Te 





879 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Syntyche 
Tabernacle 





TABERAH, tab’i-ra (1]Y30, tabh‘érah), ‘burn- 
ing’: A station on the wilderness journey (Nu 11 3; 
Dt 9 22). Site unknown. 


TABERNACLE: In the priestly portions of the 
Hexateuch (q.v.) there are frequent references to a 
tent or ‘tabernacle’ which was constructed by Moses 
at the command of God and, with its attendant 
priesthood, was the fundamental feature of Israel as 
the holy people of J’’. Outside of P, the references to 
the Tabernacle in the O T are, with one or two excep- 
tions, found only in late passages influenced by the 
views of P. 


I. Tue SrrucrurEe DEscrisepD IN P. 


1. Origin and Purpose of the Tabernacle. In P, in 
accordance with its ‘priestly’ point of view, the mak- 
ing of the Tabernacle with the organization of the 
cultus was the chief work done at Sinai. Im- 
mediately after the Israelites arrived here, Moses as- 
cended the mount to meet God, and after a six days’ 
theophany, entered into the cloud and there received 
the directions concerning the Tabernacle (Ex 17 1a, 
19 1-2a, 24 15-18, 25 1 f.; see Exopvus, § 4). The ac- 
count in Ex 25 1-31 17 and chs. 35-40, which is con- 
tinued in Lv chs. 8 and 9, is not all of one composi- 
tion, but consists of several strands distinguished 
from one another by their terminology and by other 
differences (cf. Carpenter-Harford, The Comp. of the 
Hexateuch, p. 266, note). As the account stands it 
may be analyzed as follows: 


I. The Directions for Making the Tabernacle, 25 1-32 17, 
Preliminary: Regarding the materials to be collected 
from the people, 25 1-9, 
A. The Main Section, 25 19-29 45, 
1. The three most sacred, significant, and symbolio 
pieces of furniture,25 10-40, 
(1) The Ark, vs. 10-22, 
(2) The Table of Showbread, vs. 23-30, 
(3) The Candlestick, vs. 31-40, 
2. The Tabernacle, or ‘dwelling’ (mishkdn), 26 1-37, 
(1) The ‘dwelling’ proper, of curtains of fine linen, 
vs. 1-6, 
(2) The goats’-hair ‘tent’ over the curtain, vs. 7-13, 
(3) The ‘covering’ of skins, ver. . 
(4) The ‘boards’ (qrdéshim,=?) of the 
vs. 15-25, 
(5) The ‘veil’ (parékheth) between the ‘holy’ place 
and the ‘most holy’ place, vs. 31-35, 
(6) The ‘screen’ (mdsdkh) at the door of the ‘tent,’ 
Vs, 36-37, 
3. The Altar of Burnt Offerings, 27 1-8. 
4, The Court, with its curtains, pillars, etc., 27 9-19 (ver. 
20 f.. regarding the oil for the light, belongs 
logically with 25 31-40), 
5. The Garments for the priesthood, ch. 28. 
6. Directions concerning the consecration of the priests, 
29 1-35, 
7. Directions regarding the consecration of the Altar 
and regarding daily offerings, 29 36-42, 
Conclusion, as to the purpose of the Tent and 
the ideal embodied in it, 29 43-45, 
B. Supplementary Section, chs. 30-31. 
. The Altar of Incense, 30 1-10, 
The Redemption Money, 30 11-16, 
The Laver of Brass, 30 17-21, 
The Anointing Oil, 30 22-33, 
The Incense, 30 34-38, 
. The Artizans who were to do the work, 31 1-1), 
. The Sabbath, 31 12-17, 
II. The Construction of the Tabernacle in accordance with 
the foregoing instructions, 34 29-39 43, 

Moses comes down from the mount, face all aglow, and 
gives the people the commandments he had received (34 29 ff.), 
beginning with the Sabbath-law (35 1-3), then he calls for offer- 
ings and workers (35 4-1%), to which call the people liberally 


‘dwelling,’ 


st orm Coto 


respond (35 20-29), Bezalel and others are appointed to superin- 
tend the work (35 90-36 7). In the account that follows of the 
making of the Tabernacle and its furniture (36 8-39 43), the order 
of the instructions is not followed exactly, and the whole account 
evidences itself as secondary to the original in chs. 25-29, 
III. The Erection of the Tabernacle and the formal institu- 
tion of the worship, Ex ch. 40 and Ly ch. 8 f. 
This account of the making of the Tabernacle and 


of the organization of the worship about it as a 
center is followed, in the main thread of P’s narra- 
tive, by the description of the arrangement of the 
camp, details of the order of march, and other related 
matters in Nu chs. 1-4. 

The prominence given to the T. in P is evidenced 
not only by the elaborate care with which it is 
described and by the fact that it forms the central 
point of the whole cultus-organization, but also by 
the names given to it. In P the T. as regards its 
structure, is viewed simply as a tent (’dhel, some- 
times rendered ‘tent,’ but more frequently ‘taber- 
nacle,’in AV). But this tent was the tent of meet- 
ing (’dhel md‘édh, ‘tabernacle of the congregation’ 
AV, incorrectly) or the dwelling (mishkdn, ‘taber- 
nacle’ in both RV and AV; e.g., Ex 251, ete.). The 
significance of these terms is fully expressed in 
Ex 29 43 f. The T. was to be the ‘meeting-place’ 
between God and His people Israel, the place where 
He ‘dwelt’ in their midst. It was thus the holiest 
place on earth, the center of Israel’s life as the people 
of J’. Other terms such as migqddésh, sanctuary (Ex 
25 8, etc., also gédhesh, Ex 30 13, etc.), or ‘tabernacle 
of the testimony,’ mishkhan ha‘édhith (Ex 38 21 or 
‘tent of the testimony,’ ’dhel h&‘édhith), because here 
the two tables of the ‘testimony’, ‘édhith, were kept 
in the Ark (Ex 2516, 21, etc.), each emphasizes one 
phase of the same general idea. 

2. Place of the Tabernacle in the Camp. In P 
Israel is always spoken of as in ‘camp’ or on the 
march. The legislation is all formulated, as if 
intended to apply to such conditions, altho in 
reality it was intended to apply to a settled com- 
munity living inits ownland. The ‘camp’ is really a 
legal fiction. Consequently, the T., however elabor- 
ate and expensive it may have been, is viewed as a 
portable sanctuary, something not unknown to 
Semitic antiquity, a tent rather than a house, and 
the place assigned it in reference to the camp is not 
without great significance. In the arrangement of 
the camp in P the determining principle is that of 
the varying degrees of holiness possessed by the 
different elements which, all told, made up the holy 
nation. The camp is described as a hollow square or 
rectangle, located true to the points of the compass, 
each side guarded by three of the twelve tribes. 
Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun were encamped on the 
E., viewed as the front and considered, doubtless, as 
the most honorable position; Reuben, Simeon, and 
Gad made up the S. side; Ephraim, Manasseh, and 
Benjamin (i.e., the house of Joseph) formed the W. 
or rear; and on the N. were Dan, Asher, and Naphtali 
(Nu 2 1-32). 

Within this square was a second one formed by the 
priests and Levites (Nu 3 21-39). The priests (7.e., 
‘Aaron and his sons’; see PriestHoop, § 9) and 
Moses occupied the place of honor, the E. or front 
side. The S., W., and N. sides were occupied re- 
spectively by the Kohathite, Gershonite, and Mera- 


Tabernacle 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


880 





rite divisions of the Levites, to each of which was as- 
signed certain specific parts of the sanctuary and 
its furniture as their special charge. 

Within this second square of Levites was the 
rectangular court of the Tabernacle, marked off by 
curtains and pillars, within which were, at last, the 
altar of burnt offerings and the holy ‘dwelling’ (see 
§ 3, below). Thus the whole arrangement sym- 
bolized the idea of holiness. Next to the profane 
world was the holy nation, with Judah in the place of 
honor, then the more holy Levites, with the priests 
in the place of honor, then the still more holy en- 
closure or court with the altar in the center of its 
E. half, then finally the ‘sanctuary,’ with its Holy 
Place, and last of all the Most Holy Place, in the 
center of which was the ‘Shekinah,’ 7.e., the mani- 
festation of God Himself over the golden mercy-seat 
between the cherubim (cf. the reference to Ezekiel’s 
Temple, § 6, below). 

When camp was broken, the division of Judah set 
forward first, followed by that of Reuben. Then 
the Levites, with the Tabernacle in their midst, 
made up the center, followed by the divisions of 
Ephraim and Dan (Nu 21-31). In taking down the 
Court and the Tabernacle the greatest care was 
exercised lest any profane eyes should gaze on the 
holy things (Nu 4 1-34). 

3. Details of Structure. (1) The Court and its 
Furniture (Ex 27 9-19, 38 9-20). The Court was a 





Court of the Tabernacle (Scale ¢ in. =10 Cubits). 
abcd, The Tent or Tabernacle proper. A. The Holy Place of 


the Sanctuary. B. The Most Holy Place. 1. The Ark of the 
Covenant. 2. The Table of Showbread. 3. The Altar of 
Incense. 4. The Golden Candlestick. 5. The Altar of Burnt 
Offering. 


double square or a rectangle 50100 cubits in size. 
Its limits were marked by curtains or hangings hung 
on sixty acacia pillars set in sockets of brass, 5 cu. 
apart. Each pillar was 5 cu. high, with a band or 
fillet of silver at the top, and also provided with silver 
hooks by which the curtains were secured. The pil- 
lars were held firm by cords and brazen tent-pins. 
The curtains for the N. and S. sides were each 5 cu. 
high by 100 cu. long, of fine white linen; that for the 
W. side was 5X50 cu. On the E. side two short 
curtains, each 5X15 cu. and hung on three pillars, 
extended from the corners toward the center, leaving 
an opening of 20 cu. wide in the center, which was 
closed by a screen of fine linen embroidered in colors 
and suspended from four (really five) pillars. 

The furniture of the Court consisted of the port- 
able brazen altar of burnt-offerings with its acces- 
sories such as pots, shovels, basins, flesh-hooks, and 
fire-pans (27 1-8, 38 1-7; on which see Aurar, § 2) and 
(according to the secondary strata of the account) 


the brazen laver, kiyydr, which was to stand between 
the altar and the sanctuary (30 17-21; the notice in 
38 8 contains a curious anachronism). 


(2) The Tabernacle Proper (Ex 26 1-37). Theoret- 
ically, this is viewed as a tent, but of very peculiar 
structure. The ‘tent’ proper consisted of two sets 
of curtains, one of which was to serve as the cover- 
ing for the other. The first set of curtains consti- 
tuted the ‘dwelling’ (Ex 261). It consisted of ten 
curtains of fine twined linen in which figures of 
cherubim were woven or ‘embroidered’ in ‘blue and 
purple and scarlet.’ Each curtain was 4X28 cu. in — 
size. The curtains were sewed together in two sets | 
of five each, and the two sets were coupled to each — 
other by fifty golden clasps (taches AV) linked into 
fifty loops of blue thread sewed on the edge of each 
set. These ten curtains when so joined together 
made a covering 40 X28 cu. in size, which was to be 


spread over a framework consisting of upright } 


‘boards’ so arranged as to make a structure 10 cu. 
wide by 30 cu. long and 10 cu. high. The covering, 
when spread upon the framework, hung over each 
side to the length of 9 cu. (9+10+9=28) and at 


the rear to the extent of 10 cu., since the edge of the — q 


covering was flush with the front of the framework. 
Over this was spread the ‘tent’? made of eleven cur- 
tains of goats’ hair, each 4X11 cu., made in two 


sets of five and six curtains each, fastened together — 


with loops and brazen clasps. The first curtain of the 


front set was doubled and hung over the front of the — 


structure. Along the N. and S. sides this covering 
overlapped the under one by a cubit, but at the rear 
the edges of the two coincided. The point most open 


to discussion in the description of the Tabernacle is ~ 


the term geresh (pl. g¢rdshim, rendered ‘boards’). 
The usual theory, based on the prob- 
ably erroneous ideas of the LXX. and 
Josephus, regards them as pillars, and 
is advocated, e.g., by Benzinger (in HB, 
art. Tabernacle). But this makes the 
whole structure a most unwieldy and 
impossible affair (each ‘board’ being 
a huge timber 1X14 cu. square X- 10 
cu. long and weighing between 1,000 
and 2,000 lbs.). There is no evidence 
that geresh means any such thing (cf. 
Nowack, Heb. Archdologie, II, p. 56, 
note). Itis the plausible suggestion of 
A. R.S. Kennedy (HDB, IV, p. 659 f., 
and cf. Driver in Camb. Bible on Ex 26 
15) that the ‘boards’ were light, strong 
frames shaped somewhat like the ac- 
companying figure, sufficiently rigid to 
sustain the weight of the curtains and 
give the necessary firmness to the walls 
and yet so open as to allow the rich em- 
broidery of the inner curtains to be 

visible from the inside, which would be | 
impossible on the ordinary theory that 

geresh means a solid ‘board’ or pillar. The projec- 
ting legs (tenons) of these frames were set in sockets 
of silver, each socket weighing a talent (38 27), or 
about 96 lbs. On each of the N. and S. sides of the 
Tabernacle there were twenty ‘boards,’ making up 
the total length of 30 cu. toaside. The W. end had 


14 cu. 





LO -CHh 








881 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Tabernacle 





but six ‘boards’ (=9 cu.), but as the two corner 
ones were each doubled in some way, the total 
width of 10 cu. was easily obtained. The ‘boards’ 
were overlaid with gold plate. The E. end was 
closed by a screen suspended on five acacia pillars 
overlaid with gold and with golden hooks, and set in 
sockets of brass. To add to the rigidity of the struc- 
ture the ‘boards’ on the N. and S. sides were joined 
by bars of acacia overlaid with gold, which passed 
through rings of gold. Five bars were used on a side, 
the middle one in each case extending the whole 
length of the side, the upper and lower ones being 
only half as long. 

Over this whole structure, to protect it from the 
weather, were spread (just how we do not know) two 
coverings, one of rams’ skins dyed red and the other 
of sealskins (q.v.). 


(8) The Holy Place and its Furniture (Ex 25 23-40, 
26 31-35). The space enclosed by the ‘boards,’ cur- 
tains, and the screen at the E. end was divided into 
two parts, one double the area of the other, by a veil 
of the same beautiful fabric as the curtains, which 
was suspended by golden hooks on four acacia pillars 
overlaid with gold and set in silver sockets. This 
veil was placed 20 cu. from the E. end of the dwelling, 
exatly under the place where the curtains of the 
inner covering and the ‘tent’ above them were joined 
together by their clasps. The purpose of this veil 
was to separate the dwelling into two rooms, the 
larger one (10X20 cu.) being called the ‘holy place.’ 

According to the older stratum (Ex chs. 25-29) of 
the account, the furniture of the Holy Place con- 
sisted of a table and a lamp-stand with their neces- 
sary accessories. 

The table (shulhdn, Ex 25 23 ff.; also called shulhan 
happanim, ‘table of the presence,’ Nu 47; cf. also Lv 
24 6 and IT Ch 29 18) was of acacia wood plated 
heavily with pure gold. It was 1} cu. high, 2 cu. 
long, and 1 cu. broad. The top was probably quite 
thick and heavy and around it ran a golden ‘crown,’ 
zér, or decorated mounting. To stiffen the legs they 
were encased near the feet by a ‘border,’ misghereth, 
a handbreadth broad, likewise surmounted by a 
golden ‘crown.’ ‘To this ‘border’ were attached the 
rings of gold through which the gold-plated staves 
were passed. On the table was to be placed the 
showbread (lehem pdnim, ‘bread of faces,’ 7.c., 
bread set before the ‘face,’ or in the presence of God). 
The table was thus in reality an altar, and it is so 
called in Ezk 41 22. The service of the table was of 
pure gold and consisted of dishes (q*‘Grdth, probably 
platters to hold the loaves), spoons (kappdth, cups 
for the frankincense; cf. Lv 247), flagons (q¢sdwath, 
for the wine), and bowls (menaqqiyydth, also for the 
wine). ‘The ritual of the table is given in part in 
Lv 24 5-9. The table was to be placed on the S. side 
of the Holy Place (Ex 26 35). 

The lamp-stand or candlestick (mendrah) was of 
‘beaten work’ of pure gold (cf. Ex 25 31-40, 31 8; 
Lv 24 4). From a main stem or shaft three pairs of 
branches extended, curved upward so that the ends 
of the branches and stem were on the same level. 
At intervals on both branches and stem and also on 
their ends were almond blossoms (both knop and 
flower). In the seven blossoms which formed the 


ends of the stem and branches were to be placed the 
seven golden lamps. Tongs or snuffers and snuff- 
dishes of gold were also provided, together with ‘oil- 
vessels’ (Nu 49). The lamps were to be cared for 
daily, and the oil was to be of the finest variety 
(Ex 27 20 f.; Lv 24 1-4). 


In the secondary strata of the account mention 
is made of an altar of incense (Ex 30 1-10; cf. ALTAR, 
§ 2, at the end). This was a chest-like structure 2 
cu. high, 1 cu. long, and 1 cu. wide, of acacia wood 
overlaid with gold. It had ‘horns’ at the corners 
and was provided with a ‘crown,’ rings, and staves 
like the table of showbread. It was to be placed 
‘before’ (t.e., east of) the veil. The ritual of this 
altar is given minutely in Ex 307-10, but over against 
these directions must be placed the fact of a strange 
silence regarding this altar in other passages where it 
would naturally be referred to. Nothing is said of 
it in Lv ch. 16 in the ritual for the Day of Atone- 
ment (in spite of Ex 30 10), and in other passages the 
incense is brought before the Lord on censers (Lv 
101; Nu 1617). Furthermore, neither in Solomon’s 
Temple (in the old account in I K, chs. 6 ff.) nor in 
that of Ezekiel is anything said of an altar of incense. 
It is probable, therefore, that the description in Ex 
30 1-10 belongs to a stratum of P originating between 
the date of Lv ch. 16 and the Chronicler (cf. I Ch 
28 18; II Ch 419), and that it was due to the introduc- 
tion, during the Persian period, of an altar of incense 
into the Second Temple. 


(4) The Most Holy Place (qidhesh haqqédhashim, 
Ex 26 31-35, holy of holies AV) was, in size, a perfect 
cube of 10 cu. in each dimension. It was this that 
was viewed as the real ‘dwelling’ of J’, for it was 
here, in a mysterious manifestation of Himself above 
the mercy-seat of the Ark, the one article of furni- 
ture in this room, and not at the door of the Tent, 
as in Ex 33 9 (E), that J’’ promised to ‘meet with’ 
and ‘commune with’ His people (Ex 25 22). See also 
ARK. 


Il. Tue Hisroricat VALUE OF THE AccouUNT IN P. 


4. General Considerations. Was the elaborate 
structure described by P ever actually used by the 
Israelites? This question can not be satisfactorily 
answered in the negative by the merely general ob- 
jection that at the time of the Exodus the Israelites 
were too simple, rude, and poor to have been able to 
make such an expensive sanctuary. The true answer 
must be gained from the internal character of the 
account itself and its agreement or disagreement 
with other statements in the O T record. On the 
traditional assumption that Moses wrote the whole 
account, as well as the rest of the Pentateuch, we 
have a right to demand that there shall be no incon- 
sistencies or contradictions either in the account 
itself or between it and the rest of the Pentateuch. 
If such are found, it is evident that more than one 
hand has had a share in the composition, and it then 
becomes our duty to analyze the account as minutely 
as possible, in order to get possession of all the facts 
involved and discover, if possible, a solution of the 
problem. Furthermore, if Moses wrote the account 
of the Tabernacle in Ex, the presence of such a 
sanctuary with its elaborate cultus must have left 


Tabernacle 
Table 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


882 





some trace of its existence in the early history as we 
have it recorded in Jos to II K. A brief considera- 
tion of the evidence bearing on this question will now 
be attempted. 

5. Tent and Altar in JE and D. In the account of 
the reconciliation between J’’ and the Israelites after 
the making of the golden calf, we are told, Ex 337 f., 
that ‘Moses used to take the tent and to pitch it 
without the camp . . . and he called it, The tent 
of meeting’ (ver.7). On this Tent J’ descended in a 
cloud, when Moses entered it, and there He spoke 
with him at the door of the Tent (ver. 9). Moses’ 
‘minister Joshua departed not out of the Tent’ (ver. 
11). That this passage is but a fragment of an 
originally longer account is evident; but what else 
that account contained is unknown. Brief, how- 
ever, as this fragment is, it seems to have a very 
different idea of the place of the Tent in reference to 
the camp (outside, instead of in the very center, as 
in P), of the part of the Tent where J’’ manifested 
Himself (at the door, instead of in the Most Holy 


Place) and of the persons in charge (Joshua, instead 


of Aaron, his sons, and Levites). 


The altar of burnt offering is a most essential — 


element in P’s account of the T. and also of the 
cultus. It is the one only altar of sacrifice known 
to the priestly law. But in Ex 20 24-26 (JE) we find 
something quite different. Not a brazen, artificial 
altar, but altars of earth, or at best of unhewn stone, 


are prescribed, to be erected at the different places — 


where J’’ may record His name. 

In the order of march prescribed in P (Nu chs. 
2-4 and 10 1-28) the Ark is to be carried by the 
Kohathite Levites in the center of the line (six tribes 
in front of it and sixin the rear). Butin Nu 10 33 f. 
(JE) the Ark leads the march, apparently at some 
distance from the main body. 

These differences seem to forbid absolutely the 
ascription of all the passages containing them to one 
and the same author or date. Their importance is 
only enhanced when we discover that in the entire 
Code of Dt there is not the slightest reference to the 
Tabernacle, which seems to prove beyond all doubt 
that this code could not have proceeded from the 
same hand (or hands) that wrote P. For in P the 
entire system of worship centers about the Taber- 
nacle and the Aaronic priesthood (q.v.). The same 
general subject of worship is covered in D in the 
form of a general national code. How could the 
author(s) of D have omitted the Tabernacle and its 


services if he were the same person who assigned - 


them the importance given to them in P? 


Another feature of the early literature is that while | 


a Tent made by Moses is referred to (as in Ex 337 f.) 
and also an Ark (Nu 10 33 £.; ef. Dt 101 #., based on 
JE), there seems to be no close connection between 
the two. They are not spoken of together, and 
while the Levites have charge of the Ark, nothing is 
said of their care of the Tent (cf. Dt 10 8). 

The truth seems to be that quite early historical 
tradition became vague as to the Tent Moses made, 
probably because, in the shifting and uncertain for- 
tunes of the Conquest and ‘judges’ periods, it was lost 
or destroyed, and no one knewits fate. In none of 
the early notices of the Ark, at Shiloh (IS chs. 1-6), or 





at Kiriath-jearim (I S 71 f£.), or of its removal to 
Jerusalem (II S 6 1-19; cf. especially ver. 17) is any- 
thing said about the Mosaic Tent. Only in late 
editorial additions or glosses is there any reference to 
the ‘tent of meeting’ (7.e., P’s Tabernacle) in the 
earlier historical books (Jos-II K; as, e.g., IS 2 22, 
or I K 84). Even the Deuteronomic editor of I K 
must have been ignorant of its existence, or he could 
not have written what we findinI K32. The same 
complete silence regarding the Tabernacle is found 
in the preexilic Prophets. 

6. The Sources of P’s Description of the T. If, 
then, the description of the T. in P is at variance 
with the older references to the Mosaic Tent, Ark, 
and altars, and if the Mosaic Tent disappeared alto- 
gether at a comparatively early date, what is to be 
said of the T. so elaborately described by P? Is it 
to be considered altogether a fiction? The answer to 
such questions is to be determined by considering 
what sources the authors of P may have had at their © 
disposal and under what influences they made use 
of such sources. 

Among the sources must be set down: 

(1) The tradition of the Mosaic Tent. That there 
was such a, tradition is certain from the traces of it 
in JE, but that the only form of it was that found in 
Ex 33 7-11 is not certain or even probable. It is not 
at all unlikely that there was an old tradition in 
priestly circles of a somewhat elaborate tent made 
by Moses to serve the purpose of at least a tem- 
porary sanctuary in the wilderness. 

(2) A second source drawn on by P must have 
been the several Temples (of Solomon, of Ezekiel’s 
vision, and the Second Temple) with which the 
authors of P were acquainted. Solomon’s Temple 
was 20 cu. wide by 60 cu. long, and the T. of P is just 
one-half of these dimensions. Solomon’s Temple 
had a ‘holy place’ (20X40 cu.), in which there was a 
table of showbread and ten golden ‘candlesticks,’ 
and also in the rear of this a most holy enclosure, 
containing the Ark only (20 cu. square), separated 
from the former by a wall with olive-wood doors. 
In Solomon’s Temple the walls of both rooms were 
profusely decorated, especially with figures of cheru- 
bim, and nearly all the woodwork was plated with 
pure gold. This Temple also had a court in which 
there were a brazen altar and an immense brazen 
laver (the molten ‘sea’). All these things with slight 
modifications the T. also had, tho on a smaller scale. 

(3) A third source from which the authors of P 
drew must have been the ideas concerning the cen- 
tralization of the cultus (one and one only sanctuary 
and sacrificial altar allowed), as set forth in the Code 
of Dt (q.v.), and the new emphasis on holiness and 
the distinctions to be made between the holy and the 
profane set forth and urged upon the exiles by 
Ezekiel, especially in his ideal sketch of the restored 
community (Ezk chs. 40-48). After reading this 
sketch, it is not difficult to see where P got his idea 
of the camp as a series of concentric enclosures of 
varying degrees of holiness,"the innermost and holiest 
of all being the Tabernacle; for Ezekiel sets forth 
almost exactly the same idea. According to him, 
the holy land is to be divided into a number of 
parallel strips running from E. to W. A first series, 








the domain of seven tribes, lies N. of the central 
portion, and a second series, for five tribes, lies S. of 
the central strip. 

The central portion of the center strip was a 
square (25,000 cu. each way) divided into three parts: 
one for the Levites (10,000 25,000 cu.) on the N., 
one for the ‘city’ and its land (5,000 25,000 cu.) 
on theS., and the center one for the priests (10,000 X 
25,000 cu.), in the exact center of which lay the sanc- 
tuary where J’ had His throne, where He dwelt 
(Ezk 43 7), and its court (500 cu. sq.); see TEMPLE, 
§§ 19 ff. It requires but little modification of this 
general plan to give us P’s arrangement of the camp 
with the T. (the ‘dwelling’) at the center. 

(4) Finally, the authors of P, or at least those who 
supplemented the earlier form of P, were acquainted 
with the Second Temple and its more formal cultus- 
arrangements. Little is directly known of this Tem- 
ple before its rebuilding by Herod. But we do 
know that it contained an altar of incense, a golden 
candlestick, and a table of showbread (I Mac 1 22, 


EZEKIEL’S IDEAL 


OF THE 


|| HOLY LAND AND PEOPLE NAPHTALI 


MANASSEH 


ISSACHAR } 
N) 
ZEBULUN x 





4 49) and before it was an altar of burnt-offerings 
made of stone (I Mac 4 45f.). Whether the altar of 
incense was placed in it at the first is uncertain; 
more probably it was a later addition to the furniture 
of the Holy Place. No attempt was ever made to 
make another Ark of the Covenant after the loss of 
the original one when Jerusalem fell in 586 B.c. 

7. Constructive Conclusion. The description of 
the T. is an essential part of the P document. In 
fact, in this description the ideal teaching of this 
great document reaches its climax. Starting with 
the creation of the universe (Gn 1 1), the writer 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





Tabernacle 
Table 


draws ever nearer to his main theme—how the 
infinite, holy God has His abode among men in the 
midst of His holy people Israel. When he wrote, it 
had probably long been the custom to assign a 
Mosaic origin to all the important legitimate religious 
customs then current (as Dt had already done). 
That there could be but one altar, one sanctuary, one 
priestly family; that the line between the holy and 
the profane must be drawn most strictly; that the 
sanctuary and its services must be as expensive and 
beautiful and elaborate as possible—all such ideas 
as these had long been current and accepted, and, 
of course—so he must have reasoned—they were 
entertained and taught by Moses. Making use of 
the tradition of the Mosaic Tent as he understood it, 
the author of P (in its original form) built his 
description mainly on the data of Solomon’s Temple 
and on Ezekiel’s idealistic picture (this is what we 
find now embedded in Ex chs. 25-29, Nu chs. 2-4, 
etc.). Later additions in the same spirit extended 
this by transferring to it elements from the subse- 
quent developments of the cultus (as the Altar of 
Incense, Ex ch. 30, ete.), or from the more fully 
developed theories of later times. The Tabernacle 
of P is not, therefore, a bald fiction, but an honest, 
sincere attempt to set forth a great ideal on the basis 
of ancient tradition and established usage. 
Literature: Heb. Archdologie by Benzinger (1894) and 
Nowack (1894); art. by Benzinger in HB and by A. R. 8S. 
Kennedy in HDB (the latter is exhaustive and very satis- 
factory); also Kénig in JE, s.v. Cf also Driver in Camb. 
Bible on Exodus (1911). ‘i 
TABERNACLES, FEAST OF. See Fasts anp 


Feasts, § 8. 
TABITHA, tab’1-tha. See Dorcas. 


TABLE: This word is the rendering of: (1) laah, 
‘tablet.’ See TaBLeE, TABLET. (2) mésabh, ‘that 
which surrounds,’ ‘is round.’ The meaning is doubt- 
ful (Song 1 12), perhaps ‘table’ or ‘cushion,’ ‘divan.’ 
(3) shulhaén, properly a ‘skin’ or ‘round leather mat’ 
spread on the ground. It often had a string run 
around the edge so that it could be drawn up and 
used as a bag for carrying food. The name was also 
applied to the wooden or metal tray set on a stand. 
Those who ate from the table gathered about it, 
sitting on the ground, chairs, or couches, according to 
its height above the ground (I K 10 5, 13 20); later, 
it became the custom to recline at table (Jn 12 2 
RVmg.). The king ate at a ‘table’ Jg 17; 18 20 29, 
etc.); private individuals had them (I K 13 20; Job 
36 16, etc.); and it was one of the pieces of furniture 
in a bedroom (II K 410). It is used figuratively of 
wisdom (Pr 9 2). In the following passages tables 
for sacred uses are mentioned: That for the show- 
bread in the Tabernacle was made of wood overlaid 
with gold (Ex 25 23 and seventeen times in chs. 25- 
40; Nu 3 31, 47; Lv 24 6); in Solomon’s Temple it 
was a table of gold (I K 7 48; II Ch 29 18 [ten in 
number]; II Ch 4 8, 19, 13 11; ef. I Ch 28 16); in Eze- 
kiel’s Temple there were tables on which the offer- 
ings were to be slain (Ezk 40 39, etc.; Ezk 40 40 
[eight in number]; of stone, 40 42; an altar of wood, 
called a ‘table,’ 41 22; cf. 44 16); Mal speaks of the 
altar as a table (Mal 17,12). In Is 6511 ‘table’ means 
an idolatrous meal; and in Ezk 39 20 it is a figure of 


Table 
Target 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


884 





J’’s sacrificial feast. (4) xAtvy, ‘reclining-couch’ or 
‘bed’ (Mt 7 4), correctly RVmg. ‘couches.’ (5) <A¢é&, 
‘slab,’ ‘tablet’ (II Co 3 3; He 9 4); see above under 
(1). (6) te&xeta, a ‘table with four feet,’ LXX. for 
shulhdn; used in the N T in various senses, as a 
‘dining-table’ (Mt 15 27; Mk 7 28; Lk 16 21, 22 21, 30; 
cf. Ac 16 34, ‘food’ RV, ‘table’ mg.); ‘a feast’? (Ro 
119; I Co 10 21); the stand of a money-changer (Mt 


21 12; Mk 1115; Jn 2 15; Lk 19 23, ‘bank’ EV; Ac 6 2, | 


where moneys or goods placed on a table for dis- 
tribution are perhaps meant); the table for show- 
bread (He 9 2). G Sat. 
TABLE, TABLET: (1) The word ‘table’ is the 
rendering of diah, in Ex 24 12, etc. (of the ‘tables’ 
of stone). The same Heb. word is rendered ‘boards’ 
or ‘planks’ (Ex 27 8; Ezk 27 5, etc.) and metal 
‘plates’ (I K 7 36). It is also used of the heart (Pr 
3 3, 7 3; Jer 17 1) and in Is 30 8 of a writing-‘tablet’ 
of some sort. The root meaning of the term is 
unknown. On Is 81, 308 and on the N T passages 
(Lk 1 63; II Co 3 3; He 9 4), see Books AND WRITING, 
§ 1. (2) In Is 3 20, RV substitutes “‘perfume-boxes’ 
for the AV ‘tablets.’ The Heb. means literally 
‘houses of the soul.’ (3) On Ex 35 22 and Nu 81 50, 
cf. the RV; see also Dress aNnpD ORNAMENTS, II, § 2. 
K. E. N. 
TABOR, té’bor or -bér (139, tabhdr): 1. A village 
in Zebulun given to the Merarite Levites (I Ch 677), 
probably the same as the Tabor on the border of 
Issachar (Jos 19 22), and that at which Zebah and 
Zalmunna slew Gideon’s brothers (Jg 8 18); not im- 
possibly also the same as Chisloth-tabor of Jos 19 12, 
a town on the border of Zebulun. Its exact location 
is uncertain, but it was probably not far from Mount 
Tabor. 2. Mount Tabor, called by the Arabs Jebel 
et-Tar (like Sinai, Gerizim, and Olivet). A moun- 
tain on the boundaries of Issachar, Zebulun, and 
Naphtali (Jos 19 22, 12), 5 m. E. of Nazareth and 
about 12 m. W. of the S. end of the Sea of Galilee. 
Map IV, D 7. Its altitude is 1,843 ft. above sea- 
level. Olive-, fig-, carob-, but especially oak- and 
terebinth-trees grow upon its slopes. The view ob- 
tained from its summit looking SW. toward Mt. 
Carmel across the fertile Plain of Esdraelon (‘the 
great battle-field of history’) is one long to be re- 
membered. From Dt 33 19 it seems probable that it 
was the seat of an ancient sanctuary. Here Barak 
assembled the forces of Issachar and Zebulun to 
fight against Sisera and the Canaanites (Jg 4 6, 12, 
14). Jeremiah uses it as a figure of the supreme power 
of the king of Babylon (46 18). Both Antiochus the 
Great (218 s.c.) and Josephus (66 a.p.) fortified it 
(Polybius, V, 70, 6; Jos BJ, IV, 18). Saladin cap- 
tured it in 1187, but the crusaders failed in the at- 
tempt to do so in 1217. An ancient tradition, 
traceable back as far as Jerome and Origen, asso- 
ciates T. with the scene of the Transfiguration, but 
in Christ’s time the top of the mountain was proba- 
bly covered with houses, ruins of which and of an old 
fortress, as well as of churches and monasteries with 
pools and cisterns, are still to be found on it. Two 
monasteries, one Greek, the other Latin, now crown 
its flat, oblong (3,0001,300 ft.) summit. 3. The 
oak (‘plain’ AV) of Tabor, which Saul passed on his 
way home after having been anointed by Samuel 


(IS 10 3). The context of this passage locates it 
between ‘Rachel’s sepulcher in the border of Benja- 
min at Zelzah’ (ver. 2) and ‘the hill of God,’ per- 
haps Gibeah (ver. 5), but its exact site is unknown.. 
Ewald (History, III, 21) identified it with ‘the 
palm-tree of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel 
in the hill-country of Ephraim’ (Jg 4 5; ef. Gn 35 8). 
G. L. R. 


TABRET. See Music anp Mousicau Insrrv- 
MENTS, § 3 (1). 

TABRIMMON, tab-rim’on or tab’ri-men (J©720, 
tabhrimmén), ‘Rimmon is good’: King of Damascus, 
father of Ben-hadad I (I K 15 18), and one of the 
earliest kings of the dynasty. E. E. N 


TACHES. See TaBERNACLE, § 3. 


TACHMONITE, tak’mo-nait. See TancaHEmMon- 
ITE. 
TACKLING. See Suips anp Naviaation, § 2. 


TADMOR, tad’mér (7575, tadhmér), derived 
from témar, ‘palm’: A city ‘in the wilderness,’ whose 
building is ascribed to Solomon (II Ch 8 4; also I K 
918, AV, ARVmg., Heb. mg.); known to later history 
as the famous Palmyra, but since the Arabian period 
called again by its ancient name of Tadmor. The Ta- 
mar of I K 918, however, was probably not Tadmor. 
Palmyra was situated in a fertile oasis of the Syrian 
Desert, 120 m. NE. of Damascus, and thus was a 
natural halting-place for caravans passing between 
the Euphrates Valley and the Mediterranean. At 
the same time, its desert barriers enabled the city to 
enjoy practical freedom from imperial control. Pal- 
myra reached the height of its wealth, culture, and 
influence during the reigns of Odenatus (255-267 
A.D.) and his widow, the great Zenobia, when the 
city was the capital of an independent kingdom 
whose power was felt from Armenia to Egypt. In 
273, however, a Roman army, led by the Emperor 
Aurelian in person, defeated the Palmyrene troops 
and destroyed the splendid capital. Modern Tad- 
mor is a squalid Arab village surrounded by magnifi- 
cent ruins, among the more important of which are 
an ancient aqueduct, Roman walls built by Justinian, 
the great Temple of the Sun, peculiar sepulchral 
towers, ana superb colonnaded avenues. 

Literature: W. Wright, Palmyra and Zenobia (1895); Baede- 
ker, Syria and Palestine (1906), pp. 339 sq. 
L. G. L.—L. B. P. 

TAHAN, té’han (90, tahan): 1. The ancestral 
head of the Tahanites, a clan of Ephraim (Nu 26 35), 
called Tahath in I Ch 7 20. 2. A descendant of 1 in 
the fourth generation (I Ch 7 25). 


TAHAPANES, ta-hap’s-niz. See TAHPANHES. 


TAHASH, té’hash (¥0D, tahash, Thahash AV): 
The ancestral head of an Aramean clan supposed to 
be descended from Nahor (Gn 22 24). On the name 
see SEAL. 

TAHATH, té’/hath (ND, tahath): I. 1. The ances- 
tral head of a clan of Ephraim (I Ch 7 20, called 
Tahan, Nu 26 35). 2. Another name in the same 
genealogy (I Ch 7 20). 3. A Korahite Levite (I Ch 
6 24, 37). II. A station on the wilderness journey 
(Nu 33 26f.). Site unknown. 





885 





TABCHEMONITE, ta’ki-man-ait (39900, tahke- 
moni, Tacnmonite AV): A patronymic of Josheb- 
basshebeth (=Adino, q.v.), the chief of David’s 
three mighty men (II S 23 8). The form "2030, 
hakhmoni, in the parallel passage (I Ch 11 11) is 
probably correct; the of the longer form being a 
mistake for the article 7. GNBAC Ls 


TAHPANHES, ta’pan-hiz (OM8NN, tahpanhés, 
also Tahapanes, Jer 2 16 AV, and Tehaphnehes, 
DOIENN, thaphnehés, Ezk 30 18): A city in Egypt 
where Jeremiah and the Jews with him fled after the 
murder of Gedaliah (Jer 437 .). It was situated on 
the Pelusiac branch of the Nile (the E. frontier of 
Egypt), 5 m. SE. of Tanis (Zoan). The classical 
writers called it Daphne, and its modern name is 
Tell Defneh. As a frontier town it was garrisoned 
(Herod. II, 30), a fact which no doubt contributed 
to its selection as a refuge for the fugitive Jews. 
Much of its history has been verified through ex- 
cavations conducted by Flinders Petrie. Ezekiel 
(30 18) prophesied its destruction. Mention of the 
place is also made in the Book of Judith (1 9). 

AD ea: 


TAHPENES, ta’pi-niz (O°22I0, tahpenés): The 
name of the wife of an unnamed Pharaoh, a contem- 
porary of Solomon, who gave the queen’s sister in 


marriage to Hadad the Edomite (I K 11 19f.). The | 


name is not mentioned elsewhere, nor is it found in 
the Egyptian inscriptions, but the fact that Hadad 
returned and, according to the LXX. of I K 11 22, 
became a formidable opponent of Solomon bears out 
the historicity of his marriage with the king’s sister- 
in-law. AECL: 
TAHREA, ta-ri’a or ta’n-a (YIN, tahréa‘): A 
descendant of Saul (I Ch 9 41, called Tarea in 8 35). 


TAHTIM-HODSHI, ta” tim-hed’shaiC¥ 19 DANA, 
tahttm hodhshi): A ‘land of Tahtim-hodshi’ is referred 
toin IIS 246. This puzzling name has given rise to 
many conjectures, of which the most plausible is 
that it is a textual error for ‘the land of the Hittites 
to Kadesh’ (so LXX. [L]). If so, the northern limit 
of David’s rule is represented, perhaps with some 
exaggeration, as Kadesh on the Orontes. Cf. Driver, 
Notes on Heb. Text of Books of S., ad loc. 

E. E. N. 

TALENT. See Money, I, 1; and Wertcuts anp 

MEASURES, § 9. 


TALITHA CUMI, ta-li’tha kt’mi: An Aramaic 
expression translated in the context (Mk 5 41) 
‘Damsel [I say unto thee], arise.’ The citation of 
the original Aramaic words is characteristic of Mk 
(cf. 7 11, 14 36, 15 22). AGG ZL. 

TALMAI, tal’mai or -mé cD ?n, talmay): 1. One 
of the ‘children of Anak’ at Hebron (Nu 13 22; Jos 
15 14; Jg 110). See also ANAK. 2. King of Geshur 
(q.v.) and father of David’s wife Maacah, the mother 
of Absalom (II S 3 3, 13 37; I Ch 8 2). 


TALMON, tal’moan (in’2e, talm6n): An ancestor 
of a Levitical family of gatekeepers (I Ch 9 17; Ezr 
2 42; Neh 7 45, 11 19, 12 25). 


TAMAH, té’ma. See TEMAH. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Table 
Target 





TAMAR, té’mar (129, taémdr), ‘date-palm’: I. 
An unidentified town at the 8. end of the Dead Sea. 
According to Ezk 47 19, 48 28, it formed the SE. 
corner of the Holy Land (cf. Nu 34 4; Jos 15 2-4). 
The same place is probably meant in I K 9 18 (where 
the K°thibh is more correct than ‘Tadmor’ of the 
Q‘ré and II Ch 8 4). Winckler (Gesch. Isr. ii, 98) 
reads in this passage, instead of ‘Ba‘alath and Ta- 
mar,’ ‘Ba‘alath-tamar,’ which he identifies with 
Ba‘al-tamar in Benjamin. . 

II. 1. The daughter-in-law of Judah, through 
whom he lost his two older sons, and by whom he 
became the father of Perez and Zerah (Gn 38 6, U1, 
13, 24; Ru 4 12; I Ch 2 4). Under these personal 
names we have probably the story of two unsuccess- 
ful attempts of clans of the tribe of Judah to oc- 
cupy the Canaanite town of Tamar, and the subse- 
quent peaceful mingling of Judah with its inhabi- 
tants, out of which arose the new clans of Perez 
and Zerah. 2. A daughter of David who was vio- 
lated by her half-brother Amnon and was avenged 
by her own brother Absalom (II S ch. 13; I Ch 39). 
3. A daughter of Absalom (II S 14 27). The LXX. 
adds ‘and she became the wife of Rehoboam, the 
son of Solomon, and bare him Abiathar.’ In this 
case she was identical with Maacah (I K 15 2; II Ch 
11 20 #.). The Lucianic text of II S 14 27 reads 
‘Maacah’ instead of “Tamar.’ baBwke 


TAMARISK. See Paestine, § 21; and Semrric 
REtiGion, § 33. 


TAMMUZ, tam’oz. See Semiric Rericion, § 34. 
TANACH, té’nak. See TAANACH. 


TANHUMETH, tan-hiti’meth or tan’hiu- (0120, 
tanhumeth), ‘comfort’: One of those who took refuge 
with Gedaliah, after the fall of Jerusalem in 586 B.c. 
(II K 25 23; Jer 40 8). 


TANNER. See Artizan Lire, § 16. 


TAPESTRY: This word occurs in the Bible only 
in Pr 7 16, 31 32 (‘coverings of tapestry’ AV, ‘carpets 
of tapestry’ RV, ‘cushions’ RVmg.). It renders the 
Heb. marbhaddim, literally ‘things that are spread.’ 


TAPHATH, té’fath (950, taphath): A daughter 
of Solomon and wife of Ben-abinadab, one of Solo- 
mon’s prefects (I K 4 11). 

TAPPUAH, ta-piti’a or tap’yu-a (M50, tappiah), 
‘apple [tree]’: 1. An old Canaanitic royal city (Jos 
1217, 15 34). The district and its city later belonged 
to Manasseh (Jos 178). Itis also called En-Tappuah 
and lay on the border between Ephraim and Manas- 
seh, so that it could also be counted as Ephraim’s 
(Jos 168, 177£.). The identification (Map III, F 4) 
is not certain. 2. A town of Judah, connected 
genealogically with the Calebites of Hebron (I Ch 
2 42), also called Beth-tappuah (q.v.). E. E. N. 


TARAH, té’ra. See Trrag, II. 

TARALAH, tar’a-la (T2878, tar’dlah): A city of 
Benjamin (Jos 18 27). Site unknown. ; 

TAREA, ta-ri’a or té’ri-a. See TAHREA. 

TARES. See PALESTINE, § 22. 

TARGET: The mistaken rendering inI S 176 AV 


Targum 
Taskmaster 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


886 





of the Heb. kidhén, properly ‘javelin.’ See Arms 


AND ARMOR, § 1. 


TARGUM, tar’gum: The name given to the Ara- 
maic versions of the O T. After the Exile, the Ara- 
maic (q.v.), displacing the Hebrew, gradually became 
the popular language of Palestine, not only of 
Galilee and Samaria, but also of Judea. During the 
whole period in which the synagog (q.v.) developed 
as an institution, the original language of the O T 
was unknown to the mass of the people. Hebrew 
was understood only by those who made it a special 
study. As the Scriptures were read in the original 
in the synagog of Palestine, it was necessary to 
translate them for the understanding of the listeners. 
In this way arose the targums of the O T books. The 
word targum means ‘translation,’ or ‘interpretation.’ 
The targums, therefore, are translations, or para- 
phrases of the Hebrew Scriptures. It was the custom 
in the synagog, in reading the Law, to read one verse, 
and then wait until that had been translated or para- 


phrased before proceeding to the next (cf. Neh 8 8). ° 


In the same way the reading from the Prophets was 
rendered into the vernacular, except that three verses 
were taken at a time. In earliest times it was for- 
bidden to the interpreter to read his translation. It 
was feared lest the written targum might be placed 
upon the same level of authority as that held by the 
original. But the use of written targums was per- 
mitted for private instruction. Three stages may be 
marked in the growth of the targums: (1) the purely 
oral stage; (2) the stage in which they were partially 
written; (3) the stage in which they were written 
fully and with authoritative sanction. Our knowl- 
edge of the first and second stages is derived largely 
from later statements made regarding the customs 
in reference to the synagog. The story of the con- 
fiscation of a Targum on Job in the Ist cent. a.p. 
(Bab. Shab. 115 1) shows the existence of written 
targums before the time when they received official 
sanction. All the targums extant are of a late date. 
They may be classified as follows: 

I. Of the Pentateuch. (1) The Targum of On- 
kelos, also called the Babylonian Targum. (2) The 
Targum of Jonathan (pseudo-Jonathan), also called 
the Jerusalem Targum. Both of these targums cover 
the entire Pentateuch. (3) A third, containing only 
parts of the Pentateuch, is known by the name of 
the Fragmentary Targum, or the Jerusalem Targum 
II. 

II. Of the Prophets. The Targum of Jonathan 
ben Uzziel, also called the Babylonian Targum on 
the Prophets. 

III. Of the Hagiographa: (1) The Targum of the 
Psalms, Proverbs, and Job. (2) The Targum of the 
Megilloth (Cant., Ru, La, Ec, Est). (8) The Targum 
of Chronicles. 

Of most importance are the targums on the Law 
and the Prophets. Only a brief description of the 
different targums can be given here. 1. The Tar- 
gum of Onkelos: The author of this targum is really 
unknown, for its ascription to Onkelos is due to a 
mistaken application of the tradition regarding the 
Greek version of the O T by Aquila to the Aramaic 
translation of the Pentateuch. The confusion of the 
names Onkelos and Akylas (Aquila) accounts for 


this mistake. The better name for this targum is 

the ‘Babylonian,’ because of its general acceptance 

in the Babylonian schools. It was received from 

Palestine, where it may have been compiled, in 
whole or in part, in the 2d or 3d cent. a.p., but it 
received its final redaction in Babylonia, in the 4th 
or 5th cent. This latter fact accounts for the traces 
of Babylonian influence upon its vocabulary. The 
translation contained in this targum is faithful. 

‘Wherever it deviates from the literalness of the 
text, such a course in its case is fully justified either 
by the obscurity of the passage or the wrong con- 
struction that naturally would be put upon its word- 
ing by the multitude.’ Noticeable are its departures 
from the text when it wishes to avoid anthropo- 
morphisms and any expressions reflecting on the 
worthiness of God. 2. The Jerusalem Targum (of 
pseudo-Jonathan): Until the 14th cent. this targum 
was known under no other name than the Jerusa- 
lem Targum. It is due to the carelessness of some 
scribe that an abbreviation »’m was interpreted 
‘Targum Jonathan,’ rather than ‘T. Jerusalem.’ Cer- 
tainly Jonathan ben Uzziel, the reputed author of 
the Targum on the Prophets, can not have been its 
author. He is said to have lived near the time of 
Christ, and this targum introduces in its interpreta- 
tions facts and references, e.g., the breaking up of the 
West Roman empire and the names of Mohammed’s 
wives, which bring its date down to the 7th or 8th 
cent. A.D. It had its origin in Palestine, and differs 
essentially in its general character from the Targum 
of Onkelos. Instead of giving merely a faithful 
translation or paraphrastic understanding of the 
original, it seeks by allegory, parable, or story to 
illustrate and illumine the meaning. It is virtually 
a haggadic treatment of the Pentateuch. Like the 
Targum of Onkelos, it avoids anthropomorphisms 
and anthropopathisms. It is ‘a mine of informa- 
tion on most of the religious and dogmatic concep- 
tions of the Judaism of the Talmudic age.” Much 
discussion has been given to the relation of the 
pseudo-Jonathan Targum to the Fragmentary Tar- 
gum. This latter contains only about 850 verses, 

and these belong mainly to the historical sections of 
the Pentateuch. It is not necessary here to go into 
the various theories which have been offered in order 
to set forth the inner relation of the Palestinian tar- 
gums. It is sufficient to say that they are closely 
related. 3. The Targum of Jonathan (ben Uzziel) 

on the Prophets: The reputed author of this targum 

is said to have been a pupil of Hillel, 75 B.c.-10 a.p. 

The sole authority for his authorship is a statement 

of the Talmud (Meg. 3a), but by that same Talmud 
another name is given, R. Joseph bar Chija of 
Babylon (270-333 a.p.). Whether we can discover 
his name or not, there is evidence in this work of the 


hand of one man who has given to the whole of it the — a 


stamp of his redaction. The targum originated in 
Palestine, and, like that of Onkelos, received its final 
form in Babylonia. In its treatment of the historical 
books it is much more literal than in its rendering of 
the Prophets. In this latter part it follows the hag- 
gadic method of added allegory, parabié, and story, 
in order to illumine the passage. The traits common 
to other targums, such as the avoidance of anthropo- 





887 A NEW STANDARD 


morphisms, the interpretation of figurative language, 

and the emphasis upon that which is to the glory of 

any Israelite, are all here. 4. The targums of the 

Hagiographa are all late in origin. As they are 

mostly private literary works, their value is varied. 

They show in general the characteristics of their 

models—the older targums—and are for the most 

part of Palestinian origin. The most noteworthy fea- 
ture regarding them must be given in a single word. 

_ The Targum on the Psalms and Job is a faithful 

translation, with haggadic additions; that on Pro- 

verbs is marked by Syriac features arguing the use of 
the Peshitto version. The targums on the Megilloth 
are notably paraphrastic; Esther is extant in two 
forms, one of which is quite literal, the other called 

Targum Sheni, 7. e., ‘second’ Targum, quite para- 

phrastic. The Targum on Chronicles, which was 

not known to exist until very late, combines literal 
translation with haggadic paraphrase. 

LireratTureE: An extensive literature on the targums, mostly 
from the pens of German scholars, is in existence. (See lists 
in HDB and in JE, vol. xii.) J. W. Etheridge (1862, 1865) has 
translated into English the targums on the Pentateuch. See 
also Schiirer, HJP (38d ed.), vol. i, pp. 147-152, and the 
literature there indicated. J.S. R.—W. G. J. 
TARPELITE, tar’pel-ait (827279, tarpldyé’): 

Apparently a class of officials (Ezr 49). No satisfac- 

tory explanation of the term is known. 


TARSHISH, tar’shish (YD, tarshish): I. 1. A 
descendant of Benjamin (I Ch 7 10). 2. One of the 
seven princes of Persia (Est 114). See PRINCES, THE 
Seven. II. A geographical and ethnological term. 
See ETHNOGRAPHY AND ErHnouoey, § 18; and 
Suips AND NAvIGATION, § 1. 


TARSHISH, SHIPS OF. See Surps anp Navr- 
GATION, § 2. 


TARSUS, tar’sus (Tapoédc, now Tersts): The 
chief city of Cilicia, the situation of which at the 
junction of the trade-routes between western Asia 
Minor, Syria, and the Far Hast early made it an em- 
porium for commerce and important for strategy. It 
lay on the Cydnus, which ran through the city, 
whereas the modern town is wholly on the western 
bank. Assyrian influences were felt at T. even in 
the 9th cent. B.c., for the name Tarzit occurs on the 
‘black Obelisk’ of Shalmaneser III (860-824 B.c.), 
who conquered Cilicia (834). Some ancient writers 
claimed that T. was founded or fortified by Senna- 
cherib (705-681); others that Asshurbanipal (668- 
626), the Greek Sardanapalus, was itsfounder. After 
Cilicia had become Hellenized, it was claimed that 
T. was founded by the Argives; others by Perseus. 
T. became the capital of an independent kingdom 
(about 607) under princes who bore the title of 
‘Syennesis,’ and who later accepted the Persian 
suzerainty. This was true of the time of Xenophon, 
when T. was populous and wealthy. T. retained its 
Oriental character until the time of the Seleucids, 
when many Greeks settled there, enriched them- 
selves, established a school of philosophy (or uni- 
versity, ranking, according to Strabo, above those of 
Athens and Alexandria), which became famous, 
especially under the first Roman emperors, who 
patronized it. About 171 8.c. Antiochus Epiphanes 
IV refounded Tarsus (hence the name ‘Antioch on 


Targum 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Taskmaster 


the Cydnus’ which it bore for a time) granting to 
Jewish colonists full burgess rights. To T. belonged 
Athenodorus the Stoic, the teacher of Augustus, and 
Nestor the Platonist, the teacher of Marcellus. T. 
was the birthplace of St. Paul, of the physician Dios- 
corides, and of the Stoics Antipater and Archede- 
mus. In the civil wars T. favored Caesar and actually 
changed its name to Juliopolis when Cesar visited 
the city. Antonius made it a free city. He sum- 
moned Cleopatra to appear before his court at T. 
Cleopatra, impersonating Aphrodite, sailed up the 
Cydnus (38 B.c.) in a gilded galley with silver-plated 
oars and vanquished her judge, so that scoffers told 
how Venus had enmeshed Bacchus. In 22 s.c. T. 
was made the capital of the imperial province of 
Cilicia, when Augustus confirmed the privileges 
bestowed by Antonius, and also raised T. to the 
dignity of a metropolis. It claimed the titles of 
‘First’ and, subsequently, ‘Neokoros’ (for devotion 
to Ceesar-worship). It was an important city during 
the Parthian and Persian wars. As metropolis of 
Cilicia, T. represented the religious interests of the 
Isaurians, Cappadocians, and Syrians. The native 
deity was Baal-Tarz (Lord of Tarsus, identified with 
the Greek Zeus) accompanied by a youthful god, 
Sandon (identified with Heracles). 

The ruins of ancient Tarsus are now 15-20 ft. be- 
low the surface of the modern town, which, built of 
mud and stone, nestles amid magnificent gardens of 
semitropical trees, as the myrtle, oleander, pome- 
granate, fig, orange, lemon, and citron. The soil is 
intensely fertile, and the exports of T. comprise 
wheat, barley, cotton, madder, yellow berries, va- 
lonia, wax, linseed, sesame seed, colored leather, 
hides, and wool. The finest apples, apricots, cherries, 
and grapes come from the foothills of the Taurus 
Mountains. The alleged tomb of Paul on the out- 
skirts of the city is more likely that of the Moslem 
el-Mamiin. Consult also Ramsay, The Cities of St. 
Paul (1907), pp. 85-244. J. R.S. S.*—S. A. 

TARTAK, té@r’tak. See Semitic Retiaion, § 35. 

TARTAN, tar’tan (JD, tartan, Assyr. turtdnu, 
tartanu): An Assyrian official title. In Hittite-texts, 
tartannuttu is a field-marshal. An officer of this rank 
was in command of Sargon’s campaign against 
Ashdod in 720 B.c. (Is 201); and with the Rab-saris 
and Rabshakeh, he demanded of Hezekiah the 
surrender of Jerusalem in 701 s.c. (II K 1817). In 
authority and dignity the tartan stood next to the 
king himself. Several names of generals who held 
this rank appear in the lists of the eponyms of the 
empire. TiaVEae. 


TASKMASTER: This term is the translation of 
sar-mas, ‘officer of the labor-gang’ (Ex 1 11), 2.e., a 
superintendent of one of the companies of men who 
rendered forced labor in the Egyptian corvée or levy. 
Such officials were set over the Israelites when they 
were compelled to build store-cities for the Pharaoh. 
They are often depicted on the Egyptian monuments 
armed with long rods with which they chastised those 
who failed to accomplish the task assigned for the 
day (cf. Ex 514). In Ex 37, 5 6, 10, 13, 14; Job 3 18, 
‘taskmaster’ represents the Heb. word néghés, ‘driver,’ 
which is simply another name for the same class of 


Tattenai 
Tema 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


888 


ele RR ee 


officials. David and Solomon had similar officers 
who coerced the Canaanites assigned to labor upon 
their public works (IIS 20 24; 1 K 46, 516 [30], 1218 = 
II Ch 101s). The Prophets use the word as a figure 
for a tyrannical native ruler (Is 37), or for a foreign 
oppressor (Is 9 3, 14 2, 4; Zec 9 8). Lie ee 
TATTENAI, tat/i-nai (290, tattenay, Tatnai AV): 
The Persian governor of the satrapy W. of the 
Euphrates, circa 520 B.c., who sent to Darius I ask- 
ing that the records be searched to see whether Cyrus 
had given permission to the Jews to rebuild their 
Temple (Ezr 53 #.). The name is believed to have 
been recovered in texts on contract tablets belonging 
to 1st and 3d years of Darius’ reign (‘Ushtani, satrap 
of Bab. and beyond the River,’ cf. Batten’s note in 
ICC., Ezr-Neh, p. 133). E. E. N. 


TAUNT, TAUNTING PROVERB. See TERMS 
oF BLESSING AND REPROACH. 


TAVERNS (THREE), Toets taBéovor: Translitera- 
tion of the Latin Tres Taberne, ‘three roadside 
taverns,’ 30 m. S. of Rome (Ac 28 15) on the Appian 
way. The site remains unidentified. The term 
taberne rarely meant inns for shelter and entertain- 
ment of travelers, and keepers of such places were 
disreputable persons. J. R.S. S.4*—S. A. 


TAX, TAXATION, TRIBUTE: In the nomadic 
period taxes were unknown to the Hebrews. The 
chieftains received voluntary presents from those 
who sought their protection (Gn 382 13-21, 33 10, 43 11), 
but they exacted no regular dues of their kinsmen. 
Only from aliens could tribute be taken. After the 
conquest of Canaan, this custom remained un- 
changed. The so called ‘Judges’ never collected 
taxes, but received only a special portion of the 
spoil of war (Jg 8 24; 1S 30 26). When the Canaan- 
ites were subdued, they were compelled to render 
forced labor (mas), translated in AV and RV ‘trib- 
ute’ (Jos 16 10, 17 13; Jg 1 28-35). When Israel was 
worsted, it had to submit to forced labor or to pay 
tribute (euphemistically called ‘a present’ AV) to the 
victor (Gn 49 15-20; Jg 3 15-18). 

In the city communities of Canaan very different 
conditions prevailed. Here there had long been 
kings who collected regular taxes (cf. the Tell-el- 
Amarna letters and the letters discovered by Sellin 
at Ta‘anach). With the adoption of Canaanite 
civilization and the establishment of the monarchy, 
taxation became a necessary part of the Israelitic 
system of government. I S 10 27 shows that Saul 
received regular dues called ‘presents’ (cf. II Ch 
17 5), and in I § 17 25 he promises the man who will 
kill Goliath that his family shall be ‘free,’ 2.e., 
exempt from taxes. The ‘covenant’ that David 
made with the elders of Israel (II S 5 3) doubtless 
included provision for his support, and the census 
(II S ch. 24) may have been for purposes of taxation. 
According to IS 8 15-17, the taxes consisted of a tenth 
of the crops and of the increase of the herds. Under 
Solomon an elaborate system was devised for collect- 
ing these revenues (I K 47-19). There were also royal 
monopolies and tariffs on imported goods (I K 
10 15, 28). Powerful kings, such as David and Solo- 
mon, received in addition the ‘presents’ of conquered 
nations (II S 8 10-12; I K 4 21, 10 25; II Ch 17 11). 


Under Solomon Israel experienced the hardship of 
the levy, mas (I K 5 13 ff.), z.e., forced labor. See 
SoLomon, § 3. 

Under the later kings, who acquired no income 
from trade or from foreign sources, taxes and other 
exactions became exceedingly burdensome (I S 
8 11-13). Their collection was farmed out to officials 
who cruelly oppressed the people (Am 2 3, 5 11; Is 
3 14 £.; Mic 31-3). At the time of the Syrian su- 
premacy large sums of money had to be sent as 
‘presents’ to Damascus (I K 15 18 f., 20 1-6). Then 
came the Assyrian, the Egyptian, and the Baby- 
lonian exactions, which lasted until the fall of Jerusa-~ 
lem (II K 1519 £., 168, 17 4, 18 31, 28 33-35, 24 1). 

In the Persian period we read of mindah, ‘tribute’ 
(=Assyr. mandatu, ‘present’), a special forced con- 
tribution, 6716, ‘custom’ (=Assyr. béltu), ‘tribute,’ 
and hdlakh, ‘toll’ or ‘tariff’ (Ear 4 13, 20, 7 24). There 
was also a tax of 40 shekels a day imposed on the 
community by the governor (Neh 515), besides the’ 
presents that had to be brought him (Mal 1 8). — 
The result was extreme poverty in the community 
(Neh 5 4 £.). 

In the Greek period there was a poll-tax, an 
exaction of one-third of the grain and one-half of the 
fruit, a tax on salt, and a special tax to furnish new 
crowns to the monarch (I Mac 1 29, 10 28 f., 11 34 f.). 
The Ptolemies farmed out the revenues to the highest 
bidders (Josephus, Ant. XII, 4 4). The Seleu- 
cids collected them by royal officials (I Mac 1 29). 

Under Roman rule Judea had to pay a regular 
tribute, but the collecting was left in the hands of 
the native rulers, who followed the ancient methods 
(Josephus, Ant. XIV, 105 f.; XV, 91). When sub- 
sequently, after the death of Herod, the government 
was administered by procurators, the Roman system 
of taxation was introduced. The census or poll-tax 
(Gr. éxoyeagn, Lk 2 2, ‘taxing’ AV, ‘enrolment’ RV; 
or xfqvoo¢g [=Lat. census], Mt 17 25, 22 17-19; Mk 12 
14, ‘tribute’ EV) was gathered by Roman officials. 
The more troublesome tolls and duties (Gr. téAos, 
whence teAwviov, Mt 99; Mk 2 14; Lk 5 27, receipt 
of custom AV, place of toll RV) were farmed out 
to the highest bidders (see Pusiican). On the 
religious dues, see PrirstHoop, §§38, 4, 9 (c); 
SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS; and TITHE. 

LireraTuRE: Buhl, Die socialen Verhdltnisse der Israeliten; the 
works on Heb. Archdologie by Benzinger and Nowack; 
Schiirer, GJ V3, I, ii, pp. 66-71 ff.; Benzinger in HB, s.v. 

LB; P: 

TEACH, TEACHER, TEACHING: In the O T, 


‘teaching’ as an educational term means the process 


of training the young in the knowledge of God — 


and the principles of a wise and virtuous life. 
Teaching simply for the sake of imparting informa- 
tion on all sorts of subjects is unknown. Making 
children acquainted with the will of God is, however, — 
recognized as an important parental duty (Pr 4 4), 
the performance of which gives rise, first to religious 
and later, to comprehensive education (see Epuca- — 
TION; and WispoM, WisE MEN). But the parent — 
is not the only teacher. He must himself’ be 
taught by the representative of J’’ who is com- 
missioned to give his people the Torah. The 
prophets, tho not called by the name (the word 
moreh, ‘teacher,’ occurs only in Hab 2 18), claim a 





889 A NEW STANDARD 


right to be listened to as the conveyors and expo- 
nents of J’’s wishes concerning conduct (cf. Hos 4 6, 
81; Am 2 4; Mic 4 2; Is 1 10, 2 3, etc.). But that 
priests also claimed and exercised the privilege of 
teaching is evident from the rebuke administered to 
them by Micah (8 11) because they ‘teach for hire.’ 
After the Exile, teaching as a function passed into 
the hands of the scribes; since, from the nature of 
their professional work as students of the Law, they 
were first looked up to as competent expounders of 
_ its meaning and then took upon themselves the work 
of teaching it. Accordingly, they were given the 
title ‘rabbi,’ 7.e., ‘great one.’ 

In the N T the teacher was he who could give clear 
solutions of puzzling problems in the sphere of re- 
ligious thought. Jesus was recognized as able to do 
this and was called ‘teacher’ (6:3é0xa0c, Jn 3 2; Mk 
12 14); but as Christianity raised a class of questions 
peculiar to itself, it also called forth leaders who 
could answer them and grouped these leaders under 
the name of teachers (Ac 131; I Co 12 28; Ro 12 6-8; 
Eph 4 11; here teachers are placed side by side with 
apostles and prophets). See also Courcu LIFE AND 
ORGANIZATION, § 6; and, in general, Epucation. 

At first, teaching was probably only a function, 
but in the Church of the 2d cent. it came to be vested 
in an office clearly defined and recognized as such 
(Did. 13 2, 15 1-2; Barn. 1 8; Ign. Eph. 3 1; Herm. 
Mand. IV, 31). The Teaching of the Twelve was 
a@ manual designed to be used by such official teachers 
in the Church. BOOZ, 


TEBAH, ti’ba (M29, tebhah): A clan descended 
from Nahor (Gn 22 24). The name seems to appear 
as that of an Aramean town (IIS 8 8, Betah; cf. I 
Ch 18 8, Tibhath), taken by David from Hadarezer, 
King of Aram-zobah (q.v.). Site unknown. 

TEBALIAH, teb’’e-lai’a (2220, tebhalyaha), ‘J’ 
hath purified’ (?): The son of Hosah, a Merarite 
Levite (I Ch 26 11). 

TEBETH, ti’beth (NAD, tébhéth): The tenth month 
of the Jewish year. See Timp, § 3. 

TEHAPHNEHES, ti-haf’n1-hiz. 
HES. 

- TEHINNAG, ti-hin’a (7394, tehinnah), ‘supplica- 
tion’: An individual (or clan?) of Judah, the 
‘father’ of the city of Nahash (cf. RVmg), named as 
one of ‘the men of Recah’ (I Ch 412). See Recau. 


TEIL TREE, til. See Pauestinn, § 21; and 
Semitic REtIGIon, § 37. 

TEKEL, ti’kel. See Mrenz, Mens, etc. 

TEKOA, te-k6’a (ITY IPN, tegda‘{h]); spelled Tekoah 
in II S142, 4,9 AV, andI Mac 9 33 RV: The name of 
a town of Judah (I Ch 45; cf. the LXX. of Jos 15 60), 
in the wilderness of Tekoa (II Ch 20 20). The town 
is identified with the ruins of modern Tek@‘a, which 
is about 5 m. S. of Bethlehem. Map II, F 2. It is 
located on a hill whose altitude is about 2,700 ft. 
above sea-level, from which is obtained a fine view of 
Bethlehem, the Mount of Olives, the valley of the 
Jordan, the mountains of Moab, and the N. end of 
the Dead Sea. David as a shepherd-boy, and in his 
exile wanderings, must have become thoroughly 
familiar with all the region round about. Ira, the 


See TAHPAN- 


Tattenai 
Tema 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 
son of Ikkesh the Tekoite, dwelt here (II S 23 26); 
also the prophet Amos (Am 11). It was here that 
the ‘wise woman’ lived whom Joab employed to 
persuade David to bring home his banished son Ab- 
salom (IIS 142 .). Rehoboam fortified T. (II Ch 
11 6). It was reinhabited after the Exile, and its 
citizens assisted Nehemiah in rebuilding Jerusalem’s 
walls (Neh 8 5, 27). Simon and Jonathan fled to the 
Wilderness of T. from before Bacchides (I Mac 9 33). 
Jerome speaks of it as abounding in shepherds with 
their flocks. The Talmud praises its oil, and an 
Arab geographer its honey. To-day the ruins of 
the former city cover a space of four or five acres. 

G. L. R. 

TEKOAH, te-ki’a, TEKOAHITE, TEKOAH, 
WILDERNESS OF. See TEKoA. 

TEL-ABIB, tel’’é’bib (VAN 71, tal ’abhidh), ‘hill 
of ears of grain’: A place in Babylonia, on the Chebar 
(q.v.), where dwelt a colony of exiled Jews (Ezk 3 15). 
It was common in Babylonia to call a mound where 
a town had once existed a til-abdibi, ‘mound of the 
Flood,’ 7.e., ruined by the Flood. The Hebrews 
probably simply changed the pronunciation of the 
name of one of such mounds when they came to 
occupy it. . HK. E. N. 

TELAH, ti’la (n?n, telah): A clan of Ephraim (I 
Ch 7 25). 

TELAIM, ti-lé/im (0°82, {¢l@’7m): A town where 
Saul mustered his army when he made war on 
Amalek (I$ 15 4). It was in the S. of Judah, prob- 
ably the Telem (q.v.) of Jos 15 24. Wellhausen and 
Driver, ad loc., read 8820 (téla’m); and correct inIS 
27 8 D21YD to 024 (‘from of old’ to ‘from Telam’; 
ef. LX X. TeA&u.). Wellhausen would also read in 
18 157 ‘Telam’ for ‘Havilah.’ Ci.Sivk: 

TELASSAR, ti-las’ar (TYN2N, éla’ssar, II K 1912, 
Thelasar AV; “won, t‘lassér, Is 37 12): The name of 
an Assyrian province, in which the children of Eden 
(q.v.) dwelt. Bit-Adini (Eden) was on both banks 
of the Middle Euphrates, and accordingly, T. is pos- 
sibly the Til-aSurt (‘hill of Assur’), near Mittani, 
mentioned in an inscription of Esarhaddon. 

CA mt Le 

TELEM, ti’lem (020, telem): 1. A gatekeeper who 
had married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 24). II. A town 
in the S. of Judah (Jos 15 24) which is not yet iden- 
tified. See TELAIM. Cob... 

TEL-HARSHA, tel’”-har’ sha (8870 90, tal harsha’), 
‘hill of the forest’ (or ‘hill in the mountain,’ if the 
name be Babylonian): The home of a colony of exiles 
(Ezr 259, T.-Harsa AV; Neh7 61, T.-Haresha AV), 
in Babylonia. E. E. N. 

TEL-MELAH, tel’’mi/la (122 74, tal melah), ‘hill 
of salt,’ or, if the name be Babylonian, perhaps ‘hill 
of sailors’: The home of a colony of Jewish exiles 
(Ezr 2 59; Neh 7 61) in Babylonia. E. E. N. 


TEMA, ti’ma (83°D, téma’, ‘on the right,’ 2.e., 
‘south’): An Arabian trading-tribe and a locality 
(Job 6 19; Is 21 14; Jer 25 23), counted as a ‘son’ of 
Ishmael (Gn 25 15; I Ch 1 30). It is frequently men- 
tioned in the Assyrian and the Babylonian inscrip- 
tions, and a tablet of the fifth year of Nabonidus 


Temah 
Temple 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


890 





speaks of fifty talents of silver given to a man for a 
donkey and flour to make the journey to Tema (see 
R. P. Dougherty, AJSEZ, xlii, 1922, pp. 305 sq.). An 
important Aramaic inscription of the 5th cent. B.c. 
also comes from this place (see G. A. Cooke, North 
Semitic Inscriptions, pp. 195 sq.). The locality is 
now known as T'eimd, a fertile oasis and prosperous 
village about 200 m. SE. of Akabd. It was an im- 
portant place on the ancient caravan-route between 
N. and 8S. Arabia. On the edge of the oasis are fam- 
ous salt-beds. Ruins of a city wall have been found, 
and old Aramaic inscriptions which prove Teimé to 
have been the seat of an ancient civilization. See 
Doughty, Arabia Deserta, I, 284-300, with plan. 
L. G. L.—E. E. N. 


TEMAH, ti’ma (N24, tamah): The ancestral head | 


of a family of Nethinim (Ezr 2 53, Thamah AV; 
Neh 7 55, Tamah AY). L. G. L.—L. B. P. 
TEMAN, ti’mon (J, témdn), ‘which is on the 
right hand’: An important district, apparently in the 
N. part of Edom (Ezk 25 13). Esau’s grandson was 
called Teman (Gn 36 11). In Am 1 12 and Hab 3 3 
T. seems to be used for all Edom, and one of the early 
kings of Edom was from T. (Gn 36 34). Job’s friend 
Eliphaz was a Temanite, 7.e., one of the district or 
tribe of Teman (Job 2 11). The Temanites were 
renowned for their wisdom (Jer 49 7). Eusebius 
(Onom. 158.7) speaks of a town, also, Teman, 15 
Roman miles (Jerome says 5) from Petra, having a 
garrison. Guinea: 


_, TEMANITE, ti’mon-ait. See TrEMan. 


TEMENI, tem/‘1-nai or ti’mi-nai (22D, témenz): 
One of the sons of Asshur (I Ch 4 6). 


TEMPER: This term renders (1) bdlai, to ‘mix,’ 
‘mingle.’ It is the technical term for mixing oil with 
cakes or flour (Ex 29 2; and often in P). (2) rdsas, 
to ‘moisten’ flour with oil, like (1) (Ezk 4614). (3) 
malah, denom. vb., Pu‘al ptcpl., to ‘season’ (Ex 
30 35). (4) cuyxeodvvuyt, to ‘commingle,’ well ren- 
dered in I Co 12 24 ‘temper,’ 7.e., to combine into 
an organic structure. Bete ad i 


TEMPEST: This term is used often in figures 
drawn from the rain- and hard wind-storms of Pal- 
estine to express destructive force. It renders (1) 
zerem, ‘rain-’ or ‘hail-storm,’ to typify the Assyr. in- 
vasion (Is 28 2); or the destruction of the Assyrians 
(Is 30 30); or disaster in general (Is 32 2). (2) 
siiphah, ‘storm-wind’ (Job 27 20; cf. the same fig. in 
2118). (3) sa‘ar, vb. ‘storm-tossed,’ fig. of Jerusalem 
(Is 54 11); sa‘ar, ‘tempest,’ noun (=sa‘ar Is 28 2, 
‘flood’ AV); fig. of the passion of men (Ps 55 8 [g]); 
of the wrath of J” (Jer 23 19, 25 32, 30 23, ‘whirlwind’ 
AV); as the instrument of J’ in punishment (Ps 
83 15 [16]; cf. Am 1 14; Jon 1 4, 12). (4) s¢Grah (= 
se‘drah Job 9 17), ‘tempest,’ ‘storm-wind,’ fig. of the 
wrath of J’ (Is 29 6; cf. Nah 13). (5) raiah, ‘wind’ 
(Ps 116 RV). (6) Obcdq, ‘tempest’ (He 1218). (7) 
Aatrap, “‘wind- and rain-storm’ (II P 217), (8) ceto- 
dc, ‘earthquake,’ ‘shaking’ (Mt 8 24). (9) yetwery, 
‘rainy weather’ (winter) (Ac 27 20). (10) yetw&teo- 
Oat (Ac 27 18, ‘storm’ RV). (11) cugwyxdc, ‘like a 
whirlwind’ (Ac 27 14). Cf. Panesrinn, §§ 17-19. 

Coals 





TEMPLE: 1. Terms Used. In the O T ‘temple’ 
is the rendering of hékhdl (cf. the Accadian egal, 
‘great house,’ ‘palace’), and once (II Ch 35 20) of 
bayith, ‘house’ (cf.also II K 1110 £.; I Ch 610, 1010, and — 
II Ch 23 10). In the N T the word renders teeéy, 
‘sacred enclosure,’ and vaéc, ‘the sanctuary build- 
ing’ (in AV also olxoc, ‘house,’ Lk 11 51, ‘sanctuary’ 
RV, ‘house’ RVmg.). The fundamental conception 
of the temple suggested by the foregoing terminology 
is not that of a place convenient for worship, but 
that of a dwelling-place for God, where, accordingly, 
He could be found and approached. Worship itself 
might be offered wherever God had an altar. Tem- 
ples as abiding-places of the gods were very com- 
mon among the Semitic and other ancient peoples 
and lands (e.g., Assyria, Babylonia, Phenicia, 
Egypt). They often called for large outlay of means 
and energy in their construction. 

2. Temples Before David’s Time. Among the 
Hebrews, it was in comparatively later days that the 
thought of erecting a temple to J’ occurred. The 
Ark of J” (the emblem of His presence among His 
people) was kept under a tent (‘Tabernacle’ [q.v.]) 
down to the reign of David (II S 617; I K 1 39, 2 28-30), 
and according to II S 7 6, this had been the condition 
of things ever since the days of Moses. And yet 
from 18 19, 3 3 (cf. Jer 7 14), it is to be inferred that 
there must have been some sort of permanent struc- 
ture at Shiloh (a stone temple, according to Smend) 
dedicated to J’. There may also have been a temple 
at Nob (I S ch. 21), tho not named explicitly. 
‘Micah had a house of gods ’ for his ephod (Jg 
17 5, ‘God’ mg.). But of this and other sacred build- 


| ings, such as the ‘house of Elberith’ at Shechem (Jg 


9 46), little, if anything, is known. ‘They were rem- 
nants of Canaanite cults, and on a par with the house 
of Dagon at Gaza (Jg 16 23). The word ‘temple’ is in 
the main applied to three actual successive struc- 
tures erected on the samespot in Jerusalem and 
dedicated to J’. In addition to these, an ideal 
temple is described by Ezekiel. The actual temples 
are those of Solomon, Zerubbabel (the Second Tem- 
ple), and Herod. 


I. Toe TEMPLE OF SOLOMON. 


3. Site of the Temple. The site of this structure 
was the eastern hill in Jerusalem called Zion or 
Moriah (the identification of Zion with the hill W. 
of the Tyropceon Valley is purely traditional and 
lacks historical support). The choice of this site 
was undoubtedly determined by sacred associations 
traceable back to a very ancient date. At all events, 
the place was the scene of a theophany (II S 24 16), 
while it was used as a threshing-floor by Araunah 
the Jebusite. See JERUSALEM, (Map). 

4. Group of Associated Buildings. But Zion in 
the days of David and Solomon was not so much 
the sacred as it was the royal hill. On its leveled 
summit was the enclosure in which Solomon erected 
a group of buildings intended for use by himself and 
his household. Some of these were designed for 
administrative purposes, but others were to be used 
simply as the residence of the king and his harem. 
The group included the royal palace and harem, the 
Porch of Pillars and the Throne Porch (Solomon’s 
Porch), and the House of the Forest of Lebanon (see 





891 A NEW STANDARD 


page 512). These were unified and regarded as a 
complex, but this fact does not warrant the state- 
ment occasionally made, that the Temple of Solo- 
mon was a chapel royal, designed for the private 
use of the king and his household. See also JERv- 
SALEM, §§ 25-30. 


. Main Court. 

. Court of Palace. 

Inner Court of 
Temple Proper. 

. House of the For- 

est of Lebanon. 

. Porch of Pillars. 

. Throne Hall or Porch. 

_ Solomon’s Palace. 

House of Pharaoh’s 
Daughter. 


emple. 
Altar of Burnt Offering. 


art 
ne 
C. 
D 
3) 
F 
G 
H. 
Hel: 
J. 





Plan of Royal Buildings, after Stade. 


5. David’s Plan and Preparations. The idea of 
erecting a temple in Jerusalem is traced to David; 
and it is in harmony with what is otherwise known 
of the mind of this king. For he certainly saw 
deeply enough into the true character and mission 
of the people over whom he was called to rule to 
realize that only through the cultivation and full 
development of the worship of J” could Israel 
accomplish the work assigned it by Providence. 
But for reasons variously given (IIS 75 1£.; ef. I Ch 
17 6), David did not put his idea into execution. 
What he did toward this end was to accumulate a 
large mass of material. 

6. The Enclosure and its Gates. The Plan of the 
Temple of Solomon. The Temple area, strictly so 
called, was enclosed by a wall made of three layers 
of stone, on which a layer of cedar planks was laid 
in the form of a gable. The floor of the court was 
paved. The approach to it was through several 
gates, t.e.: (1) the upper gate (II K 15 35), said to 
have been built by Jotham (II Ch 27 3); (2) the 
Benjamin gate (Jer 20 2, 37 13, 387); (3) the King’s 
gate (I Ch 918), to the E., and the New gate, to the 
S. (Jer 26 10, 36 10). In addition, mention is made 
of the Shallecheth gate (RVmg. ‘Casting forth’) on 
the W. side of the court (I Ch 26 16). But whether 
it opened into the Temple court or into that of the 
palace is uncertain. It is supposed to have been 
connected with a causeway leading from the Tyro- 


Temah 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Temple 


peeon Valley to the Temple court (identified with 
Wilson’s Arch), but this can not be positively 
asserted. Neither can the meaning of the name 
(shalleheth, ‘casting out’) be literally pressed, making 
it the avenue for getting rid of the refuse from the 
Temple. For this purpose other provisions were 
made on the opposite side of the grounds. 


7. Form and Dimensions. Ground-Plan. The 
Temple structure was in the form of a rectangle, 
with the following dimensions: length, 60 cu., about 
104 ft. if the ‘sacred cubit’ of 21 in. is meant; 
(but cf. WEIGHTS AND MrAsurzEs, § 2) breadth, 22 
cu.; height, 30 cu. The building faced the E., 
its length extending from E. to W. Whether 
these measurements represent the inner or outer di- 
mensions is a question of minor importance, but 
the probable answer is in favor of the former alter- 
native. See cut of ground-plan and plan of the 
Temple of Amon at Thebes (next page), for pur- 
poses of comparison. 


8. Sub-divisions. The inner space of the building 
was divided into two parts, to which a third is 
sometimes added by reckoning the porch of the 
Temple as an integral portion of it. The two parts 
were respectively called the Holy Place (hékhal) or 
Sanctuary, and the Holy of Holies or Most Holy 
Place (d¢bhir, Oracle, lit. the ‘innermost’ or ‘rear’). 
Of these, the Holy Place was 40 cu. in length (from 
E. to W.) and 20 cu. in breadth (from N. to §.). 
The Most Holy Piace was 20 cu. in each direction 
(a perfect cube). This leaves a space in the roof of 
202010 cu. unaccounted for. It may have 
been left entirely unused or reserved for storage 
purposes. The porch or vestibule was 10 cu. in 
breadth, and its length was the same as that of the 
breadth of the main building (20 cu.). The statement 
in IIT Ch 8 4 that the height of the porch was 120 cu. 
is evidently based upon a textual corruption. The 
description in I K ch. 6,without being explicit, leaves 
the impression that the height of the porch was the 
same as that of the rest of the building, viz., 30 cu. 

9. Construction. Of the construction of the house 
very few details are given. The walls were massive 
but scarcely as thick as the 6 cu. allowed in Ezekiel’s 
ideal temple. The roof was flat with possibly the 
customary parapet (coping?) of Oriental house roofs. 
It is conjectured from the nature of the case that 
the roof must have been supported by pillars within, 
which, of course, could be so arranged as not to 
mar but rather to add to the beauty of the struc- 
ture. I K 10 12 may possibly refer to this feature. 
The floor of marble slabs was covered with boards 
of fir (I K 6 15, perhaps more correctly cypress so 
AVmg.). 

10. Materials. The material of the walls was 
stone, which was hewn and prepared in the quarry, 
so that while the structure was being erected no 
sound of ax, or hammer, or tool of iron, was heard 
(II K 76). The walls, however, were wainscoted 
with cedar wood. The doors were made of solid 
olive wood, each consisting of two folding 
leaves. They were decorated with carvings of 
cherubim, palm-trees, and open flowers, and over- 
laid with gold 


11. The ‘Chambers Round About.’ The main 


Temple 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


892 





building was surrounded on all sides except the E. 
by a series of so called ‘chambers.’ These were 
arranged in three stories. One peculiarity in their 
construction was that in the lowest story their 
width was 5 cu., in the next 6, and in the third 7, 
this result being secured by narrowing the thickness 
of the Temple wall with each story. As far as the 
wall was con- 
cerned, this 
narrowing 
would be of 
the nature of 
a rebatement 
(IK66RV); 
accordingly 
the beams of 
cedar wood 
on which the 
floors and 
roofs of these 
chambers 
rested were 
not built in 
the Temple 
wall, but 
placed on the 
rebatement, 
thus preserv- 
ing the sanc- 
tity of the sacred building (see illus., front eleva- 
tion). The number of the chambers is not given 
in the account of I Kings; but on the ground of 
Ezk 41 6, they have been supposed to be thirty. 
These chambers rose to a height of not. more 
than20cu. Itwaspossible to cut windows in the wall 
over them for the purpose of admitting some light 
into the interior of the sacred court. The Oracle, 
however, was totally devoid of windows and must 
have been lighted, if at all, altogether artificially. 






BN ae Tigh cele t Seah PONY 
ee 
Oy a. et 
. 
Cy eH) 4 ky, 
uy 
} yt) 
: ‘ os 
Ye pita ee ON erg 
te : 
‘ Micka 
a vate 
cane f) 
i @ 
= ete @) 
/ @ & 
Men 
j 


° 10 








Ground-Plan of Solomon’s Temple. 








made of brass 20 cu. square and 10 cu. high, the 
work of the artist Huram Abi (so Heb. ef. II Ch 2 13 
RVmg.). Its being made of brass has been regarded 
a violation of Ex 20 24 £., tho Keil held that the brass 
was simply a shell or cover under which an altar of 
earth and unhewn stones existed. A more probable 
explanation is that such an elaborate metallic altar 
was due to 
the influence 
of the more 
luxurious re- 
ligious prac- 
tises of sur- 
rounding 
peoples (see 
AuTar, § 2). 

13. The 
Brazen Sea. 
Another ob- 
ject of prom- 
inence in the 
court was 
the ‘brazen 
sea’ (II K 25 
190°) TOO LS 
8), called also 
the molten 
sea (I K 7 
23; II Ch 4 
2). This was a large basin of brass or bronze, and 
stood between the porch and the altar, ‘on the 
right side of the house, eastward, toward the south’ 
(I K 7 39), z.e., south of the line between the house 
and the altar of burnt offering. Its dimensions are 
given as 5 cu. in height and 10 in diameter. The 
thickness of the basin was a ‘handbreadth’ and its 
shape in general that of a lily. Its capacity was 
2,000 baths (q.v.). If the shape of the basin were 
that of a hemisphere, a difficulty would arise, since 





Hh 1 a2 A 
et es : 
24, ‘ 
= mAR it MMOS eV PER e Mer apr Sey : : 





20M 


GROUND-PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF AMON aT THEBES (Eqypr), SHOWING THE SAME GENERAL PLAN AS THAT OF 
SOLOMON’s TEMPLE. 
A. The gate. B, The outer court. C. The pillared vestibule. D.E.F. The holy places sacred to the gods Amon, Mut, Chou respectively. 


12. Furniture: The Brazen Altar. In the outer or 
general court of the Temple the most striking object 
was the altar of burnt offering (brazen altar, I K 
8 64; cf. II K i610). This is described in II Ch 41 as 


a hemisphere of the dimensions given could not 
contain much more than one-half of the quantity 
mentioned, whereas if the shape of the basin were — 
more nearly that of a cylinder, it might contain 





Temple 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


A NEW STANDARD 


893 


FRONT VIEW OF THE TEMPLE (AFTER BENZINGER). 








\ 
: 


BLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SiDE CHAMBERS. 


N SHOWING THE PROBA 


(AFTER STADE). Front ExLEevatio 





Temple A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE 


DICTIONARY 894 





three-fourths of the quantity. hearin it is 
‘best to assume that the measurements given are 
those of the rim and possibly the base, but that the 
middle portion of the vessel bulged out considerably. 
The middle of the exterior of the basin was decorated 
with two rows of knops (colocynths), cast when the 
vessel was cast, and carved into perfect form after- 
ward (I K 7 24). The brazen sea was made to rest 
on twelve oxen, divided into four groups of three 
each, and each group so placed as to face one of the 
cardinal points of the compass. How the water 
was brought into it, or caused to flow out of it, is not 
specified. As to the latter, the interesting conjecture 
has been made that it issued out of the mouths of the 
oxen. The purpose of the vessel was, according to 
II Ch 4 6, to furnish water for the priests in their 
ablutions preparatory to the performance of their 
service. According to II K 1617, Ahaz, when in need 
of funds, used the 
oxen in payment of 


ward. The accompanying cut of a clay model of a 
Phenician temple is instructive in this respect. The 
ornamental capitals of the pillars Boaz and Jachin 
were in the form of bowis, covered with 400 pome- 
granates, which were attached to network and ar- 
ranged in two rows. 

15. The Ten Bases and Lavers. Other works of 
Huram are mentioned, as the ten lavers, shovels and 
basins, and ten bases on which the lavers rested. 
Just what these bases and lavers were has been care- 
fully worked out by Nowack (Hed. Arch. 1894) on 
the ground of a comparison with similar articles 
used in extra-Biblical Semitic worship. The bases, 
mkhonoth, were of very complex construction, the 
lower portion of each being a framework 4 cu. square 
and 3 cu. high, fastened at the corners by under- 
setters, 7.e., square pillars whose lower ends pro- 
jected below the frame. 'To these projections were 
attached axles and 
wheels, thus making 





tribute, and laid the 
brazen sea on a plain 
stone pavement. 
Later (II K 25 183; 
Jer 52 17, 20), the 
Babylonians broke 
up the basin itself 
and carried the brass 
to Babylon. 

14. The Pillars 
Jachin and Boaz. 
Immediately before 
the porch stood the 
two hollow bronze & 
pillars, called respec- 
tively Jachin and 
Boaz (I K 7 21; II Ch 
317; Jer 52 21, 22). 
According to some 
authorities, 
were not connected 
with the porch, but 
according to others, 
they served to support its roof. The first of 
them stood to the right or N. side of the entrance, 
and the second, to the left (see illus., front eleva- 
tion). The height of each was 18 cu., and the 
circumference 12 cu. Their tops or capitals (chapi- 
ters AV) were decorated with carved work (checker- 
work, lily work) and also with wreaths of chainwork 
(I K 7 17, 19). These were the work of Huram, the 
Phenician artist. Those who hold that the pillars 
supported the roof of the porch allege that their 
existence is sufficiently accounted for by that fact, 
but according to those who believe that they were 
detached, their function was simply ornamental. 
Their names (Boaz, ‘strength,’ and Jachin, ‘firm- 
ness,’ lit. ‘setting right’) certainly evince their sym- 
bolical character, tho probably they were set up 
primarily as ornaments. ‘The ‘pillar’ had for long 
been a common adjunct of Phenician sanctuaries 
(see Sumiric Renicion, § 29), and Solomon’s 
Phenician architects planned for their presence in 
connection with the Temple as a matter of course. 
Their symbolical significance easily developed after- 
































l af 
a se . 


Miniature Clay Model of a Phenician Temple at Idalion in Cyprus. 
these Before the entrance are two isolated pillars with capitals in theform of a cherubim, and — 


lotus flower. 





) In the doorway is a bird with a woman's head. _The wreathen-work. See 
pillars are significant in connection with the mention of the two pillars 
of Solomon’s Temple, which was built by Phenician workmen, 


the whole a vehicle. — 
The upper part was 
of the nature of a 
pedestal in the form — 
of a ring or narrow — 
cylinder raised one- 
half cu. above the 
’ base, and supported 
by stays, sloping in- 
ward. Into this was 
fitted the laver or 
basin with a diameter 
of 4 cu. and capacity © 
of forty baths. The 
borders, or framework 
(ledges), and stays 
were ornamented ~ 
with embossed fig- 
ures of lions, oxen, 


























illustration on page 
895. 

In the Holy Place the principal item of furniture 
was a table (or a series of ten tables) of showbread. 
This was made in the form of an altar. Just where it — 
was placed is not stated. A golden altar is also men- 
tioned (I K 7 48), sometimes supposed to be the altar 
of incense. But as no such feature appears in the 
description of Ezekiel’s Temple, and as in general the 
use of incense in the worship of J’’ can not be traced 
earlier than the exilic period, Stade GV/J, I, 330 
and others have identified the golden altar with the 
table of the showbread. Toward the wall of the 
Holy Place there were ten lamp-stands (candle- 
sticks), five on each side, together with their lamps. 

16. Minor Pieces of Furniture. The following 
smaller articles must have had a place in some part 
of the hékhal or in some other portion of the building, 
possibly in the ‘chambers round about’: (1) Tongs, 
or snuffers, malqahayim, and m*zamm*réth, to be 
used in trimming the candle-sticks (I K 7 50; II K 
12 14, ete.). (2) Censers and firepans or snuff dishes 
(mahtéth) for coals or for the purpose of carrying off 
burned portions of wicks (Ex 27 3, 37 23; Nu49; IK 


895 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Temple 





7 50). (8) Shovels (ya‘%m), to be used in re- 
moving the ashes from the altar (I K 7 40, 
45; II K 25 14). (4) Spoons (kappdth), prob- 
ably shallow bowls, mentioned along with the 
other articles of the furniture of the table of show- 


bread (Ex 25 29; 1 K 750). (5) Flagons (q*s@wdth), in 





Base with Laver. 


which the wine of libations was kept (Ex 37 16) and 
bowls (m*naqgiyydth) for the pouring out of the same 
wine. (6) Flesh-hooks (mizlaghdth, I Ch 28 17), two- 
or three-pronged forks used for stirring and remoy- 
ing the contents of boiling pots (I S 2 13). 

17. Partition or Veil. Between the hékhdl and the 
d*bhir stood a wall of cedar wood (I K 6 16) with a 
door of olive wood inserted. According to II Ch 
3 14 (cf. also Mt 27 51), there was a curtain or veil 
also before this partition. In the d*bhir the only 
object was the Ark of the Covenant (I K 8 8), over- 
shadowed by two gigantic figures of cherubim, 10 
cu. high, each with outstretched wings, so that their 
tips touched in the center over the Mercy-seat, the 
free wings extending to the side-walls on each side. 
The Ark was placed in the middle, yet so that the 
handles by which it was borne were visible. Within 
the ark were the two Stone Tables of the Law. It is 
not likely that the brazen serpent was kept in the 
d*bhir, or in the Temple. It must be admitted, how- 
ever, as possible that this was the case, as it was 
destroyed during Hezekiah’s reformation (II K 18 4). 


Il. Tuer Tempe or EzEeKIe£.. 


18. Ezekiel’s Temple an Ideal Model. In Ezk 
40 1-43 27 there is a description of a temple which, on 
the surface of it, was designed to furnish an ideal. 
It is not likely that the prophet believed in its exact 
reproduction in the restored Jerusalem. In its 
essential features this ideal is patterned after the 
Temple of Solomon, and has often been used as 
legitimate material for the reconstruction of the plan 
of the older building. 


19. Distinctive Features of Ezekiel’s Temple. 
The chief characteristic in Ezekiel’s ideal is sym- 
metry. This structure with its appurtenances was 
to be located on a site 500 cu. square, and walled 
about (Ezk 40 5-27). It was to be provided with three 
gates (A, in the ground-plan), each lengthened out so 
as to include lodges (little chambers AV) on the 
side, ending in a porch (a) into a gateway 50 cu. in 
length. Each gateway was to have arches (‘colon- 
nade’ RVmg., 4016). These gates were to be located 
in the middle of each one of the N., E., and S. walls 
of the enclosure. There was to be no gate on the W. 
side. As the whole area of the court wasto be raised 
above the surrounding territory, each gate was to be 
approached by a flight of steps. Around the outer 
wall, which was 6 cu. high and 6 cu. in thickness, and 
opened into the court, there were to be chambers 
or cells (1, 2, 8, etc.) for the keeping of the utensils 
and provisions (40 17 ff.). These were to serve also 
as priestly residences. The four corners were to be 
occupied by four small courts separated by partitions 
in which would be located kitchens (D) for cooking 
the sacrificial meals (40 21-24, 38-40). 


20. Temple Court and Furniture. In this great 
outer court, or rather upon it, Ezekiel’s plan placed 
an inner raised court (v, w, x, y) (40 28-37), ap- 
proached, like the outer one, by means of three gates 
(E) with gateways and steps. The steps, however, 
were in this case eight instead of seven. The chief 
structure to stand in this inner court was the great . 
altar (L), in the exact center of the area (a, b, ¢, d) 
bounded by the three inner gates and the main 
Temple building toward the W. The dimensions of 
this area were exactly 100 cu. square (40 47). Near 
the N. and 8S. gates of the inner court there were cells 
(lishkhéth) or chambers (J) designed for use by the 
priests in the performance of sacrifices (40 44-46). In 
the vestibule of the E. inner gate there were four 
tables (S), on which the sin- and trespass-offerings 
were slain, and in the space to the N. and 8. of this 
same gateway four (or eight) others of hewn stone 
(H), some of which were designed for the killing of 
the sacrificial victims and some for the preparation 
of the carcasses for sacrifice (40 38-42). In the por- 
tions of the inner court, N. and 8. of the Temple 
building (i), were rows or galleries of chambers 
(three-storied) for the exclusive use of the priests as 
the place where they were to eat ‘the most holy 
things’ (42 1-14). In the space behind the house (K) 
there was also a building (4115). The area just next 
to the house (b, b’, ce’, c) was left unoccupied as a 
holy ‘separate’ place (41 12, etc.). The altar was in 
the form of four platforms, the lowest (the ‘base,’ 
or bottom) a square of 18 cu. but only 13 cu. high, 
and bordered by an edge of a span in width. The 
next, the lower ledge (43 14, settle AV), was a square 
of 16 cu., but 2 cu. high. The third was 14 cu. 
square and 4 cu. high, and the fourth, called Ariel 
(43 15, ‘altar-hearth’ RVmg.), 12 cu. square and 
4 cu. high. The corners of this altar-hearth were 
adorned with four horns each 1 cu. in length (see 
also ALTAR, § 2). 

21. The Temple Building. The central structure 
(40 48-41 26) consisted of a porch 20 cu. by 12 
(‘eleyen’ 40 49 should be ‘twelve’), and the two main 





Temple A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY — 896 
inner chambers (a) the Holy Place, 40 cu. by 20, and - III. Tue Seconp Tempue. 
(b) the Most Holy Place, 20 cu. by 20, the hols 22. The Temple Built by Zerubbabel. The Tem- 


building being built on a raised platform (41 8) and 
reached by a series of ten steps in front (e) of the 
porch. Its walls were 6 cu. in thickness, and it was 
surrounded by 30 (LXX. 33) chambers. Access to 
these chambers was from without through the N. 
and §S. sides. The arrangement admitted of passage- 
ways (417) from the lower to the upper stories. The 


Nv 
~ 


<= &@eene 





t 
t 
' 
u 
' 
‘ 
' 
‘ 
‘ 
‘ 
4 
‘ 
i 
i 
4 
2 
’ 
e 
t 
¢ 
¢ 
o 
4 
4 
t 
‘ 
§ 
' 
§ 
‘ 
‘ 
‘ 
' 


eeebew amc ea ewnmec ada &, 


o. 


Se ckhe @€e 2 ena = oem a ee egecnree eda =a 2 ee Gee eDe hewn oneaas@eawa 


ee er ee 

= 

— oS SO me —= 

4 

i] 

g 

' 

4 : 

t i 
a--sesaeJ-= a 


nae eene 
<3 = 2243822 


ple erected under the supervision of Zerubbabel, 
with the encouragement of Haggai and Zechariah, 
commonly known as the Second Temple, was 
intended to restore that which had been destroyed 
by the Babylonians at the beginning of the Exile. 
The interest of Cyrus, King of Persia, was enlisted 
in the case, and his approval secured for the plan; 


j 
2 SES O22 Gem) @— oe] He ee 
ee ee ee 


ee paboueceneseaaaeussbtanenudes 


1 


Soe Se atesees 


wa = Daawdinnencees- ocoe 


os 


gre cesuechsescosens= 


e 


sewececeues 


SS ae. Sa Beat-sese i 
& 
¢ 
8 
iy 
@ 
6 
§ 
3 





CO Oe Ce me em emnn a oe 


: 
4 
t 
4 
e+ 
H 
t 
4 
4 
‘ 
' 
H 
i 
1 
t 
4 
‘ 
‘ 
’ 


2 See Gheones 
Ot 


err ry st 

( 
ere ry yy 
-<—= emaseoel 


( 
7 
| 
; 
A 


Ey 


fet a 
U J fe 


GROUND-PLAN OF THE TEMPLE OF EZEKIEL’S VISION. 





(The side of each square= 50 cubits). 


governing idea of Ezekiel’s Temple was the absolute 
separation of the sacred from the profane. No 
secular building should go upon the holy area, which 
was to be protected on all sides by the wall and to 
have no contact with any wall of the city. Its two 
courts (Solomon’s Temple had but one) provided 
against the mingling of the laity and the priesthood. 


also a decree ordering that the vessels taken by 
Nebuchadrezzar from Solomon’s Temple should be 
returned; and that a tax should be levied on the 
provinces W. of the Euphrates to meet the expenses 
of the Jews who might return to their own country 
(Ezr 178.,516.,6 5). Tho the altar of burnt offer- 
ing was set up soon after the returned exiles had 





897 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Temple 





arrived at Jerusalem the work of rebuilding did 
not take place before 521 B.c. (the second year of 
Darius), under the stimulus of the prophecies of 
Haggai and Zechariah, Zerubbabel and the priest 
Jeshua taking the leadership. See Haaaat. 

23. Plan of the Building. In its general lines the 
Second Temple was undoubtedly patterned after 
the First. The fact that Cyrus prescribed that its 
dimensions might be 60 cu. in height and breadth 
must be taken as permission which was not used to 
the full. The court was divided into two parts, an 
inner for priests only, and, separated from this by a 


Pee 


x Ory. 
é 

C8 
ee 


oo 


<+— ye" 


returned exiles (Hag 2 3); but it served the purpose 
of consolidating the Levitical ceremonial. In the 
days of the Maccabean persecution, the Syrian king, 
Antiochus Epiphanes (168-165 8.c.), placed an altar 
to Jupiter Olympius in it and perpetrated various 
other acts of sacrilege; but at his downfall it was 
repaired and rededicated, of which event the Feast 
of Dedication (I Macc 4 36-60 cf. Jn 10 22) was 
the commemoration. With other minor embellish- 
ments and additions, the Temple continued to the 
days of the Romans (from 63 B.c. on), who plun- 
dered but did no damage to the building. 


tT a. & 
&. 

ER . 

a, i 5 


pe 4 


fF. y 


a 


aS 


ofl 


yh 


a 
il 


Caer 


r= 
eS 


= 





INSCRIPTION ON A WARNING TaBLet Notiryine Gentites Not to Enter THE Court or ISRAEL. 


The inscription reads: MyOéva &d\Aovevq eloropetecbar évtds tod mept td tepdy teugkxtou xa meotBdAov. 


6 8’ By 


AnpOH saut@ attros Foca Ste cd sExxorovOety Odvarov. 


Translation: Let no alien enter within the balustrade and embankment about the sanctuary. Whoever is caught makes himslf 
responsible for his death which will follow. 


railing of wood (Jos. Ant. XIII, 135), an outer court. 
In the main, the differences between Zerubbabel’s 
Temple and that of Solomon center about the fur- 
niture. In the former, an altar of burnt offering 
made of unhewn stone took the place of the brazen 
altar in Solomon’s Temple. In the hékhdl, there was 
but one candlestick (with seven lamps, ef. § 15 
above), one table of showbread, also a golden altar 
of incense and minor vessels. It has been alleged 
that the walls of the building were overlaid with 
gold, but this does not seem probable. The dbhir 
was altogether empty, as the Ark of the Covenant 
was not rescued from the catastrophe of the Exile. 

24. Later History of the Second Temple. The 
contrast between the magnificence of Solomon’s 
Temple and the comparative poverty of the Second 
occasioned some sadness on the part of the older 


IV. Tue Tempe or Herop. 

25. Relation to the Second Temple. The connec- 
tion between the Temple of Zerubbabel and that of 
Herod was meant to be one of identity. In deference 
to the Jews, who, when Herod announced his inten- 
tion to rebuild the Temple (Jos. Ant. XV, 11; BJ, 
V, 5), feared that if the old building were demolished 
a new one might not be erected very soon, Herod 
devised the reconstruction in such a way that it 
appeared to be at its different stages a simple process 
of repairing portions of the old, the services of wor- 
ship being meanwhile uninterrupted. When the 
work was completed, ‘however, it was an entirely 
different structure throughout. It was begun in 
19 s.c. and tho sufficiently completed to have been 
dedicated with a great celebration in eight (or 
possibly nine and one-half years, 7.e., in 10 or 12 


Temple 





B.c. (cf. Jos., Ant. XV. 11 5-6) it was not entirely 
finished until between 62 and 64 a.p., under the 
procuratorship of Albinus. At the time of Jesus, it 
was said to have been forty-six years in building 
(Jn 2 20), and was still unfinished (Edersheim, The 
Temple and Its Services in the Time of Christ). 

26. General Features. The Temple of Herod was 
characterized by unparalleled external splendor. 
Being anxious to impart an air of glory to his reign, 
and to vindicate his place as the champion of all that 
was distinctively national, and still further to please 
the Jews by giving them a sanctuary of which they 
might be proud, Herod spared no expense in adorning 
the Temple with all manner of architectural lavish- 
ness. The plan was in its essentials the same as 
that of its predecessors, and yet in particulars dif- 
ferences were introduced. The Temple area was 
enlarged so as to cover the whole surface of the hill 
Zion (Moriah, now Haram esh-Sherif). This space, 
a terraced platform, was made by first enclosing the 
whole by a wall to the NW. corner, where a part of 
the area was broken into by the castle of Antonia, 
the old tower of Baris, which stood on a rock plat- 
form higher than the level of the Temple Hill and 
lower than that of the adjoining suburbs of the city. 
The tower was built as a fortress by John Hyrcanus 
II, but enlarged, strengthened, beautified, and trans- 
formed into a palace by Herod Himself, who also 
renamed it Antonia after his patron Mark Antony. 


27. The Court of the Gentiles. A covered colon- 
nade, usually called Porch (portico, cloister), ran 
around the inner portion of the wall of the enclosure. 
The south division of this series of porticoes was 
especially known as the Royal Porch, and was the 
most elaborate and imposing. It consisted of 162 
gigantic columns arranged in four rows. This natur- 
ally gave three corridors, the middle one of which 
was wider and higher than those on each side. Some- 
where along the eastern portico, and on that portion 
of the area which was artificially built overlooking 
the Kedron Valley, was a section of the colonnade 
known as Solomon’s Porch (Jn 10 23; Ac 3 11, 5 12), 
upon the basis of a belief that it had been erected 
by Solomon and had escaped the various vicissitudes 
of the city and the sanctuary from Solomon’s day. 
But the name may have been given to it upon other 
grounds. The outer court (the Court of the Gen- 
tiles) was nearly square and approached from the W. 
by four gates and a bridge (Wilson’s Arch) spanning 
the Tyropcean Valley, and connecting the Temple 
with the western hill. There were also two gates 
on the S. and one each on the N. and E. (See plan). 


28. The Inner Court (of Israel). Within this gen- 
eral enclosure and reached by an ascent of fourteen 
(fifteen) steps was the Inner Court, a complex of 
buildings surrounded by a narrow corridor of 10 cu. 
in width. Upon this, but reached by an ascent of 
five steps, was the wall of the inner Court, rising 
to the height of 25 cu., and separating the sanctuary 
proper from the world. Inscribed tablets warned 
non-Israelites not to enter this part of the sanctuary 
on pain of death (see accompanying facsimile of one 
such inscription discovered by Clermont Ganneau in 
1871 and at present in Constantinople.) The entrance 
to this Court was effected through one of nine gates, 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


898 





four respectively on the N. andS., and one on the E. 
side, the W. being as in previous temples unprovided 
withagate. (See Plan). One-third of the area (the 
eastern portion) was divided from the rest, and access 
to it was allowed to women, whence it was called the 
Court of Women. Between this section and the 
Court of Men (the Court of Israel), to the W., 
accessible only to men, a flight of fifteen steps semi- 
circular in form led to the great gate 40 cu. wide and 
50 high. Whether this was the Beautiful Gate 
(Ac 3 2), or the one that led directly into the Court 
of Women from the outer court is not absolutely 
certain. Within the Court of Women was located 
the Treasury. But the name is applicable either to 
the colonnade around this court in which the so 
called trumpets or trumpet-shaped contribution- 
boxes were placed, or to that one of the two chambers 
in which gifts and votive offerings were deposited 
(Shegal 5, 6). In the allusion in Jn 8 20, it is un- 
doubtedly the first. 


29. The Priests’ Court and the Sanctuary Proper. 
Within the Court of Israel, a series of chambers was 
built for purposes of storage. One of them was used 
by the Supreme Council in its sittings. Another 
court (the Court of the Priests) rose out of and above 
the Court of Israel. Within this was located the 
Altar of Sacrifice. Only priests were allowed access 
here, except when a layman might appear bringing 
his offering. In this last court was located the Tem- 
ple proper, including the original nave of Zerub- 
babel’s Temple; but its width was increased to 100 
cu. by the erection of shoulders, and its height like- 
wise raised to 100 cu. The old division of Holy 
Place and Holy of Holies was naturally maintained, 
but instead of a solid wall or partition between these 
two sections the Veil was hung, consisting of two 
parallel curtains made of rich materials. These two 
curtains were 3 cu. apart, the one toward the Holy 
Place being open at its N. end, and the one toward 
the Holy of Holies at its S. end, so that the high 
priest, passing into the Holy of Holies on the Day of 
Atonement, could do so without any risk of exposing 
its sacred interior. Another curtain was hung at 
the entrance of the Holy Place, instead of a door. 


30. The Pinnacle. What was meant by the ‘pin- 
nacle,’ ctepdyrov (Mt 45; Lk 49) (nowhere else con- 
nected with the Temple), was certainly a height from 
which a large and impressive outlook on the country 
about was possible, and at the same time a fall would 
prove fatal in ordinary circumstances. All the inter- 
pretations offered of the expression resolve them- 
selves into two classes, z.e.: (1) those which identify 
the spot with the summit of some building at the 
extremity of the Temple area such as Solomon’s 
Porch (Wetstein), or the Royal Porch, or the SE. 
corner, which looked down into a dizzying precipi- 
tous chasm (Meyer); and (2) those which fix it on 
some point of the roof of the main building, such as 
that portion of it which was directly over the eastern 
projection or Porch (Lightfoot, Hor. Heb.; Mt 45), 
or the parapet (Luther), or the gable or ridge 
(Paulus, Wiener). The latter of these classes of 
interpretations meets the requirements of the text 
best. It is not necessary, however, to assume that 
any special corner, edge, or point on the roof bore 





899 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Temple 








Stairs leading to 
Fortress of Antonia 


Gate Tadi (?) 





-------- Indicates the extension of Herod’s Platform 
to form the present Inner Platform of the Harem 


Scale in Cubits 
00 150 200 


w 1 260 00 


Scale in Feet 
& 100 150 «(260 250 486800 350 400 450 


COURT OF THE GENTILES 


Opening of Passage 
fi into Court 


DS ICI aC RCC iia : {23 
° a SEIS TR I Rt ESSE IT Ss 
°F Underground Passage S53 
e . = 
> to Gate Tadi (?) 88 
— ff 
2 I 
fe e f 
Ofek. 
s [pe 
ar: i OE cee EEE ey | 
Bhe} @ Women’s Gallery 
e 
ek 
= el 
eed e 
2 ‘ 
b>] ® 
oO fF some 
= PS |e 
Ee i 
B e , @ 
a e © Ele Homes SED 
ty @ 
She k 
= fw 
oe sed —_—-—------——=——— ee eee 
=i.i 
I 
i 
1 
i 
1 
I 
I 
I 
1 
! 


Barclay’s Gate 
snes etetamaricia © eee e 








Double Gates Triple Gates 
Huldah Gate I Huldah Gate IT 


Puan oF HERopD’s TEMPLE AND Courts. 
(Reproduced from Expository Times, Vol. 20 [1908-1909], p. 25, by permission of T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh) 


a, b, c, d, The surrounding balustrade (soreg). X, Y, Z, The terrace (khel). 

A, Court of the Women. B, B, B, Court of Israel. C, C, C, Court of the Priests. 

D, Altar of burnt offering. E, F, G, Porch, holy place, and holy of holies. 

H, 1-9, Gates of the Sanctuary (M.M.1i.4, 5), viz.: 1, Gate of the House Moked; 2, Korban Gate; 3, Gate Nitsus 
5, Gate of Nicanor, or the Beautiful Gate; 7, The Water Gate; 8, Gate of the First-born; 9, The Fuel Gate; 10, The 
‘Upper Gate,’ wrongly called the Gate of Nicanor. 

K, The Guardhouse Moked (hearth). 

L, The ‘northern edifice that was between thetwo gates’ (see Jos., BJ, V, ii, 7=§150). Here, it is suggested, vue 
sacrificial victims were examined by the priests, having been brought in either by the underground passage shown on 
the plan, or by the ramp also shown. The upper story may have contained the important ‘chamber of the councilors’ 
(parhedrin) (Yoma, i. I). ; 

M, The Chamber Gazith, in which the priests on duty assembled for prayer (7’amid, iv, end). There are not 
sufficient data for fixing the location of the other chambers mentioned in the Mishna. Their distribution on the plan is 
purely conjectural, 
1M.M.=Mishna Tract, Middoth. 


Temple 
Thamah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


900 


shank Se 8. at i 


the name ‘pinnacle.’ The point of the pinnacle from 
which Jesus was bidden to cast Himself down is to be 
distinguished from the pinnacle in general. 

LireRATURE: Commentaries on Kings (chs. 6 and 7) by Kittel, 

Benzinger, Farrar (in Expositor’s Bible); Skinner (New Cent. 

Bible); and on Ezekiel by Davidson (Camb. Bible), and Loft- 

house (New Cent. Bible, with good plans); Stade, GVJ, I, 311 

ff.; Nowack, Heb. Arch. (1894), II, 7-53, 71-86; Benzinger, 

Heb. Arch. (19072); Sanday, Sacred Sites of the Gospels (1903) ; 

Geo. Adam Smith, Jerusalem, Vol. II (1908); A. R. 8. Ken- 

nedy in Exp. Time (1908), a valuable discussion of measure- 

ments based on recent discoveries and excavations, with a 

ground-plan. 

TEMPLE?: An anatomical term (Heb. ragqah, 
‘thinness’). The temples are the regions on both 
sides of the head behind the forehead and eyes, and 
a severe blow on the temples is often deadly (Jg 
4 21, 22,5 26). They are likened to pomegranates 
(Song 4 3=67), because of the shape or the varied 
light and dark red coloring of a slice of the fruit. 

Gah bd be 


TEMPLE?: Besides the Temple at Jerusalem, 
mention is made in the Bible of the temples of 
heathen gods. As a transl. of bayith (I Ch 10 10, 
‘temple’ AV), the RV has ‘house,’ 7.e., the dwelling- 
place of the god, in which his idol was placed (cf. 
Jg94;1S855, 3lof.; 11 K 518, 10 21, etc.). InII Ch 
36 7, Ezr 5 14 (‘palaces’ RVmg.), and Jl 3 5 [4 5], 
‘temple’ is the transl. of hékhal. This word means 
also ‘royal house,’ ‘palace,’ which may be more exact 
in all three passages (cf. II K 20 18). Some find a 
reference to the temple of Marduk in II Ch 36 7; 
Ezr 5 14. In the N T vaéc, ‘temple,’ is used in 
reference to the temple of Diana (Ac 19 27), and in 
metaphor, ‘as the dwelling-place of God,’ for the 
Christian Church (I Co 3 16; II Co 6 16; Eph 2 21), 
and the bodies of Christians (I Co 619). C.S. T. 


TEMPLE-KEEPER (Gr. vewxépoc, ‘temple- 
sweeper,’ t.e., one who cares for a temple): A term 
often used as a self-designation, like an honorary 
title, by cities as ‘temple keepers’ of the deity (or 
deified hero or ruler) to whom the city gave special 
honor. Very frequently coins of cities carry the 
legend ‘vewxéoos’ (followed by the name of the 
deity). Coins of Ephesus of the 2d cent. a.., e.g., 
name the city ‘doubly temple-keeper,’ of the Em- 
peror and of Artemis, which well illustrates Ac 19 35. 

K. E. N. 

TEMPLES, ROBBERS OF ((iepécvAor, robbers of 
churches AV): According to ancient conceptions 
a sacred place belonged to deity; consequently, vio- 
lence done to either property or persons within its 
precincts was regarded as particularly heinous (cf. 
II Mac 4 42). The fact that the town clerk of 
Ephesus expressly denied that Paul and his com- 
panions were guilty of this offense (Ac 19 37) may 
imply that this charge had been brought against 
them by Demetrius or others. J. M. T. 


TEMPT, TEMPTATION: 1. In the O T. The 
word ‘tempt’ is used in EV as the rendering of 
nasah, ‘test,’ ‘prove,’ and of bahan, ‘try,’ ‘examine.’ 
The same two words are also frequently translated 
‘prove’ and ‘try.’ The latter translations are more ac- 
curate. In modern English ‘tempt’ suggests the idea 
of constraining a person to do evil, but these words 
mean merely ‘to put character to the test.’ Thus God 


‘tests’ men to see whether they will be faithful to 
Him (Gn 221; Ex 16 4, 20 20; Dt 8 2, 13 4 [3]; Jg 2 22, 
3 4; Ps 26 2), and men ‘test’ God to see whether His 
patience or His promises will hold out (Ex 17 2, 7; 
Nu 14 22; Dt 6 16; Is 7 12; Ps 78 18, 41, 56, 959, 106 14). 
Similarly the noun massdéth (Dt 4 34, 719, 29 3) should 
be translated with ERVmg. ‘testings’ rather than 
‘temptations’ (AV and ERYV, ‘trials’ ARV). 
L. B. P. 

2. In the N T. In the N T the Gr. terms xet- 
oklety, éxmetpktery, metpacudc, and dnefpactos are 
used with a meaning ranging from the simple ‘trial’ 
by suffering, etc. (Ac 20 19; I Co 10 13; Gal 4 14), 
through ‘testing (Mt 41, 7, 613; Ac 59; He 3 8 £.; 
Ja 1 2, etc.) to ‘constraining to evil’ (Mt 161 #.; 
I Co 7 5; Ja 1 13, etc.). In RV ‘try,’ and ‘trial’ are 
frequently substituted for ‘tempt,’ etc. of AV. For 
the temptation of Jesus see Jesus Curist, § 6. 

E. E. N. 


TEMPTATION, THE. See Jmsus Curis, § 6. 


TEN. See NumsBers, SIGNIFICANT AND SYM-~ 
BOLIC, § 7. 


TEN COMMANDMENTS. See Decatoe. 
TENDER EYES: See Disnask AND MeEpicine, § 7. 


TEN STRINGS, INSTRUMENTS OF. See Muv- 
sic AND Musica INSTRUMENTS, § 3 (4). 


TENT. See Hovuss, §§ 1, 2. 
TENT-MAKING. See Arrizan Lirs, § 2. 


TENT OF MEETING. See Taprrnactig, §§ 1 
and 5. 

TENTH. See TirHe. 

TERAH, ti’ra (19, terah): I. The father of 
Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Gn 11 24-28; I Ch 1 26; 
Lk 3 34). He migrated with his family from Ur of 
the Chaldees to Haran, where he died 205 years old 
(Gn 11 31-32), but according to the Samaritan text, 
145. In Jos 24 2 it is stated that Terah worshiped 
gods other than J” (cf. Gn 3153 RVmg.). II. A sta- 
tion of the Israelites on their way from Sinai to 
Canaan (Nu 38 27 f., Tarah AV). Not identified. 

CHSaE 

TERAPHIM, ter’o-fim. See Semitic RELiaion, 

§ 36. 


TEREBINTH, ter’1-binfh. See Pauestine, § 21; 
and Semitic REtiaion, § 37. 


TERESH, ti’resh (14, teresh): One of the two 
Persian eunuchs whose plot against Ahasuerus was 
frustrated by Mordecai (Est 2 21 ff., 6 2). 


TERMS OF BLESSING AND REPROACH: 
Among the Israelites with other peoples of Semitic 
antiquity much more significance was attached to 
words or expressions uttered with some show of 
formality, especially if an invocation to deity (either 
God or some inferior spirit) was implied. A blessing 
was thought to have efficacy, particularly if uttered 
by a dying father or leader (cf. the blessings of Isaac 
Gn ch. 27; of Jacob, Gn 477, 489 ff., 49 1-28; of Moses, 
Dt ch. 33). The formula of a blessing was considered 
important, and on the choice of the right terms it was 
thought that much of the efficacy depended. God’s 
blessing on creation (Gn 1 28), on the Sabbath (2 2), 
on Noah (91 #.), on Abraham (12 2 f.), etc., are all 


— ee a ae 


901 


carefully noted. The nations of the earth were to be 
so impressed by the Divine blessing on Israel that 
they were to ‘bless themselves’ in Abraham, 2.e., 
they were to use his name in invoking blessing on 
themselves (see Gn 12 3; cf. 48 20; Is 65 16; Jer 4 2 for 
an illustration of what is meant). In this connection 
the great recital of blessings and curses on Mts. 
Gerizim and Ebal should be noted (Dt ch. 27 f.) 
The blessing pronounced on Rebekah (Gn 24 60) is an 
example of a blessing on an individual, and the story 
of Balaam (Nu chs. 22-24) illustrates the significance 
attached to a blessing (or curse) pronounced by a 
seer. In the Psalms there are many examples of 
formulated blessings, and in the N T the beatitudes 
are but a collection of a few of the many blessings 
pronounced by Jesus. 

On the other hand, words of insult, jeer, reproach, 
or curse were felt to be of more than passing sig- 
nificance. Once uttered, they were thought to have 
a baneful effect which was likely to follow one as a 
sinister fate and surely overtake one some day. See 
also Byworp; Cursr; REBUKE; REPROACH. 

EK. KE. N 


TERTIUS, tor’shi-us (Téottos): The amanuensis 
who penned Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and who 
sent his salutation, along with others’ to the 
Church of Rome (Ro 1622). Elsewhere in the Pauline 
Epistles the amanuensis is not expressly mentioned, 
altho Paul’s salutation in his own hand generally 
implies that the letter was written by some one else 
(cf. I Co 16 21; Col 4 18; II Th 3 17). Jove TD. 

TERTULLUS, tar-tul’us (TéptuAdoc): A profes- 
sional Roman advocate employed, as was often done 
by provincials unacquainted with Roman law, by 
the deputation of the Sanhedrin to plead their case 
against Paul at the court of Felix (Ac 241 f.). Skil- 
fully but falsely flattering Felix as pacifier of the 
province, he accused Paul of inciting Jews to dis- 
order and of profaning the Temple. 

R. A. F.—E. C. L. 


TESTAMENT: The rendering of 8t«0yxn, prima- 
rily a ‘disposition of property by will’; but the word 
even in classic Greek (Aristph. Av. 489) has the 
secondary sense of a ‘convention’ or ‘arrangement 
between two parties’ (7.e., a covenant). It is upon 
this rarer and secondary sense that the Alexandrian 
translators of the O T fixed when they sought for an 
equivalent to the Heb. berith (‘covenant’). Accord- 
ingly, in the LXX. ‘testament’ and ‘covenant’ are 
identified (Is 28 15; 1S 18 3). This imports into the 
N T usage of the term a variable element; for side 
by side with the secondary sense of the word adopted 
by the LXX. the original meaning of disposition of 
property by will is held in mind. ‘Testament’ is 
made equivalent to ‘covenant’ in Gal 4 24 AVmg. 
(‘covenants’ in both AV and RV texts). This is 
manifestly also the case in the accounts of the insti- 
tution of the Lord’s Supper (cf., however, Mt 26 28; 
Mk 14 24; Lk 22 20; I Co 11 25; II Co 3 6, 14, ‘cove- 
nant? RV). On the other hand, in He 7 22, 9 16 ff. 
(cf. also RVmg), the primitive significance of the 
Greek word is preserved, since the author has in 
mind an aspect of the Gospel which is best illus- 
trated by a last will and testament in the modern 
sense. A. C. Z. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Temple 
Thamah 


TESTIMONY: The Heb. words so rendered are all 
derived from the vb. ‘udh (in Hiph‘il), ‘to bear wit- 
ness,’ ‘to testify.’ (1) ‘édhdh (in pl.) when rendered 
‘testimonies’ always refers to Divine commands, 
either those of the Deuteronomic Code and its basis, 
the Decalog (Dt 4 45, 6 17 f£.), or the larger body of’ 
Law (and possibly Prophecy also, in some cases) 
known to the psalmists (Ps 25 10, 78 56, etc., especially 
Ps 119, passim). (2) ‘édhith. In the ‘priestly’ por- 
tion of the Hexateuch this term always refers to the 
Ark as containing the two tables of the ‘testimony,’ 
i.e., the Decalog, or to the Tabernacle as the shelter 
of the Ark (Ex 25 16 ff., 27 21; Nu 1 50, etc.). In the 
historical books and Psalms the term is synonymous 
with ‘édhah. (8) te‘didhah in Ru 4 7 (‘attestation’ 
RV) means legal evidence, 7.e., a token or sign re- 
quired by law; in Is 8 16, 20 it refers to the prophetic 
word as a Divinely sanctioned witness to the truth. 


‘In the N T the three Gr. terms paptupety, paptuela, 


uaetvetoy are adequately rendered by ‘testimony’ or 
‘give testimony,’ and should present no difficulties 
to the reader. K. E. N. 


TETRARCH, tet’rark or ti’trark: tetegexne, lit- 
erally a ruler over one of four provinces of a country 
(as in Thessaly).. It was applied by the Romans to a 
ruler over part of a divided kingdom, or to a dynast 
below the rank of king; hence when, after the death 
of Herod, Palestine was subdivided, not into four, 


but into three parts, the ruler of each was called a 
‘tetrarch.’ J. R. 8. S.*—S. A. 


TETTER. See Disease anD MeEpicine, § 4 (3). 


TEXT OF THE BIBLE. See Oxtp TESTAMENT 
Text and New TrestraMent TEXT. 


THADDEUS, fha-di’us (Oaddatoc): One of the 
Twelve Apostles (Mk 3 18; Mt 10 3). It is to be 
noted, however, that this name does not occur in Lk 
6 16 and Ac 1 13, and that D and the Western Text 
generally substitute ‘Lebbzeus’ (probably the same 
as Levi [Acvely; cf. Orig. Contra Cel. 1, 62, AéGys], 
for whom a place is thus made among the Apostles). 
On the other hand, the name ‘Judas, son of Al- 
pheeus,’ found in Lk 6 16; Ac 1 13, does not occur in 
the lists in Mk and Mt. There is no sufficient reason 
for identifying Judas, the son of Alpheus, with T., 
since (1) the last name can hardly be a corruption 
of the first as held by Allen (ZB, art. Thaddeus); 
and (2) other names are substituted for ‘Judas’ in 
the versions (thus: Syr. Cur. has ‘Judas Thomas’; 
Syr. Sin., simply ‘Thomas’). The occurrence of 
different names in different traditions is to be ex- 
plained rather as due to the fact that there were 
more who ‘heard and saw the Lord’ than could be 
included in a single list of Apostles. Hence the 
substitution of names. Of T. nothing further is said 
in the N T, which may account for the early substi- 
tution of other names. According to the Syriac 
legend of Abgar, translated by Eusebius (HE, I, 18), 
T. was sent to Edessa. In the Greek Acts of Thad- 
deus (ed. Lipsius-Bonnet, I, 271), he is identified 
with Lebbeeus, and represented as evangelizing 
Syrians and Armenians.. (Cf. Nestle in Hastings 
DCG, sub. voc.). J..M. T. 


THAHASH, fhé’hash. See Tanasu. 
THAMAH, fthé’ma. See TEmMaAu. 


Thamar 
Thessalonians 





THAMAR, thé’mGr. See Tamar. 

THAMMUZ. See Semitic Retiaion, § 34. 

THANK-OFFERING. See SacriricE AND OFFER- 
nas, § 10. 

THARA, thé’ra. See Trrau. 

THARSHISH, fthar’shish. See Tarsuisu. 

THAT DAY. See Escuatotoey, § 4. 


THEATER (@éatpov, ‘a place for seeing,’ from 
GeacOat, ‘to look upon’): In classical times usually a 
natural concavity in a hillside, supplemented by 
masonry, furnished with marble seats usually hewn 
from the rock and placed concentrically and a stage 
artificially constructed and open to the air. The 
ground between the seats and the stage was for the 
choir. Among the Greeks, it was employed some- 
times for municipal and religious assemblies, as 
well as dramatic performances. The theater at 
Ephesus (Ac 19 29, 31), on the slope of Mt. Coressus, 
facing the harbor, was exceptionally large (seating 
perhaps 24,000 people). Excavations have revealed 
many inscriptions illustrating Ac ch. 19. The pres- 
ent condition of the excavations is shown in the cut 
attached to the article EpHesus. S. D.—M. W. J. 

THEBES, fthi’bez. See No, No-Ammon. 

THEBEZ, fthi’bez (V2, tébhéts): A city near 
Shechem. It was taken by Abimelech, who later, 
while storming its tower, was killed by a stone 
thrown by a woman from the parapet (Jg 9 50; ITS 
11 21). Eusebius and Jerome mention a Thebes 
13 m. from Neapolis on the road to Scythopolis, 
probably the modern Tébés 10 m. N. of Nablus. 
Map III, G3. It is a large village in a fertile val- 
ley, with old cisterns, caves, and graves. C.S. T. 


THELASAR, fhi-lé’sar. See TELAssaR. 


THEOPHILUS, thi-ef’1-lus (@eber:A0¢): The name 
of the person to whom the Third Gospel (Lk 1 3) 
and the Book of Acts (Ac 1 1) are dedicated. The 
meaning of the name (‘friend of God,’ not ‘lover of 
God,’ which would be ‘Philotheus,’ ®:468e0¢) has 
led some to suppose that it was not that of a real in- 
dividual, but of an ideal or typical convert to Chris- 
tianity from among the educated classes of Gentiles, 
possibly an officer under the Roman government. 
But the reasons for this theory, as well as for others 
built upon the mere name (cf. Ramsay, St. Paul the 
Traveller and the Roman Citizen, p. 388), are not con- 
vineing. The only certainty in the case is that 
Theophilus, whether an ideal or an actual per- 
sonage, represents the intelligent, possibly literary, 
Gentile convert or student of Christianity. 

A. C. Z. 

THESSALONIANS, fhes’’a-l6’n1-anz, EPISTLES 
TO: 1. Situation Disclosed by I Thessalonians. 
On the occasion of his second missionary journey 
Paul, accompanied by Silas and (probably) Timothy, 
visited Thessalonica, a busy seaport at the head of 
the Thermaic Gulf, and there carried on active mis- 
sionary work, at first among the Jewish, and after- 
ward among the Gentile, inhabitants of the town 
(Ac 171 #.; I Th 19, 214). The work, especially 
among the latter, was very successful, and the foun- 
dations were laid of a church which, writing a few 
months later, Paul makes bold to say is already 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





902 





widely known for its faith and active work (17 f.). 
According to Ac Paul preached for three Sabbaths 
in the Synagog, but the success of his work (cf. Ph 
416) probably points to a longer total stay. Finally, 
however, owing to the determined hostility of a 
section of the population, the Apostle was obliged 
to leave Thessalonica just at the time when his 
young converts most needed his guidance, and, find- 
ing it impossible to revisit them in person (2 18), 
he despatched Timothy, probably from Athens (3 
1 f.), to assure them of his continued affection and 
to bring him a report of their state. The report 
which Timothy brought back to Paul, who had 
meanwhile gone on to Corinth (Ac 18 5), was evi- 
dently in the main highly satisfactory. At the same 
time, he had to tell the anxious Apostle of certain 
difficulties, both doctrinal and practical, which were 
besetting the Thessalonians’ faith. And it was with 
the view of meeting these, and of giving expression 


to his heartfelt joy at the ‘glad tidings’ he had just . 


heard, that Paul, soon after his arrival in Corinth in 
50 a.p., despatched from there this First Epistle to 
the Thessalonians. 


2. Contents of I Thessalonians. Beginning with s greeting 
which happily combines the new watchword of ‘grace’ with the 
old Hebraic salutation of ‘peace’ (1 1), the writers (for the 
manner in which Paul associates Silas and Timothy with himself 
not only in the opening greeting, but throughout both Epistles, 
is one of their characteristic features) give thanks for the spiritual 
state of the Thessalonians (1 21°), and then proceed at once to 
refute certain calumnies which, as they have been informed, are 
in course of being circulated against themselves. Their apologia 
takes, naturally, the form of a historical narrative of their 
ministry at Thessalonica, and is marked by frequent appeals to 
the Thessalonians’ own knowledge of what its character had 
been (2 112); while it gives also the Apostles the opportunity 
of emphasizing the Thessalonians’ own ready acceptance of the 
word of God, and their consequent brave endurance under 
persecution (2 18-16), It islittle wonder, therefore, they continue, 
that they are longing so exceedingly to see again those who are 
proving such a ‘crown of glorying,’ and to complete the good 
work that has been so happily begun (2 17-3 }). 

A second and more didactic part of the letter follows, based 
largely, no doubt, on the report brought back by Timothy, in 
which the Apostles furnish fresh guidance for their converts in 
their Christian life, warning them in particular against the 
unchastity which was so marked a feature of Greek city life and 
which, regarding salvation as essentially spiritual, Gentiles, 
even after conversion, were apt to regard as natural and permis- 
sible (4 1-8), and, while gladly recognizing their love of the 
brethren, summoning all to diligence in their own work, that so 
they may preserve an honorable spirit of independence and gain 
the respect of their heathen neighbors (4 9-12). Next, the writers 
deal with two problems, both connected with the coming of 
Christ, on which the Thessalonians are understood to require 
guidance: (a) Some of the converts who had expected to be 
alive at the Parousia had died (the phrase in 4 4 need not, as 
some think, imply martyrdom), and the Apostles assure the 
brethren that these, so far from being shut out from Christ’s 
glory at His return, will rather be the first to share in it (4 14-18), 
(b) As regards the time of Christ’s return the fact, of which they 
have already been fully warned, that it will come as a thief in 
the night is made the basis of an urgent appeal to watchfulness 
and sobriety (5 1-11). Certain exhortations follow, still ad- 
dressed to the community as a whole, with reference to their 
attitude to their leaders and to their own more feeble brethren, 
along with some general rules of Christian living (5 2-#). And 
finally, the letter is brought to a close with a salutation and 
benediction (5 25-28), 


What result the First Epistle had we are left to 
gather as best we can from the Second Epistle, which 
must have followed very soon after. 

3. Contents of II Thessalonians. The Second Epistle 


opens with even stronger terms of praise than the First, prob- 
ably implying that the Thessalonians had in the interval been 





: 
; 


903 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Thamar 
Thessalonians 





spurred to still nobler efforts (13 ff.). But the idleness and even 
disorder, of which complaint had already been made (caused inall 
probability, tho this is not stated, by the belief in the speedy 
return of Christ), had by no means disappeared. On the con- 
trary, this ‘business which was no business’ (3 4) would seem 
rather to have been fomented by certain spiritual utterances and 
sayings, and even a letter—all purporting to come from the 
Apostles, but for which they were in no way responsible (2 2). 
Let the Thessalonians see to it that they be not led astray, but 
rather remember that, sudden and unexpected tho the actual 
coming of the Day of the Lord will be, it will nevertheless be 
preceded by certain clearly defined signs, and, above all, by the 
appearance of the ‘man of sin (or lawlessness),’ the full and 
crowning manifestation of the power of evil already working in 
their midst. For the present, this manifestation is being held in 
check—apparently by the power of the Roman state—but 
how long this restraining power will last no one can tell (2 1-12). 
In any case, the Thessalonians’ duty is clear—to stand firm and 
hold fast the traditions they have already been taught, in 
humble dependence upon the power of God (2 13-17), To the 
same God let them also pray on the Apostles’ behalf (31-5); 
meanwhile, in conformity with the Apostles’ own’ example, let 
them go about their daily work and duty in quietness, shunning 
all disorderly brethren, and at all times and in all ways seeking 
that peace which is the peculiar property of the Lord of peace 
(3 6-16), Finally, the letter is confirmed by an autographic salu- 
tation and benediction in Paul’s own handwriting (3 17 f-). 


4. Characteristics of the Epistles. (1) Of all 
the Pauline Epistles: which have come down 
to us, the Thessalonian Letters represent perhaps 
most fully the Apostle’s ‘normal’ style in his 
more familiar intercourse with his friends, and which 
in its vivid, living character has been well described 
as a ‘stenographed conversation’ (Rénan). Greatly, 
however, as this contributes to the personal charm 
and interest of the letters, it adds materially to their 
difficulty. For they so abound in allusions to what 
the Thessalonians already knew, and perhaps have 
themselves been saying in letters on their own part 
to the Apostle (cf. Rendel Harris in The Expositor, 
vol. viii, 1898, pp. 161 ff.), or to circumstances the 
precise character of which was known to the 
Apostle, (e.g. through the report of Timothy), that 
it is hardly too much to say that the more familiar 
the subjects with which they deal were to the Thes- 
salonians the more veiled they are from us. 

(2) If the Thessalonian Epistles do not exhibit 
those elaborations of Christian doctrine which we 
find, e.g. in the Epistle to the Galatians, it is not 
that Paul’s theology was not by this time thought 
out, (he had been a Christian now for well nigh 20 
years), but rather that the need for such elabora- 
tions did not here arise. There are however in these 
letters enough doctrinal statements to enable us to 
see with remarkable clearness what was the sub- 
stance of Paul’s missionary teaching. I Th 1 9 f£. 
shows that he proclaimed as the center of his mes- 
sage (a) a living and a real God, as opposed to the 
idols of heathenism, (b) the coming of the Son of 
God from heaven. The eschatological note resounds 
through these letters from start to finish. Jesus 
who has died for men (I 5 10), and Whom God has 
raised from the dead (I 1 10), is destined to come 
again in power from heaven (II 17), and that soon 
(1415, 528.), to punish the enemies of God (II 1 8), 
to save those who are His from the coming wrath 
(I 110), catching up His saints to meet Him in the 
air (I 417), and welcoming them into His kingdom 
(I 2 12), to live with Him for ever (I 5 10). Mean- 
while Paul sets as an ideal before his converts the 
love of God and the patience of Christ (II 3 5), he 


urges them to be worthy of the call that has come 
to them (I 2 12; II 111), and in praying that they 
may be preserved in spirit, soul and body, entire 
and without blame, till the coming of Christ, he 
adds that He Who has called them is faithful and 
will complete what He has purposed (I 5 23 £.). 


(3) Nowhere more than in these Letters does the 
real Paul stand out clearly before us, alike in the 
intensity of his affection for his converts, in the 
confident assertion of the purity of his own motives, 
and in the fierceness of his indignation against those 
who are hindering the progress of Christ’s work. 
Very noteworthy, too, is the tact which the Apostle 
displays, praising with the utmost generosity where 
praise is due, but only as a means to continued prog- 
ress. When, too, he sees cause for blame, he is not 
afraid to say so, and this with all the authority be- 
longing to a fully accredited Apostle of Christ. At 


the same time, as regards the Thessalonians, it is 


of interest to notice that this is the fullest picture we 
possess of a young Christian community, still very 
simply organized (I 5 12), in all the freshness of its 
first love, not yet wholly separated, it is true, even 
from the more glaring pagan vices, but possessed 
of a faith and a love and a hope which have already 
borne practical fruits in the Thessalonians’ own 
lives, and made them the honored means of com- 
mending the truth to others. 


5. Genuineness of the Epistles. All that we have 
so far considered regarding the character and con- 
tents of these letters supports the traditional belief 
that they are the work of Paul. In the case of the 
First Epistle, its authenticity, which no one even 
thought of challenging before the 19th cent., is now 
generally recognized by critics of all schools, ex- 
cept those who reject the Pauline writings alto- 
gether, tho recently (Christian Beginnings, 1924) 
Burkitt has conjectured that both Epistles while 
approved by Paul, owe their structure, drafting and 
some of their ideas to Silas. More doubt attaches to 
the Second Epistle. Tho the external evidence in its 
favor is even stronger than in the case of I Th, it 
has, more particularly in recent years, been seriously 
objected to on internal grounds. So far as the 
apocalyptic passage in ch. 2 is concerned, the ob- 
jection (a) that the picture there given of the Man 
of Sin is dependent on the Nero redivivus myth, 
and is therefore later than Paul, is groundless, for 
such a conception had its roots in Judaism long 
before Paul’s day (see ANtIcHRIST); neither (b) 
can it be argued that the suddenness of the Parousia 
as depicted in I Th is essentially contradicted by 
the more detailed teaching in II Th regarding the 
premonitory signs and the present restraining power; 
for the vital point emphasized by the Apostle in 
II Th (probably in order to correct a misinterpreta- 
tion of his previous note of urgency) is that the 
Day of the Lord has not yet begun (not ‘is just at 
hand,’ 2 2 ARV). In more recent years the main 
difficulty as regards II Th has come from the con- 
tention, stressed by Wrede (Texte und Unter- 
suchungen, N.F., ix, 2), that whereas in I Th Paul 
addresses an essentially Gentile Christian com- 
munity, in II Th he seems to have in mind a 
community whose religious background is Jewish 


Thessalonians 
Thyatira 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


904 





Christian. Wrede would argue that as the com- 
munity addressed can not have changed its character 
in this way, the Second Epistle can not be Pauline. 
But (a) apart from a by no means large list of words 
peculiar to the Epistle among N T writings, and a 
few deviations from ordinary Pauline practise in 
the use of particular words and phrases, its general 
phraseology and style leave upon the mind of any 
unbiased reader the impression of a genuinely 
Pauline work. (b) The very remarkable similarity 
to I Th as regards both language and contents (cf. 
I14,11213;129,138;14n, 13 u8.; 1 5 23, II 
3 16) is far more naturally explained if both letters 
came from the same author about the same time, 
than if, with Wrede, we assume that we have in 
II Th the work of a late imitator, or even forger, 
who, in order to gain credence for certain views, 
encased them in a framework drawn from a genuine 
Pauline Epistle. Harnack (Sitzungsberichte der kén. 
preus. Akademie, 1910, p. 562 f.), while acknowl- 
edging Wrede’s contention as regards the difference 
in tone between the two letters, preserves the 
Pauline authorship of II Th by the hypothesis that 
it was addressed primarily to the Jewish section of 
the Thessalonian Church (cf. ‘first fruits’ in 2 13, 
ARVmg.); and, partly arising out of this, the fur- 
ther suggestion has been made, tho for this there are 
no sufficient grounds, that the Second letter may 
have been written before the First (Jour. Theol. 
Stud., Oct., 1913). Harnack’s hypothesis is attrac- 
tive. Jewish Christians, brought up originally in an 
atmosphere of religious exclusiveness and superi- 
ority, must have found at first the greatest difficulty, 
which persecution would have intensified in Thes- 
salonica, in merging themselves into a corporate 
unity with converts from heathenism (cf. the 
situation at Antioch, Gal 2 11 #.); and there are 
traces in I Th (cf. the emphasis on ‘all’ in 3 12, 
5 15, 26, 27), as in other Pauline letters, that it was a 
matter of fundamental concern for the Apostle to 
get his converts to realise that in Christ Jesus there 
was neither Jew nor Greek. Timothy may have 
reported that this difficulty was acute in the nascent 
church of Thessalonica, and also the Jewish converts 
may have taken exception to much in Paul’s first 
letter which seemed to be applicable to Gentile 
Christians rather than to themselves. It is to be 
noted, however, that, even if in II Th Paul had 
Jewish Christians primarily in his mind’s eye, he 
nevertheless addressed the letter to the Thes- 
salonian church as a whole (11); to have done other- 
wise would have encouraged that sectarianism 
which he was so eager to avoid. Finally, whatever 
substance there may be in Harnack’s hypothesis 
(and it may be doubted whether it is wholly satis- 
factory or necessary), neither the difficulties which 
it is designed to meet, nor any of the other objec- 
tions which have been raised against this remark- 
able Epistle, can be said to be sufficient to overthrow 
the belief in its genuineness, especially in view of 
the absence of any other adequate explanation of 
its origin, and of the place it has so long enjoyed in 
the esteem of the Church. 


LireRaTuRE: Commentaries (a) in German, untranslated, by 
Bornemann (1894, Meyer’s Kommentar); von Dobschiitz 
(1909, revised edition of Meyer); Dibelius (1911, Lietzmann’s 


Handbuch); (b) in English, by Lightfoot (Notes on the Epp.); 
Findlay (Camb. Gk. Test.); Moffatt (Expos. Gk. Test.); 
Frame ([CC). For a fuller statement of the foregoing posi- 
tion, see also Milligan’s Commentary (1908). See also Lake’s 
Earlier Epistles of St. Paul (1916). G. M.—G.S. D. 
THESSALONICA, thes’’a-lo-nai’ka (OeccaAovinn): 
A city of Macedonia, the modern Salonikt. Its origi- 
nal name was Therme, but when it was rebuilt by 
Cassander (315 B.c.), it was renamed after his wife, 
Thessalonica, the step-sister of Alexander the Great. 
It was strongly fortified, and, situated as it was on 
the Thermaic Gulf, it soon became the most impor- 
tant harbor of Macedonia, being in Roman times 
the capital of the second of the four divisions of the 
province and the residence of a Roman governor and 
questor. It played a great rdle as a frontier town. 
After 148 B.c. it became the midway commercial 
and military station on the Via Hgnatia, connecting 
Dyrrhachium and Byzantium, which still traverses 
the city. Its most flourishing period was before the 
rise of Constantinople. The presence of a Jewish - 
community in the city led to the founding of a 
Christian church by Paul on his second missionary 
journey (Ac 17 1-9), which, in spite of persecution, 
soon grew into one of the Apostle’s important 
European churches (I Th 1 4-8), composed largely 
of Gentiles (I Th 1 9). The present population is 
about 170,000, including Jews, Turks, Greeks, 
Slavs, and Franks. J. R. S. S.*—S. A. 


THEUDAS, fhi’iides (Qevdsa%>, a contract form of 
@co0da> [Oed8weoc]): A Jewish revolutionist in the 
reign of Augustus who instigated a political uprising 
in Palestine that came to an inglorious end (Ac 5 
36). In the Ac narrative, the time of his activity 
is fixed prior to the insurrection under Judas, the 
Galilean, which took place in the days of the taxing 
(7.e., in 6 B.c., or 6 A.D., under Quirinius, q.v.). No 
other reference is made to T. in the N T, but, accord- 
ing to Josephus (Ant. XX, 51), an insurrection under 
the leadership of one Theudas took place while Fadus 
was procurator (7.e., between 44 and 46 a.p.). That 
both Luke and Josephus refer to the same event is 
evident from the similar language used of the person 
in question (cf. A¢éywy etvat tiva sxutév, Ac 5 36, with 
éXevev elvat xeopntyns, Ant. XX, 51). Josephus is 
not likely to have made a mistake of many years with 
reference to events happening within his own life- 
time and in his own country. On the other hand, 
the value of Luke’s history does not depend upon 
accuracy with reference to every detail, particularly 
a detail so incidental as the one in question (with 
Schmiedel’s argument in favor of Luke’s inaccurate 
use of Josephus in FB, art. Theudas, compare also 
Zahn, Hinl.?, II, 418 f.). A Mea Sa 

THIEF, THEFT. See Crimes AnD PUNISHMENTS 
§ 2. 

THIGH. See Oaru. 

THIMNATHAH, fthim’na-fha. See Trmnatu. 

THISTLE. See THorns AND THISTLES. 

THOMAS (Quyvéc; Aram. t’6ma’; cf. the Pheni- 
cian onn, CIS, I, No.46): The name of one of Jesus’ 
disciples. This is the only name given to him in the 
Synoptics (Mt 10 3; Mk 3 18; Lk {6 15; cf. Ac 113). 
But in Jn the interpretation Didymus, ‘twin’ (cf. Heb. 
to’am, ‘twin,’ pl., Gn 25 24, etc.), is given with the 





905 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Thessalonians 
Thyatira 





name (Jn 11 16, 20 24, 212). Throughout this Gospel 
T. plays a more important réle than in the Synoptics. 
He commonly appears in the réle of a doubter, which 
may account for the reading Sfpuxoc, ‘double- 
minded,’ instead of 3{3uy.0c, in some of the versions. 
In Jn 14 22, Syr. Sin. reads ‘Thoma’ instead of ‘Juda,’ 
showing that at an early date Thomas was identified 
with ‘Judas of James,’ but not in Ac 1 13, Lk 6 16, 
where both names occur. The same identification 
was made in the Syriac source from which Eusebius 
translated the story of King Abgar and Thaddeus 
(?Tobdac 6 xat O@wyac), also in the Acts of Thomas 
(ed. Lipsius-Bonnet, II, 2, p. 100, ’Iob3a¢ Owes). 
J. MT, 
THORNS AND THISTLES: Symbolically, thorns 
or thistles, or both, are often used to denote the judg- 
ment of God on Israel—the fact that the unculti- 
vated land bore only such worthless shrubs symbol- 
izing the extremity of distress and desolation (cf. Is 
7 23-25; Hos 9 6, 10 8, etc.). On the species and 
varieties designated by these terms, see PALESTINE, 
§ 21f. The dried thorn-bushes often served as fuel 
(Ps 58 9; Ec 7 6). Hedges of thorn seem to have 
been very common (Pr 1519; Hos 26; Mic 74). The 
thorn also easily served as a cruel instrument of 
punishment (Jg 8 7, 16; Mk 1517; Jn 19 2 #.). On 
II Ch 33 11 (AV) ef. RV. See also Hooxs. 
K. E. N. 
THOUSAND: In the O T this term signifies a 
political unit of ancient Israel. It is the translation 
of ’eleph, which is often the equivalent of mishpahah, 
‘clan.’ After the Israelites had settled in cities and 
villages, and clan- if not tribe-distinctions could not 
be easily maintained, more or less arbitrary sub- 
divisions were made of the tribe (cf. Ex 18 21, 25; 
Nu 1 16 ‘families’ RVmg.; Jos 22 14, 21, 30; IS 10 19, 
23 23 ‘families’ RVmg.; Jg 6 15, ‘family,’ ‘thousand’ 
RVmg.). Of these the ’eleph, ‘thousand’ or ‘family,’ 
was the largest, and was ideally a company of 1,000 
united under one head (sar). The ‘clan,’ a subdivi- 
sion of a tribe, and made up of béth-’abhoth, ‘fathers’ 
houses,’ was of no definite numerical size, and ac- 
cordingly, it is probable that the ’eleph only rarely, 
if ever, numbered 1,000, and was usually a much 
smaller number. The ’eleph is also used similarly as 
a military term (Nu 10 4, 31 5, 14, 48; IS 8 12, 17 18, 
18 13; ITS 181; I Ch 181, 15 25, ete.). epee: 


THREE. See Numpers, SIGNIFICANT AND Sym- 
BOLIC, § 7. 

THREE CHILDREN, SONG OF. See Danrtst, 
ADDITIONS TO. 


THRESHING, THRESHING-FLOOR, -INSTRU- 
MENT, -PLACE, -WAIN, -WHEEL. See Aari- 
CULTURE, § 7. 


THRESHOLD. See Passover, § 7; and also 
Houss, § 6 (k). 

THRONE: The Heb. kissé’, ‘seat? (Aram. kors@’), 
is used of an ordinary seat (Jg 3 20;1S 19, etc.), but 
frequently of the royal chair of state, when it is 
rendered ‘throne.’ In many cases the expression is 
to be taken literally, the actual seat or chair being 
intended and no more (I K 212, 19, etc.; ef. especially 
Solomon’s magnificent throne, I K 10 18); but 
generally, it is not merely the throne itself, but what 


it symbolized—the royal authority, dominion, power 
(Gn 41 40; I K 1 37, etc.). The supreme authority 
and sway of God are also often succinctly expressed 
by speaking of His ‘throne.’ In the vision of Micaiah 
(I K 22 19) and of Isaiah (Is 61) J’’ was seen sitting 
on His heavenly throne surrounded by His attendant 
ministers. In the religio-political sense the ‘throne 
of David’ came to signify the union of the two ideas 
—God’s supremacy over all kingdoms of the earth, 
and the Davidic throne as the one kingdom in which 
God’s supremacy was actually illustrated or em- 
bodied (Is 97). The ‘throne of David’ was thus an 
ideal expression which came to mean much to the 
prophets and psalmists. 

In the N T these O T conceptions are found re- 
produced. Jesus the Messiah is the true Davidic 
king, and His ‘throne,’ 7.e., His power, etc.—some- 
times His seat at the right hand of the Father—is the 


realized ideal of the Davidic throne of the O T (Mt 


19 28; Lk 1 32; Ac 2 30; He 1 8, 81, 12 2; Rev, often). 
Naturally, at times in the N T the throne of God 
alone is often spoken of with no reference to the 
Messiah (Mt 5 34, 23 22, etc.). In Ac 12 21 the Gr. is 
Bjua, ‘judgment-seat,’ rather than ‘throne.’ 
E. E. N. 
THUMMIM, thum’im. See Urim anp THUMMIM. 


THUNDER: Thunder (ra‘am; Gr. Boovth) is a 
frequent phenomenon in Palestine during the winter 
rainy season, but never occurs in summer (I § 1217). 
By the primitive Hebrews, as by all other Semites, 
the thunder-storm and everything connected with it 
were worshiped as divine (see Semitic RELIGION, 
§§ 7, 8, 30). Among the later Hebrews the thunder- 
cloud became the cherub or chariot on which J” rode 
(see CHERUB); the lightnings, the seraphim, or ‘fiery 
serpents,’ that attended Him (see SERAPHIM) or the 
arrows that He shot out of His bow; and the thunder 
was His ‘voice’ (Job 37 4; Ps 18 13 [14]; Ps 29, 104 7; 
Am 1 2; Is 30 230£.; Ac 1013). Hence gl, ‘voice,’ is 
frequently used as a synonym of ‘thunder’ (Ex 
9 23-34, 19 16, 2013; IS 7 10, 12 17 £.; Job 28 26, 38 25), 
and in such cases is regularly translated ‘thunder.’ 
As the ‘voice of Yahweh’ the thunder served to dis- 
comfit His enemies (I S 7 10; Ps 77 18, 817; Sir 46 17), 
or as a sign to His people (Ex 19 16, 2018; IS 1217 f£.; 
Jn 12 28 f.). APRS EL es 


THYATIRA, fthai’’a-tai’ra (Qudterea): A city of 
Lydia, NW. of Sardis, on the river Lycus, a tribu- 
tary of the Hyllus, the modern Akhissar. Teira pro- 
bably means ‘the town,’ Thyateira, ‘the townof Thya.’ 
Its original name was Pelopia (and Semiramis). 
In the 3d cent. B.c. a Macedonian colony was 
settled at Pelopia by the Seleucid kings, and named 
Thyatira. This soon became an important place 
because of its numerous industries. It was most 
famous for its dyed garments (see Laopicra), called 
‘purple’ (Turkey red, cardinal red), of which goods 
the Lydia mentioned in Ac 16 14 was a seller. Many 
other industries flourished at Thyatira, each gild 
being governed by a president, called éxtotatys (the 
gild of bronze-smiths is doubtless referred to in 
Rev 2 18, ‘and his feet are like bright bronze’). A 
strong Jewish colony existed at Thyatira, and here, 
as elsewhere (Ac 13 6, 1913), they were given over to 
superstitious and magical rites, a mixture of Judaism 


Thyine Wood 
Time 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


906 





and paganism, stigmatized by the Apostle as ‘for- 
nication’ (Rev 2 20 f.), ‘adultery’ (ver. 22), ‘the deep 
things of Satan’ (ver. 24). But the presence of this 
Jewish colony made possible the establishment of a 
Christian community at an early period. 

J. R.S. S.*—S. A. 


THYINE, fhai’in, WOOD. See Pavzsring, § 21. 


TIBERIAS, tai-bi’ri-as (T:fepréc): A city on the 
W. shore of the Sea of Galilee, founded by Herod 
Antipas about 20 a.p., and named in honor of the 
reigning emperor (see TiseRIus). It became the 
capital of Galilee and gave its name to the lake (cf. 
Jn 61, 211); but was avoided by the better class of 
Jews on account of its foreign and disreputable 
population, and also because the new city had been 
built over the ancient cemetery of Hammath (q.v.). 
It is mentioned in the N T only once (Jn 6 23). 
After the fall of Jerusalem, however, T. became the 
chief center of Jewish learning, and in the 2nd cent. 
the Sanhedrin was established there. Here were 
published the Mishna, the Palestinian Talmud, and 
the ‘Western’ pointing of the Hebrew Scriptures, 
which is now universally employed. 

The modern Tabariya is a town of about 7,000 
inhabitants, a large proportion being Jews. It was 
formerly noted as the most filthy and unhealthful 
place in all Palestine, but in recent years has been 
considerably improved. 

LirgeraturE: Thomson, The Land and the Book, II, 340-347; 
' G, A. Smith, HGHL, 447-451; Baedeker, Pal. and Syria’, 
' 252-254, L. G. L.—E. C. L. 

TIBERIAS, tai-bi’ri-as, SEA OF. See GALiLEs, 
SEA OF. 

TIBERIUS, tai-bi’ri-us (Tr@éptos): The ‘Cesar’ 
of the Gospels (exc. Lk 21, which refers to Augustus), 
tho mentioned by name only in Lk 31. T. was 
entrusted by his step-father Augustus with the 
military government of the provinces in 12 a.p. and 
at his death in 14 a.p. succeeded him as emperor of 
Rome. He possessed much military skill and ad- 
ministrative ability, so that his reign of twenty-three 
years was beneficial to the empire as a whole; but 
within the circle of his personal acquaintance he was 
according to Tacitus, whose statements may need 
to be discounted to some extent, a suspicious, ruth- 
less, and unprincipled tyrant, the last decade of 
whose life was spent in unspeakable debauchery 
upon the Island of Capri. The city of Tiberias 
(q.v.) was named in his honor. For a discussion of 
the date indicated in Lk 31, see Plummer, ICC, ad 
loc.; also NEw TESTAMENT CHRONOLOGY. 

L. G. L.—E. E. N. 


TIBHATH, tib’hoth. See Trsaun. 


TIBNI, tib’nai (225, tibhni): Son of Ginath (I | 


K 16 21 £.) and rival of Omri in the contest for the 
throne of N. Israel. The struggle was probably 
longer and more severe than the brief notice in I K 
indicates (cf. the LXX. text). Tibni’s death, ap- 
parently a natural one, closed the conflict. 
| E. E. N. 

TIDAL, tai’dal (9974, tidh‘al), king of Goyim, 
‘nations,’ who invaded Canaan with Amraphel, 
Chedorlaomer and Arioch (Gn 14 1, 9). The name 
is unknown in the time of Hammurabi, with whom 


Amraphel has commonly been identified; but is 
identical with that of T'u-ud-ha-li-a, king of the 
Hittites in the time of Ramses II, ca. 1250 s.c. 
This has suggested to recent critics that the events 
of Gn 14 are to be assigned to the 13th cent. B.c. 
rather than to the 22d cent., as has commonly been 
supposed. iL. BAR 
TIGLATH-PILESER,  tig’lath-pr-li’zur (N20 
WD N23, tighlath pil’ eser = Assyr. tukulti-apal Esharra, 
erroneously written Tilgath-pilneser [I Ch 5 6, 26; 
II Ch 28 20]), ‘my strength is the son of Esharra,’ 7.e., 
the god Ninib, perhaps more correctly ‘Ninurta’:The 
name of several kings of Assyria. Tiglath-pileser III 
ruled Assyria 745-727 B.c., and is to be identified 
with the Pul of II K 15 19 (his name on the Baby- 
lonian Chronicle). He usurped the throne in 745 as 
Pulu, and doubtless assumed the name of the great 
Tiglath-pileser (I) 1115-1103 B.c. His first active 
operation in the ‘Westland’ began in 743 B.c. The 


cities of Arpad, Tyre, and Damascus at first paid’ 


him tribute, but later revolted. Arpad was besieged, 
but held out until 740 (Is 10 9, 36 19, 3713). In 739 
T. clashed with Azriyau of Jaudi, apparently Azar- 
iah of Judah. He plundered Kullania, probably the 
Calno of Isaiah (109; cf. Am 62). In 788 tribute was 
received, among others, from Menahem of Samaria 
(II K 15 19 ft.), Rezin of Damascus, Hiram of Tyre, 
and Panammu of Samal. Conditions on this coast- 
land brought him back in 7384, when he came to the 
help of Ahaz of Judah against Pekah of Israel and 
Rezin of Damascus. Rezin was defeated and took 
refuge in his capital, where he was besieged. T. 
raided the districts of Syria and N. Israel, E. and W. 
of the Jordan (I Ch 5 26), deporting large numbers of 
captives. T. replaced the deported population by 
importations of thousands of persons from other 
districts of his realm. Philistia, particularly Gaza, 
Ashdod, and Ekron, were conquered and plundered. 
Moab, Ammon, Edom, and the Arabians paid him 
tribute. Damascus fell before his besiegers in 732 
B.c., and among his subjects assembled in court at 
that place we find Ahaz of Judah (II K 16 10 f.). 
The collapse of the Syro-Israelitic combination was 
followed by the deposing of Pekah of Israel by the 
people (!) and the enthronement of Hoshea by T. In 
727 T. died, having been the founder of a new 
dynasty of Assyria, and the establisher of a new 
policy of provincial rulership and forced importa- 
tions that gave the background of the later mottled 
population of Syria. TMisP: 
TIGRIS, tai’gris (PRN, hiddegel =Assyr. i-di-ik- 
lat, Sumerian J[-di-ig-na, Old Persian tigraé, Gr. 
Tlyets): The twin stream of Babylonia with the 
Euphrates. It is designated the Hiddekel in a 
description of the streams of Paradise (Gn 214), and 
also once in Daniel (10 4). This stream rises a little 
S. of Harput, in proximity to one of the sources of 
the Euphrates, flows southward to Diarbekr, nearly 
150 m. distant, whence, after forming a junction 
with the eastern Tigris, a shorter stream, it flows 
through precipitous ravines and gorges, until it 
breaks out into the plains of Mesopotamia, N. of the 
site of old Nineveh. Thence, entarged by its 
affluents, the Greater and Lesser Zab, and the 
Diyalah on the E. and a few small streams from the 





907 A NEW STANDARD 


W., it rushes on swiftly to the Persian Gulf. An- 
ciently, it emptied into the Gulf through its own 
mouth, but to-day it combines with the Euphrates 
and forms one great onflowing stream. On the 
upper E. bank of the Tigris, opposite the city of 
Mosul, stood old Nineveh. S. of this was Calah- 
Nimrud and, a little below on the W. bank, the 
ancient capital of Assyria, Ashur, so completely 
excavated by the Germans before the World War. 
The entire length of the river is about 1,150 m. 
Only the lower portions of the river are safe and 
that only for small, strong crafts. TeMe FP: 

TIKVAH, tik’va (7)P0, tiqwah), ‘hope’: 1. The 
father-in-law of Huldah, the prophetess (II K 22 14, 
called also Tokhath, Tikvath AV, in II Ch 34 22). 
2.. The father of Jahzeiah (Ezr 10 15). 


TILE, TILING: In Ezk 4 1 the word rendered 
‘tile’ is lebhénah, ‘brick,’ t.e., a large soft clay brick 
(perhaps more like a tablet) on which Ezekiel could 
easily draw a plan of the city. Unbaked bricks were 
often used for such purposes and then, if perma- 
nency was desired, baked or burned in a kiln so as 
to render them almost imperishable. In Lk 5 19 the 
reference ‘is to the clay roofing-tiles with which the 
roof was supposed by Luke to have been covered. 
The || in Mk (2 4) gives a slightly divergent but not 
contradictory account, since the term é&oetEavtes 
(‘broken it up’ RV) may refer to the whole process 
of removing the roofing E. E. N. 


TILGATH-PILNESER, til’gath-pil-ni’zor. See 
TIGLATH-PILESER. 


TILON, tai’len (112°, talon) : The son of Shimon, a 
Judahite (I Ch 4 20). 


TIMAUS, tai-mi’os (Tiwatos): The father of 
Bartimzus (Mk 10 46). This word (perhaps a gloss) 
was evidently added in order to explain the name 
‘Bartimeus’ (q.v.) in the same verse. Both names 
are omitted in Mt 20 29; Lk 18 35. J. M. T. 


TIMBREL. See Music anp Mousicau Instrv- 
MENTS, § 3 (1). 

TIME: Modes of measuring time in the Bible in- 
clude: (1) a general and rather indefinite way of 
marking it, (2) the Hebrew (O T), and (8) the 
Roman (N T) time designations. 

1. The Day. So far as Bible references are con- 
cerned, the Roman system of time division differs 
from the Hebrew only in its application to the day. 
The only writing, however, in which the Roman 
custom rules is the Fourth Gospel (Jn 119) where the 
day is reckoned from midnight to midnight. Every- 
where else the usage is that of the Jews, 7.e., the 
computation of the hours from morning to evening 
and from evening to morning (Mt 27 45; Mk 15 34; 
Lk 23 44; cf. Jn 19 14). In the O T no mention of 
hours is made (except in the Aramaic of Dn 3 6, 15, 
419 AV, 33,55). The night was more usually divided 
into watches. In early times the Hebrews reckoned 
three watches (cf. Jg 7 19; Ex 14 24; 1S 1111; La 219). 
In later times the Romans reckoned four (Mk 13 35), 
z.e.: (1) evening, (2) midnight, (3) cock-crowing, 
(4) morning. Cock-crowing as the third watch was 
between 12 and 3 a.m. The day as a twenty-four 
hour period began with sunset. The phrase ‘be- 
tween the two evenings’ (Ex 16 12, 29 39 AV, RVmg.) 


BIBLE DICTIONARY BS ee hi 
is probably the interval between sunset and the end 
of the twilight, or the complete setting in of the 
darkness. This is also called ‘the cool [Heb. ‘wind’] 
of the day’ (Gn 3 8), and is evidently distinguished 
from the ‘heat of the day’ (Gn 18 1, etc.), which is 
midday (or noon). 


2. The Week. Whether the original basis for 
the weekly division of time was the lunar 
month or not, in historical time the phases of the 
moon do not appear to have had any connec- 
tion with the seven-day period (cf. Sanpatu). There 
was no attempt to make the month commence and 
end with the beginning of the week. In the N T, 
the week itself is called a Sabbath (ck Gata, Mt 281; 
Jn 201). The day before the seventh is the ‘prepara- 
tion’ (xxeacxevn, Mt 27 62; Lk 23 54; Jn 19 31, 42; 
meockBBatov, Mk 15 42). The other days of the 
week are simply distinguished by ordinary numerals 
(‘first day,’ etc.). 


3. The Month. In the earliest times, the division 
of the year into months was based upon the revolu- 
tion of the sun. This is evinced by the four names 
which have survived of months of this period, 
namely, Abib, month of earing-corn (Ex 13 4); Zif 
(Ziv), month of flowers (I K 6 37); Ethanim, month 
of perennial streams (I K 8 2), and Bul, the rainy 
month (I K 6 38). Of these, the last two occur also in 
Phenician and Cypriot inscriptions. All are 
evidently survivals of early Canaanitic usage. In 
the postexilic period, the Assyro-Babylonian calen- 
dar seems to have been introduced with its ordinal 
numbers for the months of the year. In addition to 
these, proper names were given to the months, mak- 
ing up the following list: 

(1) Nisan, March-April (Neh 2 1; Est 37), the 
same as Abib. 

(2) Iyyar, April-May (not mentioned in the Bible, 
but cf. Jos Ant. VIII, 31), the same as Zif. 

(3) Sivan, May-June (Est 8 9). 

(4) Tammuz, June-July (in Ezk 8 14, but not as 
the name of the month). 

(5) Ab, July-August (not named in the Bible, but 
ef. Jos. Ant. IV, 4 7). 

(6) Elul, August-September (Neh 6 15). 

(7) Tishri, September-October (not named in the 
Bible, but cf. Jos. Ant. 41), the same as Ethanim. 

(8) Marchesvan, October-November (not named 
in the Bible), the same as Bul. 

(9) Chislev, Chislen AV, November-December 
(Zec 71; Neh 11). 

(10) Tebeth, December-January (Est 2 16). 

(11) Shebat, Sebat AV, Jan.-Feb. (Zee 17). 

(12) Adar, February-March (Est 3 7; Ezr 6 15). 
To maintain the relation of the lunar months to the 
solar year, it was necessary periodically to inter- 
calate a thirteenth month, which was called Second 
Adar (‘after Adar’). 


4. The Year. The Hebrew year was solar; but 
according to P (Gn 7 11, 8 14), in the earliest ages it 
must have been lunar; for the duration of the Flood, 
given by tradition as 365 days, is made by this docu- 
ment to include one year and eleven days. The 
beginning of the year of the old Hebrew calendar 
before the Exile was reckoned with the autumn, a 
natural and convenient season, since the whole 


Time 
Timothy, Epistles to 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


908 


SA Sel AD + 


product of the fields and vineyards was gathered in; 
but after the Exile, the spring equinox was substi- 
tuted, following the Babylonian custom, along with 
the adoption of the names of the months as above 
given. The practise of the earlier period, however, 
did not completely die out, but was continued in the 
observance of the religious festivals (Ezk 40 1; Lv 
25 9; Nu 291). Thus arose the observance of two 
days marking the change of year—one in the spring, 
as the civil new-year’s day (1st of Nisan), and one in 
the autumn, as the ecclesiastical new-year’s day 
(10th of Tishri, later 1st of Tishri). The subdivision 
of the year into seasons did not go beyond the recog- 
nition of summer (qayits) and late autumn or 
winter (hdreph, lit. ‘harvest-time,’ Ps 7417; Zec 14 
s). Barley-harvest is mentioned as a definite time 
in the year (Ru 1 22; II S 21 9), but varies for the 
different parts of the land. The same vagueness 
attaches to the terms earing, seed-time, sowing- 
time, and harvest (Ex 34 21; Gn 8 22; Ly 26 5), 
tho they seem to be alluded to as clearly marked 
seasons. 

5. Larger Divisions of Time. Of larger periods, 
the Hebrews observed the Sabbatical period of seven 
years (Dt 15 1 ff.) and the Jubilee, or fifty-year 
period, of seven Sabbatical periods (Lv 25 10 f.); 
but it does not appear that they made extensive use 
of these or of generations (as in Mt 117). Of eras, 
as fixed points of time, generally and uniformly used, 
there is no mention. Great and well-known events, 
however, like the Exodus (I K 61), the Babylonian 
Exile (Ezk 33 21, 401), the building of the Temple 
I K 910), the earthquake (Am 11), were often used as 
fixed points for indicating the relative time of other 
events. For later Judaism (the Maccabean age), 
the year 312 B.c., the beginning of the Seleucid era, 
became a starting-point and continued to be used 
until very late. An effort to begin a national Jewish 
era with the year of the accession of Simon the high 
priest (I Mac 14 27, 13 40) succeeded only for a short 


time. See also CHRONOLOGY. 
LITERATURE: See Benzinger, Hebr. Archdologie (1894), pp. 
198-204; Schiirer, HJP, I, ii, pp. 363-377. (AGT 


TIMNAH, tim’na, TIMNITE, tim’nait (7994, tim- 
nah, Timnath AV), ‘portion’?: 1. A place in the hill- 
country of Judah (Gn 38 12, 13, 14), where Judah 
pastured his sheep. It is mentioned (Jos 15 57) with 
cities lying S. of Hebron. 2. A town on the N. 
border of Judah, W. of Beth-shemesh (Jos 15 10), 
called a city of Dan (Jos 19 43, Thimnathah AY). 
It was the home of Samson’s wife and inhabited by 
Philistines (Jg 14 1, 2, 5, 15 6, Timnite), and, under 
Ahaz, retaken by them (II Ch 28 18). It is the mod- 
ern Tibneh, W. of ‘Ain Shems (Beth-shemesh). Map 
TED is C; Sais 


TIMNATH, tim’noth. See Trmnaug, 1, 2. 


TIMNATH-HERES, tim’’noth-hi’riz. 
NATH-SERAH. 

TIMNATH-SERAH, -si’ra (119 NON, timnath 
serah; in Jg 29 written Timnath-heres): The inheri- 
tance of Joshua, in the border of which he was buried 
(Jos 19 50, 24 30). The original name, was probably 
timnath heres ‘portion (7.e., ‘territory’) of the sun’ 
(heres) which was later altered to T.-serah to avoid 
the suggestion of sun-worship. Jewish and Samari- 


See Tim- 


tan traditions locate Timnath-serah 9 m. SW. of She- 
chem at Kefr Hdris, where there are three sacred 
places which seem to represent the tombs of Joshua, 
Caleb, and Nun. Ancient Christian tradition, how- 
ever (followed by most modern scholars), identifies 
T. with Tibneh, a tell with many ruins, 10 m. NW. 
of Bethel. Map III, E 4. In the hill (? Gaash) to 
the 8. of 7%bneh are remarkable rock-tombs, the 
largest of which Guérin (Samarie, ii, 84-104) believes 
to be the burial-place of Joshua. See SW P, II, 284, 
374-378, with plans. Cf. Burney, Judges, ad loc., 
and Cooke in Camb. Bible on Jos 1950. L. G. L. 

TIMON, tai’men (Tipwv): One of the ‘Seven’ 
chosen to care for ‘the daily ministration’ in the 
early Church (Ac 65). Nothing further is known of 
him. 

TIMOTHY, tim’o-thi (Tié8eo¢), ‘honorer of 
God’ (cf. g:AéBeot, ‘lovers of God,’ II Ti 3 4), Paul’s 
beloved disciple or ‘son’ (I Ti 1 2, 18; II Ti 1 2; ef. 
I Co 417) and devoted fellow worker. The son of a 
Greek father and a Jewish mother (Eunicé), 
Timothy—whose name well suits such a case—was 
born apparently in Lystra, where he was probably 
converted on the Apostle’s first missionary journey 
(Ac 14.6 £, 193 cf. 1 Ti 6 12: Actl64; chilies 
On the second journey, Paul took him by Divine 
direction, through ‘the prophecies which pointed 
him out’ (I Ti 118; cf. Ac 132 £.), to be his companion 
in the work of the Gospel; and, in order to avoid 
unnecessary antagonism on the part of the Jews, 
had him circumcised (Ac 16 1-3), in virtue of his 
Jewish race and training on the mother’s side (II 
Ti 15,315). He was left in Bercea with Silas when 
Paul went to Athens; but, joining the Apostle there, 


- he was sent back to encourage the church of Thes- 


salonica (I Th 31-6). Later, he rejoined Paul in Cor- 
inth (IICo119; Ac185; [Th31-8;cf.ITh11; I] Th11). 
We next find him at Ephesus (Ac 19 22), whence 
he is sent on a mission into northern Greece (Philippi, 
Thessalonica, etc.), along with Erastus of Corinth, 
which city he was expected finally to reach (I Co 
417, 1610 £.). Thence he was to return to Ephesus 
‘with the brethren’ who had meanwhile started by 
the shorter sea-route to Corinth, carrying with them 
Paul’s letter, I Co. Titus was probably one of 
these (II Co 8 6 compared with I Co 161 #.), and 
the two played parts in the troubles of the 
Corinthian Church, tho Timothy not with the same 
distinction as Titus (see Tirus). He was associated 
with the Apostle in writing II Co, and was with 
him again in Corinth (Ro 16 21) and in Troas (Ac 
20 4 £.: see TimotTHy, Episries To, § 3 f.). 

So much we can say with certainty. But if the 
Epistles to Timothy (q.v.) be authentic, they may 
give us further glimpses of his movements. For, 
besides what I Til f. may imply, I Ti i 3 ff. sug- 
gests that Paul urged him (on his return from 
Greece) to tarry at Ephesus when he himself ‘was 
going into Macedonia’ (Ac 20 1), in order to ‘charge 
certain persons not to teach’ differently from Paul’s 
Gospel. If so, Timothy later rejoined his chief in 
Macedonia, as he appears associated with Paul in 
II Co 1 1, in the summer of the same y2ar (56) in the 
spring of which Paul’s own journey via Troas began. 
Further, we may see in II Ti 4 20, 21a (attached by 





909 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Time 
Timothy, Epistles to 


<_< SSNS ASS SES i SS eT Sa a RF 


affinity to the personalia at the end of a more im- 
portant letter) a fragment from a note, written whilst 
sailing southwards for Jerusalem from Miletus 
(it would not be on his route when sailing from 
Ephesus northward to Macedonia), to Timothy 
when left behind at Ephesus to help its elders to 
meet the situation forecast in the speech to them 
in Ac 20 17-35 (see Expositor, VIII, v, 332 ff., 338 f.; 
this seems to meet the requirements more simply 
than the elaborate theory of ‘Pauline Readjustments’ 
in IX, i, 446 ff. by T.W. Ll. Davies). T.last appears 
in connection with Paul’s Roman captivity. He 
was with Paul when Col, Phm, and Ph were written. 
In Ph 2 19-24, Paul hopes ‘to send him shortly’ to 
visit their first church in Europe, and to report how 
it fared. Next he is back in Ephesus,whence he is 
urgently summoned to Paul’s side when the end 
seemed imminent (II Ti 4 9). 

Finally, the author of He, apparently a friend 
(Apollos?), gives us our last glimpse of him, as he 
informs his readers that Timothy has just been set 
at liberty (He 13 23),—surely after being involved 
in Paul’s case, perhaps by Alexander the Copper- 
smith (II Ti 4 14 ff.). R. A. F.—J. V. B. 


TIMOTHY, EPISTLES TO: the N T writings 
which, together, with the Epistle to Titus, are 
usually called the Pastoral Epistles. Unlike Paul’s 
other Epistles, except Philemon, they are addressed 
to private persons, and unlike Philemon they are 
concerned with the life of churches. These unique 
conditions must be borne in mind in all com- 
parisons between them and the other Epistles 
bearing Paul’s name. 


1. Analysis. Contents of the first Epistle. 

Greeting (1 1, 2). 

Occasion of writing. The continued need of checking cer- 
tain Judaizing teachers of the Law, as contrasted with 
Paul’s Gospel (1 3-1), 

The Gospel which saved Paul, the greatest of sinners, the 
sure and only source of power (1 12-17). 

The charge now solemnly committed to Timothy on the 
basis of his own past (1 18-20), 

Regulations for Church Life, chs. 2 and 3. 

(a) Public prayer to be made for all men to God, the 
Saviour of all (2 1-7). 

(b) The conduct of men and women in public worship 
(2 8-15), 

(c) The character and personal qualifications required 
of those who hold office in the Church which sup- 
ports among men the Truth of the Incarnate 
Saviour (3 1-18), 

Special vigilance against moral error ‘in latter times’ 
(4 1-5), Hence particular advice to Timothy (chs. 4, 
5, 6). 

(a) His own life and ministry (4 5-16), 

(b) His handling of others; special application to old, 
young, widows, elders, and slaves (5 1-6 2). 

(c) The false type of teacher, his aims, especially his 
love of money (6 3-12), 

(d) Appeal to T, as a true man of God, to fight the 
good fight, in the footsteps of Jesus Christ, in 
view of His Appearing (6 11-16), 

(e) Truth for the rich in particular (6 17-19), 

(f) Final fappeal for fidelity to the fore-going in 
spite of certain specious claims to higher insight 
(gnosis, 6 29 f-), 

Contents of the second Epistle. 

Greeting (1 1-2). 

A personal appeal for loyalty to the Gospel at a grave 
crisis (1 3-18), 

Thanksgiving for T.’s' past, and exhortation that he 
may be zealous and willing, like Paul, to suffer for 
the Gospel of Divine power (1 3-14), 


Deserters and loyal friends (1 15-18), 
Detailed appeal for courage in the task of transmitting to 
others the gospel of the risen Christ, even at the cost 
Ky ey and the temper needful for that task, 
The need for courage, and its basis (2 1-13), 
Peruse the true workman for God in the Church 
The last days to be testing ones but Timothy has been 
prepared for all by his past, ch. 3. 
The features of the days of trial (3 1-9), 
Ue ae Divine resources for meeting them (3 10- 
Final Summing up of the Charge to Timothy to fulfill his 
ministry, as coming through one who has already 
finished his course and sees the crown in view—for 
himself and others (4 1-8), 
Timothy is called to Paul’s side for the final act now in 
sight (4 9-2). 
Paul isolated among foes, but in peace; personalia, 
2. Purpose. As regards the occasion of the First 
letter, it is evidently directed against a practically 
injurious type of teaching which had invaded the 
churches in Ephesus and its neighborhood, over 
which Timothy held temporary charge. While 
concerned primarily with his responsibilities, it 
was doubtless also meant to uphold his authority 
among the churches. The burden of its thought is 
that the pure Apostolic Gospel, manifested in the 
healthy moral life of a well-organized Christian 
church, is the truth for the times. Timothy was, 
therefore, enjoined to see that men of the highest 
character were appointed as elders and deacons to 
serve the household of God, and so help it to per- 
form its function of witness to His truth. Disputa- 
tion not tending to this end was to be avoided, 
teachers of morally ‘unprofitable’ doctrines were to 
be silenced, and error was to be devitalized by the 
purification of the moral atmosphere of the Church. 
The emphasis throughout is on the practical or 
morally ‘wholsome’ aspects of the Gospel (1 10, 6 3). 
The Second letter is more personal than the first. 
The Apostle feels now that his race has been run; 
Nero’s sentence was almost certain. And so, in 
case his son in the faith should arrive too late, he 
wrote solemnly exhorting him to be faithful in the 
work of the Gospel. 


A strong personality never can, without some 
anxiety, entrust to others the work into which he 
has poured his own life. In this case, however, 
there was a special need for such a ‘final will and 
testimony.’ For he was aware that Timothy was 
faced, not only by plausible false teachers, but by 
the likelihood of being called in various ways and 
degrees to suffer for the Gospel; and, knowing his 
disposition, as one rather easily impressed and over- 
awed, Paul feared lest his courage and faith should 
waver. 

3. The Historical Situation. It is generally thought 
impossible to fit these Epistles, in their present form, 
into the life of Paul as recorded in Ac. Not only is 
II Ti 4 20 inconsistent with Paul’s position in Rome, 
far from Miletus, but the church conditions are 
thought by many to involve an interval between 
the Pastorals and the Captivity Epistles. It is also 
assumed that I Ti 3 14 £., which expresses Paul’s 
hope of joining Timothy shortly, means that the 
writer is at liberty; yet its style links it closely in 
time with IT Ti which is clearly written from prison. 


Timothy, Epistles to 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


910 





If, then, they came from the Apostle’s hand as they 
are, a place must be found, so it is argued, after the 
close of Ac; that is, a second imprisonment is in- 
dispensable to their authenticity. But it can not 
be allowed, save on the understanding that it, too, 
was already closed by Paul’s death before summer 
64 a.p. (so Lock, ICC, The Pastoral Epistles, 1924, 
p. xxii). This, as the latest possible date, is fixed 
alike by I P (which, if authentic, must itself be 
earlier than the Neronian persecution and probably 
implies that Paul is already dead) and by I Clem. 6. 
This speaks of the Neronian martyrs as ‘gathered 
together to Paul and Peter, in the place of reward— 
whither, of course, they must have already gone. 
That would give a very brief interval between spring 
62 and 63 (the probable period in which, too, I P 
fell) within which all the movements implied on 
this view (see Gwatkin) in I Ti and Tit would have 
to be compressed—let alone any assumed journey 
to Spain. Over against this must be set the prob- 
ability that the sudden end of Paul’s story with the 
‘two whole years’ Ac 28 30 f., simply meant that 
there was nothing more to the point to tell (see 
Acts) and that Paul was martryed shortly after, 
about summer 62. It is indeed argued by some (e.g., 
K. Lake,and Ramsay, Hxpos., VIII, v, 264 ff.) that 
the case against Paul lapsed by default, the Jews 
failing to press it to an issue in Rome. But this, as 
also Ramsay’s view that it fits in with Paul’s vary- 
ing degrees of hope in the different Captivity letters, 
is (see Hxpos., ibid, 464 ff.) very dubious. On this 
showing the historicity of the Pastoral Epistles de- 
pends on places being found for them prior to the 
middle of 62, a task usually held hopeless. Hence 
many scholars reject their authenticity, save for 
fragments of smaller letters utilized in the composi- 
tion of three guast Pauline treatises on Church order, 
over against certain post-Pauline errors of a Gnostic 
kind (see P. N., Harrison, The Problem of the 
Pastoral Epistles, 1921). But plausible as this posi- 
tion seems, it crumbles under anything like vigorous 
examination. (See further Bartlet, ‘The Historic 
Setting of the Pastoral Epistles,’ in Hxpos., VIII, v, 
28 ff., 161 ff., 256 ff.). 

There are really only two serious objections to the 
authenticity of the Pauline Epistles: viz., their style 
and language as compared with the admitted epistles 
of Paul, and the problem of finding suitable historical 
settings within Paul’s life. Hort regarded the former 
as the chief, but thought it inconclusive, particularly 
‘when we notice similar differences between the 
Epistles of the Captivity and those of earlier date. 
Much of them may be reasonably taken to be due to 
changed circumstances, and especially to the fact 
that the recipients were trusted individual disciples 
and deputies, not miscellaneous churches (Judaistic 
Christianity, p. 131). Sir W. M. Ramsay fully con- 
curs in this view, and has supported it in detail 
(Expos., VII, viii; see also VIII, v, 161 ff. for a paper 
by the present writer). Recently it has been strongly 
controverted by Dr. P. N. Harrison (ué sup.); but 
his statistics are too formal and abstract, too un- 
analysed as to their relation to the factor of changed 
subject-matters and personal conditions—the his- 
torical and psychological element—to carry con- 


viction (cf. F. Torm in ZNTW, xviii, 215 ff.). Such 
statistics used to be urged against the ‘Captivity 
group,’ which is now generally accepted as Paul’s. 
In other words, the negative linguistic argument has 
not thus far been made contextual and _ historical 
enough to be really scientific, 7.e., concretely exact. 
On the other hand the age of Trajan (98-117), the 
period assigned for the origin of the Pastorals as 
imitations of Paul by an admiring disciple, in order 
to apply the spirit of his principles in to later con- 
ditions of the Church in the province of Asia, simply 
will not suit them. The false teaching in view, what- 
ever its exact nature (see Hort, op. cit., pp. 182 ff., 
for its primitive and mainly Judaistic type; cf. 
CoLossIAns), was not that of the age of Trajan; in 
particular, it shows no trace of Docetism (cf. JoHN, 
EpistLEs oF), which was then dominant in Asia 
(witness the letters of Ignatius and Polycarp; see 
Hort, op. cit, ch. X). There is again no reference to 


the Eucharistic function of the ministry, another 


living question in that age: nor is official persecu- 
tion on the horizon as in Trajan’s day. 


The fact is that, when the analogy of Colossians 
and Ephesians—once rejected on the score of style 
and thought—and the special conditions alluded to 
by Hort have been duly pondered, there is nothing 
to preclude the Pastorals forming members of the 
‘Captivity group’ and dating from 60-62. Such a 
‘historical setting’ has been argued for at length in 
Expos., VIII, v, 325 ff., and need only be briefly 
indicated here. (See also Trmotuy; Tirus). Titus, 
having been hurriedly ‘left behind in Crete’ by Paul 
on his voyage to Rome, was in need of further 
guidance and support as soon as it was possible for 


‘ Paul to write, viz., from Rome not long after his 


arrival there, say spring or early summer of 60. Its 
bearers, ‘Zenas the lawyer and Apollos,’ probably on 
their way to Asia to get witnesses for Paul, carried 
also a letter to Timothy, urging him to ‘stay on’ 
(xoooyetvat) at Ephesus (I Ti 1 3; see Trmorny for 
reference to a similar past situation), rather than 
leave his post for Paul’s side, as the latter had 
learned (perhaps from Epaphras of Colossae, Col 17; 
Phm 23) that he was inclined to do. Seemingly the 
letter crossed Timothy on the way; for he is with 
Paul when he writes Col and Phm—soon enough 
after reaching Rome to be still hopeful of an early 
release as the result of his appeal case (Phm 22). 
Timothy is yet with him in Ph 11, 219 f., when Paul 
is already more doubtful of a favorable issue (2 17). 
Whether or not Timothy carried out the projected 
visit to Philippi (2 19) and then returned to Paul, he 
was again at his post in Ephesus before the date of 
II Ti, say, summer 62. This is at least a working 
hypothesis covering all the known facts, especially 
the personalia—from which, as being the most op- 
jective of data, it is best to start. On the basis of 
a single captivity in Rome, other theories have also 
been put forward (see Expos., VIII, v, 338 f.), the 
most recent being that of T. W. Ll. Davies (Expos., 
June, 1924, pp. 446 ff.), which involves very radical 
‘readjustments’ in order and dates for most of Paul’s 
Epistles. (Titus comes after I Co; I Ti between 
Gal and II Co; and II Ti between Romans and 
Ph). In contrast to this, the above theory (cf. that 





911 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Timothy, Epistles to 





of J. Macpherson in the AJT for 1900, pp. 23 ff., 
which has, however, no real solution of the ‘aberrent 
block’ II Ti 4 20; see TrmorHy) is simple, and merely 
enlarges the number of the Captivity group. 

On such a theory, the Pastorals are important for 
our conceptions of the Paulinism of Paul the Mis- 
sionary, and of the development of early church 
order, on the one hand, and of aberrent doctrinal 
tendencies, on the other. In particular it fits in well 
with our recent knowledge of the early reaction of 
‘Hellenistic’ thought and pre-Christian Gnosis on 
the Christian Gospel, (esp. Paul’s, e.g., II Ti 2 18; 
cf. Col 2 12, Eph 6 14: see below) outside Palestine. 

4. The False Teachers. Allowing for differences 
in locality, the errors described in each of the 
Pastoral Epistles seem much of the same kind. The 
false teachers are spreading errors that eat like a 
cancer into the healthy life of the Church (II Ti 


217, 35 £.), and are only a foretaste of worse evils to’ 


follow (I Ti 41; II Ti 31). They are of two kinds, 
as suggested by Ac 20 29 £. Some claim to be teachers 
of the Law (I Ti 17), but prate of Jewish fables and 
geneologies (I Ti 1 4; Tit 1 14, 3 9), and so stir up 
strife with notions fit only for credulous old women 
(I Ti 47, 6 4). Morbid in conscience, tho mercenary, 
‘puffed up’ and spurning authority (I Ti 1 5 f., 19, 
II Ti 216), they also preach an unnatural asceticism 
based on false ideas of the relation between the 
spiritual and the material (I Ti 4 1-5; Tit 1 10-16). 
Others, starting from such views, go on to anti- 
nomian positions (II Ti 2 16f.; ef. 31-8), after claiming 
that the Resurrection is already past (II Ti 2 18) 
thus perverting Paul’s own teaching as to rising into 
new life at baptism (q.v., and Hymenazvus). The 
root-error, in its ascetic scruples, reveals affinities 
with the Colossian heresy. It was evidently, for the 
most part, an outgrowth of Judaism as found in the 
Dispersion. Rabbinical speculation, combined first 
with ritual asceticism and then with practical im- 
morality, was the main source of such error. It 
grafted the legendary and puerile tales (‘fables’) of 
certain Jewish haggadoth upon the narratives of 
Scripture (see Jupitees, Book or, and FaBuss), 
and so diverted the hearers from the realities of the 
Gospel and a godly life. Thus the grasp of the con- 
science upon Evangelic principles having been under- 
mined, the plausible mysticism of a super-ethical 
‘resurrection’ life made an easier prey of some. Ina 


word, non-moral scrupulosity, as Judaic ritual asceti- | 
cism, passed over, in men of Hellenistic mental- | 


ity, into a dualistic antinomianism (cf. 1 Jn)—a 
phenomenon familiar in Hinduism and other cere- 
monial religions (cf. the conjunction of these two in 
the Ep. to the Hebrews). Hence Paul’s repeated 
emphasis on morally ‘healthy’ instruction, as the 
antidote to such ‘brain-sick’ (I Ti 6 3 f.) views. 
The elaborate systems of second century Gnosis 
are not yet in sight (see GNOSTICISM). 

5. Organization. Timothy and Titus as Paul’s 
representatives were commissioned with the tem- 
porary duty of directing the church at Ephesusand 
the young communities of Crete into self-govern- 
ment under men of character, and of building them 
up by wholesome instruction in the ethics of the 
Gospel. The Apostolic deputies did not create any 


new offices, but were to see that leaders of sound 
piety were chosen elders and deacons (see CHURCH 
Lirz, § 8). In the Pastoral Epistles, ‘ruling’ or 
official ‘elders’ and ‘bishops’ are to be identified (I 
Ti 3 1-7,5 17-19; Tit 1 5-7), the term ‘elder’ denoting the 
office, while the term ‘bishop’ indicates an elder’s 
function of local oversight. The second order, 
deacons, who performed services of relief, is men- 
tioned only in I Ti. If there were not deaconesses 
(I Ti 3 11), there was at least in Ephesus a ministry 
of women, including ‘widows’ (59 f.). 


6. Authenticity. The question of authenticity has 
already been dealt with, in the main in § 3. The chief 
objections urged against Paul’s authorship are the 
following. (1) The false teachers are thought to be 
Gnostics (cf. I T, 6 20) of the 2d cent. But, as we 
have seen, there were Judaic and other types within 
the Apostolic Age closely akin to the false doctrine 
of these Epistles. (2) The ecclesiastical tone is said to 
be post-Pauline. It is held that the freedom of the 
Spirit is yielding to an episcopal succession for the 
protection of the faith as a deposit of doctrine (I Ti 
6 20; II Ti 1 6, 13 f., 3.14 ff.); that the sacraments are 
being invested with magical efficacy (Tit 3 5); that 
there are liturgical and confessional developmerits 
(I Ti 3 16, 612 £.; II Ti 28); and that a higher standard 
of morality is being demanded of the clergy (I Ti 
31 f.; Tit 15 f.). But, such difficulties fade away 
under a truer exegesis. As we have already seen, 
there is no trace of the sole or monarchial bishop in 
these epistles. Stress is laid on the character of the 
official rather than on the office, and the organiza- 
tion is similar to that in Ph 11; Ac 20 28. It is true 
that the ‘charismatic’ ministry is passing away; but 
even in the earliest epistle of Paul there is evidence 
that he desired his churches to be organized under 
the pastoral leadership of members whose func- 
tions are not unlike those of the elder (I Th 5 11-15); 
The words ‘husband of one wife’ (I Ti 3 2) imply 
that the ‘overseer,’ as one in a fatherly relation to 
the Church, should have the experience of a pater- 
familias (8 4 £.), and promise that his shall be a mar- 
ried life that is above reproach (even if they mean 
also that he should not marry a second time, they do 
not involve much advance upon I Co 7 8). The 
advice in I Ti 5 14 also accords with I Co 7 39 f., 
but hardly with the more ascetic views of the 
Church in the 2d cent. (cf. I Ti 5 23, which—as 
breaking the sequence—some take as a gloss on ‘pure,’ 
ayvéy, added from a private note such as that whence 
II Ti 4 20 comes). There are not two standards of 
morality. Nor is the doctrine of the Church and the 
Sacraments more fully developed than in Eph 4 4-16, 
5 23-27. (3) Far more serious is the objection that 
the doctrine of these Epistles is post-Pauline. It is 
said that the old intensity has disappeared: that 
Paul’s distinctive doctrine of the mystical union with 
Christ, of righteousness by faith alone, of the re- 
moval of sin by the Cross, and of the Parousia, is 
being replaced by emphasis on works, ‘piety’ (I Ti 
5 4), and the necessity of ‘healthy doctrine’ (I Ti 
110); that ‘faith is changed to orthodoxy,’ and made 
one virtue among others. But this is an overstate- 
ment, and confuses the root of the new life with its 
fruit (ef. Tit 3 14), on which Paul always laid 


Timothy, Epistle to 
Titus, Epistle to 


¥ 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 912 





stress corresponding to the needs of his readers. 

Even by comparison with the Epistles of the Juda- 

istic controversy, which are often unjustly assumed 

to contain the whole of original Pauline thought, 
the Pastorals show much that is undubitably 

Pauline (cf. I Ti 1 12-16, 27, IL Ti 1 8-12; 2 8-13; Tit 

2 11-14, 3 1-7); while Eph and Ph afford parallels 

with many ‘un-Pauline’ ideas of the Pastorals (Eph 

29 £., 16-18; 5 25-27; Ph 212 f,48f.). (4) The lan- 

guage and style present the gravest difficulties. 

Some of Paul’s most distinctive words and particles 

are absent, and a number of new words or old words 

in a new sense occur; while the energy, sustained 
periods, and broken construction of the earlier 

Epistles have given way to a more regular style and 

stereotyped expressions. The answer to this has 

largely been given in § 3. In particular, it is natural 
that Paul’s style should vary in proportion to the 
change in the historical situation and the nature of 
the letters as ‘pastoral,’ and written to friends who 
were chief pastors. They may well echo much cur- 
rent technical Christian language and even some of 
the formulas used in its worship (e.g. I Ti 3 16, cf. 

Eph 514: also the ‘faithful sayings,’ I Ti 115, [save ‘of 

whom I am chief’], 31, 410; II Ti 211-13; Tit 3 4-7). 

The undoubted Pauline coloring of certain sections 

has led some scholars to believe that they are frag- 

ments of the Apostle’s letters, embedded in these 

Epistles (see McGiffert, Apost. Age, pp. 405-414, 

and P. N. Harrison’s reconstruction at the end of 

his book). But such sections shade off too natur- 
ally into their context to support such partition 
theories. Possibly Luke, who was with the Apostle 

(II Ti 4 11), and whose language and thought in Ac 

afford parallels, had some hand in their phrasing. 
The external evidence for I and II Timothy and 

Titus is by no means weak, echoes very probably 

being found in Ignatius and Polycarp, perhaps also 

in Clemont of Rome. Indeed, they are as well (or 
better) attested in the Apostolic Fathers as are I and 

II Th, Gal, or Ph (see the N T in the Apost. Fathers 

p. 138). 

Literature: Introduction. For authenticity—Weiss, A Man- 
ual of Introduction to the N T (1887); Zahn, Introduction to the 
N T (1908); Hort, Judaistic Christianity and The Christian 
Ecclesia (1897); Lock, in HBD and ICC. Against authenti- 
city, Holtzmann, Hinleitung in d. N T and N T Theologie 
(1897); Von Soden, Hand-Kommentar zum N T (1893); 
Jiilicher, Introduction to N T; Weiszicker, Apostolic Age; 
McGiffert, Apostolic Age (1897); Moffatt, in EB and Intro- 
duction to the Lit, of the N T; P. N. Harrison, The Problem of 
the Pastoral Epistles (1921), with a very full Bibliography. 
Exposition: Bengel, Gnomon N T; Weiss, in Meyer’s Kom- 
mentar (1894) and Von Soden as above (both very good); 
Bernard, in Camb. Greek Test. (1899); J. P. Lilley, Edin. 
(1900); Wohlenberg, in Zahn’s Komm. zum N T; Expos. Gk, 
Test.; R. St. J. Parry (1920), very good; W. Lock, ICC (1924). 

R. A. F.—J. V. B. 
TIN. See Merats, § 5. 
TINKLING ORNAMENTS. 

OrNAMENTS, § IT, 2. 
TIPHSAH, tif’sa (MOSM, tiphsah), ‘ford’: 1. A 

city on the W. bank of the Euphrates and on the 

extreme NE. boundary of Solomon’s kingdom (I K 

424[5 4]). Itis commonly identified with Thapsacus 

on the Euphrates, above the mouth of the Belik. It 

was the most important crossing-place of the Middle 

Euphrates, and was the head of navigation on the 


See Dress AND 


river, being on one of the great commercial routes 
from E. to W. 2. A town near Tirzah in the North- 
ern Kingdom, destroyed by Menahem, after he had 
killed Shallum (II K 1516). No place corresponding 
to this name has been found. Thenius suggests that 
it was a copyist’s mistake for Tappuah (q.v.) on the 
border between Ephraim and Manasseh. C. 8. T. 

TIRAS, tai’ras (OVD, tirds): A ‘son’ of Japhet 
(Gn 10 2’ See ErunocrapHy AND ErHnoLoey, 
§ 13. 

TIRATHITES, tai’rath-aits (@ ONY 7, tir‘athim): 
A family of ‘scribes’ (7. e., learned men) living at 
Jabez (somewhere in Judah). The notice (I Ch 
2 55) is obscure, but probably reflects postexilic 
conditions. E. E. N. 

TIRE. Ste Dress AnD ORNAMENTS, I, 8 and II, 2. 

TIRHAKAH, tor-hé’ka or tor’hé-ka (OPI [= 
Egyptn. Tahruk]. tirhdqah): An Ethiopian prince, 
son of Piankhi, who was one of the great monarchs 
of the Nubian kingdom, with its capital at Napata. 
Many sculptures, including one executed by Esar- 
haddon at Senjirli, represent him with unmistakable 
negroid features. While he was acting in the Delta 
as regent for Shabaka, the Ethiopian king, he led 
forth the Egyptian army to check the advance of 
Sennacherib in 701 B.c. (II K 199; Is 379. In these 
passages the title ‘king’ is an anachronism). The 
two armies met at Altaqu, and Tirhakah was de- 
feated. His regency probably continued under 
Shabataka, the successor of Shabaka, until 691 B.c., 
when he ascended the throne of Egypt as the third 
monarch of the 25th dynasty. Twice he met the 
Assyrian invaders under Esarhaddon; in the first 
engagement he was successful (673); in the second 
(670), he was completely routed and driven from 
Memphis, which he never recovered. After this de- 
feat, Esarhaddon had scarcely withdrawn when the 
petty kings of the Delta began to plot the restoration 
of Tirhakah. On the march to restore order the 
Assyrian monarch died, but Asshurbanipal, his son, 
led his forces as far south as Thebes, from which he 
expelled Tirhakah (668). The latter maintained 
himself in Upper Egypt until his death, in 663. He 
erected minor buildings at Tanis, Memphis, and 
Thebes. J AK 

TIRHANAH, tor-hé’na or tour’ha-na (7394, tir. 
hdnah): A Calebite family (I Ch 2 48). 

TIRIA, tir’1-a (814, tireya’): A son of Jehallelel, 
a Judahite (I Ch 4 16). 

TIRSHATHA, tor-shé’tha(80V751, hattirshatha’, 
always with the art.; a Persian loan-word—his 
honor,’ ‘his excellency’): The title occurs in its foreign 
form in Er 2 63; Neh 7 65, 70, 101 AV, but is ren- 
dered in these passages ‘the governor’ by AVmg. 
and RV. The conjecture that it was attached to a 
specific office is not sufficiently supported. It was 
probably an honorific given to a special royal agent, 
who had a task to perform and whose official life 
closed with the performance of that task. In Neh 
7 65 it is given to Sheshbazzar. A. C. Z. 

TIRZAH, tor’za ($70, tirtsGéh), ‘pleasure’: I. A 
town of Mt. Ephraim, captured by Joshua (Jos. 
12 24), and subsequently the capital of the kings of 





918 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Timothy, Epistle to 
Titus, Epistle to 





Israel from Jeroboam to Omri (I K 14 17, 15 21, 33, 
16 6, 8, 9, 15, 17, 23), and the basis of Menahem’s 
revolt (II K 15 14, 16). Robinson, Van de Velde, and 
G. A. Smith identify with Tallizé, a little N. of Mt. 
Ebal; Conder, with Teydsir, 11 m. N. of Shechem; 
and Buhl, with ef-Tireh. Wl. A ‘daughter’ of Ze- 
lophehad, one of the clans of Manasseh (Nu 26 33, 
27 1; Jos 17 3, all from P), perhaps the same as I. 
Be BYP: 
TISHBITE, tish’bait (2Y9, tishbi): Elijah is 
called ‘the Tishbite, who was of the sojourners of 
Gilead’ (I K 171). The place (Tishbi, probably) 
which gave rise to this name has been identified, 
with some probability, with the modern el-Istib 
also called Mar Elias), a little to the W. of 
Manhanaim. E. E. N. 
TITHE: The rendering of the Heb. ma‘dsér and 
the Gr. dexkcy, ‘the tenth.’ That there was a very 
ancient practise of offering a tenth of one’s gain to 
a sanctuary appears from Gn 1420 and He7s. With 
agricultural peoples, this practise naturally tended 
to settle down to the giving of the tenth of the annual 
produce. Jacob, however, makes the conditional 
offer of the tenth of the increase of his flocks (Gn 
28 22). In the Mosaic legislation, the law of tithes 
is given in successive forms. (1) Provision is made 
(Dt 14 22-29) for the paying of tithes to the sanc- 
tuary, there to be eaten by the offerer and the Levite. 
But for those who lived at a great distance from the 
sanctuary, the gift might be commuted into money 
to be spent in a sacrificial banquet. Every third 
year the tithe was to be distributed to Levites, 
strangers, and the fatherless. The difference be- 
tween tithes and first-fruits is not clearly marked, 
except that the first-fruits were offered to the priests 
(Dt 26 11). (2) Tithes are prescribed as a means of 
support for Levites Gn Nu 18 21 #. [P]), 7.e., ap- 
parently as remuneration for services, in lieu of a 
share in the land (‘for an inheritance’). But the 
Levites themselves are required to give of this tithe 
to the priests (Nu 18 26-28). Both these forms are 
pure land taxes, and do not include a tithe from the 
flock or herd. (3) Hence such a tithe is introduced 
in a third form (Ly 27 32-33 and II Ch 31 5,6). In 
later Judaism these forms were combined, yielding 
two tithes, or an aggregate of one-fifth (20 per cent.) 
of the product of soil and cattle (cf. II Ch 31 5; 
Neh 10 38; Mal 3 10. In time the tithe came to be 
viewed as one of the essential requirements, failure 
to observe which was disloyalty to J’” (cf. Mal 3 10; 
Lk 18 12). The Pharisees, with characteristic in- 
sistence on the literal observance of the Law, tithed 
even garden herbs (Mt 23 23). A. C. Z. 
TITLE ON THE CROSS. See Suprrscrirrion. 


TITTLE: This word (from the late Latin titulus, 
one of whose meanings was that of a pen-mark over 
a letter to distinguished it from another one similar 
in form) represents the Gr. xepata, ‘little horn,’ 
applied by the Greek grammarians sometimes to the 
accents and other marks. Among the Hebrew 
scribes, the term signified the small points or lines of 
certain letters which serve to distinguish them from 
others of nearly the same form, as 1 and 7, 3 and 9, 
Mand. Thus a ‘jot’ (i.e, yddh,’, the smallest 
letter of the Heb. alphabet) and a ‘tittle’ indicate 


together the smallest requirements of the Law, which 
Jesus indicated must stand as valid ‘till all be ful- 
filled (Mt 5 18; Lk 16 17); cf. Edersheim, LJM, I, 
p. 537 f. The place assigned to this saying is not the 
same in Mt and Lk, which leads to some suspicion 
as to its genuineness. Further the context in each 
case represents Jesus as actually controverting not 
mere ‘tittles’ but important statements or teachings 
of the Law (cf. Mt 5 31f., 33 ff., 38 ff. with ver. 18; and 
Lk 16 18 with ver. 17). If genuine, the original con- 
text, which would throw light on its meaning, seems 
to have been forgotten. K. E. N. 


TITUS, tai’tus (Tftos); One of Paul’s ablest 
assistants, of Greek parentage, but of otherwise 
unknown origin. A spiritual child of the Apostle 
(Tit 1 4), he was taken by Paul on his second and 
crucial visit to Jerusalem (Gal 2 1-5), probably as a 


typical Gentile convert, and the issue with the 


‘Pillar Apostles’ was, for the time, largely, if not 
exclusively, on the basis of his concrete case. He 
seems to have been a man of much strength of 
character. He organized the collection in Achaia 
for the Church of Jerusalem (II Co 8 6 #.); and 
when grave difficulities arose in the Church of 
Corinth, Paul sent him to handle the delicate sit- 
uation, which he did with success (II Co 7 6 #f.). 
Except what may be inferred from the Epistle to 
Titus (qg.v.) nothing more is known of him. He is 
not named in Ac, either because it does not deal 
with the episodes in which he was prominent (this 
tells so far against Gal 21 #. being=Ac 151 #.), or 
because he was too closely related to Luke himself 
for the latter to refer to him. R. A. F.—J. V. B. 


TITUS, EPISTLE TO: One of the group of NT 
writings known as the Pastoral Epistles. 
1. Analysis. The following is an analysis of its 
contents: 
Greeting, based on the Gospel 1 1-4, 
The character required in the elders to be appointed in 
Crete (vs. 5-*), especially in view of the false teachers 
who are described in vs, 10-16, 
(a) Within the Church there must be a well-regulated 
social order, springing from the saving grace of God 
revealed in Christ 2 1-15; 
(b) and to the outside world, both rulers and others, 
the regenerated Christian character must be dis- 
played, 3 1-8, 
Advice to Titus in his dealing with certain errors and with 
factious teachers, vs. 9-11, 
Personal messages, etc., vs. 12-14, 
Salutations, ver. 15, 


2. Historical Situation and Purpose. Paul had 
been in Crete, and had left Titus to complete the 
organization of the churches (15, see Crerr). The 
only known occasion when Paul visited Crete was 
when he touched there on his voyage to Rome 
(Ac 27 8-13). The ship was held up by stress of 
weather at ‘Fair Havens,’ hard by the city of Lasea, 
and that for ‘a considerable (ixavot) time.’ This 
interval would allow him to come into touch with 
conditions in the region sufficiently to show the need 
of leaving one of his party behind, in order to ‘set 
in order’ the defects of such local Christianity as 
already existed; and it is quite likely that Titus 
would, in view of his success at Corinth (II Co 
76 .), be the man chosen. If so, it is possible that 
a letter of instruction, written to him on Paul’s 
arrival in Rome, should be among the earliest tasks 


Titus Justus 
Tongues, Confusion of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


914 





to which the Apostle gave his attention, as soon at 
least as the season allowed for a letter going by sea 
and a messenger was available. This points to spring 
or early summer of 60, to which I Ti, with which 
it is closely related in style and thought, may also 
belong (see TrmoTHy, EPISTLES TO). 

In this letter, carried probably by Zenas the 
lawyer and Apollos (3 13), Paul announces his hope 
of soon relieving him by Artemas or Tychicus, 
and bids Titus prepare to join him, ere next winter, 
at Nicopolis (3 12: g.v.). Tho the letter is personal, 
its contents were probably communicated to the 
Cretan churches; for Titus would need all the 
Apostle’s authority behind him in the difficult task 
of restraining false teachers and placing church life 
under the oversight of men of the highest moral 
character. What was required of ‘elders’ (bishops) 
was ‘a hold on Christian principles of at least 
morality or religion, such as would enable them to 
give hortatory instruction of a salutary kind to all, 
and likewise to give competent answers to gain- 
sayers’ (Hort). The religious dangers of the Cretan 
churches are very similar to those described in I 
and II Tim, with yet stronger emphasis on the 
Jewish character of the false teaching 

3. Authenticity. The same general character- 
istics as those of I and II Ti have cast like suspicion 
on the Pauline authorship of Titus. For a discus- 
sion of these, see TimoTHy, Episrues To, §§ 3-6. 
Even those who reject the Epistle as a whole have 
to accept the closing personalia (3 12-15; cf. P. N. 
Harrison, Prob. of the Past. Epp., pp. 115-118). 
But the affinity of 3 14 with 3 8 points to their orig- 
inal unity. R. A. F.—J. V. B. 


TITUS JUSTUS (Tiros ’Ioictos): A Roman citi- 
zen of Corinth who, favorably impressed by Paul’s 
preaching, offered his house as a place where Paul 
could preach and teach after his trouble with the 
Jewish synagog (Ac 187). His name is given vari- 
ously in MSS. as ‘Justus’ only, or as ‘Titius Justus,’ 
or as ‘Titus Justus.’ EK. E. N. 

TIZITE, tai’zait ($"M, titst): The designation of 
Joha, one of David’s heroes (I Ch 11 45). The place 
which gave rise to the name is unknown 

TOAH, td’a. See Nawaru. 

TOB, tob or tob (aju, tbh): A district of Syria. 
(IIS 108, etc.). See Aram, § 4 (8). 

TOB-ADONIJAH, tob’’-ad’o-nai’ja (MITYAID 
tobh ’ddhéniyyah), ‘the Lord J” is good’: One of the 
Levites appointed by Jehoshaphat to teach Israel 
(II Ch 17 8). 

TOBIAH, to-bai’a, TOBIJAH, to-bai’ja (PIMA, 
tobhiyyah{a@]): 1. One of the Levites sent by King 
Jehoshaphat to teach the Law in the cities of Judah 
(II Ch 178). 2. The name of a family which could 
not trace its descent, that went up with Zerubbabel 
to Jerusalem (Ezr 2 60; Neh 7 62). 3. An Ammonite, 
half Jew, and an adherent of Sanballat in his attempt 
to hinder Nehemiah in repairing Jerusalem (Neh 
210,19). By marriage, he was connected with promi- 
nent families of Jerusalem (Neh 6 17 .). He was 
dispossessed by Nehemiah of a room in the Temple 
which had been prepared for him by Eliashib the 
priest (Neh 13 4 ff.). 4. One of a company of exiles 


who came to Jerusalem, bringing gold and silver, 
the offerings of exiles remaining in Babylon, from 
which Zechariah in a vision was instructed to make a 
crown (Heb. ‘crowns’) for Joshua, the high priest 
(Zec 6 10 ff.; so the text, but some moderns would 
substitute ‘Zerubbabel,’ the secular head of the 
community, for ‘Joshua,’ while others, because of 
the plural ‘crowns’ and the mention of two persons 
in ver. 13b, would add ‘Zerubbabel’). GC. Bea 


TOBIT, tobit, BOOK OF: One of the books of the 
O T Apocrypha, which takes its name from Tobit, 
the leading character of its story. It has come to 
us in a number of versions, Greek, Latin, Syriac, 
Aramaic, Hebrew, which, while bearing witness te its 
wide popularity, also complicate the question as to 
its original form. 


1. The Narrative. The story opens in Nineveh, 
where T. is with his wife Anna and his son Tobias, 
in exile. Good fortune attended him there as long as 
Shalmaneser was king, but all changed when Senna- 
cherib came to the throne. Because T. mercifully 
buried those of his countrymen whom the king had 
slain, he was compelled to flee the city, and his 
property was confiscated. Upon Esarhaddon’s acces- 
sion, T. was permitted to return only to meet an- 
other terrible affliction—blindness. In his despair 
he prayed that he might die. At the same time that 
T. was thus praying, far away in the city of Ecbatana 
one Sara, the daughter of Raguel, was making the 
same prayer. Seven times she had been married, 
and each time, on the wedding-night, an evil spirit, 
Asmodeus, had killed her husband. God had willed 
that both suppliants should know of His goodness, 
and the angel Raphael was sent to accomplish the 
Divine purpose. When T. was in favor at court, he 
had committed to Gabael in Rages, a Median city, 
ten talents of silver. To secure them for his son, 
he planned to send him to Rages. Raphael so man- 
aged that he was chosen as guide, and, as they came 
to the river Tigris, a fish was captured from which 
was taken, at Raphael’s command, the heart, liver, 
and gall. When they were approaching Ecbatana, 
Raphael told Tobias that he should marry Sara, and 
gave him directions how he should drive away the 
evil spirit by burning the fish’s heart and liver in its 
presence. Soon after their arrival Tobias told his 
desire to Raguel. The father warned the young man 
of his danger, yet granted his request. No one 
expected to see him come alive from the fatal room, 
but the charm had banished the evil spirit, and there 
was, therefore, great rejoicing during the days of 
the wedding-feast. Raphael, meanwhile, had gone 
on to Rages to secure the money, and upon his 
return all three set out upon the journey home. T. 
and Anna had become very anxious over the long 
absence of Tobias, when one day the glad news of 
his coming filled their hearts with joy. Upon reach- 
ing the city, Raphael bade Tobias put some of the 
fish’s gall upon his father’s blind eyes. Immediately 
sight was restored. Thus did God reward the piety 
of both T. and Sara, and T. wrote a prayer of re- 
joicing and thanksgiving. At last, after years of 
benevolence and sincere, reverent piety, he came to 
a ripe age, and urged his sons and grandsons to leave 
Nineveh for Media. They went after his death, and 


915 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Titus Justus 
Tongues, Confusion of 





there Tobias lived to become an old man, hearing 
just before his death the glad news of the destruction 
of Nineveh. 

2. The Aim of the Story. So many of the nob.e 
ways and teachings of true piety are set forth in this 
short story that it is not strange that opinion varies 
as to which is the controlling motive of the whole. 
Gritz and Neubauer see in it the inculcation of the 
duty of burying the dead; others the commendation 
of prayer or almsgiving. The lessons of the book 
center in the character of T. and Sara, whose piety, 
constant through suffering and misfortune, con- 
quers, and is wonderfully blessed of God. God’s 
signal care of those who are faithful to Him and His 
Law is prominently set forth. 

3. Date and Place of Composition. Varying with 
the conceptions of the character of the book and the 
chief lessons it sets forth, have been the dates to 
which it has been assigned. Those who have looked 
upon the book as an authentic history have placed 
its date in the 7th cent. B.c. The evidence that T. 
is a romance is, however, so clear that this early 
Jate has found little acceptance among scholars. In 
seeking a time for it in later days, various conclu- 
sions have been reached. Gritz puts it in the time of 
Hadrian (130 a.p.), Kohut still later in the time of 
Ardeshir (250 a.p.). As has been repeatedly shown, 
the mention of the Book of Tobit by Clement of 
Alexandria and by Polycarp precludes such a late 
origin. ‘The most probable date is that of the 2d 
cent. B.c. In II Mac 5 10 Antiochus Epiphanes is 
said to have ‘cast out a multitude unburied.’ This 
may have given ground for the teaching about bury- 
ing the dead (chs. 1 ff.). The reference in 14 5 fits 
this time, as before the beginning of Herod’s Tem- 
ple; so do the general religious conceptions of the 
book regarding the future. There is no Messianic 
hope expressed. The author was a Jew, but it can 
not be definitely decided where the book was written 
or what was its original language. The latest com- 
mentator, Simpson in Charles’ Ed., gives a long 
list of arguments to prove Egyptian origin, possibly 
in Aramaic, towards the end of the 3d cent. B.c. 
Influence on the language of a number of N. T. 
passages is also claimed, a point which can not be 
discussed here. There is good reason to believe that 
the story is composite. Elements originally quite 
distinct, like the story of Ahikar, and also the inter- 
polations of moral teachings, have been added to an 
older and simpler narrative concerning Tobit. 

Tho used by the early Fathers, the book was not 
generally considered canonical. The Councils of 
Carthage (397 a.p.),°of Florence (1439), and of 
Trent (1546) gave it canonical rank. The English 
Church has made use of it to a limited extent, but 
not as a part of the Canon. See also APOCRYPHA, 
§ 4, and cf. Charles, Apoc. and Pseudepig. of the 
O T, Vol. I (1918). J.S. R.—W.G. J. 


TOCHEN, to’ken (1377, tdkhen): A village of 
Simeon (I Ch 4 32). Site unknown. 


TOGARMAH, to-gar’ma. 
AND Erunocoey, § 13. 


TOHD, to’/hid (19M, toha): An ancestor o. Samuel 


See ETHNOGRAPHY 


(IS 11), called also Nahath (1 Ch 6 26), and Toah 
(I Ch 6 34). 

TOI, td’ai. See Tov. 

TOKEN: (1) The rendering of ’éth, ‘sign’ (Gn 9 
12, 17, 17 11; Ex 3 12, etc). (2) Of onyetoy, ‘sign’ (II 
Th 317). (8) Of cbconuoy, ‘joint sign’ or ‘signal,’ 7.e., 
a sign agreed upon (Mk 14 44). (4) Of &vderEtc, 
‘indication’ or ‘proof’ (Ph 1 28). That is, the oppo- 
sition to the truth manifested by these ‘adversaries’ 
was conclusive evidence that they were destined to 
perdition. (5) Of &8eyya, ‘evidence,’ ‘proof,’ or 
‘indication’ (II Th 1 5). See also WonpDER. 


TOKHATH, tek’hath. See Trxvan. 
TOLA, to’la (y 21, tola‘), ‘crimson-worm’: 1. The 


ancestral head of the Tolaites, a clan of Issachar 
(Gn 46 13; Nu 26 23; 1 Ch 71f.). A kindred clan was 


that of Puah. 2. One of the ‘minor’ judges (Jg 


101 f.), designated as ‘Tola, son of Puah, a man of 
Issachar.’ It is remarkable (1) that the two names 
occur here as those of ‘son’ and ‘father,’ while in Gn 
46 13, they are ‘brothers,’ and (2),that the name 
has reference toa valuable dye or color. Very little 
is said of Tola’s ‘judgeship.’ Like the other ‘judges,’ 
he was probably little more than a local hero. 
KH. E. N. 


TOLAD, td’led (72 in, toladh). See Evrouap. 

TOLL, PLACE OF. See Tax. 

TOMB. See BurtaL AND Buriat Customs, §§ 
5,6: 

TONGS. See TABERNACLE, § 3 (3): and TEMPLE’ 
§ 16. 


TONGUES, CONFUSION OF: The result of a 
primitive interference by J’ with the human race 
whereby its unity was broken, its members failed to 
understand one another’s speech, were ‘scattered 
abroad upon the face of all the earth,’ and, by 
implication, the one race was subdivided into the 
existing varieties of men speaking different languages 
(Gn 111-11). The story of the confusion of tongues 
is associated with that of the building of the Tower 
of Babel. In its main outline it assumes that the 
whole human species was at first a single tribe mov- 
ing from place to place and that in the course of its 
nomadic wanderings it came to Babylonia (the ‘land 
of Shinar’). Here a most suitable site for perma- 
nent residence was found. It was determined that 
the tribe should abandon its hitherto nomadic way 
of life and build a city and a tower. J” (anthropo- 
morphically conceived) came down to view the struc- 
ture, disapproved the audacity of the scheme, saw 
the possibility of indefinite development of arrogance 
on the part of mankind, and prevented the accomp- 
lishment of the plan of building by sending the spirit 
of confusion and misunderstanding into the midst 
of the builders. These, now finding further coopera- 
tion impossible, scattered and divided into groups 
and began to speak the several languages since 
known upon earth. | 

The aim of the story is manifestly to give an 
explanation of the origin of so many tongues and 
nations of men. Just how the legend originated it 
is not possible to ascertain. It has no parallels in 
Babylonian lore (against Stade, ZA TW, 1895, p. 137, 


Tongues, Confusion of 
Town Clerk 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 





and Gunkel, Schépfung, p. 149). In fact, Babylonia 
seems to be treated in it as a strange country. Some 
gigantic towerlike building in it, either unfinished 
or disused and in partially ruined condition, possibly 
that near the temple of Bel-marduk [see Towrr or 
BaBEL], aroused by its unfamiliarity the sentiment of 
wonder, and questionings as to its origin. To this 
the question of how the languages arose was ap- 
pended, and the legend was thus made to answer 
the twofold query. But in whatsoever way and 
wheresoever it may have originated, the story was, 
like all other folk-lore,when taken up by the Hebrew 
people, made the vehicle of religious and spiritual 
lessons. The chief one of these lies on the very sur- 
face. It is the sovereign supremacy of J’’ involving 
the irresistibility of His will and the impossibility 
of thwarting Him. The very disaster which the 
primitive tribe is represented as desiring to avert, 
7.e., that of being scattered and subdivided, is visited 
on its members as a result of Divine judgment for 
folly and arrogance. The anthropomorphisms of the 
story are patent. It is exaggerating them, however, 
to say (Cheyne, HB, art. ‘Babel’) that they include 
the elements of J’’s grudging man the strength 
which comes from union or of the fear of human 
ambition. 

So far as the legend is a vehicle of historical teach- 
ing, its kernel consists in the fact of the original unity 
of the human race and its language. This is a fact 
reached independently as a scientific conclusion by 
comparative philologists. Both the stock of vocables 
(roots) and the aggregate of modes of grouping words 
together to form articulated sentences (linguistic 
morphology) are found by philological study to in- 
dicate an original unity from which they are deduci- 
ble as variations. Yet to attempt to classify the 
multitudes of separate types of speech either actually 
used, or once used and now extinct, is regarded as a 
futile as well as an impossible task. That all lan- 
guage, however, must have had one primitive source 
is a view which may well have presented itself in the 
very earliest periods of human history, and could 
not have required more than a superficial study of 
a few dialects of the same general language with 
their characteristic similarities. A. C. Z. 


TONGUES, SPEAKING WITH: An experience 
of Apostolic times resulting in the use of other forms 
of speech than those customary and familiar to the 
speaker. Two variant accounts of the phenomenon, 
or more probably two distinct types of it, are given, 
the one found in the Epistles of Paul (for which see 
CuurcH Lire AND ORGANIZATION, § 7), the other in 
the record of Pentecost (Ac 2 3-13). Exactly what 
happened on the day of Pentecost seems difficult to 
ascertain. It has been alleged in explanation that 
the author of Ac, not being an eye-witness of the 
events, has misunderstood and misrepresented them 
(see McGiffert, Apostolic Age, 1897, p. 52, note). 
This is not entirely satisfactory. It seems necessary 
to compare the account with the gift of tongues as 
known to and spoken of by Paul and bring the two 
representations into some sort of relationship with 
each other. Much of the difficulty will be removed 
_ if the two representations are not assumed to be 

portraitures of the same thing. That the author of 


Ac had a knowledge of the gift of tongues in the 
Pauline sense is evident from 10 46, 19 6. He must 
therefore in 2 3 ff. have had in mind a phenomenon 
of the same class, but of different specific character- 
istics. This may have been nothing less than the 
supernatural endowment of the speakers at Pente- 


cost with the power of expressing themselves in . 


languages unknown before. But of such endowment 
no trace appears later, therefore if real, it was a 
transitory one. <A better explanation is that the 
language spoken was one, but that each listener was 
enabled to understand what was said as if the speaker 
were using the listener’s own native tongue. This 
could occur either by an endowment of the listener 
with the power to understand the speaker’s language, 
or by an actual transformation of that language into 
the one he was familiar with from childhood. But 
these explanations also lack sufficient support in the 


text. The passage suggests a simpler process. The. 


differences overcome by the extraordinary endow- 
ment depicted in the account were dialectic. They 
did not amount to differences of language in the 
strictest sense of the word. The list of countries 
from which the hearers were drawn (vs. 9-11) is long, 
but does not compel the assumption of as many 
different languages. Moreover, the word ‘dialect’ 
(St&éAexto¢) as distinguished from language (yAécoa) 
is introduced at the outset, and set over against the 
Galilean derivation of the speakers (ver. 8); and 
altho ‘tongues’ is later used instead of it (ver. 11), 
it is evidently as an absolute synonym of ‘dialect’ 
in order to avoid the repetition of the same term. Fur- 
ther, according to the plan of Ac, the preaching of 
the gospel to pure Gentiles ignorant of the generic 
language of the Jews (Aramaic) would be premature 
at this early stage in the history. Theaudienceat the 
day of Pentecost must, therefore, be supposed to 
consist altogether of Jews from Jerusalem, Judea, 
and the Dispersion. If so, they all spoke the com- 
mon Aramaic, but in dialects. A spiritual excitation, 
similar to that which resulted in the gift of tongues 
of the Pauline Epistles, empowered the speakers, on 
the one hand, to overcome the natural dialectic dif- 
ferences, and the listeners, on the other, to under- 
stand what was said by the Apostles. A, CZ; 


TOPAZ. See Stonzs, Prectovs, § 2f. 


TOPHEL, tofel (25in, tophel): A station on the 
route of the wanderings of Israel (Dt 11). Site un- 
known. 


TOPHETH, to’feth (NDA, topheth, Tophet AV, 
except in II K 2310): 1. The Name. The name ofa 
place of torture. The etymology of the word is 
obscure. The most reasonable explanation is that 
the word is a loan-word from the Aramaic, mean- 
ing ‘place of burning’ used to designate the fireplace 
when human beings were sacrificed, a practise 
which was wide-spread in antiquity (cf. W. R. 
Smith, Rel. of Semites?, p. 377). This will explain 
the reference to T. inIs 30 33. Since the practise 
of human sacrifice was abominable to sincere wor- 
shipers of J’’, the vocalizations of the Aram. word 
was conformed to that of bdsheth, ‘shame’ (see BAAL 
I. 6) to express the horror or disgust felt regarding 
human sacrifice by fire. Places where such sacrifi- 


916 


. 
| 





917 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Tongues, Confusion of 
Town Clerk 





ces ‘were offered were called ‘topeths’ One such 
place, located in the Valley of Hinnom, was especi- 
ally conspicuous in this respect (Jer. 7 31, 19 14; I 
K 28 10). 

From the scattered allusions to Topheth, it is 
reasonable to infer that it was of the nature of a 
high place with an altar, constructed, perhaps, in a 
peculiar way, adapted to the slaughtering of human 
victims. Accordingly, Jeremiah predicts that the 
place where Topheth was located should in the 
future be called The Valley of Slaughter. The dis- 
repute in which the Topheth in the Valley of 
Hinnom was held was intensified by Josiah’s 
treatment of it. This king deliberately defiled the 
place by pulling down the altar, razing the knoll, and 
pouring all the filth of Jerusalem upon it. The word 
‘Topheth’ does not occur in the N T. But in later 
Christian thought, the distinction between it and 
the Valley of Hinnom was lost sight of, and it 
became a most expressive emblem of eternal tor- 
ment. A. C. Z.—E. E. N. 


TORCH. The proper rendering of the Heb. 
lappidh (Jg 7 16, 20; Ezk 113; Dn 106, all ‘lamp’ AV; 
Neh 2 3; Zech 126). The construction of the ancient 
‘torch’ is, however, obscure and no longer exactly 
known. In Mt 25 1- RVmg. needlessly confuses 
‘torch’ with ‘lamp’ which is here the proper term. 

KE. E. N. 

TORMENT, PLACE OF. See Escuarouoey, § 

39. 


TORTOISE. See Pauestinn, § 26. 
TOD, to’u (GYM, ton): 
who by presents acknowledged David’s suzerainty, 


and also congratulated him on his victories over 
Hadarezer (ILS 89 f. Toi, "YM, #67; I Ch 189 £.). 


TOWER. See Crrv, § 3. 


TOWER OF BABEL: A huge ziggurat, or tower- 
- temple, called Htemenaki (‘house of the foundation 
of heaven and earth’), that stood near Esagila, the 


are 


2 
=) 


‘A4d f2 7 
Yea Si3} 
‘Qa SES enoqye »ySrey je7os, 


24T OST 37992. 
Base LIC: 





Tower of Babel. 


temple of Bel-Marduk at Babylon (Heb. Babel). It 
was begun by a prehistoric Sumerian king, whose 
name was unknown even to his Babylonian suc- 
cessors; but was left unfinished, probably on account 

of political disturbances incident to the entrance of 


King of Hamath (q.v.), | 


the Semites into Babylonia. For thousands of years 
its ruins were one of the wonders of the world. 
Knowledge of it was carried to the Hebrews, and in 
the J narrative of Gn 11 1-9 we are told how the 
men of Shinar purposed to build a tower whose top 
might reach into heaven, but how J” frustrated 
them by confusing their tongues, 7.e., by mixing the 
population of Babylonia. Sennacherib endeavored 
to obliterate it when he destroyed Babylon, but its 
massive foundations resisted his efforts. Esarhad- 
don and Asshurbanipal attempted to complete it, 
but were unsuccessful. Nabopolassar continued the 
work, but died before he had finished it. Nebu- 
chadrezzar had the glory of being the first king of 
Babylon to bring it to completion. In his inscrip- 
tions he gives an accurate account of its appear- 
ance. The bottom stage was 300 ft, in length and 
breadth, and about 120 ft. in height; and above this 


were six other stages that diminished continually in 


size. Since the decline of Babylon, its ruins have 
served for centuries as a brick quarry for all the 
surrounding country, so that now all that is left of 
the tower is a hole 300 ft. square where the founda- 
tions once stood. See plan of Babylon, p. 88. 
LirerRaTure: Reports of the excavations at Babylon of the 
Deutsche Orientgesellschaft; Weissbach, Der alte Orient, 
v, 4; KAT, p. 396; R. Koldewey, Das wiederestehende Babel 
(1913), Eng. transl. (also 1913); E. G. H. Kraeling, JAOS 
xl, 1920, pp. 276-281. Li Bik: 
TOWER OF DAVID, HANANEL, MEAH, THE 
FURNACES. See JerusALEeM, §§ 21 and 38. 


TOWER OF EDER, of THE FLOCK. See Epmr. 


TOWER OF LEBANON: An imaginary structure, 
conceived of as an ideal of beauty and symmetry 
(Song 7 4), such a location being naturally thought of 
as supremely prominent and beautiful. E. BE. N. 


TOWER OF PENUEL. See PENUEL. 


TOWER OF SEVENEH, and of SYENE. See 
SEVENEH. 
TOWN. See, in general, Crry. 


TOWN CLERK (yeaupatets): An official of varied 
power and functions at different periods and in 
different parts of the Greek world, and recognized 
by the Romans in their colonial government. In 
imperial times, the Ephesian clerk ranked next to 
the highest native official, the boularch (president 
of the boulé, the city ‘council,’ or ‘senate’), and was 
called, with apparent indifference, the city (town) 
clerk (yeaupateds tHS méAews), the people’s clerk 
(yeaupateds tod Shwov), and the senate clerk (yeau- 
uareds tHSs BovAtjs). He audited the accounts of the 
Bank of Ephesus in the Artemisium, and, in virtue 
of his important official position, tho a native, not a 
Roman, official, came into close contact with the 
proconsul of Asia, whose residence at that time was 
Ephesus. He is referred to but once in the N T, 
in connection with the riot in Ephesus brought about 
by Demetrius the silversmith (Ac 19 35). He suc- 
ceeded in quieting the tumult, and, in a speech which 
shows a clear understanding of his own responsibility 
and the legal procedure possible for the complainants 
(vs. 35-40), dismissed theassembly. Since the clerk was 
accountable to the proconsul,it was to his regularly 
constituted court that he suggested recourse be had 
(ver. 38. The plural ‘there are proconsuls’ [‘deputies 


Trachonitis 
Trade and Commerce 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


918 





AV] is purely general, referring to the officials as a 
class). J.R.S. S.*—S. A. 


TRACHONITIS, trak’’o-nai’tis (Teaywvitts, from 
cpaxyoc, ‘rough,’ the rendering of the Arab. wa‘ar, 
‘waste region’ =Heb. ya‘ar, ‘thicket,’ ‘jungle’): A 
rugged and inaccessible region 370 sq. m. in extent, 
lying S. of Damascus and between the Anti-Lebanon 
range on the W. and the mountains of Batans on 
the E.—the modern Leja, which is really the lava- 
field formed in prehistoric times from the craters of 
the mountains of Hauran on the §. and SE. See 
PALESTINE, § 13 (a). J. R.S. S.*—E. E. N. 


TRADE AND COMMERCE: 1. Introductory. The 
Israelites were not, originally, a trading people. As 
nomads, they were able to provide, for the most 
part, for all their necessities, and were not dependent 
on other people. It is not likely that they carried 
on any extensive trading operations, until they had 
become welded into one nation in the Kingdom 
period. When Israel entered Canaan, it found there 
a people long accustomed to trade, and, as this 
naturally centered in the Canaanite cities, it was not 
until these cities had passed into Israelite control 
and their population had become absorbed into 
Israel that the Israelites themselves became inter- 
ested in trade. By the time of the establishment of 
the Kingdom, this process was about completed. 

In this period, however, several factors conspired 
to give trade a more important place in Israel’s life. 
In the first place, city life now developed more 
rapidly. Jerusalem, and later Samaria, as capital 
cities, became centers of commercial activity. These 
and other cities, as they grew in population, became 
markets for the exchange of commodities. Cities 
containing sanctuaries were particularly likely to be- 
come markets. They were places where the coun- 
trymen could bring the products of their farms, their 
flocks, and their looms, and exchange these for 
articles manufactured in the cities or brought there 
for sale from other countries. An additional factor 
was the closer relations with other nations, especially 
Syria, Phenicia, and the Assyrian Empire. From 
about 900 to 734 B.c. Damascus was the chief city 
of a large and flourishing Aramean kingdom which, 
with other Aramean states to the NW. and N., was 
largely interested in trade. Assyria attained to the 
height of her power in the 8th and 7th cents. B.c. 
These political consolidations gave a great impetus to 
trade all through SW Asia, and Israel was by no 
means unaffected by them. In the third place, kings 
interested themselves in trade, probably as much 
for their own personal gain as for any national 
advantage. Solomon seems to have given great at- 
tention to commerce. He equipped a trading fleet 
at Eizion-geber on the Red Sea, manned it with 
Phenician sailors, loaded it, presumably, with suit- 
able articles of exchange, and sent it once in three 
years to Ophir (q.v.), whence it brought back gold, 
almug-trees, and precious stones (I K 9 26 f., 1011 £.), 
also silver, ivory, apes, and peacocks (10 22, navy of 
Tarshish =‘a fleet of large vessels, such as the 
Phenicians used in their trade with Tarshish’). The 
visit of the queen of Sheba (SW. Arabia) was also 
probably not without commercial considerations. 
The reference (I K 10 15) to ‘the traffic of the mer- 


chants’ as a source of revenue implies the levying of 
toll on traveling traders. The traffic in horses and 
chariots (I K 10 28 £.) has reference to the importa- 
tion of horses from Mutsri and Kue (Cappadocia and 
Cilicia, so Winkler in K AT®, p. 238 f.), probably for 
the king’s own use, tho possibly also to sell to other 
countries, as Egypt. I K 10 28 should read ‘and the 
export of horses for King Solomon was from Mutsri 
and Kue. The king’s traders procured them from 
Kue at a price.” When Omri, the ablest of the kings 
of N. Israel, was compelled to give Syrian traders 
bazaar quarters in Samaria (I K 20 34), he probably 
sought to offset this disadvantage by cementing a 
marriage alliance with the royal house of Phenicia, 
the great trading nation. This gave him an oppor- 
tunity to market the immense tribute of wool he 
received from the subject Moabites (cf. II K 3 4). 
Ahab, the son of Omri, was quick to take advantage 
of a victory over Benhadad to secure trading quarters 


for Israelite merchants in Damascus (I K 20 34). - 


Jehoshaphat made an (unsuccessful) attempt to re- 
open the trade on the Red Sea (I K 22 48). Such 
incidental references in the brief record in I and IT K 
show that the kings of Israel took an active part in 
the commercial operations of their day. While the 
Jews were in exile, they lived in the midst of a flour- 
ishing commercial environment, and doubtless many 
became closely identified with it. At the Return 
the majority of these probably preferred to remain 
in the East, and the colony of returned exiles was 
made up mostly of agriculturists. Nevertheless, in 
the century between the Return (536) and Nehemiah 
(444) a considerable commercial life had developed 
in Jerusalem, as such passages as Neh 3 8, 11, 31, 51., 
13 15 f. abundantly testify. The great system of 
roads constructed by the Persians was conducive to 
a further development of commerce throughout their 
empire, and the introduction of Greek civilization, 
with its many Greek cities or colonies, scattered here 
and there throughout SW. Asia, wasmost closely con- 
nected with the pursuit of trade. Under the Roman 
dominion the commerce of the East attained to vast 
proportions. | 


At the same time, Israel in Palestine, especially 
that part of it occupying Judea, never became dis- 
tinctively a trading people. Down to the fall of the 
Jewish state they retained much of their early simple 
predominantly agricultural (or pastoral) type of life. 
The Canaanites and Arameans to a large extent, 
and the Phenicians almost altogether, gained their 
living from trade; Israel did not. This is the reason, 
probably, why references to trade are, compara- 
tively, so few and vague in the O T. Even the Law 
contains but a few enactments touching the subject, 
and these are of the simplest character. The 
prophets who lived so close to the life of their times, 
touch upon it only incidentally, tho such passages as 
Is 27,316 #., 58; Am 26, 41,842£; Mic 21f. Hos 
12 7, show that much of it was present before their 
eyes, while such descriptions of foreign commerce 
(see TyrR5) as we find in Is ch. 23 and in Ezk ch. 26f. 
show how wide-spread was the knowledge of this in 
Israel. While the prophets were, on tite whole, in 
favor of the more simpler and less luxurious type of 
life, they did not condemn trade as such, but only 


919 


the greed, selfishness, oppression, and dishonesty so 
often manifested in connection with it. 


2. Trade-Routes. Palestine is so situated that the 
trade between Egypt and Arabia on the one hand, 
and Syria, Mesopotamia, and the farther East on 
the other, must touch its borders very closely, 
or cross it at some points, tho it need not pass 
directly through the country. The great trade- 
routes of antiquity, consequently, were vitally 
related to Israel. (1) From Damascus, where the 
routes from the East converged, a road led past 
Mt. Hermon and the sources of the Jordan to Tyre. 
Thence it ran 8. along the coast to Acco, where it 
divided, one branch following the coast closely, the 
other crossing the E. part of Mt. Carmel and running 
along the E. edge of the coast plain. At Ashdod, 
these roads united, and continued along the coast 
via Gaza to Egypt. (2) Another route from Damas- 
cus crossed the Jordan S. of Lake Huleh, touched the 
NW. shore of the Sea of Galilee, thence passed SW. 
across Galilee via Nazareth and the Plain of Es- 
draelon, and on via Megiddo to its junction with 
route (1), at a point about 10 m. E. of Cesarea. 
(3) From Damascus toward W. Arabia a great road 
ran along the E. border of Palestine and Moab to 
Ma‘an and Elath (on the Red Sea, Gulf of Akaba) 
and thence to the various cities of SW. Arabia. (4) 
From the E. Jordan regions (Gilead, etc.; cf. Gn 37 25) 
a route crossed the Jordan near Bethshan, and, pass- 
ing through this city, led up the Valley of Jezreel 
and through the E. end of the Plain of Esdraelon 
and thence through the Plain of Dothan to its junc- 
tion with the coast road to Egypt. (5) From SW. 
Arabia several: routes (one via Elath, another via 
Ma‘an and Petra) traversed the region S. of Palestine 
and converged at Gaza, where they met the great 
seacoast route between SW. Asia and Egypt. With 
the exception of routes (2) and (4), none of these 
roads traversed the territory actually occupied by the 
Israelites, who, dwelling for the most part on the 
highlands, were somewhat isolated. The more ad- 
vantageous position of Zebulun and Issachar, who 
dwelt in the Plain of Esdraelon, where routes (2) 
and (4) were joined by several cross-country roads, 
is reflected in Dt 33 18 f. The main routes were, how- 
ever, easily accessible from the highlands. An 
important road ran along the crest of the central 
range. From Hebron, where several roads from W., 
S. and E. converged, it ran N. to Jerusalem, Bethel, 
Shechem, and on to Bethshan, and from each of 
these places roads diverged E. and W. to the dif- 
ferent parts of the land. Jericho also was a meeting- 
point of roads leading up and down and across the 
Jordan to the highlands on either side. 


3. Terms for Trade in the O T. Altho Israel was 
not a trading nation, there was a great deal of traffic 
of the simpler sort carried on within the nation be- 
tween city and country, between individuals, ete., 
and the terms connected with such traffic are quite 
numerous. Terms signifying buy are karah (Dt 2 6; 
Hos 8 2), laqah, ‘to get’ or ‘to take’ (Neh 5 3, 10 31), 
qdnah, ‘to acquire’ the most-used term (Gn 33 19; 
Lv 25 13 #., etc.), sha@bhar (Qal.), used especially 
of grain purchased (Gn 41 57, etc.), and in the 
NT, dyoodtery (passim), dveicbat (Ac 7 16), and 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Trachonitis 
Trade and Commerce 





éuropedecbar (Ja 4 13, ‘trade’ RV). For sell the 
common word is makhar (Gn 25 31, ete.), while 
shabhar (Hiph.) is used of grain (Gn 42 6, etc.). In 
the N T drodtdévar, xtixecoxetv, and xwdety occur. 
For trade and traffic we have nathan, ‘to give’ (Ezk 
27 12 f.), sahar (Gn 34 10, 21), éoyé&tecbar (Mt 25 16; 
Rev 18 17), and éynopetecdat (Ja 413). Sahar, ‘to 
go about here and there,’ in the participle form 
s0hér, is often rendered merchant, and its derivative 
noun, sahar, merchandise, indicates that the ‘mer- 
chant’ was originally a pedler. The proper noun 
kena‘an and the adj. kena‘dnt meaning ‘Canaanite’ 
(including the Phenicians) is often used in the sense 
of merchant,’ or ‘trader,’ indicating that nearly 
everything outside of ordinary domestic barter was 
originally in the hands of the Canaanites and 
Phenicians (Job 41 6; Pr 31 24, etc.). In I K 1015 
and II Ch 9 14 we have ’anshé hattarim, ‘men who 


spy out,’ like sdhér, for itinerant traders (chapmen 


in II Ch 914 AV). Each of the Eng. words wealth, 
Yiches, goods, substance, merchandise, wares, and 
price has behind it a great variety of Heb. and Gr. 
terms, one of which, migneh, from qandh as (e.g., 
Job 1 3), means also ‘cattle,’ indicating that once 
cattle were the chief item of wealth. The terms for 
caravan, sometimes called company, are related to 
terms meaning ‘path,’ or ‘to go,’ or ‘to wander’ (Gn 
37 25; Job 618 f.; Is 2113). For tribute there are five 
different terms, none of which is especially sig- 
nificant. For both lending and borrowing, the most- 
used term was la@wah (Ex 22 25; Dt 28 12; cf. esp. 
Neh. 5 4). Ndsh@’, and also ndshakh ‘to bite,’ 
whence neshekh (see below), were used especially 
of loaning on interest (mashsh@’ and mashsh@’ah), 
which was not viewed favorably by many (Dt 24 11; 
Neh 5 3 #., etc.). Neshekh, usury (Ps 15 5; Ex 22 
25 f., etc.), which was perhaps originally not con- 
sidered the same as interest (cf. Nowack, Arch. I, 
p. 354), was severely condemned (Lv 25 36; Dt 23 19, 
etc). From the verb nash@ we have nésheh (ptcpl.), 
‘creditor’ (II K 41), andfrom the same root come 
the words for debt. In the N T 8avetcthec is creditor 
(Lk 7 41), while ddévetov (Mt 18 27), dpetAy (Mt 18 32), 
dgetAduevoy (Mt 18 30) stand for debt, and xocoger- 
Aécns (Lk 7 41, 16 5) for debtor. For mortgage 
(vb.) we have ’drabh, ‘pledge’ (Neh 5 3; cf. Eph 1 
14, deepabwv), and for pledge or ‘security’ habhal, 
habhol, and hdbholah (Ex 22 25; Ezk 33 15, 187). 
To pay is nathan, ‘to give’ (Nu 20 19), shalam (in P<‘él, 
Ex 21 36), shaqal, ‘to weigh’ (Ex 22 17) and, in the 
N T, &rodtd6voe (Mt 5 26). In the N T for changer 
of money we have xoAduGtoths (Jn 2 15), from 
%6AAuBos, (1) ‘a small coin,’ and then (2), ‘rate of 
of exchange,’ and xepuattoths (Jn 2 14), from 
xeopattterv, ‘to make small change’ (cf. xéoua, ‘a 
small coin,’ ver. 15), also teaneicns (Mt 25 27, from 
ceaneta, ‘table’), a ‘money broker,’ or banker (ex- 
changer AV). The word toe&éxea is rendered bank 
in Lk 19 23. In Lk 16 6f. we have yeduye, ‘writing,’ 
rendered bond (RV), or bill (AV), meaning a note, 
or acknowledgement of debt, signed by the debtor 
(see Edersheim, L7'M, II, p. 272 f.). | 

4. Articles for Trade. While in ordinary years, 
with careful cultivation, Palestine always yielded 
more than sufficient for home consumption, the sur- 


Trade and Commerce 
Trespass- Offering 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


920 


i a re rt I LE AN re 


plus for export was never very great. In favorable 
years, grain and olive-oil could be exported (I K 
5 11; cf. Ac 12 20). Balm (q.v.), tragacanth gum, 
myrrh, or ladanum, pistachio-nuts, and almonds 
(Gn 87 25, 43 11) were also exported, especially from 
Gilead. Wool and linen, and probably other prod- 
ucts of the loom, could be marketed (cf. Pr 31 13 ff., 
24). Pottery also was made in great quantities, and 
salt (from the Dead Sea) was an important item of 
trade. In N T times the export of cured fish from 
the Sea of Galilee was very large. Imports would 
be metals, precious stones, curiosities, and articles 
of luxury, such as incense, ointments, and perfumes, 
things made of ivory and precious woods, silks (cf. 
Am 3 12), and fine linen, such articles as are men- 
tioned in Is 3 16 f., dates from the desert, timber 
from Lebanon, weapons, horses, etc. Slaves also 
were bought and sold in great numbers (cf. Am 1 
6,9). For the trade of Tyre see Ezk ch. 27. 

5. Business Methods. The earliest business 
methods of the Israelites were, doubtless, very sim- 
ple, such as mere barter and exchange of commodi- 
ties. With the increase in the use of money, methods 
became more complex. Goods were transported 
mainly by beasts of burden, the ass, the mule, and 
the camel. With ships and ship-commerce the 
Israelites had almost nothing to do. The only 
harbor on that part of the coast controlled by them, 
Joppa, did not come into their possession until the 
Maccabean period, and the Israelites never were a 
seafaring people. 

The trader peddled his wares from house to house 
(cf. Pr 31 24), or hawked them through the streets 
(cf. Neh 13 16). In larger cities, such as Samaria, 
there were streets,—7.e., bazaar quarters,—where 
foreign merchants exhibited their goods (I K 20 34, 
etc.). In process of time, gilds and gild-quarters 
were to be found in the principal cities (cf. Neh 3 8, 
11, 31; also I Ch 2 55, 4 21, where the same fact is evi- 
denced.) On all foreign trade custom, or toll, was 
demanded, perhaps also for the use of the highways 
in crossing Palestine from one country to another. 
Loans, mortgages, and leases were common. Money 
was placed on deposit to draw interest (Lk 19 23). 
In ancient Babylon, interest rates were from 10 to 
20 per cent., in Greece from 12 to 20 per cent.; in 
Roman times they were somewhat lower. These 
more highly developed commercial transactions were 
probably not common in Israel until after the Exile. 


LITERATURE: Benzinger, Heb. Arch. pp. 218-224; Nowack 
Heb. Arch. pp. 247-251; G. A. Smith, article Trade and 
Commerce in EB, especially valuable for its maps of trade- 
routes; Bennett in HDB; Buhl, Geog. Paldstina, pp. 125-131. 

E. E. N. 


TRADITION (nap&doctc, ‘a giving over’): This 
word signifies first the action of transmitting the 
account of an event, or the teaching of a matter, then 
the thing itself that is transmitted. All religions 
have their traditions. Judaism in the days of Jesus 
made much of tradition (Mt 15 2£.;Mk73.). The 
Sadducees denied its authority; but the Pharisees 
claimed that the only difference between the written 
body of the Law and the traditional precepts at- 
tached to it was one of form (Berakh. 5a). Some 
even went to the extent of claiming that oral tradi- 
tion was of superior authority to written law, since 


the latter depended, after all, on the oral teachings 
of Moses. The earlier traditions were legal or 
prescriptive; they were called Hdlakhah|-khéth] 
(‘custom’). So far as they were narrative (legen- 
dary), they made up the Haggddhdah (‘narration’). 
As a reiteration of the Law, they were called 
Mishnah (‘repetition’). As a series of questionings 
or investigations into the meaning of the Law, they 
were called Midhrdash (‘search)’, and as a means of 
teaching, or body of what is taught, they took the 
name of Talmud. Jesus and after Him, Paul es- 
pecially, minimized the authority and value of these 
traditions, bringing them in every case to the ethi- 
cal standards of a true love of God. A. C. Z. 


TRAFFIC. See, in general, TRADE AND Com- 
MERCE. 


TRANCE. See REveuation, § 9, 


TRANSFIGURATION: The glorified manifesta-. 


tion of Jesus to His three most intimate disciples on 
a ‘high mountain’ (Mt 17 1-8 and ||; ef. II P 117 #.). 
The time of the event is fixed by its connection with 
the visit of Jesus to Ceesarea Philippi and the dis- 
ciples’ confession of Him there as the Messiah (Mt 
16 13 ff.). The place has been made the subject of 
various conjectures. In ancient times some thought 
that the Transfiguration occurred on the Mt. of 
Olives. But nothing that precedes the account indi- 
cates a journey to Jerusalem by Jesus and His dis- 
ciples so soon after the events of Caesarea Philippi. 
Another ancient view supported by Jerome (Ep. 
xxvil, Hpitaph. Paul.) identifies Mt. Tabor near 
Nazareth as the Mount of Transfiguration. This 
belief underlies also the annual celebration of the 
event by the Greek Church under the name of 
Thaborion (@aBderov); but the distance from 
Ceesarea Philippi and Jesus’ appearance immediately 
after the Transfiguration in Capernaum (Mk 9 30) 
show this view to be improbable. And the fact that 
there was at the time a village on the summit of 
Tabor (Jos. BJ, IV, 1 8; II, 20 1), rendering im- 
possible the solitude in search of which Jesus went 
upon the mountain, positively excludes its histo- 
ricity. According to the general consensus of recent 
investigators the Mt. Hermon region in general is 
the place best corresponding to the conditions, tho 
this leaves undetermined the special summit of the 
range, which nrobably served as the scene of the 
occurrence. 

Just what took place in the Transfiguration it is 
perhaps impossible to define in more precise terms 
than those given in the Gospel narrative. According 
to this the affair was a vision (6eau«), and undoubt- 
edly an objective one. The physical appearance of 
Jesus was changed in such a way as to impress those 
with Him of a heavenly quality. He was further 
seen to converse with Moses and Elijah. The minds 
of the witnesses were so overwhelmed by the ex- 
perience that Peter, as their representative and 
spokesman, uttered words which the narrator ex- 
plicitly describes with the suggestion that they 
lacked in coherency and reason. 

Of greater importance is the significance of the 
event both for Jesus and the disciples. For Him, it 


was in the nature of a preparation for the strenuous 


v 


921 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Trade and Commerce | 
Trespass-Offering 





task which awaited Him. For them, it was a means 
of assurance that whatever might befall, their Master 
had a mission from God, and the events of His sub- 
sequent life must be interpreted consistently with 
this fact. This was further the general purport of a 
declaration through a voice which they recognized 
to be that of God Himself (Lk 9 35). A. C. Z, 


TRANSGRESS: This word and its derivatives 
(transgressor, transgression) represent that aspect of 
sin according to which it is viewed either as: (1) ‘Dis- 
loyalty’ or ‘treachery,’ bdghadh (Ps 59 5; Pr 13 15; 
IS 14 33, ‘dealt treacherously’ RV; cf. Ps 25 3; Hab 
25). (2) A trespass, or interference with the rights of 
J’’ in matters devoted to His service (mé‘al, I Ch 27, 
‘trespass’ RV; cf. I Ch 5 25, 26 16, 28 19, 36 14; Ear 
1010; Neh 18; but Pr 1610, ‘transgress’). (8) A pass- 
ing over a line and stepping upon forbidden ground 
(‘abhar, Nu 14 41; Jg 2 20). This is exactly repro- 
duced in the N T words xapaGatverv, rapabétns, and 
map&Bacts (Mt 15 2f.; Gal 218; Ja 29; Ro 415). (4) 
A ‘rebellion,’ or ‘revolt’ (pesha‘, I K 8 50; Ezr 10 13; 
applied by the Prophets in matters of religion, Is 
43 27; Ezk 18 22 #., etc.). (5) A ‘violation of law’ 
(évou.le, I Jn 3 4; but ‘lawlessness’ RV; cf. the cita- 
tion from the LXX. in the narrative of the Cruci- 
fixion, Mk 15 28 and |). A. C. Z. 


TRANSLATE: This term renders in the O T (AV) 
the Heb. word ha‘dabhir, Hiph. of ‘abhar (II S 3 10) in 
its primitive sense of transferring (so AV). In the N T 
it denotes (1) figuratively, the passage of the believer 


from the kingdom of darkness into that of light: 


(ucOforyut, Col 113), and (2) specifically, the ex- 
ceptional passage of Enoch from the earthly to the 
heavenly life without experiencing death (yerta- 
<(Onut, He 11 5). AtCud, 


TREAD: In the phrase ‘tread out the corn,’ Gr. 
éhokw, (I Co 99; I Ti 518) the word is used as the 
equivalent of ‘thresh.’ See AGRICULTURE and illus- 
tration on p. 29. See also Vines AND VINTAGE, 
§ 1. 

TREASURE, TREASURIES. (1) In the O T 
these terms usually render ‘dtsdr, ‘something laid up 
or away,’ and is used for royal treasures, gold, silver, 
and similar things (I K 14 26, 15 18, etc.), of the treas- 
ures of the sanctuary (I K 7 51, 15 18, etc.), and of 
goods or wealth in general (Pr 8 21, 15 16, 21 6; Jer 
49 4, etc.). It is also used somewhat figuratively 
of the resources of nature which are at the disposal 
of God (Dt 28 12; Job 38 22). (2) ginzin (Aram.) 
is used of the royal treasures of Persia (Ezr. 5 17, 
61, 720). (3) hdsen (from hasan, ‘to preserve’) is 
twice rendered ‘treasure’ (Pr 15 6; Ezk 22 25). (4) 
matmoén, something ‘hidden’ (Gn 43 23; Job 3 21; 
Pr 2 4; Jer 418 AV). (5) mikhmannim (Dn 11 43). 
(6) miskendth (pl)., from perhaps Assyr. Sakdnu, ‘to 
place (goods); only in the combination ‘aré miskendoth, 
‘cities of storing,’ 7.e., magazine cities (Ex 1 11), 
(7) ‘athidh (variant for ‘Gthidh, ‘ready,’ ‘prepared’; 
Is 10 13; cf. Est. 8-13). (8) saphtin (pass. ptepl.), 
‘hidden’ things (Dt 33 19). (9) Onoaveds, Onoavettery, 
the N T equivalent of (1), above (Mt 2 11, 6 19, etc). 
(10) y&ta, a Persian word (Ac 8 27). E. E. N. 


TREASURE CITY. See PirHom. 


TREASURER; This term, as used in the EVV, 
properly renders only the Heb. gizbdr (from the 
Pers. ganjvar), the title of Mithredath, a Persian 
official (Ezr 18; cf. also 7 21and the Aramaic variant 
g¢dhabh*rayya@’, Dn 3 2 f.). In Is 2215 the title given 
to Shebnah is sdkhén, of which ‘treasurer’ is a some- 
what too specific rendering, since sokhén means 
‘steward’ or ‘caretaker’ in general. In Neh 13 13, 
the expression ‘I made treasurers’ is the rendering 
of but one word, a verb, in the Heb. and is not of 
technical significance. Its meaning is explained at 
the end of the verse. The Gr. title of Erastus (Ro 
16 23, ‘chamberlain’ AV) is ofxovéuoc, ‘steward.’ 
The duties of the otxovéuo¢ of a city included the 
management of its finances, and ‘treasure’ RV is 
an adequate rendering. A. C. Z 


TREASURY. See Tremp ie, § 28. 


TREE: This is the rendering of the Heb. /Y, 
‘éts, and of the Gr. 3év5poy or EdAov. In the Arabian 
desert trees grew only in watered oases; consequently, 
they shared the sanctity of springs in the esteem of 
the Primitive Semites (see Semitic REtiaion, §§ 
7,9 (b), 11). Among the Canaanites and Hebrews, 
tree-worship lasted down to late times (Gn 126 £., 13 
18, 21 33 23, 17 35 4, 8; Ex 3 2; Dt 12 2, 16 21; Jos 24 26; 
Jg 45, 6 11, 19, 24, 9 37; 1S 14 2, 22 6, 3113; ILS 5 24; 
I K 6 29, 32, 35, 14 23; II K 16 4, 17 10; Ps 528, 92 13; 
Is 57 5, 65 3, 6617; Jer 2 20, 3 6, 13, 17 2; Ezk 6 13, 
20 28). Even when this cult was abolished a 
memory of it survived in poetry (Ps 104 16, 148 9; 
Ts 44 23, 5512). Trees were also cultivated for their 
fruit (Gn 111; Dt 611; Ec 25 f.), and one of the first 
efforts of an enemy was to cut them down (Dt 20 20; 
II K 3 19, 25; Jer 66). A blighting of the fruit crop 
was regarded as a sure sign of the anger of J’’ (Ex 
9 25, 1015; Lv 26 20; Dt 28 42; Jer 7 20; Jl 112, 19; Hag 
1 11, 219; Rev 71, 3,87), and, on the other hand, a 
plentiful harvest was a token of His favor (Lv 26 4; 
Ezk 34 27, 36 30, 477; Jl 2 22). To propitiate Him, 
the fruit of trees was not eaten for the first four 
years (Lv 19 23), and first-fruits were offered (Ex 
22 29). For other uses of trees see Gn 18 4, 8; Ex 
15 25; Jz 9 48; I K 5 10; Is 40 20, 44 14 £.; Jer 10 3. 
In Heb. the word ‘és is used also for ‘wood’ or 
‘beam,’ hence to ‘hang on a tree’ (Gn 40 19; Dt 
21 22 £.; Jos 8 29, 10 26 £.; Est 2 23; Ac 5 30, 10 39, 13 29, 
etc.) means to suspend on a gallows or cross. 

Trees were favorite subjects for parables among 
the Hebrews (Jg 9 8-15; I K 4 33; Mt 3 10, 7 17 £.; 
12 33). In poetry they stand as a figure of longevity 
(Is 65 22), or of strength and pride. Their felling 
is a symbol of the sudden destruction that overtakes 
the arrogant (Is 213, 10 34 f.; Ezk 17 22 £., 31 3-14; Job 
19 10, 24 20; Ee 11 3). The forest fire is also used 
frequently as a symbol of national disaster (Is 9 18, 
10 17-19; Ezk 20 47). The righteous is compared to 
a fruitful, well-watered tree (Jer 17 8; Ps 1 3; Pr 318, 
11 30, 138 12, 15 4; Mt 3 10, 7 17, 12 33), which, even 
when it is cut down, sends up new shoots from the 
roots (Is 4 2, 613, 111). For the different kinds of 
trees in the Bible see PALESTINE, § 21. L. B. P. 


TRENCH. See Warrare, § 3; and Crry, § 3. 


TRESPASS-OFFERING. See SacriricE AND 
OFFERINGS, § 9. 


Trial 
Cribes 


A NEW STANDARD 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


922 





TRIAL. See Law AND LreGat Practise, § 4. 
TRIAL OF JESUS. See Jesus Curist, § 17. 


TRIBE, TRIBES: In the O T these terms are the 
translation of two Hebrew words, shébhet and matteh; 
and in the N T they render guAn. With two excep- 
tions (Is 19 13, ‘tribes’-—‘nomes’ of Egypt, and Mt 
24 30, in a general sense), these words are always 
applied to the twelve tribes of Israel. Until the 
monarchy effaced it, the tribal form of social or- 
ganization prevailed in Israel. Even then the people 
clung to it as an ideal, and it still appears in the 
Apocalypse of the N T (Rev ch. 7). 

1. Tribal Organization. Our knowledge of tribal 
customs and laws among the Hebrews is supple- 
mented and confirmed by what has been learned of 
similar institutions in ancient Arabia. The funda- 
mental unit was the clan, and a tribe was constituted 
by the union of several clans. In the O T there are 
two words for ‘clan,’ mishpahah, translated ‘family,’ 
and ’eleph, a community or association (EV ‘thous- 
and’). The clan was composed of ‘brothers’ (=kins- 
men Gn 24 27, 2915, IS 20 29), or more strictly kins- 
men on the father’s side; in the O T such associations 
are termed ‘father’s houses’ or simply ‘houses.’ The 
leaders of the tribes are termed ‘princes’ or rulers 
(Ex 34 31), heads (Nu 1 16), or chiefs (Gn 36 15 ff, 
dukes AV), tho their common title is ‘elders,’ 
which corresponds exactly to the Arabic shetk. The 
council of the elders would answer to the divan 
among the Arabs. Tribal brotherhood was based 
upon blood relationship, real or assumed, and par- 
ticipation in a tribal cult. Traces of tribal religion 
in the form of totemism and ancestor-worship are 
supposed to be found in the O T. ‘Simeon,’ accord- 
ing to the etymology of Gn (29 33), is derived from 
shama‘, ‘to hear’; but many scholars consider it an 
animal name, synonymous with the Arabic sim‘u, 
which denotes a cross between a wolf and a hyena. 
In addition Leah (‘wild cow’?), Levi (as if gentilic 
from Leah), and Rachel (‘ewe’) have been used as 
props for this theory. Philologically, this view has 
a shaky foundation. In support of the theory of 
primitive ancestor-worship, the mourning customs, 
the tombs of the patriarchs, and especially the pillar 
at Rachel’s grave (Gn 35 20) have been advanced, 
but without sufficient reason. Gad is the name of an 
ancient Semitic god of fortune (Is 65 11; and cf. 
Aramaic inscriptions), but there is no adequate 
reason for asserting that he was the tribal deity of the 
Israelitic tribe of the same name. If the Hebrew 
clans ever had tribal cults, the religion of J’ effectu- 
ally obliterated them. The forms of idolatry against 
which the prophets thundered were borrowed from 
their neighbors. See Semitic Reuiaion, § 5. 

2. The Genealogical System. According to the 
O T, the twelve sons of Jacob were the founders of 
the Israelitic tribes. The number twelve has caused 
some interpreters unnecessary difficulty; according 
to Cheyne, it is due to a priestly theory, Winckler 
prefers to refer the number to mythological influ- 
ences deriving it from the signs of the Zodiac, while 
Stade thinks it is based upon the prefectures of 
Solomon. Rejecting these conjectures, we ask why 
could Jacob not have had twelve sons as well as any 
other number? The real problem lies in the general 


principles which are assumed by the interpreter. 
Without any adequate proof it has been laid down 
as an axiom that ‘New nations never originate 
through the rapid increase of a tribe; new tribes 
never through derivation from a family propagating 
itself abundantly through several generations.’ But 
the O T narrative, altho regarding the twelve sons 
of Jacob as tribal ancestors, does not imply that the 
tribes of Israel grew entirely by the propagation of 
a single family. There was the mixed multitude (Ex 
12 38; Nu 11 4), there were accretions from without 
in the form of slaves, concubines, and above all 
natural growth was accelerated by the accession of 
foreign clans, e.g., the Kenites (Jg 116) and Calebites 
(Jg 112 #.; cf. I Ch 29, 18, 42). The genealogy of the 
Hebrew tribes may be put in the form of a tree: 


Leah 
| 


coo ------—-—---- > ee ee s*=~$>~$~oss sss 
Reuben Simeon Levi Judah Issachar Zebulun ~ 


Rachel Zilpah Bilhah 
| | 


———— —_— Pa ee Fe 
Joseph Benjamin Gad Asher Dan Naphtali 


-st OT 
Ephraim Manasseh 


Thus the twelve tribes go back to one father, 
Jacob-Israel, and to four mothers, Leah and Rachel 
being full wives, while Bilhah and Zilpah were con- 
cubines. 

Let us look at the modern hermeneutical prin- 
ciples laid down for the tribal interpretation of the 
patriarchal narratives. (1) The name of the father 
is really the designation of a tribe; (2) a wife or 
mother is a smaller tribe which is absorbed by a 
stronger, e.g., Leah by Jacob; (3) a marriage denotes 
the amalgamation of two different tribes, a concubine 
signifying a less important tribe; (4) the birth of 
a child denotes the origin of a new tribe. Such a 
theory of the patriarchal narratives, altho scientific, 
is extremely problematic. Even in a brief criticism 
several weak points in the theory may be noted. It 
disregards the personal elements of the narratives, 
which are exceedingly true to life, e.g., the strife and 
jealousy between Leah and Rachel, or the family 
life of Judah: it asserts or assumes many general 
principles without any real proof. If the genealogical 
grouping is a reflex of political and geographical 
conditions, the relation of the tribes as revealed in 
the later history ought to correspond to it. Here is 
where the theory completely breaks down, for cer- 
tain tribes, closely connected in the genealogical 
scheme, are without close political relations, and 
are far removed from one another geographically, 
e.g., Gad and Asher; Judah, Issachar, and Naphtali; 
and, altho conjectural theories abound which from 
the nature of the case can not be established, yet 
it remains a fact that no positive proofs have been 
advanced against the accuracy in all essentials of 
the O T account of the origin of the Hebrew tribes. 
In Scripture the tribes are grouped in many different 
orders, according to various principles of arrange- 


ment: (1) According to their relationship to Jacob, © 


his wives, and concubines (Gn chs. 29-35, 46 and 49; 





ON ey > ae 


923 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Trial 
Tribes 





Ex ch. 1; Nu chs. 1, 2, 7, 10, 13, and 26; I Ch chs. 
2 and 27). (2) Geographical position (Nu ch. 34; 
Dt ch. 33; Jos. chs. 13 f.; Jg ch. 5; I Ch ch. 12; Rev 
ch. 7). (8) Geography modified by tradition (the 
more important tribes blessing, and the lesser curs- 
ing, in Dt ch. 27). (4) An ideal grouping (Ezk ch. 48). 

3. The Tribal Ancestors. Of the personal life 
of most of the sons of Jacob nothing is known; 
they are mere names. Of some, a few facts have been 
preserved. Simeon and Levi are associated together 
in a treacherous attack on the inhabitants of 
Shechem to avenge the rape of their sister Dinah 
(Gn ch. 34) after a settlement had been effected. 
For this crime both are severely rebuked in the 
Blessing of Jacob, and their posterity is destined to 
be scattered in Israel (Gn 495 f.). Rachel died in 
giving birth to Benjamin near Ephratah; she named 
him Benoni (‘son of my sorrow’), which Jacob 
changed to ‘Benjamin’ (‘son of the right hand,’ Gn 
35 16-18). He is represented as the darling of his 
father, who reluctantly permitted him to go down 
to Egypt with his brethren (Gn chs. 42 #.). Judah 
(‘praised’) was the fourth son of Jacob by Leah (Gn 
29 35), but he acts as a leader among his brethren, 
and soon appears with the rights of the first-born. 
Reuben, the eldest, and Judah both act as represen- 
tatives of the brothers in the history of Joseph. 
Judah is the leader in Gn 37 26, 48 3, 44 16, 46 28 (J), 
Reuben in Gn 37 22, 42 37 (EH). Judah is not por- 
trayed in a favorable light in Gn ch. 38. He married 
a Canaanitish wife who bore him three sons, Er, 
Onan, and Shelah. For Er his father took a wife 
Tamar by name, but when Er died childless, Onan 
refused to perform his duty according to the law 
of levirate marriage. Then in order to secure redress 
for her wrong Tamar, disguising herself as a Temple 
prostitute (q¢dhéshah), enticed Judah, who by her 
became the father of Perez and Zerah. Judah’s 
actions are not to be judged exclusively by the 
standards of our day; in general, he acted honorably 
according to the ideals of his time. Many modern 
writers interpret this story as a naive method of 
stating tribal relations. Tamar was thus a Canaan- 
itish clan which united with the Israelite tribe of 
Judah. If such were really the case, the narrative 
could scarcely have taken on such a form, throwing 
serious reflections on the character of the founder of 
the tribe to which David belonged (ch. 38 is assigned 
to J, the Judaic document). Reuben (‘behold a son’) 
is the first-born of Jacob and Leah (Gn 29 32). Asa 
boy of seven or eight, he gathers mandrakes for his 
mother (Gn 3014). His character has both a darker 
and a brighter side. He commits incest with his 
father’s concubine Bilhah (85 22); and in the Blessing 
of Jacob (Gn 49 3, 4) he is said to have lost his rights 
as first-born in consequence of this crime (cf. [Ch 51). 
On the other hand, in the story of Joseph he appears 
as a noble character, above the little and mean 
jealousies of his brothers; he saves Joseph’s life (Gn 
37 21, 22, 29), acts as spokesman for the others (Gn 
42 22 #.), and pledges his two sons to Jacob as surety 
for the return of Benjamin from Egypt (42 37). 

4, Tribal History. In this article the history of 
the separate tribes will not be followed later than 
the era of the Judges. For subsequent conditions, 


see IsrAmt. During the desert march the tribes, 
according to P, were divided into four groups. Judah, 
Issachar, and Zebulun encamped on the E. of the 
sanctuary and formed the van in the march; they 
were followed by Reuben, Simeon, and Gad to the 
S. of the Tabernacle. After them came, in two divi- 
sions, Ephraim, Manasseh, and Benjamin, followed 
by Dan, Asher, and Naphtali, the former pitching 
their tents to the W. and the latter to the N. of the 
tent of meeting (Nu ch. 2). A list of the clans of 
the various tribes may be found in Gn ch. 46 and 
Nu ch. 26. We have also a detailed census both at 
the Exodus (Nu chs. 1, 2) and thirty-eight years 
later, at the close of the wanderings (Nu ch. 26). 
The tribes of Judah and Ephraim played the most 
important part in the history of the nation, and there 
was a constant duel between the two for the hege- 
mony of Israel. 

Judah’s position in the van of the desert march 
indicated the preeminence of this tribe, which num- 
bered 76,500 at the second census (Nu 26 22). By 
the admission of a Kenite element (Jg 1 16) and two 
Kenizzite clans, Caleb and Othniel (Jg 1 12-16, 20; 
Jos 14 6-15, 15 13-19), this tribe was materially in- 
creased. Judah absorbed Simeon also, which had 
dwindled during the desert wanderings from 59,300 
(Nu 1 23) to 22,200 (Nu 26 12 #.). Simeon is men- 
tioned neither in the Blessing of Moses (Dt ch. 33) 
nor in the Song of Deborah (Jg ch. 5). These omis- 
sions clearly indicate that as early as the period of 
the Judges this tribe had lost its identity, and there 
is ample evidence for its absorption by Judah. In 
the conquest it acted with Judah (Jg 13). The terri- 
tory allotted to Simeon (Jos 19 1-9) really belonged to 
Judah (cf. Jos 15 26-32, 42), and after the Exile only 
Judahites are mentioned as inhabiting these cities 
(Neh 11 26 #.). The territory of Judah naturally falls 
into four parts: (1) The hill-country (Jos 15 48 #..); 
(2) the wilderness, running from the central range 
to the shores of the Dead Sea (Jos 15 61 #.); (3) the 
Shephelah, lying between the Maritime plain and the 
higher hills (Jos 15 33 #.); (4) the Negeb or ‘South’ 
on the extreme south (Jos 15 21 #.). The 8. bound- 
ary of Judah ran from the lower end of the Dead Sea 
by way of Kadesh-barnea to Wddy el-‘Arish; the N. 
border extended in an irregular line from Kiriath- 
jearim, in the Shephelah, to En-rogel, in the vicinity 
of Jerusalem, and then passed on to the Jordan (Jos 
18 11-20). Judah is not mentioned in the Song of 
Deborah (Jg ch. 5), and was evidently at that early 
period working out its own destiny, quite independ- 
ently of the other tribes. 


Immediately to the N., separating Judah from its 
chief rival, lay the territory of the small but heroic 
tribe of Benjamin. History verifies the poetic or- 
acle ‘Benjamin is a wolf that raveneth’ (Gn 49 27); 
for the tribe was martial, being famous for its archers 
and slingers (Jg 20 16; I Ch 8 40, 12 2), and among 
its warriors it numbered Ehud, Saul, and Jonathan. 
It took part with the Northern tribes in the cam- 
paign against Sisera (Jg 514). The line separating its 
territory from that of Ephraim ran from the Jordan 
near Jericho by the way of Bethel (counted to Ben- 
jamin in Jos 18 13, to Ephraim in I Ch 7 28) to Beth- 
horon the lower. Ephraim occupied the middle por- 


Tribes 
Truth 


_ A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


924 


ace al tana Petit fl Dea ae i i a 


tion of the land north of Benjamin and, ideally at 
least, its territory extended from the Jordan down 
to the seacoast (Jos 16 6 f., 177 #.). In two poetic 
oracles (Gn 49 22-26; Dt 33 13-17) the closely related 
tribes Ephraim and Manasseh are promised a fertile 
soil and indomitable military courage. The former 
was unable fully to conquer its allotment, for Gezer 
remained in the hands of the Canaanites until the 
reign of Solomon; but is said to have captured Aija- 
lon and Shaalbim, both originally Danite territory 
(Jg135f.). Ephraim absorbed Canaanitish elements, 
especially at Shechem (Jg 91 ff.). In consequence 
of haughty demeanor as chief tribe, there was con- 
siderable friction between it and leaders from other 
parts of Israel, e.g., Gideon and Jephthah. Among 
its tribal heroes we find Joshua, Samuel, and Jero- 
boam I. After the disruption of the monarchy, 
Ehpraim became a designation of the Northern 
Kingdom. 

Before proceeding further N. let us turn to the 
valleys of Aijalon and Sorek, which lie to the NW. 
of Jerusalem. In the original allotment of the land, 
these fell to Dan (Jos 19 40-48). The taunt of Deb- 
orah (Jg 5 17), ‘And Dan, why did he remain in 
ships?’ indicates that at one time its territory ex- 
tended down to the seacoast. It may have occupied 
Joppa (Jg 1 34 f.). A majority of this tribe, unable 
to maintain their position and hemmed in by Amo- 
rites and Philistines, were forced to migrate to the 
extreme N., and conquered the city Laish (Jg 18 7, 
27 ff.). Samson belonged to the portion of the tribe 
that remained behind in their original quarters. In 
the Blessing of Jacob, Dan is likened to ‘a serpent 
in the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the 
horse’s heels’ (Gn 49 16, 17); in the Blessing of Moses, 
to a ‘lion’s whelp, that leapeth forth from Bashan’ 
(Dt 33 22). Both similes characterize the tribe as 
lurking in ambush and suddenly darting forth to 
attack the foe. This poetic description agrees with 
the narrative of Jg ch. 18, which tells of the sudden 
descent of 600 warriors of this tribe upon the peace- 
ful and defenseless inhabitants of Laish (thereafter 
named Dan) 


Directly N. of Ephraim lay the territory of the 
western branch of the tribe Manasseh. Its allot- 
ment stretched westward to the brook Kanah and 
included cities along the southern edge of the plain 
of Esdraelon. Here also the conquest was only 
partial and important points such as Bethshan, Dor, 
Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo (Jg 1 27 #.; ef. Jos 17 
11 ff.) remained in the possession of the Canaanites. 
In the story of Deborah (Jg 514) Manasseh is referred 
to as Machir, the name of one of its principal clans. 
Of Israel’s early heroes, Gideon belonged to this 
tribe. The southern and eastern part of the plain of 
Esdraelon and the range of Gilboa fell to the lot of 
Issachar (Jos 1917-23). The famous Via Maris passed 
through this territory and was a source of great 
wealth (Dt 33 19). The poetic characterization of 
Gn 49 14-15 makes Issachar a strong tribe which suc- 
cumbed to the enticements of a favorable situation, 
and was subjugated by the Canaanites. The men 
of Issachar ardently espoused the cause of the tribes 
in the campaign against Sisera (Jg 515). In the age 
of the Judges Naphtali was a brave and patriotic 


tribe, producing Barak (Jg 5 18), and taking part in 
Gideon’s war of liberation from the Midianites (Jg 
7 23). Its territory lay to the E. of Asher and 
Zebulun, and directly W. of the Sea of Galilee, 
stretching northward to the waters of Merom and 
the sources of the Jordan. The fertility of this region 
is proverbial; Josephus spoke of it as a terrestrial 
paradise, and modern travelers have vied with one 
another in exhausting their vocabularies to describe 
the richness and the productivity of the soil—quali- 
ties which were noted by ancient Hebrew poets (Gn 
49 21; Dt 33 23). The region of which Naphtali’s 
territory was a part later bore the name Galilee, and 
has been hallowed as no other portion of Palestine, 
except Jerusalem, by the footsteps of our Lord in 
His earthly life and ministry. Another tribe which 
threw itself energetically into the struggle with 
Sisera was Zebulun (Jg 5 18), but in later periods it 
played a very unimportant part in the history of 
Israel. The situation of this territory was especially 
favorable. According to the limits as given in Jos 
19 10-16, it was entirely inland, being bounded on the 
S. by Issachar, on the W. by Asher, and on the E. 
and N. by Naphtali. These boundaries included the 
plain of Asochis. The Blessing of Joseph (Gn 49 13) 
speaks of this territory in terms which imply an out- 
let to the sea: ‘Zebulun shall dwell at the haven of 
the sea; And he shall be for a haven of ships; And 
his border shall be upon Zidon.’ It is possible that 
the boundaries of the tribe varied at different periods 
of history, and at one time it had an outlet to the 
sea, as Josephus states. Zebulun was associated 
with Issachar as growing rich from maritime com- 
merce: ‘For they shall suck the abundance of the 
seas’ (Dt 3319). Zebulun’s territory was also a part 
of that larger section later known as Galilee, and the 
landscape was ‘richly diversified with sylvan vale, 
fruitful plain, and breezy height.’ Asher received 
as its portion a strip of coastland, stretching from 
Mt. Carmel to Phenicia (Jos 19 24-31). It was very 
fertile and especially adapted to the culture of the 
olive (Dt 33 24). From this section food was ex- 
ported for the royal table (Gn 49 20). This tribe 
only partially conquered its territory, for among the 
cities allotted to it were Acco, Tyre, and Sidon, which 
never became Israelitic; it was gradually amalga- 
mated with the Canaanites (Jg 1 31), and did not 
join the tribes to throw off the yoke of Sisera (Jg 
517). In the inscriptions of Seti I and Rameses II, 
Asher (’-s-ru) is the designation of the Phenician 
interior highland, and hence some maintain that 
originally Asher was a geographical term. 


Moses gave permission to Reuben, Gad, and half- 
Manasseh to settle E. of the Jordan, provided that 
they took part in the conquest of the territory 
assigned to the other tribes (Nu ch. 32). Poetry and 
history agree in representing Gad as a brave and 
martial tribe: ‘Gad, a troop shall press upon him; 
but he shall press upon their heel’ (Gn 49 19; cf. Dt 
33 20). Its environment induced such a character, 
for the Ammonites, Moabites, and other desert tribes 
frequently raided its territory (Jg ch. 11). Some of 
David’s bravest warriors, ‘whose faces were like the 
faces of lions, and they were as swift as the roes upon 
the mountains,’ were Gadites (1Ch 128). According 


925 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Tribes 
Truth 





to Nu 32 34-36, the territory of Gad lay E. and NE. 
of the Dead Sea. The cities of this list were situated 
between the Jabbok and the Arnon. The allotment 
of Joshua (13 24-28) assigned territory to Gad which 
stretched from the Sea of Galilee southward to the 
land of the Ammonites. No doubt the fortunes of 
war made the boundaries vary at different periods. 
The inscription of Mesha (q.v.) corroborates the 
statements of Scripture: ‘and the men of Gad dwelt 
in the land of Ataroth from old’ (line 10), and sev- 
eral other Gadite cities are mentioned in the inscrip- 
tion. Reuben was an important tribe in the age of 
the Judges, for it is severely upbraided for not taking 
any part in the common defense during the great 
crisis when the Northern tribes defeated Sisera (Jg 
5 15-17). The Reubenites must have suffered greatly 
at the hands of the Moabites, whose territory ad- 
joined, for their numbers dwindle and they are not 
heard of in later history. The list of their towns is 
given in Jos 13 15-23, and they were so situated as to 
form an enclave within the territory of Gad (Nu 
32 37, 38). As Judah absorbed Simeon, so Gad swal- 
lowed up Reuben. The character of the land and 
its effect on tribal history are put in his inimitable 
style by G. A. Smith: ‘These high, fresh moors, the 
dust of whose paths still bear no footmark save those 
of sheep and cattle, had attracted two tribes, which, 
not crossing the Jordan, failed, like the others, to rise 
from the pastoral to the agricultural stage of life.’ 
Reuben produced no great national hero. After the 
defeat of Og, the trans-Jordanic portion of the tribe 
of Manasseh occupied the land E. of the Jordan as 
far S. asthe Jabbok. Their territory extended north- 
ward to the lower slopes of Hermon, and to the NE., 
including a large portion of the Hauran. The villages 
of Jair were allotted to Manasseh (Dt 3 14). The 
eastern clans of this tribe held to their pastoral mode 
of life, and had difficulty in maintaining their posi- 
tion against the nomads of the desert and the Am- 
monites. On this section cf. also PALESTINE § 29. 

Of Levi as a secular tribe little is known. The 
meaning of the name is uncertain; the view that 
‘Levi’ is not a tribal name, but a professional title 
(cf. lawi’u, ‘priest,’ on Minean Inscriptions), is only a 
conjecture. The fact that Moses was a member of 
this tribe, as well as its devotion to the cause of 
Jehovah (Ex 32 25 #.), gained it the privileges of 
priestly rank. Early in the history of Israel the 
Levites became custodians of the sanctuary and its 
furniture (Nu 35f.). As the priestly tribe, it had no 
definite territory, but forty-eight cities were allotted 
to it (Nu 35 1-8); cf. also PrrrstHoop, §§ 2 (c), 4, 9. 
LiTERATURE: Barton, Sketch of Semitic Origins (1902), ch. 2; 

McCurdy, History, Prophecy, and the Monuments (1894-1901, 

vol. ii, chs. 2-3); W. R. Smith, Kinship and Marriage in 

Early Arabia (1885); Keil, Handbuch der bibl. Archdologie? 

(1875); H. P. Smith, O 7 History (1903); Paton, Early His- 

tory of Syria and Palestine (1901); G. A. Smith, The Historical 

Geography of the Holy Land (1896); works of Benzinger (21907) 

and Nowack (1894) on Hebrdische Archdologie. Jeremia’s 

The O T in the Light of the Ancient East, II p. 77 (1911). For 

trenchant criticism of modern theories, see Orr, The Problem 


of the O T (1906) and Konig, Neweste Prinzipien der alttesta- 
mentlichen Kritik (1902). J.A.K 


TRIBUTE. See Tax. 
TROAS, trd’as. See ALEXANDRIA TROAS. 
'TROGYLLIUM, tro-jil/i-om (Tewy6dtoy): The 


promontory at the foot of Mt. Mycale, in the prov- 
ince of Caria, nearly opposite the island of Samos 
and not far to the NW. of Miletus. It was here, ac- 
cording to the AV of Ac 2015, that Paul’s ship tarried 
for part of a day on its voyage along the Asian coast, 
being detained, probably, by contrary winds. The 
place of anchorage is still called St. Paul’s port. In 
the channel between Trogyllium and Samos the 
Greeks destroyed the Persian fleet in 479 B.c. 
J.R.S. S.t—S. A. 
TROOP: Apart from its strict military sense, this 
term appears in AV for: (1) gadh, the name for the 
god of ‘fortune’ (Gn 30 11, ‘fortunate’ RV =Heb. 
‘with fortune’). In Is 65 11 (RV ‘fortune’), it is the 
name of the Phenician and Aramaic god. See 
FortuNE and Semiric REeiaion, § 22. (2) ’drah 
(Job 6 19, ‘caravan’ RV). C. Bob 


TROPHIMUS, tréf’i-mos (Tedgtuoc): A native of 
Ephesus (Ac 20 4, 21 29) who, with Tychicus, repre- 
sented the churches of the province of Asia in the 
presentation of the Gentile gifts to the church in Je- 
rusalem. The Gentile origin of T. is further attested 
by the tumult occasioned by the suspicion that Paul 
had taken him into the Temple (Ac 21 29). In II Ti 
4 20 T. is said to have been left behind at Miletus, 
on the occasion of Paul’s final journey to Rome. 

JeMaTe 

TRUCE-BREAKERS: The AV rendering of the 
Gr. &orovdot, found only in II Ti 3 3 (‘ implacable’ 
RV). The original term means, literally, ‘without 
a libation,’ 2.e., ‘without treaty,’ the sealing of which 
was signified by a libation of (cf. Thuc. 1, 37). It 
was thus used to denote unwillingness to enter into 
a covenant, 7.¢., in the sense of ‘implacable.’ 

Vers be 

TRUMPET. Besides its use as an instrument of 
music the trumpet-sound was the alarm of war (cf. 
Am 36; Hos 81; Is 18 3; Zeph 1 16), a signal for battle 
or for rallying for war (Jg 3 27, 6 34, 718, etc.), anda 
signal for many other occasions when a public notice 
of some kind was to be given (I K 1 39; II K 9113, 
etc.). See also Music anp Musica INstRUMENTS, 
§ 3 (2). BE. E. N. 


TRUMPETS, FEAST OF. See Fasts anp 
Feasts, § 2. 


TRUTH: 1. O T Terms. The rendering of two 
Heb. words, ’émeth, ’émiinah, whose primary idea is 
that of stability or firmness. From this sense to 
that of constancy, the transition is imperceptible. 
That which is stable is to be depended upon; con- 
sequently, even to running water is ascribed the 
property of truth (Is 33 16, ‘sure,’ EV). In the next 
stage, the idea is developed into conscious fidelity 
(loyalty, honesty) to that which is known to be 
good, and the conception of truth as a moral quality 
in a person comes into view. Truth in this sense is 
primarily the attribute of God Himself—perfect 
consistency with Himself (Ex 34 6; Ps 25 5, 48 3, etc.). 

2. God’s Truth. God’s truth, however, is most of 
all emphasized in His relation to His covenant 
people. It is this quality in Him which encourages 
His own to trust Him. Therefore, it becomes the 
ground of their hope that their prayers to Him are 
heard, and that their taking refuge in Him in time 


| 


Truth 
Tyre 





of trouble is effective. His truth is, therefore, pre- 
eminently combined with His mercy (Ps 25 10, 26 3, 
40 10, 85 10, 89 14). But it is also combined with His 
righteousness (Ps 45 4, 111 8). God’s truth is the 
ground of His righteous judgment (Neh 9 33). This 
leads to the definition of truth as the truthfulness of 
God, in the sense that what He says corresponds to 
His own being and, therefore, to reality in all par- 
ticulars. All that proceeds from His mouth is truth 
(Is 45 23)—the uncorrupted, unadulterated expres- 
sion of His own being and will. (For the N T re- 
production of this general idea, 7.¢., of ‘truth’ and 
‘faithfulness’ or reliability, cf. such passages as Ro 
37 [zrpOeta], 3 3 [xfottc]}; ICol9; I Th 5 24; He 
10 23; I P 419; I Jn 19 [xcté¢] as applied to Christ; 
ef. He 2 17 [érAchuwy xat mtotdc]; Rev 3 14, 19 11 
[motég xat &AnOtvdc]; also § 4, below.) 

3. Truth in Man. What is an excellence in God 
is viewed as equally an excellence in man. The king, 
as exercising prerogatives of sovereignty, must be 
especially characterized by the same truth which 
distinguishes God (Ps 45 4; Pr 20 28). As constancy 
is to be measured, first of all, by conformity to out- 
ward reality in man, the characteristic of always con- 
forming to fact comes to be recognized as truth; so 
that veracity in speech is, above all other things, 
truth. The man of truth is he whose words can be 
trusted, because his utterances are exact representa- 
tions of outward realities. And this sort of truth, or 
truthfulness, is an accompaniment of the fear of God 
(Ex 18 21; Ps 152). The duty of truthfulness in social 
relations thus becomes one of the most important 
obligations, and its opposite is a grievous evil (Ps 
1017; Pr 1217). A philosophical conception of truth 
does not appear in the O T. Expressions like ‘ buy 
the truth’ (Pr 23 23) refer, not to truth in the ab- 
stract or, in general, objectively viewed, but to truth 
as an inner equipment of character. 


4. NT Conception. The content of the N T term 
(crAnPeta) is partly derived from the O T through 
the mediation of the LXX. and the Apocrypha. In 
the LXX. the O T conception is frequently rendered 
by ‘faithfulness’ (xfott¢ and derivatives; cf., ¢.g., as 
regards the Divine character and conduct Ro 8 3; 
I Co19, 1013; I Th 5 24; II Th3 3; He 10 23; 11 11; 
IP 419;LJn19; He217; Rev 15, 314), see § 2 above; 
but it is also rendered by the more classical term 
&hH0ea (as in the N T), with the emphasis on the 
objective side of reality and consistency with reality. 
This{ combination of the two notions is carried 
through the Apocrypha (cf. To 3 2; Sir 279 and To 
710; Jth 55; IV Mac 5 10). Accordingly, the prog- 
ress of the N T thought is from the original ety- 
mological conception of &A7Seta, as reality, to that 
of conformity to reality; then to the expression of 
that conformity, 7.e., veracity, and, lastly, to moral 
or spiritual reality, especially as embodied in the 
words and person of Jesus Christ. 


5. Special N T Developments. In the individual 
portions of N T the following shades of meaning 
appear: (1) In the Synoptic Gospels and Acts the 
truth is plain reality. In the phrase ‘of a truth’ 
(Lk 22 59; Ac 4 27) there is a manifest effort to lay 
emphasis on the actuality of what is asserted, tho 
it might appear unexpected or surprizing. Other- 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


926 





wise, truth is correspondence to the reality in speech 
or representation (Mk 5 33). (2) In Ja, I and II P, 
and He, the truth is the body of Christian teaching 
which believers accept and present to the world (Ja 
1 18, 314; I P 1 22; IT P 2 2; He 10 26). (8) In the 
Pauline writings, there is an occasional reversion 
to the O T sense of the Divine faithfulness (Ro 3 7 
[cf. also 3 3, xtottc], 158),and occasional equivalency 
with human veracity (ICo58; IICo714); but, in the 
main, the truth is the body of thought which God 
has revealed to men for the purpose of drawing them 
out of sin to the love of Himself. It is not exactly 
identical, but generally synonymous, with Paul’s 
favorite term, ‘the gospel’ (Eph 1 13; cf. also Gal 
25, 14,57; 1 Ti 315; Ro 28). (4) In the Johannine 
literature the primary conception of simple reality 
emerges occasionally (I Jn 3 is; II Jn ver. 1, II Jn 
ver. 1), and with it the sense of accord with reality, 
as in the phrase ‘to speak the truth’ (Jn 8 46, 16 7); 
but predominantly, the truth is a view of eternal 
moral and spiritual reality hypostatically conceived. 
Consequently, we find such terms as ‘to witness to 
the truth’ (Jn 5 33, 18 37), ‘the truth makes free’ (Jn 
8 32), it ‘sanctifies’ (Jn 17 19). In its highest and 
most significant sense, it is embodied in the person 
of the Incarnate Logos (Jn 14 6). A. C. Z. 


TRYPHANA, trai-fi’na, AND TRYPHOSA, trai- 
fd’sa (Toebgatva, Teugdcx): Two Christian women 
mentioned in Ro 16 12, possibly twin sisters (see 
J. R. Harris, The Dioscuri in the Ch. Legends, 1903). 
For the story concerning ‘Queen Tryphzena’ see Acts 
of Paul and Thecla. Whether she is to be identified 
with the queen of Pontus mentioned on coins is 
uncertain. See Ramsay, The Church and the Roman 
Empire, p. 382. APs od 


TRYPHOSA. See TRYPHNA AND TRYPHOSA. 


TUBAL, ti’bel. See EranocrapHy aNnp ErH- 
NoLoey, § 13. 

TUBAL-CAIN, ti’bal-ken” (2°72, tabhal-qayin): 
The son of Lamech, and Zillah, and the ‘forger of 
every cutting instrument of brass and iron’ (Gn 4 22, 
‘the instructor of every artificer in brass and iron’ 
AV). The word gayin is understood by some to 
mean ‘of Cain’ (the tribe); while others think it 
should probably be translated ‘smith,’ and not be 
taken as part of adouble name. He was perhaps the 
eponymous ancester of Tubal (=the Tibarenians) 
SE. of the Black Sea (Gn 10 2; Ezk 27 13; Is 66 19). 

Cosa: 

TUNIC. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 2. 

TURBAN. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 8. 


TURTLE. See Patestine, § 25 (under Turtle 
dove). 

TURTLE-DOVE. See Sacririck AND OFFER- 
InGas, § 5; and PauestIng, § 25. 


TUTOR. See Epucation, § 9. 


TWELVE. See Numsers, SIGNIFICANT AND 
SYMBOLIC, § 7. 


TWIN BROTHERS (Atécxoupot, 7.e., Castor and 
Pollux): These were two deities, regarded as the 
tutelary gods of sailors (Ac 28 11). The ship on 
which the Apostle Paul sailed either had an inscrip- 
tion indicating that it was dedicated to these deities 





927 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Truth 
Tyre 





or figures of them ornamented its prow. See also 
Suips AnD NaviaaTIon, § 2. KH. E. N. 
TYCHICUS, tik’i-kus (Tuxtx6cs): A disciple of 
Paul, and the bearer of the Colossian letter, who 
in addition conveyed oral information concerning 
Paul’s state (Col 47 f£.). Almost exactly the same 
words are found in Eph 6 21 f., which, on the assump- 
tion of the independence of the passages, shows T. 
to have been also the bearer of the circular letter 
known as Ephesians. In the Pastorals T. is repre- 
sented as sent to Ephesus (II Ti 4 12) and to Crete 
(Tit 312). His constant association with churches 
in the province of Asia confirms the designation of 
T. in Ac 20 4 as an ’Actavéc, ‘a native of Asia.’ 
J Meat: 


| TYPE: This word does not occur in EVV. The 
Gr. tixosg means, primarily, ‘the mark made by a 


blow,’ ‘the print left on a substance by the impact 


of another,’ and so ‘the impression of a seal on 
wax.’ The original in such a case is the antitype. 
But usage is not perfectly consistent and uniform, 
the original being also called the type, of which the 
copy is an imitation, or antitype (I Th 17; Tit 27; 
IP 53). In Biblical interpretation a type is usually 
understood to be a person, or thing, prefiguring a 
future person, or thing. Adam was a type of Christ 
(Ro 5 14). The idea has been elaborated in great 
detail, involving especially the discovery of corre- 
spondences between the different rites of the sacrifi- 
cial ritual and the parts of Christ’s work. The great 
mass of these correspondences are artificial and 
imaginary; and the place and value of typology 
as the science which treats of the principles and 
results of such correlation (cf. Fairbairn’s Typology), 
are very questionable ee Cre. 


TYRANNUS, tai-ran’us (Tdbeavvoc): The head of 
a certain ‘school’ in Ephesus, where Paul carried on 
his work after his withdrawal from the Synagog (Ac 
199). The word ttvoc (AV ‘one’ Tyrannus) is omitted 
in the best MSS. (8 AB), which would indicate that 
T. was not altogether unknown. That his school 
was one of considerable influence is implied by the 
fact that from it the entire province was reached 
with the gospel. According to D (also Syr. P. marg.), 
Paul discoursed regularly in this place, &x6 Seas 
é[ =xéurtys] ws Sex&dtys, ‘from the fifth to the tenth 
hour,’ after the fashion of the philosophers of the 
time. Itis probable, therefore, that T. was a regular 
teacher of some sort, with a following more or less 
large. He may have been also an adherent of the 
synagog, where he was favorably affected by Paul’s 
preaching. The use of his influence in securing an 
opening for the gospel would not be contrary to 
Paul’s method (cf. Ac 17 16 £.). J. M. T. 


TYRE, tair (7%, tsdr, ‘rock’ = Assyr. tsurru): The 
best known and most famous of the ancient cities 
of Phenicia (q.v.), located on the E. coast of the 
Mediterranean, not far from the territory of Israel, 
about 20 m. 8. of Zidon. Many extra-Biblical refer- 
ences define the city’s limits. Asshurbanipal, King of 
Assyria (668-626 B.c.), says: ‘In my third campaign 
I marched against Baal, King of Tyre, who dwelt 
in the midst of the sea.’ In the Anastast I Papyrus, 
T. is spoken of as a city in the sea, to which water 


is brought in ships, where fish are more plentiful 
than sand (Miller, Asien wnd Europa, p. 185). This 
is paralleled by the Biblical references in Ezk 26 17 
(‘in the sea’) and 27 32 (‘in the midst of the sea’). 
This city ‘in the sea’ was located on an island—a 
coral reef—containing about 142 acres. The island 
was about 1,800 ft. from the mainland, on which 
stood, on the testimony of ancient authors, a much 
larger and, in fact, a much older, city called Old 
Tyre. 

The beginnings of T. were very ancient (Is. 23 1-7). 
Herodotus tells us (II, 44) that the priests of Mel- 
karth told him that it was founded 2,300 years be- 
fore his visit, that is, about 2750 B.c. Traditions 
unite to locate the first city on the mainland. Safety 
from siege, facility in dealing with shipping, and, 
probably, monopoly of trade, led to the building of 
the city on the island. Early in Israel’s history, it 
appears to have been a place of importance (Jos 
19 29), and to have been well fortified (II S 247). 
In the Tell el-Amarna period (14th cent. B.c.), 
King Abimelech of Tyre professes his fidelity to the 
Pharaoh of Egypt. It established numerous manu- 
factories, both within its own walls, and on the coasts 
of the Mediterranean Sea, where it produced world- 
famed goods, such as purple dyes, metal-work, and 
glassware. It established trade relations with the 
known world, not only with the countries of the 
Mediterranean, but with those of every water adja- 
cent thereto, including Egypt, the Black Sea region, 
and even Great Britain (Ezk ch. 27). Tradition 
says its sailors rounded the Cape of Good Hope. 
It established colonies in N. Africa and in Spain, and 
was so powerful in the world of his day that Isaiah 
(23 8) designates it as ‘the bestower of crowns, 
whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are 
the honorable of the earth.’ 


T. was in its prime in the days of David and 
Solomon, and played an important part in the ma- 
terial, commercial, political and religious history of 
Israel. The friendship established between Hiram 
of Tyre T1851; IK 51 #.) and David and Solo- 
mon became of mutual advantage to the two king- 
doms, especially in the matter of the construction of 
Solomon’s temple, and of long sea voyages to Ophir 
and to Tarshish. Doubtless Israel’s close relations 
with T. continued for several centuries, as may be in- 
ferred from the marriage of Ahab and Jezebel (I K 16 
31). To the earlier Assyrian invaders of Syria T. is said 
to have paid tribute. But a change came about and 
it asserted its independence, just when, we do not 
know. But Shalmaneser V (727-722 B.c.) included 
T. in the same category with Samaria in 724, for he 
simultaneously laid siege to both of them. He died, 
however, in 722, and the siege of T. was raised. 
But Sennacherib, according to Josephus (Ant. IX, 
14 2), endeavored, from 701 to 696, to reduce it; how- 
ever, after plundering the coast-towns, he gave up 
the task, as also Esarhaddon and Asshurbanipal were 
compelled to do. Nebuchadrezzar likewise besieged 
it for thirteen years, but, finally, left it uncaptured. 
Ezekiel draws a graphic picture of this important 
city and its relation to the trade of his day (chs. 
26-28. While its activity was much checked by the 
numerous attacks of jealous neighbors and nations, 


Ucal ; 
Urim and Thummim 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 928 


a ea 


and its wealth and glory declined, it did not cease to 
be an important commercial center (Neh 13 16). Its 
first fateful humiliating capture was that by Alex- 
ander the Great in 332. In seven months, he built 
from the mainland a causeway 1,800 ft. long and 
wide enough to assault and capture the city, and put 
its inhabitants to the sword, or enroll them as slaves. 
The city was repeopled and newly built. In the 
Greek period, it had a checkered fate, and in 198 
came under the sway of the Seleucide. Pompey 
allowed it full autonomy in 65, which Augustus very 
much delimited. At the time of Christ the territory 


belonging to it reached down into Palestine as far | 


UCAL, yii’kol (29%, ’aikhal): An obscure word in 
Pr 301, taken as a proper noun by many interpreters. 
Others regard it as a verb, and would render it ‘[and] 
I am faint,’ or similarly. E. BE. N. 

UEL, yii’el (238, a’ él): One of those who married 
foreign wives (Ezr 10 34). 

ULAI, yu'lai (238, ’glay): A river near Susa 
(Shushan) in Persia (Dn 8 2, 16), called ‘Ulai’ also 
in the Assyr. inscriptions, and known to classical 
writers as Huleus. Herodotus and Strabo place 
Susa on the Choaspes (=modern Kercha); Pliny 
locates it on the Eulsus (=modern Karin), also 
called the Pasitigris. According to Néldeke, the two 
names are for the same river, as similar statements 
are made about both names. Delitzsch places the 
Ulai E. of Susa, and locates the city on the Choaspes. 
The rivers have so changed their channels that it is 
difficult to make any sure identifications. C. S. T. 


ULAM, yilem (0238, ‘alam): 1. The son of She- 
resh, a Manassite (I Ch 7 16 f.). 2. A Benjamite, 
father of a family of noted archers (I Ch 8 39 f.). 


ULLA, vl’a (NPY, ‘ull@’): The ancestor of a family 
of Asher (I Ch 7 39). 

UMMAH, om’a (OY, ‘ummah): A city of Asner 
(Jos 19 30). Probably a scribal mistake for ‘Acco.’ 

UMPIRE. See Day’s Man. 


UNCIRCUMCISED, UNCIRCUMCISION. See 
CIRCUMCISION and GENTILES. 


UNCLE. See Famity anv Famizy Law, § 1. 


UNCLEAN, UNCLEAN THING, UNCLEAN- 
NESS. See Purz, Puriry, Purirication, §§ 1, 6. 


UNCLEAN SPIRIT. The term dxéOeptocs ‘un- 
clean,’ commonly used in the Gospels as a designa- 
tion of demoniacs (those ‘with unclean spirits,’ Mk 
5 2, 7 25, etc.) has a ceremonial rather than a moral 
significance. These unfortunates (who would be 
termed deranged to-day) were viewed, not as wicked, 
but as under some sort of control by a spirit or in 
some peculiar relation to deity. This placed them in 
a class by themselves, ‘separate,’ and contact with 
any such persons brought ceremonial defilement. 
Just as the ‘holy’ scriptures were said to ‘defile the 
hands’ of those who touched them, so such persons 
‘defiled’ those who came in contact with them. See 


as Carmel (Mt 15 21-31; Mk 7 24-31). It became a 
Christian center (Ac 21 3-6), and was influential in 
the early Church. The Crusaders captured it June 
27, 1124 a.p., but lost it again to the Saracens in 
March, 1291 a.p. Since that day it has been an 
unimportant Mohammedan town. It is no longer 
on an island. The mole, built by Alexander, has be- 
come so enlarged by accretions of sand on both 
sides that the original island is at present merely a 
promontory of the mainland. The modern city con- 
tains about 6,000 inhabitants, and has none of the 
marine commercial importance of Biblical times. 
Ty' MP 


also Demons AND DemMoNOLOGY; and Pours, Purti- 
FICATION. E. KE. N. 


UNCTION. See ANornt. 
UNDERGIRD. See Surps anp NaviaarTIon, § 3. 
UNDERSETTER. See Tremp te, § 15. 


UNDERSTAND, UNDERSTANDING. See Wis- 
DOM. 


UNDERTAKE: This word as used in Is 38 14 
AV means to ‘be surety for,’ so RV. 


UNGODLY: This term is the translation of: (1) 
beliyya‘al, ‘worthlessness’ in AV in II S 225; Ps 184 
(‘ungodliness’ RV) and in Pr 16 27, 19 28 (‘worthless’ 
RV). (2) l@ hasidh, ‘unkind’ (Ps 481). (8) ‘dwil, 
‘unjust.’ (4) rdsha‘, ‘wicked’ (II Ch 19 2; Job 
34 18; Ps 11, 4, 5, 6,37, 7312). In the N T it is used 
as a translation of dceByc, ‘impious’ (Ro 4 5, 5 6; 
I Til9;I P 418; II P25. 37; Jude vs. 4, 15). 

a Big oid 2y- 


UNICORN. See Pauustine, § 24. 


UNKNOWN GOD: Because of the multitude of 
gods, the Greeks always feared that some god might 
be offended by unintentional neglect in prayer or 
sacrifice; so that altars to anonymous gods were not 
uncommon (cf. Pausanias, Philostratus), to appease 
deities that might otherwise have been overlooked. 
On an altar in Athens was the inscription, ATNQ=TQ 
OEQ, ‘To an [not the] unknown god.’ This was 
noticed by Paul and used by him as a significant, as 
well as convenient, text with which to begin the 
defense of himself before the Areopagus (Ac 17 23). 
The phrase ‘too superstitious’ (ver. 22 AV) should 
read ‘somewhat religious,’ or ‘religious beyond 
others’ (‘very religious’ RV). See also RELIGION. 

J. R.S. S.*—S. A. 

UNLEARNED: This word is used to render (1) 
&yeauatos in the sense of ‘totally illiterate’ (Ac 
413); (2) dua0qc, an ‘ignorant’ or ‘uninstructed’ per- 
son (II P 3 16, ‘ignorant’? RV); (8) d&xatSevtoc, an 
‘uneducated’ person (II Ti 2 23, ‘ignorant’ RV); 
(4) idtmrns, ‘one in private life,’ ‘non-professional,’ 
‘inexpert,’ or ‘uninformed’ (I Co 14 16, 23 f.). 

A. C. Z. 


UNLEAVENED. See SacririczE AND OFFERINGS; 
§ 13; and Fasrs anp Frasrs, § 2 (2), and 7. 


a 


929 A NEW STANDARD 


UNNI, on’ai (3¥, ‘unnit): 1. One of those ap- 
pointed by direction of David to be one of the 
musicians of the sanctuary (I Ch 15 18, 20). 2. See 
UNNO. 

UNNO, on’6 (13Y, ‘unnd): A Levite of the days of 
Zerubbabel (Neh 129). Unni AV. 


UNQUENCHABLE FIRE. See EscuaroLoey, 
§ 39. 


UNSHOD: This term renders the adj. yahéph, 
‘barefoot,’ the usual translation (II S 15 30; Is 
20 2 #.). In Jer 2 25 Judah is warned lest she wear 
out her shoes in running after foreign gods and allies. 
Hitzig, ad loc., finds a reference to certain acts 
connected with Baal-worship. Ore = fied I 


UNWALLED TOWN, VILLAGE. See Crry, § 3. 


UNWASHEN. See Pours, Puriry, PuriIricaTIoNn, 
§ 7. 

UPHARSIN, yu-far’sin. See Menn, Meng, etc. 

UPHAZ, yi'faz (1218, ’a%phdz): This term occurs 
only in Jer 109 and Dn 105. In case a proper n. is 
intended, the Heb. spelling is probably an error for 
“DIS, ’Ophir, Ophir (so Targum and Syr. Hexapla). 
It is possible, but not probable, that the original 
reading was mdphdz, ‘pure,’ as in I K 10 18; cf. 
Giesebrecht in Handkommentar z. A T (1907), ad loc. 

E. E. N. 


UPPER ROOM. Sce JERUSALEM, § 42; see also 
Hovss, § 6 (d) and (e). 

UPRIGHT: This is the rendering of ydshdr, in all 
cases in which the word has an ethical meaning. It 
denotes primarily ‘even,’ ‘level,’ and is used of roads 
in a number of passages. Then it is applied figura- 
tively to persons and to actions in the sense of 
‘impartial,’ ‘equitable,’ ‘just,’ much as we use the 
adjectives ‘straight’ and ‘square.’ } oid 3 oe 

UR, or (m8, “ar; Assyr. urd, ‘fire’): I. The desig- 
nation of an ancient Babylonian city, commonly 
called ‘Ur of the Chaldees.’ Its importance is 
enhanced by the fact that it is regarded in the O T 
as the birthplace of Abraham (Gn 11 28, 31, 157; Neh 
97), and the place from which he migrated to ‘Haran’ 
in Mesopotamia, and thence to Canaan. Its site has 
been identified at the modern Tell Mugheir (or, el- 
Mukajjar) (=‘bitumened’), on the right or W. 
bank of the Euphrates, about 140 m. SE. of the site 
of old Babylon, and about 150 m. NW. of the present 
Persian Gulf, near the junction of the Shatt-el-Hai 
with the Euphrates. It was one of the seats of 
worship of the moon-god Sin, as was also Harran, to 
which Abraham migrated. Its proximity to the 
Euphrates and the Persian Gulf (for at that day the 
latter reached more than 100 m. further inland than 
it does to-day) made this city an important com- 
mercial and political center. Located, as it was, in 
a group of strong religious and commercial cities, it 
occupied a pre-eminent place in the culture and com- 
merce of its day. The second part of the phrase, 
‘of the Chaldees,’ seems to have been due to the fact 
that the region in which Ur was located was in 
later days designated as the land of the Chaldees or 
Chaldeans (Assyr. mat Kaldu). The ruins of Ur at 
the present time cover something more than 150 
acres, and are somewhat oblong in form, consisting 


~ 


BIBLE DICTIONARY Loa abd eM | 





mainly of a group of low mounds, with the remains 
of the usual tower or ziggurat in the northern por- 
tion of the area. Excavations in the spring of 1919 
revealed the palace of King Dungi (c. 2500 B.c.), and 
many other ancient buildings. Tablets of 8th to 7th 
cent. B.c. give information regarding the worship of 
the moon-god Sin, patron deity of Ur. More recent 
discoveries by the University of Pennsylvania— 
British Museum Expedition (winter of 1924-5) have 
brought to light many interesting facts, among 
others ancient business records of the old temple 
of the moon-god, in which all receipts and expen- 
ditures were carefully tabulated (cf. N. Y. Times, 
Jan. 14, 1925). 

II. The father of Eliphal, one of David’s mighty 
men (I Ch 11 35). IeMeP 


URBANUS, or-bé’nvus (OteGavéc, URBANE AV): 
A Christian in Rome to whom Paul sent a salutation, 
calling him ‘our fellow worker’ (Ro 169). Nothing 
more is known of him. 


URI, yi’rai (8, ’a7), probably the abbreviated 
form of ‘Urijah’: 1. The father of Bezalel (Ex 31 2, 
etc.). 2. The father of Geber, one of Solomon’s 
stewards (I K 4 19). 3. One of the porters who married 
a foreign wife (Ezr 10 24). 

URIAH, yu-rai’a (BINS, ’ariyyah{a], ‘flame of 
J’” or ‘J” is light’: 1. A Hittite warrior (Mt 1 6, 
Urias AV) enlisted in David’s army, whom the king 
made a victim to his sinful infatuation for his wife 
Bath-sheba (ILS 112 ¢.). 2. Urijah, the chief priest 
of the Temple in the days of Ahaz, chosen by 
Isaiah as one of the two witnesses to attest the 
prophecy concerning Maher-shalal-hash-baz (Uriah, 
Is 8 2); at the king’s command he built a new altar 
after a Syrian or Assyrian model, and in other ways 
acquiesced in the innovations introduced by the king 
(II K 16 10-16). 3. The father of Meremoth, a priest 
in the days of Nehemiah (Ezr 8 33; Neh 3 4, 21). 
4. A priest who stood by Ezra when he read the 
Book of the Law before the people (Neh 8 4), pos- 
sibly the same as 3. 5. Son of Shemaiah, a prophet of 
Kiriath-jearim (Jer 26 20-23), put to death by King 
Jehoiakim. A. C. Z. 

URIAS, yu-rai’as. See Urntan, 1. 

URIEL, yii’ni-el (2838, ’arv’él), ‘my light is EV: 
1. A Levite, chief of the Kohathites, who assisted 
in bringing up the ark from the house of Obed-edom 
to Jerusalem (I Ch 6 24 [9], 15 5, 11). 2. According 
to II Ch 18 2, a man of Gibeah; and the maternal 
grandfather of Abijah. Og ld Be 


URIJAH, yu-rai’ja. See Urtan. 


URIM, yi’rm, AND THUMMIM, fhom’im 
(O°) ON, ‘Grim wthummim), ‘lights and perfec- 
tions’ (RVmg.). 

1. A Method of Divination. A method of inquir- 
ing of God (I § 28 6), involving the use of certain 
stones in connection with the breastplate of judg- 
ment (Ex 28 30). Upon this breastplate were at- 
tached twelve gems, each representing one of the 
tribes of Israel. Josephus (Ant. III, 89) and some of 
the rabbis were of the opinion that these gems were 
identical with the Urim and Thummim. Following 
this opinion, some, in modern times, have conjectured 


Urim and Thummim 
Vain 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


930 





that the method of divination by Urim and Thum- 
mim was the one used by the high priest when, in 
propounding an inquiry before God, he read the 
Divine answer by spelling it out in the successive 
flashings of light on the letters inscribed on the gems. 
Such an explanation would, of course, require the 
assumption that all the letters of the alphabet were 
represented on these gems. Of this there is no 
evidence whatever. 

2. Assyrian Tablets of Destiny. The Urim and 
Thummim stones must then be distinguished from 
the gems of the ‘breastplate of judgment.’ They 
were two (possibly three) stones worn in a pouch 
attached to the breastplate, and so arranged as to 
be near the heart of the wearer. Analogs to such 
stones are found in the Assyrian ‘Tablets of Destiny’ 
(cf. Muss.-Arnolt, Urim and Thummim, in Am. 
Jour. of Theol. July, 1900, pp. 193 ff.), and the head- 
less and featherless arrowshafts ‘of command and 
prohibition’ among the Arabs (cf. G. F. Moore, 
EB, s,v.). These stones were small, and probaby 
inscribed with distinctive signs, by which one was 
known as the affirmative and the other as the nega- 
tive, and the third (if a third were used) non-com- 
mittal or blank. Regarding their construction, no 
directions of any kind are given. It has been alleged 
that they were shaped somewhat like the teraphim 
(Spencer, De Legibus, III, 3); but this is nothing 
more than a conjecture. 

3. Method of Use. The manner of the use of the 
Urim and Thummim is also involved in obscurity. 
But the theory that there was a connection with, or 
analogy to, the breastplate, which the Egyptian 
high priest wore during legal trials (Wilkinson, Anc. 
Egyptians, III, 183), is generally discountenanced as 
based upon very superficial resemblances. Another 
theory assumes that the Urim and Thummim were 
emblems (Kalisch, Hxod. p. 544) identical with the 
twelve gems of the breastplate and that they sym- 
bolized the sanctification of the priest; that they 
were worn in order to represent to him the self- 
sacrifice involved in his office; but that inasmuch as 
they suggested his mediatorial office, they drew his 
rind away from self and environment and fixed it 
on the Divine will, stimulating supernatural insight 
and securing exact knowledge of that will. This view 
which assumes the use of hypnotism, is out of 
analogy with the general conditions under which the 
Urim and Thummim were used, and amounts to a 
practical abandonment of any explanation of the 
institution. The facts (Dt 33 8; 1S 14 41; Lv 87£,; 
Nu 27 21) point rather to the use of the Urim and 
Thummim as lots. If, in answer to an inquiry, the 
one designated as the affirmative fell out of the 
pouch, the inquirer would know that God approved; 
if the other or negative stone fell out, he would know 
that God disapproved his plan. Or, in case a third 
anonymous or non-committal stone were used and 
fell out, he would know that God declined to answer 
(I S 28 6). 

4. History of Urim and Thummim. ‘The Urim 
and Thummim were used in the preexilic period. 
At the time of the Exile, they fell into disuse. Ezr 
2 63 and Neh 7 65 show that they were regarded as a 
matter of the past. This probably accounts for the 


fact that the description of them in P throws so little 
light on them; since, when P was written, they had 
become only a memory. Josephus asserts that this 
mode of divination had ceased 200 years before his 
own day. Cf. McNeile in Westminster Com. on 
Ex 28 30. A. C. Z. 


USURY. See TrapE AND CoMMERCE, § 3. 


UTHAI, yu’thai, yi’thé, or yi'tha-ai (MW, 
‘“ithay). 1. The son of Ammihud, a Judahite (I Ch 
9 4). 2. One of the ‘sons of Bigvai,’ who returned 
from exile with Ezra (Ezr 8 14). 


UZ, oz (pip, ‘uts): I. 1. One of the ‘sons’ of Aram 
(Gn 10 23), perhaps the eldest, and consequently a 
grandson of Shem (Gn 10 22), tho I Ch 1 17 makes 
him a son of Shem. 2. The first-born ‘son’ of 
Nahor by Milcah (Gn 22 21, Huz AV), probably 
settlers or a tribe in the upper Euphrates Valley. 
3. One of the ‘sons’ of Dishan of the Edomites (Gn. 
36 28), perhaps a tribe which bore that name. 

II. The land which is designated as the home of 
Job (11). According to Job 1 3 it would seem to have 
been E. of Palestine, and according to 1 13-19, it was 
located on the edge of the desert and within raiding 
distance of the Sabeans and Chaldeans. Now, is it 
possible to combine all the foregoing cases of Uz, as 
is done by Glaser (II 414 ff.)? He thinks them to be 
identical with a section of the northwestern Arabian 
territory called Tihama. In Jer 25 20, it lies between 
Egypt and Philistia. The Assyrian inscriptions fre- 
quently mention Ussai as a land of Syria or on the 
edge of Syria, hence Delitzsch locates it at or near 
Palmyra. But at best this is only a conjecture. The 
evident meaning of the first chapter, confirmed by 
the location of the homes of some of Job’s so called 
friends—viz.: Eliphaz of Teman (2 11), Bildad the 
Shuhite (of Shuah; cf. Gn 25 2), Elihu the Buzite 
(Gn 22 21)—is that Uz was a section of country bor- 
dering on the eastern Arabian desert (from a Pal- 
estinian viewpoint), either in the Hauran or slightly 
farther N., tho not so far as Palmyra. 

TEMee 

UZAI, yii'zai, yii’zé, or yii’za-ai (HS, ’azay): One 
of those who repaired the walls under Nehemiah 
(Neh 3 25). 


UZAL, yi’zal (Ope, ’izdl): One of the thirteen 
Arabian tribes descended from Joktan (Gn 10 27). 
Arabic tradition looks upon it as the ancient name 
of San‘a, the capital of, Yemen in southern Arabia. 
It was after the Abyssinian occupation that the 
name ‘Uzal’ was changed to San‘d. According to 
one reading of Ezk 27 19, the Tyrians imported iron 
and spices from Uzal. San‘a is situated on a stream 
in the center of a beautiful and fertile region, which 
produces two crops a year. It has played an im- 
portant part in the history of Islam; in the 7th cent. 
it was the capital of the Zaidite Imams. Glaser, the 
explorer, rejects this site and advocates a position 
near Medina, but on subjective and inadequate 
grounds. Jc ALK: 

UZZAH, vz’a, UZZA, o2’a (MY, ‘uzzah) (AV): 
1. A son of Abinadab. When David was transferring 
the ark to Jerusalem, Uzzah, one of the drivers, 
was smitten by J’’ because he sacrilegiously steadied 





931 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Urim and Thummim 
Vain 





the ark (IIS 66#.). 2. One from whom a garden in 
or near Jerusalem was named. It was here that the 
kings Manasseh and Amon were buried (II K 21 18, 
26). 3. A Levite (I Ch 6 29). 4. A Benjamite (I Ch 
87). 5. Ancestral head of a group of Nethinim (Har 
2 49, Neh 7 51). JA. K. 


UZZEN-SHERAH, 0vz’’en-shé’ra, UZZEN-SHEE- 
RAH, -sbir’a. See SHEERAH. 


UZZI, oz’ai (1¥, ‘uzzt), abbreviated from ‘Uz- 
ziah’ (q.v.): 1. A priest in the main line of descent 
from Aaron (I Ch 6 5, etc.). 2. The ancestor of a 
clan of Issachar (I Ch 7 2, 3). 3. The ancestor of a 
clan of Benjamin (I Ch 77). 4. The ancestral head 
of a Benjamite family in postexilic Jerusalem (I 
Ch 9 8). 5. An overseer of Levites in Jerusalem 
(Neh 11 22). 
(Neh 12 19, 42). 


UZZIA, vz-zai’a (NYY, ‘uzziyya’): An Ashterathite 
enumerated among the valiant men of David (I Ch 
11 44). 


UZZIAH, oz-zai’a (BINIY, ‘uzztyyah[a]), ‘my 
strength is J’’: 1. Another name of Azariah, son of 
Amaziah, King of Judah, whom he succeeded at the 
age of sixteen (II K 151, 13, etc.; II Ch 26 3 #.; Mt 
18 f. Ozias AV). His reign was signalized by suc- 
cessful wars against the Philistines, the Arabians, 
the Meunim, and the Ammonites. He strengthened 
the fortifications of Jerusalem, which were somewhat 
out of repair in consequence of the siege by Jehoash 
of Israel (II Ch 26 6-9). He also fortified the harbor 
city Elath, on the Red Sea, and colonized it with 
Jews (II K 14 22), How large a maritime enterprise 


VAGABOND): This term renders in the AV (1) the 
ptepl. of nidh, ‘to wander’ aimlessly as a fugitive 
(Gn 4 12, 14, ‘wanderer’ RV). (2) nia‘, ‘totter’ about 
as beggars (Ps 109 10). (8) xeprépxecbat, ‘to go 
about’ (Ac 19 13, ‘strolling’ RV). Ce S.7P. 

VAHEB, ve’/heb (37), wahébh), a place named in 
the poetic fragment quoted in Nu 21 14. Except 
that it must have been somewhere near the Arnon, 
its location is unknown. SeeSupHan. E. E. N. 


VAIL. See Dress aND ORNAMENTS, § 8; and 
TEMPLE, § 29. 


VAIN, VANITY: The basal conception in the 
word ‘vain’ (from Lat. vanus, ‘empty’) is that of 
‘emptiness.’ It conveys the idea of something that 
may have a certain appearance or pretense of being 
or possessing substance, value, etc., but is in reality 
of no significance. Of the following numerous Heb. 
and Gr. terms rendered by ‘vain’ or ‘vanity’ in 
EV, the first four express this same general idea of 
‘emptiness,’ ‘lightness,’ ‘transitoriness,’ ‘without 
real substance,’ especially in the moral or religious 
sphere: (1) hebhel, ‘breath,’ t.e., mere breath, illusion, 
fancy. (a) In a more general sense in the wisdom 
literature (Job 7 16, 9 29, ete.; Pr 31 30; Ec 1 2, 14, and 
often; Is 307, ete.). (b) Applied to wicked practises, 
especially idolatry (Dt 32 21; I K 16 13, 26; Jer 2 5, 


6. The ancestor of a family of priests 


he thus secured for the kingdom of Judah is not clear. 
The size of his army is given by the Chronicler as 
307,500. But this is very improbable; such large 
figures are quite liable to be due to confusion and 
misreading. ‘Toward the end of his reign, Uzziah 
became leprous, and his son Jotham assumed the 
reins of government (II K 155). His leprosy is inter- 
preted by the Chronicler as the penalty for usurping 
the function of the priesthood by burning incense in 
the Temple (II Ch 26 16-21). Uzziah’s reign was 
also noted for a great earthquake (Zec 14 5), which 
was used as a chronological datum in later times. 
In the famous inscription of Tiglath-pileser III, 
the name Azriyau of Yaudi appears on the list of the 
kings paying tribute. This suggests Uzziah, but the 
identification, which at first met with strong sup- 
port, is now generally given up. Yaudi was an 
Aramean district to the N. of Palestine. 2. A 
Kohathite in the genealogy of Heman (I Ch 6 24). 
3. The father of Jonathan, an overseer of David 
(I Ch 27 25). 4. A priest who married a foreign wife 
(Ezr 10 21). 5. The father of Athaiah of a Judahite 
family of the postexilic period (Neh li 4). 6. See 
Uzzia. A. C. Z. 
UZZIEL, v-zai’el or 0z/1-el (dapry ‘uzevél), ‘God 
is strong’: 1. The ancestral head of one of the great 
divisions of Kohathite Levites (Ex 6 18, etc.), the 
Uzzielites (Nu 3 27). 2. One of the leaders of a band 
of Simonites against the Amalekites in Seir (in post- 
exilic days?) (I Ch 4 42). 3. The ancestor of a Benja- 
mite clan (I Ch 77). 4. A chief musician (I Ch 25 4, 
called Azarel in ver. 18). 5. A Levite in the days of 
Hezekiah (II Ch 29 14). 6. One of those who 
repaired the wall with Nehemiah (Neh 8 8). 


etc.). (2) rig, rég, ‘to empty,’ ‘empty.’ (a) Gen- 
erally (Lv 26 16, 20; Dt 32 47; Ps 21; Is 49 4, etc.). 
(b) In a moral sense (Jg 9 4, 11 3; II S 6 20, etc.). 
(3) sha@w’, ‘nothingness,’ also ‘deceit,’ ‘falsehood,’ 
and so rendered frequently in RV (Job 7 3, ‘misery’ 
RV, 11 11, 15 31, 31.5; Ps 12 2, 24 4, 26 4, 41 6, 60 11, 
144 8, etc.; Is 113; Ezk 186 #., etc.). It is this word 
that is used in the Third Commandment (Ex 20 7; 
Dt 5 11). The common interpretation, taking the 
name of J” ‘in vain’ (2.e., lightly, irreverently, or in 
false oaths, etc.) is disputed by some, who would 
interpret shaw’ here as equivalent to ‘with empty 
hands’ (cf. Ex 23 15, where, however, a different 
Heb. word is used), and make the command a pro- 
hibition to worship J’’ without sacrifices. But this 
seems very improbable. The significance attached 
to the Divine name Yahweh was very great, and 
that the Decalog should emphasize the necessity of 
duly reverencing this name is only what would be 
expected. Cf. Kautzsch in HDB, extra vol., p. 640 
f., and McNeile, Westminster Com. (1908), ad loc. 
(4) xevég (and derivatives), ‘empty,’ the exact N T 
equivalent of (2) above, but used more compre- 
hensively (Ac 4 25; I Co 15 10; II Co 61; Eph 5, etc.). 
In I Ti 6 20 and II Ti 2 16 the Gr. xevogwvla means 
lit. ‘empty sound’ (‘babblings’ RY). 

Other terms rendered more or less consistently by 


Vaizatha 
Versions 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


932 





‘yain’ or ‘vanity’ are: (5) ’awen, which is not ‘vanity’ 
but something positively wrong or troublesome (Job 
15 35; Ps 107, both ‘iniquity’ RV; Pr 22 8, ‘calamity’ 
RV; Ts 41 29, 58 9, ‘wickedly’ RV; "Jer 414, ‘evil’ RV). 
(6) hinnam, ‘sratis,’ ‘for neaele. (Pr 117 Ezk 6 10). 
(7) nabhabh, ‘hollow’ (Job 11 12). (8) riéah, ‘wind’ 
(Job 15 2, 16 3; cf. RVmg.). (9) sheger, ‘lie,’ ‘deceit’ 
(Ex 59, ‘lying’? RV; IS 25 21; Ps 33 17; Jer 3 23, 88 
twice, ‘false’ and falsely’ RV). (10) tohi, ‘barren,’ 
‘waste,’ ‘empty’ (IS 12 21; Is 40 17, 23, 44 9, 45 18, 
‘waste’ RV, 19, 59 4). (11) saphah in Is 36 5 means 
‘lip’ and the lit. expression is ‘word of lips’; ‘vain’ 
is not in the original. (12) watatoc, watardtys, pathy, 
all having the general idea of ‘futility,’ ‘uselessness’ 
(Mt 159; Ac 14 15; Ro 8 20; I Co 3 20; Ja 1 26, etc.). 
(13) etxa, the N T equivalent of (6) above (Ro 13 4; 
I Co 15 2; Gal 3 4, 411; Col 218). (14) Sweedy, ‘freely,’ 
‘as a gift’ (Gal 2 21, but here in the sense ‘to no pur- 
pose’). EH. BE. N. 
VAIZATHA, vai’ze-tha (SDP, wayzdtha’, Vajez- 
atha, vo-jez’a-fha AV): A son of Haman (Est 9 9). 


VALE, VALLEY: The term ‘vale’ is the rendering 
in both versions of ‘émeq (Gn 14 3, 8, 10, 87 14; also in 
RV Gn 1417; Jos 813, 15 8, 18 16; 1S 17 2, 19, 219; ef. 
also ‘king’s dale,’ Gn 14 17; II S 18 18). This term 
‘émeq, ‘deepening, ? is (1) ‘a highlander’s word for 
valley, as he looks down into it,’ and is commonly 
used of broad valleys running up into the mountains, 
as the Vale of Elah (I S 17 19, etc.), of Aijalon (Jos 
10 12), of Jezreel (Jos 17 16; Jg 6 33), etc. It seems to 
be used also of the maritime plain (Jg 1 19, 34; ef. 
Jer 475). It occurs also as opposed to mountains or 
hill-country (q.v.) (Mic 1 4; Jg 119, 34, 515; I K 20 2, 
etc.); an ‘€meg was broad enough for chariots (Jos 
(Jos 17 16; Job 39 21); was cultivated (IS 613; Ps 6513 
[14]; Job 39 10; Song 2 1, etc.), and was suitable for 
herding (I Ch 27 29). Other words rendered by 
‘valley’ are (2) biq‘ah, a ‘cleft,’ z.e., a broad opening 
in the midst of hills, and in some passages rendered 
‘plain’ (q.v.). It is the opposite of hdr, ‘mountain’ 
(Dt 87, 11 11; Is 41 18, 63 14; Ps 104 8). The term 
big‘ah is used for Valley of Jericho (Dt 34 3), of 
Mizpeh (Jos 11 8), of Lebanon (Jos 11 17, 12 7), of 
Megiddo (II Ch 35 22; Zec 1211). The RV has ‘val- 
ley’ for ‘plain’ AV in Ezk 371, 2 and Am15. (8) 


gay’, gay, ge’ (Is 40 4), gé (Zec 14 4), a ‘depression,’ 
It is always rendered ‘valley — 


‘gorge,’ or ‘ravine.’ 
and was narrower than the ‘émeg. It is the opposite 
of mountain and hill (Jos 8 1; Mic 1 6; I S 17 3; 
II K 2 16; Is 40 4, etc.). It is used with names for 
specific valleys. The RV reads ‘Ge-harashim’ (I 
Ch 4 14), and ‘Gai’ (I S 17 52, ‘Gath’ RVmg.). 
(4) nahal, ‘torrent,’ ‘torrent-valley,’ ‘wady.’ It is 
often used for the bed of a ‘torrent’ or ‘brook,’ even 
when there is no water (Nu 21 12, 329; Dt 1 24, 3 16, 
21 4, 6; Jg 164;18 155; ILS 245, ‘river’ AV; II Ch 
33 14; Job 21 33, 30 6; Ps 104 10; Pr 30 17; Song 6 11; 
Is 7 19, 57 5, 6, ‘stream’ AV; Jl 3 [4] 18; also for ‘brook’ 
AV, Nu 13 23 £.; II Ch 2016). A nahal was a suitable 
place for digging wells (Gn 26 17, 19; cf. II K 3 16, 17). 
The RV always has ‘valley of the Arnon’ river (Dt 
2 24, 36, etc.). For the similitude see Nu 24 6. Onf. 
Heb. Lex. with other authorities suggests ‘palm- 
trees’ for ‘valleys.’ (5) sh*phélah, ‘lowlands,’ the 
Shephelah (q.v.) of Judah, see Patustine, § 7 (b). 


The RV always has ‘lowlands’ for ‘valley’ and ‘plain’ 
AV (Dt 17; Ob ver. 19; Zec 77). (6) ekeayé, ‘valley’ 
(Lk 3 5) for ge’ (Is 40 4); see (3) above. On the usage 
of the foregoing words, cf. also G. A. Smith, HGHL, 
p. 384. Oo Site: 
VALIANT MAN, MAN OF VALOR: These ex- 
pressions are often used of men, characterizing them 
as ‘men of war,’ or ‘warlike.’ They render: (1) gib- 
bor, ‘strong,’ ‘mighty,’ always in this sense (I Ch 7 2, 
5, 11 26, ‘mighty’ RV; II Ch 13 3; Song 3 7, ‘mighty’ 
RV). (2) ‘ish- (‘man of’), ben- (‘son of’), or gibbér- 
(‘mighty man of’), hayil, ‘strength,’ ‘efficiency,’ 
‘wealth.’ These latter Heb. expressions denote also 
personal qualities of courage, prowess (Jg 18 2; 1S 
18 17; ITS 27, 13 28, 17 10; II K 51; II Ch 2617, etc.); 
skill or ability (I K 11 28; ef. Gn 47 6; Ex 18 21; Pr 
31 10); virtue or worth (I K 1 42; 1 S 10 26, the op- 
posite of ‘worthless,’ ver. 27). The meaning ‘man of 


| substance’ (‘wealth’ AV) is also found (Ru 21 | 


RVmg.; 18 91 RV; ef. II K 15 20). CLSTL. 


VALLEY (or VALE) OF ACHOR, AIJALON, 
BACA, BERACHA, ELAH, ESCHOL, GERAR, 
GIBEON, HAMON GOG, HEBRON, IPHTAEL, 
JEHOSHAPHAT, JERICHO, JEZREEL, JIPH- 
THAHEL, LEBANON, MEGIDDO, MIZPEH, 
SALT, SHITTIM, SIDDIM, SOREK, SUCCOTH, 
ZARED, ZEBOIM, ZEPHATHAH, Etc. See 
AcHor; AIJALON; Baca, etc. 


VALLEY (or VALE) OF CHARASHIM and of 
CRAFTSMEN. See Gr-HARASHIM. 


VALLEY OF DECISION. See Jerusatem, § 5. 


VALLEY (or VALE) OF HINNOM, REPHAIM, 
SHAVEH, SON OF HINNOM. See Jerusatnm, §$§ 
6-8; also SHAVEH. 


VALLEY OF KEZIZ. See Emex-xzz1z. 


VALLEY OF SLAUGHTER: A symbolic name 
for the Valley of Hinnom (Jer 7 32, 19 6). 


VALLEY OF VISION: A part of the title (prob- 
ably affixed by an editor) of one of Isaiah’s threaten- 
ing prophecies against Jerusalem (Is 22 1). It is 
difficult to see just what suggested the caption— 
possibly ver. 5. The LXX. reads ‘Valley of Sion.’ 

E. E. N. 

VANIAH, va-nai’a (i773), cana: One of the 

‘sons of Bani’ (Ezr 10 36). 


VAPOR: This word renders: (1) ’édh, a term of 
doubtful meaning, probably related to the Assyr. 
edt, ‘flood,’ ‘overflowing water’ (Gn 2 6 ‘mist,’ LXX. 
‘spring,’ Job 36 27 ‘vapor,’ LXX. ‘clouds’). (2) nas?’, 
‘that which is lifted up,’ always associated with 
‘ascending’ (Ps 135 7; Jer 10 13=51 16). (8) ‘alah, 
‘that which goes up’ (Job 36 33 AV, but ‘[the storm] 
that cometh up’ RV). (4) qitér, ‘smoke’; cf. Gn 
19 28 (Ps 148 8 AV, but ‘stormy wind’ RV), and (5) 
acts, ‘breath’ (Ja 4 14; Ac 2 19, ‘vapor of smoke’ 
[from the LXX. of Jl 2 30, where the Heb. is correctly 
rendered by AV and RV ‘pillars of smoke’]). 

ALG. Ze 

VASHNI, vash’nai (’3¥1, washni): The oldest son 
of Samuel, according to the Heb. text of I Ch 6 28. 
But the word ‘Joel’ (cf. I S 8 2) should be inserted 
and ‘Vashni’ would then be read ‘and the second’ as 
in RV. EK. E.N. 


933 





VASHTI, vagh’tai (MY, washti): Queen of Ahas- 
uerus (Est 19, etc.). See Esrner, Boox or, §§ 2, 6. 


VAT (FAT AV) and WINE-VAT (WINE-FAT 
AV). See Vines AND VINTAGE, § 1. 

VEDAN, vi'dan (]1), wedhdn): One of the com- 
mercial feeders of Tyre (Ezk 27 19 RV), a place un- 
known. Several other readings have been sug- 
gested. (AV reads ‘Dan also’). The text of the 
entire verse is very uncertain, the LXX. omitting 
the first part altogether. 

A. §. C.*—O. R. 8. 


VEGETABLES. See Patesting, §§ 21, 22, 23; and 
Foop anp Foop Urensins, § 3. 

VEHEMENT: This term in the AV of Jon 4 8, 
‘sultry’ RV, renders a Heb. word, hdrishith, appar- 
ently from a root meaning ‘to cut’; hence, strictly, 
‘cutting [distressing] wind’; but as the wind in ques- 
tion is also said to have been an east wind, what is 
meant is the hot, blasting wind from the desert. 

A. C. Z. 

VEIL. See Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 8; and 

TEMPLE, § 29. 


VEIN. See Mina, Mirna. 


VENGEANCE: This term renders (1) ndgam, 
neqamah, from ndgam, ‘to avenge.’ It is predomi- 
nantly of God that vengeance is asserted (Jg 11 36; 
Is 348; Gn 415). (2) 83txn, ‘justice’ (so in RV of Ac 
28 4; but in RV of Jude ver. 7, ‘punishment’). (8) 
deyn, ‘wrath’ (so in RV of Ro 3 5). (4) éx8lxxotc, 
‘the full meting out of just retribution’ (Lk 21 22; 
Ro 12 19; II Th 1 8; He 10 30). See also Boon, 
AVENGER OF; and Gop, § 2. A. C. Z. 


VENISON. See Foon, § 10; and Huntina. 
VERMILION (1¥%, shdshar): This word denotes 


primarily the red ocher used in painting wood, and 
then the color itself (Jer 22 14; Ezk 23 14). A.C. Z. 


VERSIONS. 
I. Grerx Versions or THE O T, 


1. Introductory. The victories of Philip of 
Macedon and of his son Alexander had a profound 
effect upon the intellectual life of Greece proper. 
One of their dreams was the unification of Hellas 
which led to the leveling down and partial merging 
of numerous dialects that heretofore had held 
their own in this much-divided little country. 

At the same time, as a result of the wider con- 
quests of Alexander in Western Asia and Egypt, 
there arose necessity for a new speech medium by 
means of which peoples of different nationality 
might intermingle and do business together. 

Out of these conditions and necessities in the 
century following the conquests of Philip and Alex- 
ander emerged a colloquial language known as the 
xotvy (from xotv6és, common). In the empires of 
Alexander and of his successors, the Ptolemies, the 
Seleucid kings, etc., this colloquial was in practically 
universal use. In this language as it appears written 
down in papyri, inscriptions, in the original portions 
of the LXX. such as Wisdom and II Maccabees, in 
Philo, the N T and elsewhere, there are compara- 
tively few dialectical variations except minor 
matters of pronunciation and orthography, and 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Vaizatha 
Versions 





these are such as would arise naturally from differ- 
ences in the writers’ education, their degree of 
familiarity with the older literary language, and the 
influence of foreign idioms and models. 

Comparison of the xotvy with writings of the clas- 
sical period to the great disadvantage of the latter 
leaves out of account the fact that while language 
lives it changes. Because it is different it is not 
necessarily greatly inferior. Increasing knowledge 
of the Hellenistic age reveals it to have been one of 
the most important periods in the development of 
human culture, all of which reflects itself in the 
language that became the medium of this culture. 
(See also GrrEK LANGUAGE and the literature there 
referred to). 


2. Alexandria the Center of the New Culture. 
Alexandria became an important center of Hellenis- 
tic learning and culture. Here it was that scientific 
institutes were founded by the first Ptolemy, 
Ptolemzus Lagi, satrap from 323, king from 304-285 
B.c. Acting on the advice of Demetrius Phalereus, 
he began to make a great collection of books and to 
erect buildings to house them. His successors con- 
tinued his policy, and thus there arose two libraries 
in Alexandria, the Museum and the Serapeum, and 
kings and scholars vied with one another in filling 
them with books. Among other things, the Alex- 
andrian libraries were active in causing the sacred 
books of the Egyptians, Jews, and Babylonians to 
be translated into Greek. Alexandria was situated 
at what was then the meeting-place of the nations, 
and a general interchange of thought was natural. 

3. The Jews of Alexandria. Alexandria had been 
a favorite home of the Jews from its founding, and 
under the Ptolemies they were highly esteemed, 
because of their consistent loyalty during the inces- 
sant wars between Egypt and Syria. They were 
loyal because they enjoyed full citizenship; they 
occupied a quarter of the city near the palace; they 
were governed by their own ethnarch, and, as at 
Ephesus, belonged to a special tribe, a fact which 
permitted them to follow without hindrance their 
own religion and customs. About the time of the 
birth of Christ there were 1,000,000 Jews in Egypt. 
And there is evidence that due to their number and 
influence some Semitic phrases and idioms passed 
into general Hellenistic usage in Egypt and elsewhere. 
These appear here and there in papyrus texts. (See 
the list compiled by Thumb, Gr. Sprache im Z. d. 
Hell., and cf. R. L. Ottley, Handbook to the Septua- 
gint, p. 163 ff.) Jews in Alexandria remained faith- 
ful to national traditions and made pilgrimages to 
Jerusalem to pay the Temple tribute. But Jews 
living outside of Palestine tended to become more 
and more Hellenized. As the N T itself shows (cf. 
Ac 11 20 where some Mss. [8° AD] read ‘Greeks’ 
while others [BEH] ‘Hellenists’). ‘Greeks’ and 
‘Hellenists’ were not always easily distinguished. 
In Alexandria a special effort was made to har- 
monize Jewish and Greek ideas. Thus we have the 
case of one Aristobulus, a Jewish peripatetic philoso- 
pher (about 120 B.c.), who wrote in Greek a com- 
mentary on the books of Moses, or the Mosaic Law, 
in which he introduced as tho from Orpheus, Linus, 
and Hesiod many verses written by himself. In it 


Versions 





he claimed also that Pythagoras and Plato got their 
first inklings of philosophy and law from Moses. 


1. The Septuagint. 


4. Its Origin. Some scholars infer from these 
statements of Aristobulus that a Greek translation 
of the Pentateuch was in existence prior to 400 B.c. 
But the first translation of which we have positive 
knowledge was made by Greek-speaking Jews of 
Alexandria. In his letter to Philocrates, a person 
claiming to be Aristeas (who was surely a Jew, and 
not a pagan) says that Demetrius Phalereus sug- 
gested to Ptolemzus Philadelphus (285-247 B.c.) 
that a translation of the books of the Law should be 
made into Greek; that an embassy consisting of 
Aristeas and Andreas was sent by Ptolemzus 
Philadelphus to Jerusalem to request the high priest 
Eleazar to send to Alexandria six scholars from each 
of the ten tribes of Israel to translate the Pentateuch 
into Greek. Aristeas gives the correspondence 
between Ptolemzeus and Eleazar and also the names 
of the seventy-two elders chosen by Eleazar to do 
the work. Arrived in Alexandria, these elders, 
Aristeas continues, were quartered on the island of 
Pharos, where in seventy-two days they completed 
the translation of the Pentateuch from the Hebrew 
rolls brought with them from Jerusalem, which means 
that the MS. from which the translation was made 
had the approval of the priestly authorities of 
Jerusalem. Aristobulus (150 B.c.), Philo Judzeus 
(30-50 a.p.), and Josephus (born 37 A.D.) are in prac- 
tical agreement with this account of Aristeas, that is 
to say, the story of Aristeas was believed by the Jews 
of Alexandria, from two centuries before Christ, and 
it was believed by the Church Fathers also, with 
the exception of Jerome. Modern scholars regard 
Aristeas’ story as a romance, but with a basis in 
fact, and the fact is this: That during the reign of 
Ptolemeus Philadelphus a translation of the Penta- 
teuch into Greek was really made from a MS. 
brought from Jerusalem for the purpose; that this 
translation was made probably by the aid of a 
stipend given by Ptolemzeus; that it was not made, 
however, by Palestinian Jews, as Aristeas asserts, 
but by Alexandrian Jews, to meet the needs of the 
Greek-speaking Jews of Egypt, both in public wor- 
ship and in private life. This version, because of the 
prevalent story that it had been made by seventy- 
two (or, in round numbers, seventy) Jewish elders, 
was known a8 % épunvela xatk tods EB3ouyxovTa = 
interpretatio septuaginta virorum, or seniorum, abbre- 
viated to ot O or ot 68—the LXX. or Septuagint. 


5. Its Character. This translation, intolerable as 
it was to Atticists, because of its sometimes bar- 
barous style and the slavish copying of Semitic 
idioms, came into general use among Alexandrian 
Jews who welcomed it warmly (as did also the high 
priest in Jerusalem, according to the express testi- 
mony of Aristeas). It was at first limited to the 
Pentateuch, and it is not known when the other 
books of the Bible were translated; but we do know 
that the early Christian writers speak of the whole 
Greek Bible as the Septuagint, and we know also that 
most of the writings included in our Bible had been 
translated into Greek by Alexandrian Jews before 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


934 


132 B.c., and that all the Hebrew Scriptures, incltud- 
ing the Apocrypha, had been turned into Greek 
before the birth of Christ. Taken as a whole, the 
Septuagint exhibits several varieties of Greek, 
corresponding to the antecedents and general culture 
of the different translators. Books originally written 
in Greek (as Wisdom, II-I[V Maccabees) compare 
favorably in style with the works of Jewish his- 
torians and philosophers. The translation of the 
Pentateuch is characterized by much literalness, due 
to the fact that it was intended to take the place of 
the sacred text in synagogs where Hebrew was not 
understood. In other cases, as in the translation of 
Isaiah and some of the Psalms, there are clear signs 
of incompetence (cf. Swete, Introduction to the O T 
tn Greek, revision by Ottley (1914), especially, pages 
289-314). Paul quotes from this version, which 
during the Apostolic Age was held high in honor 
everywhere, except in Palestine. There it was dis- 
credited, because it did not follow the official 
Hebrew text of the Scribes, which by that time had 
become standard. There was no standard Heb. text 
when the LXX. was made, since the canon of the 
Prophets had not then been completed, the Hebrew 
text being revised and sanctioned by the priestly 
authorities in Jerusalem after the appearance of the 
Septuagint translation. This Septuagint version 
was regarded as sacred (t.e., inspired) Scripture by 
the Christians, who used it in their controversies 
with the Jews as equal in authority with the Hebrew 
original. On their part, however, the Jews claimed 
that, as it did not represent the official Hebrew text 
it could not be used as a basis for theological con- 
troversy. 


2. Other Greek Versions. 


6. Of Aquila. The result was that no less than six 
new translations, based on the official standard 
Hebrew text, were made, namely, those by Aquila 
Theodotion, Symmachus, and those by three anon- 
ymous writers whose versions were designated by 
Origen as Quinta, Sexta, and Septima. Aquila 
was a Gentile, born in Sinope in Pontus, on the 
Black Sea. He was a Roman, a kinsman of the 
Emperor Hadrian (117-188 a.p.), who commis- 
sioned him to rebuild Jerusalem under the name 
of Alia Capitolina (128-129 a.p.). In Jerusalem 
Aquila was converted to Christianity, but was 
excommunicated because he believed in astrology. 
He was then converted to Judaism, was circum- 
cised, and studied for a series of years under the 
leading Jewish Rabbis. The result of his Hebrew 
studies was a new translation of the Scriptures 
into Greek. It was made from the official standard 
Hebrew text, which it followed faithfully, liter- 
ally, slavishly, in utter disregard of Greek syntax, 
grammar, and idiom, his sole object being to 
supplant the Septuagint. His translation was ap- 
proved by the priestly authorities in Jerusalem, 
and was therefore hailed with delight by the 
Jews, but with disfavor by the Christians. Probably, 
because of this very excessive fidelity to the Hebrew 
text and idiom, it failed in its purpose to supplant 
the Septuagint, tho its painful accuracy makes it of 
very great vaiue for textual criticism. 





935 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Versions 





Portions of Aquila’s translation of I K 20 9-17 and 
II K 23 11-27 were discovered by 8S. Schechter in the 
Genizah of the Cairo synagog in 1897-8. Other 
portions from the same storehouse, comprising many 
fragments of A.’s translation of the Psalms have 
been published by C. Taylor, Hebrew-Greek Cairo 


Genizah Palimpsests (1900). 
(41909), Vol. III, p. 438. 

7. Of Theodotion. Theodotion, according to 
Irenzeus, was a native of Ephesus, tho Epiphanius 
contends that he, too, like Aquila, was a native of 
Sinope and a convert to Judaism. He was, probably, 
a Jew from Ephesus, and, according to Jerome, an 
Ebionite, that is, one who recognized Christ as the 
Messiah, but denied His Divinity, maintained the 
binding force of the Mosaic Law, and rejected Paul 
and his writings. Epiphanius assigns Theodotion 
to the reign of Commodus (180-192), but he wrote, 
probably, during the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161- 
180). His translation was more a revision of the 
Septuagint than a version of his own. His object 
was both to avoid-the pedantry and absurd fidelity 
of Aquila and to present an idiomatic translation 
from the official standard Hebrew text, one that 
would not offend the literary susceptibilities of cul- 
tured Hellenists. The fragments of his translation 
show that he succeeded fairly well; his style is simple, 
dignified, and withal faithful to the original. 

The work of Theodotion is known chiefly from 
fragments of Jeremiah quoted by Origen and pre- 
served in the margin of the codex Marchalianus. 
Cf. Swete, op. cit., p. 44 ff. 

8. Of Symmachus. Symmachus was an Ebionite 
by religion, according to Eusebius and Jerome, a 
Samaritan by birth, and, according to Epiphanius, a 
convert to Judaism. The last-named assigns him to 
the reign of Marcus Aurelius (161-180), tho it is more 
probable that he wrote during the reign of Com- 
modus (180-192). In his translation his aim was 
essentially the modern one, to give a liberal, 
idiomatic rendering of the Hebrew, not a crude literal 
translation—that is, he tried really to translate 
Hebrew thoughts into the current Greek literary 
style, and the fragments of his version show that he 
did not fail of success. Cf. fragments quoted by 
Swete, op. cit., p. 51. 

9. The Quinta, Sexta, and Septima. Origen (185- 
253 A.D.) mentions three other translations. From 
their relative positions in Origen’s Hexapla (see 
below), these were known as Quinta (é), Sexta 
(c’), and Septima (¢’). Origen found the MS. of 
Quinta at Nicopolis (near Actium) about 231 a.p., 
while the MS. of Sexta (or Septima; it is uncertain 
which) was found in a buried earthen jar in Jericho, 
about 217 a.p. Eusebius says that the MS. of 
Septima was found during the reign of Caracalla. 
We know nothing further about it, nor do we know 
whether or not Quinta, Sexta, and Septima each 
embraced the whole O T. Numerous fragments of 
Quinta (II Kings, Job, Psalms) and of Sexta (Psalms, 
Canticles) are extant; they show that the writer of 
Quinta had an elegant Greek style, while the writer 
of Sexta was fond of paraphrases. The fragments of 
Septima are very scant, being practically confined to 
the Psalter. 


Cf. Schiirer, GVJI 


10. Later Versions. In the 14th cent. a Jew, pos- 
sibly to be identified with Elisseeus, who lived at the 
court of Murad I, translated most of the O T into 
Greek. His version is known as Codex Gracus 
Venetus, and is preserved in St. Mark’s Library in 
Venice. The translator produced a faithful, but 
infelicitous, version in what he thought was Attic 
Greek tho, curiously enough, he used the Doric 
dialect in rendering the Aramaic portions of Daniel. 

The first Modern Greek translation of the Psalms 
was made from the Septuagint in Crete by Agapion 
(1543); in 1547 a Jew of Epirus made a Modern 
Greek version of the Pentateuch; in 1576 Moses 
Phobian published in the Polyglot Pentateuch a 
version of Job in Modern Greek. 


3. The Work of Origen and Others. 


11. The Hexapla. Origen, born 185 a.p., revised 
the translation of the O T on the basis of the versions 
of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus. He studied 
Hebrew in Egypt, whence he was exiled to Caesarea 
in Palestine (216-219), where he perfected his 
knowledge of Hebrew. He first wrote commentaries 
on the O T, which made a study of the standard 
Hebrew text necessary. Origen contended that 
Christians should know that the Septuagint version, 
regarded by them as inspired, did not represent the 
official Hebrew text, and that in many respects the 
versions of Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus 
were much more accurate than that of the Septua- 
gint. Origen, therefore, arranged the Hebrew text, 
the existing Greek versions, and the Septuagint 
version, as emended by himself, in parallel columns, 
whose arrangement we understand clearly from a 
fragment of his work discovered at Milan in 1896, 
and from another fragment containing all the six 
columns, found in 1898:1 


i. li. iii. iv. Vv. vi. 
Hebrew ‘Translit- Version Version Alexan- Version 
text. eration of of drian of 
of the Aquila, Sym- version Theo- 
Hebrew machus. as re- dotion 
text into vised by 
Greek Origen. 
letters. 


Aquila’s version stands next to the Hebrew text, 
because it was slavishly faithful to the Hebrew. The 
version of Symmachus comes in the fourth column 
because it is practically a revision of that of Aquila. 
The version of Theodotion occupies the sixth col- 
umn, because it was practically a revision of the 
version of the Seventy, Origen’s revision of which 
occupied the fifth column. The Hebrew column 
contained in each line one word, or at most two, and 
each line of the corresponding Greek translations 
contained one word, or at most four. Origen’s 
great work was called the Hexapla, or Sixfold Edi- 
tion. He published also a smaller edition, called the 
Tetrapla, or Fourfold Edition, because it omitted 
the first two columns of the Hexapla. Occasionally, 
in the Hexapla (in the poetical and prophetical 
books) the versions of Quinta and the Sexta were 
added in separate columns, thus creating for those 

1 The Milan fragment was edited by its discoverer Giov. 
Mercati. See Aiti della R. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino, 


10 Apr., 1896. A Cairo fragment of the Hexapla of Ps 22 ap- 
pears in the work of C. Taylor referred to above (§ 6). 


Versions 
Village 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


936 


“ RARER YS itil daret E> etal SA oc — ia Sam nhs dinate oe et te = 


books an Octopla, or Eightfold Edition. We hear 
also of a Heptapla, or Sevenfold Edition, in which 
either Quinta or Sexta was omitted. 

12. Relation of Origen’s Text to the Massoretic. 
The fifth column of the Hexapla did not contain the 
Septuagint version, but that version revised by 
Origen, on the basis of the Hebrew text and the other 
Greek versions. The Septuagint version contained 
parts of sentences not to be found in the official 
Hebrew text, and, on the other hand, it did not con- 
tain parts of sentences that were in the official 
Hebrew text, and, again, it gave a sense not sup- 
ported by the official Hebrew text. Occasionally, 
matter, sometimes extending to several chapters, 
was displaced in the Septuagint version (all of which 
came about, because the Septuagint version was 
made before an official standard Hebrew text had 
been promulgated by the priesthood of Jerusalem). 
The object of Origen’s revised Hexapla text was to 
make the Septuagint version the exact equivalent 
of the official standard Hebrew text. Consequently, 
he changed the Greek order, making it correspond 
with the Hebrew order, and corrected the corrup- 
tions of the Septuagint version, supplying what was 
missing, but without altering the Greek. However, 
interpolations had also crept into the Septuagint, or 
Alexandrian, version, and presented difficulties to 
Origen, as did the matter found in the Septuagint 
version, but not in the official Hebrew, and the 
matter found in the official Hebrew text, but not in 
the Septuagint version. Origen tells us that he 
solved these problems by the inspiration of God. 
He adapted to his use some of the critical signs em- 
ployed originally by Aristarchus in his editions of 
the Homeric poems. This apparatus consisted of 
the obelus sign, =», or «=, placed before words or 
lines which were not found in the official Hebrew 
text, and were, therefore, unauthorized. The 
asterisk, * was placed before words or lines found 
in the official Hebrew text, but not in the Septuagint 
version. The metobolus, :, was placed at the end 
of the words or of the clause challenged by the 
obelus or the asterisk. When the words or the clause 
challenged by the obelus or by the asterisk over- 
passed the limits of the line, the obelus or the asterisk 
was repeated at the beginning of each line, until the 
presence of the metobolus notified the reader that 
the end of the challenged passage had been reached. 
The absence of critical marks in the fragments of 
the Hexapla discovered in 1896 and 1898 at Milan 
and Cairo has led some scholars to question whether 
these critical marks actually appeared in the text of 
Origen’s Hexapla as they are now found in Jerome’s 
Gallican Psalter and in the great Hexaplaric MS. 
known as G. 

13. Editions of Hexapla. Origen’s Hexapla edition 
was finished about 240 a.p., and his Tetrapla edition 
appeared toward the end of his life. Eusebius says 
that in preparing his version Origen employed ‘more 
than seven tachygraphers [‘fast writers’ =stenogra- 
phers], who relieved one another at fixed intervals, and 
that he employed an equal number of bibliographers 
[‘copyists of the text’] and female calligraphers’ (‘ex- 
perts in penmanship’). The completed Hexapla edi- 
tion covered at least 3,250 leaves, or 6,500 pages, ex- 


clusive of the Quinta and the Sexta. The Tetrapla 
edition covered at least 2,000 leaves, or 4,000 pages. 
Neither of these editions was published, that is, 
they were not put upon the book-market, but were 
deposited in the library of Pamphilus in Cesarea, 
where they were consulted by Jerome in the 4th cent. 
It is known that they were still in existence in the 
6th cent. They perished, probably, in 638, at the 
time of the capture of Ceesarea by the Saracens. The 
fifth column of the Hexapla edition, containing 
Origen’s version of the Septuagint version, was pub- 
lished separately and placed upon the Palestine 
book-market by Pamphilus (martyred within the 
period from 307 to 309) and Husebius, who com- 
pleted it after the death of Pamphilus. This edition 
was known as Eusebius’ edition, or as the Palestine 
edition, or as Origen’s edition of the Septuagint. It 
was a grave error of judgment to publish Origen’s 
Hexapla revision by itself, for it intensified diff- 
culties, in that the Aristarchian signs had no meaning- 
whatever in the separate publication, and the version 
itself, when taken out of connection with the Hebrew 
text and the other versions, was wholly misleading. 


14. Hesychius and Lucian. When Pamphilus and 
Eusebius were publishing the fifth column of Origen’s 
Hexapla edition in Palestine, Hesychius in Alexan- 
dria, with the aid of Phileas and others, was revising 
and editing the old Septuagint version. This edition 
has disappeared, except as it may have been the 
basis of some of the old Latin and other versions 
made in Egypt from which it can be reconstructed 
partially. We do not even know positively who 
this Hesychius was, tho he was probably the martyr 
of that name. In Antioch, at about the same time, 
Lucian (martyred Jan. 7, 312), with the aid of 
Dorotheus, was making what was practically a new 
version of the Hebrew Bible. It has been ascertained 
that Lucian’s version was the archetype of several 
codices of the O T, and Lagarde has reconstructed 
much of the text of Lucian’s version. It is smooth 
and full; it is near to the Hebrew, and yet the Greek 
is idiomatic. It often gives double renderings, and 
sometimes Lucian’s rendering appears to be based 
on a better text than the Massoretic. 


TI. OrgeR VERSIONS OF THE O T. 


15. The Latin. The Septuagint version was in 
common use throughout the Roman Empire from 
Gaul to Egypt and Cyrenaica, with the sole exception 
of Carthage, where Greek did not occupy a preferred 
position. It was, perhaps, at Carthage in the 2d 
cent. a.D. that the Septuagint version was first 
translated into Latin, the Old Latin Bible (Vetus 
Itala), frequently and accurately quoted by Cyprian 
(middle of 3d cent.). Jerome (Eusebius Hierony- 
mus, 329-420) of Pannonia, at the request of Pope 
Damasus, undertook a revision of the O T on the 
basis of the Septuagint (383). He began his work 
with the Old Latin Psalter (Psaliertum Romanum). 
A few years later (889), he published another revision 
of the Psalter, made from the Septuagint on the ba- 
sis of the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla (Psalte- 
rium Gallicanum). About 390 he tramslated the 
Psalter from the Hebrew (Psalterium Hebraicum), 
which, however, failed to displace his other two 


937 





versions in the Church service. These versions were 
followed from time to time by versions of other books 
of the O T. The Latin Bible was revised in the 6th 
and again in the 9th cent., but the Latin Bible of 
to-day still re-echoes the Septuagint. This revised 
version was called the Vulgate, first by Roger 
Bacon, tho Jerome applied the term Vulgata to 
the Old Latin Bible. For a list of extant Old Latin 
fragments of the O T cf. Swete, op. cit., pp. 93-100. 


16. The Egyptian (Coptic). Before the close of the 
2d cent. A.p., at least two translations of the Bible 
into the Egyptian (Coptic, a corruption of Atybxttos) 
dialects (the Bohairic and the Sahidic) had been 
made from the Septuagint version. We have also 
fragments of later translations into other Egyptian 
dialects—the Middle Egyptian, the Fayumic, and 
the Akhmimic, all from the Septuagint version. 

17. The Ethiopic. In the 4th cent. missionaries 
from Tyre evangelized Ethiopia, and in the 5th or 
6th cent. the Bible was translated into Ethiopic, on 
the basis of the Greek Septuagint, tho Lagarde holds 
that the extant Ethiopic version was made from the 
medieval Arabic version in the 14th cent. 

18. The Arabic. The earliest Arabic version was 
made partly from the Hebrew, partly from the Syriac 
Peshitto, partly from the Septuagint, and, possibly, 
partly from the Coptic. The first important transla- 
tion was made by Saadia Gaon (872-942), and it is 
still used by Arabic-speaking Jews. Other Arabic 
versions are the Karaite version and the Samaritan 
version of Saadia (11th cent.). 

19. The Syriac. There were two Syriac versions of 
the O T. (1) The Peshitto or ‘the simple,’ made 
probably at Edessa by Jews, from the Hebrew, at 
the time of King Abgar (9-45 a.p.). A free revision 
of this version, on the basis of the Septuagint, was 
made by Philoxenus about 508 a.p., the fragments 
of which are in the British Museum (the Philoxenian 
Syriac). (2) The version of Paul, Bishop of Tella in 
Mesopotamia, made from the Hexapla revision of 
Origen about 616 a.p., called the Syro-Hexapla. 
Besides these two, there are fragments of several 
other Syriac versions, as follows: 

(1) A version in the Palestinian dialect contain- 
ing the whole O T and made from the Septuagint 
version. 

(2) A version by Mar Abbas (552 a.p.). 

(3) Two Jacobite versions: (a) By Polycarp (5th 
cent.), (b) by Jacob of Edessa (704 a.p.). 

(4) A version by a Syrian interpreter, called 
6 Lbeoc. 

20. Persian, Gothic, Armenian, Georgian, Sla- 
vonic, Etc. Maimonides says that the Pentateuch 
was translated into Persian long before Mohammed, 
but the first Persian version of which we have knowl- 
edge was made by Jacob Tawus, and appeared in 
the Polyglot Pentateuch (Constantinople, 1546). 
About 350 a.p. Ulfilas translated the Bible into 
Gothic, the long fragments of which version (Gospels 
and Pauline Epistles), unfortunately only few in 
number, are most precious to the student of lan- 
guage, because they are the oldest specimens of 
Teutonic literature. The translation of the Bible 
into Armenian falls between 354-441. It was begun 
at Edessa by Mesrop and continued by his nephew 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Versions 
Village 





Moses of Khoren. It was based on the Septuagint 
version. 

Mesrop also inaugurated the Georgian, or Iberian, 
version, on the basis of the Septuagint version. 

In the 9th cent. the brothers Cyril and Methodius 
translated the Septuagint version into Slavonic. 
Most of this version perished during the Tartar in- 
vasion in the 13th cent., and the present Slavonic 
version is not based wholly on the Septuagint, some 
of it having been translated from the Hebrew and 
some from the Latin Vulgate. The Western versions 
into Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, etc., were made from 
the Latin Vulgate, and not from the Hebrew or 
Greek. See also ARAMAIC LANGUAGE; and TARGUM. 


Lirrratour:: F, Field, Prolegomena in H ete Origenis (1875); 
Buhl, Text und Raves d. A T (Eng. transl. 1891); Nestle, 
in PRE’, Urtext und Uebersetzungen der Bibel (separate 
reprint, 1897) ; Schirer, GVI rien Mir III, pp. 424-442), 


S.*—J. M. T. 
VESSELS: The words so rendered have the very 
general meaning of ‘utensil,’ ‘weapon,’ etc., except 
nebhel in Is 30 14, which means an ‘earthen jar,’ or 
‘pitcher.’ In I S 215 the interpretation is somewhat 
difficult. The probable meaning is that as David 
and his men were on a military expedition, they and 
all their accouterments were ceremonially ‘holy,’ 
so that they could touch the ‘holy’ bread without 
risk. See Purn, Puriry, Purirication, §§ 6,7. On 
vessels of papyrus (Is 18 2, ‘bulrushes’ AV), see 

SHips AND NAVIGATION, § 2. K. E. N. 


VESTMENTS. See, in general, Dress anp 
ORNAMENTS. 


VESTURE. See Dress anp ORNAMENTS. 


VIAL: This is the rendering of: (1) pakh, a ‘flask,’ 
‘vial’ for holding oil. A vial of oil was used in 
anointing Saul (I S 101) and Jehu (II K 91, 3, box 
AV). (2) g&An, a broad, shallow ‘bowl’ (so RV 
in all passages), used for presenting incense (Rev 
5 8) and drink-offerings. It was probably of saucer 
shape, so that the contents could be poured out at 
once and suddenly. In Rev (157, 161 f., 171, 219) 
they are spoken of figuratively as filled with the wine 
‘of the wrath of God.’ C.S. T. 


VILLAGE: (1) The ordinary O T word hdtsér, 
‘enclosure’ (cf. Hazor, Hazar-susaH, etc.), originally 
meant a settlement of nomads (cf. Gn 25 16; Is 42 11). 
(2) kaphar, ‘village’ (cf. Arab. kefr), is of later origin 
and not frequent in Biblical use (I Ch 27 25; Song 7 
11), except In proper names such as Chephar-ammoni, 
Chephirah, Capernaum. It apparently denoted a 
regular village, and not a mere collection of tents or 
huts like hdisér. See also HAVVoTH-JAIR and PrEriz- 
zitEs. (3) In the N T the common Gr. term xay.7 is 
applied specifically to Bethlehem (Jn 7 42), Beth- 
saida (Mk 8 22 £.), Bethphage (Mt 211 f.), Bethany 
(Jn 111), and Emmaus (Lk 24 13). 

The O T never mentions villages singly or by name. 
They are usually grouped as mere dependencies of 
some fortified place (cf. Jos 13 23; Neh 11 30; cf. Mk 
8 27), of which they are often called the bdndth, 
‘daughters’ (Nu 32 42; II Ch 28 18; cf. II S 20 19), 
altho in many cases (e.g., Jos 15 21-32) the protecting 
‘city’ must itself have been very small. The same 
idea of villages dependent on a city is represented in 


Vine 
Wagon 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


938 





the N T term xwypéxortc, properly a ‘village-city’ 
(cf. Mk 1 38). 

The original distinction between a city and a 
village was that the former had walls (Lv 25 29-31; 
I S 618). Later on, the city became noted for its 
size and wealth; according to the Talmudists it must 
have a synagog, and in the Greek period a certain 
political organization was demanded. Varying 
standards, as well as the growth and decay of com- 
munities (cf. Zec 2 4), led to a certain latitude in the 
use of terms. Thus Bethlehem is called both a 
‘city’ (Lk 2 4) and a ‘village’ (Jn 7 42). The same 
is true of Bethsaida (Lk 9 10; Mk 8 22 £.). Caper- 
naum (see above) was called a ‘city’ because much 
more important than its first part (Caper =kefr, 
‘village’) would indicate. See also Crry, § 3. 


LireratTurRE: Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, Appendix, vi; | 


Keil, Biblical Archzology, ii, 109 f.; Schiirer, II, i, p. 154. 
L. G. L.— 


VINE. See VINES AND VINTAGE. 


VINEGAR: The word hémets, rendered ‘vinegar’ | 


in the O T, is usually wine in which the alcohol has 
been changed into acetic acid, as in the vinegar of 
modern times. Once ‘vinegar of strong drink’ is 
mentioned (Nu 6 3). Undiluted vinegar was too 
strong to be a satisfying drink (Ps 69 21) and irritat- 
ing to the teeth (Pr 10 26); but diluted with water 
was used as a relish (Ru 214), tho it was forbidden to 
the Nazirite (Nu 6 3). The ‘vinegar’ of the Cruci- 
fixion narratives (8G0¢, Mt 27 48 and |ls) was ap- 
parently the posca, or sour wine ordinarily served 
out to the Roman soldiers, and seems to have been 
offered as an act of mercy. See also VINES AND 
VINTAGE, § 2. L. G. L.—E. C. L. 


VINE OF SODOM. See Sopom, Vinz or. 


VINES AND VINTAGE: The fact that the com- 
mon name for ‘banquet’ among the Hebrews was 
mishteh (‘drinking’) shows the significance which 
attached to wine. Its use was presupposed as a 
necessary part of every meal (Gn 27 25), while ‘wine 
and grain’ in common speech represented the most 
important part of the produce of the land. 

1. Culture of the Vine Among the Hebrews. In 
Gn 9 20 the culture of the vine is traced back to 
Noah, its origin being attributed to a mythical 
ancestor, just as other phases of civilized life are 
traced to ancient heroes in the Cainite genealogical 
table in Gn 416 #. A dim recollection of the fact 
that Israel learned the art of vine-culture from the 
Canaanites is to be found, not only in the story of 
the spies (Nu 13 24), but also in the hostile attitude 
of the Rechabites, who rejected the use of wine 
probably because of its Canaanite origin (cf. Jer 
ch. 35). As a matter of fact, vineyards were to be 
found everywhere in the land, especially on moun- 
tain slopes and hills (Is 51; Jer 31 5), but also in the 
valleys (e.g., in that of Jezreel, Jg 9 27; I K 211 #.). 
The vines from the neighborhood of Hebron were 
famous (Nu 13 24), also those from the Lebanon 
region (Hos 14 8). The care bestowed upon vine- 
culture is revealed in not a few passages of the O T. 
The hillside, where a plow could not be used, was 
worked with a mattock and the stones removed 
(Is ch. 5). It was protected by terrace-walls, gadhér, 
in order to prevent the washing away of the soil by 





water (cf. Nu 22 24), and surrounded with a thorn 
hedge, m*stikkdah, or wall, or even with both (Is 5 2, 5, 
17 10 f.), as a protection against grazing herds (Is 7 25; 
Jer 12 10), or wild animals (Ps 80 14; Song 215). Huts 
or booths, sukkéth (cf. Is 1 8 cottage AV), or watch- 
towers, mighddl (Is 5 2), were erected, in which the 
vine-dresser, kérém (II Ch 26 10), or the keeper, 
notér, lived (Job 27 18; Song 16, 811 £.). Every vine- 
yard had its wine-press, a stone tub or vat (fat AV) 
(gath or purah), in which, with shouts of joy, hédh- 
adh, the grapes were trodden, darakh, to must (tirésh, 
new wine, 2.e., unfermented juice with its sediment); 
cf. Is 16 10; Jer 25 30, 48 33. If the soil was rocky, 
the press was hewn out in the rock. Connected 
with it, but on a lower level, was a receiving-vat, 


| yegebh, into which the must flowed to be clarified. 


From this it was drawn off into jars (Jer 48 11), or 
skins (Job 32 19).. The work of pruning, zamar, the 
branches with the pruning-hook, mazmérah (Ly 25 3; 
Is 24; Jn 15 3; etc.), was of great importance. In - 
general, the vines were trained as separate stocks, tho 
also, at times, they were allowed to run and develop 
into a number of connected vines. As to-day, so in 
older times, a vine with its wide outspreading 
branches furnished of itself a substantial foliage (cf. 
Mic 44). It was forbidden to plant anything else in 
a vineyard (Dt 22 9), and it was required that a 
vineyard should be left uncultivated every seventh, 
year (Ex 23 11; Lv 25 3 f.). The wood of old and 
useless vines was burned (Ezk 15 2 #.; Jn 156). As 
to the varieties of grapes raised in ancient Palestine, 
it is possible to draw some inferences from O T ex- 
pressions. From the designation of the juice of the 


| grapes as their ‘blood’ (Gn 49 11; Dt 32 14), it may 


be concluded that red grapes were most highly 
prized. This is confirmed by the use of the term 
sorég (‘red,’ Is 5 2; Jer 2 21) for the vines of best 
quality (‘the choicest vine’), which indicates that 
they were so called from their red grapes. In later 
times, however, the culture of other varieties must 
have supplanted that of the red grapes, for the 
wine exported from Palestine at the beginning of 
the Middle Ages was white, and it is the white grape 
that is grown most extensively there to-day. 


2. The Manufacture of Wine. The time of the 
ripening of the grapes varied according to the loca- 
tion of the vineyards. On the plain along the coast 
there are ripe grapes as early as July, in the high- 
lands not for a month later, while those destined for 
the wine-press are not gleaned until September and 
October. This was the custom also in the olden 
times, since the festival which specially celebrated 
the vintage—the Feast of Booths (Tabernacles)— 
came in Tishri (September-October). It was a 
feast of unrestrained joy. Song and dancing were 
the order of the day (Jg 9 27; Is 16 10; Jer 25 30; 48 
33). The must was drunk, either sweet or half fer- 
mented. It was generally allowed to ferment in jars 
or skins (the new wine of Mk 2 22 and ||/s), and to 
stand a while upon its lees (Is 48 11; Zeph 112). Some- 
times, it was kept over a year, until the second fer- 
mentation took place, and then poured from one 
vessel into another (Is 48 11). Before drinking, wine 
was filtered or strained (sh¢mdrim m*zuqqaqim Is 
25 6; Jer 48 11). Among the Israelites, it was not 


939 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Vine 


Wagon 





usual to mix the wine with water; this was a Greek 
custom. But it was often mixed with various sorts of 
spices (Song 8 2; Is 5 22). It can not be asserted with 
certainty that the Hebrews were accustomed to boil 
down the must to grape honey (Arab. dibs), tho this 
may well have been the case (cf. d¢bhdsh, Gn 43 11; 
I K 14 3; Ezr 2717). Grapes were often dried, tsim-~ 
miugim (I § 25 18), and pressed into cakes, ‘dshishah 
(Hos 31; ITS 619). At the present day, raisins form 
a chief article of export in Syria. The b°’dshim men- 
tioned in the O T (Is 5 2, wild grapes) were imperfect 
grapes that did not mature, but should be distin- 
guished from the bdser (Is 18 5, ‘ripening grape’; 
Jer 31 29 f., ‘sour grape’), which were grapes used 
while still green or unripe. What kind of injury to 
the vine was inflicted by the téla‘ath (Dt 28 39, 
‘worm’) is not certain. 


LITERATURE: See Anderlind, “Die Rebe in Syrien, insbeson- 
dere in Palistina,’” ZDPV, xi, pp. 160 ff.; Frass, Drei Monate 
am Libanon (1876), pp. 26 ff.; J. Déller, ‘Der Wein in Bibel 
und Talmud,” Biblica, iv, 1923, pp. 143-167, 267-299 (full 

bibliography). W. N.—L. B. P. 


. . . 


VINEYARD. See VINES AND VINTAGE, § 1 


VIOL. See Music anp Musicau INSTRUMENTS, 


§ 3, at the beginning. 
VIPER. See PaLestine, § 26. 


VIRGIN: This word renders the Heb. and Gr. 
terms: (1) b¢thalah, ‘separated,’ which conveys defi- 
nitely the idea of virginity, and is used either, liter- 
ally, of a young unmarried woman (Gn 24 16; 
Ex 22 16 £.; IL S 13 2), or, figuratively, in poetic pas- 
sages, in the personification of a social body—a city, 
or state, e.g., ‘virgin daughter of Zion’ (Is 28 12); 
‘virgin daughter of Babylon’ (Is 47 1); ‘virgin of 
Israel’ (Am 5 2). (2) ‘almah, ‘mature,’ used simply 
of a young woman of marriageable age, without 
reference to her being married or not (Gn 24 43; 
Song 1 3, 6 8; Is 7 14, etc.). See Immanvuru. (38) 
maoebévoc, used in the LX X. mainly as the rendering 
of bethalah (of ‘almadh in Gn 24 43 and Is 7 14); in 
the N T it retains its LXX. sense, with the single 
exception of Rev 14 4, where it is used of men, with 
the emphasis on the idea of chastity. A. C. Z. 


VIRGINITY. See Marrrace anp Divorce, § 4. 


VIRGINITY, TOKENS OF. See MarriaGE AND 
Drvorce, §§ 2, 4. 


VIRTUE, VIRTUOUS: This is the translation of 


hayil, ‘strength,’ ‘ability’ (Ru 3 1; Pr 12 4, 31 10, 29, 
in the phrase ‘a virtuous woman,’ lit. ‘a woman of 
ability’). The word is used in its Old Eng. sense of 
‘power’ (cf. Mk 5 30). When the same expression is 
used of men it is commonly translated ‘a man of 
valor.’ | BE PD ee 

VISION. See Revetation, § 10; and PropHet, 
PRopHEcY, § 6. 


VOICE OF GOD. See Gop, § 2. 
VOPHSI, vof’sai ("P2}, wophst): One of the twelve 


spies sent by Moses to investigate the land of 
promise (Nu 18 14). 


VOW: A promise to God—either formally ex- 
pressed or tacitly implied—to perform some service 
or do things pleasing to Him, generally on condition 
of receiving in return a specific favor. Vows are 


‘known in all religions, and belong to all ages. Jacob 


vowed that, if God would be with him and bless him, 
he would take Him as his God, build Him a sanc- 
tuary and pay Him tithes (Gn 28 20-22). Jephthah’s 
vow to sacrifice the object that would first meet him 
as he returned victorious from battle is familiar 
(Jg 11 30-40). Other vows mentioned are Hannah’s 
(IS 111 £.) and Absalom’s (IIS 1571.). Just before 
the battle of Michmash Saul led the people to vow 
that they would eat nothing until evening (IS 14 24f., 
36 f.). The law of vows assumes that they are 
voluntary. No one is required to make a vow. Vows 
are classed with free-will offerings (Dt 12 6); but a 
vow once made constitutes a solemn obligation, from 
which nothing can absolve one. So far as a vow 
involved a sacrifice, such sacrifices were regulated 
by a prescribed ritual—the ceremony being desig- 
nated ‘to accomplish a vow’ (Ly 22 18-23, 27 1-13; Nu 
15 3 ff.; ef. also Ac 21 23 #.). In such a case the Law 
fixed on a minimum of offerings, 7.e., for a man 
50 shekels of the sanctuary, for a woman 30, for a 
male child 5, and for a female child 3 shekels (Nu 
30 2 f.). The performance of vows was one of the 
tests which the prophets applied in exposing the 
transgressions of the people (cf. Is 19 21; Nah 1 15; 
Jon 1 16, 29; Job 22 27; Pr 20 25; Ps 22 25, 50.14, 56 12). 
The foregoing applies to the ordinary, later known as 
the ‘minor,’ vow. On the ‘major,’ better known as 
the ‘Nazirite,’ vow, see NAZIRITE. ASO. Bi 


VULTURE, See PALESTINE, § 25. 


W 


WAFER: This is the rendering of two Heb. words: 
(1) rdgigq (Ex 29 2, 23; Lv 2 4, 7 12, 8 26; Nu 6 15, 19; 
I Ch 23 29 ‘cakes’ AV), on which see Foop AND Foop 
Urensits, § 2. (2) tsappthith (from tsaphah, ‘to 
spread out’), a flat cake. The word occurs but once 
(Ex 16 31) and is used in this place as a sweetmeat: 
‘wafers made with honey.’ E. E. N. 

WAGES: This word is used to render a number of 
Heb, and Gr. terms: sGkhar and maskéreth, ‘hire’ 
(Gn 30 28, 29 15, etc.); peullah, ‘work’ (Lv 19 13); 
utcbds, ‘reward’ (Jn 4 36); and ‘éydvoy, ‘rations’ 
(Lk 3 14; Ro 6 23; II Co 118). In Jer 22 13 ‘without 
wages’ renders the Heb. hinnam, ‘gratis,’ ‘without 


return.’ Almost nothing is said specifically as to the 
conditions and payments of hired service in the 
Bible. The actual amounts paid, e.g., a ‘shilling’ 
(‘penny’ AV), 2.¢., a denarius a day for vintage 
labor (Mt 20 2), or ten shekels and a suit of apparel 
a year, plus food, as a priest’s salary (Jg 17 10), were 
small in comparison with modern wages, but, of 
course, the purchasing power of money was then 
much greater than itisnow. The O T law regarding 
wages was concerned mainly with guaranteeing to 
the wage-earner the prompt payment of the amounts 
due him (Lv 1913; cf. Mal 3 5). E. E. N. 


WAGON, WAGGON, Sce Carr. 


Wail 
Watch 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


940 





WAIL, WAILING. See Mournina anp Movurn- 
InG Customs, § 5; and EscuatTouoey, § 39. 

WALL. See Crry, § 3. 

WALLET (Scrip AV): The term renders Heb. and 
Gr. words as follows: (1) yalqit (from a verb meaning 
‘to gather together’). The bag in which shepherds 
and others put stones for slinging (I 8 17 40). (2) 
xhea, a small bag in which to carry provisions, etc., 
while traveling (Mt 10 10, etc.). E. KE. N 

WALLS OF JERUSALEM. See JERusALEM, §§ 
21, 31, 35, 36, 37. 3 

WAR, WAR-CRY. See WarrFare, § 4. 

WARD. See Prison. 

WARDROBE: This term renders the Heb. 
beghaddhim, literally ‘garments,’ or ‘clothes.’ It is 


used only in the title ‘keeper of the wardrobe’ (II K 
22 14; II Ch 34 22) given to Hasrah (‘Harhas’ AV). 
AL RZ 
WARES. Sce TRADE AND COMMERCE, § 3. 














(Ye if 






TORS. 


carried on only in the dry season. When the rainy 
weather of autumn came, operations were suspended, 
to be resumed in the spring. This is the meaning of 
the expression in II § 111, ‘the return of the year, 
at the time when kings go out,’ 7.e., on campaigns, 
when the long-continued fair weather of spring and 
early summer was favorable to military operations. 
While preliminary parleys frequently preceded a 
conflict (Jg 1112 #.;1S 111 #.; 1 K 201 f.), a formal 
declaration of war was by no means necessary (cf. 
1S 155 f.). 

2. Religious Aspects of Warfare. Before war was 
begun, sacrifices were offered, so that the expression 


gaddésh milhémah (‘to sanctify war,’ Jer 6 4; Mic 35; — 


J1 39; cf. RVmg.) meant to initiate a war with sacri- 
fices. In like manner, care was taken at the opening 
of a campaign, or in critical situations, not to omit 
seeking to know J’”’s will by means of the sacred lot 


(Jg11#.;1S 14 37, 23 2 8., 286, 307 £.; ITS 519, 23), or- 


through prophets (I K 225 #.;II K1924.). In other 


Bre a} 
CW 
Wee 
» 





ARCHERS IN BaTrLe SCENE FROM ASSHURNASIRPAL’S PALACE. 


WARFARE: The early historical sources—es- 
pecially those of the period of the Judges—show 
that early Palestinian wars were more like the expe- 
ditions of the Bedawin than like the campaigns of a 
great people. It was for the sake of plunder, or to 
repel a sudden attack, or to avenge the death of 
those killed in such an attack that the men of a clan 
or tribe rallied around the chief or the bravest one 
in the midst of them. 

1. Character of Early Warfare. In times of 
great danger heralds were despatched to the 
friendly or neighboring tribes to ask their aid. 
If the enemy was beaten, each warrior returned to 
his own home with his share of the spoil. Thus 
Gideon at the head of 800 men of his clan sought to 
avenge the death of his brothers who had been slain 
by the Midianites (Jg 7 16 ff., 818 f.). The tribe of 
Dan put 600 warriors into the field to make con- 
quest of new places of abode (Jg 18 11 f.). 

Only on one occasion did any large number of 
tribes unite in a campaign. This was when, in the 
days of Barak and Deborah, the Israelites to the N. 
and 8. of the Plain of Esdraelon were engaged in a 
life-and-death struggle against Sisera (Jg ch. 4 f.; ef. 
also I S 11 6-8; Jg 20 1-3). Generally, wars were 


cases, a knowledge of the Divine will was sought by 
means of all kinds of omens (IS 148 f..; Jg 6 36 f.), 
and for this purpose, not that they might offer sacri- 
fices, priests accompanied the army, since the sacred 
lot was in their keeping. In ancient times, in order 
to make J’”’s help in battle more certain, the Ark, in 
which He was thought to be present, was carried 
with the army into war. This explains why Uriah 
was careful not to render himself ceremonially 
unclean through intercourse with his wife (IIS 1111), 
also the requirement that the camp be kept free 
from all defilement lest J’’ should withdraw Him- 
self from Israel (Dt 23 10 #.; cf. Nu 51 ff.). 

3. Details of Camp and March. The detailed ar- 
rangement of a military camp is no longer known. 
The name ma‘gal (IS 17 20, 26 5, 7, ‘place of wagons’ 
RV, trench AV) indicates that it was circular in 
form, with the force camping under tents (ef. ITS 
11 11). The sustenance for the army was generally 
secured as occasion offered (cf. I S 17 17 #.; II S 17 
27 ff.), which could be managed without great diffi- 
culty, since the number ‘of troops was generally 
quite small. Sentries, who were changed three times 
in a night, watched the camp (Jg 7 19; I Mac 12 27). 
When the force marched out to battle, a detach- 


941 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Wail i 
Watch 





ment remained with the camp (IS 30 24). On the 
march the enemy sought to harass the rear-guard 
(Dt 25 18; Jos 10 19) 

4. The Ordering of a Battle. Military science was 
simple. It was an old custom of the Bedawin to 
divide a force into two attacking divisions or bands. 
The rear one (liers in wait, ‘agébh, Jos 8 13) served, if 
necessary, also as a reserve, or guaranteed to the 
chief and those with him a chance of escape (Gn 
327 f.). Sometimes, in order to divert the attention 
of the enemy, and also to conceal the attack itself, 
three divisions were formed (Jg 716 #.;1S 111;1IS 
18 2; I Mac 533). Night attacks were often resorted 
to (Jg 716 f.; 11 S 171 #.), as well as ambushments 
and pretended flight (Jos 8 2, 12; Jg 20 29 #.;1S 155; 
ef. II K 7 12 #f.), and circumvention of an enemy 
preparatory to an attack from the rear (II § 5 22). 
David availed himself of the rustling of the mulberry- 
trees in order to come upon his enemy unawares 
(II S 5 24); Joab disposed his men within a wooded 
tract to render the overthrow of Absalom’s followers 
more complete (II S 18 6 #.). A ttumpet-signal by 
the commander opened each battle (Jg 718) as well as 
the war itself, and in the same way the forces were 
called away from the fight (II S 2 28, 18 16, 20 22), or 
summoned to break camp and go home (II § 20 22). 
As to the disposition of the battle array, ma‘arakhah 
(I Ch 12 38, rank AV), information is lacking. Prob- 
ably, spearmen formed the first line, bowmen or 
archers the second, and slingers the third. Horse- 
men, or more accurately, horses and chariots, as a 
distinct element of the fighting force were not used 
by Israel until quite late—as in the Assyrian era— 
owing largely to the broken character of the ground, 
which was specially unfavorable for the movement 
of chariots. The bulk of the fighting was done by 
footmen. Before the beginning of a battle, it was 
usual to offer sacrifices (IS 79 f., 189 £. See above, 
§ 1), then with a loud battle-cry, or alarm, é*ria‘ah, 
the host rushed against the foe (cf. Am. 1 14; Jer 
49 2, etc.). On some occasions there were special 


battle-cries (Jg 7 18, 20). In the conflict men fought | 
hand to hand with the bare arm, as the upper gar- | 


ment had to be thrown back and tucked under the 
girdle, as it was also while on the march. In such 
contests personal bravery and skill, physical strength 
and agility decided the issue. The latter qualities 
were important not only for the attack itself, but for 
gaining advantageous positions. Sometimes, the 
battle was preceded by duels, which not seldom had a 
decisive effect on the outcome of the fray (IS 173 £.,, 
41 ff., 51 f.; 11 S 214 #.; cf. 21 18 ff., 23 21). 


5. After the Battle. To bury the slain countrymen 
was a sacred duty (I K 11 15), and over fallen heroes 
and captains a general lamentation was held (II S 
3 31). The bodies of the enemy also were buried 
(cf. Ezk 39 11 #.) or burned (Is 30 33). It was only on 
special occasions that the head of an enemy was 
taken for a trophy (I 8 17 51 ff., 31.9; II S 20 22). On 
the other hand, it seems to have been an early custom 
to cut off the foreskins of fallen enemies (IS 18 25, 27). 
This was also customary in the wars of the Egyp- 
tians, as appears in a picture in the Ramesseum at 
Medinet Habu. Prisoners of war were often treated 
with great severity. Kings and leaders were usually 


put to death, sometimes after the victor had placed 
his foot on their necks (Jos 10 24); often large num- 
bers of captives were slain (II Ch 25 12); in other 
cases they were mutilated (Jg 16 £.; cf. IL S 12 31), 
frequently they were sold into slavery (Am 16,9, etc.). 

Such a passage as I K 20 30 ff., in its display of the 
mercy of Ahab toward Ben-hadad, shows how little 
inclined were the people of antiquity in general to be 
considerate in their treatment of a captured enemy. 
Even Deuteronomy justified on theological grounds 
the wholesale extirpation of the conquered inhabit- 
ants of the holy land (2016 ff.; cf. Nu 31 17). Horses 
taken as spoil were lamed (hocked) in the earliest 
times when Israel as yet had neither chariots nor 
horses (II S 8 4; Jos 11 6, 9). The country of a 
conquered enemy was often laid waste by cutting 
down the trees, stopping up the springs, and burn- 


ing the cities and villages (II K 3 19; Jg 6 4). A 


yearly tribute was laid upon a defeated people or, 
in many cases, a larger sum of money was demanded 
at once (II K 1814; Is 33 is). Hostages were also 
taken to prevent violation of agreements (II K 
14 14), while garrisons were frequently placed in 
the captured cities (II S 8 6, 14). The booty 
(plunder, spoil) was shared equally between those 
who participated in the fight and those who 
guarded the camp (I 8 30 24 £.). Gold and silver 
were dedicated to the Temple of J’ CIS 8 11), and 
costly trophies were hung up in the sanctuary (IS 
21 10; II K 1110; cf. IS 31 10). 

The warriors returning from a victorious batue, 
while under necessity, according to the Priestly Code, 
of submitting to the purification ceremony prescribed 
for those defiled by contact with the dead (Nu 31 
19 ff.), were greeted with songs and dances and the 
noise of drums (Jg 11 34; IS 18 6 #.). Victorious 
kings often set up memorials of their victory (I S 
15 12; cf. 712). In later times, there are accounts of 
thanksgiving festivals in honor of J’’, who gave the 
victory (II Ch 20 26 f.; I Mac 4 24) 

Literature: The Archeologies of Nowack and Benzinger; F. 

Schwally, Semiiische Kriegsalterttimer, 1901. 

W. N.—L. B. P. 

WARS OF JEHOVAH, BOOK OF THE: A lost 
work quoted in Nu 2114. It seems to have contained 
a collection of poems celebrating the victories of 
Israel over her enemies. The existence of such a 
book has been doubted by Professor Sayce (Acad. 
1892, Oct. 22). On the other hand, it has been con- 
jectured that it was a source for Nu 21 17 f. and 27b- 
30; and, further, that it was identical with the Book 
of Jashar (q.v.). Assuming the existence of such a 
collection, it was evidently so called because J’”’ 
was held up in all its songs as the leader of Israel’s 
armies and the cause of their successes (Ex 15 2). 
The wars of Israel were the wars of J’’, Israel’s God 
(cf. I S 18 17, 25 22). Ay CRS) 

WARS OF THE LORD, BOOK OF THE. See 
WakS OF JEHOVAH, BOOK OF THE. 

WASH, WASHINGS. See Burtat anp Burrau 
Customs, § 1; and Pours, Puriry, PuriricaTion, § 2. 

WATCH: In the O T the words ‘watch,’ watch- 
man are used of two kinds of duty: (1) that of guard- 
ing, shadmar and its derivatives, and (2) that of being 
on the lookout to discern from a vantage-point—such 


Watcher 
Weights and Measures 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 942 





as a watch-tower, which seems to have been very 
common—things that took place at a distance, in 
order to report them in time, ts@phah and its deriva- 
tives (e.g., ‘mizpah’ [mitspah], ‘watch-tower’). On 
(1) cf. Jg 719; IT K 115; Neh 49, etc. On (2) cf. 1S 
1416; ILS 18 34, 18 24; IT K 917; Is 218, etc. Another 
word, ndtsar, ‘to guard,’ or ‘to keep,’ is used in the 
sense of ‘watch’ only in II K 17 9, 18 8; Jer 4 16, 
316; cf. Nah21. Inthe N T xovetwdta, ‘watch,’ AV 
means a ‘guard’ (Mt 27 65, 28 11). In the O T 
'ashmuirah (Ex 14 24, etc.), and in the N T quaaxy 
(Mt 14 25, 24 43, etc.) are used for designating time 
(see Time, § 1), tho both terms get this sense from 
their more primary reference to the military custom 
of dividing the night into three (Heb.) or four 
(Roman) periods, during each of which a detach- 
ment of men kept watch or guard. K. E. N. 


WATCHER. See ANGELOLOGY, §§ 2, 4. 


WATCHMAN, WATCH-TOWER: The walled 
cities of Palestine had watch-towers (mighddl) on the 
walls (e.g., Jezreel, II K 9 17-20, 179; Gaza, 18 8), or 
an additional story above the gates, which served the 
same purpose (IIS 18 24 #.). There were also watch- 
towers to guard the roads (ef. II Ch 20 24). A watch- 
man was called: (1) nétsér (II K 179, 18 8; Jer 31 6, 
4 16, ‘blockaders’). (2) shémér (Jer 51 12; figura- 
tively Is 2111, 12, 62 6; cf. Song 3 3, 57 = ‘city police’?). 
(3) tsdpheh (IS 14 16, ‘sentinels’; II S 13 34, 18 24 #.; 
II K 9 17-20; figuratively Is 52 8, 56 10 [=‘prophet’], 
21 6; Ezk 3 17, 32 2, 6,7; Mic 7 4). See also TowER 
and WarTcH. OAs te 


WATER: Water was appreciated by the ancient 
Semites more highly than by most other races on 
account of its scarcity in the lands that they in- 
habited. In the Arabian desert, their original home, 
it was obtainable only from the scanty springs that 
here and there broke through the arid ground. In 
Canaan and the other lands adjacent to the desert 
there was rainfall, but it was so slight and uncertain 
as to be a constant source of anxiety. It is not sur- 
prizing, therefore, that water is mentioned in the 
Bible more frequently than any other substance. In 
Is 31, 33 16; Sir 29 21, 39 26, it is regarded as one of the 
chief supports of life. The finding of water was a 
matter of the utmost importance (Gn 16 7, 21 19, 
26 19, 32; Ex 15 22, 17 2; Nu 21 5, 33 14), and when a 
well was discovered this event was celebrated with 
song (Nu 21 16-18). When springs could not be 
found, or when a person was passing through for- 
eign territory, water had to be bought (Dt 2 6, 28). 
Failure of the water-supply was the greatest of 
national calamities, and was regarded as a direct 


judgment of God (Lv 26 19; Dt 28 23 £.; I K 171; Is | 


5 6; Am 47 £.); and, on the other hand, the Prophets 
look for a supernatural increase of the streams of 
Palestine as one of the chief blessings of the Mes- 
sianic Age (Is 30 25, 35 6 f., 41 18, 49 10; Jer 319; Zee 
14 8; Ekzk ch. 47). On account of its needfulness and 
its scarcity, water becomes in the Bible a figure of 
speech for all kinds of blessings, e.g., good news (Pr 
25 25), wisdom (Sir 15 3), a wife (Song 4 15), and par- 
ticularly for the Divine grace (Ps 23 2; Is 82 2, 551, 
58 11; Jn 7 38; Rev 7 17, 21 6, 221, 17). 

By the primitive Hebrews, as by the other Semites, 


water in all its forms was reverenced as Divine (see 
Semitic ReLicion, § 8). In later times, springs 
became the favorite sanctuaries of J’ (see FounrAIN; 
Spring; WELL). In the narratives of the Hexateuch 
one of the functions of J’’ is miraculously to provide 
water for Israel (Ex 15 25, 17 6; Nu 20 8, 21 16; Dt 
8 15). Even so late a writer as Jeremiah (Jer 14 22) 
regards it as the chief difference between J’’ and the 
‘vanities of the nations’ that He can cause rain. 
See also Pauustinn, §§ 17-20. 

Water is often mentioned as used for cleansing 
purposes (Gn 24 32, 43 24; Ex 30 18-21, 40 7, 30-32; 
Lv 11 32, 148 f£., 15 5, 13, 16 4, 24, 28; Nu 1917; II K 
131; Jth 10 3, 127; Lk 7 44; Jn 135). Hence it be- 
comes a symbol of the cleansing of the soul from sin 
(Eizk 16 4, 9, 36 25; Jn 35; Eph 5 26; He 10 22; I Jn 
5 6,8). See also Baprism. Ls, Bi.Ps 


WATERCOURSE: This term renders in the AV: 


(1) yabhail, lit. ‘conduit’ (q.v.) (Is 44 4; ef. 30 25). (2)- 


mots@, ‘springs’ (q.v.) as RV (II Ch 32 30). (3) 
tealah, ‘trench,’ ‘conduit’ (q.v.); RV has ‘channel’ 
(poetical, Job 38 25; cf. II K 1817=Is 7 3, etc.). The 
RV renders also (4) tsinnér (IIS 5 8, ‘gutter’ AV) by 
‘watercourse’ in this difficult passage, but the real 
meaning of ésinnér here is unknown. OFS tat 


WATER OF BITTERNESS. See Sacririck AND 
OFFERINGS, § 12. 


WATER-POT: (S3pef«). A vessel in which water 
was kept, either for drinking (Jn 4 28) or for purify- 
ing purposes (Jn 26 f.). See PotrEry. 


WATERS OF MEROM. See MeErom. 
WATERS OF STRIFE. Sce Mrrrsau. 


WATERSPOUT (7338, tsinnér): The Eng. word is 
found only in Ps 42 7 (waterfall ARV), and means 
strictly ‘canal’ or ‘watercourse’ (cf. II S 5 8), but is 
used of a rush of water of large proportions and of 
Divine origin. Briggs (JCC) thinks the Jordan 
rapids are meant, but great floods of rain seem to 
suit the context better (so Baethgen, H. oe 

. HE. N. 


WAVE-OFFERING. See SacrRIFICE AND Or- 


FERINGS, § 11. 


WAX: This word, the rendering of dénagh, ‘bees- 
wax,’ is found in the O T in Ps 22 14, 68 2, 97 5; Mic 
1 4, always in a simile. See also Booxs anp Writ- 
ING. 


WAY: Literally used, this term denoted either (1) 
a ‘trodden path’ or ‘road’ (derekh, Gn 38 16, etc.; 
656c¢, Mt 2 12, etc.; and ’drah, Is 30 11, 41 3), or (2) a 
‘journey’ or ‘trip’ comprehensively viewed (Gn 28 20, 
etc.; Ac 8 36). But by a favorite Hebrew mode of 
thought, it is figuratively used also of the ‘habit,’ 
‘conduct,’ or ‘attitude,’ whether of God or of man 
(Ex 32 8; Dt 5 33; Job 16 22; Ps 1199; Pr 12 28, etc.). 
Especially is this metaphorical sense attached to the 
term when employed in the plural (Jos 24 17; Ps 51 
13, etc.; cf. Mt 713 £.). In the N T the plan of God 
for the salvation of man as outlined by the Prophets 
and realized in the gospel is called ‘the way of the 
Lord’ (Mt 3 3, etc.). From this meaning the term 
easily passed to the broader sense in which it meant 
Christianity or Judaism (Ac 9 2, 19 9, 22 4), and 


a a a a a 


943 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Welshts shat ereatatéc 





came to include the whole system of thought and life | pleasure (Ps 66 12; ‘abundance’ RVmg.). (7) edxoole 
that the Christian accepts and practises (II P 2 2,15). | ‘abundance of means’ (Ac 19 25). A. C. Z. 


; f A. C. Z. WEAN: This word renders gamal, ‘to complete’ or 

The term highway is usually the rendering of | ‘finish,’ and in every passage is used concerning & 
mésillah, ‘that which is thrown up,’ evidently refer- | child which has been weaned (cf. 18 1 22 # , etc.). 
ring to the labor of making the road, perhaps also to | Hebrew mothers usually nursed their children two 
the fact that the great thoroughfares of Ephraim and | or three years (ef. II Mac 7 28), as is the custom in 
Judah ran along the crest of the highland. InI Ch | Palestine to-day. The weaning of a child was ac- 
26 16-18 the same term is rendered causeway, ex- companied by a feast (Gn 21 8) with an offering 
plained in ICC, ad loc., as ‘a street which led up to | (I S 1 24), Cc. S. T. 
the western side of the Temple from the Tyropceon 
Valley and from the Western Hill’ In Je the | “EAPON. Seo Ars anp Amon, 
better reading may be ‘caravans’ (see Moore, ICC, WEASEL. See Patestine, § 24. 
ad loc.). In Dt 2 27 the Heb. is derekh (badderekh, | WEAVE, WEAVING. See Arrizan Lire, § 12. 
badderekh, ‘in the way, in the way’ will I go) derekh WEB: In Is 59 5 f. the word rendered ‘webs’ is 
evidently meaning the main road; cf. RVmg. In | gir (in pl. form), which means a ‘fine thread,’ and 
Am 5 16 RV ‘streets’ is substituted for ‘highways’ | hence a spider’s ‘web.’ In Jg 16 13 f. the term mas- 
AV, as a rendering of hits. In Mt 22 10, Lk 14 23 | gsekheth is the ‘web’ or fabric which was being woven 
636¢ is rendered ‘highway,’ but ‘way’ in Mk 10 46 | in the loom by Delilah. According to Moore (ICC, 
RY. On Mt 229, cf. RV. Byways (Jg 56) means | ad loc.), on the basis of the LXX. we should read 
‘crooked paths’ as in RVmg. thus: ‘If thou weave the seven braids of my head 


prem wn enw em nw nme et mw em ee ew ewe ewe owe. 6 we Bee SO Oe SSO SS ST HWBEGES OS® + OSS SHO Se 


j<coe woe 


a 
eal = ieee 









FS oes ee vee COee 


“AS ~ 
an aS; - 


We api pao Gh Gp Kf oe wy ; aw) 
Par Wy a om yy J Wy 
% 


Te: ity Us - Liu me _ awe era) 
Sibu Y 


NASR CE ae lis 
% ee WG 
a W'S Gi Va 


SECTIONAL VIEW OF A ni ie Roan. 


On the road-system of Palestine, see PALESTINE, ) along with the web, and beat up with the pin [v.e., 
§§ 7-13, passim; TRADE AND COMMERCE, § 2. Roads | so as to make the texture as firm as possible], my 
are indicated on the maps of Palestine in this work. |; strength will fail me,’ etc. Thus Delilah is repre- 
See also the map of the Ancient Semitic World, and | sented as actually weaving Samson’s locks into the 
the maps in HB, IV, art. Trade and Commerce, and | fabric, and, having ‘beaten’ this as firm as possible, 
in HDB, extra vol., Map. I. See also Paru. as calling to him that the Philistines were upon him. 

EK. E. N. Samson arose, fastened to the web, and pulled up the 


WAYFARING MAN: This term in the sense of | loom to which the web was secured. In Job 8 14 the 
‘traveler’ renders: (1) ’6réah (ptcpl. used as a sub- word rendered ‘web’ means simply ‘house.’ 
stantive) (Jg 19 17; II S 12 4 [|| to ‘traveler’]; Jer E. E. N. 

9 2 [1,] 14 8 [|] to ‘sojourner’]). (2) hdlékh derekh, WED, WEDDING, WEDDING-GARMENT. See 
‘one going a way’ (Is 35 8). (8) ‘dbhér’drah, ‘one | Marriage anp Divorce, § 2; also FamMiuy anp 
traveling a road’ (Is 33 8). CxS. T. Famizty Law, § 8. 


WAYMARK: This word, which renders tsiyyiin, WEDGE: This term renders lashén, ‘tongue’ (Jos 
‘something set up’ in Jer 31 21, is the same Heb. term | 7 21, 24), in the expression ‘tongue of gold,’ 7.e., gold 
rendered ‘sign’ in Ezk 39 15 and ‘monument? (‘title’ | bullion in the shape of a tongue. Ci8 ak 
AV) in II K 23 17. E. E. N. WEEK. See Time, § 2. 


WEALTH: This word is used to render the follow- WEEKS, FEAST OF. See Fasts anp Frasts, 
ing Heb. and Gr. terms: (1) n*khdsim (‘possessions,’ | § 2, I (3) and 7. 
II Ch 1 11 f.; Ee 519). The conception here is pri- WEEP, WEEPING. See Movrnine AND Mourn- 
marily that of property in abundance, worldly goods. | vq Customs, § 5. 
(2) hon, ‘things possessed’ (Ps 112 3; Pr 10 15, etc.), 
conveying the same general sense as (1). (8) hayil, WEIGH. See Money; and Wrtcuts anp Mzas- 
‘strength’ (Gn 34 29; Job 31 25), emphasizing the | URES, § 4. 
thought of power and social standing belonging to WEIGHTS AND MEASURES: 1. Introductory. 
the possessor of wealth. (4) kéah, ‘strength’ (Pr | The most ancient systems of weights and measures 
5 10 AV; cf. RV). (5) tobh, ‘good’ (Job 21 13; Ezr | were of Babylonian and Egyptian origin. The 
9 12, ‘prosperity’ RV, and Est 10 3, ‘good’ RV), | Babylonian sexagesimal system was thoroughly 
bringing into view the desirableness of wealth. | scientific, being based probably on a unit of length, 
(6) shdléw, ‘ease’ (Jer 49 31, ‘at ease’ RV), pointing | possibly astronomically ascertained, the cube of 
to the comfort and luxury made possible by wealth, | which gave the unit for measures of capacity, the 
or, in a broader sense, to the freedom to do one’s | weight of water contained in this cube giving the 


Weights and 
Measures 


‘A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 944 


a LEE ANAL LLL EAL LD ALL LLL 


unit for weights. As all the civilization of Western 
Asia was profoundly influenced by the Babylonian, 
it was the Babylonian system of weights and meas- 
ures that formed the basis of the systems in use 
throughout the whole region from the Persian Gulf 
to the Mediterranean. The Hebrews in Palestine 
were also largely influenced by the Egyptian decimal 
system, through which they appear to have modified 
the Babylonian system in some respects. The 
Phenicians and Persians also modified the Baby- 
lonian tables by diminishing or increasing the values 
of the fundamental units. See Monny §2f. The 
weights and measures we find in the O T can not be 
counted as all belonging to the unmodified Baby- 
lonian system, but must be reckoned as belonging 
now to one, now to another of the systems with which 
the Hebrews were familiar and used at different 
periods of their history. In the N T times the Jews 
were familiar with the Greco-Roman system, to 
which some of the N T terms are to be referred. 

2. Measures of Length. That the most primitive 
system of measurement made use of certain parts of 
the body as units seems to be a well-established fact. 
Such a system, once in vogue, would yield very 
slowly to a more artificial, even tho it were a more 
scientific, system. Among the Hebrews and other 
ancient peoples, the smallest unit of length seems to 
have been the finger, ’etsba‘ (Jer 52 21), four fingers 
making a handbreadth, tephah (I K 7 26), three 
handbreadths a span, zereth (Ex 28 16, etc.), and two 
spans a cubit, ’ammdah. In Ezk 405 we read that the 
cubit used in measuring the (ideal) Temple of the 


The ‘cubit,’ gdmedh, mentioned in Jg 3 16 was prob- 
ably a short measure, a little less than the common 
cubit in length. 

Of the measures of distance mentioned in the 
Bible, the pace, tsa‘adh (II S 6 13), was probably not 
an exact measure. The mete yard, middah (Lv 
19 35 AV), is simply a ‘measure of length’ (RV). 
The day’s journey was from four to eight hours’ 
walk. A Sabbath-day’s journey (Ac 1 12) was 2,000 
cubits, based on Jos 3 4. The scribes found ways, 
by legal fictions, of increasing this distance to as 
much as 4,000 cubits. The Gr. furlong, oté&dtoy, 
stadium (Lk 24 13, ete.), was a little less than % of a 
Roman mile (Mt 5 41), which contained 1,000 double 
paces or about 5,000 of our feet. The furlong con- 
tained 600 Gr. ft. (=58214 Eng. ft.). The fathom 
(Ac 27 28) was about 6 ft. 

The term tsemedh, rendered acre (Is 5 10), means 
‘yoke,’ and indicates the amount of surface a yoke 
of cattle could plow (on an average) in a day. In 
IS 14 14 the Heb. ma‘dnah, rendered ‘acre’ in AV, 
is rendered ‘furrow’ in RV; but the text here is 
probably corrupt. According to Kennedy, the Heb. 
tsemedh was about 100 cubits square (=about two- 
thirds of an acre). 

3. Measures of Capacity. The system of measures 
of capacity in use among the Hebrews was the 
Babylonian sexagesimal system, altho the names of 
the various measures may not have been in all cases 
identical. With the Hebrews the smallest unit of 
capacity was the log, légh. From the O T and other 
sources we get the following tables: 


1. Dry Measure. 


1 log (Lv 14 10, 12, 15, 21, 24), The unit for both dry and liquid measures, 

4 logs =1 cab, gabh (II K 6%). Later used also for liquids. J 

14/5 cabs =1 omer, ‘Omer (Ex 16 *, etc.), the same as the ‘tenth’ (deal AV) of Lv 14), ete. 
31/3 omers = 1 seah, s°’ah (measure EV, Gn 18 6; 1S 25 38; I K 18 32; II K 7 1, 16, 38), 


3 seahs 
5 ephahs =1 letekh, lethekh (Hos 3 2). 


=1 ephah, ’éphah (Ex 16 36; Ezk 45 4, etc.). 


2 letekhs =1 homer, hdmer (or kor, kor) (Is 5 10; Ezk 45 10-14), 


Or, 


(On the basis of recent finds of ancient measures in Jerusalem, see Kennedy in Exp. Times, 


Vol. xxiv [1913], pp. 393 ff.) 


4 logs= 1. cab 


T/s “ = 14/scabs= 1 omer 
24 wn *) “ = 3!/zsomers= 1 seah 
72 ‘= eS aves iO “ = 8seahs= 1 ephah 
360 “ = 90 401 50 Rowss LD Ayo nee 
720 “* =180 “- =100 Cg SOL 


prophet’s vision was ‘a cubit and a handbreadth’ in 
length. This seems to imply that the ordinary 
cubit was a handbreadth shorter than the cubit used 
for the Temple. In Dt 3 11 we read of a ‘cubit of a 
man,’ 7.e., the common cubit. Prof. Kennedy has 
proved conclusively (see Exp. Times, Vol. XX, pp. 
20 ff.) that measurements actually made on: the 
Temple site show that the cubit used as the standard 
by the builders was always a cubit of 17.6 inches. In 
view of this fact no explanation of Ezk 40 5 and 
II Ch 8 3 is here ventured as satisfactory. We have 
the following results for the Bible terms: 


Finger = .7325 in, or about 34 in. 
Handbreadth (4 fingers) at WHOS nieandes Sh we pean 
Span (3 handbreadthsv i Se Open wae wei At recirhe te 
Cubit (short) weet 17 .0e . varke bh Tvl Ie F 40 3:5 
Reed (6 cubits) = 105.48 in, ‘ Sati S 32 tab, 


= 5 ephahs 


= 1.04 pts. 

=4.16 pts. 

= 7.48 pts. 

= 24.94 pts. 

= 74.83 pts (=1 bu. 11 qts. nearly) 
=1 letekh=55/e bu. (nearly) 

1 =1 homer (kor) = 11?/s bu. (nearly) 


Many of these terms are obscured in our EV by the 
indefinite rendering measure(s) often given to them. 
The ephah (=the liquid bath) seems to have been 
the measure most generally used. The omer or 
‘tenth’ (of an ephah) was probably a late measure 
obtained by the application of the decimal system. 
Apart from the omer, all the measures of the table 
are the result of multiples or divisions in sexa- 
gesimal system. The ‘measures’ referred to in I K 
18 32 are ‘seahs,’ and the statement means, probably, 
that the trench was long enough to encircle a 
piece of ground of the size that two seahs of grain 
would sow. Inthe N T the term bushel (u68t0c, Mt 
5 15, etc.) was the O T seah, and ‘measure’ (xoimé, 
chenix, Rev 6 6) was a small Gr. dry measure of 2 
sextarit or pints. 


945 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Weights and 
Measures 





2. Liquid Measures. For these we have the fol- 


lowing table: 


1 log (Lv 14 19, etc.). 


world, where, however, it became much modified 
by combination with other modes of subdivision. 


= 6hins= 1 bath, bath (=’éphah) (I K 7 %; II Ch 2 10; Ezk 45 4, ete.). 
=10 baths=1 kor, kor (=homer) (I K 4 2; II Ch 27 5; Ezk 45 44), 


1 bath = 9 gals. 
lkor = 90 gals. 


4logs= Ilcab. 

12 “* = 3cabs= 1 hin, hin (Ex 29 “9, etc.). 

To eee era LS ns 

720, * =180.'* =60. ° 
Or, 

1llog = 1 pt. (approximately). 
1 cab = 2 ats. 
Lhin = 1) gals. 


In the N T we find Gétoc = ‘bath’ (Lk 16 6, ‘measure’ 
EV), and x6e0¢=‘cor’ (Lk 167, ‘measure’ EV, here 
used as a dry measure). In Mt 13 33 the Gr. is 
o&cvoy=‘seah.’ The firkin (uetentyc) referred to in 
Jn 2 6 was a Gr. measure about equivalent to the 
Heb. bath. 

4. Weights. The Hebrew system of weights was 
Babylonian in its arrangement, altho the actual 
values of the several weights was not at all times 
identical with those of Babylonia. 
lonian table was the following: 


60 shekels =1 mina. 
60 minas =1 talent (3,600 shekels). 


It is remarkable that there was a double system in ~ 


vogue, the weights in one being exactly double those 
in the other. Several very ancient inscribed stone 
weights (14,1/6, 14,and1 mina) showthat the (light) 
mina weight was approximately 490 grams or 7,580 
grains Troy. 

This would give the following results: 


Light. 
1 shekel= 126 gr. Troy = about .36 oz. avoirdupois. 
Liminks ss 27,580. *)-° (915%) 14/2 Ibs. 
1 talent =454,800 “ Sra eo ODL LDS. $ 
Heavy. 
1 shekel= 252 er. Troy =about .72 oz. avoirdupois. 
i mina = 15,160 “ Semen £9 lela, . 
1 talent =909,600 “ ee ee) SO) TDS. e 


This double (light and heavy) system seems to 
have been the one in general use in Babylonia, 
whence it spread, tho with some changes in the exact 
weight of the different measures, throughout the 
ancient civilized world. Alongside of these weights 
another and heavier scale often called the Assyrian 
was also used in Babylonia and Assyria in which the 
(light) mina weighed about 505 grams, giving a light 
shekel of about 130 gr. Troy, and a heavy shekel of 
about 260 gr. Troy, as over against those of 126 er. 
and 252 gr. in common use. This heavier Baby- 
lonian scale is frequently called the ‘royal’ standard 
to’distinguish it from the common. 

(b) In addition to the Babylonian common sys- 
tem in which the shekels were of 126 and 252 grains, 
the Phenicians and the Greeks also quite generally 
used a scale in which the (heavy) shekel weighed 
218-224 gr. (with a corresponding light shekel of 
about 112 gr.). In this system 50 (instead of 60) 
shekels (or staters) were reckoned to a mina, giving 
3,000 (instead of 3,600) shekels to a talent. This 
division of the mina into 50 (instead of 60) shekels 
was perhaps due to the influence of the Egyptian 
decimal system, and probably was first applied to 
money-weights. Through the Phenician traders it 
was known not only to the Hebrews, but in addi- 
tion spread into the Persian, Greek, and Roman 


(a) The Baby- 


| niently differentiated from the latter. 





(c) Still a third system of weights appears to have 
been once current in Western Asia. Evidence of it 
is found in the record of tribute paid to Thothmes IIIT 
by Syrian states as early as 1500 B.c. and also in a 
few weights recently discovered in middle and South- 
ern Palestine belonging to an early period. In this 
system the (heavy) shekel weighed 320 gr. and the 
light 160 gr. Kennedy considers that this heavier 
Syrian standard was obtained by raising the com- 
mon Babylonian mina by 5 per cent., giving a light 
mina of about 8,000 gr. and a heavy one of 16,000 gr., 
and then dividing this result by 50 (instead of 60), 
giving shekels of 160 gr. and 320 gr. respectively. 
See also Monry. 

(d) Still another system, the Aeginetan, due to 
the wide-spread influence of the Greek merchants of 
Aegina, was in use in the E. Mediterranean region. 
In this system the shekel weighed about 194 gr. 

(e) Turning now to the weights mentioned in the 
Bible, it may be remarked in passing that money- 
weights and merchandise-weights were probably 
originally identical, the former being only conve- 
The weights 
themselves were of stone (like those discovered in 
Babylonia and Palestine) of various shapes, inscribed 
with such statements as ‘44 mina, true weight,’ or 
‘netseph’ ("x), 7.¢., ‘half? (sometimes a_half- 
shekel) or, as in one case, ‘1 netseph,’ or they might 
be of bronze or other metal, properly inscribed. The 
weights (’ebhen, ‘stone’) were carried by the mer- 
chants in a bag, kis (Dt 2513; Mic 611). Balances, or 
scales m0’znayim or peles (Lv 19 36; Pr 16 11; Is 4012, 
etc.), were used in weighing, the bar of which was 
sometimes called the ‘reed’ (Is 46 6) or the ‘yoke’ 
(Rev 6 5); cf. also Gn 2316. It seems to have been a 
common practise for traders to buy with one set of 
weights or measures and sell with another, to their 
own advantage, of course (cf. Am 8 5). 

The smallest division of the shekel mentioned in 
the O T is the gerah, gér@h =1/.) shekel (Ex 30 13, 
probably here a money-weight). The quarter-shekel 
is mentioned in I S 9 8, one-third of a shekel in Neh 
10 32, and the beka, bega‘ (bekah AV), or half-shekel 
in Ex 38 26. These were all small silver money- 
weights (not coins; see Monry, § 2f.). The shekel, 
shegel, as a weight is frequently mentioned in the O T 
(Ex 30; 23:8. Nai 7st. Jos 7°21 DS leo sav bs 
14 26, ete.). It is not easy to decide just what shekel 
is referred to in each case. The shekel of the sanc- 
tuary referred to in the ‘priestly’ writings (Ex, Lv, 
Nu, I Ch) was probably the Aeginetan shekel of 
194 gr. which had come to be widely used in the E. 
Med. region in the time the ‘priestly’ writings were 
composed (cf. E. J. Pilcher in PEFQ (19138), pp. 


ht and Measures A NEW STANDARD 


186 ff.). Absalom’s hair weighed 200 shekels ‘after 
the king’s weight’ (II S 14 26). If this passage is a 
postexilic gloss, the king referred to is the Persian 
monarch, and the shekel is to be taken as the light 
Persian shekel of 130 gr. (126 gr. raised about 5 per 
cent.). But this is uncertain. In other (older) 
references either the Phenician (224/112 gr.) or the 
Syrian (320/160 gr.) shekel is meant. 

The mina or maneh (mdneh, Ezk 45 12, rendered 
pound in I K 1017; Ezr 2 69; Neh 7 71 f.) is counted in 
the later books of the O T on the Phenician system 
as containing 50 shekels (the correct reading in Ezk 
45 12 is that of the LXX. [Cod. A], ‘five shekels shall 
be five, and ten shekels ten, and fifty shekels shall be 
your maneh’). In the earlier records (e.g., Il K 
10 17) the Babylonian mina of 50 (heavy) shekels is 
probably meant, tho the Chronicler seems to have 
understood it as a mina of 100 (light) shekels (II 
Ch 9 16). 

The talent, kikkar, is frequently mentioned both 
as a money measure and as a weight proper (Ex 
37 24, 38 24 £., etc.). In regard to this, as is the case 
with the shekel and mina, the talent of the later 
literature (the P elements of the Pent., Ch, Ezr, Neh) 
is the Phenician talent of 3,000 shekels of 224 (112) 
gr. each, 2.¢e., 672,000 gr. (heavy) or 336,000 gr. 
(light). In the earlier notices either the heavier 
Babylonian or Syrian talent is meant. 

During the Greco-Roman age the Jews appear to 
have worked out a syncretistic money and weight 
system by combining the Phenician and Attic- 
Roman systems. According to Kennedy, this was 
as follows (for both money and weights): 


6 ma‘a (1 ma‘4=1 obol) =1 ziz or denarius (drachm), 
2 zaz =1 shekel (light), 105 


4 4 a=] “ (heavy) or tetradrachm, S10 wae 

50 “ = }4 minas or perés, 2 62 Dies 
100 “ =1 mina (=4 tetradrachms), 5,200) 41" 
6,000 * (3,000 shekels) =1 talent, 315,000 “ 


Here we get light on the statements in Dn 5 25 f.: 
‘mene’ = mina, ‘tekel’ is the Aramaic form of shekel, 
and ‘u-pharsin’ =%-p*rds, t.e., ‘and a peras.’ Thus 
the enigmatic writing was: ‘a mina, a mina, a shekel, 
and a half-mina.’ The Gr. word uve, rendered 
pound in Lk 19 35, is the money mina of this later 
table. The other Gr. word Attex, rendered pound 
in Jn 12 3, 19 39, was the same as the mina and the 
equivalent of the Rom. libra or ‘pound.’ 

LirerRATURE: Benzinger, Heb. Archdologie (21907), pp. 188-204; 
Nowack, Heb. Archdologie (1894), pp. 198-209. In these full 
bibliographies will be found. Kennedy’s article in HDB, IV, 
pp. 901-913, is very complete and satisfactory, but to be sup- 
plemented by results of late discoveries and measurements 
as noted in the literature referred to in the body of this 
article. 


WELL!: The word commonly rendered ‘well’ is 
b’ér; of other words so rendered, ‘ayin, ma‘ydn, 
magor, and xyyn, all mean ‘spring,’ or ‘fountain’ 
and are so rendered by ARV (except in Is 12 3; Neh 
213; Jn 4 6, 14); ddr is translated ‘cistern’ (except in 
IIS 2315. =I Ch 11171.; Jer 67), to which geé«oe cor- 
responds in the N T (Lk 14 5; Jn 411 £.). On ac- 
count of the long, dry summer, wells are of supreme 
importance to the inhabitants of Palestine (cf. the 
rites in Gn 21 27 #f.), and are still sources of frequent 
strife, especially among the Bedawin (cf. Gn 26 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 


946 


20 £.). Abundance of water is a type of the highest 
beauty and happiness (Song 4 15; Is 12 3; Jn 4 14; 
cf. Is 41 18), and the Oriental taste can readily dis- 
tinguish between water from different sources (cf. 
II S 23 15). The water for household use is usually 
drawn and carried by women (cf. Gn 24 11; Jn 4 15). 
The male drawer of water (Dt 29 11; Jos 9 21) is 
engaged in one of the most menial, fatiguing, and 
poorly paid occupations. See Foon, § 12; also Cis- 
TERN; FountTaINn’ Pir; Spring; WaTER. 
L. G. L.—L. B. P. 
WELL?: This word occurs a few times as the 
transl. of shalém, ‘peace,’ in the common salutation 
or greeting, in which one asks after the welfare of 
another (Gn 29 6, 37 14, 43 27; ILS 18 28; II K 4 23, 
26, 5 21, 22, 9 11; also RV, II S 20 9, ‘art thou in 
health’ AV; II S 18 29, 32, ‘safe’ AV). The Heb. 
idiom ‘to ask one of his welfare’ (Jer 15 5) is often 
rendered by ‘salute,’ ‘greet,’ ete. (cf. Jg 18 15; I. 
S 10 4, 17 22; I Ch 18 10, etc.). See Saturation. 
GO. 8ets 
WEN. The Heb. yabbeleth (fr. yabhal ‘to flow’), 
rendered ‘wen’ in Lv 22 22, means a running sore, 
such as an ulcer. E. E. N. 


WEST. See East. 


WESTERN SEA. See MeEpITERRANEAN SBA. 
WHALE. See Monster. 


WHEAT. See Foop anp Foop Uresnsits, § 1; 
AGRICULTURE, § 5; and PALEsTINE, § 23. 


WHEEL: This term renders: (1) ’dphdn (Ex 14 25; 
I K 7 30-33; Ezk 1 15-21, 3 13, 10 6-19, 11 22; Nah 8 2). 
(2) galgal (Ec 12 6; Is 5 28; Jer 47 3; Ezk 10 2, 6, 13, 


52% er. 


23 24, 2610; Dn 79). Wheels of chariots or of carts 
were probably made like the Egyptian and Assyrian 
wheels with six spokes, hishshtigim, set in the hub, 
hishshir, and the rim, gabh (I K 7 33). The tire 
was fastened with thongs passed through holes and 
bound around the rim. From the circumstance 
that cart-wheels were employed to thresh out grain, 
the wheel is used as a symbol of calamity in Pr 20 
26 and Is 28 27. In Ezekiel’s vision the wheels are 
animate beings that form part of the chariot-throne 
of J’, hence in Eth. En., 61 10, 70 7, ‘wheels’ be- 
come a special class of angels along with cherubim 
and seraphim. See also Cart; and ArtizAn LiFs, 
§ 8. L. B. P. 


WHIRLWIND: A frequent translation of sa@phah, 
‘storm-wind,’ sa‘ar and s°‘drd, ‘storm,’ ‘tempest.’ 
In other passages the same words are often translated 
‘storm’ or ‘tempest.’ This is a more accurate ren- 
dering, since there is nothing in any of these forms 
that suggests the idea of whirling. The proper 
word for ‘whirlwind’ is galgal, lit. ‘wheel’ (Ps 83 14 
[13], ‘wheel’ AV, 77 19 [18]; ‘heaven’ AV; Is 17 13; 
‘wind’ EV). All these words are used figuratively 
of a swift and terrible destruction (Pr 1 27, 10 25; Is 
5 28, 17 13, 21 1, 40 24, 41 16, 66 15; Jer 4 13, 23 19, 
30 23; Hos 87; Am 114; Nah 1 3; Zec 914). L.B.P. 


947 





WHITE. See Cotors, § 1; also Dress AND ORNA- 
MENTS, § 5. 


WHITE OF AN EGG: The rendering of the Heb. 
phrase rir hallémiith (in Job 6 6, ‘the juice of purs- 
lain’ RVmg.). But rir means ‘slime,’ or ‘spittle’ 
(cf. I S 21 14), and halldmith is of quite uncertain 
meaning, tho some on the basis of the Syriac word, 
similar to the Heb., meaning purslain, take it to be 
the name of an insipid herb. However, the Rabbinic 
interpretation ‘yolk of an egg’ is just as probable a 
rendering tho pronounced ‘artificial’ by Driver and 
Gray in ICC. ‘The slime of the yolk’ would indeed 
be an apt illustration of a tasteless, uninviting article 
of food. EK. E. N. 


- WHORE, WHOREDOM: In a figurative sense, 
these words are often used in the O T to designate 


disloyalty to J’’ on the part of Israel, either through 


the worship of other deities, or through the practise 
of gross materialism and sensuality in their (nominal) 
worship of Him. The conception leading to the use 
of such a figure was that the relation between J” 
and Israel was like a marriage-covenant, in which 
Israel the spouse was pledged to exclusive loyalty to 
J’’, her husband (cf. Hosea’s teaching on this). The 
prevalence of gross sensualism in the common Sem- 
itic religion (q.v.) also easily led to the use of such 
a figure. See also CrimEs AND PUNISHMENTS, § 2 
(c); and Haruor. EK. E. N. 


WICKED, WICKEDNESS, WICKEDLY: These 
terms render the following Heb. and Gr. words: (1) 
*G@wen, ‘one who causes needless pain or trouble for 
another,’ hence ‘needless,’ ‘false,’ ete. (Job 11 11, 
‘false’? RV, 22 15; Pr 30 20, etc.). (2) beliyya‘al, 
‘useless,’ ‘profitless’ (Dt 15 9, ‘base’ RV; Job 34 18, 
‘vile’ RV; Ps 101 3, ‘base’ RV; Nah 1 11, ‘wickedness’ 
RV, 15). (3) Derivations of ‘dwal, ‘to yield’ or 
‘bend,’ 7.e., ‘crooked,’ ‘perverse’ (Job 18 21, 29 17, 31 3, 
all ‘unrighteous’ RV; II S 3 34, ‘iniquity’ RV, 7 10, 
etc.). (4) ‘amdl, ‘tired,’ ‘in painful work,’ ‘trouble’ 
(Job 4 8, ‘trouble’ RV, 20 22, ‘misery’ RV). (5) 
‘atsebh, ‘pain’ (Ps 139 24). (6) hawwdah (from haéwéh, 
‘to fall’), that which ‘befalls,’ 7.e., ‘misfortune,’ 
‘evil,’ etc. (Ps 5 9, 52 7, 5511). (7) Derivatives of 
(zGmam,‘ to think’ or ‘plan,’ but generally in an evil 
sense (Lv 1817; Ps 377, 1408, ‘evil’ RV; Pr 21 27, etc.). 
(8) ra‘a‘ and its derivative ra‘, a general term for 
‘bad’ or ‘evil’ (Gn 6 5, 13 13 and often). (9) rdsha‘, 
resha‘, primarily ‘loose,’ ‘looseness,’ and then used 
almost entirely in a moral sense; the most common 
terms for ‘wicked,’ wickedness,’ often contrasted 
with ‘righteous,’ ‘righteousness’ (Gn 18 23; I S 2413, 
etc.). (10) hesedh, ‘shameful’ (Lv 20 17; cf. RV). 
(11) ’anash, ‘to be weak,’ or ‘sick’ (Jer 179, ‘corrupt’ 
RV). In the N T the most common term is (12) 
movneds, movyota, corresponding to (9) above (Mt 
12 45, 22 18, etc.). (13) xaxbc, xaxtla, corresponding 
to (8) above (Mt 21 41; Ac 8 22). (14) &espoc, ‘not 
lawful’ (II P 27, 317). (15) &vowoc, ‘lawless’ (Ac 2 
23). (16) &toxoc, ‘out of place’ (Ac 25 5, ‘amiss’ RV). 

For the doctrinal conceptions connected with 
these and similar terms see SIN. EK. E. N. 


WIDOW. See Marriage AnD Divorce, § 6; 
also Fammuy AND Famizy Law, $§ 6, 8. 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Weights and Measures 
Will 


WIFE. See Faminy anp Famity Law, §§ 3, 5, 
and MARRIAGE AND Divorce. 


WILD ASS. See Ass; and Patestine, § 24. 
WILD BEAST. See Pauxestine, § 24. 


WILD BULL: The rendering of the Heb. td’ in Is 
51 20 AV, ‘antelope’ RV. See Pauzstinn, § 24. 


WILD GOAT. See Goat; and Paestine, § 24. 
WILD MAN. See Isumagt, § 1. 
WILD OX. See Paresrine, § 24. 


WILDERNESS: In general, this term signifies, not 
a sterile sandy desert like the Sahara without water 
and vegetation—since the Hebrews were unac- 
quainted with any such place—but an uncultivated 
region, devoted to pasturage, thinly peopled, and 
occupied by nomads. (1) The most common word 
translated ‘wilderness’ is midhbdr, literally ‘a place 
for the driving of cattle.’ It is referred to as the 
abode of pelicans (Ps 102 6), wild asses (Job 24 5), 
ostriches (La 4 3), and jackals (Mal 1 3). Chief 
among such places were the wilderness of the wan- 
derings (Nu 14 33), the wilderness of Judah (Jg 1 16), 
and the wilderness of Moab (Dt 28). (2) A stronger 
term, expressive of greater barrenness, is y°shimon, a 
‘dry’ or ‘riverless’ region (Is 43 19). When accom- 
panied by the definite article, it is the geographical 
description of that part of Judah immediately W. 
of the Dead Sea (Nu 21 20; I S 23 24). (8) A third 
term is ‘drabhah, meaning ‘arid’ and ‘barren’ (Is 
33 9, 51 3). With the article, it is the geographical 
proper name of the great depression N. and 8. of the 
Dead Sea (Dt 17, etc.). See also ARaABAH. (4) A 
fourth term is tsiyydh, signifying land of ‘drought’ 
(Hos 23). (5) A fifth is tha, conveying the double 
notion of ‘waste’ and ‘confusion’ (Dt 3210). (6) The 
N T term is Zey40¢, which is used with considerable 
latitude (Mt 14 13; He 11 38). John the Baptist 
preached in the wilderness of Judea (Mt 3 1), and 
here also, probably, Jesus was tempted (Mt 4 1). 

G. L. R. 


WILDERNESS OF BEER-SHEBA, BETH- 
AVEN, DAMASCUS, EDOM, ENGEDI, ETHAM, 
GIBEON, JERUEL, KADESH, KEDEMOTH, 
MAON, MOAB, PARAN, SHUR, SIN, SINAI, 
ZIN, ZIPH. See Brrr-SHEBA, BETH-AVEN, Da- 
Mascus, Epo, etc. 


WILDERNESS OF JUDAH. See PAteEstine, 
§ 7 (c). 
WILDERNESS OF THE RED SEA. See Eruam. 


WILL: There is no word used in Scripture for the 
will as a distinct power or faculty (1) In the O T 
various Heb. words occur, generally in verbal forms, 
which are translated by the English words ‘would,’ 
‘will,’ or ‘willing.’ One of these (’abhah) is almost 
never used without a negative (Lv 26 21; Dt 10 n: 
Jos 24 10; II S 3 16, 17); even where the negative is 
not used it seems to be suggested (Pr 1 10; Is 1 19), 
Another (rdts6n) is formed from a verb meaning ‘to 
be kind’ or ‘favorable toward.’ When used of J”, 
therefore, it means His ‘will’ in the sense of His good 
pleasure, the thing He wishes to see done (Ps 40 8, 8, 
143 10). The remaining important word (haphéts} 
likewise rests on the idea of inclination, desire, de- 


Will” 
Wisdom 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 948 


a eee ee 


light (I S 2 25; I K 13 33; I Ch 289). In Ps 406, 8 
it is translated by the LXX. (89 7, 9) into both 
20éAetv and GobAccbat. Probably, the means by 
which the mind of the people came to think more def- 
initely of the will of God was the canonization of the 
Law. That represented a permanent character as op- 
posed to a passing impulse, a will which is more than 
desire or pleasure, because it contains an element 
of absolute or objective worth. (2) In the N T the 
idea of will is expressed by two words, BobAecbat 
(whence Govrh) and Oéretv (whence 6Ayua). The 
nouns occur in much larger proportion than in the 
OT. While the words are often apparently equiva- 
lent (cf. Mt 11 27 and Jn 5 21), there is yet a range 
of meaning peculiar to both. In general, it may be 
said that GovA lies behind 6éAnuc« asits source. The 
former means plan or design, the will which is prior 
to the specific volition; the latter is the projection of 
purpose in a definite act or word (Ac 4 28; I Co 45; 
Eph 111). This vital tho subtle difference appears 
in two other passages of pathetic import. In Mt 
119 Joseph had the will (6éAwy) not to act in one way 
and planned (é8ovAnby) to act in another. In Lk 
22 42 our Lord appeals to the BovAy of the Father 
as if it were the source of alternative 0e\quata; but 
He submits His own will absolutely to the conclusive 
will (6éAnua) of the Father. Thus in the life of 
Jesus there came to view in startling light that pro- 
found problem, the relation of the human will to 
the Divine, and from His awful experience arose 
the one supreme task, agony, and hope of man for 
all time. The will of God is ever spoken of as some- 
thing at last fully known (Mt 6 10, 7 21; Lk 12 47; 
Ac 22 14; Ro 218, 12 2; Col 19, 412). It is now con- 
fronting every man through the Gospel, and the will 
of every man is confronting it (Jn 6 39, 40, 7 17, 9 31). 
Here the climax of human experience is reached. 
For, on the one hand, salvation is just the will of 
God (both GovAh and 0éAyu«) taking full effect on a 
man (Eph 1 3-11), and, on the other hand, the will 
of man recognizing and doing that will (Mt 23 37; 
Jn 5 40; I Jn 2 17), conscious of warfare in its own 
inner life (Ro 7 15-21, but succored even there by the 
grace Divine (He 18 20 f.; Ph 213). See also Eiuc- 
TION; PREDESTINATION; and Man, Doctrine oF, § 10. 
W. D. M. 


WILL OF GOD. See in general ELection; and 
PREDESTINATION, § 1. 

WILL OF MAN. See Man, Doctrine or, § 10. 

WILLOW. See Patzsting, § 21. 

WILL-WORSHIP. See Man, Docrrinz of, § 10. 


WIMPLE. An article of woman’s dress men- 
tioned in Is 3 22 AV (‘shawl’ RV). See Dress anp 
ORNAMENTS, § 6. 

_WIND. See Acricutture, §§ 5 and 7; and 
PALESTINE, § 18. 

WINDOW. See Hovuss, § 6 (j). 

WINE. See Vines anD VINTAGE in general; also 
Foop AND Foop Ursnsits, § 13; and Disrasz AND 
Mepticing, § 3. 

WINE-FAT, WINE-PRESS. See Vines AnD 
Vintaae, § 1. 


WINE-PRESSES, THE KING’S. See Jrervu- 
SALEM, § 38. 


WINE-SKIN. See Borriy; and plate of Skin 
Urensixs (facing p. 114). 


WING. See Gon, § 2. 
WINNOW. See AGRICULTURE, § 7. 
WINTER. See Timm, § 4; and Patzsting, § 17. 


WISDOM, WISE MEN: 1. The Wise Men of 
Ancient Israel. In Jer 18 18 the intellectual classes 
of ancient Israel are spoken of as consisting of 
priests, prophets, and ‘the wise.’ It was the function 
of the priests to give the ‘torah’ or instruction, of 
the prophets to give the ‘word,’ and of the wise to 
give ‘counsel.’ This reference to conditions as they 
existed in later preexilic days doubtless holds true 
for a long period preceding. It can hardly be 
doubted that, from a very early period, ‘the wise’ 


formed a class of no small importance in ancient - 


Hebrew society, altho references to them in the 
extant early literature are few and somewhat un- 
satisfactory. 

The earliest reference to ‘the wise’ as such is in 
IIS 14 2, to the wise woman of Tekoa, whom Joab 
made use of to persuade David to recall Absalom 
from exile. Another wise woman is mentioned in 
II S 20 16 #f., who delivered the city of Abel, a center 
of ancient wisdom (cf. ver. 18), by her wise advice. 


Solomon is viewed not simply as wise in the ordi- 


nary sense, but as a prominent ‘wise man.’ With 
Solomon are mentioned others, some by name, as 
‘Ethan the Ezrahite, and Heman and Calcol and 
Darda’; still others more indefinitely characterized 
as ‘children of the east,’ all of whom Solomon sur- 
passed in wisdom. Such references, together with 
the presuppositions in the earlier portions of Pr 
(q.v.), and the development necessary to be assumed 
before such literature as we have in the wisdom 
books of the O T could be produced, make it neces- 
sary to posit the existence of numerous and influ- 
ential wisdom schools or circles throughout the 
whole kingdom period, as well as during the exilic 
and postexilic periods. i 

2. The Work of the Ancient Wisdom Schools. 
The beginnings of the wisdom development in Israel 
were, naturally, simple and informal. It was not 
the great problems of life that occupied their atten- 
tion, but something much less abstruse. From the 
evidence we possess it would seem that they gave 
their attention mainly to the formulation of brief, 
epigrammatic sayings containing keen observations 
on life or nature, or to the construction of riddles or 
parables. In all this there was little or no science or 
unity, except as to the literary form in which the 
observations were embodied. This at last came to 
be fixed, at least in its fundamental form, as the 
mashdl (see PROVERB AND PROVERBS, Book of, § 3). 
The fable of Jotham (Jg 97-15) and of Jehoash (IT 
K 149), the clever story of the wise woman of Tekoa 
(II S 145 £.), the parable of Nathan (II § 12 1-6), 
the riddle of Samson (Jg 14 14) and his ready retort 
when it was solved (ver. 18) are examples of what was 
likely to be produced in the early wisdom circles. 
Solomon is said to have composed 1,005 songs and 


3,000 proverbs, and to have spoken of ‘trees, from 





949 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Were 





the cedar that is in Lebanon even unto the hyssop 
that springeth out of the wall; he spake also of 
beasts, and of birds, and of creeping things, and of 
fishes’ (II K 4 32 f.). 

A complete statement of the final aim of the early 
wisdom schools is given in Pr 1 2-6. This may be 
taken as expressing what finally resulted from the 
earlier efforts. More and more the practical and 
moral aim predominated. Observations on beasts 
and birds, etc., became of secondary importance. 
Attention was concentrated on life, and the wise 
man sought to show how the every-day life could be 
and ought to be lived in order to insure the greatest 
success and happiness. The deeper problems were 
left untouched. It was reserved for a few chosen 
spirits among the wise men of a later day to struggle 
with these ( see § 3, below). Proficiency in such 


knowledge was designated hokhmdh, ‘wisdom,’ and . 


he who was a master of it was hakhdm, ‘wise’ (from 
a root signifying primarily ‘to be fixed’ or ‘solid’). 
In addition to hohkméh, other terms occur less fre- 
quently, such as ‘ormah, ‘shrewdness’ or prudence 
(q.v.) (Pr 1 4), bindh and i*bhinah, understanding, 
mzimmah, ‘cleverness’ or ‘discretion’ (Pr 1 4), and 
tushiyyah, the ability to succeed, to help oneself. 
These, however, may belong to the later periods of 
the wisdom development. 

What degree of organization these wisdom schools 
or circles possessed is unknown, as are also their 
methods. In ancient times age and wisdom were 
closely associated and it was the aged men, the 
ancients, in whom wisdom was supposed to have 
its abode (I S 24 13; Job 12 12, 1510). The gate of 
an ancient city was a place of public concourse where 
the elders assembled, public questions were dis- 
cussed, cases tried, etc. (cf. Gn 19 1, 23 10 #.; Dt 21 
18 f., 22 15, 24; 11S 198 f., etc.), and it may well have 
been the case that here in ancient Israel the wise 
men were wont to meet, to try one another’s skill 
with hard questions or riddles, to make observations 
on manners and customs, and to formulate rules of 
conduct (cf. Pr. 1 20 f., 31 23). Here the younger 
men learned the wisdom of their elders, and thus the 
wisdom of one generation was passed on to another. 
It would thus be easy for one locality to become 
famous for its wisdom school, and through visits 
of members of other wisdom circles to impart its 
knowledge to and receive new wisdom from other 
schools (cf. Job, a wise man, and his three friends 
fom other localities). 


3. The Historical Development After the Exile. 
All the wisdom books of the O T belong to the post- 
exilic age, most of them even as late as the Greek 
period. We are not concerned here with the details 
of the date, composition, and specific teachings of 
each of these (see separate articles PRovERBS, Book 
oF; Jos; Eccuestastes; Eccuestasticus; and Wis- 
poM OF SoLtomon). Taken together, these books 
show the several main lines along which Jewish 
‘wisdom’ found its development. (a) The problem 
of practical morality, the conduct best suited for 
every-day life, is that with which Pr and Sir are 
mainly concerned. This is the simplest of the prob- 
lems of the Hebrew wisdom. It was handled also 
jn the simplest manner, almost altogether by the 


formulation of short rules of conduct in the form of 
m°shalim or ‘proverbs.’ Extended discursive treat- 
ment of only one theme was not necessary. Positions 
such as the existence of God, His goodness, His 
judgments, the free will of man, etc., could be taken 
for granted without debate. It is true that in the 
latest portion of Pr (17-9 18; see PRoverss, Book OF) 
there are discursive sections, and in one of these 
(ch. 8) a poetic description of wisdom is given in 
which the main theme of practical morality appears 
to be lost sight of. But even here there is no serious 
attempt to discuss any new problem, and at the end 
‘wisdom’ is resolved into the governing principle of 
right conduct (8 31 #.). The same is true of the later 
wisdom of Ben Sira; for, while in his hands the prob- 
lem of right conduct takes on a broader scope in- 
volving more of the national aspects (wisdom has 
its seat in Israel, as the Law, ch. 24) and occasion- 
ally comes close to the problem of sin (as in ch. 17), 
and also is more discursive than Pr, the book as a 
whole deals with no other subject at length than 
that of practical morality (except, of course, in the 
‘hymn to the fathers,’ chs. 44-50), in which religion 
and ethics are, as in Pr, treated as one. (b) Itisa 
problem of a very different sort that is discussed in 
Job and Ee. In these all the positions of the an- 
cient wisdom are not taken for granted, except the 
one most fundamental—that God is, and that He 
is essentially just. But the world God has made 
gives occasion for troublesome questionings. In Job 
it is the moral problem of the Divine government, 
especially the apparent injustice of the sufferings of 
the righteous, which seems to destroy all confidence 
in God’s care for His servants and to annihilate the 
(supposed) difference between the righteous and the 
wicked. The problem is discussed and the negative 
side presented in masterly fashion, but no positive 
solution is reached. In Ec a more pessimistic note 
is struck. Everything seems involved in one cease- 
less round, no definite aim or end ever being reached. 
‘All is vanity.’ In neither book is the doctrine of 
a future life, with its ethical significance, made use 
of as helping to solve the problem. Both books 
show the need of a fuller revelation of God and im- 
mortality than had yet been given. (c) In the 
Wisdom of Solomon (Wis) we have Jewish wisdom 
in conflict with Epicurean tendencies due to contact 
with Greek life and philosophy. And it is a noble 
and beautiful reply that is made to the shallow 
philosophy in this book. Wisdom is the path not 
only of rectitude but of life, which death can not 
destroy, for beyond the grave the righteous find 
their reward. ‘Hades hath not a royal dominion on 
earth for righteousness is immortal’ (1 14 f.), ‘and 
wisdom passing from generation to generation into 
holy souls, she maketh men friends of God... . 
Against wisdom evil doth not prevail ... she reacheth 
from one end [onward] . . . and ordereth all things 
graciously’ (7 27-30). It is a wholesome, optimistic 
philosophy that is taught in this, the last important 
product of the Jewish wisdom schools. (d) One 
phase of the problem of the Divine government, 
untouched in Job and Ec, the problem of Israel, 
God’s Chosen People, maltreated, oppressed, and 
held under the sway of the heathen, was left to be 


Wisdom 


Wool A NEW STANDARD 





handled by the ours writers, We thus be- 
came, in a measure, the successors of the wisdom 
school (see Danizt and Enocu, Books OF). The 
Maccabean war and the resulting changes in Pales- 
tinian life brought new interests to the front and 
diverted the attention of learned Jews to new sub- 
jects, ‘Wisdom’ ceased to be a special object of 
study. 

4. Wisdom in the New Testament. The story 
that wise men, payor (Mt 21 ff.), came from the 
East to Judea to find a new-born king is not at all 
improbable. There was then a general, wide-spread 
expectancy of some such event, and it is quite likely 
that certain devout astrologers of Babylonia should 
have been led by some unusual heavenly phenomena 
to make such a journey. ‘Wise men’ is used here as 
the equivalent of magician or astrologer, as in a few 
passages of the O T (Gn 41 8; Dn 2 12 ft.; cf. Allen in 
ICC, on Matthew). In a sense, Jesus should be 
counted as one of the ‘wise men’ of Israel. In His 
use of the parable and in the epigrammatic form 
of much of His teaching He followed the earlier 
wisdom methods. He was also well acquainted with 
the Book of Proverbs (see Kent, pp. 176-201). 

In Lk 11 49 the words ‘therefore also said the 
wisdom of God’ may be merely equivalent to ‘there- 
fore God in His wisdom hath said.’ No known 
wisdom book contains the following words, which 
seem to be a quotation, and it is possible that here 
Jesus speaks, like one of the prophets of old, a Divine 
word on His own initiative (cf. Plummer in ICC., 
ad loc.) In Paul ‘wisdom,’ so far as it is condemned 
or made the opposite of the higher wisdom revealed 
in the Gospel, is the current philosophy of Greece, 
which Paul felt was apt to prove a dangerous rival 
to the truth of God as revealed in Christ (cf, I Co 1 
19 ff., 25 ff., etc). See also ASTROLOGY AND ASTRON- 
omy, § 9, and Magic anp Divination, § 7. 
LITERATURE: Art. Wisdom by Toy in EB, and by Siegfried in 

HDB; Cheyne, Job and Solomon (1887); Kent, The Wise 

Men of Ancient Israel (1895); Davidson, The Wisdom Lit- 

erature of the O T (1894); ICC. on Proverbs (Toy, 1899), 

Ecclesiastes (Barton, 1908), and Job (Driver and Gray, 1921); 

Camb. Bible on Ecclesiasticus (Osterley, 1912) and Wisdom 

of Solomon (Gregg, 1909). E. E. N. 

WISDOM OF JESUS, SON OF SIRACH. See 
ECCLESIASTICUS. 


WISDOM OF SOLOMON: 1. Title and General 
Characteristics. One of the books of the O T Apo- 
crypha, entitled in full, “The Wisdom of Solomon,’ 
but generally known as the Book of Wisdom. It was 
a product of Alexandrian Judaism. It was written 
in Greek, and has been preserved for us in several of 
the great MSS. (SABC), also in several versions. 
Because of its exalted teaching, its devout spirit, and 
its fine diction, it has always been held in the highest 
esteem. Indeed, no other non-canonical book, ex- 
cept perhaps Ecclesiasticus, can rival it in the honor 
and reverence of the Church. 

2. Contents. As to the analysis and the unity of 
the book there has been great difference of opinion 
among scholars; it has been called ‘the well-arranged 
product of a single author;’ the two parts (1-111 and 
11 2-19) have, on the other hand, on account of 
difference in language, substance and style, been 
assigned to different authors; but with great diversity 


BIBLE DICTIONARY 950 





among specialists the question can not be regarded 
as settled. Neither, in view of the dependence of the 
text on the LXX., can the attempt that has been 
made to prove that the book was originally written 
in Hebrew be regarded as successful. The contents 
may be divided into three sections: (1) 11-68. This 
has been called ‘the book of eschatology,’ because it 
brings out so clearly the different destinies which 
await the righteous sufferers and the ungodly op- 
pressors. It has been regarded as a polemic against 
the words of Eccl 715. Cf. 514. ‘For the hope of 
the ungodly is like dust that is blown away by the 
wind, and like thin froth that is driven away by the 
storm, and as smoke dispersed by the wind, and 
passeth away as the remembrance of a guest that 
tarrieth but a day. But the righteous live forever- 
more; their reward also is in the Lord, ete.’ The 
writer distinctly rejects the ancient ideas that 


suffering presupposes sin and that early death is a — 


calamity. (2) 69-111. The characteristic feature of 
this section is the praise of wisdom which has given 
the name to the book. Here Solomon speaks and 
testifies that wisdom is given to mankind in answer 
to prayer, ‘For she is a breath of the power of God, 
and a pure effluence from the glory of the Almighty, 
therefore no defiled thing falls into her. For she is 
a reflection of the everlasting light and an unspotted 
mirror of the efficiency of God, and image of his 
goodness’ (7 25). She was given not only to Solomon 
but also to all the great leaders of the past. (3) 11 2- 
19 22. To connect these chapters with what has gone 
before we must regard this section as containing ‘a 
series of illustrations of the power of wisdom in 
history;’ another view is that ‘We have no longer a 
poem extolling goodness and celebrating Wisdom, 
but a Midrash in glorification of the Jews’. Into the 
historical retrospect of Israel in Egypt and in the 
wilderness there is ‘inserted a discussion of the origin 
and evils of idolatry (chs. 13-15)... Men were foolish 
‘who deemed either fire, or wind, or swift air, or 
circuit of stars, or violence of water, or lights of 
heaven to be gods which govern the world’ (13 1). 
Throughout their history the goodness of God was 
seen in rendering to their enemies punishment similar 
to their offenses; and the final conclusion is reached, 
‘O Lord; thou didst magnify thy people, and glorify 
them, and didst not overlook them, but didst stand 
by them, in every time and place (19 22). 


3. The Aim, Unity, and Authorship. The work has 
a double purpose—to comfort and to warn. The 
warning comes first, and is directed against faith- 
less Jews—those who had succumbed to heathen 
philosophy and adopted heathen customs (chs. 1-5). 
It sets forth also the deadly peril of idolatry (chs. 13- 
15). On the other hand, it seeks to comfort the 
faithful amid their sufferings. If they will but hold 
to wisdom, they shall be blessed amid trial, and 
enter at last upon a glorious immortality. The 
problems of inequality and suffering for the righteous 
are solved in the issues which wisdom shall bring. 
Wisdom secures a complete theodicy. Once and 
again the unity of the book has been denied, and 
there are still those who believe it to be a composite 
work (see art. in JZ). This, however, is not the 
generally accepted view. While there is a complete 


— —_—-- 


951 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Wisdom 
Wool 





change of treatment in the second part, the style is 
the same as in the first part; so too is the language. 
It is all from one hand. Whose that hand was will 
probably never be known. Only this much is clear, 
that the author was an Alexandrian Jew who had a 
knowledge of Greek thought and life. The name of 
Solomon is given to the book as a transparent 
pseudonym—a sort of ‘collective name,’ as one 
says of it, ‘for all sapiential Hebrew literature.’ 

4. Date. The date can not be fixed within narrow 
limits. It is later than the Septuagint Version, for 
the book uses it. It is earlier than the Apostolic Age, 
for it contains no trace of Christian doctrine. It 
may probably be assigned to the Ist cent. B.c. 


LITERATURE: W. J. Deane, Book of Wisdom. Also the follow- 
ing Commentaries on the Apocrypha: Lange-Schaff, Speaker’s 
Commentary, Fritzsche and Grimm, editions by Kautzsch 
in German and Charles in English. Kautzsch, Apok. u. 
Pseudep. des A T (1900); Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudep. 
of the O T (1913). J.S. R.—W. G. J. 


WITCH, WITCHCRAFT. 
Divination, § 3. 


WITHERED HAND. See Diszasp anp MeEpt- 
cinB, IIT. 


WITHES, WITHS (AV): The rendering of the 
pl. of yether in Jg 167-9, a word usually translated 
‘cord,’ or ‘string.’ ‘Green cords’ may be new bow- 
strings, usually made of intestines of animals, but 


some other variety of cord may be meant. 
HK. E. N. 


WITNESS, and FALSE WITNESS. See Crimes 
AND PuNISHMENTS, § 2 (b); and Law anp Luaau 
Practisp, § 4. 


WIZARD. See Maarc ann Drvination, § 3. 
WOLF. See PazEstIne, § 24. 


WOMAN: The Heb. and Gr. words which desig- 
nate ‘woman’ are: (1) ’ishshah, ‘wife’; (2) nqébhah, 
‘female’; (3) ndshim, pl. (short for ’dndshim,); (4) 
yovn, ‘wife,’ and (5) @fAeta, ‘female.’ In general, the 
Biblical view of woman is included in that of man 
(q.v.). It differs from those of other Oriental and 
ancient nations mainly by its placing the sexes more 
nearly on an equal footing in general, and in par- 
ticular, in the fact that in religious matters they 
stand altogether ona par. So far as woman is distin- 
guished from man, her frailty and dependence upon 
him are noted (Gn ch. 3; Ec 7 26, 28; I Ti ch. 2, 
passim). Yetin many beautiful passages the virtues 
of ideal womanhood are portrayed (cf. Pr ch. 31; 
Is 49 15 and the Book of Ruth and Song of Solomon). 

LT ORYA 


See Maaic AND 


WONDER, WONDERFUL: The Heb. and Gr. . 


words most frequently thus rendered are: (1) 
mopheth (etymol. uncertain), the term used along 
with ’dth, ‘sign,’ for the miraculous events of the 
Exodus narrative (Ex 4 21, 7 3, etc.). It is twice 
rendered ‘miracle’ in AV (Ex 7 9; Dt 29 3) and 
several times ‘sign’ (I K 138 3, 5; II Ch 32 24; Ezk 126, 
11, 24 24, 27; in these passages it seems to be used as a 
synonym of ’dth). (2) pala@’ (and derivatives), which 
seems to express the idea of the unusual, hence won- 
der, mystery, the marvelous. This is the most 
frequently used term and like (1) above is often 
joined with ’6th, ‘sign’ (Ex 3 20, 15 11; Jos 3.5; ITS 


1 26; Pr 3018, etc.). It is the word pele’ that is used 
to indicate one of the four great characteristics of 
the Messianic King inIs96. (3) tah, a term indi- 
cative of astonishment (Dn 4 2 f., 6 27; cf. the Heb. 
vb. in Is 299; Jer 49; Hab15). (4) téeac, a ‘wonder,’ 
generally in the sense of ‘miracle,’ but rendered 
‘wonder’ (Mt 24 24; Mk 13 22; Jn 4 48; Ac 219, 22, etc.). 
The words usually rendered sign sometimes have the 
sense of ‘wonder’ or ‘miracle.’ Of these ’dth is used 
in a variety of other meanings (cf. Gn 1 14, the 
heavenly bodies as ‘signs’; Jos 4 6, a memorial; 
I$ 2 34, an event indicating the Divine will; also 
IS 1410; Ps 74 4; Ezk 148, etc.). Inthe N T oyucioyv 
is used much in the same way as ’6th is in the O T 
(Mt 12 38 £., 24 24, 30; Mk 1617; Jn 20 30; Ro 41, etc.). 
Of other terms rendered ‘sign,’ nés (Nu 26 10) means 
‘banner’; mas’éth (Jer 6 1, ‘signal’ RV), something 
‘set up’ as a monument. The Gr. term S8byautc 
‘power’ rendered mighty work is often used in the 
N T (Mt 11 20 #.; Mk 6 2, 5; etc.) for the miracles of 
Jesus and the Apostles, the emphasis being on the 
Divine power behind the deeds rather than on the 
element of ‘wonder’ associated with them. See 
also Miractes and ToxKEn. E. E. N. 


WOOD: In the sense of ‘forest’ this word trans- 
lates: (1) héresh, ‘wooded height’ (I S 23 15, 16, 18, 19). 
Many, however, find here a place-name (‘Horesh’ 
RVmg., or ‘Horesha’). Conder discovered a Kho- 
reisa SE. of Ziph. See G. A. Smith, HGHL, p. 307. 
The RV has ‘wood’ (Is 17 9); the LXX. reads ‘of 
the Amorites and Hivites,’ as ERVmg., and the 
text should probably be thus emended. (2) ya‘ar, 
‘forest,’ ‘thicket’? (Dt 19 5 and often). When denot- 
ing pieces or articles of wood, it renders (8) ‘éts, 
lit. ‘tree’ (q.v.). From the many references to wood, 
it is evident that Palestine must have been more 
abundantly wooded than it is to-day, but the fact 
that wood was not often used in the building of 
houses shows that there were few trees from which 
long beams or boards could be obtained. The 
branches of trees and brushwood were gathered for 
fires (Nu 15 32; Jos 9 21 £.; I K 17 10; Jer 7 18, etc.), 
and were especially used in connection with offerings 
(Neh 13 31; Gn 22 3; Lv 17, etc.; I K 18 23). For 
Solomon’s buildings timbers of cedar and fir were 
sent to Jerusalem from the Lebanon; the forests of 
Palestine itself, however, must have furnished most 
of the wood used in building operations (cf. Neh 2 8) 
and manufactured articles. Wood was used for tim- 
bers (Zec 5 4; I K 15 22), floors, and windows, and in 
fine houses walls and floors were covered with wood 
(I K 615). Wood was also used for the furniture of 
the Tabernacle (Dt 10 3) and the Temple (Dt 101); 
I Ch 29 2). Wood was also employed for wagons (IS 
6 14), for all sorts of agricultural implements, and for 
musical instruments (II S 6 5). Idols of wood are 
often mentioned (Dt 29 17; II K 19 18, ete.). (4) In 
the N T we find &6Aov, ‘wood’ (I Co 312; Rev 18 12), 
EdAtvoc, ‘wooden’ (II Ti 2 20; Rev 9 20). See also 
TREE. Case 

WOOL: Among the Israelites, the most important 
material for clothing was tsemer (Aram. ‘dmar, Dn 
79), Sotov (LX X.) ‘wool’ (Lv 18 47, 59; Ezk 4417). The 
wool mane used was secured by shearing the 
fleece of sheep. It was washed, combed, dyed, spun 


Word 
Worship 





and woven into cloth, or roughly fashioned in the 
loom into garments. To-day the wool is combed 
by means of a string stretched ona bow. The string 
is made to vibrate by the blow of a mallet, and being 
brought in contact with the wool, fluffs it up. Out- 
side garments were generally of woolen cloth. The 
‘soft raiment’ (Mt 11 8; Lk 7 25) was probably made 
of fine wool. It was forbidden to weave cloth of 
wool and linen (Lv 19 19), and Ezekiel would forbid 
priests ministering in the sanctuary to wear woolen 
garments (Ezk 44 17; cf. ver. 19). As to-day, combed 
wool was probably used for filling mattresses and 
pillows. It was necessary to protect woolen gar- 
ments from worms (Is 51 8). Figuratively, refer- 
ence is made to the original purity and whiteness of 
wool (Ps 147 16; Is 118; Dn 79=Rev 114). See also 
Dress AND ORNAMENTS, § 5. OoSet, 


WORD, THE: The rendering of the Gr. term 
Aéyog (in theological literature often simply trans- 
literated Logos), used in the Johannine literature as 
the designation of Christ as an eternal personage 
(Jn 11, 14; 1 Jn 11; Rev 1913. Cf. also He 4 12; I 
P 1 23 and II P 3 5, where the term is used in an 
impersonal sense more nearly as the equivalent 
of ‘message’ or ‘oracle’). In the formation of the 
concept and in the use of the term, Hebrew and 
Greek antecedents are to be distinguished. While 
both influenced the thought as well as the selection 
of the term, the Hebrew antecedents appear to 
have furnished more of the inner meaning and the 
Greek more of the philological and outward aspect. 
The N T usage of the term is derived from that of 
Philo, with whom it is a favorite, and not only 
occurs frequently, but conveys a large number of 
kindred notions (cf. Grossman, De Logo Philonis, 
1829). Philo in his turn borrowed the term from 
the Stoics, and they from Heraclitus (Heinze, Die 
Lehre vom Logos in der Griech. Philos. 1872), by 
whom it appears to have been first applied to the 
rational principle of the universe impersonally con- 
sidered. Philo’s own usage is complex and varied. 
Yet underlying its variations and explaining them 
all, there is a general idea of the Word (Logos) as the 
rational principle in the Divine nature, which 
renders an expression of the Divine thought an 
objective reality. Upon this basis, Philo calls the 
Logos ‘the image of God’ (De Mund. Op. 6), also 
metaphorically the ‘Son of God’ (De Agr. Noé, 12; 
De Conf. Ling. 14) and even ‘a second God’ (Qu. et. 
Sol. 62). He assigns to the Logos omniscience, a 
mediating function in the creation of the universe, 
and makes him the prototype of man, who is thus 
placed in the second remove from God Himself (cf. 
Drummond, Philo Judeus, 1888, II, pp. 156-273). 
But Philo’s doctrine of the Logos is an effort to 
clothe what he conceived to be an O T idea in the 
forms of Hellenic philosophy; and the O T roots of 
the conception are to be found in one direction in 
the thought of the wisdom of God as a separate 
entity (hokhmah), and in another in the formal ex- 
pression of the will of God in articulate language 
(dabhar). The former of these was developed in 
detail and is portrayed in the so called Wisdom 
literature as a personal being (Job 28 12-28; Pr 1 20, 
8 1 ff., etc.; Sir chs, 24-29). Whether it was thus 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 952 





intended to convey the impression that wisdom is a 
real person, apart from God, or was a :'‘ietorical 
personification for the sake of more vividly describ- 
ing the inexhaustible and marvelous resources of the 
Divine mind, at any rate in later Judaism, thishypo- 
static presentation became more and more custom- 
ary. The ‘Word’ also assumed a mediating place 
between God and the world (as in the Creation ac- 
count, Gn 1 3, etc.), a view which grew into the doc- 
trine of the Memra (cf. Edersheim, Life of Jesus the 
Messiah, I, pp. 47-48). But if the Logos-conception 
arose out of the O T ideas of the rational principle 
in God made manifest in Revelation, through the 
casting of those ideas into the molds and phrase- 
ology of Alexandrian philosophy, it went far beyond 
these primitive limits in the Johannine system of 
thought. The Word, according to the Fourth 
Gospel, is neither a figurative personification of the 
Divine reason and self-expression nor an equivalent 


of the hokhmah or Memra. The term is usedrather to 


identify the Messiah as a Divine Person preexisting 
in eternity and becoming incarnate in Jesus Christ; 
in other words, the resemblances between the Phi- 
lonian and the Johannine conceptions belong to the 
outward garb and vehicle of the thought, the inner 
core of which is different in each case. Whereas the 
Logos of Philo is a personified representation of the 
Divine reason, revealing the Godhead to man, the 
Johannine Word is the eternal Son of God, incarnated 
as the Redeemer of man from sin, no less a means of 
revelation, but much more than a revealer, a Person 
in the Godhead. A. C. Z. 


WORD OF THE LORD: The expressions ‘Word 
of the Lord,’ ‘of J’’,’ ‘of God’ (and the related ex- 
pressions ‘my’ or ‘his word,’ etc.), all have the same 
general idea of an utterance or command of God that 
must be taken as authoritative by man. But the 
specific meanings vary considerably according to 
the date of the documents in which they are found 
and the nature of the reference as regards the 
mediate source through which such ‘words’ were 
communicated. 

The Heb. term rendered ‘word’ is usually dabhar, 
but sometimes ’dmer (or ’émer, usually pl.), ’imrah, 
‘saying’ or ‘word,’ and also peh, ‘mouth.’ In the 
O T two main usages are to be distinguished: (1) 
The words of instruction or command given by J” 
to Moses (e.g., the Ten Commandments are called 
the ‘ten words,’ Ex 34 28) which were thought to 
have been written down by him (Ex 24 3 f.) in the 
book of the covenant’ and in an ever-expanding 
form at last came to be viewed as the ‘statutes’ and 
‘judgments’ of Divine authority, the Law by which 
Israel’s life was to be regulated. It was this that 
was probably in the mind of the Psalmist (Ps 119 
passim) rather than the O T literature in general. 
(2) Any ‘prophetic’ or priestly ‘oracle’ was a Divine 
‘word.’ Any revelation by dream, or vision, or 
otherwise was a Divine ‘word.’ Consequently, the 
prophetic instruction was viewed by the prophets 
themselves as ‘the word of J’” (Is 1 10, 2 3, etc., very 
often in the Prophets). Naturally, as time went on 
the distinction between Law and Prophecy and other 
ancient literature counted sacred was less em- 
phasized, and all at last came to be known as the 


ee 


953 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Word 
Worship 





‘word of God.’ In the N T we find a corresponding 
variety of usage. A specific prophetic call such as 
that of John the Baptist is called the ‘word of God’ 
(Lk 3 2). Jesus’ words, His message as a whole, 
and He Himself are all designated by the same term 
word(s)’ (cf. Mt 8 8; Mk 4 33; Lk 1 2; Jn 11 #., 
1714). The contents of the preaching of the Gospel 
are termed ‘the word’ (Ac 4 31); so also is the whole 
Christian movement (e.g., Ac 6 7, 19 20, etc). See 
also Jesus Curist, § 19; Jonn, Gosprt oF, § 5; and 
PropuHecy, §§ 6, 9. KE. E. N. 


WORK, WORKS. See JusriFicartion. 


WORLD: A designation of human society, as a 
whole, willingly yielding itself to be the dwelling- 
place and instrument of sin. In this sense, the 
English represents both of the Gr. terms aidy and 
x6dau.0c. The first of these terms is peculiarly the 
word in which apocalyptic literature embodied the 
idea of the alienation of the present order of things 
from God, and looked forward to its dissolution 
with the advent of a new order—‘the coming age.’ 
The contrast is between the present world and the 
world to come. It emphasizes rather the duration 
of the world than its human organization or con- 
stitution. As such, the world is subject to the great 
enemy of the true God, who is its own god (II Co 4 4). 
It is morally evil (Gal 1 4); its influence is to be 
avoided, as contaminating and destructive (Ro 12 2; 
II Ti 410). The world, as a Cosmos—the primary 
reference of this term is rather to the ordered uni- 
verse (Mt 25 34; Ac 17 24; Eph 1 4; He 4 3; IT P36) 
even in the Johannine writings (Jn 11 9, 17 24)—is 
identified with simple humanity socially organized. 
So used, it is predominantly Johannine, tho not 
absent from other N T writers (I Co 2 12; Col 2 8; Ja 
1 27, 4 4; II P 220). In the Johannine writings it 
comes to stand for the sphere of evil (Jn 12 46 f, 
etc.). The world is thus, first of all, at enmity with 
God; it hates God’s chosen (Jn 15 18); it hates also 
those who unite themselves to Him (Jn 15 19, 16 33; 
I Jn 313). It therefore abides in darkness, reject- 
ing the light (Jn 3 19). It is under condemnation, 
exposed to the Divine judgment (Jn 12 31) and needs 
the Divine mercy; but it can not receive the spirit 
of truth (Jn 14 17), and Jesus even declines to pray 
for it (Jn 17 9). In expressions of this sort, the 
emphasis is naturally on the sin of the world. It 
ceases to pass under that name when it comes from 
under sin: It isin bondage to Satan (Jn 12 31, 14 30). 
Its doom is death: ‘it passeth away’ (I Jn 3 17); it is 
to be overcome as an enemy by God Himself; it has 
been overcome by Christ, and must be overcome by 
the disciples (Jn 16 33; I Jn 5 4, 2 15). See Cos- 
moGony, §3; and Escuatouoey, § 24 ff. A.C. Z. 


WORM. See Pauestine, § 26. 


WORMS. See Disrase anp Mepicing, § 5. 


WORMWOOD: The rendering of the Heb. 
la‘dnah, ‘curse’ (?), and the Gr. &{rv@0c, ‘absinthe.’ 
The name includes various species of Artemisia 
(order Composite), at least five of which are found 
in Palestine and Syria. The plants grow usually in 
waste places and are bitter (cf. Dt 29 18; Pr 5 4), tho 
not actually poisonous. In Rev 8 11, this name is 


given to the star which fell into the rivers and the 


springs and made them bitter. 
L. G. L.—E. C. L. 


WORSHIP: 1. Meaning of the term. The English 
term ‘worship’ has several more or less distinct 
meanings. Of these, three have importance in 
Biblical study, namely: (a) The explicit acknowl- 
edgement of Divine perfections (those which con- 
stitute God’s ‘worth-ship’); (b) any deliberate, con- 
crete expression of thought, sentiment, or purpose, 
in the form of a direct address or service to God; 
and (c) any private or social act, custom, or institu- 
tion in which the preceding expressions play a large 
or determinative part. Of these senses, the first 
is the most specialized, being somewhat confined 
to those acts that are often called ‘adoration’ or 
‘thanksgiving.’ The commonest Biblical words, 
shahah in the O T, and xeocxuvetv in the N T, are 
both derived from bodily actions of humble and 
reverent salutation, such as are instinctive in the 
presence of a superior or eminent person. The 
second sense is broader, since it includes, besides the 
foregoing, those acts that are otherwise called ‘con- 
fession,’ ‘supplication,’ ‘intercession,’ and the like 
(see PRAYER). The third sense is still more general, 
including, when private, every aspect of conscious 
and definite intercourse with God, and, when social, 
designating the complex institution, or body of 
usages, more exactly known as ‘public worship’ or 
‘cultus.’ It is evident that in the Bible there is an 
enormous amount of material more or less clearly 
pertaining to this subject. No attempt is here made 
to do more than to present a few suggestive state- 
ments upon certain topics under this general head. 

2. Presuppositions and Spirit of Biblical Writers. 
As a rule, the obvious assumption of the Biblical 
writers is not only that God is, and that He can be 
known by man, but that, in His being and His works 
and deeds, he presents a supremacy and perfection 
that set Him far above man. So far as His infinite 
attributes are perceived and appreciated by man, 
they arouse wonder, awe, fear, trust, gratitude, joy, 
and similar sentiments, and these, when embodied 
in words or deeds, become explicit worship. Most of 
the Biblical writers manifest a vivid sense of God as 
manifested in nature, in individual experience, and’ 
in the progress of history. Consequently, as they 
write, they themselves give utterance to their own 
adoration and thanksgiving, and, in their narrations 
and discussions, they supply abundant evidence that 
the habit of worship was wide spread among devout 
persons of many classes in the several peoples about 
whom, or to whom, they write. That the practise 
of worship was sincere and profound among the 
Hebrews is perhaps their highest distinction among 
ancient peoples. This does not mean that they were 
more religious than others, but that in their religion, 
under Divine guidance, they had advanced to a 
knowledge of God so much more vital, ample, and 
true than that of other peoples that the record of it, 
as given in their sacred books, has remained to later 
ages a perpetual source of instruction and stimulus. 
Worship, then, in the special sense here in view, is 
the practical side of the theoretic conception often 
described as ‘the Hebrew doctrine of God.’ It 


Worship 
Wrath 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


954 





appears that the Hebrew conception of God was, on 
the whole, more practical than theoretic; so that the 
manifestation of this conception by the prophets 
and psalmists of the O T constantly takes literary 
forms that are not so much objective speculation or 
description as subjective worship (see Praise and 
PRAYER). Many of these expressions have acquired 
a classical value, affecting all Christian thought and 
especially all Christian devotional and liturgical 
literature. In this respect the O T stands some- 
what in contrast with the N T; for in the latter there 
appear constantly the more abstract or philosoph- 
ical qualities of the Greek mind. At least, the pur- 
pose of the N T writers and the literary methods they 
were impelled to use lead in other directions; so that 
the obvious and direct implications of the N T re- 
garding the sentiments and practise of worship are 
less than those of the O T, tho, at the same time, 
when scrutinized and interpreted, they prove to be, 
after all, infinitely richer and deeper. The revela- 
tion of God in Christ so far changes the emphasis of 
thought that Christ, as God Incarnate and in His 
office as Savior, becomes the One to whom worship is 
addressed or, at least, by the contemplation of whom 
worshipful sentiments are especially aroused. This 
transfer of emphasis unites with the Greek mental 
habit above mentioned to make the N T suggestions 
of worship, in the narrowest sense, notably different 
in quality from those of the O T. As the conception 
of God takes on new forms, so the tone and substance 
or worship change correspondingly. 


3. Biblical Idea of Worship. Both the O T and 
the N T supply many illustrations of the larger 
sense of worship, in which more elements appear 
than merely the somewhat distant reverence due to 
an imperial and transcendent divinity. The reason 
why the Psalter seems to stand so close to Christian 
feeling in many ways is that in it, more than else- 
where in the O T, intercourse with God assumes a 
wide range and a more intimate and free manner. 
In the N T the visible presence of Christ among the 
first disciples, followed by the vivid consciousness of 
His continued fellowship among the members of the 
early Christian fraternities, in spite of His removal 
from their bodily sight, wrought inevitably a change 
in the worshipful attitude in which they regarded not 
only Him, but the Divinity which He embodied. 
God was now not a far-off being of a nature so dis- 
tinct from man that He could be approached only as 
an Oriental came to some great king. What may be 
called the despotic or autocratic view of God’s re- 
lation to men is replaced by a domestic or friendly 
view. Worship thus becomes more familiar and 
many-sided. It broadens out so as to include more 
than distant reverence and merely servile thankful- 
ness. No doubt the O T exhibits those sides of wor- 
ship termed ‘confession,’ ‘supplication,’ ‘profession,’ 
and similar ideas, especially in the Psalms; but the 
N T implications regarding these show a closer fel- 
lowship, a stronger faith, a clearer perception of how 
it is the aim of God’s grace to bring man and God 
into substantial harmony and union. The center of 
this novel sphere of thought is the personality of the 
Savior, at once bringing God down to man and rais- 
ing man up to God. To Him goes out an affection, 


a loyalty, an aspiration, a confidence, that were not 
possible at the stage or religion reached in the O T 
dispensation. The Christian practise of worship, 
therefore, when developed to its conclusions, rises 
above the characteristically Hebrew practise. Con- 
sequently, Christian devotion, tho it adopted and 
assimilated nearly all the older practise, at once took 
on a new color and energy. Christian prayers and 
hymns, for instance, tended from the very first to 
contain a broader and a more free expression of 
human personality in close and confident intercourse 
with the Divine. 


4, Public Worship: First Stage. In the Bible we 
find data regarding public worship at not less than 
four stages of development. The first of these, the 
primitive, is but slightly described, references to it 
being mostly confined to such books of the O T as 
Gn and Jg. The line between private and public 
worship is not sharply drawn, and the methods used 
are not always clearly differentiated from those of 
the heathen world generally. But it is fairly evident 
that, if we could recover all the facts, we could trace 
in them a gradually unfolding conception of the true 
God as the supreme object of worship, and a slow 
settling of custom and tradition regarding the form 
and mechanism of communal and national sacrifice, 
prayer, etc. It is likely that the influence of primi- 
tive notions continued long after somewhat highly 
organized practises were instituted. 

5. Second Stage. The second stage, really the 
first that was an organized system, is that which 
ultimately came to its fullest development in the 
Temple. The accepted Jewish view of the historic 
origin of this system was that it was derived from 
the divinely appointed Tabernacle set up in the 
Arabian desert. The modern interpretation of the 
narratives makes the Tabernacle a more or less 
fanciful projection into early times of ideas belonging 
to much later days. In either case, the Tabernacle 
and the Temple (as regarded in the time just before 
the Exile, and again after the Exile) present a con- 
ception of public worship that may be considered as 
a single conception. It seems probable that this 
stage was reached through a long period of experi- 
mentation, a time when there were many local sanc- 
tuaries or places of sacrifice. We know compara- 
tively little of the details of ritual during this con- 
necting period. But regarding the system as finally 
made supreme toward the end of the 7th cent. B.c., 
we have abundant data, and it is this system that 
acquired for the whole course of later Judaism and, 
through it, for all subsequent times a peculiar sig- 
nificance and value. With this characteristic system 
was associated the powerful priestly class, and its 
headquarters, theoretically unique, was the sanc- 
tuary at Jerusalem. Under this system, Church and 
State were conceived of as but two faces of the one 
nationality of the Holy People. Concerning its 
nature as a system, some further remarks are made 
below. 


6. Third Stage. A third stage, which also devel- 
oped into a highly organized system, tho at a some- 
what later period, was that of the Synagog. This 
is supposed to have had some sort of a beginning 
during the Exile, and to have gradually developed 


935 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Worship 
Wrath 





afterward, but almost all that we know of it definitely 
is in the time of Christ, or a little earlier. The 
Synagog was then a well-developed institution, sub- 
stantially the same as it has since continued to be 
wherever devout Jews have gone throughout the 
world. The striking contrasts between the Temple 
and the Synagog are suggested below. 


7. Fourth Stage. The fourth stage, or system, was 
that of the early Christian churches, as casually 
mentioned in certain of the N T books. Were it not 
for an amount of data from other sources, gradually 
increasing as the centuries go on, we should be much 
in the dark as to the early practise of social worship 
among Christians. It is clear that in many cases, 
perhaps in most, the pattern followed was that of the 
Synagog. But the divergencies ultimately became 
notable, especially as the progress of Christianity 
was affected more and more by Greek and Roman 
influences. 


8. Temple Worship. Of the four systems thus 
briefly distinguished, that of the Temple is by far 
the one most fully described. Because emphasized 
in the O T under claims of unique authority, this 
system has had a profound influence upon Christian 
thought and practise. Yet at the outset of Chris- 
tianity it is likely that the system of the Synagog, as 
has just been said, had the greater practical in- 
fluence. Subsequent Christian usage sought to 
mingle characteristics derived from both, but, with 
the growth of hierarchical notions and the consolida- 
tion of the papal theory of the Church, the tendency 
was to assimilate Christian public worship to the 
ideal exemplified in the Temple. As the radical 
differences between the Temple and the Synagog 
systems are not always clearly noted, they may well 
be briefly stated. The liturgical system of the Tem- 
ple was not only strongly ecclesiastical, but essen- 
tially national. It became the religious system of the 
Holy People as a whole and in its corporate capacity. 
The individual came to be merged in this corporate 
whole. Indispensable at every point were the 
priests, who not only stood for the people, but were 
necessary mediators on their behalf. The great 
feature in public worship was the scheme of sacri- 
fices which, at least after the 7th cent. B.c., could 
properly be offered only at Jerusalem and in accord- 
ance with an authoritative ritual. Thus was thrown 
into extreme prominence the sacramental aspect of 
public worship, since the sacrifices were not only 
symbols of propitiation, but the efficient means by 
which it was secured. ‘Apart from shedding of blood 
there is no remission’ (He 9 22) indicates the convic- 
tion that stood at the center; so that the accent of the 
system fell upon worship (man’s approach to God) 
rather than upon instruction (God’s approach to 
man). There was hardly any provision in the ritual 
for the stated application of teaching or preaching, 
tho, of course, important doctrines regarding the 
relations between God and man were assumed and 
implied, as well as symbolically suggested. Itis even 
difficult to maintain that the Temple system, as 
such, had any adequate place for Scriptures—the 
authoritative documents whereby revelation is pre- 
served and ministered to the needs of many ages. 
Thus came the antagonism between the priestly and 


the prophetic classes, and the actual degeneration of 
religion, as it grew out of the Temple system, into 
mere ceremonial ritualism. 

9. Synagog Worship. The system of the Synagog 
was radically different. It was essentially decen- 
tralized, since synagogs were encouraged everywhere. 
It was intensely democratic, instead of autocratic. 
Its main purpose was ethical and practical—intended 
to dominate all common life. It exalted the function 
of the prophet rather than that of the priest; and so 
it magnified the idea of Scriptures, which were the 
records of prophetic teaching and interpretation, as 
well as the action of preachers and interpreters of its 
own day. It became the home of what there was of 
popular education, dimly pre-figuring many modern 
institutions, both secular and sacred. Its accent 
fell upon instruction rather than upon worship, tho 
the latter was not neglected in the rather elaborate 
scheme of prayers. When it degenerated, it resulted 
in rabbinism, with its excessive and foolish attention 
to ‘the letter.’ 

In Hebrew religious life, as it stood, for example, 
in the time of Christ, it would seem as if these two 
systems were instinctively regarded not only as im- 
portant, but as somehow to be maintained in har- 
mony. From a theoretic point of view, it may be 
urged that the two ideals of public worship which 
they represent are in truth complementary. But in 
the course of all liturgical history, it has proved 
difficult to keep the balance and the unity between 
them. In the early development of Christian cus- 
toms, it is likely that both were preserved; for in]the 
formation of the medieval liturgical system, when 
comprehensively studied, the derivatives of both 
appear. But, as time went on, the medieval Church 
steadily minimized the constituents that came from 
the Synagog side. Here was one of the conditions 
that lay at the root of the Reformation, and thus 
many of the more zealous of the reformers advocated 
a liturgical revolution that should not only reassert 
Synagog ideas, but banish Temple ideas. In many 
Protestant bodies to-day the same reactionary 
spirit appears. Probably to-day, as in Biblical times, 
there is a call for some fusion of the two systems, or, 
rather, of the fundamental ideas about public wor- 
ship which the two represent. 

See also CHurcH Lire AND ORGANIZATION; 
Fasts AND Feasts; Praise; PRAYER; PRIEST- 
HOOD; SABBATH; SACRIFICE AND OFFERINGS; SYNA- 
Goa; TABERNACLE; TEMPLE, and the literature 
cited under these articles. W.idak. 


WRATH: The terms ‘wrath,’ ‘to be wroth,’ 
render a variety of Heb. and Gr. terms. (1) ’aph, 
the ‘nostrils,’ the heavy breathing through the nose 
and the dilated nostrils being indicative of wrath. 
Anthropomorphically, the term is often used of God 
as well as of man (Gn 39 19; Ex 22 24, 32 10 £., ete.). 
(2) hémah, ‘heat’ (Nu 25 11; Dt 29 23, 28; II S 11 20, 
etc.). (3) harah, ‘to glow’ or ‘burn’ (but in the O T 
no longer used in that sense), and its derivative 
hadrén, both used exclusively in the sense of strong 
emotion or anger (Gn 4 5, 31 36; Ex 157;1IS 188, 
etc.). (4) ka‘as, vb., ‘discontented,’ especially be- 
cause of grief or other feelings, and ka‘as, n. (II 
Ch 16 10; Job 5 2, ‘vexation’ RV). (5) ‘ebhrah, from 





‘abhar, ‘to pass by,’ that which causes or manifests 
the ‘passing by’ of God, especially in His punitive 
visitations (Gn 497; Dt 3 26; Is 919, etc.). (6) gatsaph 
and getseph, the simplest term for ‘wrath’ or ‘anger’ 
(Nu 1 53, 16 46; Dt 97 f., ete.). (7) raghaz, ‘to be 
restless,’ ‘agitated’ (Hab 3 2; Is 28 21). (8) zd‘aph 
and za‘aph, a ‘weighty’ emotion (II Ch 26 19; Pr 
19 12). (9) O8up46¢ and Ovpodcbat, from Overy, ‘to rush 
along,’ ‘be in a heat’ (Mt 2 16; Lk 4 28; Ac 19 28, etc.). 
(10) é07% (from épyay, ‘to teem’ or ‘swell’), the more 
usual N T term to represent God’s wrath against sin 
or those who persist in sin (Mt 37; Jn 3 36; Ro 1 18, 
etc.). 

While in the ancient Semitic religion the anger or 
wrath of deity was viewed as inexplicable, arbitrary, 
or capricious, so that it could be appeased by means 
unrelated to morality or righteousness, in Israel the 
emphasis was increasingly laid upon the ethical 


YARN: The term renders two Heb. words: (1) 
’étin (Pr 7 16, ‘fine linen’ AV). This, however, is 
of uncertain meaning. (2) m’dzzal (Ezk 27 19), 
which should probably be rendered ‘from Uzal’ (cf. 
Gn 10 27), a placein 8. Arabia. In Ezk 27 19 the AV 
‘going to and fro’ is wrong and the RV ‘yarn’ very 
improbable. The text may be corrupt. On IK 
10 28 see RV. E. E. N. 

YEAR. See Timp, § 4. 


YELLOW. See Cotors, § 3. 


YOKE: The proper word for ‘yoke’ in Heb. is ‘él. 
This was a strong bar, not necessarily shaped to fit 
the neck as are Western yokes. The yoke was held 
in its place on the necks of the cattle by pins called 
‘bars’ (Lv 26 13; Ezk 34 27, ‘bands’ AV) (see illus- 
tration on p. 125) which passed through it while their 
free ends were often connected by thongs or chains. 


ZAANAIM, zé’’a-né’m. See ZAANANNIM. 

ZAANAN, zé’a-nan (138%, 13%, tsendin, tsa’dnan), 
probably the same as Zenan (Mic 1 11; Jos 15 37): A 
town in SW. Judah. Site unknown. 

ZAANANNIM, 2é’’a-nan’1m (O32, tsa‘dnannim; 
Zaanaim AV): A landmark from which the boundary 
of the lot of Naphtali was drawn on the W. side of 
the Jordan (Jos 19 33, ‘Allon toZ.’ AV).. There was a 
famous terebinth (‘oak’ RV) at this place, which is 
again mentioned as the extreme point reached by 
the tribe of Heber the Kenite in its nomadic move- 
ments (Jg 411). The Heb. text is uncertain. The 
best variant appears to be rendered in RV (‘oak 
[‘terebinth’ RVmg.] in Zaanannim’). A.C. Z. 

ZAAVAN, zé’a-van (1)¥!, za‘dwan): A Horite clan 
(Gn 36 27; I Ch 1 42, Zavan AV). 

ZABAD, zé’bad (713, zabhddh), ‘he has bestowed’: 
A form abbreviated from Zabadiah, ‘J’’ has be- 
stowed’: 1. A son of Nathan, who was the Egyptian 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


956 


aspect of God’s character and, therefore, on the 
moral character of His wrath as due to His abhor- 
rence of sin, and it is this view that is set forth 
almost exclusively in the Bible. E. E. N. 


WREATH, WREATHEN WORK. See Tremp te, 
§ 14; and Primsruoop, § 9 (b). 


WRESTLE: The words ’dbhaq (Gn 32 24 f.) pos- 
sibly and pathal (Gn 30 8) certainly mean to ‘twist’ 
or entangle, and may have been used of ‘wrestling’ 
in a technical sense (which was well known to the 
ancient Egyptians), altho no more than simple 
struggling seems to be intended in the passages where 
the words occur. In Eph 6 12, r&Ay is the technical 
term for the scientific wrestling in the games so 
common in Greek cities. H. E. N. 


WRITE, WRITING. See Books anp Writina. 


The yoke was fastened to the pole of the plow or 
cart by a wooden pin, or a ring, and leather thongs. 
For lighter work a simple bar, mdtah, was used which 
dispensed with the neck-pins, being held in place 
by thongs fastened to the animals’ horns (see illus. 
of Agricultural Implements, Fig. 11, op. p. 16). The 
term tsemedh means the pair of oxen yoked together 
(IS 117, 1414; I K 1919, 21; Job 1 3, 42 12; Jer 51 23; 
cf. in the N T, tedyoco Lk 1419). 

Figuratively, the yoke is used as a symbol of op- 
pression or overlordship, exercised by one nation 
over another, or by a sovereign over his people (Gn 
27 40; Lv 2613; I K 12 4 #., etc.); also of authority in 
general (La 3 27; I Ti 6 1); of the ‘yoke’ of sin (La 
1 14); of religious forms and ceremonies (Ac 15 10); 
and, by Jesus, in a good sense of His standard of life 
and personal authority (Mt 11 29 £.). On ‘yoke-fel- 
low’ see CHuRcH Lire, § 9, E. E. N. 


servant of Sheshan, of the family of Jerahmeel, tribe 
of Judah (I Ch 2 36). He figures also among the 
heroes of David, as if a son of Ahlai (ICh11 41). 2.A 
descendant of Ephraim, of the family of Shuthelah 
(I Ch 7 21). 3. A son of Shimeath and leader of the 
conspiracy against Joash which avenged the murder 
of Zechariah the son of Jehoiada (II Ch 24 26, called 
Jozacar in II K 12 21, Jozachar AV). 4,5, 6. One 
of the ‘sons of Zattu,’ one of the ‘sons of Hashum,’ 
and one of the ‘sons of Nebo,’ all three of whom 
married foreign wives and were obliged to put them 
away (Ezr 10 27, 33, 43). 

ZABBAI, zab’ai (3!, zabbay): 1. One of the ‘sons 
of Bebai’ who had married foreign wives (Ezr 10 28). 
2. The father of Baruch, who repaired a portion of 
the wall (Neh 3 20). The Q¢r7 reads, probably cor- 
rectly, °9!, zakkay (cf. Ezr 29=Neh 714). C. 8S. T. 

ZABBUD, zab’vud (7533, zabbidh), ‘given’: One 
of the ‘sons of Bigvai’ who returned from exile with 
Ezra (Ezr 8 14). 


EE 


957 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Wreath 
Zalaph 





ZABDI, zab’dai ("13!, zabhdi), abbreviated from 
Zabdiel or Zebadiah: 1. The head of a clan or family 
of Judah (Jos 7 1, 17 £.), Zimri in I Ch 26. 2. One 
of the sons of Shimei, a Benjamite (I Ch 8 19). 
3. The overseer of David’s vineyards (I Ch 27 27). 
4. A son of Asaph, the head of a family of singers 
(Neh 11 17, called Zichri in I Ch 9 15). 


ZABDIEL, zab’di-el (28121, zabhdv’él), ‘gift of 
God’: 1. One of David’s officers (I Ch 27 2). 2. A 
Temple overseer (Neh 11 14). 

ZABUD, zé’bod (13], zabhidh), ‘given’: An offi- 
cer under Solomon (I K 45). The text is uncertain; 
the LXX. omits ‘priests.’ His designation as the 
‘king’s friend’ may indicate that he was his con- 
fidential adviser. Such an office seems to have been 
common in the ancient East. E. E. N. 


ZABULON, zab’yu-len. See Trinz, Tries, §§ 
2, 4, on Zebulun. 


ZACCAI, zak’a-ai or zak’é (°2!, zakkay): The an- 
cestral head of a postexilic family (Ezr 2 9; Neh 
7 14). 


ZACCHAUS, za-ki’us or zak’1-us (Zaxyatos, per- 
haps another form of Zayaefac; but probably equiva- 
lent to the O T (zakkay, ‘pure,’ LXX. Zaxyob, II 
Ks 29): A chief tax-collector, who sought to see Jesus 
on His approach to Jericho (Lk 19 2-10). He was a 
Jew of benevolent disposition and habits (ver. 8 f.; 
cf. Lk 15 29; also Blass, Gram.?, p. 184), whom the 
Lukan narrative represents as ostracized simply 
because of his occupation (cf. ver. 7). J. M. T. 


ZACCUR, zak’or, ZACCHUR ("9!, zakkir): 1. A 
Reubenite, father of Shammua, one of the spies sent 
by Moses into Canaan (Nu 18 4). 2. A Simeonite, 
father of Shimei, who had sixteen sons and six 
daughters (I Ch 4 25 f.). 3. A Levite, of the family 
of Merari (I Ch 24 27). 4. An Asaphite, set over the 
service of song by David (I Ch 25 2, 10; Neh 12 35). 
5. A ‘son’ of Imri, and helper in rebuilding the wall 
under Nehemiah (Neh 3 2). 6. A Levite, who sealed 
the covenant (Neh 10 12 (13)), perhaps the same as 
7. (Neh 13 13). 8. A ‘son’ of Bigvai, who came up 
from Babylon with Ezra (Ezr 8 14, Kethibh; as 
RVmg.). eo ks 


ZACHARIAH, ZACHARIAS, zak’s-rai’a (7273!, 
e¢kharyah, Gr. Zayxaetas, zacharias): ‘J’’ remembers’: 
1. The father of Abi or Abijah, the mother of King 
Hezekiah (II K 18 2; II Ch 291, Zechariah RV). 2. 
See ZecHARIAH, 2. 3. A priest, the father of John 
the Baptist. He belonged to the course of Abijah 
(I Ch 24 10), and served in the Temple only as was 
demanded by the term allotted to his course. Each 
course served twice a year for about a week (I Ch 
23 6, 28 13; I Es 1 2, 15). Besides what is related in 
Lk 1 5 ff., nothing more is known of this priest. It 
may be inferred from the story in Lk that he had 
little sympathy with the worldly aristocratic Sad- 
ducee priesthood in Jerusalem. 4. A priest of the 
O T period referred to by Jesus (Mt 23 35; Lk 11 51). 
He was probably the same as the one mentioned in 
II Ch 24 20 f., and if so, the reference would indicate 
that the Books of Chronicles were even then placed 


last in the list of O T books. E. E. N. | 


ZACHER, zé’ker. See ZECHER. 


ZADOK, zé‘dok (PIT¥, tsddhdg), ‘righteous’: 1. 
One of the two chief priests of the Davidic sanctuary 
in Jerusalem. The first reference to Z. isin IIS 817, 
where the text is certainly corrupt (cf. the brief form 
of the original text in II S 20 25) and we should read 
as the correct text ‘and Abiathar the son of Abime- 
lech, the son of Ahitub, and Zadok were priests’ (cf. 
IS 14 3, 229 f., 20). Consequently, in this earliest 
notice of Z. nothing is said of his lineage. If his 
ancestor was Ahitub (I Ch 6 8) this must have been 
some other Ahitub than Abiathar’s grandfather if 
the story in I § 2 22-36 has any real value. He was 
associated with Abiathar, probably in the latter half 
of David’s reign, as his younger but equally privi- 
leged colleague (II S 15 24 ff., 17 15, 18 19, 27, 19 11, 


20 25). In I Ch 12 2, late and artificial as the state- 


ment is, there may be preserved an element of true 
history as to how Z. came to be one of David’s 
intimate friends (see JCC. ad loc.). 

Near the close of David’s reign Z. took the side of 
Solomon against Adonijah, whose cause was favored 
by Abiathar. The result was that it was Z. who 
crowned Solomon and was appointed by him chief 
priest at Jerusalem, Abiathar being banished to his 
patrimony at Anathoth. Z. thus became the head 
of the Jerusalem priesthood, which, after the Temple 
was built, and especially after the fall of the North- 
ern Kingdom, became the most important family of 
priests in Israel. The centralization of all legitimate 
worship in Jerusalem through the reform of Josiah 
(621 B.c.) only added to the importance of the priest- 
hood there. Protests were probably made by repre- 
sentatives of other equally ancient priestly families, 
but these were, at best, but partially successful. 
Ezekiel (40 46, 48 19, 4415, 4811) pronounced positively 
in favor of the exclusive rights of the Zadok priests 
(of whom he was one). The passage in I S 2 27-36 
probably reflects some stage of the conflict over the 
priesthood and attempts to show how it was God’s 
purpose to depose the line of Abiathar (in this story 
it is the whole line of Eli that is to be deprived of the 
priesthood, which could have a meaning only on 
the assumption that Z. was of some other line than 
Abiathar Eli’s descendant). For further details see 
PRIESTHOOD, §§2a, 6, 9a. 2. The father of Jerusha, 
the mother of Jotham, King of Judah (II K 15 33; 
II Ch 271). 3. A late descendent of 1 (I Ch 612; Neh 
1111). 4. One of the ‘sons of Baana,’ who helped on 
the wall of Jerusalem and signed the covenant (Neh 
3 4, 10 21). 5. A priest, of the family of Immer 
(Neh 3 29 and 13 13?). 6. A priest, perhaps identical 
with 3 (ICh911). 7. A scribe (Neh 13 13). 

E. E. N. 


ZAHAM, ze’ham (OI, zaham): A son of Reho- 
boam (II Ch 11 19). 


ZAIR, zé'ir (VY, tsa‘tr): A city (of Edom?) 
where Joram conquered the Edomites (II K 8 21). 
Site unknown. 


ZALAPH, zé/lef (2%, tsalaph): The father of 
Hanun who repaired the wall under Nehemiah (Neh 
3 30). ; 


Zalmon 
Zechariah, Book of 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


958 





ZALMON, zal’moen (jin, tsalmoén), ‘dark-col- 
ored’: I. 1. A hill near Shechem (Jg 9 48), possibly 
the southern peak of Gerizim. 2. An unknown 
locality (Ps 68 14; AV Salmon), perhaps the same as 
1, but more probably E. of the Jordan. Jebel Hau- 
ran would satisfy the context. 

II. One of David’s chiefs (II S 23 28); in I Ch 11 29 
called Iai (q.v.) L. G. L.—L. B. P. 


ZALMONAH, zal-m6’na (702%, tsalmonah): A 
station of the Israelites between Mt. Hor and Punon 
(Nu 33 41f.). It has not been identified. C.S.T. 

ZALMUNNA, zal-mon’a (ID ey, tsalmunna@‘): One 
of the two Midianite kings mentioned in the sec- 
ond version of the story of Gideon’s victory over 
the Midianites (Jg 8 5 #.). He was captured and 
slain by Gideon (ver. 21). See Gipzon. EH. E.N. 

ZAMZUMMIM, zam-zum’im (O’P{91, zamzum- 
mim): A race of giants inhabiting the territory later 
occupied by the Ammonites, and called also Rephaim 
(q.v-) (Dt 2 20=Zuzim [q.v.],Gn 145). C.8.T. 

ZANOAH, za-no’a (M3, zéndah): 1. A town of 
Judah, in the Shephelah (Jos 15 34; Neh 3 13, 11 30), 
said to have been founded by the Calebite Jekuthiel 
(I Ch 418). Map II, D1. 2. A town in the hill- 
country of Judah (Jos 15 56). Map II, D 3 (but 
identification uncertain). 


ZAPHENATH-PANEAH, = zaf’’1-nafh-pa- ni’a 
(MIYENIDS, isaphenath pa‘néah), Zaphnath-paane- 
ah AV (Gn 41 45): An Egyptian name, given by 
Pharaoh to Joseph when he appointed him vice- 
regent of Egypt. The more generally accepted 
meaning is ‘the god speaks, and he [the bearer of the 
name] lives.) Cr. 5.518 

ZAPHON, zé’fon (liD¥, tsaphon): A city of Gad, 
on the E. bank of the Jordan in the valley near 
Succoth (Jos 13 27). In Jg 121 ‘to Zaphon’ (RV 
margin) should be read for ‘northward.’ The Jeru- 
salem Talmud identifies it with the later ‘Amathd, 
probably the Amathus of Josephus, and also of 
Eusebius and Jerome, which was 21 m. S. of Pella. 
It is the modern Amateh just N. of the Jabbok at 
the mouth of the Wddy-er-Rugeth. Cr By M3 


ZARA, zé’ra, ZARAH, zé’ra. See ZERAH. 
ZAREAH, zé’ri-a, See ZoraH. 
ZAREATHITE, zé’n-ath-ait. See ZorarHire. 
ZARED, zé’red. See ZeReED. 


ZAREPHATH, azar’1-fath (NB 1¥ tsdrephath): A 
city of Phenicia near Sidon, where Elijah was enter- 
tained by a poor widow, whose son he afterward 
brought to life (I K 179 #.). It is mentioned (Ob 
ver. 2c) as the future boundary of Israel. It is the 
Dkeexta of the N T (Lk 4 26 Sarepta AV) and the 
modern Arab. town Sarafend, near the seacoast on 
the road from Tyre to Sidon and 8 m. S. of Sidon. 
Map IV, C 3. The ruins of the older city lie nearer 
the sea on a promontory, and in the midst of them 
is the Crusaders’ church on the traditional site of the 
widow’s guest-room. OF ad te 


ZARETHAN, zar’1-fhan (J)1$, tsdrethdn): A place 


probably in the Jordan Valley, W. of the river, 
hear Adam (q.v.) (Jos 3 16 Zaretan AV). If we ac- 


cept Moore’s emendation of I K 7 46 (‘at the ford of 
Adamah’ for ‘in the clay ground’), a road joined it 
with Succoth (q.v.) E. of the Jordan. Solomon 
had his brass foundries near Z. (I K 7 46 [Zar- 
than AV] 71%, tserédhathah, II Ch 4 17). Ze- 
rerah (11)1%, tserérah, Jg 7 22) is supposed to be 
Zeredah (111%, tserédhah, I K 11 26), and identical 
with Zarethan. The Z. of I K 4 12 [Zartanah AV] 
is assumed to be the same place, tho it seems to 
be located too far north. CoS oes 


ZARETH-SHAHAR, zé’’refh-shé’har. See Zn- 
RETH-SHAHAR. 


ZARHITE, zar’hait. See Zeran. 
ZARTANAH, zar’ta-na. See ZARETHAN. 
ZARTHAN, zar’fhon. See ZARETHAN. 
ZATTHY, zat’thu. See Zarrv. 


ZATTOU, zat’u (SIMI, zattd’): The ancestral head. 


of a prominent postexilic family (Ezr 2 8, 10 27; Neh 
7 13, 1014 [Zatthu AV)). 


ZAVAN, zé’van. See ZAAVAN. 
ZAZA, zé’ze (SII, zaza’): The son of Jonathan, a 
Jerahmeelite (I Ch 2 33). 


ZEAL, ZEALOUS: (1) In the O T these terms 
render Heb. gana’, qgin’ah (the root idea of which is 
‘to become red,’ as in the face through strong emo- 
tion). The same words are frequently translated 
“ealous’ or ‘envy.’ The term is used of both God 
and man, and is indicative of intense regard for one’s 
honor or rights, or of ardent devotion to a given 
cause (cf. Nu 25 11 f.; II K 10 16; Is 97, ete.). (2) 
In the N T, GiAoc, ‘zeal’ (Jn 2 17; II Co 7 11; Ph 3 6; 
etc.), GnAwtis, ‘a zealot’ (Ac 21 20, 22 3; I Co 14 12, 
etc.) and the verb GnAoty (Gal 4 17 £.) reflect the O T 
usage and have the same range of meaning. 

HK. E. N. 


ZEALOT. See CANANAN. 


ZEBADIAH, zeb”a-dai’a (73!, zbhadhyah, 
WNT, zebhadhyahi), ’J’’ has bestowed’: 1. One of the 
sons of Elpaal, a Benjamite (I Ch 815). 2. Another, 
named as son of Elpaal (I Ch 8 17). 3. One of the 
Benjamites who attached himself to David at Ziklag 
(I Ch 127). 4. The third son of Meshelemiah, one of 
the doorkeepers of the Temple (I Ch 26 2). 5. One of 
David’s captains ‘of the host’ (I Ch 277). 6. One 
of the Levites who accompanied the princes sent by 
Jehoshaphat to teach the people (II Ch178). 7. The 
son of Ishmael, appointed by Jehoshaphat to be ‘the 
ruler of the king’s matters’ (II Ch 1911). 8. One of 
those who returned with Ezra from the Exile (Ezr 
8 8). 9. One of ‘the sons of the priests’ who mar- 
ried foreign wives (Ezr 10 20). 


ZEBAH, zi’ba (M3!, zebhah): A king of Midian, 
who with Zalmunna was pursued by Gideon as far as 
Karkor, E. of the Jordan. Gideon defeated their 
hosts and afterward captured the two kings. After 
he had taken vengeance on Succoth and Penuel, be- 
cause they had refused to give him bread, he slew the 
kings, as his son feared to draw his sverd against 
them (Jg 85 #.; cf. Ps 83 11 (12). a RS Re 


ZEBAIM, 21-bé’1m. See PocHERETH-HAZZEBAIM, 


959 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Zalmon 
Zechariah, Book of 





ZEBEDEE, zeb’1-di (ZeGedatoc), abbreviated from 
‘Zebedaiah’ (77731, 2*bhadhyah, ‘J’’ gives,’ or else an 
Aramaic name; cf. the Palmyrene s4131, also ‘Zabdi,’ 
I Ch 27 27): A fisherman, the father of two Apostles, 
James and John (Mt 4 21; Mk 1 20), husband of 
Salome (Mk 15 40; Mt 27 58). Nothing more is 
known of him. Jo MCE. 

ZEBIDAH, zeb’i-da (T3!, 2*bhidhah, Zebudah 
AV), ‘endowed’: The mother of King Jehoiakim (II 
K 28 36). 

ZEBINA, zi-bai’na (SPI, zbhind’): One of those 
who married a foreign wife (Ezr 10 43). 


ZEBOIIM, z1-bei’im, ZEBOIM, z1-bd’1m or zi- 
bo-im (025%, tsebhoyim, 0%, tsebhdyim, DRS, tse- 
bho’yim): One of the ancient cities of the plain that 
joined in the revolt against Chedorlaomer (Gn 10 19; 
14 2, 8) and was overthrown with Sodom and Go- 
morrah (Gn 19 25; Dt 29 23; Hos 11 8). Site unknown. 

ZEBOIM (0°Y3X, tsebhd‘tm), ‘hyenas’: 1. A valley 
mentioned in I § 13 18, probably the same as the 
Valley of Achor (Map III, G 5), or one of its lower 
tributaries, as the name survives in the neighbor- 
hood to-day. 2. A town of Benjamin, probably in 
the same region as 1 (Neh 11 34). EK. E. N. 


ZEBUDAH, zi-biti’da. See ZEBIDAH. 


ZEBUL, zi’bol (Da), z°bhul): The ruler of Shechem 
under Abimelech. He was loyal to his master when 
Gaal and others plotted revolt, and succeeded in 
holding the city until Abimelech came and con- 
quered Gaal (Jg 9 28-45). E. E. N. 


ZEBULUN, zeb’yu-lon, ZEBULUNITE, zeb’yu- 
len-ait. See Trine, Trips, §§ 2, 4. 

ZECHARIAH, zek’’a-rai’a (7731, 2¢kharyah), ‘J”’ 
remembers’: 1. The son of Berechiah, son of Iddo, the 
prophet (Zec 11; Ezr 51; Neh 1216). See Zecuarian, 
Book or. 2. The son of Jeroboam II, King of Israel 
(745-744 B.c., Zachariah AV; IT K 14 29, 158, 11), and 
the last of the dynasty of Jehu. His reign lasted but 
six months, ending with his assassination by Shal- 
lum. 3. Grandfather of King Hezekiah on his 
mother’s side (II K 18 2, Zachariah AV; II Chr 291). 
4. A Reubenite chief (I Ch 57). 5. A son of Meshele- 
miah, a Levite serving as porter at the door of the 
tent of meeting (I Ch 9 21, 26 2,14). 6. A son of Jehiel, 
a Benjamite, also called Zacher (I Ch 9 37, Zecher 
RY). 7. A Levite Temple musician (I Ch 15 18, 
20, 16 5). 8. A priest of the time of David (I Ch 
15 24). 9. A son of Isshiah, a Kohathite priest, 
probably the same as 7 (I Ch 24 25). 10. A son of 
Hosah, a Merarite Levite (I Ch 26 11). 11. The 
father of Iddo, a Manassite (I Ch 27 21). 12. One of 
the deputies of Jehoshaphat in his work of reform 
(II Ch 177). 13. A son of Benaiah, an Asaphite 
Levite (II Ch 2014), who encouraged Jehoshaphat in 
the war with Moab. 14. A son of Jehoshaphat 
(II Ch 212). 15. A priest, the son of Jehoiada, whose 
efforts at reformation were requited with violent 
death in the Temple by order of the king, Joash 
(II Ch 24 20-22). The peculiar sacrilegious nature 
of this crime caused it long to remain a type of the 
worst form of impiety, and as such is probably 
referred to in Mt 23 35; Lk 11 51 (cf. ZacHartas). 
16. A prophetic adviser of King Uzziah, who had 


‘understandings’ in the visions of God (‘instruction 
in the seeing’ RVmg.); possibly the ‘fear’ of God is 
the right reading (II Ch 26 5). 17. An Asaphite 
Levite (II Ch 29 13). 18. A Kohathite Levite, an 
overseer of the repairs in the Temple in the days of 
Josiah (II Ch 34 12). 19. A ruler of the house of 
God in the days of Josiah (II Ch 358). 20. One of 
the ‘sons of Parosh,’ who returned with Ezra (Ezr 
8 3). 21. One of the ‘sons of Bebai,’ whoreturned 
with Ezra (Ezr 8 11). 22. A chief sent by Ezra to 
get servants for the Temple (Ezr 816). 23. One of the 
‘sons of Elam’ (Ezr 10 26). 24. One of those who 
stood by Ezra when he read the Law (Neh 8 4). 25. 
A son of Amariah, a Judahite (Neh 11 4). 26. An- 
other Judahite, the son of Shiloni (Neh 11 5). 27. 
A son of Pashhur, a priest (Neh 1112). 28. A son of 
Jonathan, an Asaphite priest (Neh 12 35, 41). 29. A 
son of Jeberechiah, a contemporary of Isaiah (Is 8 2), 


identified by some as the author of Zec (chs. 12-14). 


(Cf. ZecHarIAH, Book or, § 4.) A. C. Z. 


ZECHARIAH, BOOK OF: 1. Contents. The 
eleventh of the twelve books of the so called Minor 
Prophets. It opens with the designation of the 
author as the son of Berechiah (1 1; cf. Neh 12 16) 


| and, of the time of the prophet with the second year 


of Darius, 520 B.c. It consists of two sections, 
different both in style and subject-matter. Of these, 
the first (chs. 1-8) contains messages dated with 
precision (‘in the eighth month of the year,’ 1 1-6; 
‘on the twenty-fourth day of the fourth month,’ 
1 7-6 15; and ‘the fourth day of the ninth month of 
the fourth year of Darius,’ 71). The first message 
urges the returned exiles to give their allegiance to 
J’’; the second, which is the longest of the three, 
consists of eight symbolic representations: (1) the 
chariots (1 7-17); (2) the four horns (1 18-21); (3) the 
measuring-line (2 1-13); (4) the vindication and puri- 
fication of Jeshua the priest (3 1-10); (5) the golden 
candlestick (4 1-14); (6) the flying roll (5 1-4); (7) the 
woman in the ephah measure (5 5-11); (8) the chariots 
and horses (61-8). The third message (chs. 7, 8) is an 
inquiry as to the observance of the fast-days and a 
reassuring message of the favor of God. 

2. General Characteristics. The outlook of this 
division of the book is Messianic. Z. urged that 
nothing should stop the work of rebuilding the Tem- 
ple and sought to show that all obstacles in the way 
of the realizing of Israel’s hopes are to be removed. 
The style of the prophecy is markedly different 
from that of the preexilic prophets. The apocalyptic 
form of revelation takes a conspicuous place in it, 
and angelic mediation becomes necessary for the 
interpretation of the symbolism. The interest of 
religion is further concentrated largely in the Tem- 
ple service; but a strongly ethical tone pervades it 
throughout, and the principle of righteousness is 
always kept in view. See also Haaaat. 

3. Integrity of Zechariah. The question raised 
with reference to the second part of the book (chs. 
9-14) is whether this is the work of Zechariah, son 
of Iddo. Upon the grounds of the style of the two 
parts and the historical presuppositions implied in 
each, this question must be answered clearly in the 
negative. But the unity of chs. 9-14 is again called 
into question. Ch. 9 begins with a title: ‘The burden 


Zecher 
Zerahiah 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


960 





of the word of Jehovah upon the land of Hadrach’; 
ch. 12 also begins with a title: ‘The burden of the 
word of Jehovah concerning Israel.’ This would 
indicate a difference of address and subject-matter 
only, but there are also differences in style and type 
of thought between the sections thus introduced, 
and these seem to necessitate the ascription of the 
two sections to different authors. 

4. Date of chs. 9-14. Assuming that the two parts 
of chs. 9-14 issue from the same general age, the 
whole section has been assigned to different pre- 
exilic dates by some even to the days of Isaiah, the 
son of Amoz. Those who assign this early date to 
it ascribe the work to Zechariah, the son of Jebere- 
chiah (cf. Is 8 2). Others find a very late date for 
the work (or works), perhaps the 3d cent. B.c.). 
(Marti dates it as late as 160 B.c.). The chief 
‘ground for the postexilic dating is the mention 
of the Greeks (913). This could not have been done 
‘before the days of Alexander the Great (Driver, 

Stade); but, on the other side, the mention of Eph- 

raim in combination with Judah (9 13, 10 7), of 

Egypt and of Assyria in the same terms as in Hosea 

and Isaiah (10 10, 11, 911) have led many (Baudissin, 

Strack) to favor the preexilic dating. If this view 

be accepted, the reference to Greece in 9 13 is a cor- 

ruption of the text. 

Literature: G. A. Smith in Epxos. Bible; Driver in The New 
Century Bible (1907), and in LOT; H. G. Mitchell (in ICC., 
1912); W. E. Barnes, Haggai and Zechariah (1917); J. W. 
Crafer, Book of Haggai and Zecharriah (1920). A. C. Z. 
ZECHER, zek’ir (13], (zekher, Zacher AV): The 

ancestor of a Gibeonite family (I Ch 8 31, called 

Zechariah in I Ch 9 37). 


ZEDAD, zi’dad (TT%, tsedhddh): A place on the 
ideal N. border of Canaan (Nu 34 8; Ezk 47 15). 
Site unknown. 

ZEDEKIAH, zed’1-kai’a (PTS, tsidhqiyyaha), 
‘J’ is righteous: 1. King of Judah from 597 to 
586 B.c. He was the youngest son of Josiah, 
and was raised to the throne by Nebuchadrezzar, 
who deposed Jehoiachin. The king of Babylon 
caused Z. to take a solemn oath to be subject 
to Babylon (Ezk 17 13), and also changed his 
name from Mathaniah to that by which he is 
commonly known (II K 24 17), tho for what reason 
does not appear. Zedekiah was twenty-one years of 
age on his accession and very much lacking in cour- 
age and energy. Soon after his accession, messengers 
came from Moab, Ammon, and Tyre urging him to 
join a coalition against Babylon (Jer 27 3). The 
king’s irresolute attitude made this the occasion of 
a controversy between the party of which the 
prophet Jeremiah was the leading exponent, and the 
anti-Babylonian faction, consisting mainly of the 
priests and the nobles or princes. The latter had 
also its prophets, among them one Hananiah, who 
predicted that in two full years the yoke of Nebucha- 
drezzar should be broken (Jer 28 3). Despite the 
earnest words of Jeremiah, the anti-Babylonian side 
steadily gained ground, and in 588 Zedekiah was 
persuaded to undertake an open revolt. He was 
promptly joined by Ammon and Tyre, and an appeal 
was made to Egypt for horses and an auxiliary army 
(Ezk 17 15). The king of Babylon lost no time in 


meeting the rebels. He inaugurated a campaign, 
and laid siege to Jerusalem in 587. Meanwhile, 
Pharaoh-hophra was reported to be advancing with 
an Egyptian army. Upon hearing this, Nebucha- 
drezzar raised the siege—a step which was taken 
as the sign of assured success for the rebellion of 
Judah. Jeremiah was seized and, on the charge of 
treason, cast into a vile dungeon, with the consent 
of the king (Jer 38 6). Thence Zedekiah summoned 
him into his presence, asking for a prophetic utter- 
ance as to the will of J’. The prophet fearlessly 


declared to him that the only condition upon which © 


a personal and national catastrophe could be averted 
was to submit to Babylon. But the king was too 
weak to adopt and carry out the advice of the 
prophet in the face of the opposition of his nobles. 
The policy of resistance was adhered to, Nebucha- 
drezzar.returned to the siege with greater vigor, 


and the city fell into his hands in 586. Zedekiah 


attempted to flee to the wilderness of Judea toward 
the Jordan. He left the city under cover of the night 
through the southern gate, with a few followers. He 
was, however, overtaken and captured, and carried 
to Babylon. As a captive, he was subjected to the 
cruelty of having his sons put to death in his presence 
and then having his own eyes blinded. He passed 
the remainder of his days a prisoner in Babylon 
(II K 25 3-7). 2. A son of Chenaanah, one of the 400 
prophets of Ahab (I K 22 11 £.) who encouraged the 
king to undertake the campaign against Syria. He 
was rebuked by the prophet Michaiah, son of 
Imlah, for false prophesying, but prevailed with the 
king. 3. A son of Maaseiah, a prophet in the days of 
Jehoiachin, whom Jeremiah denounced for false 
prophecy and immorality, predicting his summary 
punishment at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar (Jer 29 
21-23). 4. A son of Hananiah, one of the princes in 
the days of Jehoiakim (Jer 3612). 5. A son of Coniah 
(I Ch 3 16), probably the same.as 1, but called the 
son of Jehoiakim as his successor. 6. One of those 
who signed the covenant with Nehemiah (Neh 101, 
Zidkijah AV). A. C. Z. 


ZEEB, zi’eb or zib (ASI, z°’ébh), ‘wolf’: A ‘prince’ 
of Midian. According to the first version of the 
story, Z. was one of the leaders of the Midianite in- 
vasion of Israel in the days of Gideon, and was 
slain by the Ephraimites at the wine-press of Zeeb 
(Jg 7 24 £.). Site unknown. See GipEon. 


ZELA, zi’lo ZELAH, zi’la, (92%, tséla‘’): A town 
of Benjamin, where the family sepulcher of Kish, 
father of Saul, was located (Jos 18 28; II S 21 14). 
Site unknown. 

ZELEK, zi‘lek (pox, tseleqg): An Ammonite officer 
in David’s army (II S 23 37; I Ch 11 39). 

ZELOPHEHAD, zi-lo’fi-had (7922% . ts-loph- 
hadh): A Manassite who died leaving only daughters, 
which was the occasion of legislature regarding 
heiresses (Nu 26 33, 271 #., 36 2 #.; Jos 17 3; I Ch 715). 

ZELOTES, z1-l6’tiz. See CANANZAN. 


ZELZAH, zel’za (M¥%, tseltsah): A town, accord- 
ing to I § 10 2, on the border of Benjamin and 
Ephraim, near Rachel’s tomb. \C. 8. T. 


ee eee eed 


961 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Zecher 
Zerahiah 





ZEMARAIM, zem’’a-ré/1m (O°27)%, ts°mdrayim): 
1. A city of Benjamin (Jos 18 22). Map III, G 5. 
2. A mountain in Ephraim (II Ch 13 4). Site un- 
known, perhaps near 1. 

ZEMARITE, zem’a-rait. Sce ETHNOGRAPHY AND 
Erxnooey, § 13. 

ZEMIRAH, zi-mai’ra (17VPI, zmirdh, Zemira 
AV): The ancestral head of a family of Benjamites 
(I Ch 7 8). 

ZENAN, zi’nan. See ZAANAN. 


ZENAS, zi’nas (Znvac): A Christian lawyer in 
Crete whom, with Apollos, Paul requests Titus to 
send on to him, being careful to see that they lacked 
nothing for their journey. It is uncertain whether 
he was a Jewish lawyer or a Roman advocate (Tit 
3: 12" f). E. E. N. 

ZEPHANIAH, zef’’a-nai’a (2S, tsephanyahi) 
‘J’ hides,’ or ‘J’’ is hidden’: 1. A son of Cushi, a 
prophet in the days of Josiah (cf. ZepHaNIAH, Book 
or). 2. A son of Maaseiah, the second priest under 
Zedekiah (II K 25 18; Jer 52 24). He occupied the 
office of arbiter of true and of false prophets (Jer 29 
25), and was commissioned by the king with other 


important tasks (21 1, 37 3). After the capture of | 
Jerusalem, he was taken to Riblah (Jer 52 24 f.). | 


3. A son of Tahath, a Kohathite (I Ch 6 36). 4. The 
father of Josiah, a contemporary of Zerubbabel 
(Zec 6 10, 14). ALC. Z,. 


ZEPHANIAH, APOCALYPSE OF: An apocry- 
phal writing mentioned and quoted by Clement of 
Alexandria (Strom. V, 11 27), also named in the old 
lists of O T Apocrypha (e.g., that of Nicephorus). 
Fragments of a Coptic translation of the work have 
been recovered and published, from which it appears 
that it was allied to the Apocalypse of Elias, and 
contained descriptions of heaven and of hell, and 
predictions of the Messiah (cf. Steindorff in Tezte u. 
Untersuch. Neue Folge, II, 3a). A. C, Z. 


ZEPHANIAH, BOOK OF: 1. Author. The ninth 
book in the collection of the Minor Prophets. The 
author names himself the son of Cushi, and traces his 
genealogy back to Hezekiah in the fourth remove. 
Why he should trace it as far and no farther, unless 
Hezekiah were a well-known person, is not explain- 
able. But about the time to which the fourth 
generation would reach, the only noted Hezekiah 
was the well-known king of Judah. It has been 
quite convincingly argued, therefore, that Zephaniah 
was not only a prophet by vocation, but a prince of 
the royal blood. He could thus all the more impres- 
sively denounce the sins of the princes (1 8). 

2. Contents. The book begins with an impressive 
announcement of the speedy coming of the Day of 
J’, which will, at the same time, be the signal for 
the destruction of idolatry (1 2-6), a period of judg- 
ment for the leaders of Judah (1 7-13), and an awe- 
inspiring time for all (1 14-18). It may be averted by 
an earnest effort to know J’’, and to do His will 
(2 1-3); but it will certainly come upon the Philistine 
country (2 4-7); it will sweep over Moab and Ammon 
(2 8-11), and turn northward to Assyria (resulting in 
the complete destruction of its capital, Nineveh, 
2 12-14). Returning to Jerusalem, the prophet de- 





nounces the sins of the city and its leaders (3 1-8), 
and proclaims a judgment which will bring desola- 
tion upon evil-doers, but will leave the humble and 
God-fearing (the Remnant, q.v.) unscathed (3 9-13). 
The book ends with a comforting vision of the latter 
days, when the scattered children of Judah shall be 
restored to their home-land, and enjoy the favor of 
their God (3 14-20). 

3. Critical Questions. There is no reason to doubt 
the genuineness of the book. Its date is fixed by the 
author himself as ‘the days of Josiah, the son of 
Ammon’ or 638-608 B.c. (11). But the severe words 
spoken with reference to the character of the leaders 
make it probable that the prophecy was given before 
the reformation inaugurated by King Josiah (621). 
It is a mere conjecture that the special occasion of 
the prophet’s coming forward in the name of J’’ was 
furnished by the approach of the Scythians (628). 


The unity of the book is also generally unimpeached, 


with the exception of 3 14-20, which, on account of 
its form, is by many regarded as a production of the 
latter part of the Exile. 


LiTERATURE: Driver, Minor Prophets, in Century Bible (1907); 
G. A. Smith in Hzpositor’s Bible (1898); A. B. Davidson in 
Cambridge Bible (1896); Nowack in Handkom. z. A T (1897); 
J. M. P. Smith (in ICC., 1912). See also cay er 


ZEPHATH, zi’fath (ND, ts¢phath): A town to the 
extreme §. of Judah, conquered by Judah and 
Simeon and called Hormah (q.v.) (Jg 117). The site 
is uncertain. 

ZEPHATHAH, zef’a-fha (02%, tsephathah): A 
‘valley’ near Mareshah, according to the common 
text of II Ch 1410. But the more probable reading 
(according to the LXX.) is ‘to the north of.’ 

KE. E. N. 

ZEPHI, zi’fai, ZEPHO, zi’fo (J2%, tsephd, °D¥, 
ts¢phi): A clan-chieftain (and a clan) of Edom (Gn 
36 11, 15; I Ch 1 36). 

ZEPHON, zi’fon (JiD¥, ts¢phon, and ZIPHION, 
zif’1-an, 12%, tsiphydn): The ancestral head of the 
Zephonites, a clan of Gad (Gn 4616, Nu 26 15; 
See also ZAPHON. 

ZER, zor ("%, tsér): A city of Naphtali. Site un- 
known (Jos 19 35). 

ZERAH, zi’ra (MU, zerah): 1. A descendant of 
Esau and one of the ‘dukes’ of Edom (Gn 36 13, 
17; I Ch 1 37). 2. The father of Jobal, King of Edom 
(Gn 36 33; I Ch 1 44), perhaps identical with 1. 3.A 
descendant of Judah and ancestor of the Zeraphites, 
Zarhites AV (Gn 38 30; Nu 26 20; Jos 71, etc., Zarah 
AV). 4. The ancestral head of a family or clan of 
Simeon, the Zerahites, Zarhites AV (Nu 26 13; I Ch 
4 24). 5,6. The name of two Levites (I Ch 6 21, 41). 
7. Z. the ‘Ethiopian’ (Heb. kiishi, 2.e., ‘Cushite’), 
who invaded Judah in the days of Asa with an im- 
mense army, but was defeated (II Ch 149 #.). The 
late record in Ch is the only authority for this event, 
and many scholars doubt its historicity. Some Egyp- 
tologists have identified Z. with Osorkon I or II of 
Egypt (22d dynasty); others think the Heb. kashi 
refers to an Arabian chieftain. E. E. N. 

ZERAHIAH, zer’’a-hai’a (TN, z*rahyah), “J” 
hath dawned’: 1. A descendant of Aaron and, there- 


Zered 
Zimri 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


962 


I a a 


fore, in the main line of the high-priestly succession 
(I Ch 6 6, 51; Ezr 7 4). 2. One of the ‘sons of Pahath- 
moab,’ who returned from exile with Ezra (Ezr 8 4). 


ZERED, zi’red (1, zeredh): A torrent-brook of | 


Moab, probably one of the upper tributaries of the 
Wddy Kerak that flows past Kerak. Map I, F 11. 
(Nu 21 12, Zared AV; Dt 213 f.) 


ZEREDAH, zer’i-da, ZEREDA, zer’i-da (TT15, 
tserédhah): The birthplace of Jeroboam, and the place 
where the metal-work for the Temple was cast (I K 
11 26; II Ch 417, Zeredathah AV). See also Zare- 
THAN. It lay somewhere in the Jordan Valley. A 
new identification, a few miles NW. of Ramathaim, 
recently proposed by W. F. Albright (Bul. ASOR, 
Oct., 1923) awaits confirmation. EK. E. N. 


ZEREDATHAH, zer’’i-dath’a or z1-red’a-fha. See 
ZEREDAH. 

ZERERAH, zer’i-ra (N24, tserérathah, t.e., ‘to 
Tserérah’) Zererath AV. A place mentioned in Jg 
7 22. Probably the same as Zeredah (q.v.). 


ZERESH, zi’resh (U1, zeresh): The wife of Ha- 
man (Est 5 10, etc.). See Estumr, § 6. 

ZERETH, zi’reth (1%, tsereth): The ancestor of 
a Tekoahite family (I Ch 47). 

ZERETH-SHAHAR, -shé’har (WNWI" NS, tsereth- 
hashshahar, Zareth-sharar AV): A city of Reuben 
(Jos 1319). Map II, H 2. 

ZERI, zi’rai. See Izrt. 

ZEROR, zi’rdr (117%, tserdr): An ancestor of Saul 
(IS 91, Zur in I Ch 8 30, 9 36). 

ZERUAH, zi-ri’a (71919%, tsera‘Gh): The widowed 
mother of Jeroboam I (I K 11 26). 

ZERUBBABEL, z1-rub’a-bel (P22, zrubbabhel, 
Zorobabel in Mt 112 AV), ‘offspring of Babel’ (Assyr. 
zér-Babili), or ‘grief for Babel’ (zurub-Babilt): One of 
the leaders of the Exile who returned to Palestine. 
Under him the altar was set upon its base in the 
second year of Darius (circa 520 B.c.), and the build- 
ing of the Temple itself progressed through several 
years (Ezr 5 2, 6 15). 

1. Connection with Sheshbazzar. In Ezr 1 8, 1, 
5 14, 16, it is stated that Sheshbazzar was entrusted 
with the task of bringing back the sacred vessels to 
Jerusalem. This must have preceded by quite an 
interval the arrival of Zerubbabel and his company 
(Ezr 2 2), and tho both may have been of Davidic 
lineage and, therefore, logically governors of Judah, 
they are not to be identified, there being no reason 
why two names for the same individual should be 
used in nearly the same context (see SHESHBAZZAR). 

2. Lineage of Zerubbabel. In Hag, Ezr, Neh, Z. is 
called the son of Shealtiel, who, according to Mt 112, 
was the son of Jeconiah, but whom Lk 8 27 styles 
the son of Neri, a descendant of Nathan, Solomon’s 
brother. I Ch 3 19 makes him the son of Pedaiah, 
the son of Jeconiah. Some of the LXX. manu- 
scripts in this passage read ‘Shealtiel’ instead of 
‘Pedaiah’; but this is hardly satisfactory. Prob- 
ably, there were independent genealogical tradi- 
tions, all which, however, agreed in making Z. of 
royal descent—two records calling him the grand- 


son of Jeconiah, while a third traces his descent 

through a collateral royal branch. 

3. The References in Zechariah. Z. is mentioned 
by name in Zec 46f.,9f., and is given Divine encour- 
agement and recognized as the rebuilder of the 
ruined city. Enigmatical, however, are the allusions 
to the ‘Branch’ (3 8, 6 12). Logically, they should 
refer to Z., but the high priest Joshua is mentioned in 
the immediate context, and the strange utterance 
occurs, ‘he shall be a priest upon his throne.’ Prob- 
ably, the original reference was to the Messianic ex- 
pectations which clustered around Z., the reinstated 
Davidie prince (cf. Hag 2 23), but later the over- 
shadowing influence of the priest resulted in an 
editorial reworking of the material, which left the 
Messianic element, but pointed it in a different direc- 
tion. See also SERVANT OF JEHOVAH. 

LirERATURE: Torrey, Ezra Studies (1910); Batten, Ezra and 
Nehemiah in ICC, (1913) S.. C.F Oris 
ZERUIAH, zer’yu-ai’a (7%, tseriyah): The 

mother of Joab, Abishai, and Asahel (I S 266; IIS 

2 13, 18, etc.; I K 17, etc.; I Ch 2 16, etc.), and accord- 

ing to II S 17 25, the daughter of Nahash, which is 

probably to be corrected to ‘Jesse,’ as in I Ch 2 16. 

She was, therefore, David’s sister. Cr Sucks 
ZETHAM, zi’tham (®N!, zétham). A Gershonite 

Levite (I Ch 28 8). 

ZETHAN, zi’than (]9"!, 2éthan): A son of Jediael, — 
a Benjamite (I Ch 7 10). 

ZETHAR, zi’fhar. See CHAMBERLAINS, THE 
SEVEN. 

ZIA, zai’a (¥"!, zia‘): A family of Gadites (I Ch 
5 13). 

ZIBA, zai’ba (82%, tsibhd’): A servant of the 
house of Saul (II S 9 2, 16 4). Upon the death of 
Saul, he must naturally have given his allegiance to 
Mephibosheth, but the confusion into which his 
master’s household fell led him to act for a time in- 
dependently. David attached Ziba to Mephi- 
bosheth. But, during the rebellion of Absalom, he 
again became independent, and was even given Me- 
phibosheth’s estate, on the ground that his master 
had forfeited it by his treachery (II S 161-4). When 
David came back to Jerusalem, he divided the estate 
between Ziba and Mephibosheth (II S 19 24 #.). 

A. C, Z. 

ZIBEON, zib’1-an (193%, tsibh‘dn), ‘hyena’: Ap- 
parently the name of an ancient Horite clan in Edom, 
later connected with the genealogy of Esau (Gn 36 2 
[read ‘Horite,’ not ‘Hivite’; cf. ver. 20], 14, 20, etc.). 

EK. E. N. 

ZIBIA, zibi-a (WAX, tsibhyda’). The head of a 
Benjamite family (I Ch 8 9). 

ZIBIAH, zib’i-a (M2%, tsibhyah), ‘gazelle’: The 
mother of Joash, King of Judah (II K 121; II Ch 241). 

ZICHRI, zik’rai ("9!, zikhri, abbreviated from 
‘Zechariah’): 1. The son of Izhar, a Levite (Ex 6 21). 
2. A Benjamite (I Ch 819). 3. Another Benjamite 
(I Ch 8 23). 4. The son of Jeroboam, a Benjamite 
(I Ch 8 27). 5. A son of Asaph, a Levite’(I Ch 9 15, 
Zabdi in Neh 1117). 6. A descendant of Eliezer, a 
Levite (I Ch 26 25). '7. The father of Eliezer, a Reus 


OO OO EE 


963 A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY Zered 





benite (I Ch 27 16). 8. The father of Amasiah, a 
Judahite (II Ch 1716). 9. The father of Elishaphat, 
who was one of the conspirators with Jehoiada 
against Athaliah (II Ch 231). 10. A ‘mighty man of 
Ephraim’ (II Ch 287). 11. A Benjamite, the father 
of Joel who was the overseer of a band left in Jerusa- 
lem by Nehemiah (Neh 11 9). 12. The head of a 
priestly family in the days of Jehoiakim (Neh 12 17). 

ZIDDIM, zid’1m (0°18, hatstsiddim), ‘the sides’: 
A city of Naphtali; perhaps the same as Hattim, 
a little NW. of Tiberias (Jos 19 35). KE. E. N. 

ZIDKIJAH, zid-kai’ja. See ZepEKIAH. 

ZIDON or SIDON, zai’den or sai’dan (Ji, tsi. 
dhon); Assyr. tst-du-un-nt, tsi-du-nu; modern Saida: 
Z. was the most influential ancient city of Phenicia, 
for its importance through long centuries gave the 
name Zidonians (Sidonians) to all Phenicians. It 


was located on the narrow Phenician coast about. 


20 m. N. of Tyre and the same distance S. of Beirtt, 
on a small promontory jutting out into the sea, 
which gave protection for shipping on both sides of 
it. The earliest reference to it of value is that found 
in the Tell el-Amarna letters of 1400-1350 B.c. Its 
governor, Zimrida, herein notifies the Egyptian king 
that the Amorite ruler, Aziri, is threatening Egypt’s 
sovereignty over the Phenician city. Some time 
thereafter, at least before Solomon’s day, Tyre out- 
stripped Zidon in national importance. In the parti- 
tion of Canaan among the tribes of Israel, Z. stood at 
the northern limits of Zebulun (Gn 49 13), and of 
Asher (Jos 19 28; here and in ||s it is called great 
Zidon). The reference in Jg (1 31) leads us to infer 


that it was assigned to Asher. At least, some of the ' 


Israelites fell into the meshes of Baal-worship (Jg 
10 6) and consequently, under the authority and 
oppression of the Zidonians (Jg 1012). In the times 
of David and Solomon, Tyre occupied the place of 
pre-eminence politically and commercially, at least 
while the influence of the Zidonian religion per- 
meated all too generally the life of the Israelites (cf. 
I K 11 5, 33). The marriage of Ahab and Jezebel, 
daughter of Ethbaal, King of the Zidonians, was a 
disastrous event for Israel (cf. I K 16 31-33, 18 18 £., 
25-28, 40), for through it the paralyzing worship of 
Baal and Ashtoreth was officially installed in Israel. 
Zidon was subordinate to Tyre for some centuries, 
but the appearance on this coast of the great Assyrian 
rulers of the 9th cent. encouraged and supported her 
independence, in order thereby to weaken Tyre, safe 
and secure on its island fortress. In 701 B.c. Sen- 
nacherib received Zidon’s submission and set on 
its throne Tubal, but was obliged to leave the island 
city Tyre unconquered. 
against Assyrian authority led Esarhaddon, King of 
Assyria (681-668 B.c.,) to destroy it with frightful 
carnage about 678 B. c. It was, however, rebuilt 
and called ‘Esarhaddonsburg,’ but the old name 
could not be eradicated, and throughout the period 
of the new Babylonian Empire Zidon occupied a 
prominent place among Phenician cities. It fell 
under the condemnation of the prophet Joel for 
having participated in the sale of Hebrew captives 
as slaves (J1 3 4-6). For the rebuilding of the Second 
Temple, the Zidonians sold cedar wood to the exiles 


Zidon’s later rebellion . 


Zimri 





(Ezr 37). Z. was burned to the ground in 351 B.c. 
by Artaxerxes Ochus of Persia because of its rebel- 
lious spirit. Following the battle of Issus (333 B.c.) 
it, with other coast-land Phenician cities, welcomed 
Alexander the Great as its lord. It became a sub- 
ject of Rome in 64 B.c. and with its neighboring city, 
Tyre, enjoyed the rights of a free city. Z. and its 
people figure both in the activity of Christ (Mk 3 8; 
Lk 6 17; Mt 11 21, 22; Mk 7 24-30, etc.) and of the 
Apostles (Ac 12 20, 273). Since the days of the Early 
Church Z. has seen some troublous times, for in 
the 12th and 13th cents. it was a battleground be- 
tween the crusaders and the Saracens. The modern 
Saidé has about 11,500 inhabitants and lies on the 
shore of the north harbor. Fishing, gardening 
and orange raising are their principal occupations 
to-day. ToOMeP; 


ZIDONIAN, zai-dd’ni-an or zi-. See Zipon. 


ZIF, zif: The ancient, or earlier, name of the 
second month of the old Hebrew year. See Time, 
§ 3. 

ZIBA, zai’ha (SS, tstha’): 1. The ancestral head 
of one of the divisions of the Nethinim (Ezr 2 43; 
Neh 7 46). 2. An individual, overseer of the division 
of the Nethinim of the same name (Neh 11 21). 

ZIKLAG, zik'lag (22P%, tsiglagh (UPS, I Ch 211, 
20]): A city of Simeon (Jos 19 5; I Ch 4 30), later 
probably in the 8. of Judah (Jos 15 31). At one 
time a Philistine city, it was given to David (I S 
27 6), and was his residence until the death of Saul 
(I S 30 1, 14, 26; IT S 11, 410; I Ch 121, 20). It is 
mentioned as a postexilic town of Judah (Neh 11 28). 
It is usually identified with Zuheilikah, 11 m. ESE. 
of Gaza C.S. T. 

ZILLAH, zil’a (72x, tsillah), ‘shadow’: One of 
Lamech’s wives (Gn 419 ff.). See LAMECH. 

ZILLETHAI, zil’i-thai (°D?%, tsillethay, Zilthai 
AV): §1. A son of Elpaal, a Benjamite (I Ch 8 20). 
2. A Manassite chief (I Ch 12 20). 

ZILPAH, zil’pa (7127!, zilpah): A maid of Leah, 
given as a concubine to Joseph, and the mother of 
Gad and Asher (Gn 29 24, 309 #., etc.). There are 
many reasons why these marriages and births should 
be taken as referring to the union of tribes, or clans. 
rather than individuals. But there is as yet no 
generally accepted theory. See Trisr, Tripus, § 4. 

E. E. N. 

ZILTHAI, zil’thai or -thé. See ZiuErHat. 

ZIMMAH, zim’a (9!, zimmah): The ancestral 
head of a family of Gershonite Levites (I Ch 6 20, 42; 
II Ch 29 12). 

ZIMRAN, zim’ran (]V2!, zimrdn): The ancestral 
head of an Arabian clan (Gn 25 2; I Ch 1 32). 


ZIMRI, zim’rai ("7)!, zimrz), ‘mountain-sheep’: 
I. 1. King of Israel, about 890 B.c. (I K 16 9-20), 
after Elah, under whom he had been general. He 
found his master in a drunken condition, murdered 
him, and assumed the reins of government. His rule, 
however, lasted only seven days, and his crime was 
execrated in later days as one of peculiar atrocity 
(II K 9 31). He was attacked by Omri and died 


Zin A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 964 


Zuzim 


aa Bao EET 


in the ruins of his own palace, which he had set on 
fire. 2. A son of Salu of the tribe of Simeon (Nu 
2514). 3. A son of Zerah and ancestor of Achan (I 
Ch 26). 4. A descendant of Saul (I Ch 8 36, 9 42). 
II. A locality whose kings are named (Jer 25 25) 
with those of Babylon and Elam. The name is, 
however, changed by some to ‘Nimri.’ A. C. Z. 


ZIN, zin (1%, tsin): Mentioned only by P. Pos- 
sibly a place (Nu 34 4; Jos 15 3) that gave its name 
to the surrounding district, the wilderness of Zin, 
which was a region of somewhat uncertain location 
and extent. It formed part of the southern boundary 
of Judah (Nu 34 3; Jos 151) and contained Kadesh 
Nu 201), which, however, was so near its border as 
sometimes to be regarded as in the neighboring 
wilderness of Paran (Nu 18 26). The wilderness of 
Zin thus seems to have lain south of a line drawn 
from Kadesh to the Arabah. See also PARAN. 

L. G. L.—L. B. P. 

ZINA, zai’na (Jt, 2ind’): A Gershonite Levite 
(I Ch 23 10, called Zizah in ver. 11). 


ZION, zai’en. See JurvusaLem, § 16. 


ZIOR, zai’er (YS, tst‘dr): A city of Judah (Jos 
15 54). Map II, E2. 


ZIPH, zif, ZIPHITE, zif’ait (7"!, ziph, °2"t, ztphi): 
I. 1. A son of Jehallelel of Judah (I Ch 4 16). 2. 
A Calebite family name (I Ch 2 42), connected with 
II, 1, below. II. 1. A city in the fertile plateau SE. 
of Hebron, the modern Tell Zif (Jos 15 55). Map 
II, E3. David took refuge there when fleeing from 
Saul (I S 23 14, 15, 24, 26 2), and the Ziphites, in- 
habitants of the city, sent word to Saul about 
David’s place of concealment (I S 23 19, 26 1; cf. Ps 
54, title [2]). 2. A city of S. Judah (Jos 15 24), not 
yet identified, possibly connected with I, 1, above. 

LO hat 

ZIPHAH, zai’fa (19"!, ztphah): A son of Jehaleel, 
a Judahite (I Ch 4 16). 

ZIPHITES. See Zipuz. 

ZIPHION, zif’1-an. See ZEPHON. 

ZIPHRON, zif’rén (j)19!, ziphrén): A point on 
the ideal N. border of Canaan (Nu 349). Site un- 
certain. 

ZIPPOR, zip’ér (11%, tsippor), ‘bird’ (sparrow?): 
The father of Balak, King of Moab (Nu 22 2, etc.). 


ZIPPORAH, 2z1-po’ra or zip’o-ra (715%, tsippd- 
rah), ‘bird’: The daughter of Jethro (or Hobab) and 
wife of Moses (Ex 2 21, 4 25 £., 18 2). The tradition 
concerning her was not uniform (e.g., what is said in 
18 2 is not in exact harmony with 4 20 #.). That 
the ‘Cushite’ woman whom Moses married (Nu 
121 f.) was the same as Z. is possible, but not certain. 

ZITHRI, zith’rai. See Srrurt. 

ZIV, ziv. See Times, § 3. 

ZIZ, ziz (/’%, tstts): The name of an ascent (II 
Ch 20 16), on the way from Engedi (ver. 2) to the 
wilderness of Tekoa (ver. 20), which the Moabites 
and Ammonites had traversed in their attack on 
Judah and King Jehoshaphat. The letter 4, of the 


text, may be part of the name, and not the article, 
as there is a Wddy Hasasa and plateau of the same 
name N. of Engedi. Csieda 


ZIZA, zai’zo (SPI, 22a’): 1. A Simeonite ‘prince’ 
(I Ch 4 37). 2. A son of Rehoboam and Maacah, the 
daughter of Absalom (II Ch 11 20). 3. See Zina. 


ZIZAH, zai’za. See Zina. 


ZOAN, z0’en (J¥%, tsd‘an; better known by its Gr. 
name, Janis): A very ancient and important Egyp- 
tian city (Nu 18 22; Ps 78 12; Is 19 11, 80 4; Ezk 30 14) 
in the NE. of the Delta, the extensive ruins of which 
lie near the modern fishing-village of Sdn (i. e., Zoan). 
See Petrie, Tanis, in HPF, for notices of recent ex- 
cavations. The kings of the 6th dynasty (2625- 
2475 B.c.) built a great temple at Tanis, which was 
enlarged under subsequent rulers and finally com- 
pleted by Rameses II, who chose the city as his 
residence and adorned it with many beautiful build- 
ings. Under the 21st dynasty Tanis was the capital 
of Egypt, and continued to be one of the chief com- 
mercial centers until it was finally superseded by the 
new city of Alexandria. In the Ass. records it is 
mentioned as 7'si’inu (Delitazsch, Paradies, p. 315). 

L. G. L.—L. B. P. 

ZOAR, zo’ar (TYIS, tsd‘ar), ‘small’: One of the 
cities of the kikkdr, or Dead Sea basin (Gn 13 10). 
It is also called Bela (14 2,8). Lot and his daughters 
fled to Z. when Sodom was overthrown (19 20-23). 
The evidence that these ‘cities of the Plain’ were 
located at the S. rather than at the N. end of the 
Dead Sea is overwhelming: (1) From Is 15 5 and 
Jer 48 34, it is reasonable to infer that Z. was a city 
of Moab, so that it was probably at the SE. corner 
of the Dead Sea (cf. Gn 19 37). (2) The victory of 
Chedorlaomer and his allies over the five kings of 
the plain in the Vale of Siddim, which was ‘full of 
slime pits’ (Gn 14 10), is more easily explained on 
the assumption that these cities were at the S. end 
of the Dead Sea. (8) Ezekiel describes Sodom as 
on the ‘right,’ z.e., the S. of Jerusalem (16 46) (4) 
On the other hand, Gn 13 10 does not require one 
to suppose that Lot, standing at Bethel (ver. 3), saw 
literally ‘all’ that particular portion of the Dead 
Sea basin in which Z. was located; even ‘all’ the 
Jordan Valley N. of the Dead Sea is not visible from 
Bethel. (5) Likewise, Dt 34 3 must not be urged 
literally, for no one has ever seen ‘Dan’ from Mt. 
Nebo (cf. ver. 1). Post-Biblical writers and modern 
commentators are generally agreed that Z. was situ- 
ated S. or SE. of the Dead Sea. Josephus placed 
‘Zoara’ in Arabia (BJ, Iv, 8 4); Eusebius located 
the Dead Sea between ‘Zoara’ and Jericho (Onom. 
261); the recently discovered mosaic map of Medebah 
(near Mt Nebo in Moab), dating from about 500 
A.D., places Zoar at the SE. corner of the Dead 
Sea; Abulfeda, the Arab geographer of Hamath, de- 
scribed it as the capital of Edom; and Dimashki 
(c. 1300 a.p.), another Arab authority, placed it in 
the Wddy el-Ahsd@ at the SE. corner of the Dead 
Sea. In short, this location is accepted by the great 
majority of recent authorities, including Delitzsch, 
Dillmann, Driver, G. A. Smith, Buhl, and many 
others. G. L. R. 


‘ 


eS Ee eS Se 


ee 





965 


A NEW STANDARD BIBLE DICTIONARY 


Zin 
Zuzim 





ZOBAH, z6’ba, ZOBA, zd’ba (131%, tsdbhah, also 
spelled 72S and 831%): An Aramean principality, 
_ first mentioned in I § 14 47 as one of the enemies of 
Israel with whom Saul waged war. The Ammonites 
hired the Arameans of Zobah to aid them against 
David, but the allied forces were defeated (II S 10 
6,8). Later, Hadadezer, King of Zobah, was routed 
by David at Helam, and the kingdom was made trib- 
utary (IIS 83 4.). Igal, one of David’s captains, 
was from Zobah (II § 23 36). Winckler identifies it 
with the Aramean principality known as Subiti in 
the Assyrian inscriptions which lay to the S. of Da- 
mascus. Others advocate an identification with 
Chalkis, situated on the slopes of Lebanon. The 
chief argument for the latter theory is the mention 
of Zobah as a source of copper (II 8 88). See also 
Merats, § 1; and Aram § 4 (9). J. A. Ky 


ZOBEBAH, z0-bi/ba (72281), hatstsdbhébhah);. 


Either a place- or a clan-name (I Ch 4 8). 

ZOHAR, zohar (MS, tsdhar): 1. The ancestral 
head of a clan of Simeon (Gn 46 10; Ex 6 15). See 
also ZmrAH. 2. The father of Ephron the Hittite 
(Gn 28 8, 25 8 f.). 


ZOHELETH, zd'lu-leth (NM, zoheleth), ‘ser- 
pent’: The name of a stone beside En-rogel (I K 
1 9, a spring S. of Jerusalem, probably the modern 
Bir-EHiyab (Job’s Well) at the mouth of Hinnom 
(so Paton, Jerusalem in Bible Times, 35 f., and G. 
A. Smith, Jerusalem, I, 109 f.). When Adonijah 
planned to make himself king, he sacrificed on the 
‘serpent’s stone,’ which may have been an ancient 
Jebusite place of worship and sacrifice. Others 
identify En-rogel with Gihon, the Virgin’s Spring, 
and Z. with a rocky ascent (Zehweileh) opposite the 
spring, which leads to the village of Silwdn. Smith, 
however, loc. cit., states that the name Zehweileh 
seems to be applied to a stratum of rock running as 
far 8. as Bir-EHiydb. C. SOT; 

ZOHETH, 2z6’heth (MMi, zohéth): A son of Ishi 
a Judahite (I Ch 4 20). 

ZOPHAH, 26’fa (MDIS, tséphah): The ancestor of 
an Asherite family (I Ch 7 35). 

ZOPHAI, zo’fai or -f@. See Zupu. 

ZOPHAR, 2zo'far (121%, tsdphar): A Naamathite, 
and one of Job’s friends (Job 2 11, 111, ete.). The 
Naamah here alluded to was probably not the one in 
Judah, but some other locality E. of the Jordan, or 
in Arabia. See also Jos. EH. E. N. 

ZOPHIM, 2z0’fim (0°D¥, tsdphtm), ‘watchmen’: 
1. A ‘field of watchmen’ on Mt. Pisgah (Nu 23 14). 
The exact site is unknown. 2. See RAMATHAIM. 

ZORAH, 20’ra, ZOREAH, 2z0’ri-a (197%, tsor‘ah, 
Zoreah, Jos 15 33 AV, and Zarech, Neh 11 29 AV): 
A town in the Shephelah of Judah, mentioned with 
Eshtaol (Jos 15 33). Before the migration of the 
Danites to the north (Jg 18 2, 8, 11), it had belonged 
to the tribe of Dan. It was the home of Manoah, 
Samson’s father (Jg 13 2, 25), and Samson was buried 


between Z. and Eshtaol (Jg 16 31). It was fortified 
by Rehoboam (II Ch 11 10), and was resettled after 
the Exile (Neh 11 29). Z. is the modern Sur‘ah, 15 
m. W. of Jerusalem on a hill 800 ft. above the Wddy 
es-Sur‘Gh (‘valley of Sorek,’ Jg 16 4), through which 
runs the railway from Jafia to Jerusalem. Map II, 
D 1. Across the wddy to the S. lies ‘Ain Shems 
(Beth-shemesh). The Wddy es-Sur‘ah offered easy 
access from the maritime plain to the hills about 
Jerusalem, and, therefore, Zorah, overlooking and 
commanding the valley, was an important place. 
Cees 


ZORATHITE, 20’rath-ait, ZORITE, 2z6’rait 
CNY), tsor‘atht, I Ch 2 53, Zareathite AV 4 2, "Y 7%, 
tsor‘t, I Ch 2 54): A Calebite family, which migrated 
from the S. of Judah to Zorah (q.v.), or descendants 
of the family which resettled Z. after the Exile. 

PETS hid by 

ZOROBABEL, 26-reb’a-bel. See ZERUBBABEL. 

ZUAR, zii’ar (1Y1S, tsa‘ar): A ‘prince’ of Issachar 
(Nu 18, 25, etc.). - 

ZUPH, zof ("3x, éstiph): I. An ancestor of Samuel 
the prophet (IS 11; I Ch 6 35, called Zophai in 6 26). 
II. The land of Zuph (I S 9 5), a region in central 
Israel, probably connected with I as the place where 
the Zuphites lived. Location unknown. E. E. N. 


ZUR, zor (a3, tstir), ‘rock’: 1. A Midianite chief- 
tain, slain by Israel (Nu 25 15, 318; Jos 18 21). 2. See 
ZEROR. 

ZURIEL, zit’ri-cl (Y8"R%, tsdri’el), ‘God is my 
rock’: The son of Abihail (Nu 3 35). 

ZURISHADDAI, ziti’’m-shad’ai, -sgha’da-ai, or 
-Sha/dé ("W'8, tstirishadday), ‘my rock is Shad- 
dai’ (the Almighty): A ‘prince’ of Simeon (Nu 1 6). 


ZUZIM, ziti’zim (O°N!, ziztm): A people of Ham, 
a district E. of the Jordan conquered by Chedor- 
laomer (Gn 145). They are mentioned between the 
Rephaim of Ashteroth-karnaim (in Bashan) and the 
Emim of Shaveh-kiriathaim (in Moab). Ham seems 
to have been a city of the country inhabited by Am- 
mon, of which Rabbath-ammon (modern Ammén) 
was the chief city. In Dt 2 20 ‘Zamzummim’ occurs 
as the Ammonite name of the original inhabitants of 
the territory N. of Moab, and these were probably 
the same as the Zuzim. Sayce (Modern Crit. and the 
Monuments) claims that the variations in the names 
can be accounted for by the cuneiform originals, 
and that the form in Dt gives the pronunciation, 
while that in Gn gives the name as it appeared on 
some Babyl. tablet. He is also of the opinion that 
Ham is another form of Ammdn, which is explained 
in a similar way. If we can give credence to the ar- 
cheological notes of Dt 2 10-20, the Zuzim were a part 
of the Rephaim (q.v.), as were also the Emim (a 
Moabite name). Possibly, the name has some con- 
nection with the ghosts of dead giants (see REPHAIM) 
as ‘whisperers,’ ‘murmurers’ (cf. Is 819). Some find 
in Ziza’, aruin 20 m. S. of Rabbath-ammon, a trace 
of the name Zuzim. Bays pd te 


iia 
' eta ve t 
1 7 . ; 


, W455 OF 


+ \ pay 
¥ iced. 











Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 


PCI) 





, * Soe ater glee ma ks 
Se rte ye a tome 
as rs baile cae i iendirt aakeo *553 


TS ere 


RN, 
inde eee 
ee ee 

* fe 
owed 


ateteonn en 
Se iMac reed 


Rg ene ey A, 


A 


os 
* 1 timmy n 
Pa Te Hiern 


Annee neo 


miaaannet ~ : — 


was By, 


be en pans 
nae ahetetes 


: an 
otra ant eee tree 





